HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-07-17The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
Prepared: June 11, 2018
*Revised: June 12, 2018
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
July 17, 2018
1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall
1.OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
2.AGENDA APPROVAL
3.PUBLIC COMMENT
The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should
not exceed three minutes.
4.CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes: April 10, 2018
Large Vacation Home: 907 Prospect Park Drive Code Compliance Officer Hardin
5.WIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLAT, SPECIAL REVIEW
1041 South St. Vrain Avenue Continued to August 21, 2018 Senior Planner Woeber
6.CODE AMENDMENT/SPECIAL REVIEW
Cultural Institutions, Stanley Historic Home Director Hunt/Planner Hathaway
7.DRY GULCH WORKFORCE HOUSING REZONE:
TBD Dry Gulch Road, Rezone from E (Estate) to RM (Multi-Family) Senior Planner Woeber
Withdrawn without Prejudice by owner: July 12, 2018
8.PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-18:
Support Development of a New Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Director Hunt
9.ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FORMATION AND APPOINTMENT Director Hunt
10.REPORTS
A. Staff-Level Reviews
B. Pre Application Reviews
C. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
D. Estes Park Town Board/Annexations
E. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners
F. Community Development Update
G. Vacation Home Update
H. Other
11.ADJOURN
1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull,
Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker, Steve Murphree
Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Schneider, Hull, Foster, Murphree and
Baker
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board Liaison Ron
Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin
Swanlund
Absent: Commissioner White
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 200 people in
attendance.
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
Director Hunt announced that future Planning Commission Study Sessions will be
recorded and streamed on YouTube starting July 17.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and
the motion passed 6-0
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Robert Ellis/1707 Ptarmigan Trail, spoke on the Mountain Coaster plan questioning the
parking and zoning and requested that it be brought before the Planning Commission.
Linda Langer/1861 Raven Ave, expressed that the coaster as planned exceeds the intent
of zoning requirements, and traffic, speeding, wildlife disruption, noise and light pollution
will all be factors. This project should have a more in depth review.
Pamela Henderick/1861 Raven Ave, stated the Mountain Coaster is in a wildlife corridor,
causing a dangerous situation with traffic, speeding, noise, and disrupting the natural
setting. The Town has responsibility to protect citizens who border on a county road. She
presented a letter to Chair Leavitt, which can be found on the town website.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of May 15, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hull) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed 6-0.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
4. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 3153 Fish Creek Road. 4-bedroom, 10-person
occupancy. Owner: William and Linda Warne
Code Compliance Officer (CCO) Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .46-acre,
Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size, with 25 foot setbacks, there is a 15 foot
setback on the east side which causes no concern to neighboring properties. There have
been no public comments received. Commissioner Baker asked about the East and West
buffers of the property.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to approve the vacation home at 3153 Fish
Creek Road to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants according to facts and
findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-1 with Baker voting no.
5. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) TEXT AMENDMENT
Review of the current conditions with regard to the vacation home cap.
CCO Hardin stated that the current cap of 588 vacation home registrations had been
reached in May, with a current waiting list of 13. She explained how the cap was derived
and that without any history to look back on, there is no way of knowing how those
numbers may change. Staff recommended leaving the current code unchanged with a
cap of 588.
Committee and Staff Discussion:
Some of the 40 homes being processed may not complete the registration, therefore
opening up spaces. Leavitt noted that there are a substantial number of citizens that think
the cap should be lowered, it does need to be reviewed every year, and that many of the
vacation homes in residential districts are in single family neighborhoods which has an
impact on affordable workforce housing.
Public Comment:
None
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Murphree) to recommend denial of any change to
the cap per Exhibit A. The motion passed 5-0 with Foster recusing himself.
6. EVDC TEXT AMENDMENT
Review and revise Section §13.2.C.15 to amend definition of “Cultural Institutions”
Director Hunt stated that this Code Amendment is related to the Special Review that will
be discussed in the July Planning Commission meeting, and asked permission for
“blended” discussion on both projects. Chair Leavitt granted permission. Hunt then
reviewed the proposed Text Amendment regarding removal of the uses “art galleries” and
“libraries”, and a revised Table 4-1, Permitted Uses in Residential Zoning Districts to
extend Special Review Use (S2) in Residential Zoning Districts to allow for review and
approval procedures for Cultural Institutions on a case by case basis. An amendment was
brought up in the Study Session, recommend by a town citizen, which Staff thought was a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
reasonable and appropriate change, defining the Cultural Institutions definition in Code to
read as follows: Nonprofit Institutions displaying or preserving objects of interest in one or
more of the arts or sciences, to allow for nonprofit institutions that educate, display or
preserve objects of interest that are connected to the history of that property. Staff
recommended approval of the Code Amendment, specifically the current definition’s
inclusion of art galleries and libraries. This text amendment is not just a one time or one
property issue but could be used with other institutions such as The Dunraven House and
MacGregor Ranch in the future.
Staff and Commission comment:
Director Hunt answered in the affirmative to Commissioner Foster’s question, referring to
page 2 of staff report memo, that the Town is withdrawing its justification that limits the
definition of Cultural Institutions to those areas that are connected to the real property,
adding that Staff believes there is adequate coverage elsewhere in Code for art galleries,
libraries and other institutions. Making terms more specific in new Comprehensive Plan
with definitions and adding rows to the table for permitted and special uses will provide
further distinction and appropriate context.
Public Comment: (comments are condensed, meeting can be viewed on the Town of
Estes Park website for 12 months from this date)
• The following people commented in favor of the proposal:
Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, representing applicant, commended Randy and Staff on
the long process to get to this point.
Tom Shamburg/625 Steamer Drive, Director of the Historic Stanley Home Group, gave a
brief history of the grass roots organization begun two years ago. There is a list of
citizens stating they approve and recommend project, which currently has 538 signatures,
38 supporters present today.
Bill Pinkham/760 Meadow Circle, project is good for the community, with neighbor issues
able to be resolved.
Charlie Dickey/265 Steamer Court, spoke in favor of individual merit of a Special Review
Curtis Kelly/2850 Fall River Road requested adoption of this amendment as a special
review mechanism for future options.
• The following people commented against the proposal:
Paul, Ellen Romig/411 Big Horn Drive, expressed concerns about a 5 month, 7 day a
week operation, noise, traffic and crowd control.
Ross Maxwell/503 Big Horn Drive, stated that the House could have been placed on
Historic Register or a conservation easement applied for, neither of which was done. This
being a residential neighborhood, E1 zoning should be preserved.
Dave Shirk/301 Far View Drive, referenced the Hydro Plant on Fish Hatchery Road and
that may be a solution that is already out there.
Connie Phipps/585 Wonderview Avenue, would like to see respect for the neighbors and
neighborhood and not base the decision on the good response to the foundation letter,
noting that other home museums are not operated 7 days a week and have controlled
hours.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
Sue Maxwell/503 Big Horn Drive, 100 percent opposed to allowing Cultural Institutions in
residential districts, and it is not better than having 4 homes on the property. With a gift
shop, and possibly food items this could open the door to other commercial business
which will begin “creeping” along Wonderview Avenue going west.
Commissioner/Staff Discussion:
Hull asked Tom Shamburg if the Foundation would be willing to adjust hours to be the
same as the EP Museum to which he answered that the demand for visits and financial
model are needed to help sustain and maintain the home. The numbers come out to 12
visitors, once per hour, via shuttle. A meeting to address the neighbor’s concerns was set
for June 21.
