The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-05-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Klink, White, Schneider, and Hills Also Attending: Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Planner Audem Gonzales, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz, Senior Planner Alison Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: None Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 60 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 Charley Dickey commented on today’s study session. He asked the Commission to consider having the same discussion in the regular meeting. The discussion was relevant, and the public in attendance at the regular meeting today deserve to hear the same discussion. He also asked the Commission to be more involved in planning. There are items coming up in the community that could be assisted by the Commission’s involvement. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, March 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. REZONING & BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND RE-ZONING , TBD Little Prospect Road Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Stephanie Rauk, desires to adjust the common property line between two parcels as well as rezone both properties to E-Estate. The owner of both parcels is the George H Voeks Trust, and Ms. Rauk is the Trustee. In 2010, a separate legal lot determination was requested of Community Development staff, and it was determined the north parcel was not considered a legal not for the purposes of development. In August, 2015, another legal lot determination was requested, and again the lot was determined not legal for purposes of development. The applicant has since filed an appeal of the staff decision to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, which was initially heard at the December 21, 2015 County Commission meeting. The result of that hearing was a request by the County Commissioners to the applicant to come forward with the appropriate applications to accomplish the goal of creating two equally-sized lots. It was implied if the applicant completed these steps, then the County Commissioners would be inclined to overturn staff’s decision, which would make the north parcel a legal lot and eligible for a boundary line adjustment (BLA). fP Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue r PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: April 19th, 2016, 1:30 PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue. APPLICANT REQUEST: Special Review Development Plan STAFF OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; and 2. Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; 2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant's testimony, public comment, and Town staffs findings and analysis; and 3. Provide a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees of approval or denial of the Special Review Development Plan application. LOCATION: 1665 HWY 66, within the Town of Estes Park OWNER/APPLICANT: Randy Jackson and Michael Andrejek I Michelle Oliver CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Engineer: Celine LeBeau, VanHorn Engineering & Surveying Architect: Basis Architecture STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner I REPORT SUMMARY AND PROJECT BACKGROUND: This report describes a request for approval of a Special Review Development Plan to develop a 750 person capacity Chuckwagon Dinner and Live Entertainment facility on a 5-acre site located at 1665 HWY 66, within the Town of Estes Park. The property is zoned A-Accommodations. The development site is a small portion of the much larger 30.75-acre site that currently accommodates the Elk Meadow RV Resort. The proposal includes a 17,910 sq. ft. building, 192 space parking lot, widening of Mills Drive, installation of a right turn lane on Spur 66, and landscaping. The Development Plan is phased out into three phases over the course of 3 years. Staff has reviewed this application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and finds that if revised to comply with conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable regulations. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Special Review Development Plan application, subject to conditions described in the staff report. CONTENTS SITE DATA MAPS 3 SITE DATA TABLE 5 REVIEW PROCESS 6 REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS 7 STAFF REVIEW 7 STAFF FINDINGS 15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 15 SAMPLE MOTIONS 16 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 2 of 17 SITE DATA MAPS AND TABLE: The 5-acre development site includes frontage on Mills Drive. The land uses surrounding the site vary, with uses to the west being offices, facilities, and emergency response for Rocky Mountain National Park, uses to the south being single-family residential, a restaurant/tavern use to the east, and a RV park/campground to the north. Figure 1 (below) shows the overall vicinity of the project from an aerial view. Figure 2 shows the zoning districts in the vicinity of the development. Figure 3 shows Mills Drive, a 20-foot asphalt private drive, looking northwest. Figure : Aerial Vicinity Map of Development Site 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 3 of 17 I,- . _. .1, Ili * - '41/4 - 0474ittr,,,qv 1 411.15: . 4 ll' .0 / • P1'41,, V e " -.C."' • . • ..- 4 4 - ... Figure 2: 2: Zoning Map Figure 3: Mills Drive looking northwest 1665 HWY 66— Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 4 of 17 Site Data Table Parcel Number: 3534100001 Project Area: -5-acres of the 30.75-acre parcel Existing Land Use: The project area is currently used as RV overflow and storage Proposed Land Uses: Entertainment Event, Major: (Chuckwagon Dinner and Live Entertainment Facility) Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District Open Space: Required: N/A Lot Coverage: Maximum allowed: 50% Proposed: 22.3% Building Uses: Phase 1: kitchen, bathrooms, mechanical room, employee bathroom, office, and employee lounge 4,560 sq. ft. Phase 2: dining/performance hall 12,200 sq. ft. Total Built Square Footage 17,910 sq. ft. Hazards/Physical Features: Mapped in the project vicinity? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard No Wetlands Yes Streams/Rivers No Ridgeline Protection No Sensitive Wildlife Habitat No 1665 HWY 66— Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 5 of 17 REVIEW PROCESS: This application package includes: Special Review of Development Plan Review (§3.5): A Special Review is required for this development plan. The proposed construction of an indoor Entertainment Event, Major in the A-Accommodation zone district prompted the Special Review requirement. Development Plans shall comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC and demonstrate consistency with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Special Review requires applications mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Recommending Body: Estes Valley Planning Commission Decision-Making Body: Estes Park Board of Trustees, tentatively scheduled for May 24, 2016. Variances (§3.6): The BOA shall hear requests for variances where it is alleged that the provisions of this Code inflict unnecessary hardship and practical difficulties upon the Applicant. Decision-Making Body: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minor Modifications (§3.7): A minor modification is required for the 2.6' encroachment into a designated wetland setback. Decision-Making Body: Staff level approval REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Received emails and memos are included as part of this staff report. • Town of Estes Park Shuttle Coordinator memo dated January 21, 2016 • Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated January 25, 2016 • Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 27, 2016 • Town of Estes Park Code Compliance Division email dated January 28, 2016 • Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 1, 2016 • Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19, 2016 • Rocky Mountain National Park memo received February 26, 2016 • Larimer County Engineering emails March 2, 2016 and April 6, 2016 • Larimer County Department of Health and Environment email dated March 4, 2016 PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette. Typical mailings include a 500-foot radius. As of April 7, 2016, several written comments have been received for this application package. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.orq/currentapplications if received after April 7, 2016. The public comments received thus far have been mostly in opposition to the proposal. The majority of the written comments are from adjacent property owners. The most prevalent concerns they bring up are; traffic along Mills Drive, noise from the events held at the facility, and the parking situation for the Rock Inn. There have a been a couple written public comments in support of this project which mention; continuing the cowboy/western tradition of Estes Park, diversifying entertainment businesses in Estes Park and building on previous Lazy B memories. The applicant held a public meeting at the Estes Valley Library in the Hondius Room on February 17th, 2016 from 6-7PM. Area residents were encouraged to attend and listen to a presentation and ask questions. A second public meeting at the Estes Valley Library was held on March 28th, 2016 from 7-9PM. STAFF REVIEW: Estes Valley Development Code The following is a summary of the proposed development's compliance with applicable sections of the EVDC. Use, Density and Dimensional Standards Use (EVDC §4.4) The proposed chuckwagon dinner and live entertainment facility is classified as an Entertainment Event, Major (indoor facility) use. General definition: Major entertainment event uses are characterized by activities and structures that attract people to specific (often large-scale) events or shows. Activities are generally of spectator nature. Accessory uses may include restaurants, bars, concessions, parking and maintenance facilities. Entertainment Event, Major uses are permitted by Special Review in the A- Accommodations zone district. Density and Dimensional Standards (EVDC §4.4; Table 4-5) The following table demonstrates the application's compliance with the EVDC Density and Dimensional Standards. Required Proposed Minimum Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. —217,800 sq. ft. Maximum Building Height 30-feet (32-feet allowed with slope adjustment) 26.25-feet Maximum Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.08% Front Setback 15' 15' 1665 HWY 66— Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 7 of 17 Side Setback 15' 15' Rear Setback 10' 10' Lot Coverage (EVDC §4.3) Lot coverage represents those parts of the site that are covered by development that prevents or impedes the passage or absorption of stormwater (e.g. buildings, parking, sidewalks). The development proposes a lot coverage percentage of 15%. The maximum allowed in the A-Accommodation zone district is 50%. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (EVDC §7.2) The plan demonstrates compliance with general grading and site disturbance standards, including limits on raising or lowering natural grade and design of stormwater basins. Tree and Vegetation Protection (EVDC §7.3) The subject site has very little vegetation currently. There are a few trees located where the proposed parking lot is located. These trees will be replaced in the proposed landscaping plan for the site. Landscaping and Buffers (EVDC §7.5) The landscaping requirements for this development proposal include; street buffer landscaping, parking lot perimeter and interior landscaping, and interior site landscaping. The applicant has proposed a Three Phase landscaping plan that meets the requirements of Code. Phase 1 includes street buffer landscaping with 19 proposed trees and numerous shrubs and other plantings. Phase 2 includes 38 trees in and around the parking lot. This phase also includes numerous shrubs and other plantings. Phase 3 includes interior lot landscaping around the building. This phase proposes 7 trees and numerous shrubs and other plantings. The overall landscaping plan calls for an extensive landscaped site with a variety of species. The street landscaping plan provided exceeds the street landscaping requirements of Code. Ail trees along Mills Drive will be planted 5 feet away from water and sewer mains to ensure there is no conflict with these lines. All landscaping will be irrigated with an automated underground irrigation system. Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection (EVDC §7.6) This Section sets forth buffer and setback requirements intended to protect wetlands, rivers and streams from hazards associated with development. There are no delineated river or streams on or near the subject area. Two potential wetland habitat areas have been identified and conservatively mapped for this submittal. A formal JWD (Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation) shall be conducted once soils are thawed. The first potential wetland area is located west of the pond located on the site. A very small portion of the main building decking (2.6') is located within the 50-foot wetland setback. This encroachment will require a staff level Minor Modification. The second potential wetland area is located on the extreme west end of the site. The wetland area drains into an existing 15" culvert then into an existing swale that empties into the existing pond. The parking lot is located outside of the 50-foot wetland setback on the west end of the site. Staff will place a condition on this development plan that a formal JWD study be performed with results submitted to Community Development Staff for review. 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 8 of 17 Wildlife Habitat Protection (EVDC §7.8) A wildlife habitat evaluation and impact analysis was provided and found no critical habitat or threatened/endangered species habitat on the site. No local wildlife species will be adversely affected by the proposed project. The Lazy B development does not propose any obstructions to critical wildlife movement corridors. Exterior Lighting (EVDC §7.9) Exterior lighting will be located at the required entry points of the new building, attached to the building and will be shielded and deflected downward. The proposal calls for reducing exterior lightning after 10 PM. Approval of exterior building lightning shall be addressed during the building permitting process. The applicant has not provided a photometric study for the parking lot with this proposal. The parking lot phasing plan calls for construction to take place in Phase Three of the development. If the parking area is determined to be too large, the configuration of the lot may change, requiring an Amended Development Plan which will require a photometric study for the proposed light poles. Currently, three light poles are proposed. For parking lots containing more than 100 spaces, the maximum height for exterior luminaries is 25-feet. Staff shall place a condition of approval that a photometric study be performed during any final parking lot construction. Operational Performance Standards (EVDC §7.10) All land uses and new development within town limits shall comply with the Town of Estes Park noise ordinance set forth in Section 8.06.030. Sound levels for the A- Accommodations zone district shall not exceed 55 decibels during the hours of 7AM- 8PM and 50 decibels between the hours of 8PM and 7AM. Staff shall require the applicant to perform a noise level study at the property line prior to the first show in the temporary tent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Off Street Parking and Loading (EVDC §7.11) This Section sets forth a requirement for a Parking Study projecting parking demand and recommendations for Major Indoor Entertainment Event facilities. The Traffic Impact study prepared by Delrich Associates anticipates a full parking lot of around 200 vehicles. This number was derived from assuming a family event will have a car load of 3-4 passengers. A 750 max attendance with a 3.75 carload equals 200 cars. The applicant has provided a parking lot of 192 spaces, 6 handicap accessible spaces, 1 loading space, 5 charter bus spaces and a 10 bike capacity bike rack. The applicant has provided 5 parking spaces for tour buses in the parking lot. The business plan includes contracting with bus tour companies bringing an average of 50 people per bus which would vastly reduce the parking space requirement. The project proposal also intends to utilize the free shuttle that currently stops at the entrance of the Elk Meadows RV Resort. This project provides a soft surface trail from the shuttle stop to the event facility. The plan proposes a 3-Phase build out with the parking lot being built in the third phase. The reason for this is because the actual facility will not be built until Phase 2. During Phase 2, the full 750 capacity may be reached. With tour buses, free shuttle, and anticipated family car loads, the applicant wishes to re-explore actual traffic counts during the first two phases. The parking lot may be re-designed to account for a lower amount of cars on-site. Staff finds this request to be reasonable. 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 9 of 17 Any parking lot reconfiguration in the near future will require an amendment to any approved plan. Code requires street side loading areas to be setback at least 110-feet from the street center line. The proposal calls for a 61.6' street center line setback. The applicant has submitted a Variance application for this request. Adequate Public Facilities (EVDC §7.12) Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development proposal. Sewer. The plan proposes to connect into existing Upper Thompson Sanitation District sewer system via a new 6" service line approximately 525-feet in length. Water and electric service. The plan proposes to extend a 12" water main on the north side of Mills Drive for approximately 250-feet. This project requires the water main extension and a 20' utility easement along the north side of Mills Drive. The remainder of the water main extension passed this point would be the sole responsibility of an adjacent property or development proposal. There is also potential for a future 12" waterline to continue along Mills Drive that would access Rocky Mountain National Park. The existing overhead electric lines will be buried during the installation of the water main. They will be buried in the same trench as the water main and be included in the same 20' utility easement. Drainage. Current drainage is conveyed as sheet flow across the property until it reaches the pond or area below the pond. From there, it follows the off-site drainage path to the Big Thompson River. The on-site pond is utilized for pass through and drainage from the developed area. The post development on-site storm flow will be handled through a number of conveyance methods ranging from flow in streets/curb and gutter, overland flow, and flow through catch basins and in storm sewer pipes. Fire Protection. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has included Conditions of Approval for the proposed development included in the enclosed memo dated January 27, 2016. Transportation. All developments shall be required to demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse impact on existing transportation level of service, access and vehicular movement on any Arterial or Collector Street or intersection within on-quarter mile of the site or that any such adverse impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. The traffic study performed by De!rich Associates concludes that a southbound right turn lane is required at the intersection of Spur 66 and Mills Drive. The southbound right-turning traffic at the start peak hour meets the threshold requiring a right turn lane at this intersection. Given the other land uses that are served by Mills Drive, it is not likely that the right turn lane is or will be required during any other hour of the day. There is sufficient County ROW to accommodate a right turn lane at this 1 4 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy 8 Ranch and Wranglers 12.1!' Special Review Development Plan Page 10 of 17 intersection, approximately 70-feet. Larimer County Engineering staff and Town of Estes Park Engineering staff have both agreed with the right turn lane requirement. The traffic study also recommends a limited time all-way- stop sign control condition at the intersection of LCR69B/US HWY 66. This would require CDOT approval. Currently, Mills Drive is approximately 20-feet wide with asphalt and no curb and gutter. Public Works is requiring the private drive to meet local street standards with 45-feet of dedicated ROW, 24-feet of asphalt and curb and gutter on both sides up to the entrance of the Lazy B development. Currently, the ROW width for the private drive is 30-feet. This proposal is dedicating an additional 15-feet on the north of Mills Drive. The existing 30-feet of ROW extends south of Mills Drive to the south end of the Elk Meadow property line. All road widening and curb and gutter will take place in the existing ROW for Mills Drive. Street Design and Construction Standards (EVDC Appendix ID) This development triggers a sidewalk to be built along Mills Drive. The applicant and staff do not feel constructing the sidewalk at this time is reasonable as it would only extend to the property line to the east of this development. Public Works has requested that the design of the walk and a cost estimate be provided in order to allow cash-in-lieu for the sidewalk. Other applicable standards found in Appendix D, such as street construction and design standards, driveway access, erosion control and tree and vegetation protection during construction and grading activities, shall be addressed with construction plans. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is located within the Spur 66 Planning Sub-Area of The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The property is designated as Multi-Family Residential which is not aligned with the current zoning, A-Accommodations. The sub-area plan has several listed guidelines that are unique to Spur 66 and either support or do not support the proposed project; Guidelines that support project • Commercial uses should not be extended along the Spur. They should be contained within their existing locations. (Staff comment: The proposed commercial use is a permitted commercial use at this location by Special Review. The applicant is proposing a commercial project in an area that currently allows commercial uses.) • Maintain the character of the Spur by setting buildings well back from the roadway. (Staff comment: The plan proposes to set the building back further from Mills Drive than the 15-foot setback requires. Also, this proposal places the facility approximately 240 feet from the east property line. The east property line is the closest boundary to Spur 66.) • The campground at the portal should not be expanded. Campgrounds should be limited to the existing number. (Staff comment: This proposal greatly reduces the land availability for campground utilization and expansion. The applicant has stated they are interested in subdividing 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 11 of 17 the parcel to have their use contained on a separate lot from the campground.) Guidelines that do not support project • The commercial campground at the Spur 66 Park entrance intersection should evolve into housing. (Staff comment: The campground property is roughly 30.75-acres with this proposal using -5-acres. There is adequate land to re-develop this entire site with various land uses.) In addition, Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-Wide Policies, including: Community Design: • Avoid the use of roofing materials which are light colored or reflect light. • The natural colors of wood and stone are most desirable for building exteriors. • Facades should be broken up with windows, doors or other architectural features to provide visual relief. • Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, so that the light source is not visible from beyond the property line, and does not illuminate surrounding properties or the sky. Growth Management: • Encourage infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs. Mobility and Circulation: • Implement access control improvements as development occurs. • Encourage movement toward alternative modes of transportation. Economics: • Maintain a unique blend of businesses, resident and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. • Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs. • Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate. Intergovernmental Coordination: • The Town and the County will encourage redevelopment and infill as a primary tool to create a compact community and to prevent sprawl. Special Review Criteria Special Reviews are development plans that include uses that by their nature have potential impact on surrounding properties. Specifically, these reviews require applications to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The applicant has identified several potential impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Below is a summary of how the applicant has proposed to mitigate these potential impacts; 1. Traffic and parking considerations 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 12 of 17 a. A traffic study was provided with this application and that study determined that at turn lane from Spur 66 onto Mills Drive will be required. b. Mills Drive is proposed to be widened to 24' with curb and gutter from the entrance onto Mills Drive from Spur 66 to the entrance of the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers site. c. The entrance to the event facility is proposed to come off of Mills Drive to reduce the potential for backing up along Spur 66. Also, having the entrance off of Mills Drive is what would be required if this development area were to subdivide from the larger 30.75-acre parcel. d. The applicant has proposed hiring an off-duty traffic control officer during peak traffic periods each evening during the summer season. e. The applicant has proposed utilizing the free Estes Park shuttle service to offer an alternative mode of transportation to the event facility. f. The applicant has proposed contracting with bus tour companies to offer an alternative mode of transportation to the event facility. The proposed parking lot provides five parking spaces for tour buses. g. A shuttle service is proposed to be provided for Lazy B employee transportation to and from their homes. h. Limited employee housing may be provided on-site 2. Environmental Impacts a. The development area has one designated wetland area. The preliminary wetland screening has found a potential second wetland area on the far west side of the site. A formal Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation will be conducted once soils are thawed. b. No critical habitat or threatened/endangered species habitat were found on the site. 3. Noise impact and hours of operation a. The proposed hours of operation are 7 nights a week from 5-8PM. b. Music performances are proposed to occur only from 7-8PM. 4. Other potential impacts a. Light from headlights of cars as they exit should only occur for a short time period after 8PM. The extensive landscape buffer along Mills Drive offers a filter from light and noise. b. The viewshed to the north from residents south of Mills Drive will be improved by this development proposal. Currently, the view consists of broken down wire fence, high wires, piles of debris and dirt, and a lot full of RV's. This proposal calls for a tree lined Mills Drive with overhead power lines to be buried underground in the same trench that is excavated for the new water main. The proposed building will block the view of the RV lot and improve the overall appearance of the property. c. Dust from the dirt parking lot (first two project Phases) will be mitigated by surface spraying (water or soil tackifier) prior to events or during high wind storms. 1665 HWY 66— Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 13 of 17 Air Quality impacts Rocky Mountain National Park has expressed concern about potential air quality issues this proposal may present by grilling large quantities of beef and chicken. Specifically, the release of particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air. The national park has evaluated weather data over the past ten years and determined from May through October (the proposed Lazy B operating season) the wind blows from the east 21% of the time. They have expressed concern that pollutants from food preparation will enter the park. This concern was routed to the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment. They consulted with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment on the air quality regulations. It is opinion of the LCDHE that the Lazy B source by itself does not rise to the level of needing an air emissions permit unless a charbroil or wood-fired cooker will be used and exceed the threshold amount of 17 tons of wood/year Variances and Minor Modification requests The applicant for the Lazy B Ranch is requesting one Variance and one Minor Modification from the Estes Valley Development Code. 1. Variance to 7.11.N.2.b. Off-Street Loading Requirements; location Street side loading docks shall be set back at least seventy (70) feet from the street property line or one hundred ten (110) feet from the street center line, whichever is greater. This proposal places the loading space 61.6' from the proposed Mills Drive center line. This distance does not comply with Code requirements, therefore a Variance has been applied for by the applicant. 2. Minor Modification to 7.6.E.2.b Wetland and Stream Corridor Protection Buffer/Setback The proposed plan shows the covered deck of the main facility building encroaching into a 50-foot wetland setback by 2.6'. All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally from the delineated edge of a wetland. Per Code requirements for Minor Modifications, up to a 10% deviation from general development standards may be granted at a Staff Level if the modification advances the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and relieves a practical difficulty in developing the site. Community Wide Policy in the Comprehensive Plan 2.2 Locate and design buildings to fit the land. Avoid excessive cuts and fills by stepping buildings down sloping sites. Staff comment: The 15-foot front setback on this site greatly inhibits the buildable area of the site. Coupled with landscaping buffer widths and a second wetland setback area, the applicant has proposed a building that fits the needs of their use that is mostly contained outside of any setback. A 2.6' 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 14 of 17 encroachment into a wetland setback is very minimal. Staff finds that the building is designed to fit the land and natural barriers that are on-site. Development Phasing Plan Phase 1 (2017): Permanent kitchen and bathroom facilities (4,560 SF), ADA compliant concrete sidewalks, paved ADA compliant parking spaces, temporary dining tent (8,712 SF total, 63 tables and 200 SF indoor stage), dirt parking lot, landscape buffer along Mills Drive, Mills Drive road improvements, new site entrance off Mills Drive, water main extension, sanitary sewer service line, and soft surface trail from tent site to free shuttle stop on Spur 66. Phase 2 (2018): Construction of final dining/performance hall (12,200 SF), when added to the previous 4,560 SF will total 17,910 SF), internal lot landscaping, and installation of right-turn lane at the intersection of Spur 66 and Mills Drive. Phase 3 (2019): Construction of parking lot, parking lot curb and gutter, storm sewer installation, parking lot landscaping, STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. 2. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, and the Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Special Review application. STAFF RECOMMENDTION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Special Review application subject to the following CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with affected agency emails and memos: a. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated January 25, 2016 b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 27, 2016 c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 1, 2016 d. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19, 2016 e. Larimer County Engineering emails March 2, 2016 and April 6, 2016 2. The applicant shall submit an amended road design plan set addressing the comments from Larimer County Engineering in regards to the right turn lane being extended. 3. The applicant shall amend the development plan set as follows: rai 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 15 of 17 a. Change 125PPL/Bus to 5OPPL/Bus b. Remove installation of right turn from Phase 1 and include in Phase 2 plan c. Under required parking, change 3.5 people/vehicle to 3.75 people/vehicle, per traffic study analysis. d. Change required 215 spaces to 200 spaces, per traffic study analysis e. Change water main extension distance to building from 525' to 250' 4. Variance approval by the Board of Adjustment is required for off-street loading area location. 5. A noise reading shall be performed prior to the first show in the temporary tent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Noise study results shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. 6. Dust mitigation efforts shall be performed by the applicant as proposed in the Statement of Intent for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dirt parking lot prior to every show and during high wind storm events. 7. A JWD (Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation) shall be conducted on the site to formally delineate the potential wetland areas. Results shall be submitted to staff prior to the Board of Trustee meeting. 8. Plans for the food service operations shall be approved by the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. A photometric study shall be submitted to staff before construction of the final parking lot design. 10. 20' Utility easement shall be recorded separately from development plan 11. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. SAMPLE MOTIONS 1. I find that the application substantially meets the criteria above, and move to recommend APPROVAL of the Special Review application with the conditions recommended by Staff. 2. I find that the application does not substantially meet the criteria above, and move to recommend DENIAL of the Special Review application. 3. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional materials. 71 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Lfit Special Review Development Plan Page 16 of 17 Attachments: 1. Statement of Intent 2. Application 3. Public meeting #1 minutes 4. Development Plan Set 5. Traffic Study Memo 6. Reviewing Agency Comments 1665 HWY 66 — Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan Page 17 of 17 FOWN of ESTES PARIc Z r..11 E÷S;TES t°9 SHU TLES Development Review Comments January 21, 2016 To: Audem Gonzales Re: Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers Two Metes & Bounds parcels 1665 Hwy 66 Audem, There are no comments from the Transportation Department (Town shuttles) regarding the proposal. Respectfully submitted, Brian Wells Shuttle Coordinator Office: 970-577-3963 Visitor Services Email: bwells@estes.org Community Services Department Web: www.estes.org/shuttles Town of Estes Park 1 P.O. Box 56B • Estes Park CO 80517 Ph: 970-586-4544 • Fax: 970-586-1049 www.irtstiorg January 25, 2016 Audem Gonzales Planner I Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers Two Metes & Bounds parcels 1665 Hwy 66 Dear Audem: The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1. Per Van Horn Engineering flow calculations a 6 inch sanitary sewer will be adequate to service the proposed facility. 2. The District will require the proposed sanitary sewer to be installed per District Rules and Regulations. Metal slip top boxes will be required over 4 inch cleanouts in the roadway to protect the cleanouts. 3. An external grease interceptor for proposed building shall be sized and installed according to District Rules and Regulations. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Environmental Protection Through H asteivater Collection and Treatment f$ ES VALLEY EIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Sep 'nag the A.-sidenis and Visitors of the Eyks1•4110., Sufirtiar Fnr -and Safely Serricvs. • - • EY 17 ,1t/' D PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Date: January 27, 2016 Project Identification: Lazy B Ranch Chukwagon and Theater Location: 1665 HWY 66 Referral: Completeness Review for 'Lazy B Ranch Chukwagon and Theater The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the proposed project referenced above, and has the following comments (conditions of approval); Phase one Temporary Dining Tent. (Conditions of approval): 1. Please see Tent & Canopy Checklist for permitting (plan submittal requirements) and Tent & Canopy General Requirements sheet attached. Tents or membrane structures shall not be located within 20 feet of lot lines, buildings, other tents or membrane structures, parked vehicles or internal combustion engines. For the purpose of determining required distances, support ropes and guy wires shall be considered as part of the temporary membrane structure or tent. 2. A tent permit applications, plans and fee schedule shall be submitted to the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. Phase one kitchen / Bathrooms and new Dining Building (Conditions of approval). 1. The proposed (extinction) water line and fire hydrant shall be in phase one. 2. Per Fire Code Section 503.2.3 fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Field inspection required. 3. Fire apparatus access roads shall be permanently signed and / or marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" in accordance with municipal sign/traffic standards. A. Access roads less than 26 feet wide shall be marked as fire lanes on both sides of the road. B. Access roads at least 26 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide shall have at least one side of the road marked as a fire lane. C. Access roads at least 32 feet wide need not have fire lane markings. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following requirements shall be met: 1. Construction plans (access / roads, water line system design) shall be reviewed and must meet approval of the Fire District. 2. The new required fire hydrant shall be installed. The hydrants shall be maintained operational at all times thereafter, unless alternate provisions for water supply are approved by the fire District. The Town of Estes Park must approve the installation and oversee the testing of water mains and hydrants. 901 N. Saint Vrain Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 P-970-577-0900 1-970-577-0923 ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Senn: the Rep.:le-7:h and 1,srto,s9l the Estes 1 'alley with Supesio? Fire and Safety Senitys 3. Estes Valley Fire Protection District understands that this building will be protected by an automatic sprinkler system and fire alarm system based on occupancy (chapter 9). The following requirements shall apply: A. An on-site hydrant flow test shall be conducted by the Water Division / Fire District. The responsible party shall contact the Fire District office at 970-577-3689 to arrange for the flow test. B. All underground mains and lead-in connections to sprinkler system risers shall be completely flushed before connection is made to the sprinkler piping. A completed "Contractor's Material and Test Certificate for Underground Fire Line Piping" is required to be forwarded to the Fire District prior to rough-in sprinkler inspections. Private contractor installing underground fire line piping between a public water main and a sprinkler system shall provide the Fire District with evidence that they are currently registered with the Colorado Division of Fire Safety as a Fire Suppression System Contractor- Underground. The fire service main shall be hydrostatically tested at not less than 200 psi for two hours and flushed at a minimum flow rate as determined by the pipe size for a sufficient time to ensure thorough cleaning. The Fire District has not reviewed the fire alarm plans for code compliance. See Fire Permits below. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2009 Edition) and the International Building Code (2009 Edition). Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marc W. Robinson Fire Marshal 970-577-3689 mrobinsonestesvallevfire.orq 901 N. Saint Vrain Avenue • Estes Park, CO 80517 • P-970-577-0900 • F-970-577-0923 Town of Estes Park Mai] - 1•wd: REEERRAL FOR COMMENT: COMPLETENESS RE... Page 1 oft Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org> Fwd: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: COMPLETENESS REVIEW - Metes/Bounds located at 1665 Hwy 66 - Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers Special Review 2016-01 1 message Linda Hardin <lhardin@estes.org> Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:26 PM To: Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org > Hey Audem, The Elk Meadow RV Park has an outstanding code compliance issue that should be resolved before they open in May. Until that case is closed, no permits should be allowed. Thanks, Linda Forwarded message From: Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes org> Date: Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM Subject: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: COMPLETENESS REVIEW - Metes/Bounds located at 1665 Hwy 66 - Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers Special Review 2016-01 To: Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org>, Alison Chilcott <achilcott@estes.org >, 05 Kevin Ash <kash@estes org>, publicworks <publicworks@estes.org >, 07 Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>, 08 Jeff Boles <jboles@estes.org >, Cliff Tedder <ctedder@estes org>, Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>, 09 Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>, Will Birchfield <wbirchfield@estes.org >, 12 Marc Robinson <mrobinson@estesvalleyfire.org>, Linda Hardin <lhardin@estes.org>, Kate Rusch <krusch@estes_org>, 22 Traci Shambo <tshambo@larimerorg>, cjones@larimer.org, 32 Rick Spowart <rick.spowart@state.co.us >, Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>, 43 Todd Krula <todd@utsd.org >, Matt Allen <matt@utsd.org>, 44 Melissa Mason <Melissa@utsd.org>, Larry Gamble <larry_gamble@nps.gov>, Brian Wells <bwells@estes.org> Cc: Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org >, virtualsupport oliver@gmail.com, Celine LeBeau <celinevhe@airbits.com> Good Afternoon - Attached please find the guidelines for commenting on COMPLETENESS for the project listed above. All review documents can be found at www estes org/currentapplications. Scroll to Highway 66 - 1665. Completeness comments are due on or before Monday, February 1, 2016. Please copy the applicant (virtualsupport.oliver@gmail.corn) and the consultant (celinevhe@airbits.com) on your comments. Thank you. I will be out of the office beginning January 21, 2016, returning February 1, 2016. Please send all comments directly to Audem Gonzales at agonzales@estes.org. Thank you. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes org https://mail.google.corn/ritail/?ui.---2&ik=e0a7e0f533&view=pt&q=referral&qs=true&search... 2/2/2016 t:P TO\X/N oF ESTES PAID Inter-Office Memorandum To: Community Development From: Steve Rusch Date: 2/1/2016 Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: COMPLETENESS REVIEW - Metes/Bounds located at 1665 Hwy 66 - Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers Special Review 2016-01 The Utilities Department has the following Completeness Review comments for the above application: Water Division: The above application is complete for Water Division review but not approved as waterline construction drawings for the water line installation or issuance of any building permits. For verification, this property must show proof of inclusion in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal Subdistrict. A Water Main Extension will be required for service, including Fire Protection. This infrastructure must be installed; testing performed/passed and accepted by the Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Any project phasing of the infrastructure must be submitted with the construction drawings for approval prior to construction. Phased infrastructure must be completed and accepted prior to issuance of any building permits within the phase. Construction Drawings are required and must be submitted for review, approval and signatures by the Utilities Director or his designated representative. No installation of any project infrastructure is allowed until the Construction Drawings have been signed. Ail water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. Along with the submission of the construction drawings provide the contact information of the firm or person acting as Utility Construction Manager for the project. is ii~f it TOWN 01: ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum Construction drawings must include: • Plan and profile to show potential conflicts between water and other utilities including culverts, show Utility Easement locations when utility is not in Road Right of Way. O Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) indicating tap locations and sizes, water meter locations and sizes, and buildings served by each. All water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards. All water main lines and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. All domestic water service lines are required to have a pressure reducing valve installed at the point of entry to the building. Applicant must contact the Water Division (970)577-3625 to discuss additional plumbing requirements. All water lines are required to have a minimum of 10 ft. horizontal separation from both sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Additionally, water lines are required to have a minimum 4 ft. horizontal separation from all other utilities. All commercial properties, fire suppression lines, multi-family dwellings and irrigation are required to have backflow prevention devices installed on the water service lines, contact Steve Rusch at 577-3625 or srusch(Orestes.orq with any questions regarding the backflow devices or requirements. A Metering/Tap location plan (drawing) including meter sizing, meter locations, tap locations and addresses served by each must be submitted to the Water Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Engineering must contact the Water Division at 577-3625 for details regarding final tap and service line sizing prior to any construction. If any structure is required to have a Fire Suppression System, a detailed drawing must be turned in to the Water Division noting: • Location, sizing and type of backflow prevention device(s) • Engineered flow requirements for the fire sprinkler system, pipe size based on NFPA Table 10.10.2.1.3, Fire flow produced at a maximum velocity of 10ft/sec. Pipe Size Flow Rate 2" 100 gpm 4" 390 gpm Sr J TOWN OF LSI ES PA_Ric_ Inter-Office Memorandum 6" 880 gpm 8" 1560 gpm 10" 2440 gpm 12" 3520 gpm Spill control method must be shown for proper disposal of discharge from the relief valve, indicating location and sizing of drainage capable of accommodating the discharge that could occur. Fire suppression lines require both a chlorination and pressure test, conducted by a representative of the Water Division prior to acceptance. Any Fire suppression line servicing a building from the water main is a private service line and must be noted as such on the Development Plan and the Subdivision Plat. Future repair or maintenance required on this service is the sole responsibility of the property owner. Fire suppression lines require a state certified fire line installer and must have the appropriate forms completed and submitted to the Estes Valley Fire Marshall. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2009 Edition), the International Building Code (2009 Edition) and Town of Estes Park Codes and Standards. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Town of Estes Park Water Division. Light and Power: • Please schedule a required meet at site with Joe Lockhart, Line Superintendent at (970)577-3613. • All trenching and conduit will be performed and installed by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. This will be invoiced to the developer. • Light and Power requires one 11/2" orange PVC spare conduit from the junction box/transformer into the building at Light and Power's expense. • Utility pedestals must be spaced at a minimum of one foot apart. '1'0\X/N or ES FES PARI rc_ Inter-Office Memorandum • Transformers cannot be placed more than 250 feet from the building being serviced. • All new meter cans must have a bypass • All infrastructures must be paid in advance to the Town of Estes Park. No Building permits will be approved by Light & Power until such time. • All new construction must be underground. • Service line trenching & conduit (between the meter and the building) to be provided and installed by developer to Town specifications. • All other material will be purchased from & installed by the Town of Estes Park. • All Town of Estes Park Light and Power lines, (Primary/Secondary) must have a 20 ft. utility easement. This easement can be shared by water, phone and cable. • Water must be at least 4ft from electric. • All services must be on the owner's property or be within a designated easement. • The size of the service must be shown on the electrical drawings. • All existing lines must be shown on the electrical drawings. • Transformers/junction boxes must be in an easement, or if possible on the property line. • All primary lines must be 4ft deep with red warning tape at 2ft. • All subdivision must be designed by an electrical engineer. • All pipes must be schedule 40 gray PVC pipe, if there are more than 4 pipes in a trench then all conduit must be put into a pipe rack. There must be 2-2inch and 2-4inch conduits in a primary trench. • Town must have ownership of all road crossings. • On underground electric services, it will be the electrician's responsibility to dig them into the transformers or pedestals. • The electrician will need to schedule with L&P to unlock and open transformers or pedestals. • All temporary and permanent electric services will be connected by Light & Power within 5 business days after the state electrical inspection & fees are paid. • Permanent meter sockets must be permanently marked with address or unit number. (i) Sy r TOWN 012 ES-1 ES 13Al1c Inter-Office Memorandum • All spare conduits will be provided by Light and Power and to be installed by the developer at their cost. Light and Power will not reimburse contractor or developer for conduit obtained elsewhere. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. -1 -0 \x/N' ft.,; pARic Memo P11:-0-.1C3 To: Community Development From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Director of Public Works Date: February 19, 2016 RE: Lazy B Chuckwagon Development Plan Public Works offers the following comments and conditions on the Lazy B Chuckwagon Development Plan application as submitted. Comments and Conditions are applicable for plans received on February 5th, 2016. Transportation: Lazy B Chuckwagon Traffic Impact Study (Delich Associates, 12-14-2015) 1. Condition: A southbound right turn lane on Spur 66 is recommended by the traffic study. The recommendation from the traffic engineer is that this turn lane not be installed in the first year of operation — but should be installed with the second year and phase 2 construction. Public Works agrees with this recommendation. 2. Condition: The traffic study recommends a limited time all-way stop sign control condition at LCR69B/Mills Drive. This would require CDOT approval. The viability of this mitigation measure should be explored further by the applicant. 3. Condition: Parking stops orientation for the Old Rock Inn indicate that guests at the establishment back into LCR69B to leave. This condition should not exist and the installation of a dedicated turn lane will only increase the conflicts with this situation. Further mitigation of this conflict should be explored and resolved. 4. Condition: Requested Waiver from Ordinance 8-05#, EVDC Appendix-D, Street Design and Construction Standards. Public Works does not have enough detail to support the applicant's request to not meet the maximum allowable road grades. There needs to be more information provided as to what the existing condition is (grades) and what the proposed is. What code requirement or standard specifically is not being met? 5. Condition: Requested Waiver from Section 7.11.0.2, EVDC Parking and Loading Area Design Standards. Public Works does support the applicant's request to not install parking lot paving and curb until Phase 3. 6. Condition: Requested Waiver from Section 10.5.D.2, EVDC Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails. Public Works does not support the requested waiver as written. Design of the walk should be included in the plans. The design should show that a walk can be installed without impact to utilities, landscaping, roadway, adequate row, etc. The design should be in place to support the cost estimate. An agreement for construction of the walk funding (cash-in-lieu) could be supported. 7. Condition: Requested Waiver from EVDC 7.11D. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. Public Works supports the applicant's request to defer the traffic study required parking spaces for the first 2 phases of construction. Total parking spaces will be required by Phase 3. Drainage & Grading: DRAINAGE REPORT (Van Horn Engineering & Surveying, January 20, 2016). 1. Condition: A developed drainage plan should be provided in the drainage report and include basins, contours, curb and gutter, slopes, inlets, swales, ponds and any drainage related structure. 2. Condition: Infrastructure calculations should clearly reference a specific item and location. Specifically — an inlet calculation worksheet for Parking Lot Area 1 is provided. However, there is not an adequate reference location map in the report to confirm that this is evaluated adequately. 3. Condition: The drainage report needs to detail the drainage impact at the Mills Drive/LCR69B intersection. Runoff from Mills Drive is being placed in curb and gutter and the outfall design and easement negotiation will need to be complete. Miscellaneous: PHASING PLANS 1. Condition: Phasing plans are confusing. Phase 1 plans should screen back proposed improvements that phases 2 and 3 will install. Parking Lot appears to be a fully installed improvement with Phase 1. United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park. Colorado 80517 IN REPLY RLI-kk TO: A3815 (ROMO) FEB 2 6 2016 Estes Valley Planning Commission P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Commissioners: We have reviewed the Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers development proposal. The subject property is contiguous with the east boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park, and Mills Drive serves as a primary means of ingress and egress for park offices, facilities, emergency response, and housing units for permanent and seasonal employees. There are several residential units occupied year-round by park employees that are located within 800 feet of the property, and we have office space and a fire station within 300 feet of the property. Because this project has the potential to impact park employees, service providers, and residents, we offer the following comments for your consideration: 1. We are not in favor of using Mills Drive as the primary access to the property due to traffic conflicts and current parking issues along the road. Rocky Mountain National Park and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District jointly operate a fire station located immediately west of the subject property. This fire station currently serves the west end of the Estes Valley, including the YMCA of the Rockies, and as our station for wildland fire response. We are concerned about egress for emergency vehicles on Mills drive at the conclusion of the nightly show. We would prefer to see the main entrance remain on Highway 66 where it is currently located. 2. We are not in favor of using a tent because of potential noise impacts. The stage show will use amplified sound for up to 180 days per year lasting one hour every evening. We believe the proposed activities belong within a building where amplified sound and crowd noise can best be mitigated. 3. To protect the night sky, we favor exterior lighting that uses sharp cutoff fixtures that are turned off each night following the conclusion of the show. 4. We would prefer to have an absolute date identified for paving the parking lot. While the parking lot remains unpaved, dust control will be important and should be diligently monitored and enforced. 5. For the chuck wagon supper, the Lazy B is planning to prepare up to 750 meals each night, which includes grilling beef and chicken. This has implications for air quality, including the release of particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs contribute to the formation of ozone. The kitchen operation should comply with federal, state, and local air quality standards. Rocky Mountain National Park is a Class 1 Airshed, which warrants special protection under the Clean Air Act. After evaluating weather data for the past ten years, we have determined that from May through October (the proposed Lazy B operating season) the wind blows from the east (anything on the compass rose from NNE to SSE) twenty-one percent (21%) of the time. During those times, and when the Lazy B is preparing food, the pollutants from the kitchen will be moving into the park. We appreciate the opportunity to review the development proposal. If you have any questions or concerns about the comments we have provided, please contact Larry Gamble. He can be reached at (970) 586-1320 or larry_gamble@nps.gov. Sincerely, / Ben Bobowski Acting Superintendent cc: Michelle Oliver Randy Jackson Van Horn Engineering - Celine LeBeau 4/7/2016 Town of Estes Park Mail - Re. REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: COMPLETENESS REVIEW - Metes/Bounds located at 1665 Hwy 66 - Lazy B Ranch & Wr. I I; ii r Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org> Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: COMPLETENESS REVIEW - Metes/Bounds located at 1665 Hwy 66 - Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers Special Review 2016-01 1 message Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.lanmer.co.us > Wed. Mar 2, 2016 at 4:53 PM To: Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Cc: Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org>, "celinevhe@airbits.com" <celinevhe@airbits.com>, Brian Fraaken <bfraaken@larimer.org> Karen ( cc - Audem & Celine) - I know this is only a completeness review at this time but I wanted to share a few comments we will want addressed at the preliminary stage. • I discussed the sketch/preliminary turn lane concepts with our transportation folks. Our position is that the right turn lane needs to be constructed with this use. And we would like to see turn lane designed such that it is extended to include the adjacent driveway and then start the shortened taper. This would keep the driveway out of the taper. • Access, circulation, and parking at the Rock Inn will be modified as a result of this plan. We would like assurances that the parking lot and access points will adequately function with the proposed design. We would also like information on whether there has been discussions with the owners of the Inn on these changes and what their position is regarding these changes. • The plan discusses a curb and gutter section along Spur 66. We will want to see detailed elevations to verify that the drainage off of the Old Rock Inn parking area will still be conveyed downstream. • More detailed construction and striping plans for the work in the ROW will be required with the preliminary and final reviews. • County ROW work permits will be required for the work on Spur 66. • The downstream path of flow, on the south side of Spur 66, between the two properties, should be confirmed to be adequate for any proposed changes in drainage patterns. Perhaps a meeting at the site will be beneficial as part of the preliminary review process where more detailed information is submitted. Thank you. On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> wrote: Good Afternoon - Attached please find the guidelines for commenting on COMPLETENESS for the project listed above. All review documents can be found at www.estes.org/curcentapplications . Scroll to Highway 66 - 1665. Completeness comments are due on or before Monday, February 1, 2016. Please copy the applicant (virtualsupport.oliver@gmail.com) and the consultant (celinevhe@airbits.com) on your comments. Thank you. I will be out of the office beginning January 21, 2016, returning February 1, 2016. Please send all comments directly to Audem Gonzales at agonzales@estes.org. Thank you. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org https://mail.google.00rn/mailiu/OPuir 2&ik=c0a7e0f533&view=pt&q.traci%20shambo&cts.true&search=query&th=15339c06ea8b391a&sim1=15339c06ea8b391a 1/2 4162016 Town of Estes Park Mail - Spur 66 ROW adjacent to Rock Inn rl al Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org> Spur 66 ROW adjacent to Rock Inn 1 message Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us > Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:33 PM To: Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org> Audem - I wanted to clarify that the primary function of County Public Right-of-way is for public infrastructure such as additional, lanes, widened shoulders, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. Needed improvements to the County road system to improve the operation and safety of the road would take precedence over a historic use of the right-of-way by a private landowner. An historic use of public ROW does not necessarily equal a legal right for that use. Traci Shambo. P.E. Larimer County Engineering Department 200 West Oak St, Suite 3000 P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: (970) 498-5701 tsharnbo@larimer.org https://m a Lgoogle.com/mai 1/u/0/Ati=2&ik=c0a7e0f5338.view=pt&search=inbox&th=153ed4878d9cbdf5&sim1=153ed4878d9cbdf5 111 417/2016 Town of Estes Park Mail - Fwd Lazy B wranglers Application Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org> Fwd: Lazy B Wranglers Application 1 message Doug Ryan <ryandl@co.larimer.co.us> To: Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org> Cc: lamj_gamble@nps.gov Hi Audem, Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:53 PM Following your email message from February 17, I consulted with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment on the air quality regulations for the potential air emissions at the Lazy B Wranglers due to the proposed chuckwagon dinner and theater with its associated cooking. Staff in the Air Pollution Control Air Division at CDPHE provided two messages (below), one for the stationary source emission control standards that apply statewide, and a separate message about standards in the Class 1 airshed that impacts the National Park. The information from Paul Carr relates to the emission standards and need for an air emissions permit that pertain to the cooking operation regardless of location. He indicated most food cooking sources are exempt from the need to obtain an air emissions regulation. The exceptions are charboilers and wood fired equipment which do need permits if their emissions exceed defined thresholds. Mr. Carr said he doubts they would exceed those thresholds, and cited the Burger King example and noted that their charbroil busy operations typically fall below the thresholds. The need to file an an Air Pollution Emissions Notice and potentially obtain an emissions permit would be 17 tons of wood/year. Lisa Devore, in her message from March 2, provided additional information pertaining to the emission standards that apply specifically to Class 1 airsheds - including Rocky Mountain National Park. She indicated that emission standards in these case apply through standards administered at the state and federal level for the New Source Reduction (NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements. Lisa Devore indicates that those standards apply to sources that generate at least 100 tons of emissions per year. Those large operations are considered "major sources" and would be much larger than what a restaurant cooker would produce. Larry Gamble is raising important concerns about the importance of protecting air quality in the Park. My conclusion from the Air Pollution Control Division is that this source by itself does not rise to the level of needing a air emissions permit unless a charbroil or wood-fired cooker will be used and exceed threshold amounts. In order to assure compliance with air emission standards, the Town Board could consider a condition that requires the applicant to submit an Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN) to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment if they intend to use either a charbroiler or wood fired cooking equipment. The state evaluates submitted APENs and makes a written determination if an emissions permit is needed or not. On another topic related to this application, if this application is approved, the applicant would need to have plans for the food service operations approved by our Department prior to issuance of building permits. Thanks for contacting us with this information. I will also copy my message to Larry Gamble so that we all have the same information. Doug Ryan Larimer County Department of Health and Environment 1525 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins CO 80524 (970) 498-6777 ryandl@co.larimer.co.us https://m ail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=28,ik=c0a7e01533&view=p18,o=doug702Oryan&gs=true&search= quer y&th= 153439f2cacc846a&siml =153439f2cacc6463 1/6 Statement of Intent For the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan and Special Review January 20, 2016 Revised February 4, 2016 Introduction The Lazy B is an effort to re-establish a powerful landmark business model that offers a Chuck Wagon Supper and Show within the Western History theme of a cowboy's way of life and his music. Reflecting all the great qualities of the original Lazy B, the new business will offer quality food and entertainment at an even higher standard. Historically, part of many tourists' vacations in Estes included a visit to the Lazy B, which was known for their Chuckwagon Supper and Show. The Lazy B opened in the early 1960s, attracted between 750- 1200 guests each night during the summer season and operated successfully for 45 years. Since the doors closed in 2005, countless visitors, as well as locals, have been disappointed upon discovering that their favorite Estes event no longer exists. Operation The Lazy B development project is presented in Three Phases, with Phase One as a seasonal venue and Phase Two beginning as a year-round venue. Phase One will operate from 5:00-8:00 seven nights a week from mid-June through mid-October, with fewer performance days during the two weeks prior and after those dates. Phase Two permits expanded hours, due to the completion of the entire building, which will be determined by each specific event. Year round operation supports the following objectives: (1) to drive consistent tax dollars to the Town of Estes, (2) to attract a younger demographic from the Front Range to the Estes Valley by offering diverse and high quality live musical performances, festivals, contests and events that expand the commonly held image of Estes Park, (3) to offer special holiday events including Chuck Wagon Suppers and Shows that continue to draw tourists and residents from along the entire Front Range, (4) to offer corporate events and wedding receptions, (5) to work closely with other local businesses and hotels to create desirable "getaway" packages, (6) to provide educational, creative events and opportunities for youth that carry on the legacy of Western Heritage in a variety of forms, including Western Music, Western Art, Cowboy Poetry, Western Craft, etc. and that support intergenerational interaction and (7) to employ a core staff year round as well as drive revenue to local craftsman, vendors and businesses. Economic Development and Market Research As business owners we seek, not only to create and maintain an extremely profitable and successful business, but to support the Town of Estes Park in ways that contribute to the goals for economic growth and sustainability that have been set by the town. Our business goals are aligned with the same priorities that have been presented by Avalanche Consulting, who was hired to assist with economic development in the Estes Valley. Our market research and strategy are available upon request. Property Located at 1665 HWY 66, the Elk Meadow RV Resort property is the ideal location for the Lazy B. The property is in a low-density location, is adjacent to an establishment which is already serving food and providing entertainment and is on the free Estes Park shuttle system route. The area directly to the South of our property across Mills Drive is zoned A-Accommodations and Commercial zoning currently exists along the Hwy 66 corridor. Our plan includes transforming five of the 30.75 acres of the RV park, currently used as RV overflow and storage, into a revenue-producing venue that directly supports the town. The zoning is generally intended to accommodate high-intensity resort and hotel uses and incidental commercial uses (such as hotel dining hail or bars). Our proposed use would fall under the category of Major Event Indoor Facility and would operate much as a dinner theater. We are proposing a Three Phase Development Plan with the option of completing the full building and parking lot sooner if we are able. A 20' utility easement will be dedicated to the Town of Estes Park by a separate document along the south property line for the proposed water main and buried electric line. Additionally, 15' of R-O-W shall be dedicated along the south property line together with the current 30' dedicated R-O-W dedicated by a document in Book 506 at Page 71. Three Phase Development Proposal and Site Requirements Phase One(2017) Phase One will consist of a permanent kitchen, bathroom facilities, ADA compliant concrete sidewalks, paved ADA compliant parking spaces, temporary dining tent, dirt parking lot, landscape buffer along Mills Drive, Mills Drive road improvements, new site entrance off Mills Drive, a water main extension, sanitary sewer service line and a right-hand turn lane constructed on HWY 66. Phase One Construction includes a two-story 4,550 square foot building 26' 3" high, which will house a kitchen, bathrooms, mechanical room, employee bathroom on the first floor and an office and employee lounge, bathroom and shower on the second floor. This building will eventually be joined to the final structure, which will be built as part of Phase Two. An ADA compliant concrete walkway will be constructed from the ADA parking spaces to the tent, bathrooms, food service area and around the southern portion of the building. A temporary tent will be erected to serve as the dining and entertainment facility for Phase One, which will require a permit and will be permitted for 180 maximum consecutive days. The tent will be erected on the dirt, next to the kitchen building. 63 picnic tables will be arranged within the confines of the tent, each able to seat 12 people and allowing for handicapped seating wherever necessary. A portable stage will be built on the north side of the tent, will measure 10x20 and will serve as the location for the Western Show. A sound and light system will also be installed within the tent, as well as portable heaters as needed. Seating will be provided for up to a maximum of 750 people, where individuals will eat and watch the show. No cooking will be performed inside the tent, no open flame and all additional fire requirements shall be met. Food will be served from a line within the kitchen building and patrons will re-enter the seating area to eat and watch the show. A soft-surface trail will be constructed from the dining tent site to the Elk Meadow RV gravel driveway to access the free Estes Park shuttle. Phase Two (2018) Phase Two will consist of landscaping the internal lot area (building screening), construction of the final dining/performance hall (12,200 SF), which will replace the temporary dining tent and will be a total of 17,910 square feet including kitchen and bathrooms (built in Phase One). The dining hall will house the dining tables, benches and stage. Phase Three (2019) Phase Three includes the addition of a permanent asphalt parking lot, parking lot curb and gutter, storm sewer installation, and parking lot landscaping. Traffic and Parking Considerations A traffic study was conducted by Matt Delich, of Delich Associates. The study and associated memo are included with this submittal. The traffic study determined that a turn lane from HWY 66 onto Mills Drive will be required in both directions. Mills Drive will be widened from Hwy 66 to Main Entrance to 24' with curb and gutter from HWY 66 to the entrance of our site. A New Entrance will be constructed on the property so that the Main Entrance to the event will be from Mills Drive, not from HWY 66. Additional traffic solutions are: • Hiring an off-duty police officer for traffic control during peak traffic periods (before and after the events) each evening during summer season. • Using the existing free Estes Park shuttle service. • Because the event will attract primarily families and groups, we anticipate each car will contain 3-4 passengers, which minimizes the number of cars. • A temporary parking lot will be constructed to the specifications set forth by Van Horn Engineering and shall be a dirt parking lot during the first two project Phases, providing 192 parking spaces the first year, with a re-evaluation of parking needs for the second year. • Contracting with bus tour companies brings an average of 50 people per bus and vastly reduces parking and traffic impact and will be a significant part of our business. • A shuttle service will be provided by Lazy B for employee transportation to and from home. • Limited employee housing may be provided on site. Landscaping • The Landscaping Plan for development area will be 1 tree /3 shrubs for every 1,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface, excluding parking lots, but including sidewalks, drives and other hard surfaces. • Landscape Street Frontage Buffering- Section 7.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requires one tree for every 40 feet be planted and 1 shrub for each 15 feet of street frontage to buffer developed frontage as viewed from adjacent street. This requirement will be exceeded and will be planted upon undulating topography, with trees planted 5 feet away from water and sewer mains. • Landscape Parking Lot Buffering- Parking lot landscaping will comply with requirements set forth in EVDC Section 7.5 Environmental Impacts A Preliminary Wetland Screening and Wildlife Mitigation Plan are being submitted for this project. The Preliminary Wetland Screening will be followed by a more thorough Wetland Delineation due to the presence of frozen ground during the time of the field investigation. The wetland habitat has been mapped conservatively. The Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation will be conducted once soils are thawed and will provide a more accurate wetland boundary, no larger than the areas shown on the development plan. The development is proposed outside the 50' wetland habitat buffer (as prescribed by the EVDC) around the conservative wetland habitat boundary. No critical habitat or threatened/endangered species habitat was found on the site. Potential impacts to wildlife and their habitats are listed within the Wildlife Mitigation Report. Public Meeting A public meeting will be held to announce our intention open the Lazy B on February 17, 2016 at the Estes Park library and the minutes of this meeting shall be submitted to the Town of Estes Park prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. We believe the response will be overwhelming positive. We have already met with hotels, local businesses, several residents and passing tourists and our idea has been met with enthusiasm and support. The public will be invited through advertisement in the local paper and word of mouth. We will provide a power point presentation with a Q&A session. At least one of the owners will be present, along with some of our staff and supporters of the project to describe the project and provide answers to any questions or concerns our neighbors may have. Noise Impact and Hours of Operation Our hours of operation will be 7 nights a week from 5:00-8:00 p.m. The music performance will last only one hour; from 7:00-8:00. The impact of our show, from the perspective of noise, is very limited and lasts only one hour per day. Live musical performance is not something new in this neighborhood. The Rock Inn, which is adjacent to our property, hosts bluegrass, rock and roll, open mic nights, etc. and the performances go on for several hours. Elk Meadow also supplies live entertainment throughout the summer within the snack and bar area on site. The buildings owned by the National Park, adjacent to our property from the west, also have a history of hosting jam sessions. Miscellaneous Potential Project Impacts Additional potential impacts of this project include: • Light from the headlights of cars as they exit just after 8:00 p.m. The parking lot, as described in the parking section of this document describes the landscaping that will filter light and noise. • The view to the north may be obstructed from residences on Mills Drive. The landscaping and overall site improvements we are proposing provide a vast improvement for neighbors in all directions and only enhance their existing view, which currently consists of a broken down wire fence, high wires, piles of debris and dirt, and a lot full of RVs. The overhead lines that run along Mills Drive will be buried in the same trench that is excavated for the new water main. The proposed landscaping will replace the dilapidated fence and provide screening from the existing RVs that fiil the park. The proposed building will also block the view of the RV lot and improve the overall appearance of the property. • Dust from the dirt parking lot (first two project Phases only) will be mitigated by surface spraying (water or soil tackifier) prior to events or during high wind storms. Requested Waivers Multiple waivers are being requested for this project engineering and feasibility hardships. Waiver from Ordinance 8-05 #, Appendix D. Street Design and Construction Standards. Mills Drive improvements combined with the construction of a new right-hand turn lane off HWY 66 will not meet EVDC engineering requirements without significant impact to adjacent properties (four feet of cut along both sides of Mills Drive would be required). Due to limited R- OW availability and trying to match existing cross-slope grades at the intersection of HWY 66 and Mills Drive while maintaining positive drainage and transition from a super-elevated road to a crowned road, grades must exceed the maximum values. The proposed design attempts to meet the required grades as closely as possible. Waiver from Section 7.11.0.2. Ordinance 8-05 #, Parking and Loading Area Design Standards. A waiver for parking lot paving a curb and gutter is requested for the first two project Phases and shall be completed in the final project Phase 3. A waiver for the loading space location (the back of the building is along the street frontage) is requested with the understanding that additional screening is provided. Waiver from Section 10.5.0.2. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails. A sidewalk is normally required along Mills Drive to provide connectivity. A waiver to designing and constructing the sidewalk with this project is requested. Future sidewalk design and construction may be ensured by providing cash in lieu. Waiver from Section 7.11.D. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. A waiver to the required number of parking spaces for the first two Phases is being requested due to limiting environmental impact on Site (i.e., wetland habitat and associated buffers). The total number of parking spaces required for the maximum capacity of the event center is calculated to be between 188 and 214 (3.5 to 4 ppl/vehicle according to the Traffic Study). Tour buses are projected to regularly transport people to the events and should minimize the number of vehicles parking on site. Additionally, an employee shuttle shall be available for commuting and the Estes Park free shuttle picks up along HWY 66 at an alternate site entrance (a soft surface trail to this shuttle stop is proposed with this project). Waiver from Section 7.6.E. Wetland and Stream Corridor Protection Buffer/Setback Areas. The deck of the proposed building encroaches into the wetland buffer (Wetland B) 2.6'. The deck is cantilevered over the buffer, therefore no structural components are in the buffer. Waiver from Section 7.6.0.3 Wetland and Stream Corridor Protection. Boundary Delineation. Due to frozen soils and ice swells, soil pits could not be dug to characterize soils for a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation (JWD). A preliminary wetland screening was conducted to obtain the most conservative wetland boundary line until soils thaw to conduct a JWD. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Submittal Date: T 1 17 ;Development Plan EF1,..,Spec0 Review r Aezoning Petition riPreliminary Subdivision Plat I IFinal Subdivision Plat 4V1inor Subdivision Plat r Amended Plat I— Boundary Line Adjustment 3 ROW or Easement Vacation • I— Street Name Change 3 Time Extension 3 Other: Please specify _ Condominium r Prelimin. I— Final M SuppI; Site Information Project Name Project Description Project Address Legal Description Parcel ID # iLot Size 1,30.75 acres jExisting Land Use RV Park, camping and Stl ) IProposed Land Use IRV Park, camping, stora Existing Water Service p Town ..._ r Well JProposed Water Service p _Towri _._ r .. yyeil lExisting Sanitary Sewer Service 1Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service ___ Is a sewer lift station required? Existih.g Gas Service I r - xce .,Existirg Zoning 'Accommodations (A) Chuckwagon dinner and live entertainment establishment Two parcels located in the NE 1/4 of Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers 1665 HWY 66, Estes Park, CO 80517 35341-00-001 EPSD r EPSD _p- r . p Other r Proposed Zontig e and chuckwagon dinner/entertainment .1, r _ None other (specify) _r None r Other (specify) Accommodations (A) UTSD UTSD No None r Septic .._.... j.Septic Jone !Area of Disturbance in Acres Site Access (if not or2_public street) Mills Drive Are there wetlands on the site? 