Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board 2019-04-23
The 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, April 23, 2019 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 1. POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT - POLICIES 3.3 AND 3.7 EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS. Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for providing information to the Board. The above policies are reported each April. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated April 9, 2019 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated April 9, 2019. 3. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 19, 2019 and Study Session Minutes dated March 19, 2019 (acknowledgement only). 4. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated March 21, 2019 (acknowledgement only). 5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated March 20, 2019 (acknowledgement only). 6. Family Advisory Board Bylaws Update – Membership requirement change from 10-15 members to 7-10 members. 7. Intent to Annex Resolution 10-19 Wildfire Homes Addition, Public Hearing date scheduled May 28, 2019. 8. Approval of CDOT Grant Agreement for One Battery-Electric Trolley and One Charging Station Grant of $403,266 and Town Match of $69,810, Budgeted. 9. Letter of Support for Land Water Conservation Funds. 10. Amendment to the Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement with Prospect Mountain Water Company. 11. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Reports. 12. 2019 Street Overlay Program Contract Awarded to Coulson Excavating Co., Inc., for $1,217,796.00, Budgeted. 13. Estes Park Board of Appeals Appointment of Don Darling for a term expiring May 1, 2022. Prepared 04-12-2019 *Revised 04-19-2019 **Revised 04-23-2019 ***Revised 04-23-2019 * ** NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE 06-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.1.B VACATION HOMES AND SECTION 5.1.U BED AND BREAKFAST INNS. Code Compliance Officer Hardin. To update vacation home regulations to meet current standards and to remove unnecessary regulations which are no longer relevant, and to revise and clarify bed and breakfast regulations to meet current standards. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION OF RESPECT 11-19 SUPPORT FOR LOCAL FIREFIGHTERS. Town Administrator Lancaster. Expressing appreciation for Town employees who serve as volunteer firefighters. 2. ORDINANCE 07 - 19 EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE APPLICATION AND REVIEW OF PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Planner Woeber. Request to extend the moratorium for any application and review of any Park and Recreation Facilities, in any Residential Zoning District, to June 30, 2019. 3. POLICY 851 COMPLETE STREETS. Manager Hook. 4. FEE WAIVER REQUEST - 444 STANLEY AVENUE, BUILDING PLAN REVIEW & BUILDING PERMIT FEES. Planner Hathaway. A request to waive building plan review and building permit fees associated with the construction of a workforce housing development project. 5. HISTORICAL SIGN APPROVAL, ESTES PARK SUGAR SHACK, 153 VIRGINIA DRIVE, ED GRUEFF/OWNER. Code Compliance Officer Hardin. Approval requested to repair and restore the historical "Village Theater" sign to original condition. 6. IDLEWILD WATER LEASE AGREEMENT. Superintendent Eshelman. A water augmentation plan to replace water pulled from the river by Idlewild Subdivision. 7. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE PROGRAMMING AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPROVEMENTS. Town Administrator Lancaster. IGA based on County Wasteshed Plan with Larimer County, Fort Collins, Loveland and Estes Park. 8. APPOINTMENT OF HEARING OFFICER FOR PROTESTS OF RECALL PETITIONS. Town Attorney White. REPORT & DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. BUILDING DIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRESS. Director Hunt. ADJOURN. *** TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 970.577.3705 flancaster@estes.org MEMORANDUM DATE: April 23rd, 2019 TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS (ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT POLICIES 3.3 AND 3.7) Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide information to the Board. In April of each year the Town Administrator is to report on Policies 3.3 and 3.7. Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal integrity of Town government. “ Policy 3.7 states: “The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential government services following a disaster. “ This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this date. ________________________ Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 3 3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates from statutory requirements. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that our budgeting practices and policies comply with all State statutory requirements that are applicable to statutory Colorado towns. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: There are no deviations in our practices and policies in violation of State Statutes. The 2019 Town budget was submitted to the State of Colorado on time as required by statute in December of 2018 following Town Board approval. Evidence: 1. The annual independent audit 2. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 3. All policies are reviewed for compliance with State Statutes by the Town Attorney. 4. State Department of Local Government has not issued any non-compliance notifications to the Town of Estes Park regarding our budgetary obligations under statute. Report: I report compliance 3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing budgetary needs. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the annual budget, as adopted by the Board of Trustees, is the officially adopted priorities of the Board. This includes any budget amendments approved by the Town Board throughout the year and any specific spending authorizations approved by the Town Board. I interpret “materially deviate” to mean any change in spending priority that results in diverting resources away from any Board objective, goal or outcome substantial enough to contribute to not achieving the objective, goal or outcome. I do not interpret minor deviations resulting from changing circumstances, community demands and unforeseen circumstances outside of the Town’s control, as material deviations. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: Budget spending does not materially deviate from the levels approved in the adopted budget. Evidence: 1. The adopted budget was prepared based on the Board stated priorities. 2. There have been no substantial budget changes presented to the Board for review and approval as of this date. 3. HTE Budget reports for each department are available on a regular basis or as requested. Report: I report compliance 4 3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean the budget, as recommended by the Town Administrator, must be based on credible data and the best available information concerning the local economy and other factors that may impact our revenues and expenses. In addition, the budget is to be structured to separate capital expenditures from operational costs. All revenue projects will be conservative and it is more critical not to overestimate revenues vs underestimating revenues. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. Revenue projections are clear and deviations between projected an actual revenue are within a 5-10%, barring any catastrophic events. 2. Actual revenue received and reported to date is not less than projected. 3. The Budget presented to the Board for adoption is in a format the separates revenues, expenses and capital expenditures. 4. Any assumptions used in preparing the budget are clearly articulated to the Board during budget review sessions. Evidence: 1. Currently our sales tax revenue for 2019 (as reported, collections run about 45 days in arrears due to State collection and reporting) is 3.2% higher than in 2018 2. Current revenue is not less than projected. 3. The current budget and proposed budget are both presented in the format that separates revenues, expenses and capital. 4. Assumptions leading to the projects were discussed with the Board during budget review sessions. Report: I report compliance 3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the proposed budget must be balanced. This includes expenditures for the year not exceeding the revenues received from all sources. Exceptions are Board approved use of fund balances, and use of funds that have been accumulated over a period of time, with the approval of the Board, with the intent of saving funds to pay for a specific project or capital expense. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 5 The proposed budget meets the above criteria and year end expenses do not exceed year end revenues, inclusive of any board approve spending of fund balance or specific reserve funds. Evidence: 1. The adopted budget and the CAFR document provide independent evidence that I have not allowed budgeting which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. Report: I report compliance 3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the Board of Trustees. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I the audited year end unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund does not drop below 20% unless otherwise authorized by the Board. If the Board approves and adopts a budget that plans for reducing the fund balance below the 20% level, I interpret this as being authorized by the Board. (This interpretation will be modified if the Board adopts a cash reserve minimum policy in the future. Staff will be bringing options for such a policy forward in the near future for Board consideration, as directed in the September study session.) Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund fund balance of 20% or greater, or as otherwise approved by the Town Board. 2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund of 20% or greater unless otherwise approved by the Town Board.. Evidence: 1. Town financial reports. 2. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 3. The current unaudited estimate for the 2018 ending fund balance of the General Fund is $8,669,595. This estimated fund balance is approximately 50% of 2018 General Fund expenditures and is in compliance with Board policy. Report: I report compliance 3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant shortfalls within the 6 Town’s budget. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must prepare the budget, maintain a fund balance of 20% or more in the general fund, and adequate fund balances in all enterprise funds, including the required TABOR reserve. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund balance of 20% or greater. 2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund of 20% or greater. 3. The Town Board has adopted and approved a Formal Budget Contingency plan Evidence: 4. Town financial reports. 5. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 6. The current unaudited estimate for the 2018 ending fund balance of the General Fund is $8,669,595. This estimated fund balance is approximately 50% of 2018 General Fund expenditures and is in compliance with Board policy. 7. Current cash and investment reserves are reported to the Board on a monthly basis, as required by Board policy 670. Report: I report compliance 3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to provide for an annual audit. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must ensure that the Town completes an independent audit annually. Further, that audit report should result in an unqualified and unmodified opinion from the Board’s auditors. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: The audit is complete and presented to the Town Board. Evidence: 1. The 2017 Audit has been completed and the CAFR prepared and submitted to the State of Colorado. 2. The 2017 included an unqualified and unmodified opinion from the auditors 3. The 2018 Audit will be starting soon Report: I report compliance 7 3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or future bond ratings of the Town. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that will result any negative impact on the Town’s bond rating. This includes, maintaining adequate fund balances as required in 3.3.5 and maintaining adequate bond coverage ratios for all revenue bonds associated with the Town’s enterprise funds. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. I am in compliance with 3.3.5 2. Required bond coverage ratios are met. Evidence: 1. The general fund year end fund balance is greater than 20% 2. The required Bond coverage ratio for L&P 125% and for Water is 110%. Our current coverage at 12-31-2018 (unaudited) for the L&P Bonds is 633% and for Water is 745%. Report: I report compliance 3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot allow any new positions or expansion of any part-time positions to be advertised or filled without prior Board approval. I may allow the reduction in staffing without Board approval and any positions or partial positions funded by grants or any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated may be filled without prior approval of the Board. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: No new positions or expansion of positions are approved and hired without approval of the board, with the exceptions noted above. Evidence: 1. All positions are indicated in the adopted and proposed budgets and no unapproved positions are shown. Report: I report compliance 8 3.7 The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential government services following a disaster. 3.7.1 The Town Administrator shall be responsible for the assigned responsibilities identified in the Town of Estes Park Emergency Operations Plan Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the Town has adopted and kept current an Emergency Operations Plan that covers multiple possible emergency situations and outlines the roles and responsibilities of Town staff during an emergency. These roles are congruent with the standards of the National Incident Management System process or NIMS. Key staff has all had basic NIMS training. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. The Town has a current up to date Emergency Operations Plan 2. Key staff are NIMS 100 trained. Evidence: 1. The Town has a current Emergency Operations Plan 2. All key staff have completed NIMS 100 training. Report: I report compliance . 3.7.2 The Town Administrator shall not fail to have a business continuity plan for the Town. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the Town has adopted a business continuity plan for the Town operations Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. The Town has a business continuity plan. Evidence: 1. The existence of the Town Business Continuity Plan Report: I report compliance . 9 3.7.3 In the event of an emergency, the Town Administrator shall not fail to take appropriate action immediately to ensure the safety of the public and public and private assets, including authorizing specific actions by Town staff and declaring an emergency on behalf of the Board of Town Trustees Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that in the event of an emergency, I have taken appropriate steps to respond to the emergency, as outlined in, but limited to, those responsibilities in the Town Emergency Operations Plan. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. During an emergency, I ensure that we follow the Emergency Operations Plan and standard NIMS procedures in implementing our response. 2. Recovery efforts are in compliance with all state and federal requirements for aid and reimbursements. Evidence: 1. Thankfully, we have had no emergency situations at a level requiring implementation of the NIMS or the EOC, therefore there is no evidence for this reporting period. Report: I report compliance . 10 TOWN BOARD MEETING April 23, 2019 Consent Item #2 Town Board Minutes dated April 9, 2019 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated April 9, 2019. This item will be available and distributed on Monday, April 22, 2019. 11 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Robert Foster, Steve Murphree, Frank Theis Attending: Leavitt, White, Smith, Foster, Murphree, Theis Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: None Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Theis/Murphree) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Justus Drake, 1615 Upper Broadview Road, questions, concerns and suggestions on development of Upper Broadview and Griffith court. Comments attached. Eleanor Roehl, 503 Levings Way, wants a picture of what the Mountain Coaster would look like. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of February 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Approval of February 19, 2019 Study Session minutes It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the minutes with one change and the motion passed 5-0 with Foster abstaining. 5. REZONE: 1573 DRY GULCH ROAD, Mark Theiss, owner Continued to April per staff request It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Foster) to continue the rezone to April 16, 2019 and the motion passed 6-0. 6. CODE AMENDMENT: VACATION HOMES AND BED AND BREAKFAST INNS Director Hunt reviewed the recommended amendments to the EVDC as outlined. Staff recommend approval of the amendments. Town Clerk Jackie Williamson was available to answer questions. 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 Stipulate that only the property owner can apply for a vacation home registration; To add better defined timelines for vacation home owners to complete their registrations; Remove unnecessary language with regard to the original transition period (which has now expired); Clarify that the registration stays with the property and is non-transferable to another location; Add a requirement that vacation homes must be rented for a specified period of time to maintain the registration; Expand the reach for property managers to reside within the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District boundaries, versus requiring they reside in the Estes Valley; Requiring the new owners submit the transfer application within fifteen (15) days from acquiring the property; Removed the requirement of including local representative or property manager information be included in the neighbor notifications; Update the number of allowed vehicles parked on the property to align with the number of bedrooms in the home; Add references to both the Sign Codes and Wildlife Ordinances to accommodate stronger enforcement through the EVDC. Public Comment: Brookie Gallagher, Lexington Lane, asked for clarification on the geographic boundaries and supported living one hour away for property managers. Blake Robertson, 471 MacGregor Avenue, requested red line strikeouts and searchable pdf documents be available to the public. Commissioner Comments: Theis noted that he was sympathetic to owners who are also property managers who are having their one-hour boundary taken away. White thanked the Clerks office and Community Development for all the work that has been done to take out the kinks. There was a request for an inventory of property managers living outside the Estes Valley. Foster opposed the 15-day rental requirement due to it being burdensome and unnecessary. Theis and Leavitt agreed. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Vacation Home Amendments as stated in the findings of fact by staff, removing paragraph B.1.a.(9), and changing paragraph B.1.a.(12) to include the Park R-3 School District boundary. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to recommend approval the Bed and Breakfast Code Amendments as stated in the findings of fact by staff. The motion passed 6-0. 7. CODE AMENDMENT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY It was requested by staff to withdrawl the Code Amendment without prejudice. 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 Public Comment: Blake Robertson, 471 MacGregor Ave, asked for clarification of the meaning without prejudice. Director Hunt answered that there is no time frame for a resubmittal. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to withdraw without prejudice the Code Amendment of Comprehensive Plan Consistency. The motion passed 6-0. 8. CODE AMENDMENT: PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the revision to Park and Recreation Facilities use in the EVDC to address issues and concerns that have recently been raised, primarily with how the use is currently defined and regulated. This amendment would revise and expand the definition by separating it into “Public” and “Private”. Commissioner Questions: Director Hunt answered Fosters question that this amendment will reduce the amount of allowable private recreational facilities in residential areas. Considerable discussion was had regarding zoning districts, including Cheley Camp, which could become legally nonconforming, and uses in Accommodation Zones. Public Comment: Jay Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive, recommended not allowing commercial recreation facilities in A zoning. Johanna Darden, 501 MacGregor Avenue, asked if a Bed and Breakfast is able to put in a basketball court. Bob Sweeny, 2661 Eagle Rock Drive, impressed with the Code Amendment and in support of it. Randy Vavrina, 2811 Dunraven Lane, opposed to Commercial Development in residential properties. Commissioner Comments: Commissioners have read the public comments, the majority being against commercial development in residential zones. This amendment addresses the public concerns the best way possible. A stand-alone commercial operation should not be allowed in A or A1 zoning. The code may need modifying. It was moved and seconded (White/Theis) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners of the text amendment, striking the last sentence in 5.1.w.(2) and replacing it with “Passive Open Space is allowed in Residential Districts”. The motion passed 6-0 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 9. DISCUSSION ITEM: PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF REPRESENTATION RESOLUTION Chair Leavitt reviewed that this was an attempt to modify code to remove the Staff level reviews of high impact projects, having all projects brought to the Planning Commission. It was requested to continue the discussion to the next Study Session meeting. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Theis) to withdraw the discussion item without prejudice, with the understanding that there will be future input from the Community Development Department. The motion passed 6-0. 10. REPORTS: Director Hunt A) CSU Center for Public Deliberation staff may begin public sessions this summer to discuss the IGA and Comprehensive Plan. B) Chief Building Official will be starting in April. Planning Technician applicants have been interviewed and should be in place before summer. C) Planning Commission still has an opening. D) Meetings will be at 6:00 p.m. starting in May. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair _________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 16 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 19, 2019 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Estes Valley, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Rooms 202/203 of Town Hall. Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice Chair White, Commissioners, Foster, Murphree, Smith, Theis Attending: Leavitt, Theis, Murphree, Smith, White, Foster Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Hunt, Senior Planner Woeber, Planner I Becker, and Recording Secretary Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. There were 2 people in attendance. This study session was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. Code Amendment: Vacation Homes & Bed and Breakfast Inns Town Clerk Jackie Williamson spoke in the absence of CCO Hardin. The main changes to the vacation homes draft exhibit are: 1) the local property manager must reside in the Estes Valley Rec and Park District boundary. It was suggested to change the boundary to the Local Marketing District or the School District. 