Foster counter-proposed to keep the published definition of Cultural Institution and not
have any connection to the phrase Important Real Estate with respect to what is allowed
in a residential neighborhood, limiting it to Cultural Institutions, which do have a
connection to the real estate, adding the real estate comment to Table 4.1, rather than
adding it to the definition of Cultural Institutions. Baker supported this and stated he will
not vote for this amendment as proposed for the following reasons: 1) The definition of
Cultural Institutions, either as written or modified, has nothing to do with a normal
definition of Cultural Institutions and a single town shouldn’t refine what the concept is. 2)
The comments today make it clear that this Code Amendment is to accommodate a
particular proposal and it is inappropriate to continue to make ad hoc changes to our
Code in order to accommodate specific proposals as opposed to looking at our
community as a whole. 3) A Code should not pre-judge which type of culture is
acceptable or not. 4) We shouldn’t restrict or limit an opportunity to establish Cultural
Institutions and if we do, we should allow all to be considered. Hunt stated that either way
is feasible and could be done. After further discussion, it was decided to continue the
item to the next meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to continue the Code Amendment request
of the EVDC to the due to questions yet to be answered and an agreement yet to be
reached. The motion passed 5-0, with Schneider recusing himself.
A 10 minute break was taken from 2:45-2:55
7. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED AT
1041 SOUTH SAINT VRAIN AVE, KNOW AS WIND RIVER APARTMENTS.
Planner Woeber noted that this application was initially scheduled for the May 15 Planning
Commission Meeting. Staff recommended the application be continued in order to clarify
and revise some parts of the application. Woeber then reviewed the waivers requested
and the overall development plan for the property which will consist of four multi-family
structures, 78 units with two bedrooms, 16 units with one bedroom. Applicant will be
using the EVDC incentive for a density bonus allowing 38’ height. The Covenant
Agreement was recently revised and drafted. The Day Care proposal will be reviewed in
July. Affected agencies were consulted and reviewed the project, giving
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
recommendations. Public input is high. Staff recommend approval of the Wind River
Apartments Development Plan and approval of the associated waiver request with
conditions.
Staff and Commission Discussion:
(Director Hunt recused himself from the discussion as he is an adjacent neighbor to the
property)
Schneider questioned the minimum lot area for a day care, which could reduce the total
area, thus taking away from the housing numbers, arguing that the area required is
greater than area available and the numbers don’t add up. Woeber answered that density
is based on full 5.7 acres, combining the 2 lots. Child care would be open to public
making it an economic incentive.
Applicant Discussion:
Paul Pewterbaugh, owner/applicant, introduced himself and described his connection to
the town and his reasons for this Development Plan, referring to the Estes Valley Housing
Needs study.
Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, discussed the history of RM zoning and density bonus
noting that zero private development plans were applied for in 16 years with 1.5 density
bonus. In 2016 town increased bonus to 200% and height increases in 2017 for RM
specifically to encourage this type of project. He stated that in the Estes Valley, there are
18 vacant lots, 7 are open space, only 3 over 1 acre, 2 of which are on this property. He
gave a slide presentation of early and current plans, showing view corridors with proposed
building drawings.
Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering, reviewed the utilities, reporting the convenience of
having the sewer, water, gas, fiber, phone and electric right next to the property.
Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, responded to the letter submitted by Ascent
Planning Solutions, stating that he believes this project meets all Code requirements and
conditions of approval. The question was again raised on how the density bonus
numbers were calculated, with disagreement on the total square foot figure.
Matt Delich, Delich and Associates, spoke on the amount of parking spaces proposed,
reviewing the town standards and how he conducted his alternate traffic and parking
studies on this proposal. Considerable discussion on traffic safety was had.
Public Comment: (comments are summarized, meeting can be viewed on the Town of
Estes Park website for 12 months from this date)
Dave Shirk, Ascent Planning Solutions, gave his planning background and presented his
Code Analysis to the Recording Secretary for submittal. He reviewed the study findings in
detail.
• The following citizens spoke against the project, with each speaker reviewing
different concerns.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
6
Adam Bensman/1085 Lexington Lane, read a letter explaining the concerns of the
surrounding neighbors, all living within the Lexington Lane, Eagles Landing, Eagle View,
Fairway Club Condos and The Pines neighborhoods.
Josh Weaver/1031 Lexington Lane: Safety, traffic control.
Lisbeth Lord/President of Eagles Landing Condo Association: Storm runoff situation on
east side of Highway 7.
Chris Hill/919 Lexington Lane: Density Bonus determinations
Karen Nicholson/905 Village Green Lane: Staff report leaves holes, missing documents,
plan prematurely presented to Planning Commission.
Mitch Mitchell/1015 Lexington Lane: Project must adheres to Town Codes on this plot of
land making sure safeguards are applied.
Brookie Gallagher/1030 Lexington Lane: Untested height increases and density bonuses,
alternative parking study, open space calculations, lack of clarity as to who is responsible
for traffic safety studies and who will fund them.
Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Drive: Original owner wanted property to be maintained as
open space, wildlife use this property as their natural habitat, and wildlife viewing for
tourists will be diminished. He also requested the speed limit be reduced from 45 to 35
mph on Highway 7.
Sundee Pietsch/1023 Lexington Lane: Height of buildings impacting views, 6 month
lease, up to 8 unrelated people living in one unit.
Chris Harris/1061 Baily Lane: Variances are the killers of neighborhoods.
• Those speaking in favor
Charlie Dickey/265 Steamer Court: Estes Valley Partners for Commerce, spoke in favor
of the project, siting the housing shortage as the main reason.
James Poppitz/650 Devon Drive: work force housing is needed, we’ve been talking about
if for a decade, what is getting done and when are we going to approve a project.
Kent Smith/661 Big Horn Drive: The job of the Planning Commission is to protect
individual property rights, both the neighbors and developers.
Other Comments:
Director Hunt explained the density calculation process: divide number of square feet into
number of units. CDOT did not require dedication of right-of-way. Attorney White noted
that inside the development is not a private street, but a driveway. Lonnie Sheldon
summarized that this was submitted as two proposals, a Development Plan and a Special
Use for the Day Care, going hand in hand together, requesting a continuation to July in
order to submit a complete plan. Hunt stated we should expect better performance from
the State Department of Transportation than we have seen on this, and many other
projects, he is disappointed and will do what he can to work with CDOT.
Commissioner comments:
After extensive analysis, Commissioners supported the request to continue the action
item in order to hear the final package due to the amount of information and complicated
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 19, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
7
nature of project and questions to be addressed, requesting that future information be
given to the Commission as it is received, not 5 days before the next meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to continue the Development Plan and
associated waiver requests to the next Planning Commission Meeting and the
motion passed 6-0.
8. REPORTS
Due to the length of meeting there were no reports given.
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
9
10
11
12
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Brittany Hathaway – Planner II
Date: July 17, 2018
RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code:
EVDC § 4.3 Table 4-1: Permitted Uses in Residential Zoning
Districts, EVDC §5.1: Specific Use Standards, and EDVC §13.2: Use
Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples
Planning Commission Objective:
Review and provide a recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) to: 1) Revise Table 4-1 (Permitted Uses:
Residential Zoning Districts) to extend Special Review Use (S2) in residential zoning
districts to allow for review and approval procedures for Cultural Institutions; 2) Amend
Section §5.1: (Specific Use Standards) to include use standards for cultural institutions
in residential zoning districts; and 3) Amend Section §13.2: (Use
Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples) to include a definition for
“Museum”.
Code Amendment Objectives: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to
revise the EVDC to do the following:
•Provide for a Special Review Use (S2) for Cultural Institutions in residential
zoning districts subject to specific use standards.
