HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2014-08-26NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
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.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
SWEARING IN: Matt Beers/Police Officer.
PROCLAMATION: Proclaiming September as Wilderness Appreciation Month.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of):
1. Town Board Minutes dated August 12, 2014 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated August 12, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, August 14, 2014 – Cancelled.
4. Transportation Advisory Committee dated July 16, 2014 (acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Planning Commission dated July 15, 2014 (acknowledgement only).
6. Appointment of Amy Hamrick to the Transportation Advisory Committee for a term
expiring on March 31, 2016.
7. 2014/2015 School Resource Officer (SRO) Agreement with the Park R-3 School
District.
8. Resolution #16-14 – Scheduling a Show Cause Liquor Hearing for Carl E. Scott
dba Coffee on the Rocks, 510 Moraine Avenue, Tavern Liquor License on
September 9, 2014.
Prepared 8/18/14
*Revised
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
9. Resolution #17-14 – Scheduling a Show Cause Liquor Hearing for Gast Haus
Estes Park, Inc. dba Molly B, 200 Moraine Avenue, Tavern Liquor License on
September 9, 2014.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL UPDATE. Director Jon Nicholas.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEM:
1. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 20, Stanley Hills Subdivision PUD, 650 Steamer Drive;
Harris Family Living Trust/Owner. Planner Shirk.
2. CONDOMINIUM MAP, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, The Lodges at
Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Units H, I, and Existing Restaurant, 800
Macgregor Avenue, Sloan Investments, LLC/Owner. Planner Shirk
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 20 & 29, Fort Morgan Colony Subdivision, 1031 &
1053 Morgan Street; Melinda Dawson/Owner. Planner Shirk.
2. LOCATION & EXTENT REVIEW, Stanley Meadows Addition, Lot 1A & 1C of
the Replat of Lot 1 & a portion of Lot 4, 610 Big Thompson Avenue; Estes
Park Sanitation District/Owner. Planner Shirk.
Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing. The formal public hearing will
be conducted as follows:
Mayor – Open Public Hearing
Staff Report
Public Testimony
Mayor – Close Public Hearing
Board Discussion & Motion to Approve/Deny.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY (PRPA) EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. Director Bergsten.
2. ORDINANCE #14-14 AMENDING THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 17.66 SIGNS ELIMINATING THE CREATIVE SIGN DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD. Director Chilcott.
5. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Project Manager Zurn.
2. SECOND QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland.
6. ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 12, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 12th day of August, 2014.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Amy Hamrick/Downtown business owner introduced the formation of a Downtown
Business Partners group, a subgroup of the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce,
formed to provide a voice for downtown businesses. The group polled the 172 business
contacts and received 49 responses on the Farmer’s Market being located downtown.
The overwhelming response was in favor of the move to downtown with sales up on
Thursdays for a number of the businesses. Comments received stated the market
improves the feel of downtown and has increased the activity downtown. The move has
created parking challenges. Business owners have suggested a pick up and drop off
location for individuals that find it difficult to carry goods back to their vehicle.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee Norris stated Visit Estes Park continues to work on Policy Governance and
developing their 2015 operating plan. He thanked the Rocky Mountain National Park for
the recent Arapahoe celebration held in Bond Park. Lynette McGown/Larimer County
Office of Aging supplied a local caregiver with a toolkit to support their work.
Trustee Holcomb recognized Planner Phil Kleisler for his exceptional work on the micro
liquor code amendments.
Trustee Phipps complimented Senior Planner Dave Shirk and Director Chilcott for their
presentations on housing and commercially zoned property within the valley.
Trustee Ericson stated the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting would be
held on August 20, 2014 at noon in rooms 202/203.
Mayor Pinkham thanked the Town Clerk staff for the support provided to the Town
Board and the citizens of Estes Park. The Mayor announced he and his wife would
compete in the Spirit of the Lake Regatta in Grand Lake to raise funds for Estes Valley
Investment in Early childhood Success (EVICS).
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The Economic Development Corporation has a subcommittee reviewing the
fiber/broadband available within town. The group would like to have a Trustee
appointed as a liaison.
Board of Trustees – August 12, 2014 – Page 2
Colorado Municipal League (CML) has asked if the Town has any legislative issues
they should address in the next legislative session. The Board requested CML
consider amendments to Senate Bill 152 that prohibits municipalities from providing
broadband services, including free wi-fi at public venues such as Town Hall and
Bond Park.
The Fall River and Fish Creek corridor repairs continue to be addressed with the
Town applying for hazard mitigation grants; FEMA contractor analyzing the benefit
costs for grant applications; setting flow rates and peak flow rates; River Advisory
committees have been formed for each river corridor; Mountain Outreach helping to
distribute materials to those affected; reviewing draft master plans; and any follow up
would be dependent on the grants received.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated July 22, 2014, Town Board Study Session Minutes
dated July 22, 2014 and July 30, 2014, and Town Board Retreat Minutes dated
June 26, 2014.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
a. Community Development & Community Services Committee, July 24, 2014.
It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda, and
it passed unanimously.
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Outside Entities):
1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION UPDATE.
Chuck Levine/Town Centennial representative and Barbara Scott/Park Event
Coordinator provided a quarterly update on the Park’s Centennial celebration.
The kickoff for the Centennial would be held on September 3, 2014 at Hidden
Valley from 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. and a formal ceremony at 2:00 p.m. with
access to the event by bus only. An official calendar of events for 2014 has
been completed and events are being scheduled for 2015 with detailed
information on each event available on the Park’s website.
2. VISIT ESTES PARK UPDATE. Visit Estes Park CEO/President Elizabeth
Fogarty presented her vision for Visit Estes Park through mutual cooperation
with the Town and other entities throughout the valley. She stated Visit Estes
Park has to be on the forefront of product development to assist the Town
Board and staff in identifying strategic tourism growth areas. Community
branding can move Estes Park forward with tourism niches such as wellness,
cultural, culinary, eco/sustainable, sports, medical, volunteer, and adventure.
Developing a central pedestrian square around Bond Park would create a
sense of arrival, establish a center of town, and provide a synergy and culture
of its own downtown. Moving the Farmers Market downtown has produced a
new energy downtown that attracts the locals and the tourist. She would
suggest holding the market from noon to five and develop evening events
downtown after the market. The FLAP grant realigning the traffic downtown
should address more than traffic and should address the guest experience and
downtown businesses through the inclusion of a pedestrian plaza. The Town
should capitalize on adventure tourism by taking advantage of the river through
the creation of a kayak training park. The Visitor Center could be an attraction
and adventure center through interactive touch-screens, mobile visitor centers
at events and festivals, and visitor support at the conference center. The
center should be a business incubator for tourism. Other opportunities may
include QR code readers, Augmented reality software, or SMS short codes to
provide information to visitors, provide information towers around restrooms,
and use branding efforts at the new parking and transit stations to provide a
Board of Trustees – August 12, 2014 – Page 3
first impression to guests and further the branding message. VEP staff
continues to develop the branding message and reach consumers that are
looking for an experience and activities when determining vacation destination.
We have to ask what does Estes Park have that guests cannot get closer to
home, what do guests want and what does Estes Park have that guest want?
Estes Park should capitalize on the sports and adventure tourism such as
cycling, rock climbing, ice climbing and the growing sport of paddle boarding.
The Town should continue to add events throughout the year and build off of
events such as winter festival. Estes Park needs to be at the table at events
like the Mountain Travel Symposium as winter resort towns continue to
increase summer group sales. The town needs to partner with other local
communities to build an overall vision for the area through collaboration.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. PUMPKINS & PILSNERS IN BOND PARK. Director Winslow presented a
new event being proposed by the Families for Estes to be held in Bond Park
on October 11, 2014 as a fundraiser for the organization to raise money for
biannual family events throughout town, funding for Families and Seniors
Together (FAST) and funds to support the new Community Recreation/Senior
Center. The fall festival would be family oriented with kid activities, live
music, food vendors and beer. The event would be held on the same
weekend as the Surprise Sidewalk Sale and provide increase foot traffic
downtown. The event would include the closure of MacGregor Avenue from
Elkhorn Avenue to Park Lane. After further discussion, it was moved and
seconded (Ericson/Phipps) to approve the Pumpkins and Pilsners in
Bond Park on October 11, 2014 and the associated road closure, and it
passed unanimously.
2. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BYLAWS. Planner Shirk presented updated bylaws for the Estes Valley
Board of Adjustment that address minor revisions to align the bylaws with the
Intergovernmental Agreement, consistent Town format, and clarification on
attendance. Trustee Ericson suggested bylaws for all committees and boards
contain a section to address attendance. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Koenig) to approve the amendment to the Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment bylaws, and it passed unanimously.
3. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE INTERVIEW TEAM
APPOINTMENT. Per Policy Governance 101 Section 6 all applicants for a
Town Board or Committee are to be interviewed by the Town Board or its
designee. Mayor Pinkham proposed Trustees Ericson and Holcomb be
appointed to conducted the interviews for the current vacancy on the TAC. It
was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to appointment Trustee
Ericson and Trustee Holcomb to the Transportation Advisory Committee
interview panel, and it passed unanimously.
4. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Project Manager
Zurn reviewed the timelines for completion of the Pavilion and the Event center
stating the final punch list items should be completed by the end of the month
for the Pavilion, and the event center main area, lobby and main floor of the silo
complete by the end of the month. The second floor of the silo would be
completed by the end of October. The Town would hold a dedication ceremony
for both buildings during the first week in September.
2. AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE. The proposed
amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code would eliminate the Creative
Design Review program and board. The public hearing would be held at the
August 26, 2014 meeting.
Board of Trustees – August 12, 2014 – Page 4
3. EVENT BENEFIT & COST REPORT. Director Winslow presented an event
benefit and cost report for Town sponsored events. The report outlined profit
and loss of each event, attendance, event rating established by the Event
Advisory Team and potential guest spending at events. The events are broken
into categories such as horse shows and wool market (significant revenue
generators for the town and bring participants to Town that spend money in the
community), events such as rodeo, and fundraising events. Staff and the
Advisory Team continue to analysis events and would not suggest deleting any
event; however, moving events to different times of the year may be beneficial.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 12, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town
Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of
August, 2014.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris, and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris, and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Director Chilcott, Planner
Shirk, Town Attorney White, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
None
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Trustee Holcomb suggested that a meeting be scheduled with representatives of RTD
to discuss the possibility of bringing service to the area. The Estes Valley Partners for
Commerce as well as the Economic Development Corporation may be interested in
joining in this conversation. Attorney White pointed out that a vote of the people would
be required in order to approve RTD service to Estes Park.
Mayor Pinkham reported that Trustee Ericson and Trustee Holcomb will serve on the
Transportation Advisory Committee interview team. The official appointment to the
interview team will be made at the regular Town Board meeting.
DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIALLY-ZONED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ESTES
VALLEY.
Director Chilcott said that municipal government plays a supportive and enabling role in
a community’s economic prosperity. By providing infrastructure and services, the Town
of Estes Park lays the foundation for an attractive, appealing, and prosperous
community. These services, as well as amenities such as the Riverwalk, are important
factors that attract development to the area. Director Chilcott reported that the Estes
Valley currently has seven non-residential zone districts and provided the Board with
broad-based information on each district. In addition, staff offered suggestions for
further research and/or discussion.
A Accommodations/Highway Corridor – Intended for higher intensity accommodations
along highway corridors to include multi-story hotels and motels, examples of which are
the Appenzell Inn and the Estes Park Resort & Hotel. There are significant
redevelopment opportunities in this zone district, as this area is where many older
properties are located. However, Director Chilcott noted that the current code contains
some barriers to redevelopment due to standards, such as impervious coverage limits
and density requirements, which are stricter in the current code than they were when
these older properties were developed. In addition, she reported that much of the
vacant A Accommodations zoned property is being utilized for multi-family residential
development at a much lower density per acre than intended resulting in a substantial
decrease in sales tax collection potential and a use that is not the highest and best use
of the property. She suggested further discussion related to including flexibility within
Town Board Study Session – August 12, 2014 – Page 2
the code for redevelopment projects and consideration of a separate category in the
code for redevelopment. Staff will do further research on the topic including practices
and processes in other communities.
A-1 Accommodations – Intended for low intensity, smaller accommodations and
contains a mix of residential, vacation home rentals, and cabin rentals. This district
primarily lies outside of the Town limits off of Mary’s Lake Road and Highway 66.
Access to public facilities such as sewer and paved roads is limited in this district.
CD Commercial Downtown – The CD zone district lies entirely within the Town limits, is
66 acres in size, and intended for intense development of restaurants and retail
businesses. Opportunities exist in this district for redevelopment and development of
under-developed properties. Cleave Street is an example of an under-developed area
where older properties are vacant or partially vacant. Improvements and streetscaping
along Cleave Street may encourage businesses located on West Elkhorn Avenue to
expand access to their businesses by creating entrances from both Elkhorn Avenue and
Cleave Street. Wiest Drive is another example of an area where the back side of
properties could be redesigned to allow additional access to businesses as well as take
advantage of the Riverwalk area. Director Chilcott said that the current code allows for
two story buildings and said that properties within the CD zone district can be developed
from lot line to lot line with a floor area to lot ratio (FAR) of 2.0. She said the two story
regulation is detrimental to mixed use development and may be an obstacle to
redevelopment where two stories of retail space and a third story for residential use may
be desired. Staff suggested further discussion related to height regulations in this zone
district.
O Office – This district provides for limited commercial, low intensity office use in areas
close to residential properties. In total, eight acres in the Estes Valley are zoned O
Office, with the majority of the zone district being located along Dry Gulch Road and S.
St. Vrain Avenue.
CH Commercial Heavy – Primarily located along Comanche Street, Dunraven Street,
and Avalon Drive. A roadblock to future development in this zone district is the parking
requirement. Current code requires that all parking needs be met on site, not allowing
for on-street parking to meet any portion of the business’s need, which may result in
more land dedicated to parking than may be necessary.
I-1 Restricted Industrial – 84 acres mostly located along Elm Road outside of the Town
boundaries, with two properties on Fish Creek Road. This district is somewhat under-
utilized due to the lack of adequate infrastructure. Developers find that the
requirements and costs for development are excessive and prohibitive when faced with
extending water and sewer mains, paving roads, adding fire hydrants, landscaping and
irrigation systems.
CO Outlying Commercial – The largest commercial, non-accommodations district, with
just over 850 acres in the Estes Valley. Much of this property is unavailable for
development as it is owned by public agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation or
the school district; or it currently has a residential use. Only 20-year deed-restricted
employee housing can be developed in this district, provided the employees are working
on site. The proposed construction of the recreation center near the school and
fairgrounds may spark some development in this area.
Asked about employee housing in the commercial zone district, Director Chilcott said
developers can apply for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on lots of five acres or
more which would allow for a mix of accommodations and commercial uses, and said
there is no flexibility on use within the district. She said the current code was designed
to discourage residential use in commercially-zoned areas. She added that the CD
district allows for second-floor dormitories for employees.
Town Board Study Session – August 12, 2014 – Page 3
The Board requested that staff research the number of vacant properties within each
commercial zone district and to have this information available for further discussions.
Staff recommends continued discussion related to the code and how to achieve the
Board’s objective of developing a robust economy by further discussing: regulatory
impediments to redevelopment; potentially creating a separate category for
redevelopment projects; creating an appropriate mix of land uses to balance the tax
base for future retail, service and employment needs; how the FLAP grant will impact
current and future revenue; and the adequacy of an FAR of 2.0 in the CD zone district.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting for a 15-minute dinner break at 5:30 p.m., and
resumed the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
COMMUNITY HOUSING WHITE PAPER.
Planner Shirk provided the Trustees with background information regarding housing in
the Estes Valley as they work to define the Town’s role in community housing issues
and begin moving toward developing a housing policy that will achieve the Board’s
Strategic Plan Key Outcome of having “housing available for all segments in our
community.”
Factors contributing to housing issues in the Estes Valley include: a shortage of
workforce housing; the national market for local housing has increased over the years;
the housing stock is being purchased by people who live outside of the Estes Valley;
housing costs have increased due to demand for residential properties in the Estes
Valley; wages for local workers have not increased accordingly; shortage of housing
has made it difficult to fill jobs in our community; the inability to find housing in the Estes
Valley results in families moving to the valley and has a community wide impact
including a less vibrant local economy and a decrease to the school district enrollment;
allowing vacation homes as a primary use has caused the number of homes available
for long-term rental to shrink; over the past 10-15 years, the single family homes in the
Valley have been designed to meet the needs of retirees rather than families; since the
year 2000, condominium developments and townhomes have been developed in multi-
family zone districts; the only rental housing built since 2000 was built by the Estes Park
Housing Authority; the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) adopted in 2000 is a
growth management code which reduced the overall density in the Valley restricting the
housing supply; and the rental of accessory dwelling units (ADU) is prohibited.
In the 1990s, the Town attempted to fund an apartment project, however, the approval
of a citizen’s initiative stopped the Town’s involvement in funding the project. The
project was taken over and funded by the Loveland Housing Authority which still owns
and operates the property. The Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) was created and
established by the Town Board in the mid-1990s with a mission to “ensure a balanced
and sustainable community the Estes Park Housing Authority creates and facilitates
housing opportunities and services for persons of low and moderate income.” The
Town Board has supported density increases to allow development of workforce
housing, examples of which are the Habitat and Neighborhood subdivisions.
Staff provided several options for the Board’s consideration and discussion including
financial incentives to the EPHA in the form of fee waivers or additional Town funding;
the sale of Town-owned property for workforce housing development; and actively
building and managing workforce housing. Additionally, regulatory mechanisms such
as rezoning to increase density allowances; removing obstacles that hinder
redevelopment from the EVDC; consider allowing ADUs to be used as rentals; and
consider requiring workforce housing with new developments are also options.