'Yes r Noi _ _ . Site stakin must be corn feted at the time a ' • 'cation is submitted. Corn • lete? P Yes r No r ary Contact information Name of Primary Contact Person Randy Jackson/ Michelle Oliver I I I Complete Mailin2 Address 2105 East 11th Street Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80537 r Applicant 1 r Consultant/Engineer Prima Contact Person is r Owner Application fee tatement of intent r 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 5c)i l' X 17" reduced copy at plat or plan Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Pork., P.O. Box )2O0.gh 170 MacGregor Avenue . Estes Port. CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 V'. Fax: (970) 586-0249 www,esies.orgiCornDev 1 I I I T Revised 2011. t 1.16 KT Contact Information Record Owner(s)! / Randy Jackson and Michael Andrejek Mailing Address!2105 East 11th Street Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80537 1 i I Phone;970-214-1348 , i I Cell Phone 970-214-1348 1 i 1 1 I Fax I i I I I I ;i Email:r.jackPme.com I I I , Applicant 1 Michelle Oliver Mailing Address:2810 Dunraven Lane Estes Park CO 80517 i 1 Phone] 1970-507-0317 1 I i i I I Cell Phone! 970-507-0317 I I I i Fax i 1 i I Email 1 ; virtue Isupportolivera,qmail,com j 1 . Consultant/Engineer !Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Inc., Celine LeBeau 1 Mailing Address _.! 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone 970-586-9388 l Ii . I Cell Phone 1 l 1 Fax I , Email celinevheRairbits.com i I , I i I I 1 APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits - See the fee schedule included in your applicationpacket or view the fee schedule online at. www.estes.org/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninqApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf _ _ All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. 1 t i ! ! ( : I I 1 I ! I MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application requirements. _ - I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. f -- ! 1 1 Names: / __L _l_ _ 1 j I / Record Owner 'PLEASE PRINT-{ Randy Jackson ii Michael Andrzejek • the _ Plans, Preliminary for ____ surface Special Reviews, and Final estate development ..___. ____ __I_____ T __ — _. Rezoning, Condominium Maps to and the mineral estate and meet the statutory — - _____________.._.. ) I i Applicant !PLEASE PRINT: ;Michelle Oliver 1 _ I Signatures: Record Owner s _.,_ _ -4) --ri.__. i Date ; I-. is Applicant IP )•02.1) 1 Date J- / e/2 0- 6 1 1 I ! h i I APPLICANT CERTIFICATION Revised 2011.11.16 KT Date Date Signatures: Record Owner Applicant APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at. wwwestes.org/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninqApplic,ationFeeSchedule pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, arid Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRIN, Randy Jackson Michael Andrzejek Applicant PLEASE PRIN: Michelle Oliver APPLICANT CERTIFICATION Rovised 2011 11.16 1(1 .4RaCt.ii;forrii.a,ticp Record Owner(s) Randy Jackson and Michael Andrejek Mailing Address 2105 East 11th Street Suite 180 Loveland, CO 80537 Phone 970-214-1348 --- Cell Phone 970-214-1348 . ., Fax Email riackme.com Applicant Michelle Oliver Mailing Address 2810 Dunraven Lane Estes Park CO 80517 Phone 970-507-0317 Cell Phone 970-507-0317 Fax Email virtualsupport.olivera,qmail.com Consultant/Engineer Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Inc , Celine LeBeau Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone 970-586-9388 Cell Phone Fax Email celinevhe@airbits.com /-- Date Date Signatures: Record Own Applicant I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property L In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement: I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). 1> I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, ! have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at http:l/www estes orq/ComDev/DevCode 1 understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee 1.> by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC V I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date to- 1 understand that a resubmittal fee.will be charged if my application is incomplete I> The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete I> I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. h. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT Randy Jackson Michael Andrejek Applicant PLEASE PRINT. Michelle Oliver Revised 2011.11.16 K1 Public Meeting for Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers was held in the Hondius Room at the Estes Park Library February 17th, 2016 from 6:00-7:00 p.m. There were 14 people in attendance, names are registered on the sign-in sheet. Michelle Oliver presented a powerpoint that described the overall project, including the mission, the phasing project, the site, the timeline, menu, western show, etc. A copy of the site plan was shared with attendees Questions were then encouraged. The first topic of concern was parking. Michelle explained that Lazy B would be bringing guests in on tour busses. Celine mentioned that we would also have access to the shuttle. It was argued that the shuttle doesn't hold many people. Michelle mentioned that the shuttle was helpful, but that Lazy B would be managing parking by pre-selling to tour busses and balancing that with local sales. Questions about tour busses: 1. Where do they park? A:It was explained that we have special bus parking area. 2. Do they turn off the busses during the show? A:Yes. 3. If tour busses are a main means of bringing guests, how does this help resorts and hotels and the community? A: All about controlling the numbers, Pre-sales to tour busses balanced with available tickets here. The main entrance on Mills was addressed. Temporary permit was addressed and temporary venue was described-balancing numbers of pre-sales to busses with cars. Question: 1. Why did you not choose the main entrance to the RV Park for entrance to Lazy B? A:We cannot interfere with current operations at RV park. Cannot use one entrance for two venues. 2. What about our vacation rental? We have people who might come in at 4:00 or 5:00. They will be in a traffic jam? A:Traffic control with officers and turn lane was discussed. Mr. Gonzales was mentioned in relation to the discussion 6f the new entrance and the widening of Mills Drive. Mr. Nuyes, a property owner off mills drive said he had met with Mr. Gonzales twice regarding his concerns about his property and found him to be personable, respectful, and knowledgeable about the project and expressed a genuine interest in the residents understanding of what was planned. He said that Mr. Gonzales had explained the details regarding his property and he planned to visit with him again. At the end of the meeting he said that he fully supported the project as long as it did not interfere with his property line or ability to park on his property. Comment: Western Music is dying. Do you really think you are going to get people interested in this? Answer: The average chuckwagon is serving 950 per night. Estes Park tourists want the historical cowboy event. This event belongs here. We need more family entertainment. The show was described in detail. Comment: On the town website I saw that you want to encourage youth and diversity and I saw the menu, which does not breed diversity. Dietary restrictions are real. For me, country music belongs in Nashville. A chuckwagon is not diverse. Where is the inclusion to make Estes more diverse? Reply: Chuckwagon is a niche, but fits into the Western Heritage that Estes is. We are going to have a vegetarian option. Gluten free may be considered in the future. Not first year or two. Chuckwagon is primarily a tourist destination. We meet the need of residents because as residents, we become a bed and breakfast for friends and family and want entertainment to offer. As a year round venue we will be exploring additional ways that supply divers entertainment, but still reflect the basic values of Estes Park. Question: You are going to be serving alcohol. Are people going to be allowed to wander off your premises with alcohol? No. Who is going to stop them? They will not be allowed to leave with alcohol. Comment: We live right across from the entrance. Comment: Well, there is a bar right there-The Rock Inn Yes but you are bussing people in and they will get drunk. Answer:This is a family event. But you are taking our parking away! According to Mr, Gonzales, they will not encroach on our property. Celine explained the boundaries and invited everyone to come see the larger plan at the office. She said Elk Meadow owns the property across Mills and concerns continued to be voiced about the widening of Mills and how it would negatively impact property. Chuck mentioned that the road improvements were beneficial for property owners. Meryl voiced additional fears that her front yard parking would be taken away. Michelle mentioned to Kerry, that once everything was in place, The Rock Inn could potentially lease Lazy B's parking lot. She said emphatically, that this project was absolutely not going to happen and she would make sure. Jill, a neighbor voiced concerns about taking away the grass the elk feed on and concerns that children would leave trash in the tent that would attract bears. The majority would like to see an entrance other than on Mills Drive. Mr. Nys said he agreed with and supported the project as long as his front yard was left intact. Meeting adjourned. Michelle Oliver Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers lazybranchandwranqlers.com 970-507-0317 Lazy B Ranch&Wra nglers SR 2016-01.xls Owner Owner 11 Address City ST Zip 1700 HWY 66 LLC - NEW SPALL LLC LITTLE CURRENT CONSULTING LLC PO BOX 1379 LONGMONT CO 80502 BOOTH THOMAS MIKOLITCH JANET 1681 HIGH DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 BOWEN LAWRENCE 0/KAREN S 2211 REED RD SPARTA MO 65753 BURROUGHS ANTHONY S/VIOLA MANZANARES 39701 W COUNTY ROAD 47 AULT CO 80610 CAMPBELL RICHARD M CAROLYN W 1440 LITTLE RAVEN ST NO 307 DENVER CO 80202 CRAIN JESSIE M TRUST (1/2) STEWART MICHAEL D (1/2) 122 52ND AVE GREELEY CO 80634 ELK MEADOW RV ESSENTIAL GROUP LAX 17800 W COLFAX AVE GOLDEN CO 80401 FENTON MARY ESTHER GRIFFITH CHARLES LESLIE/DM/JT ADDRESS UNKNOWN FERRELLGAS INC ONE LIBERTY PLAZA LIBERTY MO 64068 FRANKLIN LAURIE B TRUST 5345 MISSION WOODS RD MISSION WOODS KS 66205 GRIFFITH HARVEY E/DALE E 1187 GRIFFITH CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 GRIFFITH MIKE 1670 HIGHWAY 66 ESTES PARK CO 80517 HARVEY DALE I. 1641 HIGH DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 HENNINGER FAMILY TRUST 4965 ELDRIDGE ST GOLDEN CO 80403 HOLMAN ROBERT G REBECCA B 310 JASMINE ST DENVER CO 80220 JOSEPH ANN L 5362 MAGGIE LN EVERGREEN CO 80439 LAMB CAROLYN SUE 1920 E MARYLAND AVE UNIT 23 PHOENIX AZ 85016 LANDING LLC 1774 HIGHWAY 66 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MCDOUGALL JOHN L DEBORAH C 1861 HIGH DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 NOYES KRISTI 1707 MILLS DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 ONORATO JAMES W 2840 W 21ST ST 29 GREELEY CO 80634 PAIGE VIRGINIA HOWARD SHULER 1411 WHEELER DR MANSFIELD TX 76063 PARKVIEW ENTERPRISES LLC 1675 HIGHWAY 66 ESTES PARK CO 80517 R A 0 PLAZA CORP 1565 HIGHWAY 66 ESTES PARK CO 80517 REETZ HOSTELRY LLC 1852 HIGHWAY 66 ESTES PARK CO 80517 ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAWN CARE AND LANDSCAPING PO BOX 3558 ESTES PARK CO 80517 RUMLEY HELEN L FERRIS SHARON K PO BOX 791 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SANTAGATI CHARLES S/CHRISTINA E 544 COLUMBINE AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 SCHWARTZ ALICE D 1631 HIGH DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 SEMEYN DOUGLAS P PO BOX 20538 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SIGLER MONICA PO BOX 2116 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SMITH ROBERT M TRUST 445 D VALLEY RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 SMITH RONALD SHERBENOU DONNA D 8993 E 24TH PL NO 106 DENVER CO 80238 SPICKNALL LOLA MAE 175 W 6TH ST AKRON CO 80720 TERRY LONNIE/JULIE ANNE TERRY 524 WYOMING CIR GOLDEN CO 80403 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK 1311 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS CO 80524 VETTER JAY A/MAUREEN H 1711 MILLS DR UNIT A ESTES PARK CO 80517 WAAS BARBARA L/PETER V BRUNER SAMUEL K/MARILYN S 6901 W 69TH ST OVERLAND PARK KS 66204 WALLACE PAMELA M/TIMOTHY P 595 OURAY DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 WHITE DANIEL M/ANN MARIE WHITE WILLIS H/MAURIA K PO BOX 84815 FAIRBANKS AK 99708 . WILLIAMS DANIEL E/MARY M PO BOX 1591 ESTES PARK CO 80517 WILSON RICHARD ROBB/MARY FRANCES 4481 RIBBON CT LOVELAND CO 80537 WOOD MELISSA W/WALLACE R 1007 URBANCREST DR CINCINNATI OH 45226 YANEKIAN JULIANA H Lazy B RaralireiGRVItriv9RAZElatialslxls LEESBURG VA 20176 LC JAN 2 0 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT [MUCK ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transport Engineering .,lassEei 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 MEMORANDUM TO: Celine Lebeau, Van Horn Engineering Michelle Oliver, Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Randy Jackson FROM: Matt Delich DATE: January 13, 2016 SUBJECT: Lazy B Chuckwagon — Auxiliary Lane Analysis (File: 1585ME02) This memorandum documents my recommendation with regard to the southbound right-turn (SBRT) lane on LCR69B approaching Mills Drive. I had some phone conversations and email exchanges with Van Horn Engineering staff. I related my recommendation verbally. The 'Lazy B Chuckwagon Traffic Impact Study' dated December 14, 2015, indicated that a SBRT lane is required based upon the entering traffic volume prior to an event/show at the site. At the posted speed of 40 mph and category NR-B highway, this SBRT lane should provide storage and bay taper The storage component is 200 feet and the bay taper ratio in 12:1 (144 feet for a 12 foot lane). The SBRT lane of 200 feet will extend from the return at Mills Drive to the tree line between the Old Rock Inn and the driveway to the RV Park. It is at the end of the full lane width area that the bay taper begins. It is not good practice to have a driveway in the bay taper of an auxiliary lane. It is recommended that the bay taper not be included in the design, since it would cross the existing driveway to the RV Park. Attached are hand sketches of the SBRT lane. The drawing, provided by Van Horn Engineering, shows parking stops just north of Mills Drive within the property of the Old Rock Inn. These parking stops indicated 90 degree parking. A vehicle backing out one of these spaces will impact the SBRT lane. Therefore it is my recommendation that only parallel parking be allowed in front of the Old Rock Inn. OUND #4 '• 0E8 • LONG NORTH AND WEST _INES OF B 994 P 132 NUC; WHE "Vei• LOT AREA 3/5 .1 37,837:6 SF 0.87 AC 64.6" WOOD NCE • 57.4' CE *1 WEST 000 FENCE •IED OPERTY 84' FOU D #4 REBAR W/ ALUMINUM CAP 29415 GRAVEL PARKING LOT POSSIBLE EASEMENT (SEE NOTE 5) FOUND #4 REBAR W/ PLASTIC CAP LS 26974 0 40 80 120 REBAR W/ CAP 33643 FOUND 2" BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE CYLINDER HIGHWAY RIGHT—OF—WAY WOOD FENCE ON 0.8' • OLD ROCK INN ADDRESS: 1675 MORAINE AVE. 1—STORY FRAME/STONE BUILDING ADDR SS: 1681 MORAINE 1—STORY FRAME/STO E HOUSE , / 73+88.8 30'Rt. per Highway plans EXISTING CONDITIONS AT MILLS DRIVE AND HWY 66 INTERSECTION ti I 620 feet t earh - meters 300 100 r , = IFICE VE JAN 2 0 2016 DELECH ASST Traffic & Transportation Engineering _F- 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 MEMORANDUM TO: Michelle Oliver, Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Town of Estes Park FROM: Matt Delich DATE: December 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Lazy B Chuckwagon Traffic Impact Study (File: 1585ME01) This memorandum addresses the transportation impacts of the proposed Lazy B Chuckwagon event venue in Estes Park, Colorado. The site location is shown in Figure 1. It is on the north side of Mills Drive, west of Larimer County Road 69B (LCR69B). The site is currently vacant. The scope of this traffic impact study (TIS) was discussed with Kevin Ash, Estes Park Public Works Engineering Manager. A memorandum TIS was requested. Figure 2 shows the current geometry and control at the key intersections. The US36/LCR69B intersection is essentially an interchange with yield control at most junctures. There is stop sign control for westbound to southbound traffic on US36 entering LCR69B. There is stop sign control on Mills Drive at the LCR69B/Mills intersection. The posted speed on US36 is 35 mph east and west of LCR69B. The posted speed on LCR69B is 40 mph. Mills Drive is approximately 20 feet wide. There are no sidewalks or bike lanes along either road in the area. In the 'high season,' the Estes Park Free Shuttle (Brown Route) operates on LCR69B. Traffic studies require peak hour turning movement counts at the key intersections. Contact with regard to the preparation of this TIS was made in October 2015. This is after the 'high season' in Estes Park. Therefore, it was agreed that available 'high season' traffic data (CDOT and Larimer County) would be used to develop/synthesize the base data at the key intersections in the area. Some of the available traffic counts are a number of years old. Annual traffic data from the CDOT continuous count location on US34 was used to adjust the available traffic data on US36 and on LCR69B. For the Lazy B Chuckwagon event venue, the peak analysis hours are the hour before the start of a show (5-6 pm) and the hour after the end of a show (8-9 pm). US36 is one of two access roads on the east side of Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). In the 5-6 pm hour, there are typically significant exits from RMNP. This volume steadily decreases into the evening. In the 5-6 pm hour, entrances to RMNP are less than 150 vehicles and tend to decrease into the evening. Figure 3 shows 2015 synthesized peak hour traffic at the key intersecti Z COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Table 1 shows the synthesized 2015 start and end peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix A. A description of level of service for unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is provided in Appendix A. During the analyzed peak hours, the calculated delay for the controlled movements (stopped legs) is commensurate with level of service C or better (delay <25 seconds/vehicle). Acceptable operation at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service C or better on any approach leg. Figure 4 shows the site plan of the Lazy B Chuckwagon event venue. The Lazy B Chuckwagon will be developed in various phases. It will begin as a tent structure and unpaved parking lot (-200 parking spaces). This TIS reflects a fully occupied parking lot, which is an event attendance of 750 people at a vehicle occupancy of 3.75. For analysis purposes, there will be 200 inbound vehicles during the start peak hour and 200 outbound vehicles during the end peak hour. The trip distribution for this site is shown in Figure 5. The trip distribution was determined using the existing traffic counts, the location of accommodation facilities (hotels, motels, etc.), and engineering judgment. Figure 6 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment. Figure 7 shows the short range (2018) background start and end peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2018) future were obtained by factoring the through traffic on US36 and LCR69B by 1.5 percent per year. This reflects the CDOT 20-year growth factor of 1.3 on US36. Table 2 shows the short range (2018) background start and end peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. The key intersections will operate acceptably during the start and end peak hours with the existing geometry in the short range (2018) background future. Figure 8 shows the short range (2018) total start and end peak hour traffic at the key intersections. The intersection geometry was evaluated using the State Highway Access Code (SHAG). For evaluation purposes, US36 is categorized as an RB highway and LCR69B is categorized as an NR-B highway. No geometric changes are necessary at the US36/LCR69B intersection. The southbound right-turning traffic at the start peak hour meets the threshold requiring a right-turn lane at the LCR69B/Mills intersection. Given the other land uses that are served by Mills Drive, it is not likely that the right-turn lane is or will be required during any other hour of the day. It is suggested that the Town of Estes Park consider not implementing this right-turn lane with the initial phase of the Lazy B Chuckwagon event venue or in the first year of operation. According to the SHAG, a northbound left-turn lane is not required at the LCR69B/Mills intersection. Table 3 shows the short range (2018) total start and end peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The LCR69B/Mills intersection will operate acceptably during the start and end peak hours with the required geometry in the short range (2018) total future. During the start peak hour, the calculated delay to the westbound left-turning vehicles from US36 to LCR69B will be 47.0 seconds. This is commensurate with level of service E. As a mitigation measure, DELICH ASSOCIATES all-way stop sign control was analyzed at this intersection. With all-way stop sign control, the delay for both stopped movements will be less than that with the existing control. Permanent all-way stop sign control at this intersection will require approval from CDOT. Since the delay issue with the existing control only occurs during the start peak hour, having time-limited all-way stop sign control at this intersection may be an option. It is concluded that a southbound right-turn lane is required at the LCR69B/Mills intersection based upon the right-turning volume in a one hour period. It is suggested that consideration be given to delaying implementation of this right-turn lane. With the existing stop sign control at the US36/LCR69B intersection, the westbound left-turn movement will experience significant delays during the start peak hour. This can be mitigated with all-way stop sign control at this intersection on a permanent or time- limited basis. -f rDELICH t [-ASSOCIATES Figure 1 SITE LOCATION Chiefs Lazy B Chuckwagon SCALE: 1"=600' High Drive L—DELICH -77 r-ASSOCIATES US36 03 4:3) CO CC N - Denotes Lane Mills Drive INTERSECTION GEOMETRY AND CONTROL Figure 2 —ft L—DEL1CH -iv r-ASSOCIATES -no--147184 461/346 ti US36 0 298/123 —N.