Proposal:
Amend EVDC Section §4.3 Table 4-1: Permitted Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
as stated in Exhibit A, attached.
Amend EVDC Sections §5.1: Specific Use Standards and Section §13.2: Use
Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples, as stated in Exhibit B,
attached.
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in
Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County
Commissioners.
13
Planning Commission, July 17, 2018 Page 2 of 5
Discussion:
This text amendment is in response to a desired effort to help preserve historically
significant properties traditionally located in residential zoning districts.
Background:
In 2014, 415 West Wonderview Avenue, the original home of F.O. and Flora Stanley,
was relisted for sale. Currently, this home is not included on a historic register and
thus not under protection for preservation. If sold privately, the house could be
renovated and the property subdivided to allow new single-family construction along
Wonderview Avenue.
Recognizing the aforementioned possibility, The Historic Stanley Home Foundation, a
Colorado non-profit corporation, was formed in 2016 seeking to acquire the home for
preservation and operation as a museum for local history education. Funding such a
venture requires the ability to operate tours and other ancillary museum activities,
such as a gift shop. This use of a museum is currently prohibited in all residential
zoning districts.
Request:
This request would be to allow “Cultural Institutions” in residential zoning districts with
an (S2) Special Review Use procedure, subject to specific use standards outlined
within Section §5.1.V.
The Special Review Use provision would ensure the ability to conduct public outreach
and comment, place conditions on a proposed institution to ensure minimal impact to
surrounding homes, and while promoting conservation efforts for Estes Park’s most
historical sites.
This amendment will be applicable for other historically significant properties within the
Estes Valley.
An addition to Section §5.1: (Specific Use Standards) as it pertains to “Cultural
Institutions” in residential neighborhoods is proposed to include the following use
standards:
Section §5.1.V. Cultural Institutions
1.Cultural Institutions in residential districts shall be restricted to museum use as
defined herein. Museums shall be permitted with an S2 Special Review approval in
14
Planning Commission, July 17, 2018 Page 3 of 5
residential zoning districts on sites that that meet one or more of the following
requirements:
a)The site is identified with a person or entity who significantly contributed to
the development, cultural, artistic, social, ethnic, economic, political,
technological or institutional heritage of Estes Park.
b)The site portrays one or more historic eras characterized by a distinctive
design style.
c)The site embodies elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship
that represent a significant quality of design and/or development.
An addition to Section §13.2: (Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and
Examples) to include the following definition for “Museum”:
Section §13.2.C.32.5 Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples
32.5. Museum. A non-profit institution displaying or preserving objects of interest
in one or more of the arts and sciences, connected to the history of the property
involved.
Staff Findings of Fact:
The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for
Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
“All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1.“The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;”
Staff Finding:
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions of which include
the potential sale and subsequent effort to preserve and provide historical
education opportunities at several of Estes Park’s historic sites. A specific change
in condition is the potential sale of the F.O. Stanley Historic Home to a non-profit
group for preservation and to operate as a local educational museum. In addition
to the Stanley Historic Home, the amendment will prove to be useful when, and if,
other historic structures or properties in residential zoning districts should be
deemed worthy of preservation as museums.
15
Planning Commission, July 17, 2018 Page 4 of 5
2.“The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in
the Estes Valley;”
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan including:
•7.0 Economics: Policy 7.3 – “To sustain and support existing tourism
industry and marketing programs.”
•The site is located within Planning Area 6 – Fall River Road, which
specifically mentions Stanley’s original home as a historically significant
site. The conclusion would be to preserve this parcel due to its historical
significance.
3.“The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.”
Staff Finding:
Providers of public water, sewage disposal, fire, electric services, and
transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed
amendment in principle.
Advantages:
•Provides Special Review Use consideration for cultural institution uses, with the
specific advantage of preserving historic sites.
Disadvantages:
•Potential traffic impact depending on location and access to the site.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code(EVDC)
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to
The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions.
16
Planning Commission, July 17 , 2018 Page 5 of 5
Level of Public Interest
Medium: This particular Code Amendment. Several citizens have commented on the
specific Special Review proposal for the Historic Stanley Home. By inference, some
comments have also expressed interest in the Code Amendment, specifically the
current definition’s inclusion of art galleries and relationship to the property.
Sample Motions:
Approval
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code, finding that the amendments is in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code.
Continuance
I move to continue this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting because, (state reason(s) for continuance -findings).
Denial
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code, finding that (state reason(s) for denial).
Attachments:
1.Vicinity Map
2.Exhibit A
3.Exhibit B
4.Stanley Historic Home Foundation Information
5.Public Comments
17
505
341
411
551
420
368
374
451
509 511
490
450450 420
380
415
415
415
342
270
311
350
450
341
500
331
410
503
300
465
501
461
W WONDERVIEW AVE
MARIGOLD LN
FAR VI E W D R
FAR VIEW LN
S U N N Y LN
SUNNYACRESCTUNIT 3
UNIT 2
UNIT 1
UNIT 3
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
UNIT A
UNIT B
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
UNIT C
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
UNIT 5
UNIT 6
UNIT 7
UNIT 8
UNIT
1
UNIT
6
GCE
UNIT
6
UNIT
1
This draft document was prepared for internal use by the
Town of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to
the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that you
do not post this document on the internet or otherwise
make it available to persons unknown to you.
050100
Feet
1 in = 98 ft±Town of Estes Park
Community Development
415 W. Wonderview
Stanley Home
Printed: 6/7/2018
Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Subject Property
18
EXHIBIT A
§ 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts
…
B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-1
Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts
Use Classification Specific Use
Zoning Districts
Additional Regulations
(Apply in All Districts Unless
Otherwise Stated )
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by
Special Review
"—" = Prohibited
RE-
1 RE E-
1 E R R-
1
R-
2 RM
…
INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES
Day Care Center
(Ord. 6-06 §1) S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1F
Family Home Day
Care, Large (Ord. 6-
06 §1)
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1F; As accessory to a
pri ncipal residential use only
Government
Facilities
Public Safety
Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent
Review
Trail/Trail Head P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent
Review
Utility, Major — — — — — — — — §3.13, Location & Extent
Review
Utility, Minor P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent
Review; Use shall not include
19
office, repair, storage or
production facilities
All other
Government
Facilities
P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent
Review
Hospital — — — — — — — S2
Park and Recreation
Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent
Review
Park and Ride
Facilities — — — — — P P P
Religious Assembly — — — — — — S2 S2 §5.1.O (Ord. 19-11 §1)
Cultural Institutions S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.V
Schools — — — — — — S2 S2 §3.13, Location & Extent
Review (Ord. 19-11 §1)
Senior Institutional
Living
Continuing Care
Retirement
Facility
— — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1I
Congregate
Housing — — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.I
Skilled Nursing
Facility — — — — — — — S2 §5.1.I
Transportation
Facility Without
Repairs
— — — — — P P P §3.13, Location & Extent
Review
…
20
EXHIBIT B
§ 5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
This Section contains regulations that apply to specific uses or classes of uses.
…
V . Cultural Institutions
1.Cultural Institutions in residential districts shall be restricted to museum use as defined herein.
Museums shall be permitted with an S2 Special Review approval on sites that meet one or more
of the following requirements:
a)The site is identified with a person or entity who significantly contributed to the
development, cultural , artistic, social, ethnic, economic, political, technological or
institutional heritage of Estes Park.
b)The site portrays one or more historic eras characterized by a distinctive design style.
c)The site embodies elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that repre sent a
significant quality of design and/or development.