2) Vacation homes must be rented a minimum of 15 days, if registration has been held for a full calendar year. Laserfiche will be used for work-flow management. Code Amendment: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Director Hunt stated that staff will recommend this code amendment be withdrawn without prejudice at the regular meeting. There is no harm in waiting on this amendment. Code Amendment: Park and Recreation Facilities Planner Woeber summarized the Code Amendment, which will include replacing the existing definition and distinguishing between public and private, rather than commercial and noncommercial, and stating what is permitted in residential zones per table 4.4. New section, 5.1.w, further describes recreational facilities and what their uses would be. Hunt expressed concerns with legally nonconforming status for some properties in town (ex: Cheley Camp). Attorney White noted that governmental entities can do what they want with a location and extent review. Allowing these entities in A zoning is another topic for discussion. It was recommended to remove the last sentence and add “passive open space is allowed in residential zoning districts.” Event Facilities in A Zoning Planner Woeber reviewed the upcoming code amendment to allow event facilities in A zoning district. These would be an S-1, Special Review. Limits on parking can be done through the parking table. PUD reversion 17 Planning Commission Study Session March 19, 2019 – Page 2 Planner Woeber summarized the upcoming code amendment to allow PUD’s in zones other than CO. Windcliff is a prime example of this problem. New PUD’s would be overlays, not reversions. Developer input would be helpful. Continued conversation on this subject will take place at the next study session. Ayres Associates Parking update: Planner Woeber referred to the handout from the consultants. There is not much information on the density bonus parking, but he will ask Ayers to address this before the next meeting. Lunch 12:10-12:30 Parking Thresholds in Development: Planner Becker explained the update to table 4.4, applying a broader scope to nonresidential parking space requirements, dropping the number from 10 spaces to 3 for a development review. Staff findings should state that is addressing a defect in the code. This will be on the April 16 meeting agenda. Neighborhood meetings update: Planner Becker noted the corrections and clarifications for displaying signs and an update of which projects need a community meeting. This will be on the agenda for the April 16 meeting. Estes Park Shuttle Special Review Planner Becker discussed the status of the temporary use permit of the Estes Park Shuttles. It was noted that the lot is abutted by R zoning on two sides, and it is located on a state scenic byway. The Highway 7 corridor, specifically, needs to be a comp plan issue. It was noted that CDOT has not done a great job with design aesthetics on their projects and upkeep. Questions/Discussion/Future Items o Contract with CDOT to repave East Elkhorn from 36 to Moraine by Memorial Day. o There is a provision in the nonconforming section of code that a nonconforming lot can be built on. Variances may be required. o Planning Magazine Article on public meetings could be used for public input meetings. o Possibly having “planning commission talks” with commissioners and a planner to allow for 2- way communication with the public. These can’t be quasi-judicial, only legislative. o IGA public dialog progress to be facilitated by Martin Carcasson, CSU Center for Public Deliberation. o Later meeting times will start in May. Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m. _____________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 18 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 21, 2019 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Administration Conference Room, Room 150, of Town Hall on the 21st day of March, 2019. Present Merle Moore Vicki Papineau Geoffrey Elliot Dewain Lockwood Ron Wilcocks Rex Poggenpohl Also Present: Brian Berg, Parks Supervisor Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant Patrick Martchink, Town Board Liaison Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager Absent: Wade Johnston Chair Merle Moore called the meeting to order at 8:34 a.m. Chair Moore introduced the new member in attendance, Rex Poggenpohl. Poggenpohl shared some personal history and the existing TAB members introduced themselves. PUBLIC COMMENT No public was in attendance. GENERAL BUSINESS A motion was made and seconded (Wilcocks/Elliot) to approve the February meeting minutes and all were in favor. MRS WALSH’S GARDEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MWGAC) UPDATE Chair Moore reported that Mrs. Walsh’s Garden’s (MWG) Mission Statement has reached final approval by the committee members. MWG will have a table located near the PAB table at this year’s Mountain Heritage Festival to provide further education about the garden. Supervisor Berg discussed the work occurring at MWG and what is yet to occur, and expressed that he counts on the specialized knowledge of the MWG subcommittee. Committee meetings occur on the second Wednesday of each month and are led by Joan Sapp. MOUNTAIN HERITAGE FESTIVAL UPDATE: Co-chair Elliot stated that the planning phase is going very well. The festival will occur on Friday, May 3 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The planning committee is working with Avid for Adventure to have the pool set up at the Pavilion where the kids can enjoy fly 19 Parks Advisory Board – March 21, 2019 – Page 2 fishing casting and cardboard boat races. There will be music for the younger audience. A press release will go out later in April. A planetarium will also be available this year for middle school students and archery will be back and farm animals will be available. There will be no Saturday activities this year. Supervisor Berg will work with the library to identify books that the Parks Division will purchase for the annual book donation to the grade school library. The Parks Division will educate attendees on the proper method of tree planting. The Mayor's Arbor Day proclamation will occur around 11:15 a.m. DUB LOCATIONS Supervisor Berg has selected several utility box locations that are geared to high traffic areas in the downtown core. Member Lockwood suggested that the utility boxes located near the drive-thru at McDonalds be done due to the high visibility. Berg stated he likes that suggestion however those utility boxes are on private property so they would not fit into the scope of the work for which we’re requesting proposals. Those utility boxes near the school will potentially be addressed next year. Supervisor Berg will reach out to the teachers to discuss the potential of the schoolkids applying their artwork. The large utility box in Bond Park, belonging to the Parks Division, will also be done this year. The Parks Division will be paying for the decorating of this box outside the standard Light & Power funds used for the others. Wilcocks stated that local artists have been asking how to get involved with the DUB program and he agreed to spread the word. Administrative Assistant Van Hoozer will send a notification to the PAB at the time the RFP has been posted. Box selection is necessary to determine how many boxes we can afford to have painted this year. PAB reviewed the locations suggested by Supervisor Berg and he discussed the selections. A motion was made and seconded (Poggenpohl/Wilcocks) to approve the locations suggested and all were in favor. WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE The Parks Division expanded and revised the previously approved plan, adding information about unfunded state regulations for weed management. Supervisor Berg requested the PAB review and make recommendations for any needed changes or expansion. The Weed Management Plan also relates to the Noxious Weed code work being done by Vicki Papineau and Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin. NOXIOUS WEED POLICY UPDATE Officer Harden will be presenting the new policy language to the Town Board at a study session on April 9, 2019. If letters of support are being provided, they need received by April 1. Chair Moore is working on list of entities to reach out to for letters of support. Moore will also draft a generic sample support letter and will provide supporting documentation. There is a very short timeline to get this item on the April 9 agenda with the support letters. If not all letters have been received the item may need added to a future agenda. The intent was to have the new language in place for the coming weed season. 20 Parks Advisory Board – March 21, 2019 – Page 3 The PAB discussed appropriate communication methods to notify residents and businesses of the new code language. Ideas presented included: notify at distribution of weed booklets; send out as a press release and social media updates; include language in the Town Bugle; request distribution of information by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Supervisor Berg will work with the Town’s Public Information Officer Kate Rusch for promotion of the new ordinance. Trustee Liaison Martchink anticipates resistance to the new ordinance language stating that not all residents fully understand the different weeds. PARKS UPDATE Berg informed the PAB that the Parking & Transit Division is actively working with the Estes Arts District on banner design for the parking structure. All final decisions will come to the PAB to follow the Arts In Public Places (AIPP) process. The Parks Division currently has three or four spots remaining to be filled as a part of the seasonal hiring process. A key member of the Parks crew, Tricia Morales-Diaz’s last day working for the Town is April 12. Berg has decided to hold off on full-time hiring to fill the position and see what the seasonal employees bring to the table. It is about having a good team dynamic. Trees along Brodie Avenue were recently removed to accommodate the new Safe Routes to School path and other improvements this summer. Berg stated they attempted to replant the trees but due to how they’d grown, it would not have been successful. Citizens attending the Citizen Information Academy (CIA) are visiting the Parks shop today. Chair Moore shared a concern about the serious winter problem that occurs at the east end of the pedestrian tunnel under US 36. He stated that a solution needs identified due to the inevitable ice that requires a pedestrian step on it to get through. Berg stated that with the construction beginning in that location, one of the contractors is planning to cut through there within the next month at which time he will be addressing that issue. Moore also stated that the Mountain Ash tree that was removed at Tregent Park was done poorly and needs addressed. Berg relayed his awareness of that but was holding off on full removal due to irrigation currently located on the other side of tree. Berg plans to address this tree in the spring. Moore suggested it be cut to ground. Chair Moore stated that, due to Member Poggenpohl’s background in corporate art, he take the lead on researching avenues for funding for Arts In Public Places for ultimate presentation to the Town Board. Poggenpohl agreed but want to review the available material with Chair Moore first. Member Wilcocks expressed the importance of reviewing the adopted community vision on public art reflected in the Downtown Plan. Wilcocks stated there is strong community and business support for public art. OTHER BUSINESS Elliot asked about the process for utility box painting on private property. Berg stated that defining that process will occur in the future. The DUB process is still fairly new and is still be refined. 21 Parks Advisory Board – March 21, 2019 – Page 4 Wilcocks informed the PAB that the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), of which he is a member, has been discussing and identifying additional trail needs, along with priorities, and have been reviewing the Estes Valley Trails Master Plan Map. Administrative Assistant Van Hoozer will forward the list, once finalized, to the PAB for review and input. Wilcocks asked if the PAB was aware of the Frisby Golf Course being put in by the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District. No PAB members were aware. There was also a newspaper article about a Lost Loop Trail that begins at the Visitor Center, winding around town to see 100+ pieces of art or other interesting areas. No PAB members were aware of the trail plans. Moore would like to continue a discussion about an arboretum that was planned in years past. This was not fulfilled due to the irrigation requirements and obstacles. The Parks Division will be thinking about a plan for a type of town-wide arboretum that presents itself most feasible for success. A motion was made and seconded (Elliot/Lockwood) to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 and all were in favor. Recording Secretary Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works 22 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 20, 2019 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 202 of Town Hall on the 20th day of March, 2019. Present: Gordon Slack Tom Street Belle Morris Stan Black Ann Finley Linda Hanick Ron Wilcocks Also Present: Trustee Carlie Bangs, Town Board Liaison Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant David Hook, Engineering Manager Absent: Amy Hamrick Janice Crow Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made and seconded (Black/Street) to approve the February meeting minutes with suggested edits and all were in favor. PARKING WARRANT DISCUSSION: Manager Solesbee provided a recap of the purpose of the parking warrant and began discussions regarding the document and the associated process. Solesbee reviewed, with the TAB, the first draft of the document at the February TAB meeting. The second draft, presented today, was modified as a result of the feedback provided. The next step will be to provide the document at a stakeholder meeting to be scheduled in the coming weeks. Solesbee will request a representative TAB member be present during this meeting. The first opportunity for feedback from the Town Board Trustees will be at the Study Session on April 23. Once the trustee feedback is received, Solesbee will further refine, with hopes to have all finalized in May, 2019. Member Wilcocks, after reviewing the provided document, feels that almost all categories listed needs further definition and understanding in order to provide quality feedback. Wilcocks stated that each metric should be related to a 'why'. Solesbee stated that the purpose of this document is to further understand the characteristics of each of our facilities (lots) by using a variety of indicators. Wilcocks wants defined which are more important and how each is relevant. He stated this understanding would make the parking warrant more usable. Solesbee will add the requested definitions to the document. Muhonen stated that the traffic warrant process (MUTCD) describes the traffic issue and how the warrant is measured. The intention is to have a similar process to determine need for paid parking, additional shuttle service, no action, etc. The name of the process could potentially be changed to ‘Parking Management Warrant’ so that it is understood this warrant process isn’t just focused on paid parking. 23 Transportation Advisory Board – March 20, 2019 – Page 2 The discussion continued regarding the appropriate process for determining the need for paid parking in a given parking lot/on-street parking area. Wilcocks asked that an item be added to the warrant document. He stated that, with the Downtown Estes Loop, drivers will have the ability to travel through Estes Park without having to stop at the downtown businesses. The item requested would be something similar to ‘Entering Visitor Intercept Area’. Solesbee will note this request stating this tool could potentially be a benchmark process. Member Black doesn’t want all to lose sight of the years of discussion regarding added parking capacity or other management. It has already been decided that paid parking is appropriate for downtown parking. Have worked toward this process for years with a majority of the data already being collected and enforcement beginning this year. Slack asked which spaces would be ticketed for parking over the allotted time limit. He stated that we’re more likely to see the violations occur more frequently in the shorter time spaces. According to the Republic Parking Study, not having 3-hour spaces could hurt business. Muhonen stated that regardless of whether they violate the posted time limits, the most important information to gather is the actual length of their stay through the License Plate Recognition technology. Solesbee will further investigate how and what data will be collected for addition to the warrant. Muhonen asked the TAB if all were in agreement to gather the data during the business part of the season (June 1 – October 15). Trustee Liaison Bangs wants to ensure we’re not going to miss a trend by collecting data in this timeframe. Black stated that all the October weekends during 2018 were incredibly busy. Solesbee will work to figure out the best method to capture data throughout all October weekends but maybe not the weekdays. Wilcocks reminded all that if the data points are different, it deteriorates the quality of the data overall. Solesbee will plan and schedule a Special TAB Meeting in the coming weeks to review the revisions she’ll be making and to provide additional time for discussion. TRAIL MASTER PLAN (Chair Morris): Chair Morris stated that the review of the Trail Master Plan needs updated for identified, needed trail connectivity. Member Finley stated the goal of the original review of this plan was to provide connectivity specifically to the core trail network and improve school trail access. She then reviewed with the TAB, the document prepared by Members Finley and Hamrick in recent years past wherein the connectivity opportunities were identified. Several of the stated suggestions have been captured in existing planned work. The question was asked if the TAB is satisfied with safe pedestrian access into town from the Events Center Parking Lot? The group’s consensus is that this access is not satisfactory. Manager Hook stated that, based on feedback received at public meetings, the public is not satisfied either. Updates to the map include a Brodie segment, a Graves segment, a new facility coming down to Graves/Lexington or Pine Knoll, and an added facility on 4th Street to Community Drive. Member Wilcocks stated he’d like to see the Fish Creek Trail paved moving forward. Finley asked if the Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) Hiker Shuttle could be based at the Event Center parking lot/transit hub. Muhonen stated the question would have to be deferred to RMNP’s John Hannon. This would change the transit dynamics and would aid in alleviating congestion at the Estes Park Visitor Center. Chair Morris stated the trail along Hwy 7 needs refreshed as it is getting crumbly. Muhonen reminded that the allotted trail funds are for specifically for expansion, not maintenance. 24 Transportation Advisory Board – March 20, 2019 – Page 3 COMPLETE STREETS PUBLIC MEETING (D. Hook): Manager Hook stated that the Complete Streets public meeting is scheduled for today. Morris will be presenting at 4:45 pm in the Town Board Room. Displays will be in place and slides will be made available to citizens in attendance. Hook stated that it would be beneficial for attending TAB members to share their perspective with citizens. The final policy will be taken to the Town Board as an action item at a date yet to be determined. PROJECT UPDATES (G. Muhonen – Public Works Administration) Muhonen informed the TAB that the Elkhorn Avenue overlay project contract was pulled from the March 12 agenda due to concerns raised during legal review. The standard CDOT contract stated that the Town of Estes Park would maintain all work completed for the life of the pavement. Once concerns are addressed satisfactorily, the item will be added again to the Town Board agenda. It is anticipated to be added to the March agenda using language with applicable caveat/agreement. All work is anticipated to be performed by Memorial Day. Morris asked if there would be any green striping for bicycles. Muhonen stated that this has been discussed but there’s not enough time to get in completed in the allowable work window. He reminded the group that all would be redone in 2024 as part of the Downtown Estes Loop project. The Community Drive/ Hwy 36 Roundabout project has caused the budget requirements to far exceed what has been allotted. Public Works must request additional funding from the Town Board. The construction costs have gone from $700K for the turn lane, to $2.2M for the roundabout, with additional costs needing added for project management. It is projected that the costs will be $1M over budget. This adjustment will need justified to the Town Board. Public Works will continue to identify relevant grants and other budget solutions. PROJECT UPDATES (D. Hook – Engineering Manager) 4th Street Rehabilitation: Manager Hook provided a handout from the 4th Street Rehabilitation project’s open house reflecting how the Complete Streets checklist is being applied to this project. There were many differing views reflected in the feedback from the meeting. Much support was conveyed for eliminating parking on 4th Street and bicycle accommodations. Additionally, the importance of the placement of the mailbox clusters was also highlighted. Hook then shared with the TAB a few different alternatives for 4th street. Very strong opposition for intersection improvements was communicated. The improvements discussed are no longer in the plan but generated good dialogue. Hook has applied the feedback appropriately and the final page of handout shows the new direction. The need for parking and bicycles is vying for space. There will be 10' paths with narrower lanes and no bike lanes. The pedestrians and bicycles will share the path that will have either painted or thermoplastic symbols, potentially with texture, to designate space for each. The path will narrow at the end of the block due to the street's turn lane. The plan also includes a raised shelf crosswalk. PROJECT UPDATES (V. Solesbee – Parking & Transit Manager) Solesbee shared the update from the Shuttle Committee. She stated that the first electric trolley has been ordered as is being built, with plans to receive it by the end of 2019. Grant work continues for the new electronic vehicle charging station will go to the Town Board on April 23, 2019. Solesbee then informed the TAB there will be a Transit Operations Audit site visit occurring in July. OTHER BUSINESS With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:04 p.m. Recording Secretary Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Department 25 26 ADMINISTRATION Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Family Advisory Board Bylaws Update Objective: Present an amendment to the membership section of the Family Advisory Board (FAB) bylaws (IV.A) to reduce the size of the Board from 10-15 members to 7-10 members. Present Situation: The FAB voted unanimously at its April meeting to recommend that the Town Board amend the FAB bylaws to decrease the size of the Board from 10-15 members to 7-10 members. The initial size of the FAB was purposefully large as it was believed that there would be a large number of stakeholders interested in participating. The FAB has now been in existence for almost two years and stakeholder interest indicates that a membership range of 7-10 people is more appropriate. This amendment would bring the size of the FAB in-line with the Parks Advisory Board (7 members) and the Transportation Advisory Board (9 members). Proposal: Amend the FAB Bylaws to reduce the size of the Board to 7 – 10 members. Advantages: • Right-sizes FAB membership to reflect indicated interest and brings the size of the FAB in-line with the Town’s other advisory boards. Disadvantages: • None Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Finance/Resource Impact: No additional financial/resource impact at this time. Level of Public Interest Low Attachments: • Family Advisory Board bylaws with proposed amendment redlined 27 Town of Estes Park Family Advisory Board Bylaws I.Role The Estes Park Family Advisory Board (“FAB”) is an advisory committee for the Town Board and Town staff. The FAB is expected to: A.Research and summarize factual data on issues of importance to families in the Estes Valley; B.Develop recommended policies that align with the Town Board Strategic Plan to address these issues; and C.Present these recommendations to the Town Board and/or Town Staff. II.Annual Focus Areas A.At the first regular meeting of every year, the FAB will select no more than three (3) focus areas for the coming year. These focus areas will be submitted to the Town Board for review and approval. B.These focus areas may be changed at any regular or special meeting of the FAB by a majority vote, but at no time may there be more than three (3) focus areas. Any change to the focus areas must be reviewed and approved by the Town Board. C.Any work undertaken by the FAB shall be tied to these focus areas. III. Meetings A.Regular Meetings – Regular meetings shall be held at least one (1) time per month, with additional meetings scheduled as needed. Any item on the agenda which cannot be heard and considered by the conclusion of the meeting may be continued until, and heard, at the next regularly scheduled meeting or at a special meeting and shall have priority of any other matters to be heard and considered. B.Special Meetings – Special meetings may be held at any time upon call by the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall call a special meeting upon request by the Town Board, Town Administrator, or Assistant Town Administrator, or upon request by three (3) of the members of the FAB. C.Cancellation or Rescheduling of Meetings – Any cancellation or rescheduling of a FAB meeting must be approved by one-half (1/2) of the members of the FAB. 28 D.Meeting Procedures - Parliamentary procedure shall be followed in moving, discussing, and acting on matters requiring action by the FAB. E.Open Meetings – All meetings and actions of the FAB shall be in full compliance with state statutes governing open meetings, as amended and incorporated herein by reference. It is the responsibility of the Staff Liaison to be familiar with these statutes and regulations. F.Attendance by Non-Members – Meetings may be attended by persons who are not members of the FAB. Such nonmembers may speak during the public comment period at the beginning of each meeting and on any agenda item. However, in no event shall nonmembers be allowed to vote on matters for which a vote is required. IV.Members and Quorum A.Membership – The FAB shall consist of no fewer than ten seven (107) and no more than fifteen ten (1510) members. B.Membership Requirements – Members must: 1.Be a resident of the Estes Park School District R-3; 2.Have adequate time to devote to the FAB (at least six (6) hours per month); and 3.Have experience dealing with issues facing families in the Estes Valley. C.Membership Considerations – In appointing the membership of the FAB, the Town Board will: 1. Endeavor to ensure that at least three (3) members of the FAB are members of a working family; and 2. Consider membership representation for key organizations such as Estes Valley Investment for Childhood Success, the Housing Authority, the School District, and Families for Estes. D.Terms – Members shall be appointed by the Town Board to a three (3) year term. The terms of the members shall be staggered so that the terms of an equal number of the members expire each year on April 15th. E.Vacancies – Vacant positions shall be filled by appointment by the Town Board for the unexpired portion of the term of the position to be filled. F.Recommendations for Appointment – Upon request by the Town Board, the FAB shall make recommendations to the Town Board for new FAB appointments. G.Quorum – A quorum of the FAB shall consist of one-half (1/2) of the members of the FAB being present at the meeting. 