The Board’s discussion is summarized: there is a lack of available land for multi-family
development; look at zoning that would encourage multi-story apartment buildings;
consider an increase to density; redevelop downtown and create incentives for
additional housing; examine minimum lot size for multi-family zone district; increase
Town Board Study Session – August 12, 2014 – Page 4
residential density downtown; need to use commercially-zoned properties for
commercial, not residential, purposes; prevent loss of commercially-zoned properties to
residential use; keep housing available for local workers and residents by mechanisms
such as deed restrictions; identify the affordable housing target group and define their
needs and desires; form a task force and/or a citizens group to provide input; and
schedule a meeting with other mountain communities to discuss housing issues.
The Board concurred that staff provided good information to begin initial discussions
and that policy decisions are premature. Trustee Norris asked staff to provide more
detail on the suggested options, pros and cons to each option, and what types of issues
might be expected with each option, for continued discussions. Trustee Nelson
requested that an urban planner be invited to attend a study session to conduct a
visionary discussion and provide the Board with broad ideas and possibilities that will
stimulate discussion and the Board’s ability to create a workable plan for Estes Park.
Town Administrator Lancaster said that staff will continue to gather the information
requested by the Board and will also work on interim recommendations related to
density and redevelopment to bring back to the Board. Town Administrator Lancaster
will determine the timeframe for this item to more forward based on staff’s
responsibilities and workload.
BOARD COMMUNICATION.
Due to a lack of time to thoroughly discuss this agenda item, it will be moved to the next
Town Board Study Session agenda.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:38 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 16th, 2014
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Rooms 202 &
203, in said Town of Estes Park on the 16th day of July, 2014.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gregg Rounds
Stan Black
Belle Morris
Ann Finley
Bryon Holmes
Also Present: Kevin Ash, Public Works Interim Director/Civil Engineer
Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer
John Simmerman, Active Towns Co-founder
Absent: Cory LaBianca
Thom Widawski
John Ericson, Town Board Liaison
Kimberly Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:0 5 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Minutes from the May 21st and June 18th meetings were reviewed by members. It was
moved and seconded (Black/Finley) to approve the May minutes, with the motion
passing unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Holmes/Rounds) to approve the
June minutes, with the motion passing unanimously.
Administrator Lancaster spoke of the committee’s role as advocates to the Town Board.
It was clarified that the TAC has been authorized only to be advocates to the Town
Trustees and should not extend their committee advocacy beyond that role without the
approval of the Town Board.
Active Towns founder John Simmerman attended and gave a brief overview of the
organization’s mission and how it could be beneficial to the Estes Park community. Mr.
Simmerman spoke developing a culture of physical activity and of the benefits of an
active bike and pedestrian friendly community. More information on the organization can
be found at www.activetowns.org.
Stan Black brought forward a discussion on paid event parking at the Fairgrounds
Transit Facility. He felt it could create confusion for guests directed by signage to this
free parking location, only to arrive and discover a charge for parking. The committee
suggested a re-branding of the Fairgrounds Transit Facility with the construction of the
Visitor Center Parking Structure and the FLAP project.
COMMITTEE VACANCY
It was moved and seconded (Morris/Finley) to keep the committee size at the current
number of nine members and to immediately post to fill the vacancy. The motion passed
unanimously. Jen Imber will work with Human Resources to immediately post an
advertisement in the local newspaper for the vacancy.
FLAP UPDATES
Chair Campbell updated the committee on the FLAP design process and potential
opportunity for involvement. The design stage will be a very structured process,
beginning with the NEPA study and the FLAP TAC. The FLAP TAC will conduct an
extensive public outreach program, including stakeholder groups that may include
downtown businesses, the Estes Park Cycling Coalition and members of the Town’s
TAC. These stakeholders will serve in an advisory role to the FLAP TAC.
Transportation Advisory Committee – July 16th, 2014 – Page 2
Communications to the public will be starting soon with a press release. Any technical
questions TAC members receive from the public should be directed to PIO Kate Rusch
or the FLAP TAC.
VISITOR CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE UPDATE
The proposed parking structure is currently over budget with construction cost. It was
necessary to remove many features, mostly aesthetic, in order to lower construction
cost. No parking spaces were removed from the design, but the end product will be an
aesthetically different structure from the original design. The committee believes this is
an important project to complete and is in favor of making the necessary cuts to move
forward with construction. However, the committee considers the aesthetics of the
building a very important aspect to the community and wo uld like to upgrade aesthetics
wherever possible in lieu of other upgrades such as restrooms.
DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEE PARKING PROJECT
The Town Board has identified paid parking as a 2015 objective. Due to this
development, Chair Campbell suggested tabling the Downtown Parking discussion in
order to sync with the Trustees’ discussion.
Kimberly Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:58 p.m.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers,
Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Bowers, Dickey, Hills, Murphree and Sykes
Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps,
Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 12 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, June 17, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Amended Plat of Lot 20, Stanley Hills Subdivision, PUD, TBD Steamer Drive
Commissioner Dickey requested Item B be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Klink) to approve Item A on the consent agenda as corrected
and the motion passed unanimously.
3. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 20, STANLEY HILLS PUD, TBD Steamer Drive
Commissioner Dickey requested the item be pulled from the consent agenda to allow for public
comment. Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the purpose of application was to
amend the platted building envelope to encompass the existing home and associated eaves. No
new lots are being created. The applicant desired to clean up the plat of record by slightly shifting
the building envelope. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property
owners, and no comments were received. The Planning Commission is the recommending body
for this application, with the Town Board making the final decision.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated the plat of record showed building setbacks and
building envelopes that caused confusion. The amended plat application would clear up any
confusion and clean up the plat of record.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Public comment closed.
Staff Findings
1. The Amended Plat application complies with EVDC Section 3.9.E Subdivision Standards for
Review.
2. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board for the proposed
Amended Plat.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the Community Development memo dated June 27, 2014.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 20,
Stanley Hills PUD to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff
and the motion passed unanimously.
4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING
MICRO‐BREWERIES, ‐WINERIES, AND –DISTILLERIES
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the purpose was to provide a formal
recommendation to the Town Board and County Commissioners to allow an amendment to
the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The current schedule moving forward would
include a Town Board hearing on July 22nd, and County Commission hearing on August 11th.
Planner Kleisler stated staff received feedback from the Planning Commissioners at the June
meeting. He explained the different definitions, as follows:
Brewpub is a restaurant with a brewery, distillery, or winery on site to serve patrons and
provide for some degree of distribution. It is subordinate to the restaurant use. The EVDC
does not currently define the use, and this amendment process would create that definition,
as well as provide for alignment with the Colorado State Liquor Code. Food sales shall account
for at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total food and drink income. The proposed
amendment would allow brewpubs in the same zone districts as is currently allowed, but
limited their use in the A–Accommodations district to an accessory to an accommodations
use.
Micro‐brewery/Micro‐distillery/Micro‐winery is generally a small scale business that focuses
on retail sales. They are generally regulated either through production or square footage. The
proposed amendment would regulate through square footage, as directed by the Town
Board. This type of business would be allowed as a principal use in the CD–Commercial
Downtown and the CO–Commercial Outlying zone districts. The uses would be allowed as an
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
accessory use in the A–Accommodations district, but only as an accessory to an
accommodations use, e.g. it cannot be used as a standalone operation.
Tasting/Tap Room is the location in which customers may sample and purchase the products
of a brewery/distillery/winery. This is often connected to the brewery/distillery/winery, but
can also be located away from the production site. This use is proposed in the same zone
districts that permit “micro” and “conventional” breweries/distilleries/wineries.
Breweries/Distilleries/Wineries are generally large‐scale operations that focus primarily on
manufacturing and distribution. A 15,000 square foot size limit has been proposed.
Tasting/Tap Rooms are often created as a part of the facility, and staff has proposed the size
of any such rooms be limited to thirty percent of the total floor area of the facility, or 1000
square feet, whichever is greater. The intent is to keep manufacturing in the industrial zone
districts and discourage retail sales from dominating in those zone districts. After hearing
comments from the Planning Commission and Town Board, staff has proposed this type of
business be allowed in the CH–Commercial Heavy by Special Review, to ensure adjacent
property owners will receive notification have the opportunity to comment.
Planner Kleisler reviewed the proposed code amendment. Some changes to the code only
clarify the existing code. Brewpubs would be allowed as a use by right in the A–
Accommodations (only as an accessory use to accommodations), CD–Commercial Downtown,
CO–Commercial Outlying, O–Office, and I‐1–Industrial. Tasting rooms would follow the same
use table as brewpubs. Breweries/distilleries/wineries would require Special Review to locate
in the CH–Commercial Heavy zone district. This would trigger notification of the adjacent
property owners within 500 feet of the property and allow them the opportunity to comment.
Staff recommended disallowance in the A‐1–Accommodations zone district, as over one half
of the parcels in this thousand acre zone district are within one hundred feet of a residential
zone district.
Planner Kleisler reviewed the parking requirements, after being directed by the Town Board
to reevaluate the proposed minimum parking requirements with an eye towards reducing the
minimum standards for these uses. Staff arrived at a standard based on a study by the
Institute of Traffic Engineers. Staff recommends a standard of one parking space for every 100
square feet of building space. Staff determined they would not account for areas not
accessible to the public (brewery operation).
There was brief discussion concerning how the proposed parking regulations would compare
to the existing Estes Park Brewery.
Public Comment
None.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Dickey/Bowers) to recommend approval of the amendment to
the Estes Valley Development Code concerning Micro‐Craft Liquor to the Estes Park Town
Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners and the motion passed
unanimously.
4. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, & 3, SIXTH GREEN ESTATES, 1255‐1295 Sixth Green Lane
Planner Kleisler stated this item was continued at last month’s meeting. A few minor changes
were made from the original application. The objective of this amended plat is to eliminate
building envelopes on three lots of record, and revert to the setback standards as outlined in
the EVDC. No property lines will change, nor will any new lots be created. The Planning
Commission is the recommending body, with the Town Board making the final decision.
Planner Kleisler stated all three lots meet the minimum lot size (1/2 acre) for the E–Estate
zone district. The building envelopes were established when the subdivision was created in
the early 2000s. Removing the building envelope on Lot 1 would reduce the setback on the
north by ten feet. This would provide additional building area in the southeast section of the
lot. The applicant has requested to create a building site by removing some of the trees to the
east and retaining a large ponderosa on the west. Approximately six trees in the interior
would be removed, while a row of trees along the east property line would remain.
Planner Kleisler stated the changes to Lot 2 would include a reduction of the setback by six
feet on the south property line. He referred to the staff report from the original subdivision,
which included a condition of approval to protect the east property line and provide a buffer
for the neighbor to the north and to the golf course. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommends
if significant trees are removed, now or in the future, replacement be required in accordance
with EVDC Section 7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection.
Planner Kleisler stated the change to Lot 3 would provide additional building space on the
southwest portion of the lot, which could allow an accessory structure. Again, the staff report
from the original subdivision included a condition of approval to add limits of disturbance to
Lot 3, due to “the borderline nature of the proposed subdivision and concerns expressed by
adjacent property owners.” Planner Kleisler stated staff recommends if significant trees are
removed from Lot 3, now or in the future, replacement may be required in accordance with
EVDC Section 7.3. Tree and Vegetation Protection. Drainage from the lots will be reviewed
when building permits for dwellings are submitted.
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property
owners. One long‐time neighbor inquired about the application. Utilities and other public
service agencies had no concerns. He explained the density in the subdivision would not
increase, but the building site flexibility would change. Staff recommended approval with the
following conditions, listed below.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff Findings
1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the Amended Plat
application complies with EVDC Section 3.9.E. Subdivisions Standards for Review and other
applicable sections of the EVDC.
2. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board for the proposed
Amended Plat.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion concerning fire truck access. Staff determined the plats were
created prior to the adoption of the fire code; thus, they would be considered legally
nonconforming in relation to the current fire code.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated the applicant desires to eliminate the building
envelopes in order to build on the lots while retaining the larger trees on the lots.
Public comment closed.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.3 Tree and Vegetation
Protection relating to tree/vegetation removal.
2. Revise the preliminary plat to show the paved driveway area for Lot 3.
3. Graphically delineate the sanitary sewer easement across Lot 10, Esquire Acres and
include recording information.
4. Add note that easement across golf course was approved with original subdivision,
include reception number of plat (2004‐0104687).
It was moved and seconded (Sykes/Klink) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of
Lots 1, 2, & 3, Sixth Green Estates to the Town Board with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion passed 6‐1 with Commissioner Murphree voting
against.
5. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 20 & 29, FORT MORGAN COLONY SUBDIVISION, 1031 & 1053
Morgan Street
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The owners, Melinda and Pete Dawson, desire to
move one internal lot line to bring one of two lots into compliance for minimum lot size.
Currently, the smaller lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirement. Both lots are
currently for sale. Planner Kleisler stated the lots are zone E–Estate. Lot 20 is currently .82
acres, and Lot 29 is currently .40 acres. If the amended plat is approved, the lots would be .60
(Lot 20A) and .62 (Lot 29A), and both would comply with the one‐half acre minimum lot size.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property
owners. Comments were received from three neighbors, who were concerned about access
to proposed Lot 29A. Planner Kleisler stated the original plat shows a 12‐foot access easement
specifically for a private road along the north property line. This easement would most likely
be the access to the northernmost lot. The intent for Lot 29A would be to open up the area
for a logical building site on the west side of the proposed lot, avoiding the ten foot water
easement along the center of the lot and a historical drainage area on the eastern side.
Planner Kleisler stated the two lots were created with the Fort Morgan Colony Subdivision in
1958. A single‐family dwelling was constructed on Lot 20 in 1928, and Lot 29 is currently
vacant. Both lots are owned by Dawsons. Staff will be working with the applicant to ensure a
proper location for the sewer easement for proposed Lot 29A. The current proposed sewer
would not function properly due to the topography of the lot. Planner Kleisler stated the
revision of the sewer easement has been added as an additional condition of approval. The
applicant would have 90 days to make the necessary changes.
Staff Findings
1. The Amended Plat application complies with EVDC Section 3.9.E. Subdivisions
Standards for Review.
2. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board for the
proposed Amended Plat.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion about compliance of lot size. Planner Kleisler stated access to the
lots was discussed in the pre‐application meeting with the applicant. Because this amended
plat process is not creating any new lots, the applicant is not required to provide a written
means of access to a public road. The private platted road was primarily intended for these
lots, therefore; which lots can use the private road is a private matter.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/owner representative stated the owners would like to amend the plat in order
to sell the lots.
Sharry White /Town resident submitted written comment. She stated her desire was to have
the owner add an access easement for Lot 29A off of Lot 20A because the private drive is very
narrow (one lane), and is primarily used as a private driveway for Lot 17. Lot 17 is landlocked,
except for the private easements. The current northern access would not be suitable as access
for three lots. If a longer drive was created, it could create drainage problems as well as
create issues for fire trucks. She was also concerned about the removal of trees, stating the
area is currently a heavily‐used wildlife corridor. Ms. White requested if the amended plat is
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
approved, the Planning Commission require access directly off of Morgan Street to the south
rather than using the existing access to proposed Lot 29A.
Amy Spallinger/Town resident was concerned about the location of the proposed building site
as well as the impact on wildlife. She stated the narrow driveway access would make it
difficult for three homes to use one narrow driveway.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Town Attorney White stated the driveway is a prescriptive right put in place to provide access
to Lots 17 and 28, and 29. He stated it was unusual to have the access easement within one
plat, providing access to other properties. There was discussion about the location of the
proposed sewer easement.
Director Chilcott stated Lot 29 has always been a buildable lot, with a legal nonconforming lot
size. The issue is whether a sewer easement can be dedicated to bring the sewer system to
the lot.
Planner Kleisler stated the Fire Marshall reviewed the application and was not concerned
about access. If built using today’s code, the standard driveway width requirement would be
ten feet.
Attorney White explained the current driveway is owned by the Dawsons as part of Lot 29.
However, they cannot deny access to the property owners of Lots 17 and 28. No new lot is
being created with this amended plat. According to Attorney White, the private drive appears
to be capable of accommodating all three lots.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the Community Development memo dated June 27, 2014.
2. Provide easement for proposed sewer location prior to plat recordation.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Sykes) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of
Lots 20 and 29 to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff
the motion passed 6‐1 with Commissioner Dickey voting against.
6. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014‐03 and LOCATION & EXTENT REVIEW, ESTES PARK SANITATION
DISTRICT
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the request is for construction of a new
3,659 square foot “headworks” building to house improvements for the district’s treatment
process, and to enable the district to meet new discharge permit requirements. This request is
subject to both Special Use Review and Location and Extent Review. These types of reviews
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
are required when the development is a public utility. The proposed development is a minor
expansion of a Major Utility (permitted by Special Use Review) already established at this
location. The review does not present any evaluation of the location of the larger facility, and
does not attempt to apply a comprehensive analysis of code compliance for the existing
improvements. No minor modifications have been requested with this proposal. Planner
Kleisler stated due to staff availability at the time the application was submitted, the review
was contracted out to Bob Joseph.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposed development is in the CO–Commercial Outlying zone
district, and the application will comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC.
Planning Commission is the recommending body for the Special Review, and the decision‐
making body for the Location and Extent Review. Planner Kleisler explained in detail the
purpose of Special Reviews and Location and Extent Reviews. Following today’s decision, the
Estes Park Sanitation District Board of Directors has the authority to exempt itself from local
zoning regulations.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposed use for the property, waste water treatment, will not
change. The CO zone district has no density restrictions, and the proposed project complies
with the height and setback requirements as well as lot coverage. The floor area ratio
complies with the EVDC. Because this facility is closed to the public, no sidewalk is required.
The applicant submitted a drainage plan that was reviewed by the Public Works Department,
and no significant issues were raised. The electrical plan has been approved by Light and
Power with some minor changes. A fire truck turning template has been submitted and will be
field‐tested during construction. The Colorado Department of Transportation had no
comments from their review. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has received approval from
the state to proceed with the project.