…
§ 13.2.C. - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
…
32.5. Museum. A non-profit institution displaying or preserving objects of interest in one or more of
the arts and sciences, connected to the history of the property involved.
…
21
David and JoAnn Batey
Charley Dickey
The Historic Stanley Home Foundation
Organizational Structure
June 2018
Board of Directors
Tom Shamburg, Pre sident/CEO
Randy Kampfe, Vice President
Anne Rogers, Treasurer
Karen Daugherty, Secretary
Kelley Anderson, Board member
Dan Scace , Board member
Russ Schneider, Board member
Stanley Home Community Advisory Group
Honorary Chairpersons, Bill and Sue Pinkham
Dave and Loretta Brewer Curt Buchholtz
Bob and Lisa Fulton Stacey Harding
Nate and Karen Dick
Peggy Lynch
Phil and Tara Moenning Tony and Diane Palmer Rod and Sherry Unruh Thom Widawski
Historical Consultants
Dr. Jim Pickering
Kurtis Kelly
Stanley Home Volunteers
Several Dozen Docents (Kelley Anderson, Lead)
Office Volunteers (Letha Thorn and Jan Shamburg)
The First 500
ALL mi ssi on supporters, including those who are in name and/or donation only,
as well as any who also give time and talent. The total of all types of supporters
w i ll number in the hundreds.
22
23
PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE
FOUND AT THE FOLLOWING
WEBSITE UNDER
“STANLEY HISTORIC HOME”:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark
/currentapplications
24
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Brittany Hathaway – Planner II
Date: July 17, 2018
RE: Special Review Use – 415 W. Wonderview Ave.
Planning Commission Objective:
Review and provide a recommendation for Town Board consideration on a Special
Review Use (S2) application requesting approval of a “Cultural Institution” use in the
E-1 (Estate) residential zoning district.
Proposal:
This is a Special Review Use (S2) proposal for a historic house museum operation
within the Town of Estes Park on a parcel zoned E-1 (Estate) Residential.
Discussion:
This Special Review Use is dependent on the preceding approval of a Code
Amendment requesting “Cultural Institutions” be permitted in residential zoning
districts with an S2 Special Review Use .
This review procedure provides an opportunity to allow the requested use when
manageable impacts can be shown and by imposing mitigation measures, or
conditions, to address any potential concerns.
The Historic Stanley Home Foundation, a Colorado non-profit corporation, is seeking
to acquire F.O. Stanley’s original home at 415 West Wonderview Avenue for
preservation and operation as a historic house museum for local history education
with guided tours and a gift shop. Additionally, the applicant has provided narrative s
which may be found in Attachment’s #2 and #3. The narratives describe the proposed
use and applicable operation specifics.
The proposed Special Review Use may be subject to the following conditions as
recommended by staff:
25
Planning Commission, July 17 , 2018 Page 2 of 4
1.The maximum group size for tours shall be 12 persons in any given group. No
more than one group tour shall be on the property at any time, except
occasional brief and incidental overlap at the beginning and end of a tour.
2.Operating hours shall be limited to 5.5 days per week with the exception of
operations on holidays that may fall on a Monday, e.g. Labor Day.
a. Monday – Closed (unless on a holiday)
b. Tuesday-Saturday –10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
c.Sunday – 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
3.Special events hosted by the museum are permitted and may occur outside of
normal operating hours.
4.Use of the property for private facility eve nts, including weddings, shall not be
permitted.
5.A conservation easement shall be placed on parcel number 3524300025,
located adjacent to Wonderview Avenue, within one year following the S2 date
of approval by Town Board.
6.On-site food preparation shall not be permitted.
7.The eastern driveway shall be removed and reclaimed and shall not be used for
property access. During time of re -seeding of pavement/road base, a blockade
shall be placed at the entrance from Wonderview Avenue to prevent access.
8.Shuttle service shall be required for all tours and public property access.
9.Onsite parking shall be limited to 8 parking spaces for ADA access and
employee parking only. No parking on the property shall be allowed other than
in the 8 identified spaces, except for occasional and incidental parking for
loading/unloading purposes.
Staff Findings of Fact:
Approval of a Special Review Use shall not constitute a change in the base zoning
district and shall be granted only for the specific use approved at the specific site.
Approval is subject to such modifications, conditions, and restrictions as may be
deemed appropriate by the Decision Making Body. (EVDC §3.5)
26
Planning Commission, July 17 , 2018 Page 3 of 4
Per the EVDC, all applications for a Special Use Review shall demonstrate compliance
with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, “Use Regulations”. Should
the Code Amendment proposed with this application be approved, this use would be
subject to the following standards:
•The site is identified with a person or entity who significantly contributed to the
development, cultural, artistic, social, ethnic, economic, political, technological or
institutional heritage of Estes Park.
•The site portrays one or more historic eras characterized by a distinctive design
style.
•The site embodies elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that
represent a significant quality of design and/or development.
The conditions recommended by staff under “Discussion” may be amended to include
additional conditions as the Commission deems appropriate.
It should be noted that special events hosted by the museum may occur outside of
operating hours.
Advantages:
•The proposed Special Use will allow for the preservation and showcase of a
historically significant site in Estes Park.
Disadvantages:
•Potential traffic and neighborhood impact during peak season hours.
Action Recommended:
Review the request for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§3.5.B Special Review Uses, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to
The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees for a final decision to approve, deny, or
approve with conditions.
Staff recommends approval of the S2 Special Review with findings and conditions as
stated.
Level of Public Interest
27
Planning Commission, July 17 , 2018 Page 4 of 4
Medium: Several citizens have commented on the specific Special Review proposal
for the Historic Stanley Home. Specifically, comments in opposition were received with
regard to traffic and noise impacts. Several comments in support were also received.
Sample Motions:
Approval
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees approve the
Special Revie w Use proposal, including findings and conditions as recommended by
staff.
Continuance
I move to continue this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting because, (state reason (s) for continuance-findings).
Denial
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners deny the Special Review Use proposal,
finding that (state reasons for denial).
Attachments:
1.Vicinity Map
2.Statement of Intent
3.Supplemental Information
4.Development Plan
5.Stanley Historic Home Foundation Information
6.Public Comments
28
505
341
411
551
420
368
374
451
509 511
490
450450 420
380
415
415
415
342
270
311
350
450
341
500
331
410
503
300
465
501
461
W WONDERVIEW AVE
MARIGOLD LN
FAR VI E W D R
FAR VIEW LN
S U N N Y LN
SUNNYACRESCTUNIT 3
UNIT 2
UNIT 1
UNIT 3
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
UNIT A
UNIT B
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
UNIT C
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
UNIT 5
UNIT 6
UNIT 7
UNIT 8
UNIT
1
UNIT
6
GCE
UNIT
6
UNIT
1
This draft document was prepared for internal use by the
Town of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to
the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that you
do not post this document on the internet or otherwise
make it available to persons unknown to you.
050100
Feet
1 in = 98 ft±Town of Estes Park
Community Development
415 W. Wonderview
Stanley Home
Printed: 6/7/2018
Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Subject Property
29
Historic Stanley Home
Statement of Intent
April 18, 2018
Revised June 4, 2018
Project Location
Rockside, the original home of F.O. and Flora Stanley is located at 415 West Wonderview Avenue in Estes
Park. The property, parcel number 3524300025, consists of three parcels defined by meets and bounds,
totaling 4.4 acres. The zoning is E‐1 Estate (1 acre minimum).
Owner
The current owners are Gary and Kelly Brown, of Estes Park. Lienholders include Pentagon Federal Credit
Union and US Bank, 1st and 2nd mortgage holders, respectively.