29 H.Action – Action by the FAB shall be by majority vote of the members attending any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present, unless otherwise provided in these bylaws. V.Officers A.Officers – The FAB officers shall include a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson as selected by the FAB. B.Elections – Officers shall be elected by the members annually at the first regularly scheduled meeting of each year. Officers shall be members of the FAB. Notification of who is elected Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson will be sent to the Town Clerk. C.Chairperson Responsibilities – The Chairperson shall: 1.Preside over all meetings; 2. Ensure that all meetings are conducted with decorum and efficiency; 3.Call special meetings in accordance with these bylaws; 4. Sign any documents prepared by the FAB for submission to the Town Board or Town Departments; 5.See that decisions of the FAB are implemented; 6.Represent the FAB in dealings with the Town Board or other organizations; and 7.The Chairperson has the same right as any other member of the FAB to vote on matters before the FAB and to speak for or against proposals. D.Vice-Chairperson Responsibilities – The Vice-Chairperson shall: 1.Assist the Chairperson as requested; 2. Accept and undertake duties delegated by the Chairperson; and 3.Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chairperson in the event the Chairperson is absent or unable to act. E.Other Officers – There shall be no officers other than the Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson. F.Removal from Office – Any officer may be removed from office by a majority vote of the members of the FAB in attendance at a meeting provided that at least thirty (30) days notice has been given to all members that removal of the officer will be considered at such meeting. G.Officer Vacancies – If any office is vacant, the members of the FAB shall elect a member to fill the office for the remainder of the year. VI.Attendance 30 A.Attendance Requirements – Regular attendance by members of the FAB. In the event that any member misses three (3) consecutive regular meetings, or a total of four (4) regular meetings in a calendar year, the Town Board may remove its appointed member and designate a new member to fill the vacancy. VII.General Provisions A.These bylaws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the FAB by a majority of the membership of the FAB provided that notice of such possible amendments is given to all members at least twenty (20) days prior to the meeting at which the action is to be taken. Any amendments shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Board. VIII.Compliance with Town Policies A.The FAB shall operate in compliance with the adopted Town Board Policy on Town Boards (Policy 102). The terms of this policy are incorporated in the bylaws by this reference. A copy of this Policy will be provided to all FAB members upon appointment. B.Volunteer members of the FAB will act in accordance with the adopted Town Volunteer Manual. IX.Conflict of Interest A.A conflict of interest occurs when a person’s private, personal relationships or interests converge with their public role on the FAB such that an independent observer may reasonably question whether the person’s actions or decisions are determined by personal benefit, gain, or advantage. B.Members of the FAB shall not use their status as a member for private gain, and shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual. C.A member of the FAB who has a personal or private financial interest in a matter proposed or pending shall disclose such interest to the FAB, shall not vote on the item, and shall not attempt to influence the decisions of other members voting on the matter. Adopted this ____day of ______________ ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES By: _______________________________ Mayor 31 32 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Brittany Hathaway, Planner II Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Intent to Annex Resolution #10-19 Wildfire Homes Addition (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To set the public hearing for the annexation of the Wildfire Homes Addition. Present Situation: On March 20, 2019, Westover Construction, Inc., Wildfire Development, LLC, RDA Associates, LLC, and Crossroads Ministry of Estes Park, Inc., submitted an application and petition to annex an enclave located west of Dry Gulch Road and north of Lone Pine Road with an area containing 16.082 acres. Proposal: To move the item forward by setting the public hearing for May 28, 2019 with the passage of Resolution #10-19. This would provide time to meet notification requirements per state statute. Advantages: Approval of the resolution would set the annexation hearing date and move the project forward. Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: Approve Resolution #10-19. Finance/Resource Impact: None. 33 Level of Public Interest Medium. The proceeding project related to this request has received some comment and inquiry from surrounding property owners. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution #10-19. Attachments: Resolution #10-19 34 RESOLUTION NO. 10-19 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Community Development Department requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petition is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as “WILDFIRE HOMES ADDITION” to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: Containing Acres: 16.082 TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH. PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS., TO WIT: PARCEL 1 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, AS PRESENTLY MONUMENTED BY A G.L.O. BRASS CAP WITH ALL BEARING RELATIVE TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW1/4, CONSIDERED AS BEARING NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 326.64 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A 35 DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300.56 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 20 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED OF DEDICATION RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1978 IN BOOK 1899 AT PAGE 114. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 2 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AS PRESENTLY MONUMENTED BY A G.L.O. BRASS CAP, WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20, CONSIDERED AS BEARING NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 326.64 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 343.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 335.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE IN THE DEED OF DEDICATION RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1978 IN BOOK 1899 AT PAGE 114, ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 2, HILLERY PARRACK EXEMPTION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 3 A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE W1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, MONUMENTED BY A BRASS CAPPED PIPE WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW1/4 OF SECTION 20 CONSIDERED AS BEARING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 36 SECONDS EAST 1506.46 FEET TO A BRASS CAPPED PIPE; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST 236.97 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE; THENCE SOUTH 77 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST 163.92 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 225.13 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 29 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 26 SECONDS A RADIUS OF 430.10 FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 87 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST 222.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST 250.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 288.62 FEET SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 16 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 13 SECONDS A RADIUS OF 973.48 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 81 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 287.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST 666.81 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST 326.57 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 4 A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM WHENCE THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 20 BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES WEST 1506.3 FEET, THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST 395.8 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES EAST 161 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREE 46 MINUTES WEST 377 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES WEST 274.4 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1983 IN BOOK 2239 AT PAGE 1089 AND SHOWN IN DEED RECORDED APRIL 22, 1986 AS RECEPTION NO. 86020283. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 7:00 p.m., in the Town Hall, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. 37 IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 38 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Approval of CDOT Grant Agreement for One Battery-Electric Trolley and One Charging Station (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Public Works (PW) staff seeks Town Board approval of the attached Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) Federal Transit Administration Section 5339(c) Grant Agreement with the Town of Estes Park. Present Situation: In 2017 the Town was awarded FTA 5339(b) grant funds for our first electric trolley. It is currently being built with delivery anticipated for late 2019/early 2020. On August 24, 2018, the Town of Estes Park was awarded Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5339(c) funds for one battery-electric ADA trolley bus and one charging station. Both of these grants were awarded through the FTA’s Low or No Emissions Program which “supports the transition of the nation’s transit fleet to the lowest polluting and most energy efficient transit vehicles”. The awarded funds will be administered by CDOT on behalf of the FTA using the proposed Grant Agreement. Proposal: This Grant Agreement allows the Town to move forward with acquisition of the Town’s first charging station and a second electric trolley. The 2018 FTA 5339(c) Funds will cover 85% of the electric trolley vehicle ($382,547) and 90% of the charging station ($20,719). The funds are to be expended no later than December 31, 2021. The Town is responsible for 15% of the electric trolley vehicle ($67,508) and 10% of the charging station infrastructure ($2,302). 39 Advantages: •The trolley bus will use clean, zero-emission electricity for its power source. This supports the Town Board’s 2019 Strategic Plan Key Outcome Area 4, Goals B & C. •The acquisition of this electric vehicle will help fulfill the goals of the Statewide Transit Plan. •Acquisition of a second Town-owned vehicle could potentially decrease the amount of future funds spent on leasing third-party vehicles. •Providing a clean and environmentally responsible transportation option will appeal to visitors, enhancing the guest experience. Disadvantages: •Acceptance of grant funding is accompanied with additional administrative burdens. •The Town has no experience maintaining electric vehicles. •The Town has yet to receive its first electric trolley, so there is uncertainty about the vehicle’s performance, reliability, and economy in our environment. Action Recommended: Parking & Transit Division staff respectfully request that the Board authorize execution of the proposed grant agreement with CDOT for procurement of one battery-electric ADA trolley bus and one charging station. FTA 5339(c)grant total: $ 403,266.00 Matching Town funds: $ 69,810.00 Total project cost: $ 473,076.00 Finance/Resource Impact: Town funds are available for this purchase. This project was included in the approved 2019 budget in the amount of $475,000 in account number 101-5600-456.34-42, project code ELTRL2. Level of Public Interest The level of public interest is moderate. Estes Transit served 82,096 riders in 2018. 27,361 passengers rode the existing gasoline-powered trolley. The Town’s trolley is an iconic and popular part of the Town’s free shuttle service. Suggested Motion: I move to approve/deny the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration Section 5339(c) Grant Agreement with the Town of Estes Park. Attachments: Click this link to: Colorado Department of Transportation FTA Section 5339(c) Grant Agreement with the Town of Estes Park (46 pages) 40 April 30, 2019 Dear [US Senate and House OR Specific members of Congress], First of all, we would like to enthusiastically thank you for your support of permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). As local elected officials from mountain communities in the West we represent [#] year-round residents and [#] annual visitors, all of whom recognize the importance of adequate funding for public lands conservation, preservation, enhancement, and expansion. Although we are pleased with the passage of permanent reauthorization, this is just a first step. We now urge you to support and advance full and dedicated funding for the LWCF. The LWCF has provided funding over the last 52 years for countless federal, state, and local public lands projects in every county in the United States.1 These resources have helped to create an extensive network of public lands and waters for conservation, ecosystem preservation, and for all Americans to enjoy. Outdoor recreation and proximity to open spaces - many of which have been enhanced through the use of the LWCF - draw residents and tourists to mountain communities which provides significant economic support as well as a distinct and desirable way of life. A recent study found that counties in close proximity to public lands perform substantially better in key economic factors such as employment and personal income than counties without nearby public lands.2 Since the LWCF expired in late September 2018, the fund has lost more than $350 million that should have been used for the conservation, enhancement, and protection of public lands and waterways. Many projects funded by the LWCF have an uncertain future due to the current lack of funding and historically unpredictable nature of funding for the program. Thus, we urge you to pass full and dedicated funding to ensure our public lands receive the protection they deserve now, and into the future. The LWCF is a vital component of job creation and economic development through support for public land infrastructure. Reports show that the LWCF provides a strong return on investment. One study found that for every $1 of LWCF funds invested there is a remarkable return of $4 in economic value.3 Our communities are inextricably linked to the public lands that surround them. Our residents and business owners rely on public lands visitation and exploration for economic success and cultural vitality. The LWCF supports and enhances public lands, and as such, our communities. You have the opportunity to provide full funding to support this incredible program. So please, vote to fully fund the LWCF in support of our mountain communities, and public lands for all Americans. Sincerely, 1 http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/384469-local-economies-need-the-land-and-water-conservation-fund 2 https://headwaterseconomics.org/public-lands/federal-lands-performance/ 3 https://www.tpl.org/sites/default/files/cloud.tpl.org/pubs/benefits-LWCF-ROI%20Report-11-2010.pdf 41 ACT NOW: Full Funding Must Follow Permanent Authorization of the LWCF Yesterday, President Trump signed the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act into law. This Act includes extensive support for public lands, including permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF has been funding federal, state, and local public lands and waters conservation, preservation, and access for over 52 years. However, despite this step in the right direction, President Trump and Acting Secretary of Interior David Bernhardt's proposed Fiscal Year 2020 budget still refuses to fund LWCF at it's full $900 million and instead proposes practically eliminating LWCF funding. The LWCF has been indispensable in public lands conservation in the United States since it's passage in 1964. The LWCF has funded projects in every county i n the United States, helping to support the $887 billion outdoor recreation industry, and the economies of our western mountain communities. Our communities are culturally and economically linked to the health of our public lands and thus, a budget that does not include full funding for LWCF, does not have the best interests of our communities in mind. 42 While permanent authorization of the LWCF deserves celebration and thank yous, Congress and the Trump Administration need to consider the implications of not providing full funding to this essential program. Many projects funded by the LWCF are multi-year projects that require commitment and collaboration from a variety of stakeholders. This sort of partnership requires certainty that the project will be funded to completion. Since Congress allowed LWCF to lapse in late September 2018, the fund lost more than $350 million. This cannot continue; our public lands deserve certainty in funding. Congress must pass full funding for the LWCF now to end the shortchanging of this essential public lands program. All Americans benefit from the LWCF. We ask that you, and/or your city/county council sign this letter by April 30 to encourage your Senators and Representatives to continue the momentum of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act by passing full and dedicated funding for the LWCF. www.themountainpact.org | info@themountainpact.org 43 44 TOWN ATTORNEY Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg White, Town Attorney Date: April 18, 2019 RE: Amendment to the Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE X CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES X NO Objective: Review and, if appropriate, approve the Amendment to Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement. Present Situation: Following Town Board approval, the Town and the Prospect Mountain Water Company (“Prospect Mountain”) through its Bankruptcy Trustee, Daniel E. Hepner, entered into the Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement (the “Agreement”). The purpose of the Agreement was to set forth the terms and conditions of the transfer of the Prospect Mountain Water System (“System”) to the Town. The date of transfer of the System in the Agreement is May 1, 2019. Prior to the date of transfer, the Agreement requires the approval of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) and the United States Bankruptcy Court (the “Bankruptcy Court”). The Town and Prospect Mountain have been preparing the necessary documentation to submit the application to the PUC for its approval of the Agreement, and the Bankruptcy Trustee has been preparing documentation to file with the Bankruptcy Court to obtain its approval of the Agreement. It has become apparent, due to the complex nature of both of these applications, that approvals of the Agreement by the PUC and the Bankruptcy Court will not be obtained prior to May 1, 2019. The purpose of the Amendment to the Agreement is to extend the date of the transfer of the System to the Town to June 14, 2019 in order to allow sufficient time for the approval of the Agreement by the PUC and the Bankruptcy Court. 45 Advantages: Allows sufficient time to receive approval of the PUC and Bankruptcy Court for the Agreement. Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: Approval of the Amendment to Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement. Finance/Resource Impact: There is no impact on the 2019 budget. Level of Public Interest Moderate. The current customers of the Prospect Mountain Water System are supportive of the transfer of the System to the Town. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the Amendment to the Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement. Attachments: The Amendment to the Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement 46 AMENDMENT TO VOLUNTARY WATER SYSTEM TRANSFER AGREEMENT This Amendment to the VOLUNTARY WATER SYSTEM TRANSFER AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) dated February 26, 2019 between the Town of Estes Park, by and through its Water Enterprise (the “Town”) and the Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc., debtor in Chapter 7 bankruptcy Case No. 15-14286 TBM (“Prospect Mountain”), by and through its Bankruptcy Trustee, Daniel A. Hepner (“Trustee”),collectively (the “Parties”), is entered into this ___ day of April, 2019. WHEREFORE, the Agreement, at Section 2.6, provided that the Date of Transfer of Prospect Mountain and its assets shall occur on or before May 1, 2019 or as scheduled upon the fulfillment of the contingencies set forth in Section 3 of the Agreement. WHEREFORE, pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Agreement, the Parties agreed that, unless extended by mutual agreement of the Parties, the Date of Transfer shall occur on May 1, 2019. They also agreed that, if either Party believes an extension of the Date of Transfer is necessary to allow for the contingencies to be satisfied, then the Parties shall execute an extension of the Date of Transfer. Such extension shall be approved by both Parties and such approval shall not be withheld, shall not be unreasonable delayed, and shall not be unreasonably conditioned by the Parties in order to fulfill the contingencies. WHEREFORE, the Parties have determined that an extension of the Date of Transfer is necessary in order to allow for the contingencies set forth in the Agreement to be satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in the Agreement, herein, and the above Recitals, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Section 2.6 of the Agreement is amended to provide: The Date of Transfer of Prospect Mountain and its assets shall occur on or before June 14, 2019 or as scheduled upon the fulfillment of the contingencies set forth in Section 3, below. Section 6.1 of the Agreement is amended to provide: The Parties agree that, unless extended by mutual agreement of the Parties, the Date of Transfer for this Agreement shall occur on or before June 14, 2019. The Parties agree to make reasonable good faith efforts to achieve the contingencies listed in Section 3 by the Date of Transfer. However, if either Party believes an extension of the Date of Transfer is necessary to allow for the contingencies to be satisfied, then the Parties shall execute an extension of the Date of Transfer. Such extension shall be approved by both Parties 47 and such approval shall not be withheld, shall not be unreasonably delayed, and shall not be unreasonably conditioned by the Parties in order to fulfill the contingencies. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement on the date first set forth above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER ENTERPRISE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY By:_____________________________ By:_____________________________ Title: Mayor Name: Todd Jirsa Title: DANIEL A. HEPNER, CH 7 TRUSTEE 48 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Ryan Barr, EI, Pavement Manager David Hook, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager Date: April 23, 2019 RE: 2019 Street Overlay Program contract awarded to Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. in the amount of $1,217,796.00, Budgeted PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Public Works seeks approval from the Town Board for the 2019 Street Overlay Program construction agreement with Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. (Coulson Excavating) for the repaving of multiple roads in the Town of Estes Park. Present Situation: On February 23, 2016 Public Works presented a plan to improve the condition of Town streets to an overall system-wide PCI of 70 by the year 2024. To effectively implement this plan, we need to hire a contractor to begin the 2019 Street Overlay Program. On March 7, 2019 Public Work hosted a public open house to gather community input on the 4th Street Rehabilitation project. Approximately 20 residents attended the open house to provide insight, recommendations, and feedback on the 4th Street conceptual design alternatives. Staff incorporated feedback from the meeting into the final design. On March 26, 2019 Public Works presented Resolution 04-19, which authorized the resurfacing of a portion of East Elkhorn Avenue. CDOT will provide up to $400,000 to the Town for the work, to be completed with the Town’s overlay program. On March 29, 2019, Public Works advertised an Invitation to Bid for the 2019 Street Overlay Program. The Program includes 3 key components: resurfacing Elkhorn Ave, 4th Street Rehabilitation, and the Town’s annual Overlay and Patching program. Five general contractors attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting on April 4, 2019. After two and one half weeks of advertising, two bids were received on April 17, 2019. The following table contains the bids for each company, and also the Engineer’s Estimate: 49 COMPANY CITY TOTAL FEE Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. Loveland, CO $1,217,796.00 Don Kehn Construction, Inc. Fort Collins, CO $1,449,633.14 Engineer’s Estimate $1,470,294.40 The apparent low bidder was Coulson Excavating. This contractor has extensive repaving experience and a reputation of performing quality work, including projects on the CDOT network. All 3 project components came in under each project budget. Proposal: Public Works proposes approving the construction agreement for the 2019 Street Overlay Program with Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. in the amount of $1,217,796.00. Advantages: Rehabilitation of multiple roads in Estes Park, including Elkhorn Avenue CDOT is paying for the work on East Elkhorn Avenue and will continue to own, operate, and maintain this segment of highway Utilization of 1A sales tax funds to improve Estes Park streets, which moves the 2024 STIP Program forward Disadvantages: Disruption of traffic and parking in the proposed work areas, however holiday weekends and local events have been identified as non-working days Funds could be used for other purposes, however this usage is in line with the proposed 2024 STIP Program, Resolution 04-19, and the CDOT contract Action Recommended: Staff recommends approving the attached construction agreement to Coulson Excavating in the amount of $1,217,796.00, and authorizing PW staff to spend up to a total amount of $1,450,000.00 for additional street overlay work during construction. Finance/Resource Impact: This project will be funded from the Street Improvement Fund account number 260- 2000-420.35-51 ($400,000 for overlay, $650,000 for 4th Street) and the Community Reinvestment Fund account number 204-5400-544.35-54 ($400,000 for Elkhorn) Level of Public Interest Public interest on this project is expected to be moderate to high. Sample Motion: I move for approval/denial of the construction agreement with Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. for the 2019 Street Overlay Program in the amount of $1,217,796.00. Public Works staff is authorized to spend an additional 19.1% contingency of $232,204.00 for additional street overlay work during construction. Attachments: Construction Agreement 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Estes Park Board of Appeals Appointment Objective: Appoint a candidate to the Town of Estes Park Board of Appeals, to fill the remainder of an unexpired term. Present Situation: The Town’s Board of Appeals is a five-member board whose members are appointed by the Town Board of Trustees. This Board is required by the various International Building Codes, and its purpose is to hear appeals of the Building Official’s decisions and to advise staff and elected officials on matters pertaining to code amendments and code interpretations. Specific seats on the Board are designated to represent various building trades and design specialties (architecture, general contractors, etc.) The Board current has a vacancy for the General Contractor seat, due to a term of appointment that expired in May 2017 and was inadvertently overlooked since that time, as Board of Appeals does not meet frequently. The full term is five years; the remainder of this seat’s term runs for approx. three more years, ending on May 1, 2022. Proposal: The holder of this seat through 2017 was Mr. Don Darling, a locally licensed contractor. Mr. Darling is still licensed, still working locally, and remains interested in serving on the Board of Appeals. Mr. Darling is a resident of Allenspark, but as noted, he is licensed in the Town of Estes Park as a contractor. Rather than a residency requirement, the Board of Appeals (here and in many jurisdictions) requires local employment in the appropriate building specialty. Mr. Darling is qualified under this criterion to continue serving. Although appointment could be deferred and the seat continue to advertise, there is always a balance between a lengthy search process and ensuring that any Board has a quorum and full representation. In this case, staff views filling the seat expeditiously with a qualified candidate to be the best path forward. Per the Town Board’s past policy and practice, if only one applicant is in the queue, a formal appointment interview has not been deemed necessary. Appointing Mr. Darling this evening will accord with that approach. Advantages: Provides continuity on the Board of Appeals for competent membership. Provides representation on the Board for the General Contractor profession. Disadvantages: None identified Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the appointment. Budget: n/a Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve/deny the appointment of Don Darling to the Estes Park Board of Appeals, for a term expiring May 1, 2022. Attachments: n/a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Linda Hardin, Code Compliance Officer Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Ordinance 06-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.1.B VACATION HOMES and SECTION 5.1.U BED AND BREAKFAST INNS (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To review and approve proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): •To review current conditions with regard to the vacation home and bed and breakfast inn regulations; •To amend regulations as deemed necessary. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners adopted strong and enforceable codes to regulate short term vacation rentals and bed and breakfast inns in the Estes Valley. Every aspect of the code was addressed to create an environment where vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns could co-exist with minimal issues. After two (2) years of enforcing the new regulations for vacation homes, and one (1) year of enforcing the new codes for bed and breakfast inns, it was suggested that it is time to review and update the codes where necessary. In general, the new code has proven to be effective. We have registered 744 vacation homes and 20 bed and breakfast inns. The cap of 588 vacation homes in residential zoning districts was met in May 2018, and there are currently approximately 38 applications on the wait list. Every one of these properties has gone through (or are going through) the rigorous registration process which includes neighbor notifications, zoning inspection and compliance with exterior lighting and wildlife protection. Proposal: To adopt amendments to the EVDC and outlined in Exhibit A (Red) for vacation homes and Exhibit B (Blue) for bed and breakfast inns as summarized here: 69 • Establishes deadlines with application processing • Clarifies who shall sign the application • Clarifies that registration stays with the property – cannot move with the owner • Expands the boundary of where property managers shall reside • Establishes deadline for transferring the registration of a property when there is a new owner • Updates neighborhood notice information to conform with policy • Changes parking limits to better work with the size of the home • Adds requirement for complying with the wildlife ordinances in Town and County • Adds requirement for complying with the sign codes in Town and County • Removes all language no longer relevant with respect to the transition of the ordinances from the 2016 adoption Advantages: • Brings the codes up to date with current conditions and best practices • Eliminates confusion in certain areas of the code by tightening up the language • Provides enforceability for signs and wildlife protection outside of the Town boundary Disadvantages: • Additional controls to the vacation home industry will require educating home owners and property managers of the new requirements, which ultimately includes staff time Action Recommended: It is recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and Staff to adopt the amendments to the EVDC regarding vacation home [Exhibit A (Red)] and bed and breakfast inn [Exhibit B (Blue)] regulations. Finance/Resource Impact: Minimal staff time and resources will be required to inform the vacation home community of the amendments. Level of Public Interest Vacation homes in general have been an issue of high public interest. However, we have only received one written comment regarding these amendments. Sample Motion: I move that the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees approve the adoption of amending the vacation home [Exhibit A (Red)] and bed and breakfast inn [Exhibit B (Blue)], based on the findings of the Planning Commission and Staff. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A (Red) 2. Exhibit B (Blue) 3. Ordinance 06-19 4. Rec & School District Boundary Map 70 EXHIBIT A [Red] [CHAPTER 5 – USE REGULATIONS, §5.1.B] Estes Park Board of Trustees – April 23, 2019 § 5.1 ‐ SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS B. Vacation Home. 1. All vacation homes shall be subject to the following: a. Annual Operating Registration. (1) All vacation homes shall obtain an operating registration on an annual basis, according to an application period as specified in this Code. An operating registration shall be effective on and following the date of issuance for all of the remaining calendar year in which it is issued, unless suspended or revoked for cause, provided that registered vacation homes may continue operation during January 1 and March 31 of any calendar year following a year in which the vacation home was duly registered. (2) If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the operating registration. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley, an operating registration shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's Office. The property owner of record at the time of application shall sign any application for a vacation home registration. (3) Beginning January 1, 2017, the annual period for filing operating registration applications shall begin January 1 of each year and end on March 31 of each year, in accordance with subsection (1). Issuance of an operating registration between April 1 and December 31 in any given calendar year shall take place on a schedule determined by the Town Clerk's office and such schedule shall be at the sole discretion of the Town. Registration applications shall be completed within ninety (90) days from issuance of the packet from the Community Development Department. Registrations not completed within ninety (90) days will be voided and are subject to reapplication by the property owner. New applications for vacation homes in residential zoning districts shall be placed on the wait list if the cap is full. (4) Pro-ration and partial reduction in any required registration fees for an operating registration issued after January 1 in any given year shall not be authorized. (5) No more than one (1) operating registration shall be issued and effective in any given calendar year for each vacation home. An active registration for a specific vacation home shall be transferable to a different owner in accordance with procedures in this Code and as established by the Town Clerk's Office. A registration assigned to a vacation home shall not be transferred to another vacation home of the same or different ownership. (6) Effective December 16, 2016, vacation home operating registrations in residential zoning districts (designated herein as zoning districts E, E-1, R, R-1, R-2, RE, RE-1, and RM) shall be held at a maximum total ("cap") of 588 registrations in effect at any given time. This cap shall be reviewed annually by the Planning Commission and governing Boards, in or near the month of April beginning in or near April 2017. Applications received at any time such that their approval would cause the cap to be exceeded shall be held and kept on file in the order they are received and deemed 71 complete by the Town Clerk's Office. Registrations held on such list shall be issued during the calendar year as operating registrations may become available. (7) Vacation homes in non-residential zoning districts (designated as all zoning districts except those enumerated in the preceding subsection) shall not be included in or subject to this cap. (8) Beginning December 16, 2016, every vacation home for which an operating application is made shall require that the vacation home undergo and pass an initial inspection in accordance with this Code prior to issuance of the operating registration. (9) [Reserved] (10) Issuance of an operating registration for a vacation home shall not constitute a zoning entitlement for a property's use as a vacation home, nor shall absence of an operating registration for a vacation home constitute removal or abrogation of a property's zoning permissibility for use as a vacation home. However, both appropriate zoning permission and compliance and a valid current operating registration shall be necessary elements in order for operation as a vacation home to occur. (11) Operating registrations that are deemed active as of December 31 in any given year shall have priority for renewal in the following calendar year over any new operating registration applications, provided a re-application renewal for said active registration is received and deemed complete, all required inspections passed, and fees paid by March 31 of the renewal calendar year. (12) Local Representative. The registration shall designate a local resident or local property manager residing in either the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District boundary or the Estes Park School District R-3 boundary, who can be contacted by telephone and is available when the vacation home is rented, regarding any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the representative of the owner for immediate violation resolution purposes with regard to the operation of the vacation home. The local representative may be the same person as the property owner. An annual operating registration shall not be valid unless the property owner, and the designated local representative (if different), sign the operating registration application acknowledging all vacation home regulations. If the local representative changes during the calendar year, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of change, and to ensure the new local representative is knowledgeable of all vacation home regulations. (13) If the property owner changes during the calendar year, it shall be the responsibility of the new property owner of record to transfer the operating registration into his/her name within fifteen (15) days of transfer of ownership, and to ensure all other regulations in this Section are in compliance. (13) (14) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating registration shall be proof of a current sales tax license, provided by the applicant. (14) (15) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may deny or withhold the renewal of an annual operating registration until a violation related to such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with §12.4.A.1. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may revoke or suspend the annual operating registration at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Operating the vacation home during any such period of suspension or revocation shall be a violation of this Code. Appeals to this section shall be made in accordance with the appeals process in the Estes Valley Development Code. 72 (15) Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code or other penalties and enforcement powers as may be available at law. b. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20 (Business Licenses). In case of conflict between Chapter 5.20 and provisions of §5.1.B of this Code, the provisions of §5.1.B of this Code shall control. c. Residential Character in Residential Zoning Districts. Vacation homes in residential zoning districts as designated in this Section shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with low- intensity, low-scale residential use. (2) For purposes of §5.1.B of this Code, "bedroom" and "sleeping room" are deemed equivalent terms to each other, and equivalent to a sleeping space pursuant to the currently adopted and applicable International Building Codes. Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in guest rooms, sleeping rooms or bedrooms. d. Postings. (1) Vacation homes in all zoning districts shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site. The posted notice shall be provided by the Town Clerk's Office at the time the operating-registration is initially applied for, shall be posted in a prominent location inside the vacation home prior to or during the initial inspection, and shall remain posted in the same location for the duration of its use as a vacation home. The posted notice shall include standard contents as determined and approved by the Community Development Department. (2) Property Line Boundaries: The property owner or local representative shall inform all occupants of property boundaries. (3) Property owner or local representative shall include in all print or online advertising the operating registration number in the first line of the property description. (4) Advertising shall accurately represent the allowed use of the property, including the maximum number of allowed occupants. (5) Neighbor Notification. Prior to issuance of the initial annual operating registration, the owner or local contact shall be responsible for mailing a written notice. (a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the boundary of the subject property. (b) Notices shall provide property address and 24/7 hotline phone number. a name and telephone number of the local representative and property owner. Any change in the local representative or property owner shall require that the name and telephone number of the new representative or owner be furnished to the Community Development Director and owners of properties with 15 days two (2) weeks of the change. Mailed notice of such changes shall follow the same procedure as the initial notification as specified herein. (c) Proof of mailing shall be provided to the Community Development Director upon issuance of initial annual operating registration. e. Parking. 73 (1) Minimum Required Off-Street Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, the number of off-street parking spaces available to a vacation home shall not be less than two (2). (2) Maximum Off-Street Parking - Residential Zoning Districts. This Section applies to all vehicles that are not parked or stored in a fully enclosed garage. No more than a total of four (4) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot of two (2) acres or less. No more than a total of five (5) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot greater than two (2) acres in size, but less than five (5) acres. No more than a total of six (6) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than five (5) acres, but less than ten (10) acres. No more than a total of eight (8) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than ten (10) acres. The maximum number of vehicles parked off- street on the vacation home property shall not exceed the number of bedrooms in the vacation home. (3) Maximum Off-Street Parking - Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Maximum parking for vacation homes in nonresidential zoning districts shall be regulated according to the parking standards applicable to "Hotel, small." f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units as designated in §5.2.C.2 shall not be designated as vacation homes as defined and regulated herein. g. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units as designated in §11.4 shall not be designated as vacation homes as defined and regulated herein. h. Accessory Dwelling Units. Vacation homes shall not be allowed on residential lots of record containing an accessory dwelling unit as defined and regulated herein. i. Density. Only one (1) vacation home shall be allowed per residential dwelling unit. One (1) or more vacation homes may be allowed on an individual lot of record, subject to all regulations in this Code and other regulations as may be applicable. 2. All vacation homes shall also be subject to the following: a. Maximum Occupancy in Residential Zoning Districts: 8-and-Under occupants. Except for 9- and-over vacation homes that may be approved and registered under the provisions of this Code via Large Vacation Home Review (LVHR) application, the maximum allowable occupancy for an individual vacation home shall be eight (8) occupants. Occupancy shall be further limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals per sleeping room plus two (2) individuals per vacation home. b. Maximum Occupancy in Residential Zoning Districts: 9-and-Over occupants. A residential structure with four (4) or more sleeping rooms may apply for Large Vacation Home Review (LVHR) approval as a "9-and-over vacation home", in accordance with the regulations in §5.1.B.3. The maximum occupancy in a 9-and-over vacation home shall be as specified in the LVHR terms of approval; provided that occupancy shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals per sleeping room plus two (2) individuals per vacation home. c. Maximum Occupancy in Non-Residential Zoning Districts. Occupancy shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals per sleeping room plus two (2) individuals per vacation home. No overall maximum occupancy for a vacation home in a non-residential zoning district shall be applicable, provided that the vacation home is deemed to be in compliance with all Building, Fire, and Health Codes and that a valid operating registration is issued. d. For purposes of this Code section, occupancy shall not be counted differentially on the basis of age or status. e. Number of Parties: Vacation homes in residential zone districts as those districts are defined herein shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party, occupying the vacation home as a single group. Owners of the vacation home shall not be allowed to occupy the vacation home while a party is present. All occupants shall be registered by name on or before the time of the party's initial occupancy. The name registry 74 shall be maintained by the property owner or manager, and shall be made available to the appropriate regulatory entity(s) upon the regulatory entity's request. f. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests. g. Vacation homes shall be required to meet applicable Building, Health and Fire codes. h. Except as specifically provided for elsewhere in this Code, general development standards (Chapter 7) as required by the underlying zoning district shall be applicable. In residential zoning districts, development standards shall be those for single-family detached dwellings in the zoning district. In non-residential zoning districts, development standards shall be those for "hotel, small" in the zoning district. i. Vacation homes, whether new or existing structures, shall be subject to the requirements of Sec. 7.9 (Exterior Lighting) for new development. j. Initial Time Frame for Compliance. Vacation home owners in any zoning district may apply at any time during 2017 for an operating registration, provided that in all cases: (a) the vacation home shall not be occupied by clients until the registration is approved and issued; and (b) the operating registration remains valid only until December 31, 2017. Vacation homes shall be subject to the requirements of the Wildlife Protection Ordinances of their respective jurisdictions, and shall have wildlife resistant containers or enclosures provided for the disposal of refuse. [For property in the Town see Chapter 7.20 Wildlife Protection of the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code. For property in unincorporated Larimer County see Sections 30-261-277 Wildlife Protection through Refuse Disposal of the Code of Larimer County Colorado.] k. Vacation homes shall be subject to the requirements of the Sign Code of their respective jurisdictions, and shall obtain sign permits as required. [For property in the Town see Chapter 17.66 Signs of the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code. For property in unincorporated Larimer County see Section 10.2 General Sign Regulations of the Code of Larimer County Colorado.] k. l. Issuance of the operating registration by the Town shall have no fixed deadline; however, the Town shall make all reasonable effort to issue operating registration approvals in an orderly and expeditious manner, as may be determined by the Town. 3. Large Vacation Home Review (LVHR) for 9-and-Over Vacation Homes in Residential Zoning Districts. a. The owner of record of a vacation home in a residential zoning district that has filed a complete application for an 8-and-under vacation home operating registration on or before March 31, 2017, may make application for Large Vacation Home Review (LVHR) under the procedures of this Section and Code to allow nine (9) or more individuals to occupy the vacation home, provided that: (1) The vacation home for which Large Vacation Home Review application is made has four (4) or more sleeping rooms; and (2) The vacation home is in compliance with all applicable Building, Health, and Fire Codes, or is brought into compliance with said Codes by deadline dates as specified in accordance with the Codes. b. The Large Vacation Home Review application shall be reviewed and may be approved by motion and affirmative vote of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's decision shall be final, except that an appeal by a party in interest of the Planning Commission's decision may be made to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees or the Board of Larimer County Commissioners, whichever has jurisdiction. c. Large Vacation Home Review for a 9-and-over vacation home shall comply with the following policies and procedures: 75 (1) The procedure for application, review, and approval shall comply with the "Procedure Checklist for Large Vacation Home Review: 9-and-Over Vacation Homes", promulgated and maintained by the Community Development Department; (2) The required "Vacation Home Safety Inspection Report" and "Vacation Home Location Inspection Report" shall be provided to the Planning Commission prior to any Planning Commission approval of a Large Vacation Home Review; (3) The minimum lot size for a 9-and-over vacation home shall be one (1) acre, unless the Planning Commission makes a specific finding that the vacation home has demonstrated adequate buffering or screening from adjacent and nearby properties, such that a lot size of less than one (1) acre is commensurate with Large Vacation Home use. Appropriate alternative standards for demonstrating adequate buffering or screening shall include, but not be limited to: orientation of the Large Vacation Home on the property away from nearby residential structures, linear separation from other residential structures, separation from other structures by an intervening right-of-way, topographic features such as rock formations or grade differences, and mature vegetation or fencing; (4) The minimum front, side, and rear setback from any lot boundary shall be twenty-five (25) feet or the setback under the zoning district, whichever is greater, unless the Planning Commission makes a specific finding that the vacation home has demonstrated adequate buffering or screening from adjacent and nearby properties, such that a setback of less than twenty-five (25) feet or less than the setback under the zoning district, whichever may be applicable, is commensurate with Large Vacation Home use. Appropriate alternative standards for demonstrating adequate buffering or screening shall include, but not be limited to: orientation of the Large Vacation Home on the property away from nearby residential structures, linear separation from other residential structures, separation from other structures by an intervening right-of-way, topographic features such as rock formations or grade differences, and mature vegetation or fencing; (5) An approved Large Vacation Home shall in no case be occupied by more than two (2) occupants per bedroom plus two (2) additional occupants. d. Denial of a Large Vacation Home Review zoning permission for use as a 9-and-over vacation home shall not void an existing operating license for an 8-and-under vacation home, nor shall such denial in itself void zoning permissibility for use as an 8-and-under vacation home; provided that 8-and-under vacation home zoning requirements in this Code and other applicable regulations remain applicable. 4. Inspections. a. Beginning December 16, 2016, iInspections of all vacation homes per the requirements of this Code shall be completed prior to initial approval of any operating registration. b. All vacation homes with registrations approved during calendar year 2017 shall be inspected at least one (1) time during calendar year 2017.[Reserved] c. Inspection after a violation is cured or after a change in ownership shall be required at the discretion of the Community Development Director. d. Inspections shall be completed by the Department in accordance with the applicable inspection checklist as promulgated and maintained by the Community Development Department. The checklist shall be either the "Procedure Checklist for 8-and-Under Vacation Homes" or the "Procedure Checklist for Large Vacation Home Review: 9-and- Over Vacation Homes", whichever may be applicable. These checklists are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in this Code. 5. Transitional Regulations. In order to establish an equitable method of transitioning from pre- existing vacation-home regulations and those taking effect on December 16, 2016 and beyond, 76 the following interim regulations shall be effective. In case of any conflict between regulations elsewhere in this Code and the transitional regulations, the transitional regulations shall control: a. All 2017 operating-registration applications for vacation homes that have active operating registrations as of December 15, 2016, shall have first priority in application proc essing and operating-registration approval for 2017. b. Within such application first-priority queue as may result from applications filed under subsection a., sequencing of registration issuance shall be determined by the date/time received filing stamp by the Town Clerk's Office on the face of each application. c. All 2017 operating-registration applications for vacation homes that do not have active operating registrations as of December 15, 2016, but for which either or both of the following is provided to the Town Clerk's office at the time of initial application, shall have second priority in application processing and operating-registration approval for 2017: (1) A written signed contract for vacation-home occupancy during 2016 is provided to the Town Clerk's Office; (2) An executed and signed sales tax return establishing that sales tax has been paid during Year 2016 to the State of Colorado for the vacation home. d. Within such application second-priority queue as may result from applications filed under subsection c., sequencing of registration issuance shall be determined by the date/time received filing stamp by the Town Clerk's Office on the face of each application. e. All 2017 operating-registration applications for vacation homes that do not satisfy the requisite conditions in subsection a. or c. shall have third priority in application processing and operating-registration approval for 2017. f. Within such application third-priority queue as may result from applications filed under subsection e., sequencing of registration issuance shall be determined by the date/time filing stamp by the Town Clerk's Office on the face of each application. g. In the event the cap for vacation homes in residential zoning districts in §5.1.B.2 is reached at any point in the 2017 queuing process, applications shall be maintained on a waiting list in the order established within priority queues as specified above. h. All operating registrations approved pursuant to applications filed between December 16, 2016 and December 31, 2017 shall initially be for 8-and-under occupants only. The Large Vacation Home Review shall determine whether or not operating-registration-approved vacation homes in residential zoning districts with four (4) or more sleeping rooms may be approved as 9-and-over Large Vacation Homes; provided, however, that no 9-and-over Large Vacation Home shall be approved for any 8-and-under vacation home in a residential district whose registration is filed after March 31, 2017. i. All vacation home permits in effect on December 15, 2016 shall be automatically extended and in effect through March 31, 2017. This extension shall be deemed a separate matter from the operating registration requirements beginning January 1, 2017. Either an approved 2017 operating registration or an extended 2016 permit shall allow operation of an 8-and-under vacation home at a given location, provided the vacation home remains in compliance with all other applicable regulations. (Ord. 02-10 §1; Ord. 29-16, § 1; Ord. 09-17, § 1) 77 EXHIBIT B [Blue] [CHAPTER 5 – USE REGULATIONS, §5.1.U] Estes Park Board of Trustees – April 23, 2019 § 5.1 ‐ SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS U. Bed and Breakfast Inn. 1. All bed and breakfast inns shall be subject to the following: a. Annual Operating Registration. (1) All bed and breakfast inns shall obtain an operating registration on an annual basis. An annual operating registration shall be effective on and following the date of issuance for all of the remaining calendar year in which it is issued, unless suspended or revoked for cause, provided that registered bed and breakfast inns may continue operation during January 1 and March 31 of any calendar year following a year in which the bed and breakfast inn was duly registered. Registration applications shall be completed within ninety (90) days from issuance of the packet from the Community Development Department. Registrations not completed within ninety (90) days shall be voided and a new application shall be made by the property owner. (2) If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the permit. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley, a permit shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's office. The property owner of record at the time of application shall sign any application for bed and breakfast inn registration. (3) No more than one (1) operating registration shall be issued and effective in any given calendar year for a bed and breakfast inn. An active operating registration for a specific bed and breakfast inn shall be transferable to a different owner in accordance with procedures in this Code and as established by the Town Clerk's office. (4) Every bed and breakfast inn for which an operating registration application is made shall require that the bed and breakfast inn undergo and pass an initial inspection in accordance with this Code prior to issuance of the operating permit. (5) Issuance of an operating registration for a bed and breakfast inn shall not constitute a zoning entitlement for a property's use as a bed and breakfast inn, nor shall absence of an operating registration for a bed and breakfast inn constitute removal or abrogation of a property's zoning permissibility for use as a bed and breakfast inn. However, both appropriate zoning permission, special review approval and compliance and a valid current operating permit shall be necessary elements in order for operation as a bed and breakfast inn to occur. (6) The registration shall designate the resident owner or on-site manager residing on the premises who can be contacted and is on the property twenty-four (24) hours per day when the bed and breakfast is in operation, regarding any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the representative of the owner for immediate violation resolution purposes with regard to the bed and breakfast inn. An annual operating registration shall not be valid unless the resident owner and on-site manager employed by the owner (if different), sign the operating registration application acknowledging all bed and breakfast inn regulations. If the resident owner or on-site manager changes during the calendar year, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of 78 change, and to ensure the on-site manager is knowledgeable of all bed and breakfast inn regulations. If the property owner of record changes during the calendar year, it shall be the responsibility of the new property owner of record to transfer the operating registration into his/her name within fifteen (15) days of transfer of ownership, and to ensure all other regulations in this Section are in compliance. (7) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating permit shall be proof of a current sales tax license. (8) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may deny or withhold the renewal of an operating registration until a violation related to such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with §12.4.A.1. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may revoke or suspend the operating permit at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Operating the bed and breakfast inn during any such period of suspension or revocation shall be a violation of this Code. Appeal to this section shall be made in accordance with the appeals process in the Estes Valley Development Code. (9) Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code or other penalties and enforcement powers as may be available at law. (10) The owner of the bed and breakfast inn, or an on-site manager employed by the owner, shall reside on the premises at all times when the bed and breakfast is in operation. b. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20 (Business Licenses) In case of conflict between Chapter 5.20 and provisions of §5.1.B of this Code, the provisions of §5.1.B of this Code shall control. c. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one (1) household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Except in the CD district, design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use. (2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast inn. (3) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms. (4) Accessory buildings shall not be used for amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. (5) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate each bed and breakfast inn, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (6) Vehicular traffic and noise levels shall not be out of character with residential use. d. Parking. (1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a bed and breakfast inn shall not be reduced to less than two (2). (2) Maximum Off-Street Parking—Residential Zoning Districts. This Section applies to all vehicles that are not parked or stored in a fully enclosed garage. No more than a total of four (4) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot of two (2) acres or less. No more than a total of five (5) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot greater than two (2) acres in size, but less than five (5) acres. No more than a total of six (6) vehicles shall 79 be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than five (5) acres, but less than ten (10) acres. No more than a total of eight (8) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than ten (10) acres. The maximum number of vehicles parked off- street on the bed and breakfast inn property shall not exceed the number of bedrooms in the bed and breakfast inn. (3) Maximum Off-Street Parking—Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Maximum parking for bed and breakfast inns shall be regulated according to the parking standards applicable to hotel, small." e. Employee housing units as designated in §5.2.C.2 shall not be designated a bed and breakfast inns as defined and regulated herein. f. Attainable housing units as designated in §11.4 shall not be designated as bed and breakfast inns as defined and regulated herein. g. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns shall not be permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also §5.2.B.2.a, which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the length of tenancy). h. CD District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. i. Density. Only one (1) bed and breakfast inn shall be permitted per residential dwelling unit. j. Postings. (1) Bed and breakfast inns in all zoning districts shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site. The posted notice shall be provided by the Community Development Department once the operating-registration is initially applied for, shall be posted in a prominent location inside the bed and breakfast inn prior to or during the initial inspection, and shall remain posted in the same location for the duration of its use as a bed and breakfast inn. The posted notice shall include standard contents as determined and approved by the Community Development Department. (2) Property Line Boundaries: The property owner or local representative shall inform all occupants of property boundaries. (3) Property owner or local representative shall include in all print or online advertising the operating registration number in the first line of the property description. (4) Advertising shall accurately represent the allowed use of the property, including the maximum number of allowed occupants. (5) Neighbor Notification. Prior to issuance of the initial annual operating permit, the resident owner or designated manager residing on the premises shall be responsible for mailing a written notice. a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the boundary of the subject property. b) Notices shall provide property address and 24/7 hotline phone number. a name and telephone number of the resident owner or manager residing on the premises. Any change in the resident owner or manager residing on the premises shall require that the name and telephone number of the new resident owner or manager residing on the premises be furnished to the Town Clerk and owners of properties [within] fifteen (15) days of the change. c) Proof of mailing shall be provided to the Community Development Director upon issuance of initial annual operating permit. 2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subject to the following: 80 a. Occupancy. (1) Maximum Occupancy—Eight-and-under occupants. The maximum allowable occupancy shall be limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two (2) guests. The maximum allowable occupancy for an individual bed and breakfast Inn shall be eight (8) occupants. (2) Maximum Occupancy—Nine-and-over occupants. A residential structure with four (4) or more sleeping rooms is permitted by special review in accordance with the S2 approval. The maximum occupancy in a nine-and-over occupant bed and breakfast inn shall be as specified in the special review approval granted by the Town Board; provided that occupancy shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals per sleeping room plus two (2) individuals per bed and breakfast inn. (3) One bedroom shall be assigned to the resident owner or on-site manager and therefore added to the maximum occupancy calculations in paragraphs (1) and (2) above. (4) Number of Parties, bed and breakfast inns. Bed and breakfast inns may be rented, leased or furnished to one (1) or more parties. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations may be operated on the site of a bed and breakfast inn. Bed and breakfast inns may also offer limited ancillary services to guests, such as offering classes/workshops to guests, provided they are in character with residential use. [Accessory Uses (Including Home Occupations) and Accessory Structures, Chapter 5 EVDC §5.2.B.2.d (2006)] c. Meal Service. Bed and breakfast inns may provide meals service to registered overnight guests. d. Bed and breakfast inns, whether new or existing structures, shall be subject to the requirements of §7.9 (Exterior Lighting) for new development. e. Bed and breakfast inns shall be required to meet applicable Building, Health and Fire codes. f. Bed and breakfast inns shall be subject to the requirements of the Wildlife Protection Ordinances of their respective jurisdictions, and shall have wildlife resistant containers or enclosures provided for the disposal of refuse. [For property in the Town see Chapter 7.20 Wildlife Protection of the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code. For property in unincorporated Larimer County see Sections 30-261-277 Wildlife Protection through Refuse Disposal of the Code of Larimer County Colorado.] g. Bed and breakfast inns shall be subject to the requirements of the Sign Code of their respective jurisdictions, and shall obtain sign permits as required. [For property in the Town see Chapter 17.66 Signs of the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code. For property in unincorporated Larimer County see Section 10.2 General Sign Regulations of the Code of Larimer County Colorado.] (Ord. 31-17, § 1(Exh. A)) 81 ORDINANCE NO. 06-19 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING §5.1.B. and §5.1.U WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019 the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted public hearings on proposed text amendments to the Estes Park Valley Development Code, Chapter 5 – Use Regulations; and WHEREAS, on March 19, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendments; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text amendment complies with requirements of Colorado Statues Revised, and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A and Exhibit B be approved; and WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth on Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 82 I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2019 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of , 2019, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 83 E H I G H W A Y 3 6 EHIG H W A Y 36HIGHWAY 36 TUNNEL RDHIGHWAY7LumpyRidge CheleyCamp UV7 UV66 UV7 £¤36 £¤34 £¤36 £¤34 £¤34 £¤36 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 9,500 19,000Feet 1 in = 18,390 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Boundary Map Printed: 4/15/2019Created By: Brittany Hathaway 84 RESOLUTION NO. 11-19 RESOLUTION OF RESPECT FOR LOCAL FIREFIGHTERS WHEREAS, fighting fires is one of the most hazardous responsibilities, requiring physical strength, stamina, courage and selfless concern for the welfare of people and communities; and WHERAS, May 4, 2019, marks International Firefighters’ Day, a time for the world’s community to recognize and honor the sacrifices firefighters make to ensure their environments are as safe as possible; and WHEREAS, in addition to their daily service to the community as Town employees, several staff members serve the residents, businesses and visitors of the Estes Valley Fire Protection District and the Glen Haven Fire Protection District. They are Brian Berg, Ryan Franklin, Jason Gdovicak, Megan Hodde, Justin Kearney, Jon Landkamer and Bruce Walters; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park commends the efforts of these individuals and their service to the community, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, by this Resolution and Public Record, do hereby express profound respect and appreciation for the Town employees who serve as volunteer firefighters, and all firefighters, who are driven to protect our safety. DATED this day of , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 85 86 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Ordinance No. 07-19 An Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Application and Review of Park and Recreation Facilities in Residential Zoning Districts (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Present Situation: An amendment was recently drafted, proposing to amend the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to address the “Park and Recreation Facility” use. The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended approval of the code amendment at their March 19, 2019 meeting. The amendment was then reviewed by the Town Board, at their April 9, 2019 hearing. At that time, the code amendment was continued by the Town Board to May 28, 2019. This was to give staff time to research uses that could potentially be impacted by the proposed code amendment. A temporary moratorium on the on the acceptance and processing of any development application for Park and Recreation Facilities located in residential zoning districts had been in place, to allow staff to research and draft the code amendment. This temporary moratorium expired on April 7, 2019. With the continuance of the code amendment, the Town Board has directed staff to draft an ordinance to impose another, similar temporary moratorium. This ordinance is to impose a moratorium through June 30, 2019. See attached. Advantage: Provides time for further research and inventory of existing uses which may be impacted by a code amendment, and allows for additional public comment and Board review. Disadvantage: A potential to delay a proposal for a development application for a Park and Recreation Facility in a residential zone district. (Staff is not aware of any such proposals at this time.) Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 87 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, APRIL 23, 2019 MORATORIUM, PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES PAGE | 2 Action Recommended: The review and, if appropriate, adoption of Ordinance No. 07-19 is a policy decision of the Town Board. Finance/Resource Impact: None. Level of Public Interest High. Sample Motion I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 07-19. Attachments: Ordinance No. 07-19 88 ORDINANCE NO. 07-19 AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE APPLICATION AND REVIEW OF PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, in 2017, the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County approved the amending of Section 13.2.C.34 – Parks and Recreation Facilities, to remove the term “non-commercial” from the definition of Park and Recreation Facilities in the Estes Valley Development Code (“EVDC”); and WHEREAS, currently Park and Recreation Facilities are a permitted use in all zoning districts within the EVDC Boundary Map Planning Area (the “Estes Valley”), subject to development standards and processes; and WHEREAS, there currently exists public concern about Park and Recreation Facilities being a permitted use in all residential zoning districts of the Estes Valley; and WHEREAS, due to public concern about the possible negative effects of Park and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning district in the Estes Valley, the Estes Park Community Development Department Staff and the Estes Valley Planning Commission have formulated amendments to the EVDC to regulate Park and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning districts within the Estes Valley; and WHEREAS, said amendments were reviewed and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on March 19, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners have both set (via continuance from earlier dates) public hearings for said amendment on May 28, 2019 (Town Board of Trustees) and June 10, 2019 (Board of County Commissioners); and WHEREAS, it is the conclusion of the Board of Trustees that it is necessary to impose a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing of any development application for Park and Recreation Facilities located in residential zoning districts of the Estes Valley to allow the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to review possible amendments to the EVDC concerning Park and Recreation Facilities within residential zoning districts in the Estes Valley; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to impose this temporary moratorium for only the time period necessary to allow the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to adequately review possible new amendments, including public comment, and if appropriate, adopt amendments to the EVDC concerning Park and Recreation Facilities within residential zoning districts within the Estes Valley; and 89 WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable provisions of Section 29-20-101 et seq. C.R.S. known as the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, the Town of Estes Park has the power to impose this temporary moratorium. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK: 1. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees hereby imposes a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing of any new development application for Park and Recreation Facilities as defined in Section 13.2.C.34 of the Estes Valley Development Code for development in the RE-1, RE, E-1, E, R, R-1, R-2, RM zoning districts of the EVDC within the Town of Estes Park. 2. This temporary moratorium shall take effect immediately and be in force through June 30, 2019 unless extended, amended and/or terminated by further action of the Board of Trustees. WHEREAS, the immediate passage of this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Town in order to temporarily delay the acceptance and review of any development application for Park and Recreation Facilities within residential zoning districts in the Town of Estes Park, and therefore this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately after its passage, adoption, and signature of the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tem. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Town Clerk 90 I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2018 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _____ day of , 2019, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk 91 92 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: David Hook, Engineering Manager Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Policy 851 Complete Streets (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER_Policy_____ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Approval by the Town Board of Trustees of Public Works (PW) Policy 851 Complete Streets. Present Situation: PW staff and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) have coordinated on the development of a draft Complete Streets Policy that will establish practices within the Public Works Department to promote and encourage the development of a multi-modal transportation network that will provide access to all users. Through the application of Complete Streets principles, we will provide comprehensive, safe, convenient, and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling, and public transportation. This will encourage active living lifestyles, wellness, reduce traffic congestion, reduce noise and air pollution, and improve the safety and quality of life of Estes Park residents and visitors. The draft policy was discussed with the Town Board in Study Session on February 12, 2019. The overview document and slideshow presented by TAB Chair Morris are attached for your ease of reference. In response to Town Board feedback at the Study Session, a public open house was held on March 20, 2019 to inform the community about the proposed policy and invite comment prior to TB consideration of policy approval and staff implementation. Twelve individuals attended the open house. After a presentation by TAB Chair Morris (attached slideshow), there was an extended Q&A discussion with the audience. Both the verbal comments heard during the discussion and the written comments (attached) provided by the participants were supportive of the proposed policy. 93 Proposal: Approval of the attached Complete Streets Policy to integrate people and place in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of our transportation networks to help ensure streets are safe for people of all ages and abilities, balance the needs of different modes, and support local land uses, economies, cultures, and natural environments. Advantages: •Ensure implementation of safer multi-modal transportation options for those of all ages and abilities. •Provide a clear demonstration to other jurisdictions and partners that the community wants streets designed for multi-modal access for all individuals. Disadvantages: •Administrative and project costs may increase to comply with some components of the policy, however benefits to the transportation network will be valuable. •Revisions to design codes and guidelines will be required after policy adoption; however, updates to codes/guidelines are needed for others reasons as well. Action Recommended: Staff and TAB recommend the Town Board approve the proposed Complete Streets Policy. Finance/Resource Impact: Implementation of the policy on Town capital projects will impact administrative and capital construction costs. The incremental staff effort to consider Complete Streets concepts and complete the Complete Streets Checklist should be relatively minor – perhaps 4 to 8 hours per project. The ongoing tracking and annual reporting by PW staff should tally to no more than 8 to 10 hours/year. The construction cost associated with any of the Complete Street Infrastructure components can vary widely depending on the project and the extent of infrastructure included, perhaps from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars. Until such time as the development code is revised, private sector development is only “encouraged” to follow this policy. If they voluntarily followed the policy, it stands to reason that additional costs would parallel the Town’s. Level of Public Interest The level of public interest is anticipated to be low. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of PW Policy 851 – Complete Streets Policy and authorizing the Mayor to sign the policy. Attachments: Draft PW Policy 851 – Complete Streets Policy Overview and Background with Attachments PowerPoint Presentation Public Open House written comments 94 Document Title Final Draft 4/18/19 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Public Works Page 1 of 6 Effective Period: Until Superceded Review Schedule: Annual Effective Date: April 23, 2019 References: Downtown Plan PUBLIC WORKS 851 Engineering Division Complete Streets Policy 1. PURPOSE This policy establishes practices within the Public Works Department to promote and encourage the development of a multi-modal transportation network that will provide access to all users. Through the application of Complete Streets principles, we will provide comprehensive, safe, convenient, and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling, and public transportation. This will encourage active living lifestyles, wellness, reduce traffic congestion, reduce noise and air pollution, and improve the safety and quality of life of Estes Park residents and visitors. 2. POLICY The Town of Estes Park Complete Streets Policy is attached as Appendix 1. 3. PROCEDURE The attached Complete Streets Policy includes procedures to implement the policy (Section 2), procedures to track & report application of the policy over time (Section 3), a Complete Streets Checklist (Exhibit A), and Traffic Calming Guidelines (Exhibit B). Approved: _____________________________ Todd Jirsa, Mayor _____________ Date 95 Document Title Final Draft 4/18/19 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Public Works Page 2 of 6 APPENDIX 1 - Town of Estes Park Complete Streets Policy Statement of Intent: The Town of Estes Park, through the adoption of this Complete Streets Policy, intends to promote and encourage the development of a multi-modal transportation network that will provide access to all users. Introduction Complete Streets are streets for everyone. A Complete Streets approach integrates people and place in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of our transportation networks. This helps to ensure streets are safe for people of all ages and abilities, balance the needs of different modes, and support local land uses, economies, cultures, and natural environments. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle for work, play, shopping, and recreation. A Complete Streets Policy allows planners and designers to understand and meet the actual mobility needs of every community member, however, they travel - by foot, bicycle, scooter, skateboard, shuttle or automobile. A Complete Street ultimately encourages all community members to utilize mobility options to access destinations such as schools, downtown businesses, neighborhoods and recreation areas. This makes it easier for shuttles to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from parking areas such as the Visitor Center Parking Structure. Every transportation project that implements the Complete Streets approach will make the multi-modal transportation network better and safer for motorists, drivers, transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists, thus making the town a better place to live and visit. Policy 1. DEFINITIONS: The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Policy, shall have the meanings defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise: a. Complete Street Infrastructure: According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, appropriate elements that make up a complete street would include sidewalks, bicycle lanes, shared use paths, designated transit lanes, safe and accessible transit stops, safe crossings for pedestrians (including median islands), grade separated crossings (i.e. underpasses or overpasses), accessible pedestrian signals, and curb extensions. Additionally, they include features identified in the Estes Valley Trails Master Plan and the Estes Park Downtown plan. b. “Street” includes streets, avenues, boulevards, road, lanes, alleys, and all public ways. 96 Document Title Final Draft 4/18/19 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Public Works Page 3 of 6 c. “Street Project” means the capital construction or capital reconstruction of any street, whether by the public or private sector, and includes the planning, design, approval, and implementation processes. Operation and maintenance (O&M) based projects are excluded. d. “Multi-modal Transportation Network” means all facilities, vehicles and devices designed to facilitate the mobility of people. e. “Users” are individuals who use the Multi-modal Transportation Network. Categories of Users include pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle drivers, public transportation riders and people of all ages and abilities. 2. IMPLEMENTATION. a. The Town of Estes Park shall consider every Street Project an opportunity to incorporate the principles of Complete Streets. b. The Town of Estes Park will work in coordination with other organizations, agencies, and jurisdictions to achieve safe, convenient and connected Complete Streets infrastructure within the Multi-modal Transportation Network. c. This policy will be used as a guide to the Town of Estes Park in development of transportation plans, transit plans, and design standards. As practicable, these documents and tools will be updated to reflect this Complete Streets Policy. d. Implementation of the Complete Streets Policy will consider the adjacent neighborhood, completion of the multi-modal network, priority corridors, and the financial costs of the Complete Street elements. e. The Complete Streets Checklist at Exhibit A below will be used in planning, design and construction or reconstruction of all transportation projects. f. Public works will present to the Transportation Advisory Board, CDOT (for proposed work within the CDOT right of way), and to the general public at neighborhood meetings all street reconstructions, modifications, and construction projects at the 30% preliminary design stage and 90% final design stage. When the proposed street work is at a location governed by the Complete Streets Policy, the presentation will include the Complete Streets Checklist results, recommended design cross-section, alternative improvements, if any, construction cost estimates for each alternative, clarification of maintenance responsibility, and estimated maintenance costs. g. Implementation of relevant parts of the Downtown Plan will also be considered in the implementation of this policy. h. Public works will encourage projects undertaken by other public agencies and private sector development to follow this policy. i. Exceptions to this policy for any Street Project can only be granted with the approval of the Public Works Director and the Town Administrator after coordination with the Transportation Advisory Board. 97 Document Title Final Draft 4/18/19 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Public Works Page 4 of 6 3. DATA COLLECTION AND PROGRESS REPORTING a. The Town will periodically collect, review and report performance data and benchmark measurements to demonstrate the effectiveness of this policy. This will include: number of projects completed, number of projects incorporating complete streets infrastructure, actual infrastructure added, number of transit and non-motorized users, and community attitudes and perceptions. b. The Transportation Advisory Board and the Shuttle Committee are encouraged to provide ongoing feedback and act as a conduit for public participation on the implementation of Complete Streets practices. 98 Document Title Final Draft 4/18/19 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Public Works Page 5 of 6 Exhibit A Complete Streets Checklist 1. Existing Conditions: a. What accommodations for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit are included in the existing facility and on facilities it intersects or crosses? b. If there are not pedestrian or bicycle facilities and transit, how far from the proposed project are the closest parallel walkways and bicycle facilities? c. Are there existing impediments for bicycle, transit, and pedestrian travel that the proposed project could address? d. What current or future trip generators are in the vicinity of the proposed project that could potentially attract more pedestrians, bicyclists, employees, transit or users of other travel modes? e. Did the project design consider conflicts between users of different modes of travel, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motor vehicles, transit or others? f. Do any previously adopted plans call for the installation of bicycle or pedestrian facilities such as bike or multi modal lanes on, crossing, or adjacent to the proposed facility? If yes, list the applicable plans. 2. Project Scope h. What accommodations, if any, are included for bicycle, pedestrians, and transit in the proposed project design? i. If the proposed project does not include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, list reasons. j. State the cost of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities and their proportion of the total project cost. k. What entity or district will be responsible for the maintenance of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities and how will they be budgeted? l. To what extent does the project include steps to calm traffic as outlined in the attached traffic calming guidelines at Exhibit B. 99 Document Title Final Draft 4/18/19 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Public Works Page 6 of 6 Exhibit B Traffic Calming Guidelines The following guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive but to give policymakers, the general public, planners, and designers a general idea of what traffic calming is about. For example, more detailed guidance and ideas can be found in the publication from The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) entitled Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. This defines traffic calming as “the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.” Suggested road designs that say slow down 1. Design roads that create a subconscious need to slow down. 2. Design roads that incorporate artifacts that encourage people to slow down. 3. Create roadways that make vehicle users feel uncomfortable to speed down residential roads. 4. Create roadways that have narrow lane width. 5. Add trees, garden plots, sculptures and benches along roadway shoulders to create calm and visual enjoyment for all users. 6. Add physical design of road signs. 7. Trees, bike lanes, and sidewalks included in designs. 8. Consider alternatives to traffic lights at intersections such as roundabouts to improve traffic flow and calming. 100 101 102 103 Estes Park Complete Streets Transportation Advisory Board February 2019 1 An Overview & Background From the Transportation Advisory Board On a proposed Complete Streets Policy The Town of Estes Park and the Estes Park Valley have adapted over time with different modes of transportation – foot, hoof and wheel – as means to access and enjoy our mountainous area. From the Arapaho and Ute tribes migrating seasonally by foot in search of game and fishing, to horse-drawn buggies transporting early European American settlers to the area, the Valley has adapted to the needs of its ever-evolving residents and visitors. In fact, the arrival of the automobile in Estes Park is tellingly described in Enos Mills’ book, The Story of Early Estes Park, "At first, the people of the Park were almost unanimously, and maybe even bitterly, opposed to the automobile," Mills wrote. "But it was speedy and comfortable, and from the beginning it brought increasing numbers of people to the Park and consequently has added to the Park's prosperity and development." Today, the Valley transportation network emphasizes automobiles as the main source of transportation and access, often shifting access for the pedestrian, cyclist and transit user to a secondary priority. Similar to many US communities, the Valley has traditional streets that are designed to emphasize the quickest routes for automobiles to arrive to a destination. This focus on single mode vehicle usage has resulted in decreasing emphasis in planning for those who choose (or would like to choose) a non-car alternative. With increasing tourism to both the Valley and the Rocky Mountain National Park, and with local residents relying mostly on automobiles, roadways are becoming increasingly congested, and quality of life has been greatly impacted. The emphasis on car travel has also resulted in increased travel time to access the community, its business districts, natural amenities and recreational areas. Additionally, less than optimal attention has been paid to alternative investments like pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure. The need to provide mobility options has and will become ever more important as the Town looks to attract the next generation of residents, visitors and businesses. According to the Rockefeller Group and Transportation for America Study of Americans aged 18-24, “more than half of millennials said they would consider moving to another city if it had more and better options for getting around, while 66 percent said that access to high-quality transportation was one of the top three criteria they weighted when deciding where to live”. In an effort to provide future guidance for policy-makers, planners, designers and transportation partners alike, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) recommends that the Town Board consider adoption of a ‘Complete Streets’ (CS) methodology when designing, planning, funding, implementing and maintaining future public transportation projects. The Town has adopted the Master Trail Plan developed in partnership with the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District, the Estes Park 104 Estes Park Complete Streets Transportation Advisory Board February 2019 2 Downtown Plan and the Downtown Parking Management Plan. All advocate investment in alternative methods of transportation to support community vitality and improve access for residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. Adopting a Complete Street Policy (CS Policy) could provide much-needed guidance, and could demonstrate to future funding partners that the community is committed to offering a wide range of mobility options. Definition In much of the US, it is practically impossible to get around without a car. People must drive to school or work, to run errands or to visit friends as many of these destinations are too far away, the roads do not have safe, connected sidewalks and/or there is no access to reliable, frequent transit. The Estes Park Valley is no exception to this situation, especially as a rural and sprawled valley. Seasonal visitors and employees arrive to our mountain community with an expectation of safe, comfortable and accessible transportation; however, our community often struggles to address these basic needs in a comprehensive way. Shifting towards a greater focus on multi-faceted (multi-modal) transportation network could provide access for a broader population of users, connecting our roadways, pathways and transit into one high-functioning and convenient system. “Complete Streets” are a network of streets that are designed for every user, and especially for the most vulnerable within a community. A community that has ‘Complete Streets’ (CS) is more likely to provide safe and convenient mobility options, reducing sole reliance on the automobile. A Complete Street is designed for users of any age, ability, income or skill level to be able to move independently within a connected transportation network of sidewalks, trails, bike paths, and shuttle services. Characteristics: Complete Street Policy Benefits: * Safety Capacity. An Estes Park Complete Street would provide safe and comfortable transportation options for all ages and abilities. An 8-year-old would be able to independently travel across the entire Valley to school or an 80-year-old would comfortably access the Community Center. A design emphasizing safety would include: providing slow speed limits; effective cross-walks; connected system of wide sidewalks; detached bike paths; barrier separation between bike lanes and automobile lanes; frequent shuttles that reach the entire Estes valley and neighborhood arteries. * Connectivity. A Complete Street design acknowledges the need to get from one end of town to the other, using a variety of connected transportation options. A resident or visitor staying along Spur 66 would be able to safely bicycle using a detached path or protected bike lanes to reach downtown businesses, the local school district, the 105 Estes Park Complete Streets Transportation Advisory Board February 2019 3 Community Center, Good Samaritans, Lily Lake trail head, and Estes Park Transit locations. There are many opportunities to having connected Complete Streets: less reliance on a car; reduction of traffic congestion and improved air quality; enjoyment of using connected trails and sidewalks; ability to access destinations throughout the community if there is an emergency; appreciate the surrounding outdoors; encourage fitness and wellness; and provide affordable mobility options. Bike connectivity as a viable and reliable transportation option can facilitate recreation, employee travel, economic development, wellness and appreciation for slower speeds throughout the Valley. * Wellness. Providing connected infrastructure, designed through Complete Streets concepts, can facilitate increased opportunities for residents and visitors to more easily invest in health and wellness. Walking and touring the Valley via bicycle offers a unique experience that you cannot access through a car: the ability to hear the Big Thompson River; smell the Ponderosa Pine sap and flowering gardens; see the snowcapped Continental Divide without sitting in traffic congestion, and have the opportunity to make contact with someone along our pathways that creates a positive, emotional connection. With more mobility choices, a resident or visitor could feel welcomed and connected to our unique place, and have the opportunity to enjoy all that the Valley has to offer without thinking twice about the safety of their desired journey by bike or foot. The Colorado Outdoor Recreation Industry Office presented a report called, “ Colorado Outdoor Rx- Elevating Coloradoan’s Health Through the Outdoors”, https://choosecolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Colorado-Outdoor-Rx.pdf and is advocating for policies and practices that promote access to nature-based recreation opportunities. With a Complete Streets Policy, the community could provide increased opportunities for recreation and wellness. * Equity. Affordable housing often includes the need for easy access to the work place. Seasonal employees, shift workers, and visitors without cars are vital to the success of our local and regional economy. A CS Policy could help address the various transportation and access inequities (economic, physical mobility needs, age), and offer a broader network of solutions that could serve the entire community. * Economic development and recreation. When the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act was signed into law, it directed the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to measure the outdoor economy with the same tools it uses to chart other industries and economy. As a result, the outdoor recreation economy is recognized as significant for the US and the State of Colorado. In 2016, the BEA released numbers detailing the economic power of outdoor recreation, showing it comprises two percent ($373.7 billion) of the entire 2016 US Gross Domestic Product. The report also stipulated that the outdoor industry was growing at an annual rate of 106 Estes Park Complete Streets Transportation Advisory Board February 2019 4 3.8 percent, out-competing many traditional industries. In 2015, Colorado Governor Hickenlooper launched the Colorado Outdoor Recreation Industry Office (OREC) providing a central location for contact, advocacy and resources at the state level for outdoor-related businesses, communities and constituents. The Town is now able to seek out support alongside other Colorado Mountain communities for recreation and outdoor advocacy. https://choosecolorado.com/programs-initiatives/outdoor-recreation-industry-office/ • Bicycle tourism is a growing industry. Local lodging businesses are already providing bikes to rent for their guests and local businesses are providing bikes for their seasonal employees for transportation to work. • Regular, higher frequency and reliable transit throughout the Valley could provide increased access to downtown businesses, residential neighborhoods, outlying recreation public lands and events. More here? • Funding outside the community. Grant applications often favor communities that have documentation that supports Complete Streets. Safe Routes to Schools list on CDOT website references Complete Streets as a recommended policy for applicant communities. https://www.codot.gov/programs/bikeped/safe-routes/assets/fiscal-year-2017-documents/fy-2017-18-srts-infrastructure-projects-guidelines-and-application-ver-072817.pdf Rural Community Challenges Adoption of a CS Policy for the Town would need to consider these common constraints and adapt when necessary: * Highway as Main Street. A State highway may prioritize moving traffic through town quickly. As such, changing the road design to include pedestrian and cyclist access to downtown Estes Park may be constrained. However, becoming less automobile-centric will require a policy that communicates and prioritizes what is important to residents and visitors. With a CS Policy, the Town could help communicate to partners that the community values access for all. With a CS Policy, the Town will communicate to partners what we prioritize and support. * Difficult terrain. Rural settings often have physical constraints that make provisions of cost-effective facilities for bicycling, walking and transit difficult. Travel to downtown, schools or recreation facility destinations often requires covering a greater distance compared to urban communities. Complete Street projects will likely need to be implemented in small increments to be mindful of limited funding opportunities. Also, designs should incorporate rest areas for those needing respite along a lengthier journey. 