Planner Kleisler stated the existing wastewater treatment plan was completed prior to the
adoption of the EVDC. The landscape buffer with Highway 34 is adequate; however, staff
recommends adding additional trees on the south and east sides of the property. The EVDC
states “The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent
feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the
environment.’ Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval to install trees and shrubs
on the east and south sides of the new construction. This condition will be decided by the
Planning Commission.
Staff Findings
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The application advances several Community‐Wide policies, as
delineated in the staff report.
2. The Development Plan complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter
Seven, “General Development Standards.”
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
4. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in
the Review Discussion in the staff report.
5. The Planning Commission is the Decision‐Making Body for the Location and Extent
Review. The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision‐Making Body for the Special
Review.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Dickey was concerned about landscaping next to the Visitor Center and also
about the access to the property, which is through the Visitor Center parking lot.
Commissioner Bowers was concerned about odor. Planner Kleisler stated improvements were
planned to reduce odor.
Public Comment
Jim Duell/applicant stated the sanitation district is facing compliance issues with new state
regulations. The initial project has been ongoing for five years, and the 2015 compliance date
has been extended by one year. The application being reviewed includes a new headworks
building to remove non‐organic matter, installation of mechanical odor control measures, and
the open tanks will be covered. In addressing the additional landscaping recommendations, he
stated the effluent line runs along the east side of the property, which may present some
landscaping issues in that area. Small shrubs and bushes would probably not create any
problems, but trees and their roots would create problems.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Klink recommended removing the requirement for large trees.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the following affected agency memos:
a. This Community Development staff report subsection ‘landscaping and buffers’
herein;
1) Five evergreen trees and fifteen shrubs shall be provided along the east side of
the new construction. Three evergreen or deciduous trees and nine shrubs
shall be provided along the south side of the new construction.
b. Estes Park Light and Power memo dated June 27, 2014;
c. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated June 4, 2014;
d. Colorado Department of Transportation email dated June 19, 2014;
e. Estes Valley Fire Protection District4 memo dated June 24, 2014; and
f. Estes Park Water Division memo dated June 27, 2014.
It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to approve the Location and Extent Review
for the Estes Park Sanitation District with the finding and recommendations by staff, with
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the exception of the requirement to add large trees to the east side of the project and the
motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to recommend approval of Special Review
2014‐03, Estes Park Sanitation District to the Town Board with the findings and
recommendations by staff, with the exception of the requirement to add large trees to the
east side of the project and the motion passed unanimously.
7. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014‐02, AT&T MONOPOLE
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant withdrew the application.
8. REPORTS
A. Director Chilcott reported an amended plat in the Kenofer Addition would be reviewed by
the Planning Commission in August.
B. Director Chilcott reported an amendment to the EVDC concerning assemblies would be
before the EVPC in August. This is related to wedding‐type assemblies. There is currently
no specific zone district where that can be a specific use. More and more people are
interested in opening that type of business, and it aligns with other uses in existing zone
districts.
C. Director Chilcott reported Town Board is scheduled to review the Falcon Ridge Minor
Subdivision Plat on July 22, 2014.
D. Director Chilcott reported revisions to the Falcon Ridge Development Plan will be in front
of Planning Commission at the August 19, 2014 meeting. She reminded the Commission
this application remains quasi‐judicial.
E. Planner Kleisler reported the applicant for the Comfort Inn Development Plan submitted
final plans aligning with conditions of approval. The Public Works Department, Town
Engineer Kevin Ash, and the applicant worked together and determined a way to move
forward with a revised drainage plan. The applicant was also able to reduce the driveway
width and the slope, and additional landscaping will be installed on the south side of the
property.
F. Director Chilcott reported on flood recovery, stating the Town submitted two applications
to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for Community Development Block
Grant‐Disaster Recovery (CDBG‐DR). These applications were specific to two items; (1) a
Master Planning grant, and (2) funds to hire a planner to focus specifically on flood
recovery work. The planner position was not approved, but the Town was provided
additional resources that could possibly fund the Planner position. Two additional
Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) applications were submitted for additional
debris removal or stream restoration; $200,000 each for Fall River and Fish Creek
drainages. Those applications included a joint effort with the Estes Valley Land Trust and
the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. If awarded, funds will be used for improved
trail design, flood protection, and amenities for the community. There is no guarantee we
will receive the full amount requested. Director Chilcott reported there was less focus on
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 11
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the Big Thompson River corridor, but would be willing to discuss this area outside of the
meeting. New mapping and hydrology reports will be forthcoming, which will help
determine what downtown improvements will need to be made to reduce the risk of
future flooding. Based on the cubic feet per second (CFS) numbers we have seen for Fish
Creek, we are expecting to see higher number for Fall River as well.
G. Director Chilcott reported part of the Master Plan process includes River Advisory
Committees, and a meeting is scheduled for July 30th. The committees consist of
residents, Town staff from Utilities, Public Works, Community Development, wildlife
experts, and Walsh’s Master Plan team. The Master Plans will likely be reviewed by the
Planning Commission when the design is further along.
H. Director Chilcott reported Wes Reichardt, Code Compliance Officer, has been focusing on
the priorities identified during the public outreach meetings several months ago; including
but not limited to vacation home enforcement.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Transportation Advisory Committee Appointment
Town Clerk Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: August 22, 2014
RE: Transportation Advisory Committee Appointment
Objective:
To appoint a new committee member to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC).
Present Situation:
The TAC was formed just over a year ago to support the comprehensive transportation
planning for the valley; to review and recommend transportation related capital projects,
and to support the safety and maintenance of the Town’s transportation system. The
committee is actively discussing the downtown highway reroute with the Federal Land
Access Project (FLAP) grant and the Visitor Center Parking structure.
The bylaws outline the membership of the committee shall consist of 9 members and
the member must be residents of the Estes Valley Planning district. The terms shall be
for 3 years and shall be staggered so the terms of 3 members would expire each year.
The committee had a vacancy created early on when a member of the committee
moved outside of the Estes Valley Planning district.
The Administrative Service department advertised for 1 position on the committee and
received 5 applications. An interview team consisting of Trustee Ericson, Trustee
Holcomb and Committee Chair Kimberly Campbell conducted interviews on August 12,
2014.
Proposal:
The interview team recommends the appointment of Amy Hamrick with a term expiring
on March 31, 2016.
It should be noted the committee was impressed by the quality of the candidates and
the depth of knowledge they bring to the committee.
Advantages:
Filling the position would complete the nine member committee.
Transportation Advisory Committee Appointments
2
Disadvantages:
If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position could
be re-advertised and interviews conducted.
Action Recommended:
Appointment of Amy Hamrick for a term expiring on March 31, 2016.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the appointment of Amy Hamrick for a term expiring on March
31, 2016.
Setting Show Cause Hearing
Town Clerk’s Office Memo
1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: August 22, 2014
RE: Consent Items 8 & 9 – Setting Show Cause Hearings
Objective:
Schedule Show Cause Liquor Hearings for Coffee on the Rocks and Molly B.
Present Situation:
The two liquor license establishments listed above failed a compliance check conducted
by the Estes Park Police Department and the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division on
August 9, 2014. An employee of each of the establishments illegally sold and served
alcohol to an underage person and/or did not ask for identification and sold and served
the underage person alcohol.
Proposal:
Set Show Cause Liquor Hearing for each establishment for September 9, 2014. Once
the hearing is set an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing will be issued to the
Licensee.
During the next two weeks the licensee will be given the opportunity to meet with staff to
discuss a stipulation agreement. A stipulation agreement allows the licensee to agree
to the violation as well as the penalty under the Town’s Liquor Violation Sentencing
Guidelines for Compliance and Non-Compliance Check Violations. This agreement
would be presented to the Town Board in lieu of a Show Cause Hearing on September
9, 2014.
Advantages:
Demonstrates to other liquor licensees the Town Board (Local Liquor Authority)
takes liquor laws seriously by completing administrative action locally rather than
through the State.
The Town can take action in a timely manner to ensure licensees are completing
any violations in a reasonable timeframe.
Disadvantages:
Show Cause Hearing preparations and Stipulation meetings and negotiation require
significant staff time.
Setting Show Cause Hearing 2
Action Recommended:
Approve the Resolutions for each establishment setting the Show Cause Hearing date
of September 9, 2014.
Budget: None.
Level of Public Interest
The community supports keeping alcohol out of the hands of the youth.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolutions # 16-14 and #17-14 setting a Show Cause Hearing
for Coffee on the Rocks and Molly B.
RESOLUTION NO. 16-14
WHEREAS, a complaint by the Estes Park Police Department and the Colorado
Liquor Enforcement Division was presented to the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park on
August 9, 2014 charging CARL E. SCOTT dba COFFEE ON THE ROCKS, a TAVERN
LIQUOR LICENSE, LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 4701353 with certain violations of the
statutes of the State of Colorado and Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Department
of Revenue, Liquor Enforcement Division; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees hereby determines that there is probable cause
that the aforementioned Licensee has violated one or more of the statutes and/or rules
and regulations governing the operations of the license as more fully set forth in the
complaint; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is necessary to hold a hearing and issue an Order to
Show Cause why the aforementioned license should not be suspended or revoked due to
the violation(s) presented to the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1. That a show cause hearing shall be held pursuant to Section 12-47-601,
C.R.S., and a Notice of Hearing be issued to the Licensee to appear and show cause why
the license should not be suspended or revoked. Said hearing shall take place at the
Town Board meeting scheduled Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board
Room of the Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado.
Section 2. That the Town Clerk shall cause an Order to Show Cause and Notice of
Hearing on the aforementioned complaint to be mailed to the following:
MR. CARL E. SCOTT
D/B/A COFFEE ON THE ROCKS
510 MORAINE AVENUE
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED THIS DAY OF ____________, 2014
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 17-14
WHEREAS, a complaint by the Estes Park Police Department and the Colorado
Liquor Enforcement Division was presented to the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park on
August 9, 2014 charging GAST HAUS ESTES PARK, INC. dba MOLLY B, a TAVERN
LIQUOR LICENSE, LIQUOR LICENSE NO 42-93084-0000 with certain violations of the
statutes of the State of Colorado and Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Department
of Revenue, Liquor Enforcement Division; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees hereby determines that there is probable cause
that the aforementioned Licensee has violated one or more of the statutes and/or rules
and regulations governing the operations of the license as more fully set forth in the
complaint; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is necessary to hold a hearing and issue an Order to
Show Cause why the aforementioned license should not be suspended or revoked due to
the violation(s) presented to the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1. That a show cause hearing shall be held pursuant to Section 12-47-601,
C.R.S., and a Notice of Hearing be issued to the Licensee to appear and show cause why
the license should not be suspended or revoked. Said hearing shall take place at the
Town Board meeting scheduled Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board
Room of the Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado.
Section 2. That the Town Clerk shall cause an Order to Show Cause and Notice of
Hearing on the aforementioned complaint to be mailed to the following:
MR. HUBERT FELDEN
GAST HAUS ESTES PARK, INC.
D/B/A MOLLY B
200 MORAINE AVENUE
P. O. BOX 3280
ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED THIS DAY OF ____________, 2014
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
THE PATH FORWARDYear One and Beyond
“”DESPITE THE CLEAR MESSAGE OF THE 2011 SURVEY, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR FUTURE CANNOT REST WITH TOWN GOVERNMENT ALONE….ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MUST BE A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN WHICH EVERYONE HAS A ROLE TO PLAY AND IN WHICH EVERYONE SHARES.THE ESTES VALLEY’S ECONOMIC FUTURE: THE PATH FORWARD (DECEMBER 2012)
FUNDING“One key message derived from our interviews was that successful organizations rely upon a mix of funding sources…. an organization that relies entirely upon private funding has an expected life span of three years.”A mix of Public, Private and other funding sources is key.
COLLABORATIONKeystonePartners:Town of Estes ParkEP Medical CenterVisit Estes ParkGold: Bank of ColoradoR-3 Estes Park School District Stanley Hotel Gold: EPIC, Inc. Rocky Mtn. Park Inn Stanley VillageGold: Larimer County Stanley Hotel YMCA of RockiesSilver:Aspen LodgeE. Valley Recreation & Parks Distr. Estes Valley LibrarySilver: Whimsical Inc. Bronze:Estes Park CentralEstesPark.coBronze:Mueller & Assoc. Nat'l Park VillageRocky Mtn. ResortsS. Fereday/State FarmThorp AssociatesTrail GazetteVerus CommercialAssociationsEALA E. P. Wedding Assn. E. P. Bd. Realtors EVPC
WHAT IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?Economic development is the processby which a community organizes and then applies itself to the task of improving the economic well-being and quality of life for the geographic area. Economic development is a long-term investmentof time, people, limited resources and skills.
MISSION OF ESTES PARK EDC •Build stronger, more broadly-based economy and tax base;• Business Retention & Expansion• Business Attraction
VALUES: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN WAYS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE QUALITIES THAT MAKE ESTES PARK A UNIQUE MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY.
2014: MAJOR EDC BOARD GOALS 1. Business Recovery2. Broadband/Fiber Optic Ring3. Wellness Center 4. Larimer SBDC
1. BUSINESS RECOVERY PROGRAM.HIRED COORDINATORTown/EDC Partnership$29,500 Grant from Community FoundationMichael Haughey, Bus. Recovery Coordinator
BUSINESS RECOVERY COORDINATOR OUTCOMES: —48% OF STATEWIDE ONLINE APPLICATIONS FROM OUR REGION Colorado CDBG-DR Business GrantsRevised program: Up to $50,000 grant, $100,000 loanFor Unmet Needs: total flood losses less SBA loan, FEMA, Insurance, United Way, etc.At least $25,000/year revenueViable Business (will succeed)Lots of Documentation neededLocal Needs75 applications pending: $7.1 Million Total Losses $4.8 Million Unmet Needs
2. Program: Fiber Optics/BroadbandOutcomes to dateVolunteer Committee--Larry Lawson Identified existing and potential assets, potential partners Regional collaboration, info sharing SB 152: ballot question framed for addressing strictures on Town Role and full access to Fiber Optic Ring (a Town goal)U.S. Economic Development Administration $80,000 grant for: Market studyBusiness model Technical planningCapital budgeting and financing planCommittee to assist with grantPendingGRANTAPPROVED
BUSINESS RECOVERY: PENDING Second Allocation, Recover Colorado CDBG-DR GrantsPost-Flood Business AssessmentIdentify ConcernsLicenses Door-to-door InterviewsSurvey
3. WELLNESS INITIATIVE OutcomesCSU Net Fiscal Impact AnalysisNew Strategic Framework Public EducationPendingBusiness Attraction for Community Wellness BrandLargest Job Cluster in Larimer CountyIntersection of tourism with wellnessYear-Round Businesses
4. PROGRAM: SBDC SATELLITE OFFICEOUTCOMESFall 2013: Local volunteers staff Business Recovery Center at Stanley Hotel. SBA loan assistance.First half of 2014: 62 percent SBDC increase over 1sthalf 2013. Regional Focus on Business Recovery: Estes Park EDC assisted Estes Park, Glen Haven, DrakeHands-on assistance crucial.
WHAT’S NEXTYear 2 and beyondYear 1: Business Retention & ExpansionKey Focus
$300,000 EDA GRANTSTRATEGIC PLANNINGPhase 1: Community Engagement, Data AnalysisPhase 2: Develop Strategy; Job ClustersPhase 3: Implement & Monitor Strategy; Metrics
OTHER EDA GRANT ACTIVITIESFIBER OPTICS/BROADBANDMarket Analysis, Needs AssessmentDesign & EngineeringBusiness ModelFinancial Planning, Capital Funds Sourcing
EDA CAPACITY BUILDINGPlanning: Co-Working Space, Business Incubator/ AcceleratorBuilding on regional partnerships, access to expertise
LEVERAGING RESOURCESTown Partnership to date: $349,500 in grants or matching fundsEDA: $300,000—none for EDC operations or overhead Community Foundation: $29,500—Business Recovery; Will request $10,000 re-purpose to same programLarimer County: $10,000—repurpose for operations regarding EDA, etc.
LONG-TERM EDC BOARD GOALSIdentified in January 2014To have developed year-round destination tourism attractionsTo have built the capacity for venture capital and entrepreneurship programsTo have developed more attainable/affordable housing unitsTo have provided more child careand pre-school programsTo have accomplished significant infrastructure development
CONTACTJon NicholasEstes Park EDC533 Big Thompson AvenueSuite 103Estes Park, CO 80517970-577-1031jnicholas@estesparkedc.comwww.estesparkedc.com
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: August 26, 2014
RE: AMENDED PLAT, Lot 20, Stanley Hills Subdivision, 650 Steamer Drive;
Harris Family Living Trust/Owner; Planner Kleisler.
Objective:
Review of the minor subdivision application for compliance with the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
Lot 20 contains one (1) single family home, is zoned R Residential and is within the
town limits.
A current foundation wall and eave lie outside of the platted setback/building envelope.
The lot was created with the Stanley Hills Subdivision PUD in March, 1977. No new lots
are being created with this application.
Proposal:
This is a request to adjust the existing platted building envelope within one (1) parcel.
Construction of a single family home on Lot 20 commenced in 2013. The building
permit was approved in July, 2013 for this site. A surveyor certificate examining
building placement in relation to setbacks found a 0.9’ foundation wall and a 2.8’ roof
eave encroachment on the east side (into the 30’ setback/building envelope). An
additional 2’ encroachment was made into the 20’ eastern setback/building envelope.
While the EVDC only requires a 15-foot setback to the east and west lot lines, the plat
of Stanley Hills notes a 30-foot setback/building envelope to the west and 20’
setback/building envelope to the east.
Advantages:
Complies with EVDC.