Project Description
The Historic Stanley Home Foundation, a Colorado non‐profit 501c3 corporation created in October of
2016, is seeking to acquire the home for preservation and operation as a Cultural Center for local history
education. This application requests an amendment to the EVDC to allow Cultural Institutions in
residential zoning districts by Special Review; then the Special Review itself.
Under the stewardship of the Historic Stanley Home Foundation, the property would be nominated for
inclusion on the State and/or Federal Register of Historic Places. Renovations would take place to
facilitate Preservation and Rehabilitation as a Cultural Institution. These latter would include life safety
and accessibility accommodations. All work would comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures.
The primary goal would be preservation as a ‘house museum’ to illustrate and communicate the history of
the early days of Estes Park. Guests and visitors will be limited in number and activity to respect the
historic value of the home. The primary use intended would be guided public tours. The maximum group
size for tours is anticipated at twelve persons. Small group usage may also be available for organizations,
however, weddings, wedding receptions and family reunions will NOT be allowed, nor will overnight stays
be permitted.
As noted, the property currently consists of three parcels. The first, on which the main house, a garage
and small carriage house sit, encompasses approximately 1.4 acres. The main house has approximately
4,000sf of space on two floors, plus 1,000sf of basement. The garage, approximately 675sf, would be used
for storage and possibly a small gift shop. The carriage house, also built in 1904, consists of approximately
1,350 square feet and is intended to be used for a caretaker’s quarters, in order to provide a monitoring
presence on the property since the main home would not be occupied as a residence. The two additional
parcels would be placed in a conservation easement. This is particularly important since current zoning
would allow for additional single‐family home development.
The existing garage would be converted into public restrooms and a small gift shop. The gift shop would
not serve any prepared food or drink – no food or drink will be allowed in the home. Limited packaged
snack items may be available for purchase (after tour is complete) – as noted below a bear‐proof trash
receptacle will be provided.
Site Access and Parking
Access to the property is from Wonderview Avenue. There currently exists two drive access points at the
far east and west borders of the property. The plan proposed would eliminate the eastern access, thereby
removing some impact to the adjacent properties to the east. The western access would be widened for
two‐way traffic per the EVDC standards. A small parking area (10 spaces) will be located below the home,
30
to the west of the carriage house, with pedestrian access via an original short staircase. A one‐way drive
above the parking will provide access to accessible parking and fire apparatus access.
Per EVDC Table 7.11.D, one space per 300 square feet, plus one per 90sf of assembly space, is required.
There is no assembly space in the project. There is approximately 3,000sf of usable space within the
home, which results in 10 spaces required, plus two for the carriage house. Per 7.11.N, one 12’x35’
loading space would be required – since there is no need for such a loading space to serve the operations
intended, a waiver from this requirement is requested.
The initial application anticipated the use of a shuttle service for gatherings. As further consideration for
the neighboring properties, the shuttle concept would be expanded to include transportation for all
tours/gatherings during the busy summer season. All guests not requiring ADA parking would access the
property via 15‐passenger shuttle, substantially reducing traffic on and to the site during these times. The
Stanley Home Foundation has reached an agreement in principle with a local shuttle provider for this
service.
Pedestrian Access
Internal pedestrian access from parking areas is provided.
Utilities, Drainage & Fire Protection
Utility service is provided via private service lines from existing utility mains adjacent to the project site.
Electrical and water service is provided by the Town of Estes Park; natural gas is provided by Excel Energy;
sanitary sewer services are provided by the Estes Park Sanitation. Drainage impact is expected to be
minimal – please see Waivers section below – as no substantial new paving is anticipated. During the pre‐
application conference it was noted that a drainage study would not be required.
Based on IBC code analysis, the occupant load of the building would be less than 50 and therefore would
be considered a ‘B’ occupancy. Based on this designation, an automatic fire suppression system would not
be required. As required by the IFC, a detailed fire protection plan would be prepared and submitted as a
component of the building permit application for change of use. Fire apparatus access is provided via the
one‐way road to the base of the building.
“No Smoking” signs will be posted on‐property in parking, driveway and walkway areas.
Lighting and Landscaping
No new lighting is anticipated, in part as nighttime use of the property is expected to be restricted.
Existing lighting is intended to remain, however any new/replaced exterior fixtures will be dark‐sky
compliant. Since no new fixtures are anticipated, during the pre‐application conference it was noted that
a photometric light study would not be required.
While a new 10 space parking area could require perimeter landscaping per EVDC 7.5.G.2, the proposed
parking is a significant distance from street edge or lot line. Additionally quite a few trees exist on the lot
currently, far more than would be required by the standard. Therefore it is requested that the existing
vegetation be considered as meeting this requirement, if applicable.
Special Review and EVDC Code Amendment
The use of the property would be classified as a Cultural Institution per EVDC 13.2.15. This use is currently
not permitted in Residential zones per Table 4‐1. This project proposes that Table 4‐1 be amended to
include Cultural Institutions as a use permitted by Special Review in all Residential Zoning districts.
This particular home is certainly not the only historic home in a residential neighborhood in the Estes
Valley, though it may be the first to be preserved and protected as a community resource in this fashion.
31
The Special Review process is designed to consider and mitigate, if necessary, any impacts of the use to
the property. The proposed amendment therefore provides a process within which other historic
resources in the valley might also be incorporated into the community, each to be reviewed on its own
individual merits.
The benefits to this amendment are numerous. Without such an amendment, it would be necessary to
‘spot zone’ such a property to a commercial zoning district, which could be seen as setting a precedent for
future zoning changes. Restriction of activities on such a rezoned property would require deed
restrictions, which can be cumbersome and often difficult to enforce. In the event the cultural use is no
longer viable, the property could simply revert back to its historic residential use.
Special Review Considerations
Use and Operation: described above.
Traffic Generation: In absence of this project, it would be possible for up to four single‐family homes
to exist on the property, which would generate 38 trips per day per the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
Per the same document, use as a museum would generate less than 50 trips per day. Therefore a
Traffic Impact Analysis is not required, and thus the expected traffic impact is minimal ‐ in fact not
significantly more impact than single family development. The use of a shuttle service for all tour
guests during peak season lowers the daily trips even further, such that the traffic generated would be
actually be less than that generated by the allowed single‐family use.
Zoning Compatibility: With the proposed amendment allowing the use in residential districts, the E‐1
Estate zoning remains in place. The property is surrounded by E‐1 zoning.
Parking and Site Access: As noted above, parking would be provided in a small area just below the
existing historic stone wall, in the middle of the property. Site access would be further limited to the
west side only. Parking and drives are requested to remain unpaved to retain historic character
(except in the case of the accessible parking space, which may require hard surface paving to meet
requirements).
Hours of Operation: Operation of the museum would vary seasonally, but is anticipated at seven
days/week in the busier/summer seasons (June – October). The first tour is anticipated to begin at
10am (guests arrive 9:45am) with the final tour beginning at 3pm, guests departing by 4:30pm.
During the off/shoulder seasons tour schedules and days of operation will very likely be reduced.
Small group usage would be limited to less than 50 persons (in keeping with building + fire code
provisions noted above) and would be limited in number (one or two/month). All guests (except for
ADA) would arrive and depart via shuttle. Small group gatherings may extend into the early evening,
but would conclude no later than 8pm.
Lighting & other Environmental Effects: As noted above, lighting impact would not be increased.
There would be no impact on quality of air or water. Since the primary use of the home would be for
tours, there would be minimal noise impact to neighboring property as operations would be held
inside the home and group size would be small. No motion‐sensor lighting will be permitted. Exterior
trash receptacles shall be bear‐proof.