-- 0) cfl 0 -J N —mg-- 5-6 PM/8-9 PM Mills Drive o 141 M (4) SYNTHESIZED 2015 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 L—DELICH —77 i—ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 2015 Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service (Delay-seciveh) 5-6 PM 84 PM US36/LCR69B (stop sign) WB LT C (19.8) B (12.8) EB T A (0) A (0) LCR69B/Mills (stop sign) EB LT/RT B 14.7) B 11.6) NB LT A (8.2) A (0) TABLE 2 2018 Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service (Delay-seciveh) 54 PM 8-9 PM US36/LCR69B (stop sign) WB LT C (21.6) B (13.1) EB T A (0) A (0) LCR69B/Mills (stop sign) EB LT/RT C (15.2) B (11.8) NB LT A (8.3) A (0) TABLE 3 2018 Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service (Delay-seciveh) 5-6 PM 8-9 PM US36/LCR69B (stop sign) WB LT E (47.0) B (13.1) EB T A (0) A (0) US36/LCR69B (all-way stop sign) WB LT C (20.0) B (9.8) EB T B (13.6) A (8.7) LCR69B/Mills (stop sign) EB LT/RT C (15.9) C (16.2) NB LT A (8.3) A (0) =LI 4.-7DELICH -7/ [—ASSOCIATES N 2 , "".." tim•.—zw21:iftr vg.ftlfrWSIFFIFS 'arc, ' rm. YEAS FF a : 4.6.1.1.OSUSIS CAP. I= II -6- LAS sa to Ci FORMS usFSF IS F FOS, UTproy ra~aanr-ua_s En: 61.771,7: TOACT IAGi F orO=1.2. Si-st,1 r AFFSSFI 1.11D.• SSF am 71Z ,252 .G0 , SOV SC IP ASs LAI ol+14 co, :Fon T:Iir FAA:, C.OF ...Zs ft ft ...V.. o+I AV.FIW . • 3-.8.114 sahaLS F - FP § O W 5 g f, g - Arr r,,ETLAND SETBACK - LREAN,a• 2 AAfT3AO UVRC Fifa A ?Sedia. ' OF1 /ILFsiO, FF,FOL FCAWIFFI OF MS e AS StsCRS.115..120F. OSP.= AND Vitt: Fou.ows..For.w.snft ••". ../ „ t otii4 MGM 2' exuant yr:- r.r1.4,...z ASP...TOFF son VLIAGE CONOOldwF113 "...: . ,..".'. '. , - --- --.. ,,,, .-.. / 54 zonfts A r:-...,04.-000, AL 0 :".."'""--''iP ... -' ... . xi 17 pow pryer°. MS WPFF,FIFI(Z,S .4 2.111 - 01 y •sw. v. I.SS-si it as .s F, ,s,-k„;„„ls..':,; • tk ASIGIFFED KATO; AMA. ICFOIVIALAO: Pus ••"t6s... • EHISA.110S, A LWOVa tY GC Sc,SIONVel c'esta I Or i,ASCCTEAwc • ' • "-art gtreceeor Aoccmoie 41.0.04.1.1.0s OD Ins K/adimICIIT FISS IONS w'W.X OW.WINISor-SwAs SCSSISSCO OCCe, SOF "FAO 7: ! G roLraO SOASSTATF, 7 6AN11SOO SWROF 7IV,O S.F. Ift.I.C4r.W.F. Wit .14,Watte•NEA FOIWS 1.2 0 ter "ex .9re- t ia.K. FOR FF ',II Ws., SOL WAS U.K. t. "IS' %UDE LANDSCAPE Bt*FER NEW nRE HYDRANT 4s, Ntcanamv. KA. if, Drina) / R OW ISDODSF FOOTPRINT PHASE ONE 4 5f1,6F KITCHEN • 1E .S00 TENT -- PHASE TWO ID 52,3 DINING BUDDING FIRE SPRINKLER CONTROL. ROOEI - rAERVICE ENTRY) WDEN LULLS DR TO 2..." PA'.'E TO PARKING ENTRY, 4 I..T/L .. ASS., 4../ ., WOAD. i cersv,s r.1.4•4. KAI .14%, 1....S.4141.1211 4. sr 11 gsos OA, \ 6,4, AFOICOS /. i:y• 2'44 -.., '0 "'' ' . -V F Il'411.6.4., Si CGWI. ‘,..... 1 . Kt. • ft .... t I I AllyntaGekb. nag MK a. r.MFASFOROTOFF.ArA .4. COW ISSF FLOOR CAS.GO.P. A s A. A/ FOC cc • 1 FT SC W. =GRIM MIME 141 PASS 7. 4,0 SWF,' F0,014.1ft_s4.111AsAVa KATIFEW:GS42 W.W.I. S Sties °VW la OhliSOF WA. It ectet SsASS re4.4 YP STAACCOUSGSAS LES +EX if tis !WA W.TCSI.CGSSIWICASSFSZAr %C11.. 44 :WS FIV; SITE PLAN Figure 4 _J/ LO DELICH r- ASSOCIATES Lazy B Chuckwagon SCALE: 1"=600' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 --4/ L.DELUCH c-ASSOCIATES --a-- 0/0 —NE-- 150/0 US36 0/0 —et— rn 0 AIL N 5-6 PM/8-9 PM O act Mills Drive 0/180 --"( 0/20 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 !—DELICH AS S OC IATES 155/90 480/360 7 co 0) co ce 0 -J N 5-6 PM/8-9 PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles Mills Drive 2018 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 —71 jASSOCIATES -0--155190 -"II— 630/360 US36 Ln 310/130 Mills Drive to F4 Li) i."11 a) 4- ) 15/195 5/20 N 5-6 PM/8-9 PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles 2018 TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 1---DELICH t—ASSOCIATES APPENDIX A LCR69B stopped HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: US36 & LCR69B P Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 324 503 324 324 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 324 503 324 324 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (vehfh) 1623 1236 249 594 717 Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 pm 5-6 SBL SBT SBR 0 329 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 358 0 324 324 0 324 324 0 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 100 40 100 629 594 1085 Volume Total 324 358 Volume Left 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 cSH 1700 594 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.60 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 100 Control Delay (s) 0.0 19.8 Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 19.8 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 10.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1214/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 LCR 696 stopped pm 8-9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: US36 & LCR69B J EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR . 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 Free Free Stop Stop 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 296 0 None None 134 282 134 134 134 134 0 134 282 134 134 134 134 0 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 2.2 3,5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 100 100 100 100 100 61 100 1451 467 757 915 838 757 1085 Movement EBL Lane Configurations Volume (vehlh) 0 Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 t, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1623 Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 134 296 Volume Left 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 cSH 1700 757 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 47 Control Delay (s) 0.0 12.8 Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 12.8 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: LCR69 B/LCR69B & Mills Drive pm 5-6 Intersection Int Delay. slveh 0.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 15 5 5 330 395 15 Conflicting Peds, /Or 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 5 5 359 429 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 808 438 446 0 0 Stage 1 438 Stage 2 370 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 350 619 1114 Stage 1 651 - - Stage 2 699 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 348 619 1114 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 348 Stage 1 651 - Stage 2 695 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.7 0.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1114 - 391 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.056 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 14.7 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: LCR69 B/LCR69B & Mills Drive pm 8-9 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, vehlh 10 0 0 145 275 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 0 158 299 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 465 307 315 0 0 Stage 1 307 - Stage 2 158 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 556 733 1245 Stage 1 746 Stage 2 871 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 556 733 1245 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 556 Stage 1 746 Stage 2 871 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.6 0 0 HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1245 556 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.6 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service . Average Total Delay seekeh A <10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 CJ APPENDIX B 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis LCR69B stopped 3: US36 & LCR69B pm 5-6 short background Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 ,:. Volume (veh/h) 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 345 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 337 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 375 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 337 524 337 337 337 337 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 337 524 337 337 337 337 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 35 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 36 100 cM capacity (vehih) 1623 1222 225 584 705 617 584 1085 Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 337 375 Volume Left 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 cSH 1700 584 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.64 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 115 Control Delay (s) 0.0 21.6 Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 21.6 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 11.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis LCR69B stopped 3: US36 & LCR69B pm 8-9 short background <-/ Movement Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Stop 0% 0% 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR SBL SBT SBR C - 0 0 285 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 0 310 0 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 141 296 141 141 141 141 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 141 296 141 141 141 141 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 59 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1623 1442 444 750 907 828 750 1085 Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 141 310 Volume Left 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 cSH 1700 750 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.41 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 51 Control Delay (s) 0.0 13.1 Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.1 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: LCR69 B/LCR69B & Mills Drive pm 5-6 short background Intersection Int Delay s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, vet* 15 5 5 345 415 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RI Channelized None - None None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvml Flow 16 5 5 375 451 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 845 459 467 0 0 Stage 1 459 Stage 2 386 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 333 602 1094 Stage 1 636 Stage 2 687 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 331 602 1094 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 331 Stage 1 636 Stage 2 683 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.2 0.1 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vet/h) 1094 - 373 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.058 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 15.2 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %file Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: LCR69 B/LCR69B & Mills Drive pm 8-9 short background Intersection Int Delay, siveh 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 10 0 0 150 290 15 Conflicting Peds. #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 0 163 315 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 486 323 332 0 - 0 Stage 1 323 - Stage 2 163 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 540 718 1227 Stage 1 734 Stage 2 866 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 540 718 1227 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 540 Stage 1 734 Stage 2 866 - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay s 11.8 0 0 HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1227 - 540 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.02 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.8 HCM Lane LOS A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 1214/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 APPENDIX C HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis LCR69B stopped 3: US36 & LCR69B pm 5-6 short total %• %?c - 4%.. 4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations i c Volume (veh/h) (veh/h) 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 495 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 337 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 538 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 337 606 337 337 337 337 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 337 606 337 337 337 337 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) W (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 8 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1623 1222 79 584 705 617 584 1085 Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 337 538 Volume Left 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 cSH 1700 584 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.92 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 291 Control Delay (s) 0.0 47.0 Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 47.0 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 28.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis LCR69B stopped 3: US36 & LCR69B pm 8-9 short total Movement Lane Configurations Volume (vehlh) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285 0 Free Free Stop Stop 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 0 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 141 296 141 141 141 141 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 coot vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 141 296 141 141 141 141 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 59 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1623 1442 444 750 907 828 750 1085 Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 141 310 Volume Left 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 cSH 1700 750 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.41 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 51 Control Delay (s) 0.0 13.1 Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.1 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 495 0 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 337 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 538 0 Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis US36 & LCR 69B stopped 3: US36 & LCR69B pm 5-6 short total 4r2-- <\ t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations a - I. L Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop 337 538 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 5.3 4.9 0.50 0.73 637 714 13.6 20.0 13.6 20.0 B C Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (vehlh) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Delay 17.5 Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 I HCKA Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: US36 & LCR69B US36 & LCR 69B stopped pm 8-9 short total Movement EBL EBT EBR 1". WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 - Sign Control Slop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 0 Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 141 310 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 0 Hadj (s) 0.03 0.03 Departure Headway (s) 4.7 4.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.18 0.37 Capacity (veh/h) 724 817 Control Delay (s) 8.7 9.8 Approach Delay (s) 8.7 9.8 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Delay 9.4 Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1214/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 HCM 2010 -MSC 9: LCR69 B/LCR69B & Mills Drive pm 5-6 short total Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 15 5 25 345 415 195 Conflicting Peds, ttIhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 - 200 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Wm( Flow 16 5 27 375 451 212 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 880 451 451 0 0 Stage 1 451 - Stage 2 429 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 318 608 1109 Stage 1 642 Stage 2 657 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 308 608 1109 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 308 - Stage 1 642 Stage 2 637 Approach ES NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.9 0.6 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity {vehlh) 1109 - 351 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.062 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 15.9 HCM Lane LOS A A G HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: LCR69 B/LCR69B & Mills Drive pm 8-9 short total Intersection Int Delay, slveh 5.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, vett) 195 20 0 150 290 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 212 22 0 163 315 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Ma-jorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 486 323 332 0 0 Stage 1 323 - Stage 2 163 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 540 718 1227 - Stage 1 734 - - Stage 2 866 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 540 718 1227 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 540 Stage 1 734 Stage 2 866 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.2 0 0 HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1227 - 553 - HCM Lane VIC Ratio - 0,423 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 16.2 HCM Lane LOS A - C HCM 95th %tile Cl(veh) 0 - 2.1 12/4/2015 Baseline Synchro 9 Light Report Page 2 8 RI ELEV..7726,27" LAE , HOUSE / c" PARCEL I: A PART OE THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34. TOWNSHP 5 NORTH. RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.O.. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF S40 SECTION 34 WHICH SOUTH 04 DEGREES 34 MINUTES WEST. 315_88 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF: THENCE SOUTH CH DECREES 34 MINUTES WEST, ALONG SAID UST LINE, 352.62 FEET: THENCE NORTH 85 DEGREES 26 MINUTES WEST, 106.16 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 05 MINUTES. EAST, 534.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE FORMER LORAN( PARK ROAD: THENCE ALONG SNO CENTERLINE. SOUTH 46 DECREES 24 MINUTES WEST. 109 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE TRACT DESCRIBED IN BOOK 994 PAGE 132: THENCE NORTH 61 DEGREES 12 INMATES WEST. 207.5 FEETI THENCE SOUTH 40 DEGREES 30 IA1NUTES WEST, 219.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY ONE Of THE UTILITY ROAD DESCRIBED IN 6009 506 AT PAGE 71: THENCE SOUTH 39 DEGREES TB MINUTES EAST. 99.7 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE Of SAID UTILITY ROAD: THENCE NORTH 6.3 DEGREES 17 MINUTES WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 908.9 FEET 70 A POINT ON THE WEST UNE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER NORTHEAST °WRIER. OF SAID SECTION 34, THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 34) MINUTES EAST ALONG THE WEST UNE OF SAC NORTHEAST QUARTER NORTHEAST QUARTER TO A POINT OR THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 34, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES EAST, ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID SECTION. 