Advances the purpose of subdivision standards by providing lots of reasonable utility
and livability.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
On July 15, 2014, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend
approval of the Amended Plat application with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff:
1. Compliance with the Community Development memo dated June 27, 2014.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Low. The Planning Commission received no comments for this item during the public
hearing and no written comments have been received (as of July 29, 2014). If such
comments are received they will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Sample Motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL (or denial) the Amended Plat application, with the
findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Amended Plat
2. Agency Finding
Page 1
To: Celine LeBeau
Van Horn Engineering and Surveying
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: June 27, 2014
RE: Lot 20, Stanley Hills PUD Amended Plat – Findings of Compliance with
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
This written analysis includes only those EVDC provisions that apply to this
development proposal.
Community Development Staff finds the May 21, 2014 submittal:
I. Complies with:
1) §4.3.B Permitted Uses: Household living.
2) §4.3.C.4 Table 4.2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards regarding minimum lot
standards. Minimum Building/Structure Property Line Setbacks are addressed with
this application.
3) §7.12 Adequate Public Facilities
4) §10.4 Lots
5) §10.5 Subdivision Design Standards
II. Does not comply with:
1) §3.9.D.1.b: Please add the following note to the plat:
“Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of formal boundary lines of
the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or
building sites for any purposes. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such
adjustment is to be considered an addition to, shall become a part of, and shall be
conveyed together with, each lot as shown.”
2) Please show the lot acreage in the dedication statement to the nearest one-
thousandth
III. The Planning Commission must find:
1) Compliance with §10 Subdivision Standards, as applicable.
2) That approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to
other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of
this Code.
Community Development Memo
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: David W. Shirk, Senior Planner
Date: August 26, 2014
RE: CONDOMINIUM MAP, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, The Lodges
at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Units H, I, and Existing Restaurant,
800 MacGregor Avenue, Sloan Investments, LLC/Owner.
Objective:
Review of the supplemental condominium application for compliance with the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) and approved development plan and condominium
map.
Present Situation:
The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn condominium map was originally approved by the
Town Board in February 2004. That map condominiumized 17 units, and reserved
additional development rights to allow build-out consistent with a development plan
approved in 2002.
One supplemental map has been filed (Dec. 2010).
Proposal:
The applicant, Jim Sloan, proposes to condominiumize three additional buildings with this
supplemental map. Approval of this map will allow for the sale of these buildings. The
buildings will be managed by the condominium association.
One building, Building H, was recently completed and includes accommodations units
and a common area primarily used as a bridal room; this building is near the wedding
pavilion on the north side of the site. Another building, Building G, contains
accommodations units; this building is located east of the Twin Owls Steakhouse. The
final building, Building R, contains the Twin Owls Steakhouse.
This supplemental map is consistent with development plan and initial condominium map.
Advantages:
Complies with Estes Valley Development Code.
Complies with original condominium map.
Complies with development plan.
Allow sale of individual units.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Approve proposed supplemental condominium map, with the following conditions:
1. Revise Board of Trustee’s Certificate to include current date and names of Town
Clerk and Mayor.
2. Include Units G, H and R in the title.
3. Graphically emphasize the units to be condominiumized (heavier line weight,
grey backrground, etc).
Budget:
Not applicable
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to approve (or disapprove) The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums,
Supplemental Condominium Map #3 with the conditions recommends by staff.
Attachments:
Copy of proposed map
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: August 26, 2014
RE: AMENDED PLAT, Lots 20 and 29, Fort Morgan Colony Subdivision,
1031 and 1053 Morgan Street; Melinda Dawson/Owner
Objective:
Review of the minor subdivision application for compliance with the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The subject lots were created with the Fort
Morgan Colony Subdivision in 1958. A
single family home was constructed on Lot
20 in 1928 and Lot 29 is currently vacant.
Both of the subject lots are owned by the
applicant, zoned E Estate and located within
the town limits. Lot 29 does not currently
meet the ½ acre minimum lot size.
Proposal:
This is a request to adjust an interior lot line
between two lots of record. The intent of this
application is to bring Lot 29 into compliance
with the ½ acre minimum lot size and create
a more suitable building site on that lot. The
likely building site would be on the western
portion of the proposed Lot 29A, avoiding
the 10’ water easement along the center of the Lot and a low, drainage area on the
eastern side.
No new lots will be created with this application. However, this amended plat will
provide for greater flexibility for building on Lot 29.
Advantages:
Complies with EVDC.
Current Lot Line Proposed Lot
Line
Advances the purpose of subdivision standards by providing lots of reasonable utility
and livability.
Brings Lot 29 into compliance with the minimum lot size requirement.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed this amended plat application at their
July 15, 2014 meeting. At that time, the Commission voted 6-1 to recommend
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL the application. The conditions of approval are:
1. Compliance with the Community Development memo dated June 27, 2014.
2. Provide easement for proposed sewer location prior to plat recordation.
*All conditions of approval have been satisfied.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
High – Among adjacent property owners
Low – Valley-wide
Most comments that the Planning Commission received related to a platted “Private
Road” on the original plat. The 1958 plat created a “Private Road” to access three lots
from Morgan Street (Lots 17, 28 and 29); these lots would be landlocked without this
access. Adjacent property owners requested that the applicant provide access to Lot
29 through Lot 20 to the south and not the platted access.
The “Private Road” would be considered a Shared Driveway if built through the current
provisions of the EVDC. The current regulations would require a width of ten feet,
which the “Private Road” exceeds. The Town is also limited in the requiring additional
access information because no new lots are being created. An excerpt of Planning
Commission minutes relating to this topic is attached.
Any further written public comments will be posted to
www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Sample Motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL (or denial) the Amended Plat application, with the
findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Amended Plat
2. Public Comments
3. Agency Findings
4. Planning Commission Minutes
5. 1958 Plat of Fort Morgan Colony Subdivision
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers,
Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Bowers, Dickey, Hills, Murphree and Sykes
Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps,
Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 12 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, June 17, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Amended Plat of Lot 20, Stanley Hills Subdivision, PUD, TBD Steamer Drive
Commissioner Dickey requested Item B be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Klink) to approve Item A on the consent agenda as corrected
and the motion passed unanimously.
3. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 20, STANLEY HILLS PUD, TBD Steamer Drive
Commissioner Dickey requested the item be pulled from the consent agenda to allow for public
comment. Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the purpose of application was to
amend the platted building envelope to encompass the existing home and associated eaves. No
new lots are being created. The applicant desired to clean up the plat of record by slightly shifting
the building envelope. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property
owners, and no comments were received. The Planning Commission is the recommending body
for this application, with the Town Board making the final decision.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated the plat of record showed building setbacks and
building envelopes that caused confusion. The amended plat application would clear up any
confusion and clean up the plat of record.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Public comment closed.
Staff Findings
1. The Amended Plat application complies with EVDC Section 3.9.E Subdivision Standards for
Review.
2. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board for the proposed
Amended Plat.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the Community Development memo dated June 27, 2014.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 20,
Stanley Hills PUD to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff
and the motion passed unanimously.
4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING
MICRO‐BREWERIES, ‐WINERIES, AND –DISTILLERIES
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the purpose was to provide a formal
recommendation to the Town Board and County Commissioners to allow an amendment to
the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The current schedule moving forward would
include a Town Board hearing on July 22nd, and County Commission hearing on August 11th.
Planner Kleisler stated staff received feedback from the Planning Commissioners at the June
meeting. He explained the different definitions, as follows:
Brewpub is a restaurant with a brewery, distillery, or winery on site to serve patrons and
provide for some degree of distribution. It is subordinate to the restaurant use. The EVDC
does not currently define the use, and this amendment process would create that definition,
as well as provide for alignment with the Colorado State Liquor Code. Food sales shall account
for at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total food and drink income. The proposed
amendment would allow brewpubs in the same zone districts as is currently allowed, but
limited their use in the A–Accommodations district to an accessory to an accommodations
use.
Micro‐brewery/Micro‐distillery/Micro‐winery is generally a small scale business that focuses
on retail sales. They are generally regulated either through production or square footage. The
proposed amendment would regulate through square footage, as directed by the Town
Board. This type of business would be allowed as a principal use in the CD–Commercial
Downtown and the CO–Commercial Outlying zone districts. The uses would be allowed as an
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
accessory use in the A–Accommodations district, but only as an accessory to an
accommodations use, e.g. it cannot be used as a standalone operation.
Tasting/Tap Room is the location in which customers may sample and purchase the products
of a brewery/distillery/winery. This is often connected to the brewery/distillery/winery, but
can also be located away from the production site. This use is proposed in the same zone
districts that permit “micro” and “conventional” breweries/distilleries/wineries.
Breweries/Distilleries/Wineries are generally large‐scale operations that focus primarily on
manufacturing and distribution. A 15,000 square foot size limit has been proposed.
Tasting/Tap Rooms are often created as a part of the facility, and staff has proposed the size
of any such rooms be limited to thirty percent of the total floor area of the facility, or 1000
square feet, whichever is greater. The intent is to keep manufacturing in the industrial zone
districts and discourage retail sales from dominating in those zone districts. After hearing
comments from the Planning Commission and Town Board, staff has proposed this type of
business be allowed in the CH–Commercial Heavy by Special Review, to ensure adjacent
property owners will receive notification have the opportunity to comment.
Planner Kleisler reviewed the proposed code amendment. Some changes to the code only
clarify the existing code. Brewpubs would be allowed as a use by right in the A–
Accommodations (only as an accessory use to accommodations), CD–Commercial Downtown,
CO–Commercial Outlying, O–Office, and I‐1–Industrial. Tasting rooms would follow the same
use table as brewpubs. Breweries/distilleries/wineries would require Special Review to locate
in the CH–Commercial Heavy zone district. This would trigger notification of the adjacent
property owners within 500 feet of the property and allow them the opportunity to comment.
Staff recommended disallowance in the A‐1–Accommodations zone district, as over one half
of the parcels in this thousand acre zone district are within one hundred feet of a residential
zone district.
Planner Kleisler reviewed the parking requirements, after being directed by the Town Board
to reevaluate the proposed minimum parking requirements with an eye towards reducing the
minimum standards for these uses. Staff arrived at a standard based on a study by the
Institute of Traffic Engineers. Staff recommends a standard of one parking space for every 100
square feet of building space. Staff determined they would not account for areas not
accessible to the public (brewery operation).
There was brief discussion concerning how the proposed parking regulations would compare
to the existing Estes Park Brewery.
Public Comment
None.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Dickey/Bowers) to recommend approval of the amendment to
the Estes Valley Development Code concerning Micro‐Craft Liquor to the Estes Park Town
Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners and the motion passed
unanimously.
4. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, & 3, SIXTH GREEN ESTATES, 1255‐1295 Sixth Green Lane
Planner Kleisler stated this item was continued at last month’s meeting. A few minor changes
were made from the original application. The objective of this amended plat is to eliminate
building envelopes on three lots of record, and revert to the setback standards as outlined in
the EVDC. No property lines will change, nor will any new lots be created. The Planning
Commission is the recommending body, with the Town Board making the final decision.
Planner Kleisler stated all three lots meet the minimum lot size (1/2 acre) for the E–Estate
zone district. The building envelopes were established when the subdivision was created in
the early 2000s. Removing the building envelope on Lot 1 would reduce the setback on the
north by ten feet. This would provide additional building area in the southeast section of the
lot. The applicant has requested to create a building site by removing some of the trees to the
east and retaining a large ponderosa on the west. Approximately six trees in the interior
would be removed, while a row of trees along the east property line would remain.
Planner Kleisler stated the changes to Lot 2 would include a reduction of the setback by six
feet on the south property line. He referred to the staff report from the original subdivision,
which included a condition of approval to protect the east property line and provide a buffer
for the neighbor to the north and to the golf course. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommends
if significant trees are removed, now or in the future, replacement be required in accordance
with EVDC Section 7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection.
Planner Kleisler stated the change to Lot 3 would provide additional building space on the
southwest portion of the lot, which could allow an accessory structure. Again, the staff report
from the original subdivision included a condition of approval to add limits of disturbance to
Lot 3, due to “the borderline nature of the proposed subdivision and concerns expressed by
adjacent property owners.” Planner Kleisler stated staff recommends if significant trees are
removed from Lot 3, now or in the future, replacement may be required in accordance with
EVDC Section 7.3. Tree and Vegetation Protection. Drainage from the lots will be reviewed
when building permits for dwellings are submitted.
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property
owners. One long‐time neighbor inquired about the application. Utilities and other public
service agencies had no concerns. He explained the density in the subdivision would not
increase, but the building site flexibility would change. Staff recommended approval with the
following conditions, listed below.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff Findings
1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the Amended Plat
application complies with EVDC Section 3.9.E. Subdivisions Standards for Review and other
applicable sections of the EVDC.
2. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board for the proposed
Amended Plat.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion concerning fire truck access. Staff determined the plats were
created prior to the adoption of the fire code; thus, they would be considered legally
nonconforming in relation to the current fire code.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated the applicant desires to eliminate the building
envelopes in order to build on the lots while retaining the larger trees on the lots.
Public comment closed.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.3 Tree and Vegetation
Protection relating to tree/vegetation removal.
2. Revise the preliminary plat to show the paved driveway area for Lot 3.
3. Graphically delineate the sanitary sewer easement across Lot 10, Esquire Acres and
include recording information.
4. Add note that easement across golf course was approved with original subdivision,
include reception number of plat (2004‐0104687).
It was moved and seconded (Sykes/Klink) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of
Lots 1, 2, & 3, Sixth Green Estates to the Town Board with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion passed 6‐1 with Commissioner Murphree voting
against.
5. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 20 & 29, FORT MORGAN COLONY SUBDIVISION, 1031 & 1053
Morgan Street
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The owners, Melinda and Pete Dawson, desire to
move one internal lot line to bring one of two lots into compliance for minimum lot size.
Currently, the smaller lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirement. Both lots are
currently for sale. Planner Kleisler stated the lots are zone E–Estate. Lot 20 is currently .82
acres, and Lot 29 is currently .40 acres. If the amended plat is approved, the lots would be .60
(Lot 20A) and .62 (Lot 29A), and both would comply with the one‐half acre minimum lot size.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property
owners. Comments were received from three neighbors, who were concerned about access
to proposed Lot 29A. Planner Kleisler stated the original plat shows a 12‐foot access easement
specifically for a private road along the north property line. This easement would most likely
be the access to the northernmost lot. The intent for Lot 29A would be to open up the area
for a logical building site on the west side of the proposed lot, avoiding the ten foot water
easement along the center of the lot and a historical drainage area on the eastern side.
Planner Kleisler stated the two lots were created with the Fort Morgan Colony Subdivision in
1958. A single‐family dwelling was constructed on Lot 20 in 1928, and Lot 29 is currently
vacant. Both lots are owned by Dawsons. Staff will be working with the applicant to ensure a
proper location for the sewer easement for proposed Lot 29A. The current proposed sewer
would not function properly due to the topography of the lot. Planner Kleisler stated the
revision of the sewer easement has been added as an additional condition of approval. The
applicant would have 90 days to make the necessary changes.
Staff Findings
1. The Amended Plat application complies with EVDC Section 3.9.E. Subdivisions
Standards for Review.
2. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board for the
proposed Amended Plat.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion about compliance of lot size. Planner Kleisler stated access to the
lots was discussed in the pre‐application meeting with the applicant. Because this amended
plat process is not creating any new lots, the applicant is not required to provide a written
means of access to a public road. The private platted road was primarily intended for these
lots, therefore; which lots can use the private road is a private matter.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/owner representative stated the owners would like to amend the plat in order
to sell the lots.
Sharry White /Town resident submitted written comment. She stated her desire was to have
the owner add an access easement for Lot 29A off of Lot 20A because the private drive is very
narrow (one lane), and is primarily used as a private driveway for Lot 17. Lot 17 is landlocked,
except for the private easements. The current northern access would not be suitable as access
for three lots. If a longer drive was created, it could create drainage problems as well as
create issues for fire trucks. She was also concerned about the removal of trees, stating the
area is currently a heavily‐used wildlife corridor. Ms. White requested if the amended plat is
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
approved, the Planning Commission require access directly off of Morgan Street to the south
rather than using the existing access to proposed Lot 29A.
Amy Spallinger/Town resident was concerned about the location of the proposed building site
as well as the impact on wildlife. She stated the narrow driveway access would make it
difficult for three homes to use one narrow driveway.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Town Attorney White stated the driveway is a prescriptive right put in place to provide access
to Lots 17 and 28, and 29. He stated it was unusual to have the access easement within one
plat, providing access to other properties. There was discussion about the location of the
proposed sewer easement.
Director Chilcott stated Lot 29 has always been a buildable lot, with a legal nonconforming lot
size. The issue is whether a sewer easement can be dedicated to bring the sewer system to
the lot.
Planner Kleisler stated the Fire Marshall reviewed the application and was not concerned
about access. If built using today’s code, the standard driveway width requirement would be
ten feet.
Attorney White explained the current driveway is owned by the Dawsons as part of Lot 29.
However, they cannot deny access to the property owners of Lots 17 and 28. No new lot is
being created with this amended plat. According to Attorney White, the private drive appears
to be capable of accommodating all three lots.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the Community Development memo dated June 27, 2014.
2. Provide easement for proposed sewer location prior to plat recordation.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Sykes) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of
Lots 20 and 29 to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff
the motion passed 6‐1 with Commissioner Dickey voting against.
6. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014‐03 and LOCATION & EXTENT REVIEW, ESTES PARK SANITATION
DISTRICT
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the request is for construction of a new
3,659 square foot “headworks” building to house improvements for the district’s treatment
process, and to enable the district to meet new discharge permit requirements. This request is
subject to both Special Use Review and Location and Extent Review. These types of reviews
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
are required when the development is a public utility. The proposed development is a minor
expansion of a Major Utility (permitted by Special Use Review) already established at this
location. The review does not present any evaluation of the location of the larger facility, and
does not attempt to apply a comprehensive analysis of code compliance for the existing
improvements. No minor modifications have been requested with this proposal. Planner
Kleisler stated due to staff availability at the time the application was submitted, the review
was contracted out to Bob Joseph.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposed development is in the CO–Commercial Outlying zone
district, and the application will comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC.