Height, size and location of buildings and activities: The buildings are all existing – no expansions or
additional structures are being proposed. All activities would remain centralized around the existing
facilities.
Resources: As noted in this section of the EVDC, particular note is to be taken of historic and cultural
resources on the property. Obviously the preservation of these is the primary goal of the project!
32
Existing trees/vegetation, rock outcroppings, etc are also to be preserved and protected as much as
possible. Finally, by putting the currently vacant parcels into a conservations easement, that area is
protected from future impact.
Waivers Requested
1. EVDC 7.11.O – pave parking areas with (8) or more spaces with minimum of 2” asphalt.
Request to keep the historic compacted gravel surface.
2. EVDC 7.11.N, (1) 12’x35’ loading space – no loading spaces are anticipated
Neighborhood Outreach
The Board of the Stanley Home Foundation has attempted to be open with and receptive to neighboring
property owners from the beginning. A primary goal in preserving the home is to do so while being a good
neighbor. Information/outreach meetings were hosted by Board members in July 2017, October 2017, and
January 2018.
Many insights have been gained from this process. Changes to the physical and operational plans that
came either directly or as an evolution of thought as a result of these meetings include:
Disallowing wedding/family and other private gatherings not focused on the historical
nature of the property
Abandonment of the east side driveway
Placement of conservation easement on otherwise ‘developable’ property
Consideration of a small shuttle to reduce traffic
33
The Historic Stanley Home Foundation
Supplemental Information
July 6, 2018
This document supplements the Statement of Intent of the Foundation, which was submitted to
Community Development with our application on April 18, 2018 with further revision on June 4, 2018.
Hours of Operation
The original Statement of Intent and revision stated that operation of the Stanley Home museum would
vary seasonally, but be at seven days a week in the busier/summer seasons.
This schedule was discussed at a meeting initiated by a neighbor group with the Foundation Board on
June 21st, with the neighbors asking to reduce the seven-day plan. Since that meeting the Foundation
Board has determined that a 5.5 day schedule will support the needs of the Foundation operation, while
offering a favorable solution to this neighbor group.
The Stanley Home Museum will be closed on non-holiday Mondays and on Sundays will operate only in
the afternoons. The Foundation Board is pleased that upon further review of our future schedule, that a
shorter schedule will benefit all of the involved parties.
Models for Operation of The Stanley Home Museum
The Historic Stanley Home Foundation wants our community to feature a historic house museum that
compares well with other prominent houses. To learn as much as possible about how other house
museums have succeeded, the Foundation Board chose two locations to use as models.
We visited the Molly Brown House Museum in Denver in October, 2017 and the Historic Ivinson
Mansion in Laramie in February, 2018 to meet the Executive Directors and to see the homes.
The Ivinson Mansion conducts a 5.5 day schedule in the busy season. The Molly Brown House conducts a
6.5 day schedule. We choose to follow the Ivinson model for Stanley Home operations.
The Estes Park Museum and Hydroplant Museum
Any suggestion that the Stanley Home operation should be compared to either of these valued local
museums is simply not correct. Both of these are owned by our town and are fully tax-supported. Once
again, The Stanley Home must strictly be compared to house museums like Molly Brown and Ivinson to
be at all relevant comparisons.
Ongoing Meetings with Neighboring Property Owners
34
The Stanley Home Foundation Board first initiated meetings with neighbors in July, 2017. After that
initial meeting, additional group meetings sought by the Board, were held in October, 2017 and January,
2018. More recently, a group of neighbors invited Board members to a meeting in June, 2018.
There have also been many one on one meetings with a number of individual homeowners.
These meetings have allowed the Foundation to understand the thoughts of the neighbors and for the
neighbors to have the correct understanding of our plans. The meetings have been valuable to enable
the Foundation to gradually incorporate solutions to many neighbor comments into our Statement of
Intent and into the final details of our operations plan.
The Stanley Home and The Stanley Hotel
Some comparisons were made in public testimony at the June 19th Planning Commission meeting of the
operation of the hotel and the Stanley Home. Any implication that the Stanley Home will draw similar
tour guest numbers as the hotel are simply incorrect. The Stanley Home is a non-profit, charitable
organization that focuses on the preservation of the home and is a very low-touch operating model.
The Historic Stanley Home Foundation is an autonomous operation with absolutely no connection with
any other organization and therefore conducts itself without any outside influence or authority.
East Side Driveway
The development plan calls for the east drive to be removed and reclaimed. This will result in removing
any pavement/road base and re -seeding to a natural state. A temporary barrier can be put into place
while the re -seeding takes hold, with possible removal of the barrier in the future.
Small Parking Area
The Statement of Intent called for ten spaces. Due to the subsequent commitment to a shuttle service,
that need can be reduced to eight spaces.
Foundation Ownership and Conservation Easement
Some attempts have been made to deny significant threats to the preservation of the home. The
Foundation strongly asserts that as the home transfers to a new owner, the risk of altering historic
features and the possible removal of the home in favor of a new one is entirely possible with many
precedents across our country that resulted in the loss of a treasured property.
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the 4.4 acre site will not include several more structures under
current zoning. A grassroots citizens organization owning the home to preserve it and placement of a
perpetual conservation easement on the site will eliminate this entirely legitimate risk.
35
36
David and JoAnn Batey
Charley Dickey
The Historic Stanley Home Foundation
Organizational Structure
June 2018
Board of Directors
Tom Shamburg, Pre sident/CEO
Randy Kampfe, Vice President
Anne Rogers, Treasurer
Karen Daugherty, Secretary
Kelley Anderson, Board member
Dan Scace , Board member
Russ Schneider, Board member
Stanley Home Community Advisory Group
Honorary Chairpersons, Bill and Sue Pinkham
Dave and Loretta Brewer Curt Buchholtz
Bob and Lisa Fulton Stacey Harding
Nate and Karen Dick
Peggy Lynch
Phil and Tara Moenning Tony and Diane Palmer Rod and Sherry Unruh Thom Widawski
Historical Consultants
Dr. Jim Pickering
Kurtis Kelly
Stanley Home Volunteers
Several Dozen Docents (Kelley Anderson, Lead)
Office Volunteers (Letha Thorn and Jan Shamburg)
The First 500
ALL mi ssi on supporters, including those who are in name and/or donation only,
as well as any who also give time and talent. The total of all types of supporters
w i ll number in the hundreds.
37
38
Brittany Hathaway <bhathaway@estes.org>
Historic Stanley Home Foundation Statement of Intent and Development
Application Concerns
1 message
Peter Maxwell <pdmaxwell@gmail.com> Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:41 PM
To: "Planning@Estes.org" <Planning@estes.org>, "RHunt@Estes.org" <RHunt@estes.org>, "KSwanlund@estes.org"
<KSwanlund@estes.org>, "Bhathaway@estes.org" <Bhathaway@estes.org>, "tjirsa@estes.org" <tjirsa@estes.org>,
"cwalker@estes.org" <cwalker@estes.org>, "cbangs@estes.org" <cbangs@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "rnorris@estes.org" <rnorris@estes.org>,
"kzornes@estes.org" <kzornes@estes.org>
To whom it may concern,
( I sent this earlier today but the formatting made it nearly unreadable, so I fixed it and am re-sending. This
version can replace the previous document for the packet. )
I took the time to read through the revised Statement of Intent for the Stanley home, and there are a few
things that immediately jumped out at me. I would appreciate if this letter was included in the packet that is
presented to the Planning Commission for review.