449.25 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLy CORNER OF PARCEL LL OF TRACT 1024 DESCRIED IN DECREE RECORDED BOOK 1071 AT PAGE THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 4485.99 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS SOUTH 72 DEGREES 27 MINUTES EAST, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 515.1 7 FEET TO A PONT ON THE WEST LINE OF A TRACT DESCRIBES IN BOOK 764 A7 PAGE 3: TIERCE SOUTH DI DEGREES WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SRO TRACT DESCRIBED IN BOOK 764 AT PAGE 3, 53 AO FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF. THENCE SOUTH 139 DEGREES EAST. ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF SRO TRACT, 134 16 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL I OF TRACT 1024 DESCRIBED IN SAID DECREE; THENCE ON A CURIE TO THE ANGER WITH A MINUS OF 4.66.199 FEET MO WHOSE CHORD BEARS SOUTH 65 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 259.45 FEET TO THE PONT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF EARNER, STATE Of COLORADO, PARCEL 1.11 COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNORP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF NE 8111 P.M., THENCE SOUTH 02 DEGREES 34 MINUTES WEST ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF SECTION 34. 668.70 FEE,. THENCE NORTH 85 DEGREES 26 MINIMS WEST 253.97 EEC TO THE TRUE POINT Of BEGINNING THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 85 DEGREES 26 MINUTES WEST 52.19 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 05 1.11100113 EAST 534.01 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OE THE OLD MORAINE PARM ROAD: THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER UNE NORTH 46 DEGREES 24 MINUTES EAST 59-65 FEET: THENCE NORTH 12 DEGREES 05 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 888.40 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARNER, STATE OF COLORADO 1,ZWEND & 150K TIONSFORNER ID Liam PEDESTAL El NEN ELECTRIC SEANCE PANEL LICIT 0010 CD TELEPHONE PEDESTAL • HATER owl' OFF VALVE • FIRE wawa ETI SENT OX4440T/FS 8 SERER TAANHOLE STORM ;MD. MANNOLE IDET Of DIS1U0E801CE /31 CONCRETE PAVING AND 11101511 WOOSTER RAD w/ FENCE() ENCLOSAII FENCE (AS NOTED) -S-1- !Ewa UNE-P6.2. -9-8--. sEmER UNE - NEN WATER LINE-EXISTRIG TATER LIRE - NEM -Fs- CO5I1NG AIMED SECONDORY SERVICE GIRD COSTING MAKER° MATT UNE -E-E- NCO BARED SEEOIKLARy snort -5s- 5101:11 SEWER ONE - NEW 0 UNLIT POLE PROPERTY uNE CAWING MAJOR coffouR DUSTING MINOR CONTOuR PROPOSED NADIR CONTOUR PROPOSE() MINOR CONTOUR CA51vAG DECIDUOUS TREE EASEMENT (AI NOTED) ROAD OR OR. ID ER REINNED/ALTERED COSTING Row OR DANE NEN 4WD OR ORM CONCRETE PAD (6AI2') FOR BINE RRCO, (ID DIKE MARGIT') PROPOSED CONCRETE 0 I SHEET PROPERTY BOUNDARY MAP SCALE 1,-200' FOUND 1' PPE W/ A 2 I/O" 050112 BRASS CAP, 1926 15' 1,01-M-Boy and eaurr851 4501414 Pl Reception /94076500 8* • !i nt g g ei z 35' WIDE ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 506 PAGE 71 AND USING FOUND MONumENTATION. (NORM:1'00TE 55.26 G4819'00•00 (139_56') ES 14111326.005w 326,16' \ (N 8 6'275 ' a;..i.226;?9-7*Fc131i," ' EL 2) (N 1.3.26. W 306 18. FOR PARCEL j) • (5691 449.541_ ; PARCEL L SWIMS PROPERTY PARCEL/303.41 -Q0 -110j. ZONE A 30.75 ACRES N89.00'00'W 88693' FOUND 2' BRASS CAP 16499 IN CONCRETE (C147:64,, 04,4'61.4.0:,1 .5916. 6 3, A§ 4 n • D 3 FOUND t PIPE IN CONCRETE 111/ 2" BRASS CAP STAMPED '14.P.S." a 17'4114. 62 '54 J.4si, SCALE: 1' 60' 0 60 120 180 VICINITY MAP SCALE 1".100' ---___ 419 ----.4..,....., SI - - ..,,. • THE KITCHEN AND BATHROOMS (0.560 SF) • THE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LINE (526' LONG) • THE BURIED CAS SERVICE UNE TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING . THE WATER MAN EXTENSION. FIRE HYDRANT. SPRINKLER UNE ANO SERKCE LINE TO DIE PROPOSED BUILDING • THE SECONDARY ELECTRIC SERVICE UNE FROG BURIED PRIMARY UNE TO THE PROPOSED BU6DIN0 • PAVED ADA COMPLIANT PARKING SPACES WON CURB AHD GUTTER . ADA COMPUANT CONCRETE WALKWAYS FROM ADA PARKING SPACES TO BATHROOMS. FOOD SEANCE UNE. AROUND PROPOSED WILDING AND INTO OWING TENT . THE SOFT SURFACE ERNE FROM THE TENT SITE TO TIE FREE SHUTTLE STOP ON HWY 66 • ALL Of THE LANDSCAPING ALONG WILLS DRIVE • GRADING OF GRAVEL PARKING LOT • GRADING OF RE-ROUTED DRAINAGE SCALE 040 GRADING 08 DETENTION POND PREFERS' OWNER. ELS MEADOW RY ESSENTIAL DROOP AEC C/O BEWAIL ANDRE:MI 17E00 WEST COLFAX AVENUE COLDER. COLORADO 8040$ ENGINEER' LONNIE L SHELDON CO PI AND PIS 26074 VAN BORN ENWNIERINE AND SHRYITING $043 FISH CREEK ROAD ESTES PARE, CO 80910 910-086-8088 AEELLCANT: ANESELLE WEAR LAZY RANCH AND !MATURE 076,507-0011 Altrioracr MEE LANE BASIS ARCHITECTURE 1800 LUG THORPSON ANIMA SORE goo ESTES HARE co ROW 1170-586-0130 LAZY H 1-ANCH AND IITRA GLENS, LLC EVELOPME T PLAN TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF IRE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., LARImER COUNTY, COLORADO • KN s DO' WIDE ROAD RIGHT-Or-WAY AS DESCRIBED RI BOOK 506 PAGE 71 AND 09E4 FOUND LIDNuMENTATON DELTA.632'04- R.603.17 1-60.77' CND. 544'1502'14 68.73' (R=603.00) FOUND IA REBAR WITH NO CAP . • SO,T24.2719 (S03'24'2719 43.87 FOUND 14 DEEM WW14 CAR 1.5.649 FOUND I/r REBAR AI40 CAP LS.75760 ACCEPTED AS HWY R-0-14 LAO 30' RIDE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 506 PAGE 71 AND USING FOUND MONUMENTATION NORTH EDGE OF MILLS ORK IS APPROXIMATELY 7.6' OUT Of THE R-O-W EXISTING CONCRETE PAD/ FOUND 14 *-1 ROAR ' No ACCEPTED AS 94 BOUNDARY 4,1%.` CORNER - a.t. 15' SIDE BONDING SETBACK (TYP.)4,..:64' I 15' WATERLINE EASEMENT 4"., ALONG NORTH AND WEST / LINES PER 6 994 P 132 / -.. ..._ •..[EUND ,f. RERANc W/ , \ '... \...........,,,c 26974 /., -it 0000 (00.00) FAIRING CONIFEROUS TREE 005,W ROW OF TREES/SNUBS 0 FOLRIC 9.1 REINA NON 01.15115 Lw PUS 1809 (UNLEss OINERNISE RECIED) MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIVERSKNS PLATTED OR DEEDED OWENSIONS FOUND 2 //.2* BRASS CAP ON A TT PIPE VALUED (SOLO NE 1/16 SECTION 34-13N-RE3W 1926. 1974 73.88.8 30WI pump p PA, R9D407 Mans KERR FA/ ALUMINUM CAP 29415 PHASE 1, SITE PLAN ETTSTING STATISTICA1 INFORMATION: CURRENT ZONING:. ACCOmmo114110.5 (A) CURRENT BUILT/NO SETBACKS: 15' FRONT (25' ARTERML). 15' SIDE TO' REAR PROPERTY AREA 1,336,470 SF, 3075 ACRES LOT COVERAGE, APPROXIMATELY 197,716 Sr.15% PROPOSED STATISTICAL INFORMATION.. PROJECT AREA 1,339,470 SF, 30.75 ACRES PROPOSED ZONING AN0 BUILDING 00709065: ACCOMMODATIONS (A) IV FRONT/SIDE 10' REAR DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY: 38,542.93 SF. 0.88 ACRES (30' FROM BOOK AND PAGE TOGETHER WITH AND ADDITIONAL 15' DEBUTED AS PART Of THIS SUBMITTAL) ADJUSTED PROJECT AREA 1,300,927.07 SF, 29.87 ACRES PROPOSED USE MANOR ENTERTAINMENT EVENT. INDOOR FACILITY AVERAGE SLOPE: 3.7; PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: 17,910 SF MAJOR EVENT FACILITY PARKING: REQUIRED (PER TRAFFIC STUDY): 750 PEOPLE/3,5 PEOPLE/VEHICLE-215 SPACES 192 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE REOUIRECH-6 PROVIDED I LOADING SPACE REQUIRED.) PROVIDED 5 CHARIER BUS SPACES (I 25PPL/BUS) ID BIKE CAPACRY BIKE RACK All BUILDING HEIGHT: 26,25', 32.0' ALLOWED WITH SLIDING SCALE PER SIX LOT COVERAGE 50; ALLOWED 15; EXISTING 290.740/1.300,927.07 SF-22.3; PROPOSED CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL ME UNDERSIGNED. BONG THE °WETS. DO HEREBY AGREE THAT THE REAL PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAIT REVIEW FILED HEREWITH, AND AS SHOWN ON TANS SITE PLAN THREE -PRASE PROJECT PLAN . SHALE RE SUDECT TO THE PROVISIONS Or TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TORN OF ESTES PARK. COLORADO AND ANY OTHER PHASE ONE ORDINANCES Of THE TON GE ESTES PARK. COLORADO PERIAJNING • ALL OF THE GRADING AND PANIN0 AND CURS AND GUTTER FOR MILLS not THERETO. TO PROPOSED STE ENTRY. ALL OCAS AND STRIPING (SEE ROAD DESON SHEET) . THE RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE OFF OF •NY 66 ELK MEADOW RV ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC. RANDY JACKSON. OWNER ILK IILALAJW RV ESSENTIAL MOP. LIE. MICHAEL ANDPZEJECR, OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES CERTIFICATE: APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. COLORADO BY A RESOLUTION ON THIS DAT CF 2016. JACKIE WILLIMISON. TOWN CLEW . MAYOR CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL DIE UNDERSIGNED. BEING THE CARERS, OD HEREBY AGREE THAT THE REAL PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED PI THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN READ.: PILED HEREWITH, MID AS SHOWN ON THIS SHE PLAN SHALL RE SUBJECT TO TIE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TORN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AND ANY OTHER ORDINANCES OF THE TOWEL OF ESTES PARK. COLORADO PERTAINING THERETO. NO TES: 1, THE OWNER SHWA. BE REQUIRED TO PRONDE FOR HANDCAR AECESSIBIUTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADA AND I.B.C. 2. EXTERIOR LIGHTING FALL BE LOCATED AT THE REWIRED ENTRY POINTS OF THE NEW BUILDING. ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING AND 1411 BE st•TELDED ANSI DEFLECTED DOVIIMARO. comPUANCE WITH SECTOR 7.9 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE IS RECUIRED 3. ALL REQUIRED ITAPROVENIERS SHALL BE COMPLETED OR GUARANTEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVDC SECTIONS 7.12 AND 10.5K. 4. PER SECTION 7.13. 'CONDUIT. METERS, VENTS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO WE BUXONG OR PROTRUDING FROM THE ROOF SHALL BE SCREENED. COVERED OR PAINTED TO AANTATZE VISUAL IMPACTS" 5. APPROVAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RICHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24, C.N.S. AS PARDEE. 6. CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON ON A SURVEY CONTROL POINT SET ON THE SITE AT NA ASSURED ELEVATION Of 7726.27' INTERPOLATED FROM DIGITAL TOWN TOPOGRAPHY (1999). CONTOURS ARE SHOWN AT I' INTERVALS, 7, SEE SHEETS 2-6 OF 10 FOR ADOTIONAL DIE DEVELOPMENT DETAIL. 8 TH15 PROPERTY DOES NOT FALL MOON THE GEOLOOC HAZARD MITIGATION AREA, 9. A SHALL PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY GOES FALL RATAN THE 01901 WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATOR AREA AND SHALL MITIGATE TREES ACCORDINGLY. 10. THERE ARE TAO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US LOCATED ON THIS DIE PLEASE REFER TO PRELIMINARY WETLAND SCREENING REPORT, 11. THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND RENO DATED JANUARY 13, 2016 814014 MATT MUCK COLORADO PE 15263 SHOULD BE REFERRED FOR TRAFFIC CONCERNS. 12. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COMPLETED IN 3 PHASES AS OUTLINED ON THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 13. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY ZONED A-ACCOMMODATIONS. 14. THIS DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES COMPLIANCE MTH THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE AND INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. IS. THIS IDEvELOPIAENT RECUIRES COMPLIANCE VADI THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL MOE. IC NO OUTSIDE STORAGE ALLOWED. IT. UlluTES ARE SCHEMATIC. THE ACTUAL LOCATIONS MU. BE FIELD FIT AT THE RARE OF INSTALLATION AND DESIGNED MTH CONSTRUCTOR KANS. TEL LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE DESIGNATED IN THE FIELD PRIOR 10 COMMENCEMENT OR EXCAVATION. GRADING, OR CONSTRUCTION MM CONSTRUCTION BARRIER FENDING OR SOME OTHER METHOD APPROVED BY STAFT. I9. STOCKPILING SHALL NOT OCCUR OUTSIDE THE DELINEATED UNITS OF DISTuRBANCE, 20. NO FENCING ALLOWED, EXCEPT AS REOURED TO PROTECT LANDSCAPING. 21. LIGHTING SHALL BE REDUCED AFTER TO PM. DAVIS_OE_REARINCS STATEMENT. OASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE SOUTH PROPERTY UNE MONINENTED IN THE FIELD WITH CONTROL MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON. SAID LINE IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N63'11'4514, OUND 2' BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE CYLINDER PRAT NO. 2007-05-23 DIRE: DRAWN BR CHECKED BY: IAS SCALE 01/20/16 CIE. O 8 oi• l D PRONE 910. 2007-00-23 LAZY RANCH AND WRANGLERS, LLC DEVELOPMENT PLAN TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/9 OF THE NE 1/9 OF SECTION 34, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY. COLORADO O • GATE HOUSE NN DELTA-6'3204' 17•4603.0 LK66.77. CND.. 544'15'021T 68.73' (N60.3 00) FOUND #6 REBAR WITIt NO CAP 50314'27D 415), (503'24'27"W 4197 FOUND 94 REPAR WIT CAP L.S.649 FOUND /2' RERAR 4140 CAM L5.15760 ACCEPTED AS NW( R-0-w LIMIT 30' WIDE ROAD RICHT-OF-WAY AS DESCRIBED 94 6004 506 PAGE 71 AND USING FOUNT mOnrumENTATION • RECREAlLoN. HALL -REM OL E.E0.A77.26:27' 30F WIRE ROAD ROUT-OF-WAY AS DESCRIBED R4 BOCK 506 PAGE 71 AND USING FOUND MONUmENIATION. NORM EDGE Of MILS DRIVE IS APPROXIMATELY 7.6. OUT OF THE R-0-w FOUND 94 f', REUAR e'i, ACCEPTED AS 41. BOUT/DART .4 I. CORNER -Nt 15- SIDE 54.21.04c 5ETRAcx (TIP.) 4507 IS' WATERLINE EASEMENT ALONG NORTH ANC WEST UNES PER El 994 P 132 ,`,.POND 14 RUM W/ , \ 7 PLASM CAP LS • .- 26974 • ...L., FOUND 2 l/2 BRASS CAP ON A 1" PIPE STAMPED USGLO NE 1/16 SECTION 34-T5N-073w 1926. 1974 SCALE: T" 60' 00 120 180 AND 2" BRASS CAP RI CONCRETE CYLINDER •-‘ FOUND REIEAR O OUND ROAR W/ ALUMINUM CAP 29415 Ism TioNsFoRLIER ELEcTiac poRSIAL HCR DELTIC SENAGE RANO. LOON POLE TELEPHONE PE0E51AL RATER SPUN or VALVE FARE ITTEMIANT SEWER CLEMONS SEWER Am.= STORM SEWER WARM LIMIT OF nrumula Rot 1)00 PRINAFRIT 004 EluSTIND 00100 CONTOUR PIPING MINOR CONTOUR PR0IOSE0 MAJOR CONTOUR PROTOSE0 MINOR CON10uR DOSING DECO.. TREE [SONIC CONITEITOUR TREE FxSlrc 1100 OT TREES/SOURS 1JCEND FERGE (As NOSED) - SEWER UNE-04VAC - SEWER LIME - NBA - WATER LINE-EIRSDAM. WATER uNE - HEFT -- OS ENIVING BONED sEcoNEvirT Soma 0RE1910 CNERMEAD nor UNE -C-E- NEW swum SEcoNomEr DUNCE - srowN SEWER U.< - NEW 0 UTIUTY POLE EASEMENT (AS NOTED) ROAD OR OWE TO OE REL.:RW.1E4ED EM511110 ROAD OR ORS( NEw ROAD OR ORNE PROPOSED CORDEVE 10+50 94 RED. NTH ALARM c. PS 1485 (UNLESS oTNERNSE NOTED) MEASURED OR CALCULATED 1240190115 PLATED OR DEEDED MANSIONS THREE,PHASF PROJECT PLAN PHASE IWO . THE DINING NALL (12.200 SF) • ADA COMPLIANT CONCRETE WALKWAYS FROM ADA PARKING SPACES TO NEW BUILDING • INTERNAL LOT LANDSCAPING EN S tl 0 00.0D (00.00) RAWN BY, CML CHECKED BY: 0.62 SCALE 1.1060. DATE. 01/20/16 SHEET 2 0 , 10 2 0 TI rz DRAWN 60: CML SCALE rw3IT DOTE: 01/20/16 SHEET ,AZY BRANCH AND WRANG —ERS, ,C DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 34. TAN, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M.. LARIMER COUNTY. COLORADO • - <-1 /fro EXISTING 1 5 '' CULVERT SURV • CONT OL 'INV OUT =27.7/ Vvrtilhf) NV OUT--,-,'S,.00 ELEV. = 7726_27' • Sly 339 339 ;?s•----„,, <-9) --„ L 7f1 =771 .0 uT=77 0.8 7705 MANAGERS LODGE P POSED BUILDING 17,:10 SF FFE 7712.6' • ND #4 REB• WITH • LASTIC CAP 15760 FOUND EXr. PRC TAN EXISTING -CONCRETE PAD TRACT I NIEBUR EXEMPTION ZONE A-1 TRACT 2A NIEBUR EXEMPTION ZONE A-1 15' SIDE BUILDING 5E7E0 15' WATERLINE EASE ALONG NORTH AND LINES PER B 994 P qO co 0 co Oa PYN cs) c0 O) CHECKED LAS THREE - PMASE PROJECT PLAN: PHASE THREE: • PAVE. STRIPE AND CURB AND DUMP THE PARKING LOT • INSTALL PARKING LOT MANAGE FEATURES • INSTALL PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING PROJ 2007-05-23 LEGEND • 1504 TRuisForaUN M [Limn Fromm CN NEW ELECTIK !MACE PANEL LATH POLL • TELEPNONE PEDMIAL • RATER £40n OFF VALVE t FIRE HYDRANT O SEWER CLEANC4/15 SEINER muNIGLE STORE. SOWN lavINOLE —E—E-- NEN Boum stcomaor SERHCF ---S— sum SOREN EVE - NEN - SUIT OF OFFILRIANGF CONCRETE PAVING ADD TRIED OLIANSTER PRO 0/ FENCED ORCLOSNRE PRopENTE UNE ERNIING 14.100 CONTOUR COSMO MISER CoNTouR ozroc ROW OR NINE NETT MAD an DRNE PROPOSED MAJOR Gamow PROPOSED MINOR COMMA PROPOSED CONCIREEL • EARTHS OECEDUOLS TREE 0 PHONE 44 MIN VEEN PIASnc CAP P D465 (NAM OTNEANSE NOM 057110 CONAENOUS TREE OLEO° (0000) MEASURED OR CALCULATEDON O EAGNE PLATTED OR DEEDED onrthsporis C=) CASTING NON CF TREES/SHRUBS SCALE J ST' 0 3, 60 —K-5— SERER UNE-DSTINC 66,46 u66 - wEvg —- 6.-6— WATER ONE-IANIING WATER Ore - IFEER —FE -- EOM° BURIED SECONDARY SEANCE CoSING CNERN013 unuTT INF FENCE (0 NOTED) 0 WAIN POLE OL5040.17 (AS NOTED) ROAD DA DRAT TO IF REMOVED/ALIGNED =COM 1114NSF010039 • OWE 1:11 Olte1710 PEW& 34, P02441rf cow 4 seE Low POLE ED ROOM POMO 13:1 OWE PECCITY ▪ OOP 111.11 WE mut 17 11111 warm WOW 0111007100 18071 =oars orme arm/ MOM OEM WOWS PINCIPINW 1114 DEITOM IMSA CCWItull nano WOO 001001.11 PlOPOIED 10116 OWTOLO PICPCIIED IOW GONFOLO O COSMO DECOLOW 1/12 • COMM OLWZMOO 1102 C:=D DEMO POP Or neuillSouri 1DOX OS 101130 • WIER WIE..130EIE0 -11•••••• WW1 LOIE 4w LI4-ENOTO10 WM 144 - 1011 - - MOM Sone 51:00141W1 11EPOCE 04--- MOW WOK* MAY Lid 111•1 DIM WEXPOOrr 4w - 4w MO wit - 404 0 WORT POLE IMMO SIMKO 00031311 ObE 4w) MO 01 1114 10 Pt LW 04131/P0131EO PEND COOMIUME MOW 14140 OR EOM MOP 004) 11114 MOM= COWOLIE 0 rOLND 114 4w 44 ALAIMO OW PLO 8403 P4w 07101144 44140 WNW= OR ObLOOLCIED OWOOME. MOO PLAITED Olt ECEND OWDOK40 (MOO) LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS, LLC DEVELOPMENT PLAN TWO PARCELS LOGIkTED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TSN, P33W OF THE 6TH - PhD 0-9- ) 0.s," t co* S?,i tS SF 60 ne C3 1 C,00w -c lik oto .cv0 14, Mr= 1. 114 101414 0014 4110191011 1103 All APPROVED 1113104 /0/31/ NO AD.PCE111 POOACT. 1T.E MOTH OF WATER WM 10 DIE PROPOSED IMMO IS APP10:03.11141Y 2. 714 01440500 KW MOVE LEE B A Er LOC APPROICWATELT tar Di LE1431/1. 3, TIC flash= OYCIPEPO ELE0140 Lb= flay OE MAU Moo 114 OISTALLE11011 OF 714 1013111 OWL 4. MR OPTICS AMO MILE 043 OILL S1PRE A TRENCH 117711 ELICTRIG =wow LIE 4415 00:01114 Or MLLE 11414 1445 14111ED TELEPMOME SERVICE 1.143 WE MOE= TO BC MEOW 1ELEPT10PE MOM A 114 DIATURAL OAS 144 CS MEWED 10 SE N 1,1113 DIM A NEW OUR= OAS 1.1.4 OIL COWECT TOM GAS 114111. A iikter bro `. ND ? 905 S° '',14N5 t.0 PP 50 44\ R ,\a- 0• Egoto 551 Ace, W! Es ; SMEET =ALL 30' 0 20 I0 40 10 PRO2 NO 2007 05-23 2' STANDARD DRAIN PAN SECTION NOT TO SCALE 4 t 1/2. 3' CLEAR / 4 , L; E .IU C REDITOPEE 0/ 1. RUMP L0.11106. LAZY -I RANCH AND WRANGLERS, LLC ROAD PLAN O 04 Non. DAMAGE .40 6040 BASE 70 DE TESTED tiflu P14004 ROLE TO IR DDICSSED 01 130E PUNIC 455665 005.00.11 OR T. 050IN101 OF RECORD L 10,Q1D " FEEAV WITH r.- -----T-*LAST IC AP 15760 TRACT ZA NIESJR EXEktrICLq 2C-NE A - [73 STANDARD TYPE 2 CURB AND GUTTER SECTION NOT TO SCALE 1/2 2' \\\_ 2 4 Exit1R, , C, 3 X ,S.T.N2 CONCRE / PAD) ,/ / • 1.10 RE 0.54.0 PS C NY • 5 SD( Sf (10 1 IC' 00104,4 143E0(0. A.006 NOR, AND 00E7 LINES EP A 55/ 732 / \ lOuNO 1EH'4 %t 7499./ / auSIK LS .24 DRAINAGE CuLvERI 52674 00% 63E0" 1S34-ET 49 ,7 A • 4/e 10 +/4 B 1' 0 . 1 1/2' TO I' z E" MORIN Err CUB CHECKED 63. LAS SCALE VARIES , , , I ;5 • 4n,LAN6 .1 .An non, 60;52../2647 Am4, C. SL F _at•6 orb R JG V. ALL ROAD SHOULDERS SNOULD BE DRILL SEEDED OR NYDRDMULCKED EROSION CONTROL FABRIC 0.5 2 SLOPES OR GREATER WIN ENGNEER APNOVED SEED RIP BACkau. MUST BEE. COMPACTED 7D 90% 2 0.1 110=Le=r117==r4Z-11"-----"-"'"-"--- IT" wit •14. -2- 4% 3- COMPACTED TIRE 5% HOT MC ASPNA1.1 N4 PLACE FOR MILLS DR. COMPACTED TYPE SI HOT NIX ASPN4L1 PT PLACE FOR SPQR 66 e COMPACTED AGGREGATE ROAD CASE WEIR TINES COMPACTOR WILL BE 70 95% OR BETTER 00110041 WATER CONTENT A25 COMPACTED SUE BASE MA.1100.6. 70 9.5% OR BETTER OPTRALNA WATER CONTENT *2%. FREE Or ORGANIC mATERLAL CONCRETE CMG AND GuRTER OR (TYPE 2 - 15' PAN. CURB) (TYPE 2 - V mOUNTABLE. 7 GUTTER) 24 OR 2-4X -- 1136.4 0109116 E 1- XESA -4 PTICN 20‘E 4 - •I Sues,. 155% G064.71046 I OATE• 01/19/16 TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, T5N, R7310 OF THE 6TH FI6,. LARWER COUNTY. COLORADO 00 01950 11000 1.50 1.06 6.50 HOC 5•50 5.00 ••50 4400 3.50 3•04 2950 2•05 1.50 1.00 0465 0 00 PROFILE HORIZONTAL SCALE: I" = 40. VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 10' -4- F611 PA 00 0' STA A [LEO .. A.D. A ,/C 4.52.93 7695.92 .374 ...-- E 34 r4 . g a g . TI CR.. L ., CROSS__, SLAP( 1 YCP I. C .55 716 PROPOSES ,NOTE. 1,4%. LIPE luS ST 5. IS TO Ha. .S 70 MATCH 46 ELLV..0567 A IA Ilf CROSS 5 RIST. PT ST • Et, ,,, „..„ -._. 4 .4..1,Z 47 „ 8 „. n . Vat' g. . % .,',., Vat' •• . • 11. „ 7720 7700 047 Paso ter PARCELS 3534 I -OD- 033 20NE A- I J' CLEM MOUNTABLE TYPE 2 CURB AND CUTTER SECTION NOT TO SCALE SHEET Cr 10 SCALE: 1. 40' 40 60 120 LEGEND • RATIO 1027 M7 Old' • FIRE • 10050 /4 RERAN 0113 P0451,0 CAA PLO 9455 (UNLESS 0710045751 50710) D0 C:I 6EASU6t0 00 CosCuLATED 00655.015 100 07) PATTED OR DEEDED 0.16 43 05 - - • - r1100ERTY UN1 -- 11.5,%4 MAIOI 00041g.,% 1415704 6+006 crpeRtm PROPOSED MAADR CONTOUR PROPOSER MK! CONTOUR - • - MSC Alau642 - SEWER MAC-TaiSTING 1 - SEPTA Urd - IRA RATER u.-PaSTING - • - WATER 1,4( - - - - HALING SM.. AO. PC. OR (RN[ MID OR ORME 10 et in%0410.10000 STOP_SIGN DETAIAR aor 1D Sfi2L SEE WILIER 05.6471. RURAL WA Pa00 STRAVROS C DRA611023 A, I .0 0 P51 stuern, 0E746.5 PERTAIN. 10 THE DIMATN A.NO GONSTRuallOx Of STREET SONS. LOLLS STOP DR. ,-44.UT.CO. R1-7 SOON (30' REFLECTIVE .090 ALUMINUM) I M.U.t.C.D. 53-1 5/5145 (9 036 REFLECTNE W/ 6' LETTERING WO liOCK ALLIMINUSI) GROI.Dir 6 u FO,Pst, REDAA w.IN 4,4514 CAP u•ss 50.16; RE5•4 TYPICAL PUBLIC ROAD CROSS SECTION PO SCALE ROAD SLOPE CROWN SLOPE 05% 2% 59-11% 285 RADII ON TRACT 2A NIEBUR EXEMPTION ZONE A— 1 SUN COTTA PROPOSE ASSEMB R 7 7 " •7._. 