Planning Commission is the recommending body for the Special Review, and the decision‐
making body for the Location and Extent Review. Planner Kleisler explained in detail the
purpose of Special Reviews and Location and Extent Reviews. Following today’s decision, the
Estes Park Sanitation District Board of Directors has the authority to exempt itself from local
zoning regulations.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposed use for the property, waste water treatment, will not
change. The CO zone district has no density restrictions, and the proposed project complies
with the height and setback requirements as well as lot coverage. The floor area ratio
complies with the EVDC. Because this facility is closed to the public, no sidewalk is required.
The applicant submitted a drainage plan that was reviewed by the Public Works Department,
and no significant issues were raised. The electrical plan has been approved by Light and
Power with some minor changes. A fire truck turning template has been submitted and will be
field‐tested during construction. The Colorado Department of Transportation had no
comments from their review. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has received approval from
the state to proceed with the project.
Planner Kleisler stated the existing wastewater treatment plan was completed prior to the
adoption of the EVDC. The landscape buffer with Highway 34 is adequate; however, staff
recommends adding additional trees on the south and east sides of the property. The EVDC
states “The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent
feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the
environment.’ Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval to install trees and shrubs
on the east and south sides of the new construction. This condition will be decided by the
Planning Commission.
Staff Findings
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The application advances several Community‐Wide policies, as
delineated in the staff report.
2. The Development Plan complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter
Seven, “General Development Standards.”
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
4. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in
the Review Discussion in the staff report.
5. The Planning Commission is the Decision‐Making Body for the Location and Extent
Review. The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision‐Making Body for the Special
Review.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Dickey was concerned about landscaping next to the Visitor Center and also
about the access to the property, which is through the Visitor Center parking lot.
Commissioner Bowers was concerned about odor. Planner Kleisler stated improvements were
planned to reduce odor.
Public Comment
Jim Duell/applicant stated the sanitation district is facing compliance issues with new state
regulations. The initial project has been ongoing for five years, and the 2015 compliance date
has been extended by one year. The application being reviewed includes a new headworks
building to remove non‐organic matter, installation of mechanical odor control measures, and
the open tanks will be covered. In addressing the additional landscaping recommendations, he
stated the effluent line runs along the east side of the property, which may present some
landscaping issues in that area. Small shrubs and bushes would probably not create any
problems, but trees and their roots would create problems.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Klink recommended removing the requirement for large trees.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the following affected agency memos:
a. This Community Development staff report subsection ‘landscaping and buffers’
herein;
1) Five evergreen trees and fifteen shrubs shall be provided along the east side of
the new construction. Three evergreen or deciduous trees and nine shrubs
shall be provided along the south side of the new construction.
b. Estes Park Light and Power memo dated June 27, 2014;
c. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated June 4, 2014;
d. Colorado Department of Transportation email dated June 19, 2014;
e. Estes Valley Fire Protection District4 memo dated June 24, 2014; and
f. Estes Park Water Division memo dated June 27, 2014.
It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to approve the Location and Extent Review
for the Estes Park Sanitation District with the finding and recommendations by staff, with
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the exception of the requirement to add large trees to the east side of the project and the
motion passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to recommend approval of Special Review
2014‐03, Estes Park Sanitation District to the Town Board with the findings and
recommendations by staff, with the exception of the requirement to add large trees to the
east side of the project and the motion passed unanimously.
7. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014‐02, AT&T MONOPOLE
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant withdrew the application.
8. REPORTS
A. Director Chilcott reported an amended plat in the Kenofer Addition would be reviewed by
the Planning Commission in August.
B. Director Chilcott reported an amendment to the EVDC concerning assemblies would be
before the EVPC in August. This is related to wedding‐type assemblies. There is currently
no specific zone district where that can be a specific use. More and more people are
interested in opening that type of business, and it aligns with other uses in existing zone
districts.
C. Director Chilcott reported Town Board is scheduled to review the Falcon Ridge Minor
Subdivision Plat on July 22, 2014.
D. Director Chilcott reported revisions to the Falcon Ridge Development Plan will be in front
of Planning Commission at the August 19, 2014 meeting. She reminded the Commission
this application remains quasi‐judicial.
E. Planner Kleisler reported the applicant for the Comfort Inn Development Plan submitted
final plans aligning with conditions of approval. The Public Works Department, Town
Engineer Kevin Ash, and the applicant worked together and determined a way to move
forward with a revised drainage plan. The applicant was also able to reduce the driveway
width and the slope, and additional landscaping will be installed on the south side of the
property.
F. Director Chilcott reported on flood recovery, stating the Town submitted two applications
to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for Community Development Block
Grant‐Disaster Recovery (CDBG‐DR). These applications were specific to two items; (1) a
Master Planning grant, and (2) funds to hire a planner to focus specifically on flood
recovery work. The planner position was not approved, but the Town was provided
additional resources that could possibly fund the Planner position. Two additional
Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) applications were submitted for additional
debris removal or stream restoration; $200,000 each for Fall River and Fish Creek
drainages. Those applications included a joint effort with the Estes Valley Land Trust and
the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. If awarded, funds will be used for improved
trail design, flood protection, and amenities for the community. There is no guarantee we
will receive the full amount requested. Director Chilcott reported there was less focus on
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 11
July 15, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
the Big Thompson River corridor, but would be willing to discuss this area outside of the
meeting. New mapping and hydrology reports will be forthcoming, which will help
determine what downtown improvements will need to be made to reduce the risk of
future flooding. Based on the cubic feet per second (CFS) numbers we have seen for Fish
Creek, we are expecting to see higher number for Fall River as well.
G. Director Chilcott reported part of the Master Plan process includes River Advisory
Committees, and a meeting is scheduled for July 30th. The committees consist of
residents, Town staff from Utilities, Public Works, Community Development, wildlife
experts, and Walsh’s Master Plan team. The Master Plans will likely be reviewed by the
Planning Commission when the design is further along.
H. Director Chilcott reported Wes Reichardt, Code Compliance Officer, has been focusing on
the priorities identified during the public outreach meetings several months ago; including
but not limited to vacation home enforcement.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
Date: August 26, 2014
RE: SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-03, ESTES PARK SANITATION DISTRICT, Lot
1, Stanley Meadows Addition; Amended Plat of Lots 1A & 1C of Replat of
Portion of Lot 4 and all of Lot 2; 610 Big Thompson Avenue/Applicant
Objective:
Review of a Development Plan as a Special Review Use for compliance with the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The Estes Park Sanitation District provides wastewater treatment to an estimated 3,200
full-time residents of Estes Park. Many of the District’s commercial customers include
lodging and restaurant establishments, which generally doubles the customer base
during the summer months. The project site is the location for the existing wastewater
treatment facility adjecant to the Visitor Center.
Proposal:
The Estes Park Sanitation District proposes to construct a new 3,659 square foot
“headworks” building to house improvements for the district’s treatment process to
enable to the district to meet new State discharge permit requirements for heavy metals
(namely zinc, copper and lead). This request is subject to both Special Use Review and
Location and Extent Review. The Estes Valley Planning Commission approved the
Location and Extent review and provided a recommendation for the Special Review, in
which the Town Board is the Decision-Making Body.
Both the Special Review and Location and Extent Review are forms of Development
Plan Review. The proposed development plan is simply a minor expansion of a Major
Utility (Permitted by Special Use Review) that is already established in this location.
There is one principal use proposed: Waste Water Treatment Plant. This is a use
subject to Special Review in the CO zone district.
The Special Review standard requires “The application for the proposed special review
use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby
land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment”. To that end staff
recommended additional landscaping around the proposed building site. However, due
to site constraints and at the District’s request, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the application without the additional landscaping.
The proposed expansion is consistent with the policies and goals of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan by providing clean water to town residents, protecting Lake Estes
and installing odor control mechanisms as part of this application.
Advantages:
Compliance with the EVDC;
Consistency with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; and
Ability of the Applicant to meet more stringent dischange permit requirements.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their July 15, 2014 meeting.
During that meeting the Commission found that:
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The application advances several Community-Wide
policies, as delineated in the Staff report.
2. The Development Plan complies with the standards and criteria set forth in
Chapter Seven, General Development Standards.”
3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
4. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application
will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as
described in the Review Discussion in the staff report.
5. The Planning Commission is the Decision-making Body for the Location and
Extent Review. The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-making Body for the
Special Review.
The Planning Commission further voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the application
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the following affected agency memos:
a. Estes Park Light and Power memo June 27, 2014;
b. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated June 4, 2014;
c. Colorado Department of Transportation email dated June 19, 2014;
d. Estes Valley Fire District memo dated June 24, 2014; and
e. Estes Park Water Division memo dated June 27, 2014.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Low. The Planning Commission received no comments on this application leading to
and during the public hearing.
Sample Motion:
I move to APPROVE (or deny) the Estes Park Sanitation District Waste Water
Treatment Plant Special Review Use application, as described in the staff report, with
the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Applicant Statement of Intent
2. Site Plan
3. Agency Comments
EstesParkSanitationDistrictP0Box722,EstesPark,CO80517StatementofIntent,EstesParkSanitationDistrictHeadworksBuildingConstructionandCDPHEPermitComplianceEstesParkCommunityDevelopmentPlanningandZoning170MacGregorAvenueEstesPark,CO80517RE:EstesParkSanitationDistrict—HeadworksBuildingTheEstesParkSanitationDistrictispleasedtosubmitplansforourDevelopmentPlanandLocationandExtentReview.Theprojectislocatedatthesiteoftheexistingwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesat610BigThompsonAvenue.TheplandesirestomeettheapplicabledesignstandardsasdetailedintheTownofEstesParkDevelopmentCode.Theconstructionoftheproposedheadworksbuildingwillhousemanyimprovementsforourtreatmentprocess,butmostimportantlyenableustomeetnewdischargepermitrequirements.Aspartofourcurrentdischargepermit,theDistricthasacompliancescheduletomeetmorestringentrequirementsforheavymetals—primarilyzinc,copperandlead.Theprojectwillnotincreasethecapacityofthefacility.DissolvedAirFiltration(DAF)willbeusedto“float”metalsbacktoourtreatmentprocessforfurtherdigestionwithremovalthroughourexistingbiosolidsprogram.Districtstaffisexcitedabouttheimprovementsastheywillnotonlyenablemeetingnewstreamstandards,butalso:•TheDAFunitswillfurther“polish”theeffluentbeforedischargetotheBigThompsonRiver.RecreationalusersoftheBigThompsonRiverwillalsobenefit.•Thebuildingwillfeaturesignificantoperationalflexibility.Theflexibilitywillbeintegralinhelpingusmeetfuturedischargerequirements.•Gritremovalandadvancedscreeningwillbepartoftheproject.Ourexistingheadworksstructure,equipmentandcanopywillberemovedandprovideavisualimprovementforourfacility.•UVdisinfectionwillreplacechlorineandsulfurdioxidegascurrentlyusedfordisinfection.•Upgradingourexistingelectricalsystemwillbepartoftheprocess.•Theprojectwillfeaturemechanicalodorcontrolunits.AdditionalodorcontrolwillbeaccomplishedbycoveringourEQbasinandthroughamoreefficientprocess.Theabilitytobettercontrolthesolidssettlingprocesswillreducecleaningrequirementsoftanks.Tankcleaningisaprimarysourceofodor.OwnerThepropertyiscurrentlyownedbytheEstesParkSanitationDistrict.Therearenolienholders.
ProjectLocationThepropertyislocatedat610BigThompsonAvenue.ThelegaldescriptionistheAmendedPlatofLots1AandICoftheReplatofaPortionofLot4andAllofLot1,StanleyMeadowsAddition.ThepropertyiscurrentlyzonedCO(commercialoutlying).AccessThepropertyiscurrentlyaccessedoffUS34throughanexisting30’utilityandaccesseasementforLots1A,lBand10StanleyMeadowsAddition.UtilitiesServicetothepropertyandtheproposedbuildingwillbeasfollows:Communications-CenturyLinkElectric—TownofEstesParkNaturalGas—XcelEnergyWater—TownofEstesParkWastewater—EstesParkSanitationDistrictAllutilitiesarecurrentlyonsite.Awatermainextension(8”)willberequiredandthelinewillincludeafirehydrantattheextensionconclusion.TheexactlocationoftheextensionwillbedeterminedwithapprovalofthewaterdepartmentandTownofEstesPark.Preservingseveralmaturetreesthatoffersignificantvisualappealwouldbeadesiredgoal.SiteDensityCalculationsThepropertyis3.187acres.(138,829sq.ft)ExistingFARBuildings-existing15668Exteriortanks&generator6735TOTAL22403ExistingFAR16.14%ProposedFARBuildings-existing15668ProposedBuilding3659Exteriortanks&generator6735TOTAL26062ProposedFAR18.77%ExistingLotCoverageBufldings-existing15668Exteriortanks&generator6735DrivewayandParking26927TOTAL49330ExistingLotCoverage-35.53%ProposedLotCovejBuildings-existing15668ProposedBuilding3659Exteriortanks&generator6735DrivewayandParking27487TOTAL53549ProposedLotCoverage38.57%ParkingOurexistingparkinglayoutwillcontinue.Oneparkingplaceisprovidedforeachemployee(6)withanadditionalspotforvendorsorguests.Areasforequipmentstoragewillstillbeprovided.Thenewbuildingwillnotincreasethenumbersofemployees.
LandscapingNochangetoourexistinglandscapingisproposed.TheDistrict’spropertyisverywelllandscapedandmaintainedwithlargeareasofmanicuredgrasssurroundingtreesandbushes.Thereare50treesonthegroundsandmanyarequitelargeandprovidecoverandvisualappeal.Groundwateronthenorthsideofourpropertyhasrequiredustochangethetypesoftreesthataremaintained.Thischangewillbeanongoingprocess.TheDistrict’scurrentlandscapingincludes:Aspen!otherdeciduoustrees22PineTrees(varioustypes)10Sprucetrees18Evergreengroundcover10Otherbushes!lowshrubs15InadditiontheentranceandourwestperimeterarelandscapedwithbushesandtreesthatareinpartmaintainedbytheParksDepartment—ourneighbortothesouth.TheDistrictusesnon-potablewatertoirrigateandwaterthevegetation.EnvironmentAspartofthePreliminaryEngineeringReview(PER)andPreliminaryDesignReview(PDR)withtheColoradoDepartmentofPublicHealthandEnvironmentanenvironmentalreviewwasperformed.Therewerenowetlandsorenvironmentalissuesidentifiedwiththeproject.FireCodeComplianceThebuildingplansincludecompliancewithrequirementsofthe2009internationalfirecode.AccesstothebuildingwillmeetthedrivewayrequirementsusingtheB4ORtemplate.Thewatermainextensionwillprovideahydrantincloseproximitytothebuilding.RecentHighWaterRequirementsThehighwatermarksasobservedbystaffoftheEstesParkSanitationDistrictduringtherecentSeptember2013floodinghavebeenincludedonthesitedrawings.Theelevationofthehighwatermarksis7495.0.Theproposedbuildingelevationis7497.1.SchedulingTheDistrictwouldliketobeginthebiddingprocessinJanuary2015withbidawardshortlyafter.Constructionwouldbegininearlyspring2015.EngineeringMr.RobertTakedaistheleadengineeroftheproject.HisfirmRMTechnicalSolutionsworksinconjunctionwithTSTConsultingEngineers.Mr.Takedamaybereachedat(303)918-5762.Hisaddressis8731S.CedarwoodLane,HighlandsRanch,CO80126Ifyouhavequestionsorwouldlikeadditionalinformation,pleasecontactBobTakedaorJamesDuell(970)586-2866.Thankyou.JamesDuell,DistrictManagerEstesParkSanitationDistrict1201GravesAvenue,EstesPark80517
CONTIGUOUSPROPERTYTO:AmendedPlatofLots1Aand1CoftheReplatofaPortionofLot4andAllofLot1,StanleyMeadowsAddition1)Parcel#25193-51-903,Lot4,StanleyMeadowsAddition,lessLaveView,LessReplatofaPortionLot4,TownofEstesParkOwner:UnitedStatesofAmerica,GeneralDelivery,Washington,DC20410CurrentLessee:EstesValleyRecreationandParkDistrict,P0Box1379,EstesPark,CO805172)Parcel#25302-84-901,Lot1,VisitorCenterSubdivisionEPK,LessPortioninTaxDistrict3300Owner:TownofEstesPark,P0Box1200,EstesPark,CO805173)Parcel#25302-52-902,Lot1B,ReplatofaPortionofLot4andallofLot1,StanleyMeadowsAddition,TownofEstesParkOwner:TownofEstesPark,P0Box1200,EstesPark,CO80517
ESTESVALLEYDEVELOPMENTREVIEWAPPLICATIONIXDevelopmentPlanf’SpecialReviewFRezoningPetitionFPreliminarySubdivisionPlatFFinalSubdivisionPlatFMinorSubdivisionPlatFBoundaryLineAdjustmentFROWorEasementVacationFStreetNameChangeFTimeExtensionFOther:PleasespecifyCondominiumMap.z—._____irIProjectNamerojectDescriptionProjectAddressLegalDescription#EPSDTrImFacilityImorovementsHeadworksBuilding610BigThompsonAve.,EstesPark,CO80517STANLEYME1DOWSADDAMOL1A&1CRPLTLi&PORL42530285901NameofPrimaryContactPersonCompleteMailingAddressPr-’ContactPersonisJamesDuell.DistrictManacierP0Box722,EstesPark,CO80517ApplicationfeeStatementofintent3copies(folded)ofplatorplan(7copies)lix17’reducedcopyofplatorplaneasereviewtheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeAppendixBforadditionalsubmittalrequirements,whichmayincludeISOcalculations,drainagereport,trafficimpactanalysis,geologichazardmitigationreport,wildfirehazardmitigationreport,wetlandsreport,and/orotheradditionalinformation.3.187AcresUtility,MajorUtility,MajorAreaofDisturbanceinAcresApprox..25acresiXTownXTownLotSize_________________________ExistingLandUseProposedLandUseExistingWaterServiceProposedWaterServiceExistingSanitarySewerServiceProposedSanitarySewerServiceIsasewerliftstationrequired?ExistingGasServiceXXcelExistingZoningCOSiteAccess(ifnotonpublicstreet)Aretherewetlandsonthesite?FWellIWellIXrr1—Other(specify)Other(specify)UTSDUTSDFNoneFNoneEPSDEPSDYesOtherNoneProposedZoningCOExistincifromUS34NoFSepticFSepticFNoneFYesNoedatthetimeapplicationissubmitted.Complete?3111‘J-.-I—I”)FOwnerIXIXIxXXApplicantFConsultant/EngineerXXDigitalCopiesofplats/plansinTIFForPDFformatemailedtoplanningestes.orgTownofEstesPork..P.O.Box1200110MacGregorAvenue-EstesPork,Co80517ComrnuntyDeveopmentDeportmentPhone:19701517-3721.Fox:(9701586-0249•.www.estes.org/CommunityDeveloprnentRevised2013.08.27K!