107 Estes Park Complete Streets Transportation Advisory Board February 2019 5 * Poor health. Rural communities can have older adults that require access to safe mobility options. Wider sidewalks that connect key destinations are often overlooked in traditional road designs. Better infrastructure could encourage active living and community connections for sometimes-isolated residents. Offering transportation options could also alleviate emissions, congestion and other negative environmental health impacts of longer commute times. * Maintenance. Winter maintenance can be a significant cost for small, rural communities. A CS Policy will need to factor in the special equipment and/or personnel to maintain certain active transportation facilities. * Safety. Complete Streets reduce motor vehicle-related crashes and pedestrian risk, as well as bicyclist risk when well-designed bicycle-specific infrastructure is included. • Speed levels are often high due to straight-line designs and longer distances to travel to reach destinations. A Complete Street Policy would direct designs to include methods that calm traffic and reduce speeds, (e.g. median islands, curb extensions, textured roadbed indicating slow zones in downtown). • Pedestrian crossings are often not defined, not easily visible, and at times difficult to implement based on low existing use. Providing safe crossings and road texture/shape designs can slow traffic down and increase pedestrian visibility. * Economic. Roads are less aesthetically pleasing and encourage sprawl when designed only for automobiles. Roads and pathways in rural Estes Park should be designed to be attractive (welcoming) and encourage activity, which in turn can help activate areas along key routes connecting to and within the downtown core. Residents and visitors are more likely to walk, ride a bike, and/or take a shuttle if the alternative transportation experience is reliable, frequent, visually appealing and social. General Policy Components A CS Policy expresses a commitment by a municipality, and its transportation planners, to understand and meet the needs of every community member, regardless of how they travel - by foot, bicycle, scooter, skateboard, transit or automobile. A CS Policy can give consistent and proven direction to transportation stakeholders. • A CS Policy would ensure implementation of safer multi-modal transportation options, for those of all ages and abilities. This means that every transportation project could make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists. 108 Estes Park Complete Streets Transportation Advisory Board February 2019 6 • A CS Policy could save time and money for transportation projects. Transportation planners and designers will have greater insight into what the community wants and needs, which could eliminate the need for alternatives outside of policy guidelines. Cost reductions could be realized due to less project duplication, retrofitting and/or course-corrections. • A CS Policy would provide a clear demonstration to other jurisdictions and partners that the community wants streets designed for multi-modal access for all individuals. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) would also have a greater understanding of what the community desires with relation to street design and community access for the benefit of all users. • Finally, with a consistent and clear vision of what the community values with regard to transportation access more opportunities for funding could be realized. Estes Park Complete Street Policy Residents and visitors appreciate active living lifestyles, wellness, reduced traffic congestion, reduced noise and air pollution, improved safety as well as comprehensive, safe, convenient, and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling, and public transportation. As summarized above, the driving factors behind this proposal for the Town Board to adopt a Complete Street Policy are improved economic vitality, health, safety, access, resilience and environmental sustainability for the Town and Valley. Additionally, a CS Policy would complement and enhance the recently adopted Estes Park Downtown Plan and Downtown Parking Management Plan. Therefore, the TAB recommends that the Town Board adopt a CS Policy that: • Aligns with and enhances the Estes Park Downtown Plan and Downtown Parking Management Plan • Provides direction and guidance for the growth and development of Estes Park Transit; • Enhances partnerships with local and regional stakeholders; • Aligns with national best practice for community access and connectivity; • Seeks to overcome the challenges of traditionally rural community designs; • Considers a wide range of applications, including: wider sidewalks; trails; bicycle lanes; protected bike lanes; transit lanes; public transit lane stops with shelters and benches, wayfinding; rapid street-crossing opportunities; median islands; accessible pedestrian signals; accessible bike signals; curb extensions; modified vehicle travel lanes; streetscape; and landscape treatments. 109 Estes Park Complete Streets Transportation Advisory Board February 2019 7 Colorado & National Complete Streets Currently there are over 1,325 agencies at the local, regional, and state levels have adopted Complete Streets policies, totaling more than 1,400 policies nationwide. The US Department of Transportation provides support and strategies for adoption of Complete Streets for municipalities throughout the US through their website. The State of Colorado adopted a Complete Street initiative in 2009. Colorado communities along the Front Range that have adopted CS Policies include: Fort Collins, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver and Golden. Community Stakeholders: The Estes Park Cycling Coalition applied to the League of American Bicyclists ranking program, which evaluated Estes Park as a bike friendly community. The League of American Bicyclists uses a metric to evaluate communities across the US and Estes Park resulted in an “Honorable Mention” (lowest) score for being a “Bike Friendly” community. The attached Report Card for Estes Park, features key recommendations, statistics, and category scores. Summary: The Transportation Advisory Board continues to advocate towards inclusion of multi-modal transportation to relieve traffic congestion, increase safe transportation options, address inequities, and encourage a healthy lifestyle for our community. TAB shares a vision for the Estes Park Valley to be friendly and safe to all users of a multi-modal transportation system. Providing a CS Policy could provide direction in all future decision-making. We recommend the Town adopt a CS Policy, which will be used to guide future traffic designs, transportation infrastructure, community planning, employee training and implementation. Once implemented, we recommend a comprehensive assessment of the existing roadways and transportation network through the lens of Complete Streets guidelines. We understand that this would require a significant investment of staff time and resources, and that all streets cannot likely meet a checklist to become Complete Street compliant right away. However, adoption of the CS Policy could send a unified message to residents, visitors, regional partners and the State of Colorado that the Town is committed to the longer-term vision of providing enhanced community access through thoughtful investment in a more robust range of mobility options. 110 Estes Park Complete Streets Transportation Advisory Board February 2019 8 References: Smart Growth America, Complete Streets: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/publications/what-are-complete-streets/ The League of American Bicyclists: https://bikeleague.org/content/ranking Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: https://www.codot.gov/programs/colorado-transportation-matters/documents/statewide-bicycle-and-pedestrian-plan.pdf CDOT Multi-Modal Planning Branch- complete streets https://www.codot.gov/programs/planning/planning-programs US Department of Transportation, Complete Streets https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/complete-streets-policies Small Town and Rural community multi-modal network assistance https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf Campbell, B., et al. (2004). “A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad.” Federal Highway Administration Publication # FHWA-RD-03-042 4 Reynolds, C., et al. (2009). “The Impact of Transportation Infrastructure on Bicycling Injuries and Crashes: A Review of the Literature.” Environmental Health, Vol. 8, No. 47. US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999). Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries Among Selected Racial/Ethnic Groups. Leaf, W., & Preusser, D. 111 THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF A BICYCLE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY GETTING STARTEDMAKING PROGRESSSETTING THE STANDARD There’s no single route to becoming a Bicycle Friendly Community. In fact, the beauty of the BFC program is the recognition that no two communities are the same and each can capitalize on its own unique strengths to make biking better. But, over the past decade, we’ve pored through nearly 600 applications and identified the key benchmarks that define the BFC award levels. Here’s a glimpse at the average performance of the BFCs in important categories, like ridership, safety and education. 33 %33%2 6% 43 % 50 % 60 % 80 % 7 0%90%per 10Kcitizensper 20Kcitizensper 32Kcitizensper 70Kcitizensper 77K citizens78%65%4 5%45%4 3% 3 0% 1.2% 3.5% 5.5% 12% 20% 370 100 180 90 50 0.2 0.5 0.6 1.4 4 very g o o d good very goo d very goo d v e r y g o o d v e r y g o o d g o o d g o o d excell e n t excellent e x c e l l e n t excell e n t yes yes yes yes yes some some maybemaybeyes yesyesyesyeslikely very likely very likelygoodyes yes yes yes goodvery goodexcellentexcellentone at l e a s t t w o at l e a s t t w o qua r t e r l y mo n t h l y BRONZESILVERGOLDPLATINUMDIAMOND BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY DIAMOND BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY PLATINUM BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY GOLD BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY SILVER BICYCLEFRIENDLYCOMMUNITY BRONZEEDUCATIONENGINEERING E N C O U R A G E ME NT EVALUATION KEY OUTCOMES ENFORCEMENTLAW ENFORCEMENT/BICYCLING LIASONBICYCLE-FRIENDLY LAWS/TOTAL BICYCLE N ETW O R K p e o p l e c o m muting BIKE PLAN IS ACTIVE BIKE CLUBS & BIKE M O N T H & BIK E A C T I V E B I C Y C L E ACTI VE MILEAGE TO TOTAL R O A D b y b i c y cle CURRENT AND BEING SIGNATURE EVENTS TO W ORK E V E N T S A D V I S O R Y C O MMI T T EEADVOCACY GROUPNETWORK M ILEAG ERECREATIONAL FACILITIES LIKE BIKE PARKS & VELODROMESIMPLEMENTED ORDINANCES IN PLACESPUBLIC EDUCATION ANNUAL OFFERING % OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY SCHOOLS OFFERING BICYCLING EDUCATIONBIKE ACCESS TO AR TE R IA L S T R E E T S 1 BIKE PROGRAM STAFF PERSON R I D E R S H I P FATALITIES per 10k daily commuter CRASHES per 10k daily commuter W ITH B IK E L A N E S PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONOF ADULT BICYCLING SKILLS CLASSESOUTREACHproduced by Designed by Language Dept. WWW.BIKELEAGUE.ORG 112 »Appoint an official Bicycle Advisory Committee to create a systematic method for ongoing citizen input into the development of important policies, plans, and projects. »Adopt a Complete Streets policy and offer implementation guidance. »Adopt standards for bike parking that conform to APBP guidelines. »Increase the amount of high quality bicycle parking throughout the community. »Develop an on street bike network with a focus on arterials. On roads with posted speed limits of more than 35 mph, it is recommended to provide protected bicycle infrastructure. »Develop a Safe Routes to School program. Bicycle-safety education should be a routine part of primary and secondary education, and schools and the surrounding neighborhoods should be particularly safe and convenient for biking and walking. »Continue to expand your public education campaign promoting the share the road message. »Offer bicycling skills training opportunities for adults. »Promote cycling throughout the year by offering or supporting more family-oriented community or social rides. »Design and publish a local bike map in paper and online. »Develop a comprehensive bike plan. estes pArk, co 9% 19% Good 0% Good yes No Good No 7715 10 Building Blocks of a Bicycle friendly community Estes ParkAverage Bronze Arterial Streets with Bike Lanes Total Bicycle Network Mileage to Total Road Network Mileage Public Education Outreach % of Schools Offering Bicycling Education Bike Month and Bike to Work Events Active Bicycle Advocacy Group Active Bicycle Advisory Committee Bicycle–Friendly Laws & Ordinances Bike Plan is Current and is Being Implemented 33% Bike Program Staff to Population 26% SOME 33% GOOd MAYBE MAYBE SOME MAYBE PER 77k leArN more » www.bikeleAGue.orG/commuNities supported by Estes Park 1.05% 162.6 0.0 category scores eNGiNeeriNG Bicycle network and connectivity educAtioN Motorist awareness and bicycling skills eNcourAGemeNt Mainstreaming bicycling culture eNforcemeNt Promoting safety and protecting bicyclists' rights eVAluAtioN & plANNiNG Setting targets and having a plan key outcomes Average Bronze ridership Percentage of daily bicyclists 1.2% sAfety meAsurescrAshes Crashes per 10k daily bicyclists 370 sAfety meAsuresfAtAlities Fatalities per 10k daily bicyclists 4 key steps to BRONZE populAtioN deNsity 929.55,858 totAl populAtioN totAl AreA (sq. miles) 5.8 # of locAl bicycle frieNdly busiNesses 0 # of locAl bicycle frieNdly uNiVersities N/A 2 /10 2 /10 2 /10 3 /10 1 /10 113 Estes Park Complete Streets Transportation Advisory Board, Winter, 2019 Early Auto Arrival “At first, the people of the Park were almost unanimously, & maybe even bitterly, opposed to the automobile. But it was speedy & comfortable, and from the beginning it brought increasing numbers of people to the Park, & consequently has added to the Park’s prosperity and development”, Enos Mills 114 For the Love of the Car Elkhorn Ave from a Pedestrian perspective Moraine Ave from a cyclists perspective What are Complete Streets 9 Network of streets designed for all users (cyclists, pedestrians, e-bikes, other potential mobility vehicles) 9 Safe and comfortable mobile options 9 All ages, ability, income or skill level 9 Multi-modal transportation connecting sidewalks, bike paths, shuttle services 115 Incomplete Streets Restricts Safety &Comfort Connectivity & Equity 116 Incomplete Streets Overuse & Crowding Poor support & economic development Wilderness as Our Asset 117 Why Have Complete Streets 9Safety- access, calming, 9Connectivity 9Wellness & Active Living 9Equity 9Economic development and recreation 9Reduce Traffic Congestion, air & noise pollution 118 1. Safety- access & calming 119 2. Multi-Modal Connectivity Over 5 million visitors to Estes Park annually and they seek out calm experiences. 120 3.Connectivity Active Living Wellness 4. Equity & Multi-Modal 121 5.Economic Development and Recreation 122 6. Reduce Traffic Congestion Complete Street 123 Complete Street Rural Community Challenges }Highway as Main Street }Difficult terrain }Poor health }Maintenance }Safety }Economic 124 CS Policy Expresses a commitment by a municipality, and its transportation planners, to understand and meet the needs of every community member, regardless of how they travel- by foot, bicycle, scooter, skateboard, transit or automobile. Components }Ensure implementation of multi-modal transportation }All ages and abilities considered }Insight into community wants & needs }Cost reductions }Clear demonstration to other jurisdictions & partners }Consistent & clear vision of community values for funding opportunities 125 Policy 1.Improve economic vitality 2.Health 3.Safety 4.Access 5.Resilience of infrastructure 6.Environmental sustainability 7.Complement and enhance adopted Downtown Plan, Downtown Parking Management Plan, & Trail Master Plan CS Policy implementation }Applies to every street project }Coordinates with other organizations }Used as a guide for design, planning, maintenance, and funding }Wide considerations }Checklist Required for all transportation projects }Public Works coordination 126 Complete Streets Checklist 9 Completed for each transportation project (new or modifying an existing street) 9 Consideration of all users 9 Consider the safety & comfort of drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users 9 Traffic calming 9 Connectivity 9 Access inequities 9 Economic and feasibility Multi-Modal Transportation 127 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Belle Morris, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board Date: April 23, 2019 RE: TAB supports Complete Street Policy The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) recommends the Board adopt the Complete Streets Policy for Estes Park. The policy will provide guidance for future policy-makers, planners, designers and transportation partners alike, as well as demonstrate a consistent and clear vision of community values. The CS Policy requires Public Works to follow a checklist for all transportation projects (new or modifying an existing street) to ensure the implementation of CS throughout the Estes Park valley. TAB presented to you about “Complete Streets”, as a network of streets that are designed for every user, and especially for the most vulnerable within a community. A community that has ‘Complete Streets’ (CS) is more likely to provide safe and convenient mobility options, reducing sole reliance on the automobile. A Complete Street is designed for users of any age, ability, income or skill level to be able to move independently within a connected transportation network of sidewalks, trails, bike paths, and shuttle services. In much of the US, it is practically impossible to get around without a car. People must drive to school or work, to run errands or to visit friends as many of these destinations are too far away, the roads do not have safe, connected sidewalks and/or there is no access to reliable, frequent transit. The Estes Park Valley is no exception to this situation, especially as a rural and sprawled valley. Seasonal visitors and employees arrive to our mountain community with an expectation of safe, comfortable and accessible transportation; however, our community often struggles to address these basic needs in a comprehensive way. Shifting towards a greater focus on multi-faceted (multi-modal) transportation network will provide access for a broader population of users, connecting our roadways, pathways and transit into one high-functioning and convenient system. The Town has adopted the Master Trail Plan developed in partnership with the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District, the Estes Park Downtown Plan and the Downtown Parking Management Plan. All advocate investment in alternative methods of transportation to support community vitality and improve access for residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. Adopting a Complete Street Policy (CS Policy) will provide much-needed guidance, and demonstrate to future funding partners that the community is committed to offering a wide range of mobility options. Summary: The Transportation Advisory Board encourages the adoption of the Complete Street Policy. The policy will offer guidance to Public Works in street design, which reflects the values and needs of our community. 128 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Brittany Hathaway, Planner II Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Fee Waiver Request: 444 Stanley Avenue, Building Plan and Building Permit Fees (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Fee Waiver QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Determine if the fee waiver request complies with Town Board’s adopted fee waiver policy and take action on the request. Proposal: The applicant, Dan Smith of Long Lunch Enterprises, LLC, is requesting a fee waiver for building permit and review fees associated with the construction of a workforce housing development project located at 444 Stanley Avenue in the Town of Estes Park. On July 24 2018, The Town Board approved a Community Development fee waiver in the amount of $1,250.00 for the development plan application fee. Additionally, on February 12, 2019, the Town Board approved a 20% fee subsidy request toward water tap fees for this project. Per the fee estimate provided by the Building Department, the estimated building permit and review fees amount to $6,570.22 with a cost not to exceed $7,100.00 should additional plan reviews be performed beyond the second review. The applicant’s statement of intent and the fee waiver policy adopted by the Town Board is attached. Please note that the applicant’s statement includes a fee amount provided by the Building Department as a preliminary estimate. This figure has since been updated to a slightly lesser amount and is reflected in this request. Advantages: 129 •Aligns with Town Board’s policy of supporting essential community needs through consideration of waiving in-house fees assessed by the Community Development Department. •Proposed development includes four (4) workforce housing units to serve employees in the Estes Valley. Disadvantages: Reduced revenue in an amount not to exceed $7,100.00. Action Recommended: Because the requested fee waiver is greater than $3,000.00, Town Board is the decision-making body for this request. Community Development recommends approval of the building permit and plan review fee waiver request. Finance/Resource Impact: General Fund: 101-2300-322.10-00 Licenses and Permits – Building Up to $7,100.00 in reduced revenue. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the fee waiver request as presented. Attachments: 1.Building Department Fee Estimate 2. Applicant’s Statement of Intent 3. Policy 402 – Fee Waiver 130 Brittany Hathaway <bhathaway@estes.org> 444(A&B) Stanley Ave_B-11087 & B-11088 1 message Charlie Phillips <cphillips@estes.org> Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:03 PM To: Brittany Hathaway <bhathaway@estes.org> Cc: Eris Audette <eaudette@estes.org>, Claire Kreycik <ckreycik@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Hi Brittany, The fee estimate for the above project is as follows: 444(A) Stanley Ave_B-11087 $1,704.95 Building permit fee $ 852.48 Plan review fee $ 904.86 Tax $ 100.00 Certificate of Occupancy $3,562.29 SUB-TOTAL (fees allowed to be waived) Other fees: $30,236.80 Water $ 748.00 Light & Power $34,547.09 TOTAL 444(B) Stanley Ave_B-11088 $ 85.00 Zoning $1,704.95 Building permit fee $ 213.12 Master plan review fee $ 904.86 Tax $ 100.00 Certificate of Occupancy $3,007.93 SUB-TOTAL (fees allowed to be waived) Other fees: $10,254.58 Light & Power $13,262.51 TOTAL $3,562.29 Permit B-11087 $3,007.93 Permit B-11088 $6,570.22 TOTAL (fees allowed to be waived) Hope this helps, Charlie -- Charlie Phillips Residential Plans Examiner Division of Building Safety Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3739 cphillips@estes.org Town of Estes Park Mail - 444(A&B) Stanley Ave_B-11087 & B-11088 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0660191b22&view=pt&search=all... 1 of 1 4/17/2019, 12:15 PM 131 Stanley Avenue Apartments 444 Stanley Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Long Lunch Enterprises, LLC Dan Smith Principal STATEMENT OF INTENT As the owners of the property located at 444 Stanley Avenue in Estes Park Colorado, it is our intent to further develop the property in accordance with Chapters 4 and 7 of the Estes Valley Development Code. This Development has been approved by Estes Park Staff, and in order to bring this project to fruition, we are requesting a fee waiver for building department fees in the approximate amount of $7103.80. Property Information: Currently the property contains a triplex and one stand-alone building that has just been completed to replace the burned out stand-alone building which was not rebuilt by previous owners after a fire in 2017. Current Status: Construction of the stand-alone building that was burned in a fire in 2017 has been completed and a Certificate of Occupancy was granted in late March, 2019. Construction on the two new duplex units will begin as soon as the building permit is approved. Additional Information: Overall, just the site development costs for this project exceed $114,000. This cost is only for site development (we haven’t built a building yet). Once building of the two duplex units begins, we will incur costs for water taps, new water lines, new meters and plumbing which are cost prohibitive to the project overall. Just the cost for the water tap fees, main meter, and new line amounts to $37,986 for 4 new units. That equates to nearly $9500 per workforce housing units, just in fees. In February, the Trustees approved a 20% subsidy for the water tap fees, which was much appreciated by the developer. Workforce housing is badly needed in the Estes Valley. On smaller projects like this one, where only 4 units can be added due to density restrictions, the development costs of more than $114,000 become cost prohibitive. Unlike other projects in the area, we are proposing a true workforce housing development whereby units will be rented to those who live and work in the Estes Valley. Other developments will sell condominiums, thereby realizing profit for the developer. The 444 Stanley Avenue development will continue to serve the community for many years to come by providing a much needed partial solution to what is arguably the most pressing problem with commerce in the Estes Valley. We believe the ceiling for rent on these units to be in the $800/mo range, and as such the project ROI is significantly impacted by high site development costs. Granting the waiver of the building department fees will help the developers achieve the goal of providing these units for the community. Thank you for your consideration. We are happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 132 DEVELOPMENT COSTS 444 STANLEY AVENUE (TO ADD 4 UNITS) Category Cost of Development Water: Tap fees, meters, new line, new main meter, installation $60,101 Sewer: New service $13,500 Electric: New service, additional transformer $4596 Phone: Run phone cables & lines, ditching $1000 Cable: Run cable Tv lines, ditching $2000 Grading: Leveling site/fill dirt $2000 Driveway: Surfacing existing, parking bumpers/paint $6500 Fire Hydrant: None – existing is sufficient $0 Landscaping: Per code requirements $8500 Garbage: Build bear proof enclosure $2000 Bike Rack: Install new rack $500 Development Plan: Engineering, survey, plans $12,000 Mailboxes: Per requirement $1600 TOTAL SITE DEVELOPMENT COST: $114,297 PER UNIT COST (site development only no building cost) $28,574 133 134 135 136 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Linda Hardin, Code Compliance Officer Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Historical Sign Approval – Applicant / Estes Park Sugar Shack; 153 Virginia Drive; Ed Grueff, owner (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Approve or deny the restoration of the marquee sign at 153 Virginia Drive to its original working order, in accordance with the Estes Park Municipal Code, §17.66.071 Historical or Culturally Significant Signs. Present Situation: The marquee sign on the front of the former “Village Theater” has been in place for well over 60 years. We can safely state that it was there in the mid 1950’s based on local resident testimony. It originated as the “Rustic Theater”. In 1983, the theater was sold and turned into retail space. The tenant kept the marquee sign, but over the years it has fallen into disrepair. With the recent purchase of the building by Windy City LLP (Mr. Grueff), there is intent and desire to restore the sign to the original design. The structure of the sign is in surprisingly excellent shape. Over the years, many layers of materials were placed over the sign, effectively protecting the steel understructure from damage caused by weather elements. The lighting, mechanics, and plastic face would be replaced to mimic the original sign. The sign originally had a column of horizontal neon lights that alternated from top to bottom at the point of where the two sides of the sign meet. The proposed restoration would include the repair of this function with dark blue neon against a blue background. In addition, the 10’ lamps that were originally behind the white plastic will be replaced with more efficient LEDs. 137 The size of the sign will remain the same at 116 square ft. The sign is legally non- conforming in size, and would be allowed to remain provided it was not removed and replaced, or changed in size. The historical quality of the neon returning does not change the dimensions of the sign as the structure is still intact. Proposal: To allow the sign to remain and be illuminated as was originally constructed and in accordance with EPMC Title 17.66.071 which allows the Town Board of Trustees to approve signs that can demonstrate the historical significance. Advantages: • This sign is considered iconic to the community. • The sign poses no threat to the health and wellbeing to the public. • This sign represents the intent of the adopted sign code with respect to historical signs. Disadvantages: • None. Action Recommended: Staff: Approve the application of this historical sign. Finance/Resource Impact: There are no budget implications with a decision to approve or deny. Level of Public Interest Low: The Town has not received any comments in regard to this application. Sample Motion: APPROVAL I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the application of the Sugar Shack to use the neon in its original and authentic form, finding that it meets the requirements of the Estes Park Municipal Code, Title 17.66.071 Historical or Culturally Significant Signs. Attachments: 1. Application 2. Proposed sign artwork 3. Photographs (5) 138 Received____________TownofEstesParkPermitNumber:s-OuReceivedBylt-*i\..SignApplication/PermitPermitExpires:___________Com’unltyDevelopmentDepartment-170MacGregorAvenue-P.O.Box1200-EstesPark,CO80517GeneralSignInfomiation(970)577-3723•FAX(970) 586-0249thardth@estes.orgJobAddress:/c3’)4jr4’/A)/fl21/?,14fEParcelii:BusinessName:±STh)/3Letd6A,QS#AeTownLicense:/023Phone:971mJ/t’0053BusinessOwner:&)koeprPhone:99€’--Jit-OOiBusinessOwnerEmailAddress:j2Property-OwnerName:Lb6A’ti27iPPhone:‘7C2/t—oo3owner’sPermissionSlip:ElYesElNoCompleteAddress:ii3/ris,/e’eeevIS’.e-n€A43€(PropertyOwnerEmai]Address:.e%A#PF/’fmaitec)A.(SignCompany:SM?THSMSoDiTownlicense:767Phone:97o—58&-CompleteAddress:Whowillinstallsign?SinCompanyElOwnerElOther:______________________________TownLicense#SO.IElNewElAddition-AlterationElTemporaryCSignstoberemoved:Providelinearfeetofbuildingfrontageofbusiness:ft.#offrontages:I#ofstories:ElOner-’T’woNote: Maxtotalsignareais1.5sq.ft.oflinearfeetofbuildingfrontageofbusiness,.75sq.ft.for201floor.Note:Max 250sq.ft.ofsign areaperbusiness/Max150sq.ft.inCDzoningdistrict.Providetotalsquarefeetofallexistingsignsforbusiness:II(..o.10n2Providesquarefeetareaofproposedsign:IL9I1Oft2Providenewtotalsquarefeetofsignsforbusiness:IL.pAwSignType:ElWallElFree-StandingElWindowElAwning/Canopyl:wOther:PrOYECTINkSfriAk&L)EEElPlotPlansRequiredexcept for WallandWindowSigns-Note:Plot planstoincludepropertylines,locationandsetbacksofsign.ElFor WallandWindowSignsprovidegraphicthatshowslocationofproposedsignsonbuilding.IBTrovidegraphic representationwithdimensionsandheightofproposedsign.eMitEDNote: Heightismeasuredfromoriginalgrade.Heightrestrictionsvarybyzoning&signtype.Max25’Note:UtilityLocatesareproperty owners responsibility,call1-800-922-1987ElectricalInvolved:ElNo‘Yes—State&TownLicense Required.StatePermitandInspectionRequired.ECIST”JtSignIlluminated:ElNoUYes-ElIndirectlylWtntemally(ComplywithEPMC17.66.041&EVDC7.9.Providecutsheets for lights.)TotalValuation(Labor&Materials)$30DL>Icenithisapplicahonistrueandcorrectandagreetopcrfonntheworkdescribed accordingtoplans/specificationssubmitted,reviewedandapproved,andcomplywithlocalordinances,staleandfederallawsaswellasbuildingcodes.IcertifythatIhavethepropertyownersauthorityandpermissiontoapplyforthispermit.Additionally.IUNDERSTANDTHATIAMRESPONSIBLEFORANYFEESOR EXPENSES INCURRED FORPLANREVIEW.PERMITS,INSPECTIONSANDOTHERFEESASSOCIATEDWITH THISAPPLICATION.CContractorlWôwnerCTenantSignatureDatePrintName***OfficeUseOnly***Jurisdictidn:J4ApplicableCode/Hf1Zoning:OverlayZoning:(e.g.FPDP,geo-hazard,historicdisict)Totalallowablesignareaforbusiness:2CJ....thisfrontage(max.250perbusiness)SignType:t4iilDflCO..,.-ISpecialRequirements:ElEngineering/BuildingReviewRequiredElSanitationRequiredElLifeSafetyMinimumSetbackF.5S4‘Rç‘MaximumHeightElConformingElLegallyNon-ConformingElIll-legallyNon-ConformingSignPermitFee$75.00ElProhibitedElExemptElDeniedElPermittedBuildingPermitFeeComments__________________________________________________________________________—PlanningReviewFeeCountyTaxPlanning/BuildingOfficialDateTotal-‘74JRevised2018-08-30LH139 CDCDCDCDU)mmC,CD-I0en0IIII140 II.141 Villagelheater.I’NUtwmrnerPicnicHeld[)i’aserJ\reaII.IJLflhuaiibII(4boc*Nhttns//majIoooQJerom/majI/fla/IJ/fl/spamh/kpnt/FMfnnywnwTGoKIdp,JkvnRgIKJRJhflrO?nrnip.etnr=1&messaop.Partld=OlI/I142 41W2UThvillagethealre.jpg-—Jhttr,s-I/miI.aonc,Ie.commaiI/cal,,Jflflse.arnh/kent/FMfnax-wRWIGaKIdR7JkVr,RSIKIRJhOrO?nrnip.r.tnr=l&messnePrtIdft2Ill143 41912019brochurewithvillagetheater.JPt33o-no.o”cwtidVon.IInytrNorro’ToC.,a.ooITon..fl,nyoiwinEu..PortandhEoCbPEE.flcIu’•EeOn.lw..S9l44Gurn,fro,nNmk.l.Ie.,qisI.t.owI0mtb.ckfl+i.o,I..Ad.11.1Men.o,m•.ITrollChinktacoantC•.plseOar)*nlVIbun.,durnI...yomwind.M7.nflft.liynounaironInMIVwIAlkflLLACIZ•EIII%LIAM%kAYCPECTACULAro,.tJ.lbenu%nWpmuInOlilSFLIAOCJIV-LAZY.kMltIbvonlo,n,l,I.nn.’.nr.IhmAk..Ialnaponr*iq.,o,bn.In.m-rlu,,l>,.ILIP1041VILI0011b(ItnNaTlOd.hLFOnOICTOURSIn.n..,lrnlQnr....I—I-r•In.I.ngwoTnIlvl(1411COn-I0•.tn010ll*,.ldInl001wln.,IT&’OLLVSHEMRTONdon...atoM,.,tObto1100-AtART..hfln000.ti-.nonno.I/l144 (0Ia)-CCl)(Ti--I(0CU)C(CQ)-CC’)0)C)I(00-CC)0)Cl)(0E3-UCD-43-3333333b.333303030-3-04-4-+110044-VI)4--3D4-D51-0‘4Dt3)‘3D-F’51‘30‘3‘30‘3‘3‘3‘3D03-3,00a‘33)‘5IZ5,3.I3a33D‘I‘43)n)D‘5D-4‘3‘5‘55,F’CCC(JInD3,CC00(0CDC0)-C(‘3(0CDCDCDCCN)003m•FtCU,0-oon,CDC)00a,0-03a,t0C0C)a,-oCCDCC3N)003©0-30‘0C)00(0CD145 146 UTILITIES Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Chris Eshelman, Water Superintendent Date: April 23, 2018 RE: Water Lease Agreement with Idlewild Water Users Association (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The Water Division would like to enter into an agreement with the Idlewild Water Users Association to lease them up to 3.5 acre feet of water per year. Present Situation: The residents of the Idlewild Subdivision no longer have access to their previous source of water from the Idlewild Dam water pipeline owned by the City of Loveland because it was demolished after the flood of 2013. Proposal: The Town has sufficient water right to be able to provide assistance to the Idlewild Water users Association without jeopardizing the Town’s water supply. There would be no costs associated with the Initial Lease agreement, as the agreement includes a one- time initial fee to cover administrative costs in addition to the annual base fee. Advantages: • The agreement is financially beneficial to the Town. • The agreement provides the Town with the opportunity to assist Loveland. The City of Loveland is required to provide water for Idlewild Water Users with no means to do so. Disadvantages: • The agreement lasts for a period of 20 years, however should the Town be unable to supply the leased water in times of shortage or failure, the Town would only be held responsible for the reimbursement of any fees paid in advance by Idlewild. 147 • There will be associated expenses, however due to user fees, the agreement will result in a net gain. Action Recommended: It is recommended that the Town Board approve of the Water Lease Agreement. The agreement would need to be signed and notarized by the Town Administrator, upon the Board’s consent, as soon as possible. The agreement has already been signed by the President of the Idlewild Water Users Association. Finance/Resource Impact: The agreement will result in a net gain for the Town. Level of Public Interest: The level of public interest within Town is minimal, however the matter is of significant public interest to the residents of Idlewild as they try to meet their water needs. Sample Motion: I move for the approval of the Water Lease Agreement. Attachments: Water Lease Agreement 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Lancaster Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Intergovernmental Agreement for Solid Waste Programming and Infrastructure Improvements PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER__IGA_________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To approve the IGA on Solid Waste Programming and Infrastructure improvements with Larimer County, City of Loveland and the City of Fort Collins Present Situation: The Larimer County landfill, which serves all of Larimer County, including Estes Park, will close in the next five years. The county and the signing parties have been working to determine the best course forward when the landfill closes. This IGA is the result of several years process by Larimer County to provide a coordinated and strategic direction for waste management in Larimer County. The Town has been a partner in the project since its inception with the Town Administrator serving on the Technical Advisory Committee and Trustee Zornes and Mayor Pro-Tem Koenig serving on the Policy Advisory Committee. The project was based on a triple-bottom line return on the investment, including environmental, social and financial considerations. The Town Board was brief on this project at the study session on April 9th. Proposal: The IGA codifies the responsibilities of the parties and how they will work together to provide sustainable integrated waste management for the entire county. Advantages: •Defines the roles and commitments of each party in regards to waste management •Provides a roadmap for waste management moving forward •A coordinated effort for waste management is preferable to each entity independently taking action. 159 Disadvantages: • The Town will assume some responsibilities that we have not had in the past, such as licensing of waste haulers and data collection • The Town will need to follow up with code changes, should the Town Board choose to do so. Action Recommended: That the Board approve or not approve the Intergovernmental Agreement for Solid Waste Programming and Infrastructure Improvements and authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the Town. Finance/Resource Impact: minimal Level of Public Interest Moderate Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial the Intergovernmental Agreement for Solid Waste Programming and Infrastructure Improvements Attachments: Intergovernmental Agreement for Solid Waste Programming and Infrastructure Improvements 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: April 23, 2019 RE: Building Division Improvements and Progress Per Town Board direction in January and February 2019, staff have continued to examine processes and bottlenecks in the Community Development Department’s Building division. One follow-up Study Session was held with the Board on March 12, 2019. Today’s Discussion Item is the next in our series of regular progress reports. Here is a summary of steps taken and results achieved since our March 12, update: Internally Focused Improvements: • Director Hunt remains Acting Chief Building Official, as our search for a permanent CBO ended in late March with an unsatisfactory outcome. The following steps are underway to transition to a new full-time, qualified CBO: o We have an agreement in principle with SafeBuilt to amend our contract to add a Chief Building Official from their staff. This would entail a CBO – a specific person employed by SafeBuilt – to be in our office at least 4 day per week, 4 to 5 hours per day, with the same hours from day to day during each given week. The SafeBuilt contract amendment will run through the end of 2019, but with reassessment at the end of six months (see below). This is not an ideal nor a permanent solution, as we need a CBO full-time, but I believe the six-month continuity is the minimum needed for stability during a time of significant flux in Building division and the community. o In late July, we will gear up for another round of advertising and searching for a permanent Town staff-member Chief Building Official. The timing is due to two factors: (a) the above noted six months of stability from the contract CBO arrangement; and (b) the fact that we expect our process- improvement final report and presentation to Town Board and the public will be complete by the Board’s second July meeting, and that will form a basis for how we structure recruitment. Our hope is to have a permanent CBO on staff in October 2019, which will coincide with the six-month SafeBuilt timeline. • Building division continues to struggle with staffing and workload issues. I think these are better than our severe deficits in those areas last year, but we continue to have internal concerns. Some of these are in the personnel realm and will not 181 be appropriate for discussion here, but I will note that improvements are on the way. • Implementing the Laserfiche Building module is behind schedule, mostly due to the staffing difficulties and consequent lack of time to fine-tune the software. • Our Plan Review contract services with SafeBuilt seem to be performing at or above expectations. They are responsive in reviews and timely in turnaround (including exceeding Town Board’s schedule for first-review turnaround, adopted in January.) They have also shown flexibility and responsiveness to the current challenges and our expectations for solutions, rather than roadblocks. • Our contract with our other plan-review and inspection consultants, Colorado Code Consultants (CCC), has been terminated. While the termination was initiated by CCC, I would describe this as a mutual decision. CCC indicated that they felt our current new direction in Building was not in sync with their approach to regulation. I fully agree with that assessment. CCC will continue through May 15 to perform review and inspections on Stanley Hotel projects, but their other work for the Town is done or in the final stages of transition. SafeBuilt is already absorbing the plan-review load that CCC was carrying or us, and we are discussing the inspection pickups as well. • I have approved several additional contractor requests for 3rd-party building inspections. These requests from members of the Building Advisory Committee and the contractor community are reasonable and give a faster and often more effective alternative to contractors on structural inspections specifically. • Vacation Home Life Safety inspection requests continued to pile up through the March 31 Code deadline (reaffirmed in January by Town Board.) I think the “wait list is now into October. That date is not quite as concerning as it may look (although we need to keep an eye on process), because many VH owners prefer not to interrupt the summer visitors’ stays by scheduling an inspection in busy season. The deadline to complete a Life Safety inspection is March 31, 2020. Actual repairs and final VH CO pursuant to Survey results will be March 31, 2021. • The Building Advisory Committee continues to meet regularly. In mid-March the groups came to consensus that meeting every other week, instead of the original weekly meetings, would be an acceptable way to track progress and discuss issues of concern. We are keeping to this biweekly schedule. Improvements through Process Review consultants (SafeBuilt): • As you recall, we have a separate contract with SafeBuilt to examine our process improvements. We have now met with SafeBuilt process consultant Jeremy Tamlin for four on-site sessions of several hours each, along with a number of shorter consultations. The two flow charts attached are the results of a four-hour process review on March 28, in which every stage of our permitting process was isolated, examined, and put in sequence. (I am sorry these are of such low quality; we are getting better ones.) o The original hand-written flow charts from that March 28 session will be available to you at your meeting Tuesday. I would say all of us, including Building staff, were surprised and frankly dismayed to see how many redundant steps and less-than-productive side-steps were embedded in 182 permitting. Fixing this is a key part of SafeBuilt’s recommendations and also implementation of Laserfiche. •Jeremy and the SafeBuilt team are to provide us an interim report in May. This report will be provided to the Town Board and the Building Advisory Committee, and will be made available to the community. Attachments: 1.04.04.2019 - BAC Meeting Minutes 2.04.17.2019 - BAC Agenda 183 4/4/2019 Building Advisory Committee Meeting Town Hall – Administration Conference Room Agenda • Present o Mike Kingswood o Nate Kinley o Mike Todd o Jon Nicholas o Randy Hunt o Travis Machalek • Vacation Home Inspections: Life Safety Surveys and Change of Use Inspections Current Status and Future Deadlines o Randy gave an overview of the current situation on the Vacation Home Life Safety Inspections o This is why afternoon inspections have been difficult Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday o BAC members present have not heard much yet, Randy asked to let him know if this becomes problematic May look at hiring additional temporary capacity if this becomes an issue • Third-Part Engineering Inspection Requests Interim Policy o County does this routinely and believes it works well o We will be doing this on a case-by-case basis o Nate would like to see no-list, whoever that stamps the plans with a PE can inspect, restricted to single-family residential Interested in pre-approval Use the letters as a check-point o Randy will talk to County about looking at this from a interim policy standpoint • Update on Process Improvement Projects Update from Building o SAFEbuilt still working through processes Jeremy Tamlin has been on-site three times, will be back Friday Reviewing paperwork, watches processes, has identified numerous opportunities for improvement Will be shared with BAC o BAC meeting opportunity with SAFEbuilt four weeks from now o Eris’ continues to work on Laserfiche projects • 4/18 ICMA Webinar Suggestion for next meeting o Meeting from 12:30 – 1:30 pm o Send out webinar synopsis 184 • Staffing update o Randy updated the group about going back out for CBO o SAFEbuilt will be coming in to do CBO technical work in the meanwhile o Plan review piece will not change at this point o Please contact Randy ASAP with issues if they arise • Future Meeting Topics o 4/18: Third-Party Inspection Requests Interim Policy o Performance Measurement Contract (SAFEbuilt) • Next Meeting o 4/18/2019 11:00 am – 12:30 pm Administration Conference Room 185 4/17/2019 Building Advisory Committee Meeting Town Hall – Administration Conference Room Agenda •Check-In on Building Inspection Status Checking-in on building inspections in light of Vacation Home Life Safety Survey Workload •Update on Colorado Code Consulting Contract Update from Randy on our contract with Colorado Code Consulting •Interim Policy for Third-Part Engineering Inspection Requests Follow-up from 4/4/2019 meeting discussion •Update on Process Improvement Projects Update from Building •Chief Building Official Update Update from Randy on how the CBO vacancy is being handled •Future Meeting Topics •Next Meeting o 5/1/2019 11:00 am – 12:00 pm Administration Conference Room 186