I appreciate the Planning Department and Commission taking the time to work with the Stanley group and
encourage them to find a way to pursue their vision with everyone in mind. A code amendment to put a
repeatable process in place for the review of homes as cultural institutions seems to be a great place to start.
This being the first of its kind here in town presents the Planning and Community Development offices with a
unique opportunity to both set precedent and get it right. I strongly believe that setting precedent for
previously unforged territory in our town would best be served through an approach of diligence, great
specificity, and review. In that, I believe a more moderate approach and approval would best serve both the
enterprise (not being overstretched, or over-reaching necessary allowances) and your department (ensuring
limited impact and modeling a commitment to preserving neighborhoods and cultural institutions alike). With
that in mind, I am concerned with the overall lack of detail in a document that will serve as the roadmap for
both operation and accountability for this groundbreaking development.
I’m concerned with the lack of specificity in the plan as it’s written, and the creep of usage and impact that it
would allow if approved in the current state. The lack of detail around specific seasons of operation,
operating days per week that exceed all other nearby and relevant examples set by cultural or historical
homes, an unspecific one or two exceptions to a 4:30 closing time per month with the completely ambiguous
if not laughably inadequate sole qualifier that the group expresses an interest in the historical significance of
the home, and lastly, a driveway that is listed as being removed as a means of showing concession which is
apparently still going to be used. I believe the use of shuttles is a great step in the correct direction, however
even the use of shuttles lacks detail. The plan speaks in terms of months, not days, and further speaks in
terms of maximum occupancy, without detail of congruent/staggered tour starts. This strikes me as important
considering the max occupancy would be exceeded with four tours of 12 people (their stated max per tour) +
the docents necessary to lead those tours. (It’s worth noting that in front of the Planning Commission the
HSHF representative stated that there would be one tour per hour, however in a subsequent meeting the
HSHF members said that he mis-spoke, that there would be multiple tours per hour.)
Of particular note are the after hours group events and days of operation. As stated, listing that there may be
one or two after hours group events isn’t binding in any way and leads to an incredible enforcement burden.
Who counts? What counts? Stating that the home won’t host weddings, but will host groups that are
interested in the historic nature of the home is entirely non-committal. What qualifies as interest? The
Town of Estes Park Mail - Historic Stanley Home Foundation Statement ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0660191b22&jsver=RNUr...
1 of 2 7/12/2018, 8:04 AM
39
coordinator of the group looking to plan a gathering says, “We want to host our event at the historic Stanley
Home.” Have they, by saying the home is historic, met the burden of being interested in the history of the
home? I don’t believe that qualifier would, in fact, limit the character/size/purpose of group in any way, shape,
or form. Finally, would the group size be limited to interior capacity? Would groups be allowed to congregate
outside? The SOI lists that they desire to run seven days a week from June to October. I struggled to find any
nearby historic home museum, much less one in the middle of a residential neighborhood, that operated
seven days a week. In fact, I found the opposite. There are clear examples of precedence here, much less
homes located in the middle of a residential zoning, that do not support a daily, relentless, impact on the
neighboring homeowners. In each of these instances I strongly believe that the Planning Commission and
Planning Department should look to remove vague definitions or gray areas that would lend themselves to
usage creep over time or place a hardship on the neighbors by requiring their time and effort to protect the
character of what a residential neighborhood should reflect.
I realize the previous paragraphs were wordy. Here is a simple breakdown, the cliff notes version:
Lots of “We’ll provide information later” by the HSHF1.
Incredible lack of specifics in the following areas2.
After Hours Eventsa.
Internal or External Eventsb.
Bus use as sole transportation, or supplementalc.
What qualifies a group as interested in the history of the homed.
Size of tours, quantity of tours, essentially the “schedule for neighborhood disruption”e.
Precedence breaking requests for home museum that show a lack of concern for the neighborhood3.
Operating seven days/weeka.
Hosting after hours eventsb.
A plan that directs all traffic to a drive that is mere feet away from neighboring property lines and
residences
c.
If this property is going to be used as an example to the town that we care about both our neighborhoods and
homes of historic value, then the operating model needs to embody that. A lack of detail or accountability at
this most critical stage will ultimately lead to presenting an unreasonable burden on the neighboring
homeowners, the inevitable return to planning/community development, and waste valuable time of our Town
Trustees and Police Department. Like so many other things that represent change, we won’t be able to unring
this bell. I would implore you to push this development for a plan that is incredibly, if not at least sufficiently,
detailed and to error on the side of caution and due diligence when considering any factor that will impact the
neighboring community.
Thank you again for your consideration and time,
Pete Maxwell
Town of Estes Park Mail - Historic Stanley Home Foundation Statement ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0660191b22&jsver=RNUr...
2 of 2 7/12/2018, 8:04 AM
40
PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE
FOUND AT THE FOLLOWING
WEBSITE UNDER
“STANLEY HISTORIC HOME”:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark
/currentapplications
41
42
MEMO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Bob Leavitt, Planning Commission Chair
Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: July 17, 2018
RE: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-18: Support Development of a
New Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
Objective:
Review and decide upon Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-18, formally initiating
a rewrite of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and providing Planning Commission
guidance to the two governing bodies, staff, stakeholders, and the public regarding
proposed process and schedule, during 2018 – 2021.
Present Situation:
Colorado Revised Statutes require a joint role for Planning Commissions and governing
bodies in creating and updating Comprehensive Plans. The Planning Commission
Resolution is a formal commencement of the Town Board’s role in setting broad
parameters on the process and schedule for rewriting our 1996 Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
The current Plan is now twenty-two years old. It has served its purpose reasonably well,
but conditions have changed considerably since 1996 – among other changes, the Estes
Valley Development Code and joint Town/County Planning area were created after the
Plan. (The Plan in fact played an important role in setting the stage for the joint Planning
and Development Code area.) Our community has also changed, and will continue to
change.
On June 14, 2018, a joint meeting was held among the three bodies of officials with
primary responsibility for planning in Estes Valley: the Town Board of Trustees, the Board
of County Commissioners, and the Planning Commission. This meeting was focused
especially on the Comprehensive Plan rewrite structure and process. A consensus was
informally determined to proceed with the rewrite. There was consensus to begin pre-
planning in 2018, with major tasks to begin in 2019 and continue into 2020, with adoption
in 2021 if not earlier. Some Plan elements might be adopted before then if they are
completed as stand-alone sections.
Proposal:
This proposed Planning Commission Resolution is brought forward in order to formally
confirm the Planning Commission’s authorization of this effort and outlining a reasonable
process and time frame to the Plan rewrite.
43
It is also important to recognize that key stakeholders, and the public as a whole, need to
have seats at the table from beginning to end of the update process. The process and
schedule outlined in the Resolution are expected to accomplish that.
The Resolution also identifies the fact that resources will need to be committed to the
Plan process. Although the annual budget adoption process will be the main step(s) in
accomplishing the resource commitment, starting in 2019 and continuing in 2020 and
possibly into 2021, this Resolution will guide the Town in setting out the overall framework
for budgeting specifics.
Finally, adoption of this Resolution is a valuable step in applying for grant funding.
Agencies that fund comprehensive planning want to be sure the community is committed
to the effort. The primary commitment they look for is funding, but the Resolution is useful
in demonstrating that local funding is anticipated and the community wishes to see the
Plan process through from beginning to end.
Parallel Resolutions have been presented this month to the Town Board (July 12 –
approved by vote 7-0) and will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners (on
July 24).
One other items on today’s agenda will dovetail with the Resolution: appointment of a
temporary Advisory Committee to oversee pre-planning for the rewrite during the rest of
2018.