ApplicantJamesDuell,DistrictManagerMaillngAddressPCBox722,EstesPark,CO80517Phone(970)586—2866CellPhoneFax(970)586—4712Emailjldepsd@gwestoffice.netonsultantIEngineerRobertM.Takeda,P.E.MailingAddress8731$CedarwoodLn..,HighlandsRanch,CO80126Phone(303)918—5762CellPhoneFaxEmailbtakeda@comcast.comMINERALRIGHTCERTIFICATIONArticle65.5ofTitle24oftheColoradoRevisedStatutesrequiresapplicantsforDevelopmentPlans,SpecialReviews,Rezoning,PreliminaryandFinalSubdivisionPlats,MinorSubdivisionPlatsifcreatinganewlot,andPreliminaryandFinalCondominiumMapstoprovidenoticeoftheapplicationandinitialpublichearingtoallmineralestateownerswherethesurfaceestateandthemineralestatehavebeensevered.Thisnoticemustbegiven30dayspriortothefirsthearingonanapplicationfordevelopmentandmeetthestatutoryrequirements.IherebycertifythattheprovisionsofSection24-65.5-103CRShavebeenmet.Names:RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT:trk-v’IApplicantPLEASEPRINT:JctweSOjeSignatures:RecordOwner.-Date___________ApplicantDate5—fi—i4-RecordOwner(s)EstesParkSanitationDistrictMailingAddressP0Box722,EstesPark,CO80517Phone(970)586—2866CellPhone_____________________Fax,(970)586—4712EmailAPPLICATIONFEESFordevelopmentwithintheEstesValleyPlanningArea,bothinsideandoutsideTownlimitsSeetheleescheduleincludedinyourapplicationpacketorviewthefeescheduleonlineat:wv.estes.orq/CornDev/Schedules&Fees/PtanninqApplicationFeeSchedule.pdfAllrequestsforrefundsmustbemadeinwriting.Allfeesaredueatthetimeofsubmittal.Revised2013.08.2/KT
APPLICANTCERTIFICATIONIherebycertifythattheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandthatinfilingtheapplicationIamactingwiththeknowledgeandconsentoftheownersoftheproperty.Insubmittingtheapplicationmaterialsandsigningthisapplicationagreement,IacknowledgeandagreethattheapplicationissubjecttotheapplicableprocessingandpublichearingrequirementssetforthintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC).IacknowledgethatIhaveobtainedorhaveaccesstotheEVDC,andthat,priortofilingthisapplication,Ihavehadtheopportunitytoconsulttherelevantprovisionsgoverningtheprocessingofanddecisionontheapplication.TheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeisavailableonlineat:p://www.estes.orci/CoinDev!DevCodeIunderstandthatacceptanceofthisapplicationbytheTownofEstesParkforfilingandreceiptoftheapplicationfeebytheTowndoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheapplicationiscompleteundertheapplicablerequirementsoftheEVDC.Iunderstandthatthisproposalmaybedelayedinprocessingbyamonthormoreiftheinformationprovidedisincomplete,inaccurate,orsubmittedafterthedeadlinedate.Iunderstandthataresubmittalfeewillbechargedifmyapplicationisincomplete.TheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentwillnotifytheapplicantinwritingofthedateonwhichtheapplicationisdeterminedtobecomplete.IgrantpermissionforTownofEstesParkEmployeesandPlanningCommissionerswithproperidentificationaccesstomypropertyduringthereviewofthisapplication.IacknowledgethatIhavereceivedtheEstesValleyDevelopmentReviewApplicationScheduleandthatfailuretomeetthedeadlinesshownonsaidschedulemayresultinmyapplicationortheapprovalofmyapplicationbecomingnullandvoid.Iunderstandthatfullfeeswillbechargedfortheresubmittalofanapplicationthathasbecomenullandvoid.Names:RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT:EstesParkSanit-atinnflici-rintApplicantPLEASEPRINT:JamesDuell,DistrictManagerSignatures:RecordOwnersDate______________ApplicantDate_______________Revised2013.08.27KT
REVISEDRECEIVED 6/11/14
REVISEDRECEIVED 6/11/14
REVISEDRECEIVED 6/11/14
REVISEDRECEIVED 6/11/14
REVISEDRECEIVED 6/11/14
REVISEDRECEIVED 6/11/14
REVISEDRECEIVED 6/11/14
REVISEDRECEIVED 6/11/14
HrTOWNOFEISTESPARIçInter-OfficeMemorandumTo:CommunityDevelopmentFrom:JoeLockhart,SteveRuschDate:6/27/2014Re:DevelopmentReview:EstesParkSanitationDistrict-Headwork’sBuildingLightandPowerhasthefollowingFinal/PublicReviewcommentsfortheaboveapplication:TheaboveapplicationiscompleteforDevelopmentReview,butnotyetapprovedforissuanceofbuildingpermits.ThefollowinginformationisrequiredonConstructionDrawings.•Electricservicelinesize•Voltageneeded•LocationofelectriclineandtransformerPleaseschedulearequiredmeetatsitewithJoeLockhart,LineSuperintendentat970-577-3613AllinfrastructuresmustbepaidinadvancetotheTown.NoBuildingpermitswillbeapprovedbyLight&Poweruntilallinfrastructureshavebeenpaidfor.Allprimarylinesmustbe4ftdeepwithredwarningtapeat2ft.AllTownofEstesParkLightandPowerlines,(Primary/Secondary)musthavea20ft.utilityeasement.Thiseasementcanbesharedbywater,phoneandcable.Transformers/pencellsmustbeinaneasement,orifpossibleonthepropertyline.
4TOWNOFESTESPARIKInter-OfficeMemorandumAlltemporaryandpermanentelectricserviceswillbeconnectedbyLight&Powerwithin5businessdaysafterthestateelectricalinspection&feesarepaid.Nothinginthisreviewisintendedtoauthorizeorapproveanyaspectofthisprojectthatdoesnotstrictlycomplywithallapplicablecodesandstandards.AnychangemadetotheplanswillrequireadditionalreviewandcommentsbytheTownofEstesParkLightandPowerDivision.
P.O.Box568•EstesPark,Co80517P11:970-586-4544•Fax:970-586-1049www.utsd.orgJune4,2014DaveShirk,PlannerIITownofEstesParkP.O.Box1200EstesPark,CO80517Re:EstesParkSanitationHeadworksBuilding610BigThompsonAvenueDearDave:TheUpperThompsonSanitationDistrictsubmitsthefollowingcommentsfortheabovereferencedproperty:1.TheDistrictwillrequirethe15”VCPlineabovemanhole#F-81-2tobecappedoffandabandoned.2.TheDistrictwillrequirethenew18”linetobecoredintomanholewithanewlinksealtoprovideanadequateseal.Ifyouhaveanyfurtherquestionsorneedfurtherassistance,pleasedonothesitatetocontactme.Respectfully,ToddKrulaLinesSuperintendentEnvironmentalProtectionThroughWaslewalerCollectionandTreatment
00PhilKleislerFrom:KarenThompson<kthompson@estes.org>Sent:Monday,June23,20145:42PMTo:PhilKleislerDaveShirkSubject:Fwd:REFERRALFORCOMMENT:FINALCOMMENTS-EstesParkSanitationDistrict;StanleyMeadowsAddition,AmendedPlatofLots1A&1CofthereplatofLot1&andportionofLot4KarenThompsonExecutiveAssistantCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentTownofEstesParkPhone:970-577-3721Fax:970-586-0249kthompson@estes.orgForwardedmessageFrom:Bilobran-CDOT,Timothy<timothy.bilobran@state.co.us>Date:Thu,Jun19,2014at1:35PMSubject:Re:REFERRALFORCOMMENT:FINALCOMMENTS-EstesParkSanitationDistrict;StanleyMeadowsAddition,AmendedPlatofLots1A&1CofthereplatofLot1&andportionofLot4To:KarenThompson<kthompson@estes.org>Cc:41JimDuell<jldepsd@gwestoffice.net>,btakeda@comcast.netKaren,NowthatCDOTknowsforsurethatthetrafficwillnotincreaseonadailybasisasaresultofthisredevelopment,CDOThasnoissueswiththeproposal.Thankyou,TimBilobran970-350-2163OnWed,Jun18,2014at4:57PM,KarenThompson<kthompson@estes.org>wrote:AttachedpleasefindtheguidelinesforFINALCOMMENTSontheEstesParkSanitationDistrict’sSpecialReview2014-03,LocationandExtentReview.Ihaveattachedtherevisedplansforyourconvenience,PlanscanalsobefoundontheTownwebsiteatwww.estes.org/currentapplications.PleasenotethatthisprojectisaSpecialReview,notaDevelopmentPlanaspreviouslymentioned.Yourreviewprocesswillnotchange.CommentsaredueonorbeforeFriday,June27,2014.Pleasebesuretoincludetheapplicantandengineeronyourcomments.Applicant,JimDuell(jldepsd);Engineer,RobertTakeda((btakeda).Thankyou.Wehopetohearfromyousoon.
KarenThompsonExecutiveAssistantCornmunityDcveloprnentDepartmentTownofEstesParkPhone:970-577-3721Fax:970-586-0249kthompson@estes.orgTimBilobranAccessManager,OutdoorAdvertisingInspector,andUtilityPermitsA’uurCOLORADOIDepartmentofTransportationRecion4Office970-350-2163IMobile970-302-4022IFax970-350-220714202ndStreet,Greeley,CO80631timothy.bilobran@state.co.usIwww.coloradodot.infoIwww.cotrip.org2
PLANREVIEWCOMMENTSDate:June24,2014ProjectIdentification:EstesParkSanitationDistrictLocation:610BigThompsonAvenueReferral:WastewaterTreatmentFacility—Headwork’sBuilding(Step3:DevelopmentReview)TheEstesValleyFireProtectionDistricthasreviewedthesubmittedmaterialdescribingtheproposedprojectreferencedabove,andapprovesthoseplanscontingentoncompliancewiththefollowingrequirements:1.TheapplicantshallconsultwithanarchitectandIorbuildinglife-safetycodeconsultanttodetermineactiveandpassivefireprotectionsystemrequirementsfortheproposedfuturebuildings.AtthistimetheFireDistrictcannotdeterminefireprotectionsystemrequirementsduetounknownbuildinghazardousmaterialsmanagementplan,hazardousmaterialsinventory,andcommodityclassificationsIstoragearrangements.Ifanautomaticsprinklersystemisproposed/requiredatalaterdateduetoapplicantdesireandorrequiredfortheproposedoccupancyIstoragearrangements,theapplicantshallprovidesupplementalconstructiondrawingsdepictingthelocation,sizeandtypeofpipingoftheon-sitefireprotectionwaterlineservingtheinteriorautomaticfiresprinklersystem.Priortotheissuanceofabuildingpermitthefollowingrequirementsshallbemet:1.Constructionplans(accessIroads,waterlinesystemdesign)shallbereviewedandmustmeetapprovaloftheFireDistrict.2.Thenewrequiredfirehydrantshallbeinstalled.Thehydrantshallbemaintainedoperationalatalltimesthereafter,unlessalternateprevisionsforwatersupplyareapprovedbythefireDistrict.TheTownofEstesParkmustapprovetheinstallationandoverseethetestingofwatermainsandhydrants.AllconstructionandprocessesshallbeinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheInternationalFireCode(2009Edition)andtheInternationalBuildingCode(2009Edition).Nothinginthisreviewisintendedtoauthorizeorapproveanyaspectofthisprojectthatdoesnotstrictlycomplywithallapplicablecodesandstandards.AnychangemadetotheplanswillrequireadditionalreviewandcommentsbytheEstesValleyFireProtectionDistrict.Ifyouhaveanyquestionspleasefeelfreetocontactme.Sincerely,MarcW.RobinsonFireMarshal970-577-3689mrobinsonestesvalleyfire.org901N.SaintVramAvenue•EstesPark,CO80517•P-970-577-0900•F-970-577-0923
TOWNOFESTESPARKInter-OfficeMemorandumTo:CommunityDevelopmentFrom:JeffBolesandSteveRuschDate:6/27/2014Re:DevelopmentReviewComments:EstesParkSanitationDistrictHeadwork’sBuildingTheWaterDivisionhasthefollowingDevelopmentReviewcommentsfortheaboveapplication:TheaboveapplicationiscompleteforWaterDivisionreviewbutnotapprovedaswaterlineconstructiondrawingsforthewaterlineinstallationorissuanceofanybuildingpermits.ConstructionDrawingsarerequiredandmustbesubmittedforreview,approvalandsignaturesbytheUtilitiesDirectororhisdesignatedrepresentative.NoinstallationofanyprojectinfrastructureisalloweduntiltheConstructionDrawingshavebeenstampedandsigned.AlongwiththesubmissionoftheconstructiondrawingsprovidethecontactinformationofthefirmorpersonactingasUtilityConstructionManagerfortheproject.Constructiondrawingsmustinclude:•Planandprofiletoshowpotentialconflictsbetweenwaterandotherutilitiesincludingculverts,showUtilityEasementlocationswhenutilityisnotinRoadRightofWay.An8”WaterMainExtensionwillberequiredforservice,includingFireProtection.Thisinfrastructuremustbeinstalled;testingperformed/passedandacceptedbytheDivisionpriortoissuanceofanybuildingpermitsAllwaterlinedesignandconstructionshallbedoneaccordingtotheWaterUtilityPoliciesandStandards.AllwatermainlinesandeasementsmustbedeededtotheTownofEstesPark.Allwatermainlinesarerequiredtohaveaminimumof10ft.horizontalseparationfrombothsanitarysewerandstormsewer.Additionally,watermainlinesarerequiredtohaveaminimum4ft.horizontalseparationfromallotherutilities.
ITOWNOFESTESPARKInter-OfficeMemorandumIthasbeendeterminedthatthispropertyisalreadyincludedintheNorthernColoradoWaterConservancyDistrictandtheMunicipalSubdistrict.Nofurtheractionisrequiredforthis.Ifthereareanypotablewaterfixturesinthesmallbuildingbeingdemolished,contacttheWaterDivisiontoscheduleafixturecountsothatcreditscanberecorded.Allcommercialproperties,firesuppressionlinesandirrigationarerequiredtohavebackflowpreventiondevicesinstalledonthewaterservicelines,contactSteveRuschat577-3625orsrusch@estes.orgwithanyquestionsregardingthebackflowdevicesorrequirements.IfanystructureisrequiredtohaveaFireSuppressionSystem,adetaileddrawingmustbeturnedintotheWaterDivisionnoting:•Location,sizingandtypeofbackflowpreventiondevice(s)•Engineeredflowrequirementsforthefiresprinklersystem,pipesizebasedonNFPATable10.10.2.1.3,FireflowproducedatamaximumvelocityoflOft/sec.PipeSizeFlowRate2”100gpm4”390gpm6”880gpm8”1560gpm10”2440gpm12”3520gpmSpillcontrolmethodmustbeshownforproperdisposalofdischargefromthereliefvalve,indicatinglocationandsizingofdrainagecapableofaccommodatingthedischargethatcouldoccur.Firesuppressionlinesrequirebothachlorinationandpressuretest,conductedbyarepresentativeoftheWaterDivisionpriortoacceptance.AnyFiresuppressionlineservicingabuildingfromthewatermainisaprivateservicelineandmustbenotedassuchontheDevelopmentPlanandtheSubdivisionPlat.Futurerepairormaintenancerequiredonthisserviceisthesoleresponsibilityofthepropertyowner.FiresuppressionlinesrequireastatecertifiedfirelineinstallerandmusthavetheappropriateformscompletedandsubmittedtotheEstesValleyFireMarshall.
TOWNOFESTESPARKInter-OfficeMemorandumAllconstructionandprocessesshallbeinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheInternationalFireCode(2009Edition),theInternationalBuildingCode(2009Edition)andTownofEstesParkCodesandStandards.Nothinginthisreviewisintendedtoauthorizeorapproveanyaspectofthisprojectthatdoesnotstrictlycomplywithallapplicablecodesandstandards.AnychangemadetotheplanswillrequireadditionalreviewandcommentsbytheTownofEstesParkWaterDivision.
Light & Power Department Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Date: August 26, 2014
RE: Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Efficiency Program
Intergovernmental Agreement
Objective:
To obtain approval to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Demand
Side Management Program Partnership. Demand side management (DSM) involves
reducing electricity use through activities or programs designed to help communities
promote electric energy efficiency, reduce energy consumption and costs, and to defer
the need for major capital expenditures.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park’s energy efficiency commercial and residential programs can
be greatly improved by cooperating with the other owner municipalities of PRPA. The
Efficiency Works (EW) program has been developed over the past year through the
coordinated efforts of PRPA and its four owner municipalities. The EW program applies
to both commercial and residential customers. The commercial segment has been in
place for the past year and has been very successful. To date, the program has resulted
in impressive energy reductions and will have quick investment paybacks for the
customers. The residential side has begun taking applications from homeowners just
this month. This consolidation of energy efficiency services has been very
advantageous for the Town in streamlining processes, requirements, contractor training,
public relations and advertising, as well as negotiating acceptable pricing for services.
Proposal:
To formalize the consolidation of the DSM programs amongst the four municipalities
under Platte River Power Authority.
Advantages:
• Approval of this IGA will enable the Town to deliver further energy saving
benefits for our commercial and residential customers.
• Cost and time savings in program development, labor expenses and operations
of programs for the Town.
• Streamlined processes.
Disadvantages:
• None
Budget:
This budgeted item is presented annually during the budget presentations in October
and approved in November.
Level of Public Interest
High. A large number of our commercial customers have taken advantage of these
programs over the last several years. We continue to receive inquiries from residential
customers requesting similar services.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the Town entering into the IGA for DSM Program Partnership.
Attachments:
• Presentation: Demand Side Management Programs Update
• Copy of subject IGA
The Energy We Live By™
The Energy We Live By™
Estes Park & Platte River
Demand Side Management Programs
Update
Estes Park Board of Trustees Meeting
August 26, 2014
The Energy We Live By™
Demand Side Management (DSM)
•Meaning of “demand” in this context
–Energy supply and energy demand
–Manage (reduce) demand to delay costs of building new supply (infrastructure capacity)
•Demand Side Management includes
–Energy efficiency programs
•Typically includes “conservation” programs, too
–Demand response programs
•Programs to change when energy is used while leaving quantity of energy alone
–Distributed generation programs
2
Current focus of Platte
River programs
The Energy We Live By™
DSM: A Collaborative Effort
Platte River
“Common Programs”
3
The Energy We Live By™
New Brand for Efficiency Programs
Unique commercial programs:
•LIGHTENUP
•Electric Efficiency Program
•Building Tune-Up
•FCU Water Rebates
•Efficiency Express
•Facility Assessments
Unique residential programs:
•Home Audit & Rebate Programs
•Energy Efficient Lighting
•ENERGY STAR New Homes
Efficiency Works for Business
•Free technical support
•Rebate & grants
Efficiency Works for Home
•Efficiency audits & rebates
•Energy efficient lighting
•Northern Colorado ENERGY
STAR® Homes
New Program/Brand:Old Programs:
4
The Energy We Live By™
Business Efficiency Grant
•Additional grants available to businesses over and above
rebates/services
•Pays up to
–75% of the project costs combined with rebates, OR
–$5,000
•Emerging technologies and deeper savings
–Requires a facility assessment
–Requires particular measures or combinations of
measures
•LEDs, lighting controls, and re-designs
•Advanced HVAC controllers and evaporative cooling
•Promoting more measures to be completed to qualify
7
The Energy We Live By™
Longmont Humane Society
Retrofitted interior lighting and performed a tune-up on the facility.
Project cost: $23,630 | Rebate + grant: $18,817
Annual savings: $13,780 | 115,000 kWh
5
The Energy We Live By™
Efficiency Works for Homes
Home Efficiency Audits & Rebates
•Combines three municipal programs into one, serving all four entities
–One program administrator/consultant: Populus (soon to be CLEAResult)
•Overall program management
•Audit services & efficiency advisor services
•Rebate application review, verification & rebate processing
•Contractor management and project quality assurance
–One general set of program requirements/procedures
•With flexibility for program to vary by municipality
•Managed & funded in collaboration with the municipalities
–Program managed by team of Platte River and
municipal staff
–Program administrator contract managed by Platte
River
–Funded from existing municipality budgets
9
The Energy We Live By™
Efficiency Works for Homes
Home Efficiency Audits & Rebates Cont.
•Efficiency Audits and Advisor Services
–$60 audit for homeowners subsidized audit by Estes Park Light & Power
–Identifies opportunities to improve comfort and save energy
–Advisor will schedule audits, help find qualified local contractors, verify work is done to program and code standards, and process rebates.
•Rebates
–Rebates are available to improve the following:
•Insulation and air sealing holes in the building envelope
•Windows
•Local Contractors
–Effort is underway to recruit and train local contractors
10
The Energy We Live By™
DSM History and Growth
Cumulative Results (2002-2013):
•Utility investment: $18M ($15M from Platte River, $3M
from municipalities)
•Customer perspective:
–Paybacks are close to two years
•Utility cost of conserved energy:
–$24/MWh (a good deal where today’s energy
market cost is ~$30/MWh)
12
The Energy We Live By™
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT FOR DSM PROGRAM
PARTNERSHIP
1
The Energy We Live By™
DSM IGA
•Clarifies how municipalities may fund additional DSM
programs/services in collaboration with Platte River
–Supplemental funding:
•Adds to Platte River DSM budget for common programs
•Platte River spends its DSM $ first, then municipal funding
–“Directive” funding:
•Funding for non-common programs
–New efficiency program services (“a la carte”)
•Municipal funding only
•IGA describes process for setting scope & budget
•Addresses protection of customer confidential information
•Terminates redundant IGAs
2
1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR DEMAND SIDE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PARTNERSHIP
This Intergovernmental Agreement Agreement this _________ day of
__________, 2014 by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado municipal
corporation Estes Park , the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a Colorado municipal corporation
Fort Collins , the CITY OF LONGMONT Longmont
the CITY OF LOVELAND, Loveland and PLATTE
RIVER POWER AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Platte River ,
. When specificity is not required, the municipal
corporations which are parties hereto will hereinafter be individually referred to as
WHEREAS, the Municipalities contracted with one another to establish Platte River as a
separate legal entity and multi-purpose intergovernmental authority to provide the electric
power and energy requirements of the Municipalities and to engage in related business
activities including demand side management ; and
WHEREAS, periodically Platte River develops Integrated Resource Plans that detail
energy, and energy efficiency, including DSM; and
WHEREAS, those offered to the utility customers
of the Municipalities, which programs are contracted for and funded by Platte River; and
WHEREAS, Platte River seeks to maintain an equitable distribution of DSM funds
among the Municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the
programs, and desire to define certain terms and conditions related to program management as
set forth in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Parties are authorized, pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-1-203, to cooperate or
contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to
each.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties
agree as follows:
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
2
1. Definitions.
shall mean DSM programs and related services which are
developed by, contracted for, and funded by Platte River. Common Programs are
offered by Platte River to the utility customers of the Municipalities, up to an amount
.
shall mean funding that is provided by a Municipality to procure
DSM services that fall outside of those DSM services provided through the Common
Programs.
as provided in Section 2.8 of the Platte River
Power Authority Organic Contract.
for such Municipality, in accordance with its individual budget and accounting
practices.
shall mean funding that is provided by a Municipality to
procure Common Programs services in excess of those provided by Platte River based
upon Equity Share.
2. Supplemental Funding. During any calendar year demand for Common Program
services within a Municipality may result in the full commitment of its Equity Share of
. Upon the request of a Municipality whose Equity Share of
the DSM budget has been fully committed, Platte River shall continue to offer Common
Programs within that Municipality; provided, however, that before Platte River commits
such additional funding, the Municipality must issue a purchase order authorizing
Supplemental Funding in the necessary amount. Supplemental Funding shall be from
funds that have been appropriated and are available in the Municipal budget. Platte
River shall invoice the Municipality under such purchase order when expenditures have
exceeded its Equity S DSM budget. The Municipality shall pay
Platte River within thirty days of invoice.
3. Directive Funding. Platte River or a Municipality may identify additional DSM
programs or services not contemplated within the scope of the Common Programs.
Platte River and the interested Municipality may decide to collaborate in offering these
programs or services when they determine that such collaboration would result in the
effective delivery of the programs or services to the utility customers. In
these cases, Platte River will work closely with the designated staff to
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
3
establish a scope of work for the program or service as well as a budget containing
sufficient funding to complete the scope of work. Prior to Platte River undertaking any
Directive Funding activity, the Municipality must issue a purchase order authorizing an
amount of expenditure from funds that have been appropriated and are available in the
budget. Platte River shall invoice the Municipality on a monthly basis, or
at another agreed upon interval. The Municipality shall pay Platte River within thirty
days of invoice.
4. Term. This Agreement will be effective upon execution by the Parties and will remain
in effect until terminated.
5. Termination. A Municipality or Platte River may terminate its participation in this
Agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other Parties; provided, however,
that any work commenced by Platte River under a purchase order issued by a
Municipality prior to receipt of the written notice of termination will be completed by
Platte River and reimbursed by the Municipality.
6. Appropriation Required. The financial obligations of the Municipalities under this
Agreement are from year to year only and shall not constitute a multiple-fiscal year debt
or other financial obligation or fiscal obligation of any kind payable in any Fiscal Year
beyond the Fiscal Year for which funds are so appropriated for the payment of current
expenditures.
7. Designated Representatives. The designated representatives for each of the Parties are
as follows:
Platte River: Paul Davis, Customer Services Manager
Platte River Power Authority
2000 East Horsetooth Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
970-229-5370
Davisp@prpa.org
Estes Park: Reuben Bergsten, Utility Director
Estes Park Light & Power
Estes Park Municipal Building
P.O. Box 1200
170 MacGregor Ave.
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
4
Fort Collins: John Phelan, Energy Services Manager
Fort Collins Utilities
700 Wood St.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Longmont: Energy Services Manager
Longmont Power & Communications
1100 South Sherman St.
Longmont, Colorado 80501
303-651-8727
Anne.Lutz@ci.longmont.co.us
Loveland: Gretchen Stanford, Customer Relations Manager
Loveland Water & Power
200 North Wilson Avenue
Loveland, Colorado 80537
970-962-3550
Gretchen.Stanford@cityofloveland.org
A Municipality or Platte River must notify the other Parties in writing of any subsequent
changes in appointed representative.
8. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that a
Municipality or Platte River is required to give shall be in writing and either served
personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, or by fax or email, to the
designated representative of the recipient at the address designated as set forth above, or
as subsequently provided in writing.
9. Confidential Customer Information. To the extent required by Platte River (as an agent
of the Municipalities) to perform the work required under this Agreement, a
Municipality may provide Platte River with confidential utility customer information.
Platte River agrees to keep such information confidential and shall not disclose such
information, including to the other Municipalities, except as required by law. Platte
River shall notify the Municipality prior to any such disclosure so that the Municipality
may have an opportunity to take such legal action as it deems necessary to prevent the
disclosure.
10. Liability. Each of the Parties hereto agrees to assume responsibility and liability
associated with its own acts and the acts of its employees in the performance of this
Agreement in accordance with Colorado law. By agreeing to this provision, neither
Platte River or the Municipalities waives or intends to waive, the limitations on liability
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
5
which are provided to them under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, § 24-10-
101 et seq., C.R.S., as amended.
11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating
to the subject matter hereof and, except as provided herein, may not be modified or
amended except by written agreement of the Parties.
12. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement
is intended to only document the relative rights and obligations between the Parties to
one another, and that no third party beneficiaries are intended.
13. Governing Law and Venue . This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
14. Authority. The Parties recognize the legal constraints imposed upon them by the
constitutions, statutes, and regulations of the State of Colorado and of the United States,
and imposed upon the Municipalities by their Charter or Municipal Code, and, subject
to such constraints, the Parties intend to carry out the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, in
no event shall the Parties exercise any power or take any action which shall be
prohibited by applicable law. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts,
and the counterparts taken together shall constitute the whole of this Agreement.
15. Superseded Agreements. This Agreement supersedes and replaces the following
agreements which are hereby terminated:
between the City of Loveland and Platte River, dated December 18, 2012.
between the City of Longmont and the Platte River
dated
January 10, 1995.
Agreement between the City of Longmont and the Platte River
May 30, 2002.
April 8, 2005.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
above written.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
[Title] Town Clerk
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
[Title] City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
[Title] City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF LONGMONT, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
By:
General Manager of Longmont Power & Communications
PROOFREAD: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: By:
Assistant City Attorney
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
7
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY ATTEST:
By: By:
Jackie Sargent, General Manager/CEO Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
General Coun sel
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
Page 1
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Community Development Director Chilcott
David Shirk, Senior Planner
Wes Reichardt, Code Compliance Officer
Date: August 26, 2014
RE: Amendments to the Estes Park Municipal Code-Eliminating Creative Sign
Program and Review Board
Objective:
Amend the Sign Code to eliminate the Creative Sign Program and Review Board.
Present Situation:
At the August 12 Town Board meeting a public hearing was scheduled for August 26.
This public hearing is to discuss elimination of the creative sign program and creative sign
board from the Town sign code.
The Creative Sign Design Review Program and Creative Sign Design Review Board was
created in December 2010 with adoption of Ordinance #18-11. Creation of this program
was one of the highest priorities of the 2010 Sign Code Task Force.
The program has never been used.
Community Development staff find that understanding the guidelines is difficult at best,
which may be part of the reason the program hasn’t been used.
Staff are working to determine the necessary scope of revisions to the Sign Code and
request appropriate funding in the 2015 budget. The need for a Creative Sign Program
will be re-examined at that time.
Proposal:
Proposed Sign Code amendments are attached, which:
1. Eliminate the Creative Sign Program and Creative Sign Design Review Board;
2. Assign the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment as the decision-making body for Sign
Code variance applications and appeals of staff Sign Code decisions.
Community Development Memo
Page 2
Advantages:
Utilizes an existing Board that meets monthly and is familiar with variances and
modifications to existing codes and understands quasi-judicial processes.
Eliminates need to maintain a Board that is rarely used.
Eliminates unused regulations.
Disadvantages:
Eliminates design professionals from review of variances and modifications to sign
code standards.
Action Recommended:
Approve proposed changes to the Sign Code to eliminate the Creative Sign Program and
Creative Sign Board, and assign the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment as the decision-
making body for variances to the sign code.
Budget:
Cost of codifying Sign Code amendments is estimated at less than $1,000.
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move to schedule (not schedule) a public hearing on proposed Sign Code amendments at
the regularly Town Board meeting on August 26, 2014.
Attachments:
Ordinance #14-14
Proposed Estes Park Sign Code Revisions
1
ORDINANCE NO. 14-14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.66
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the Creative Sign Design Review Program and Creative Sign
Design Review Board was created in December 2010 with adoption of Ordinance #18-
11;
WHEREAS, the Creative Sign Design Review Program has never been utilized;
WHEREAS, elimination of the Creative Sign Design Review Program will not
have any adverse effect and will eliminate an unused Board;
WHEREAS, the Town Board of Trustees desires to update Section 17.66 “Signs”
of the Municipal Code to eliminate the Creative Sign Program, the Creative Sign Board,
and assign variances to the sign code to the Estes Park Board of Adjustment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. See exhibit A
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 _______________, 2014.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
2
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2014 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2014.
Town Clerk
Sign Code Amendments Draft 1 8/26/2014
Revisions: None Page 1 of 9
Exhibit A
Title 17
Zoning
Chapter 17.66 Signs
17.66.042 Prohibited Sign Definitions.
Roof sign means a sign painted on the roof of a building, supported by
poles, uprights or braces extending from the roof of a building or projecting
above the roof line or a building (see Figures 9 and 10).
17.66.042 Prohibited Sign Definitions.
As used in this Chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
Roof sign means a sign painted on the roof of a building, supported by
poles, uprights or braces extending from the roof of a building or projecting above
the roof line or a building (see Figures 9 and 10). Roof signs may be allowed only
as approved through the Creative Sign Program (Section 17.66.210)
Sign Code Amendments Draft 1 8/26/2014
Revisions: None Page 2 of 9
17.66.050 Exemptions.
(3) Flags that do not identify a commercial enterprise or other place of
business, limited to three (3) flags per lot. The maximum individual size of
a displayed flag shall be three (3) feet by five (5) feet when hunt from a
building, or five (5) feet by seven (7) feet when hung from a flag pole.
17.66.050 Exemptions.
Except as specifically provided herein, the following may be erected without a sign
permit. These exempt signs shall not be included in the determination of the total
allowable number of signs or total allowable sign area for a business. All signs
shall meet all applicable setback, construction, illumination and safety standards.
Any signs larger in size or with any different standards than stated in this Section
shall be required to obtain a sign permit.
(3) Flags that do not identify a commercial enterprise or other place of
business, limited to three (3) flags per lot. The maximum individual size of a
displayed flag shall be three (3) feet by five (5) feet when hunt from a building,
or five (5) feet by seven (7) feet when hung from a flag pole. The foregoing
limitation on number and size of noncommercial flags may be exceeded only
as approved through the Creative Sign Program (Section 17.66.210).
Sign Code Amendments Draft 1 8/26/2014
Revisions: None Page 3 of 9
17.66.110 Sign Regulations in Nonresidential Zones (A, CD, CO, CH, O,
I-1)
d. Projection: Shall not project beyond the outside limits of the
arcade, canopy or marquee to which they are attached.
17.66.110 Sign Regulations in Nonresidential Zones (A, CD, CO, CH, O, I-
1)
The following regulations shall apply to all uses in nonresidential zoning districts:
(7) Suspended signs:
a. Minimum clearance: Nine (9) feet from the ground to the bottom edge
of the sign.
b. Maximum area: Five (5) square feet per face, ten (10) square feet
total surface area.
c. Minimum horizontal separation: Fifteen (15) feet between suspended
signs.
d. Projection: Shall not project beyond the outside limits of the arcade,
canopy or marquee to which they are attached. except as may be
approved through the Creative Sign Program (Section 17.66.210)
(see Figures 18 and 19).