Advantages:
*Complies with EVDC §2.1.B: Code Administration and Review Roles.
*Complies with Colorado Revised Statutes regarding Comprehensive Plan creation
and updates – specifically 31-23-206 and 31-23-208.
*Provides an accessible and transparent process for approaching the Plan update.
Disadvantages:
*A multi-year process for the Plan update is lengthy and involved, and will require
affirmative efforts by all parties to sustain momentum toward completing the update.
Action Recommended:
Staff is recommending that Planning Commission and the other two bodies all approve
substantially identical versions of the Resolution.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Staff estimates approx. $300,000 (50/50 split with the County) for the full 2019-2021
rewrite. We hope to secure a substantial amount of the budget via grant funding.
Level of Public Interest
High.
Sample Motion:
44
I move for the approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-18.
Attachments:
1.Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-18.
45
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-18
A RESOLUTION TO OUTLINE PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE FOR THE ESTES
VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE DURING 2018-2021
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes Sec. 31-23-206 provides that a Planning
Commission shall “… adopt a master plan for the physical development of the
municipality, including any areas outside its boundaries, subject to the approval of the
governmental body having jurisdiction thereof…”; and
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes Sec. 31-23-208 provides that an
“…attested copy of the plan or part thereof shall be certified to each governmental body
of the territory affected and, after the approval by each body, shall be filed with the county
clerk and recorder of each county wherein the territory is located”; and
WHEREAS, Sec. 2.1.B of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) similarly
provides for jointly shared authority over the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan’s adoption
and amendment among the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Estes Park Town
Board of Trustees, and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, twenty-two (22) years have elapsed since the 1996 Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan was duly approved by the applicable authorities in the Estes Valley
Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, it is reasonable and appropriate that a Comprehensive Plan rewrite
be undertaken according to mutual concurrence among the three aforesaid official bodies;
and
WHEREAS, it is reasonable and appropriate for the Town Board of Trustees,
Board of County Commissioners, and Planning Commission to provide guidance in
shaping the process and schedule for a Comprehensive Plan rewrite:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission (Colorado), that:
Section 1. Upon the adoption of this Resolution and parallel adoption of similar
resolutions by the Board of Larimer County Commissioners and Estes Park Town Board
of Trustees, a general process and schedule is hereby determined for a 2018-2021
rewrite of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. In order to allow adequate time for all interested stakeholders, the
public, and elected and appointed officials to accurately determine and weigh various
elements and aspects of the Comprehensive Plan rewrite, it is determined that a minimum
of 18 to 24 months is appropriate and necessary for a thorough and transparent process.
All elements in the Comprehensive Plan rewrite will be conducted with adequate time and
attention to public and stakeholder review, with mutual consultation among the Planning
46
Commission and governing bodies as appropriate.
Section 3. Within the 18-to-24-month time frame, the following elements should
generally be addressed:
A. An update of statistical and similar basic data in the Plan;
B. A general text-based outline of land-use policy;
C. An element addressing population growth, housing needs and housing supply;
D. An element addressing economic development;
E. An element addressing transportation;
F. An element addressing utilities and similar infrastructure;
G. An element addressing parks, trails, and recreational and tourism needs of
residents and visitors;
H. An element addressing public safety and emergency-service needs;
I. An element addressing environmental considerations;
J. Any other element(s) as determined appropriate, necessary, and/or required by
law; and
K. An element addressing implementation of the updated Plan.
Section 4. The 18-to-24-month time frame should begin approximately when the
Town Board of Trustees, Board of County Commissioners, and Planning Commission
have approved resolutions similar to this one.
Section 5. It is expected the remainder of 2018 will be spent in pre-planning tasks,
with major work on the Comprehensive Plan rewrite beginning in 2019.
Section 6. It is anticipated that the estimated budget for the Comprehensive Plan
rewrite will be approx. $300,000, beginning in 2019 and ending with adoption of the new
Plan. It is hoped that a substantial proportion of the estimated cost can be offset by grant
funding. An additional estimated $10,000 will facilitate pre-planning work in 2018.
Section 7. After receipt and review of public and stakeholder input and completion
of any final revisions, it is expected the Planning Commission would approve the
Comprehensive Plan update followed by certification to and approval of the two governing
bodies, according to the Colorado Revised Statutes as recited herein.
DATED this day of , 2018.
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
47
MEMO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Bob Leavitt, Planning Commission Chair
Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: July 17, 2018
RE: Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan: 2018 Advisory Committee Formation
and Planning Commission Appointment
Objective:
Review and determine one (1) Planning Commission appointee for a temporary (2018
only) five (5) member Advisory Committee, to engage in pre-planning tasks and provide
preliminary guidance for the Comprehensive Plan rewrite.
Present Situation:
On June 14, a three-part meeting of both governing bodies and Planning Commission
resulted in consensus to begin a rewrite of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. A
parallel agenda item this evening (Resolution No. 15-18) sets out more specifics
regarding this undertaking.
One task identified on June 14 was the desirability of getting underway with pre-planning
activities in 2018, in anticipation of a budget and full-fledged work-program approval to
begin the major Comp Plan work in 2019.
Proposal:
Staff is recommending a five-member Advisory Committee (AC) to guide the pre-
planning work in 2018. We suggest a committee of two appointed by Town Board (one
Trustee and one staff), two appointed by the Board of County Commissioners (one
Commissioner and one staff member), and one appointed by Planning Commission (a
PC member).
These are only suggested members and other persons could be considered. The
important elements that staff would suggest: (a) a 5-member committee is a good
number – not too large, not too small – and (b) the Committee be appointed soon and
get to work quickly, because there is a lot to do and 2018 is over the halfway mark!
Some specific tasks for the AC include:
•Guiding identification of key stakeholder groups and entities in Estes Valley,
and beginning outreach and dialog with them on the new Com Plan;
•Setting forth greater detail on the structure of the Plan (e.g., spelling out in
more detail what would go into the component list in Section 3 of Resolution
No. 01-18);
48
•Reviewing other communities’ Comp Plans and considering which features
are worthy of adaptation in our new Plan;
•Helping guide the work of consultants during the pre-planning phase.
On the last point, the Town has had a respected, knowledgeable consulting firm under
contract for general long-range planning services since early 2018: Ayres Associates.
Ayres Associates is a multi-branch firm with an office in Fort Collins. We have the
services of three professional planners, all of whom have been through Comprehensive
Plan preparation, writing and adoption in several communities, both “new” Plans and
updates.
We have confirmed that the Ayres team is available and willing to add Comp Plan duties
to their task list. However, we would stress that much of the technical work will be
handled in-house.
In addition to the bullet points above, a final and crucial task of the AC will be helping to
write, refine, and finalize an RFP for the full-fledged Comprehensive Plan rewrite
beginning in 2019, assuming budget is approved
Advantages:
•Provides oversight and accountability from the beginning of the
Comprehensive Plan rewrite.
Disadvantages:
•We expect to meet (in person or by conference call) every other week for
around an hour, and there will be homework in-between.
Action Recommended:
Staff is recommending that Planning Commission and the other two bodies appoint AC
members as suggested above.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Staff estimates approx. $300,000 (50/50 split with the County) for the full 2019-2021
rewrite. We hope to secure a substantial amount of the budget via grant funding.
Level of Public Interest
Comp Plan rewrite: High. Staff is not aware of specific interest in the Advisory
Committee at this time.
Sample Motion:
I move to appoint _______________ to the Comprehensive Plan’s Advisory Committee,
for a term to begin upon appointment and ending on Dec. 31, 2018.
49