Sign Code Amendments Draft 1 8/26/2014
Revisions: None Page 4 of 9
17.66.210 Creative Sign Program.
The Creative Sign Program provides for property owners and businesses to
propose and the Town to consider limited deviations from the regulations for on-
site and off-site permanent signs provided in this Chapter under certain
circumstances where the applicant voluntarily chooses to submit to this review as
an alternative to the “use by right” sign provisions normally applicable under this
Chapter. The intent of this process is: (1) to encourage signs of high quality
materials and workmanship; (2) to encourage signs of unique design that exhibits
a high degree of imagination, inventiveness; and (3) to provide a process for the
application of sign regulations in ways that will allow creatively designed signs that
make a positive visual contribution to the overall image of the Town, while
mitigating the impacts of large or unusually designated signs. Additionally, the
Creative Sign Program may provide for increased allowance to the maximum sign
area permitted on theater marquees signs identifying films or performances
currently showing in cases where necessary copy and standard changeable letter
sizes clearly necessitate such an exception.
(1) Applicability. Any property owner or business owner in any zoning district is
eligible to apply for a Creative Sign permit.
(2) Method of application. An application for a sign permit under the Creative
Sign Program shall be made on the forms prescribed by the Community
Development Director. The Application shall be accompanied by any required
fees.
(3) Review procedures. At each level of review or appeal, the decision shall be
rendered, in writing, within the time limits set forth herein. The time period
begins running when the application is deemed complete, or the notice of
appeal has been filed, whichever applies.
a. General.
1. Notwithstanding any of the time limits contained in this
Section, the Community Development Director and the Creative
Sign Review Board shall endeavor to render decisions in a timely
manner.
2. Notwithstanding the time limits contained in this Section, The
Community Development Director and the applicant may
mutually agree to an extension of the time limits. Such extension
shall be in writing and shall be for no more than ninety (90)
calendar days.
b. Completeness review.
Sign Code Amendments Draft 1 8/26/2014
Revisions: None Page 5 of 9
1. Upon receipt of a Creative Sign Program application by the
Community Development Director, the Department shall perform
a completeness review and issue a written status determination
within ten (10) calendar days from date of submittal.
2. In the event the Community Development Director determines
that the application does not include the necessary information
needed to review the proposal for consistency with this Chapter,
the Community Development Director shall deem the application
incomplete. If the application is incomplete, the applicant shall be
notified in writing. The notification shall specify what information
is missing.
3. In the event the Community Development Director determines
that the application does include the necessary information
needed to review the proposal for consistency with this Chapter,
the Community Development Director shall set a date for the
review no later than sixty (60) calendar days from the date of
receipt of a complete application for the final review of the
application.
c. Final Review. A Creative Sign permit application shall be
subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director
where the cumulative area of the proposed signs is fifty (50) square feet
or less, or shall be subject to review and approval by the Creative Sign
Design Review Board where the cumulative area of the proposed signs
is larger than fifty (5) square feet. The burden is on the applicant to
demonstrate substantial compliance with the applicable Creative Sign
Design Review Board shall issue a written finding of approval or denial
of the application within ten (10) calendar days of the final review.
d. Appeals. Appeals by the applicant of the Final Decision of the
Community Development Director or the Creative Sign Design Review
Board shall be heard by the Board of Trustees. Appeals must be
received in writing within ten (10) calendar days of the date of denial by
the Community Development Director or the Creative Sign Design
Review Board. The hearing of the appeal shall be held within sixty (60)
calendar days of receipt of a written application and related fee. Written
appeals must specifically identify the design standards at issue as the
reason for the denial of the application.
(4) Creative sign design standards.
a. Architectural criteria.
1. The signs should utilize or enhance the architectural elements
of the building; and
2. The signs should be placed in a logical location in relation to
the overall composition of the building’s façade,
3. The signs should be integrated within and not cover any key
architectural features and details of the building façade.
Sign Code Amendments Draft 1 8/26/2014
Revisions: None Page 6 of 9
4. Wall signs should be located on the upper portion of the first-
floor storefront and should be centered within and area
uninterrupted by doors, windows or architectural details.
b. Architectural style. Each sign should be designed to be compatible
with and relate to the architectural style of the main building or buildings
upon the site where such sign is located.
c. Color. The colors of a sign should be harmonious and
complementary to the colors of the building on or near which it is to be
located.
d. Contextual criteria. The signs should contain at least one (1) of the
following elements:
1. Historic design style.
2. Positive and creative image reflecting current character of the
business.
3. Inventive representation of the use, name or products of the
business.
e. Design quality. The signs should:
1. Constitute a substantial aestheitic improvement to the site and
have a positive visual impact on the surrounding area;
2. Be of unique design and exhibit a high degree of imagination
and inventiveness;
3. Provide strong graphic character through the imaginative use
of graphics, color, texture, quality materials, scale, proportion and
form; and
4. Contribute to the image of the community by conveying a
distinctive character that conveys a strong sense of place.
f. Illumination. To convey a subtle appearance, the use of back-lit or
reverse-channel letters with halo illumination rather than internally lit
signs are encouraged.
g. Multiple signs. Where more than one (1) sign is proposed, all signs
should have designs that incorporate the following design elements in a
compatible and coordinated fashion.
1. Letter style of copy;
2. Shape of total sign and related components;
3. Type of construction materials;
4. Lighting; and
5. Method used for supporting sign (e.g., wall or ground base).
h. Neighborhood impacts.
1. Be located and designed not to create adverse impacts on
neighboring uses.
2. Constitute a substantial aesthetic improvement to the site and
have a positive visual impact on the surrounding area; and
3. Provide strong graphic character through the imaginative use
of graphics, color, texture, quality materials, scale and proportion.
Sign Code Amendments Draft 1 8/26/2014
Revisions: None Page 7 of 9
i. Relationship to buildings. Signs located upon a lot with one (1) main
building or several buildings should be designed to incorporate at least
one (1) of the predominant visual elements of such building or buildings,
such as the type of construction materials, color or other design detail.
j. Sign materials. The goal of sign design is to maintain attractive and
compatible styling so as not to conflict or distract from the architectural
character of the area. The choice of materials and the workmanship in
the use of the materials should convey both a sense of quality and
creativity.
(5) Creative Sign Design Review Board. The Board of Trustees shall, as
needed from time to time, appoint (5) members to serve on the Creative Sign
Design Review Board. The membership shall consist of the following:
a. Two (2) local business owners, and architect or other design
professional and two (2) Town residents who may or may not have local
business interests, and one (1) alternate member who shall serve when
any member is not able to attend a meeting of the Board. The alternate
member may serve in place of any member on the Board.
b. Members shall serve staggered terms of three (3) years and shall be
appointed by the Mayor and be confirmed by the Board of Trustees.
(Ord. 24-10 §1, 2010; Ord. 18-11 §1,2011)
Sign Code Amendments Draft 1 8/26/2014
Revisions: None Page 8 of 9
17.66.220 Appeals, variances, and minor modifications.
(a) Appeals. The owner of any sign who believes a decision, ruling or order
of the Building Inspector is factually or legally contrary to the provisions of this
Chapter may appeal the same to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The
appeal shall be in writing and filed with the Community Development
Department. The appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days from the date of the
decision, ruling or order of the Building Inspector. The written appeal shall
specify the decision ruling or order of the Building Inspector being appealed.
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall have no jurisdiction or hear any
appeal not filed within (10) days from the date of the decision, ruling or order.
(b) Variances. The owner of any sign may request a variance from the
requirements of this Chapter. The request for variance shall be in writing and
filed with the Community Development Department. The variance request shall
specify the provisions of this Chapter to which the variance is being requested.
There shall be no variance for maximum sign area on a lot of building. In
granting any variance, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall find that all
of the following conditions exist:
(c) Conditions. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment may grant an appeal
or variance subject to any condition it deems necessary to make the granted
appeal or variance compatible with the purpose of this Chapter.
(d) Procedure. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall adopt
procedures for the review of appeals and variances pursuant to this Section.
The procedures shall be subject to approval by the Board of Trustees.
(e) Prohibited signs. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall not grant
an appeal or a variance which allows any prohibited signs specified in Section
17.66.060 of this Chapter.
17.66.220 Appeals, variances, and minor modifications.
(f) Appeals. The owner of any sign who believes a decision, ruling or order of
the Building Inspector is factually or legally contrary to the provisions of this
Chapter may appeal the same to the Creative Sign Design Review Board (the
“Review Board”) Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The appeal shall be in writing
and filed with the Community Development Department. The appeal shall be filed
within ten (10) days from the date of the decision, ruling or order of the Building
Inspector. The written appeal shall specify the decision ruling or order of the
Building Inspector being appealed. The Review Board The Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment shall have no jurisdiction or hear any appeal not filed within (10) days
from the date of the decision, ruling or order.
Sign Code Amendments Draft 1 8/26/2014
Revisions: None Page 9 of 9
(g) Variances. The owner of any sign may request a variance from the
requirements of this Chapter. The request for variance shall be in writing and filed
with the Community Development Department. The variance request shall specify
the provisions of this Chapter to which the variance is being requested. There shall
be no variance for maximum sign area on a lot of building. In granting any variance,
the Review Board the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall find that all of the
following conditions exist:
(1) There are special circumstances or conditions, such as the existence
of buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on
adjacent lots of within the adjacent public right-of-way, which would
substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided,
however, that such special circumstances or conditions must be particular
to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to
draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises.
(2) The variance is in general harmony with the purposes of this Chapter
and specifically is not injurious to the neighborhood in which the business
or enterprise is located.
(3) The variance is the minimum one necessary to permit the applicant
to reasonably draw attention to the business enterprise.
(h) Conditions. The Review Board The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment may
grant an appeal or variance subject to any condition it deems necessary to make
the granted appeal or variance compatible with the purpose of this Chapter.
(i) Procedure. The Review Board The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall
adopt procedures for the review of appeals and variances pursuant to this Section.
The procedures shall be subject to approval by the Board of Trustees.
(j) Prohibited signs. The Review Board The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
shall not grant an appeal or a variance which allows any prohibited signs specified
in Section 17.66.060 of this Chapter.
(k) Staff authority to grant minor modifications. Staff may grant minor
modifications up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the following general
sign standards, provided that the staff finds that such modification advances the
goals and purposes of this Code and results in the reduction of visual clutter results
in more effective signage, or relieves practical difficulties on the site:
(1) Setback requirements;
(2) Specific sign size restrictions, provided that the cumulative site total
remains in compliance; or
(3) Other dimensional and temporal standards contained herein. (Ord.
24-10 §1, 2010)
Event Center & Pavilion Construction Update.
Verbal Report by Project Manager Zurn
Page 1
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Steve McFarland – Finance Officer
Date: August 26, 2014
RE: Financial Report for 2nd Q 2014
Background:
Attached is the Financial Report for the 2nd Q 2014. Sales tax data is reported through
June; financial statements are through July.
With all of the Town’s financially-affected areas from the Flood, Staff decided to modify
the Dashboard Report from 4 areas to 8. In order to keep the presentation to 1 page,
Staff has elevated the “flyover” from the customary “30,000 ft” to more like “60,000 ft”.
General Fund: A general rule of thumb for all Town budgets is that it is desirable
for revenues to exceed “% of year elapsed”, and for expenses to trail “% of year
elapsed” (through July, that number will be 58%). General Fund revenues are
usually at a disadvantage in this regard because sales taxes lag by 45 days.
Expenditures slightly exceed budget through April. This is almost entirely
attributable to Town Hall mitigation, Fall River exigent repair costs, and Fish
Creek design and engineering work, much of which is ultimately reimbursable.
Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF): The 2014 CRF Budget was revised in
the May 13, 2014 Board meeting. There are no new updates.
Community Services Fund (CSF): From an operational standpoint, the CSF
Budget is the most dynamic. As most activity occurs during summer, both
revenues and expenditures trail the 58% target. The major variable of course will
be the operational budget for MPEC.
Larimer County Open Space: The Open Space Fund brings in ~ $300,000/year
from a 0.6% sales tax levy. Expenditures are restricted to acquisition and
maintenance of open spaces. As this includes parks and trails, some of which
were flood-affected, Staff believes that this fund will become important in the
recovery efforts in 2014. Most of the expenditures in 2014 are expected to be
used for reconstruction of said open spaces and trails.
Page 2
FINANCE Memo
Light & Power, Water Funds: Staff has separated the Utility Funds (L&P, Water)
because, while the funds are similar from an accounting standpoint (Enterprise
Funds), Light & Power and Water often perform very differently. Electric and
Water revenues do not necessarily move in the same direction, and the two
funds have common but also different economic challenges. The Utility Funds
were dramatically affected by the Flood. In response, Staff made every effort to
reduce expenditures in anticipation of the expected revenue loss. At the same
time, Staff tried to address capital projects with in-house staff and available
inventory. Several projects were delayed until such time as the effects of the
flood, both on revenues and infrastructure, were better understood.
Sales Tax: Several slides are included later in this presentation that provide
more detail to this portion of the Dashboard Report.
Investments: A municipality’s investment universe is limited to interest-rate
sensitive instruments, including money markets, CDs, US Treasuries and US
Instrumentalities. The drop in interest rates from 2008 (~4.75%) to today (~
0.25%) has caused over $750,000 in returns to evaporate, subsequently
affecting every Town fund. Recent legislation (HB 12-1005) has allowed
municipalities to again invest in government-backed securities that were
prohibited when the ratings agencies downgraded the US Government in 2010.
The Town took advantage of this, and is now positioned in accordance with
recommendations from our investment advisors. Our investment strategy is to
keep duration (length of investment) on a very short leash – the Town does not
want to be caught disproportionately in long positions should interest rates
increase significantly. Our investment universe is anchored by rates of return of
0.02%-0.12%. Staff is inclined to leave the bulk of the portfolio in cash pending
identification of the timing of the repair work on Fish Creek and Fall River.
Pertinent information included in the sales tax slides include:
CAST information shows another good start to the year. Most reporting towns are
ahead of 2013, which itself was a record year.
On the sales tax slide that shows a hyperlink, staff is proud to present the updated sales
tax information page on the Finance Department section of the Town website.
Page 3
FINANCE Memo
Flood cost/reimbursement update
Staff is working on a chart to report an update for flood costs/reimbursements and will
bring it to the Tuesday night Board meeting.
Concluding/Other thoughts
Staff has been diligently working on revising the 2014 Budget and forecasting 2015.
These will be our most challenging budgets yet, as staff attempts to balance flood
recovery costs and reimbursements, the four new funds (roads, community center,
emergency systems, trails) resulting from the 1% sales tax increase, the operational
budget of MPEC, a significant (anticipated) increase in benefit costs for 2015, and the
capital projects before the Town (parking structure, MPEC).
Despite the devastation caused by the Flood, Staff is convinced that the Town and
citizens will emerge from the recovery in position to take advantage of future
opportunities presented to our community. Staff will continue to closely monitor and
report the economics of the Flood recovery. In the meantime, Staff will diligently
monitor the financial challenges before us, and will report regularly to the Board and
citizens.
Budget:
N/A
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Sample Motion:
N/A
UPDATE: Financial and Sales Tax Report(through July 2014)Steve McFarland –Finance Officer
FINANCIAL INDICATORSTOWN OF ESTES PARK – THROUGH Jul 31st, 2014GENERAL FUNDLIGHT & POWER FUND2014 2014 % of2014 2014 % ofYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget Year‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 58%% of year elapsed> 58%REVENUES* $5,298,932 $12,662,144 ($7,363,212) 41.8% REVENUES $9,097,609 $13,814,524 ($4,716,915) 65.9%EXPENSES 8,585,753 13,265,553 4,679,800 64.7% EXPENSES 7,423,261 16,642,075 9,218,814 44.6%Net increase/decrease ($3,286,821) ($603,409) ($2,683,412) Net increase/decrease $1,674,348 ($2,827,551) $4,501,899 *sales tax included through May 2014COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDWATER FUND2014 2014 % of2014 2014 % ofYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget Year‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 58%% of year elapsed> 58%REVENUES $2,185,420 $6,567,676 ($4,382,256) 33.3% REVENUES $2,046,371 $3,803,800 ($1,757,429) 53.8%EXPENSES 2,527,191 9,872,014 7,344,823 25.6% EXPENSES 2,162,262 4,922,833 2,760,571 43.9%Net increase/decrease ($341,771) ($3,304,338) $2,962,567 Net increase/decrease ($115,891) ($1,119,033) $1,003,142 COMMUNITY SERVICES FUNDSALES TAX2014 2014 % of1st Q2nd QTotalYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget% of year elapsed> 58% 2014 1,094,090 2,143,982 3,238,072 2013 1,035,558 2,017,647 3,053,205 REVENUES $1,385,821 $2,592,972 ($1,207,151)53.4% 2012995,734 1,963,314 2,959,048 EXPENSES 1,594,707 2,845,481 1,250,774 56.0%Net increase/decrease ($208,886) ($252,509) $43,623 2014 vs 2013 5.7% 6.3% 6.1%2014 vs 2012 9.9% 9.2% 9.4%LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND INVESTMENTS (Fair value)May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐142014 2014 % ofTown FundsYear‐to‐Date Revised Budget Variance Budget Money markets/CDs 15,341,919 14,868,351 14,981,854 % of year elapsed> 58% U.S. Treasuries 3,619,051 3,612,913 3,605,252 COPs 2,062,890 2,063,085 1,754,281 REVENUES* $98,489 $290,500 ($192,011) 33.9%U.S. Instrumentalities 4,970,444 4,971,765 4,961,321 EXPENSES 21,305 262,903 241,598 8.1% Total 25,994,304 25,516,114 25,302,708 Net increase/decrease $77,184 $27,597 $49,587 FOSH/Theater Fund 458,850 458,894 458,939 *revenues included through May 2014annual pooled govt mm rate: 07/31/14 = 0.12%; 0.02% locally.
SALES TAX FACTS•2014 (through June):•50% of calendar year; 38% of fiscal year.•6.1% ahead of 2013.•15.7% ahead of 2014 budget.•24 CAST communities currently reporting:•2013 a strong year.
CAST COMMUNITIES
SALES TAX RATE OF CHANGE
NEW SALES TAX INFO ON WEBSITEhttp://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/TownofEstesPark/CBON/1251608983422
DISASTER REIMBURSEMENT STATUSStaff will present update on Disaster expenditure –reimbursement status