07, - e•-rr XtSTIN 0- PO PC 1 :?&\* • ,N , LAZY B RANCH AND WRANGLERS, LLC DEVELOPMENT PLAN TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, T5N, 673* OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO a 11104000110 1111171C PECCSG1L 8 PPOICIRTY ION UMW) MOP" 000r10,1 1:41PO0 MOP concur novo= tobrill COMA PrOPOSLO -40 401740 MOM =IWO, WE MUM 00.l* 240 MOW NOP Or 01111/11414110 0 Inlet PO NOW LOP-0010Pr I •••• IM -40 LPE-COSTS0 ION -40 - WPM KM 14040740700 4040 04040 mire ION DIM NECOMARY =MN - 0040w - ICP 0 01407 100 MOM (00100100) PM 00 DIM 10 00 14111041)/81:0710 WO COMM Dane nan OPIM MR IOC 011 OlIVE raorooto OSIGIVE 7000 /4 WPM MI PlAPOC C•P PIS MIZIS 104040 4000) 0000 004040 00 MOJA= 01108440 (MOO) PIM= OR =OIL 011:11100 DRAM BY: alb= gr: CO& LAS ORE 01 /R0/l0 OMIT or 6 10 SCALE XillitilltiLite= ret 01010:80 II? Oa? LOIORI 00 ROO 2.00 411-400 11.0 • 1101100 WO ME MK MP PC WV VIIMIT WELL PPM MIX IM 111011. IVALIS WILE 40 42% OM= LOT IPM. MOM IOW+ UPS WA 0 20 40 80 Botcrica1 Nane Carrnon Wane SeelCorrition Other Halts 3 Popubs tremuloides - Clurnp Aspen, Ou:bing (Clump} 2.017" a 6 Berber's thrbenj Rose Glad Bcrberry, Rose Glow 45 B Rurbeckia fulg1Gokbturrn Black-Eyed Suscr 41 .. Acer necp-do Sensation' Boxelder, Sensation 2.00' Shepherda a-T.-ate° I Buffaioberry 115 43 Euartyrrus rictus torrpactter Btrri-la Bush, Durcrf 45 V Ratbida cobrrrifera Coneftwer, Mexiccr Not Pr cirie 41 V Echnocea pu-txrea Coneflauer, Purple 41' 17 Cotoneaster CpiCiliaLv5 Cotoreaster, Crcrberry 45 5 hiolus 'Dolga" Crcb, Dolga 200" I Maks Ro:knt' Crcb, Rodent 200' 3 Molts 'Spring Snot? 2.ar Crab, 44 i xj Emu 5 Rbes a1pirum Currant, None 115 25 Riles cereum CUrralt. Squaw 155 b Leuca su'Alaskol Dcisy, Ebta 41 5 Abies concokr Fr, White 5.0 14 GrFestuca anjohBbe Gross, Man Elbe Fescue 41 6 Crataegn x ma-denensis 'Tobd I-Witham Tr& 2,00' 33 Jtriperus scbino 13uffcgo' inber, Buffalo 45 24 Juriperus sohno Calgary CoTpet Juiper, Calgary Capet 45 7 Juriperus sccpulorurn Inper, Rocky rkuitcir bp' 5 5Yrbga wk -is Licrc, Common Rrple 45 3 5yringo vulga-is 'Alba' Lilac, Corrrnx Hite 555 2 Sothis Clapaia Plantar, Ash, Europecr zocf' 7 Cercoccrpus manta-us hbuntcin Mahogany 45 17 Physocarpos opulifolius Ncnd hinebcrk, Dwarf #5 3 Quercus rnocroca-pa Oak, Bur wa' 2 Pius cristota Fne, Bristecone ‘,.co 3 Pros elUs Fne, Anon 6.0 I? Prtrus x cistena Flurry Rrpre-Leaf 555 25 Potentila fruticoso Potenblkk Native Yellow 515 V Prtnus besseyi Co &Ferry, Western #5 6 Spree° jcparica 'Anthony Waterer' Spire°, Anthony Waterer 45 b Spiroeo ripponica ISnaurrounci Sprea, Snaurnand 45 6 Achl hoordind Tcrrow, hborshine al • 15021.r. 1"501 0.1,1 MM. I 15.5.,Ssmom 5 MM.e, 0.4 II% PIM 5 Om., Ises Om/ WT MS PAS3c oMS 10 5.S W Tan OMB TO EL WW1 GRAM 111. NW S M5O3 rms, Me1 Impn fano) rod. •rt...1 I DETALED LATLSCAFE ASSET:ES NO NALAIITT FOR ELEFENTS Cr PLAN rFLID-ENTED BY OTNE,R5 CONTRACTORS 10 REVD." ALL PLANS FOR GRADING MID DRANAGE AND ADJ.ST ACCORENCLY TO ABDE BY ALL MY, ccurrr AND STATE RECaATONS 2 ON ER TO APPROVE ENTRE PLAN BEFORE NSTALI_ATIDN ALL UTLITES ARE TO BE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGNNID ANY NOR( CONTACT LUDY NOTFLATEN CENTER OF COLORADO. 1.600.422F67 4 CONTRACTOR TO caf-Rn LOCATIONS Cr ALL MATERIALS FSTII a44ER POOR TO NSTALLATEN S CONTRACTOR 10 CCNERM ALL rEasuRbions. FLAN BASED ON SITE MEARRITENTS 40 LC PROVIDED ST ONNER I ALL PLANT GUANTTTES TO BE TAKEN FROM FLAN RATHER THAN PLANT LOT. 7. POSTINE MANAGE /NAT FROM D(STNG AM PROPOSED STRICTURES TO BE MANTANED DURNC CONSTR.:1010N AND UPON COTIPLE1EN OF LANDSCAPNG. 8. CONTRACTOR TO DETEWITE ALL CONSTRLCTO4 t-EM4DDS. Al Pt CUAUTY OF PLANT rIATERIK SHALL Ca-FLY WIN TIE REOLRETENT5 OF TIE COLORADO KESERY ACT 1973 CRS TITLE 55, ARTICLE z EL ALL LANDSC.APNG nA-ruzw.s I=LAN-TED skau. BE HEALTHY AND BE COIPATELE Hal TIT LOCAL atiAIE ND 71-E SITE SCI. Cht6RACTERBTES, DRANAGE ATV WATER SUPPLY. I POOR TO NSTALLATEN OF LANDSCAPE MATERIAL, AREAS TWAT HAVE BEEN COMPACTED BY CONSTRICT/ON SHALL BE THOROWNLY LOOSENED. ORGANC ArENEFENTS SHALL. BE ThORCUGhLY ACORFORATED AT TA RATE Cr 3TD540005orr B ALL BED AREAS TO BE COVERED WO FNAL DEPTH OF I V2' TAN COBBLE 5NLESS OTHERNEE NOTED ON PLAN INOvEN, W RATED NEED BARRER FABRIC TO BE N5TALLED N ALL PLANING AND NON PLANTED ea) SPACES FAME To BE OvERLAPPED 6' Mill WITH NO MARE THAN 24, BE TEEN SOD STARES II ALL TREES TO BE STAKED AND GUYED FOR CNE YEAR APPROATE sAFIET CAPS TO BE USED ON ALL POSTS B ALL FLAW MATERIAL AND TURF TO BE RRIGATED RN AUTOMATED llNDERGROUD RRIGATON SYSTEM B CONTRACTOR TO NSTALL RRIGATON SITErt RRE,ATION SYSTEM TO FOLLOW ALL CTTT, realty AN) STATE REGLLATIDNEL PRP PMATIDN TO BE ',STALLED N ALL PLANT}4 BEDS use.* RANERD XERI-BLIG ErTTTERS AND V4' CETRBUTON TUBN.G. T. TURF RRCLATION TYPE AND LAYOUT THID LEON FNAL LAYOUT CF BED LNE5 AND ILARDSCAPE STRUCILRES. a AS BELT PRWON PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED LEON CONPLETON Of LANDSCAPE l urn /..11511n Mrisos Rom Matory.... I Ilan. 3 L. Com.51. I_ I OsokM Youslos 5 51..5 1.a. 5.125. 5M.o. 1.ussin.s. 5.43. — 2.01.551453.5 TAM 0.5-5.2 Mon 062MOW Yuma MO.124.1. 309155.3:2 TN= 111,44, $1.11.01Parl I MOM 0m1 1.pos 0.1.015,91 AMA TO!I 11.014 CHOOF BROM 5 Crow aim Me Mao • rule 131,4 3 r om we, arm. MR N MO.., Do. 53.4.2.1 I— PAM M.. 115.2.5153. NOTES 1.11 1114.101.3m2.33M5 I Detailed L ANDSC APE DETAILED LANDSCAPE 400 HEMLOCK STREET FORT COLLNS, CO 80524 9702214035 uAuw.cletcilecliandscape.corn IL5250. OMNI. 0.5 ..225 Wt. Wm 1533.2r1323 • LAZY B RANCH ELK MEADOW' CAMPGROUND WKS PARE COLORADO LANDSCAPE PLAN OVERALL PLAN • Oly Botaial tine Gahm Mane 5ae/Concilian Other Plants 3 Foal's tremiedes - ClurrF Aspen Otrkilig (amp) 200 CI 6 Berberis tiuterj Pose Glad Burberry, Rose Glow 115 0 Ritbetkia futiPickibrm Blai-Eyed 51.5m III 3 Acer negclo eriscrliant Boxelder, Sensatim 200 30 Euorvms ciatvs Uri-paws' Ba-ring Busll Dacrf 115 0 Pallid) colinnifera Conellaver, tlexiccri Nat Prcirk! itl I Nab WO Cab, Dolga 200 6 Lou su.'Alo51:d Dcisy, Shasta III 5 'Nies canceler Fr, White 8.0 0 Grfestuca gin jiBlue Grass, Eijcii Blue Fescue Ill 5 5yringa vulga's Lix, Cannon Purple 115 3 Syrinx AAggris PAW Lin, Carrion White If5 2 Sixtus cuctperio ttutin A54 Excpan 200' 2 Cercacrpus nxiikrus llounicin Itivesry 05 3 Querns mccraccrpa Oak, Bur 201 2 Pi-us at Iota Pine, Bristlecone bi 0 Parrs besseyi ScnilierTy, Western #15 6 Achl tbonsfind Ural), iloonsfir ill 1..‘ Loaf L DETALED LANDSCAPE ASSERTS NO LIABLITY FOR ELErENTS OF PLAN IFIFLETENTED BY GONERS CONTRACTOR5 TO SEVEN ALL FLANS FCR GRAIX4 All) DRANAGE AND ADIBT ACCORDNGLT To ABM BY ALL art, COLNTY AND STATE RECLIAATENS. 2 014ER TO APPROVE ENTRE PLAN BEFORE NSTALLATEN A ALL UTLITES ARE TO BE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGENPG ANT WORK CONTACT UTLITT N71E-EATEN CENTER Of COLORADO. 1.300322M7 4 CONTRACTOR TO COPERM LCCATDPE OF ALL MATERIALS 14TH CENER PRIOR TO NSTALLATION S CONTRACTOR TO cappr, ALL FEASUREFENTS PLAN BASED CPI SITE MEASURFFENT5 AND LC PROVDED BY 01+ER 6. ALL PLANT CUANTITE5 TO BE TAKFTI FROM FLAN RATHER THAN PLANT UST. 7. POSITNE DRANAGE AWAY FROM E>15116 AND PROPOSED 5113_CTI 'RFS TO BE MANTANIXL U. DURtYa CCUSTRECTEN AND UPON COMPLETON CF LAPDSCAPEC, B. CONTRACTOR TO DE-TERME ALL CONSTRICTION MUMS TIE GUALITy OF PLANT MATERIAL NULL COMPLY WV THE REOLIREMENTS CIF THE COLORADO NJRSERY ACT, F173 0.11.5, TITLE 35, ARTICLE 26 El ALL IA1475CAPPV MATERIALS PLANTED %ALL Br 1EALTIFr AND BE COMATBLE 14111 TIE LOCAL CLMATE AND TIE SITE SCL CNARACTERSTES, MANAGE A1,10 WATER SURELY. I, PRESS TO EISTALLATOK OF LANDSCAPE MATERIEL, AREAS TEAT HAVE BEEN COMPACTED BY CONSTRICTION SHALL BE IFERCUGILY LOOSENED. ORC,AFE ArEttrENTS SWILL BE TiVRCUGPLY tr-ORPORA1ED AT THE RATE CF 3TDS/O00S0FT ALL BED AREA.. TO BE COVERED PITH 3" FTLAL DEPTH OF I El TAN cOLLBE UNES6 OTHEREEE NOTED ON PLAN B wovnL W RATED HEED BARREN FABRIC TO BE WALLED N ALL PLANING AND NON PLANTED BED SPACES FABRC TO BE OVERLAPPED 5 FIN1.1-1 14TH NO MORE THAN 24 BETWEEN SOD STA19.14, It ALL TREES TO BE STAKED AID GUYED FOR ONE YEAR. APFROIATE SA7EY CAPS TO BE USED OW ALL POSTS, E. ALL PLANT MATERIEL AND TURF TO BE RRGATED PITH AUTOMATED UPDERGROUND RRELATEN SYSTEM L. CONTRACTOR TO EBTALL RRIGATION STIEFLRPJGATION SYSTEM TO FOLLOW ALL CITY, CCENTY AND STATE REGLIATENS DTP RREATION TO BE NELTALL ED N ALL pLANTNG BEDS LEND RALERD x011-BUG BITTERS AND V4 DIFIRBUTEN RPM. P. TURF IRRIGATION TYPE AND LAYOUT TBD WON FOIL LAYOUT OF BED LEES AND NARDSCAPE STRUCTURES. B. AS BELT RRIGAMON FLAN TO BE SURITTED LEON COMPLETION CF LANDSCAPE GOMM MIK. UPS 'IP P. OF MIST 0.111,10 5'... 51.4. IL POIle S ..M.PPP1 IOW 114, NY S tr. 9071. ros 715eftam. • 5., ...II. I pl.,* V — thart... lismPer, sm. I I T., I- • I • LANDSCAPE PLAN OVERALL PLAN LAZY B RANCH ELK MEADOW CAMPGROUND ESTES PARK COLORADO Detailed L A N D S C A PE DETAILED LANDSCAPE 400 HEMLOCK STREET FORT COLIN5, CO 80524 970.2214038 www.detdedlondscepe.com COI 0.1:091,1", • -e I Pr, i... 1 MyCN 61:C.0 Pr 2003.1.1 nil, DEPTH PAP WEL PAPPI" (Ard. Qty Botcra Nave Cooirron lirre Size/Cone& Other Plat 2 Acer negnio 5ertatiod Boxelder, Sensotion 200' 1 Shophordo a-Trite° But fckberry 115 5 honyrni5 olatus Urrioactus) Burrip, Biel} Duni 115 U Cotoreaster c0/511.6 Cotoneceer, Cranberry #5 3 Nis bolgo' Cab, Do19) 2.01 I His 12aint' Crcb, Rasial 200' 3 Nis $rinl 5rai1 Crap, Sprig Snow 2W 25 Rbes [ere= Currxt, Squaw #5 6 Cratoeqh x miner& 1 rho' 1-lalythorn, Toby 2.0C 33 *6.16 scfin9 19offold ,4er, Nab #5 24 .itoertb soloina Ca1gay Capet iri9er, Calpy Capet 115 4 4enh scopAantn iriper, Rocky rlountail 6.01 Physocaptpo cpitiorus lima' tinefxrk, Dual #5 12 RUE X (item Pull Puple-Leaf #5 22 Potentk frulkosa Meng°, Native Mow #5 6 5firaea jcporia 'Anthony Waterer' Spire), Anthony Nierer #5 L DETALED LAIESCAPE A551.1-1E5 NO I IAPISTY FOR REMITS OF PLAN I-FLEFENTED BY OTTERS. CONTRACTORS TO REVE.I ALL FLANS FOR GRAEM, AM) DRANAGE AR) AD. B7 ACCORDINGLY TO ABDE BY ALL an, COUNTY AND STATE REGILATIONS. 2 014ER TO APPROVE ENDRE PLAN BEFORE NSTALLATEN 3 ALL UTIJTES ARE TO BE LOCATED PRIOR TO BECOING ANY WOW. CONTACT UTUTI NOTEEATEN CD/TER Of COLORADO. 1000.9Z2/157 4 CONTRACTOR TO CON-1H1 LOCATIONS OF ALL MATERIALS v•ITH OPHER PROP TO NSTALLATION 5. CONTRACTOR TO COPERM ALL MEASURBIEWTS. PLAN BASED ON STE rEA5LRRENTS AN) LC PROVDED BY OeNER 6. ALL PLANT WANITTES TO BE TAREN FROM FLAN RATHER THAN PLANT LET. 7. POSITNE DRANAGE ANAY FROM BASING AND PROPOSED STACTI PP, TO BE TIANTANED PANG CONSTRICTION AHD UPON COT-KETCH CF LAW5CAR4 Br CONTRACTOR TO DETERME ALL CONSTRICTION FETHODS. 1 THE Oukurr Of RANT MATERIAL SHALL corpo- NTH TIE RECUREBFBITS OF DE COLORADO PIRSERY ACT, 1173 CRS, TITLE Y,„ ARTICLE 26 D. ALL LAIDSCAPNG MATERIALS PLANTBO SHALL BE W-ALTHT AtE) COMPATBLE PITH TIE LOCAL ClrIATE MD THE SITE SOL CHARACTERISTES, DRANAGE AND BRIER SOFTLY. PRIOR TO IETALLATION OF LANDKAPE MATERIAL, AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN COMACTED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED. ORGANIC Arectiarrs SHALL BE THORCLGHLY W_ORPORATED AT TIE RATE Of 3/D5/100050fT t2 ALL BED AREAS TO BE COVERED PITH 3' MAL DEPTH OF I VP TAN COBBLE UNESS 011452145E RAID ON PLAN 13 WOVEN IN RATED WEED BARRER FABRE TO BE NSTALLED N ALL FLANTNG AID NON PLANTED BED SPACES. FABRE TO BE OVERLAPPED 6' MAUI 1411-1 NO MORI THAN 24' BEDEW SOD STAPLES H ALL TREES TO BE STAKED AND GUM) FOR OLE YEAR. APFROATE SAFTET CAPS TO BE L&D ON ALL POSTS. B ALL PLANT MATERIAL AID TURF TO BE RREATED 1.1111 AUTOMATED LNDERGRON) RRIGATCN 5T5TEF1 ▪ CONTRACTOR TO NSTALL RR:CATER 517E71RRAATION SYSTEM TO FOLLOW ALL OTT COUNTY AEU STATE REGUATIONS. OPP RMATIoN TO BE NSTALLEDR ALL PLANTW1 BEDS USNG RA NERD XER-BBJra BITTERS AND V4' LISTREUTION O. TURF RRE,ATION TYPE AND LAYOUT 113D UPON FNAT LAYOUT CF BED LNES Alt) HARDSCAPE STRUCTIRES. B. AS &LT IRMAITEN FLAN TO BE 5534111ED WON corpii-noN OF LAIDSCAPE LANDSCAPE PLAN PHASE 2 Det L ANDSC A P E DETAILED LANDSCAPE 400 HEMLOCK STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 q702214038 www.cletciledanciscape,com 1061.14SMOrailla LAZY B RANCH ELK MEADOW CAMPGROUND &S RS PAK COLORADO MO4 WOKE,' MI WU" 19.1f Qty 13otaio! Nine Comm 5ue/Cordi9n Other Pints 3 Rrbedog ft4Gokishrm fki-Eyed 5uscn 111 8 Fuonyrws ciatv5 torrglps' 13u- g Bush; aur f 115 Fdiv:reo purprea Condi° wer , Purple iri 2 bolLTr Cray Doip 201 5 Rb es cipirm Currant, Akine 15 4 Grf esko 'Aire Gabs, Elijah at Fescue 111 *en6 scegiorum .1*, Rocky Math 0 5 Cercoarys rolgt6 Makin rawly 115 5 Physocapus oOloirs tird *ha+, Doll 115 3 P1115 eclis Pine, Ping) 3 Polenblla [Wow iebv $15 6 5pim bra 5roarard *-ea, 5flointnsl 15 trrrr- DK. MIND O1m TO b. OF 51981 O81TOQ rNM - I DETALED LANDSCAPE Assures ND LAXITY FOR ELEEENTS OF PLAN 11PIEYENTED BY 071-1M5. CONTRACTORS TO RENEW ALL PLANS FOR GRADING AND MANAGE AND ADJUST ACCORDINGLY TO ABIDE BY ALL CITY, courrr A.11) STATE REGIILATIONS 2 01+ER TO APPROVE PADRE PLAN BEFORE NSTATIATION 3 ALL UTLITT6 ARE TO BE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANT WORK CONTACT unrrr NOTFCATEN CENTER OF COLORADO 1.801.4221937 4 CCNTRACIOR TO corm LC:CAMAS OF ALL MATERIALS 4111.1 OMER FRPR TO NSTALLATION CONTRACTOR TO CC ERPI ALL MEASLREYEINTS, FLAN BASED ON SITE YEASLREPENTS NO LC PRONEED BY DINER G ALL PLANT OUANITTES TO BE TAKEN FROM PLAN RATHER THAN RANT LET. 7. POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM USING An) PROPOSED STRUCTURES TO BE TIANTANED DURING CONSTRLETION Alt) UPON COPPLEITN CF LANDSCAPING. B. CONTRACTOR TO remove ALL CCINSTRUCTION rmons. 114 TIE OUAUTT OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY NTH TIE RECIREPENTS OF TEE COLORADO 141RSERY ACT, P17'3 CRS TITLE 35, ARTELE 12 ALL LAAESCAP&G MATERIALS PLANTED SHALL BE WALTETT AN) BE COMPATENE 14TH TiE LOCAL. CLIMATE AN) THE SITE SOL CHARACTER1STr-S, DRANAGE Al•D WATER 9JEFLY. PROR TO NSTALLAIVN CF LAMSCAFf MATERIAL, AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPACTED BY CCNSTPLCTIN SNALL BE TVORaGiLLY LOOSENED. ORGAN) ArEICHENTS SHALL BE THOROUreLY NCORPGRATED AT THE RATE OF 31D5/00CSOFT B ALL BED AREAS TO BE COVERED 14111 FNAL DEPTH OF TAN COBBLE MESS OTHERPEE NOTED ON RAIL B. WOVEN, IN RATED INEED BARRER FABRIC TO BE NSTALLED N ALL PLANTING AND NON RANTED BED SPACES FABRE TO BE OVERLAPPED 611 MAKI 14T4.1 NO MORE THAN 241 BETWEEN SOD STAPLES 14 ALL TREES TO BE STAKED AND GUYED FOR ONE YEAR APFRGIATE SAFTEY CAPS TO BE USED ON All POSTS. E. Al PLANT MATERIAL AND TURF TO 8E RRIGATED 11TH AUTOMATED UNDERGROUND RRIGAIDN SYSTEM B CONTRACTOR TO NSTALL RRC,ATON srrErt RRIGATION SYSTEM TO FOLLOW ALL CITY, MINTY AN) STATE REGLEATIONS. DRP RRY.A TEN TO BF &STALLED &I ALL PLA1411,4 BEDS LBING RAKTERD SEE-BET) BITTERS AND V4 CISTRIBUTIDN TUBNG. P. TURF RRIGATION TYPE AND LAYOJT TBD UPON FNAL LAYOUT CF BED LEES AND EIARW-APZ STRUCTLRES. E. AS BAIT RIZraArT al PLAN TO BE SUBMTTED UPON COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPE 11611.01411.1C OMR. Det L ANDSCAPE DETALED LANDSCAPE 400 HEMLOCK STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 50524 c170.221/038 imuicletalecilandscape.com LANDSCAPE PLAN PHASE 3 LAZY B RANCH ELK MFADOir CAMPGROUND ESTES PARK. COLORADO 1141, C.1.770 I0 -hiwp 5k, Taw (G1.-t,.! 44, Jar., Re, 1.74, P C. A R CHIT EC T U R E • • • BAR CART AREA Said 1/8 1-0" OFRCE AREA- ,l,COCOsf BACK STAGE STAGE 301dr • • vox: 970.586.9140 BAS1S.com © BASIS Amhiteclure PC Issue: Development Plan Date: 1/19/2016 • L. To 3 C o cuC (0) LC) C c, O6 W O 170 u w es a. 0 + to 43 C NC a) CB 17). .1 w Sheet Title: PLANS Sheet No: Al (1) Floor Plan 1/8" = l'-D" 64 OAFS • na SF-ATS DRILIC 12,600d 1:17:14614, ETC:1,6061f COVERED PORCH DOULJDEID 74,0" 2 Office Mezzanine 1i---c-,5 South Elevation 1/8" .---- E U H T C C R A West Elevation 1/8" ao as 3 c 0 g tgh- cia is 244 8 U co *)) + CO O_ c N c a) O Sheet Title: ELEVATIONS Sheet No: A2 vox: 970.586.9140 BAS1S.corn © BASS ArdleCurP PC Issue: ev D elopment Plan Date: 1/19/2016 A R CH IT EC T U R E P C. North Elevation 1/8" = 1.--0" L 3 East Elevation 1,, _ -1:-.2 •-__:-.7,:' --;=.4„--=.1M1/111111111111111111111111111111 1/8" = 1'-0" CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING OVER SERVING LINE Sheet Tifte: ELEVATIONS Sheet No A2 PHASE ONE ELEVATIONS West Elevation 1/8" = l'-O" Wa11 EL 117-0- issmsysaygmagea : ••` ,\ CC South Elevation AIL'T.W-17 1/8" = 1-0" CLAD WOOD WINDOWS 12 CORRUGATED Mr/AL ROOFING IIII Milli 11 W1111111111 Issue: Development Plan Date: 1/19/2016 vox: 970.586.9140 BASIS cum O BASIS Arthiteclune. P C. I n 0 I • • .4; ig‘tsYC:,..`f... ti . - ice • BASIS Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers, LLC Dinner + Western Show Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 100 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 H m C m 4/19/2016 Town of Estes Park Mail - Urgent - Lazy-B development plan - from Johanna Darden https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a1a80c521a&view=pt&q=bdarden&qs=true&search=query&th=1542f06513bd43d4&siml=1542f06513bd43d4 1/1 Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Urgent - Lazy-B development plan - from Johanna Darden 1 message Bill J. Darden <bdarden@uchicago.edu>Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:57 AM To: "kthompson@estes.org" <kthompson@estes.org> April 19, 2016 Hi Karen, I found my comment along with the many others concerning the Lazy-B development plan on the Town's website. However, part of the comment was omitted. Please post this again so it will be read by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. My name was even left off of my comment. I am adding more to the previous comment, because I believe this development will impact more than the residents and the Rock Inn. "I vote NO on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. It's poor planning and reeks of "money talks." The Rock Inn is a great place to go to enjoy a relaxing fun time with friends and musicians. The area around it contributes to this uncongested, low traffic, nighttime environment. Support for the Rock Inn that has been thriving in the Estes Valley since I began coming here in 1977 should not have negative impacts on their business or the neighborhood (Mills Drive) nearby. -- Johanna Darden, 501 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517 To increase the number of tourists along the Hwy 66 corridor will complicate evacuation in case of fire. When the danger of fire occurred in the High Drive area a couple of years ago, the people at the YMCA were not permitted to leave. There was not an adequate plan to get the people along Hwy 66 evacuated in the event the fire could not be contained. To my knowledge this problem still exists. Property owners who insist on their rights to develop their land should be required to accommodate changes that are needed on their property only and within existing ordinances. Development plans should stay within the zoning and comply with current ordinances governing the property. This concept of placing conditions on development plans that allow the Board of Adjustment to play a major role in determining whether a project is approved is an inappropriate way of allowing a project and a way of abdicating the responsibility of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. I would have added my name to the list of people who want to keep tour buses out of neighborhoods as well. Ten years ago Estes Park was not a tourist town even though tourists visited here. So the idea that people who do not want excessive tourism should go elsewhere is ludicrous. Less is more! Please do not allow this project as the owners have currently requested. -- Johanna Darden, Full-Time Resident of Estes Park" E5TES A [p •PAPK Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> please vote NO! 1 message Betty Hodges <drbettyb@gmail.com> Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:14 PM To: planning@estes.org In regard to the proposed Lazy B development involving Spur 66 highway, we trust you will see the negative effects that would result from its fruition. We have been forced to evacuate twice in recent years on Spur 66 as a result of fire and flood, the only option for those of us living on this route and are appalled at the idea of hundreds more people added to the already extreme difficulty of emergency passage. To make a turn around for large buses in front of the Rock Inn is not feasible for many, many reasons enumerated by others, and there are other, better options. Sincerely Betty and David Hodges 2725 Cumulus Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 E5TES A fP PARK Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers 1 message BobbieB <bobbiebrown745@aol.com> Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:33 PM To: "kthompson@estes.org" <kthompson@estes.org> We are so excited to hear that the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers will open in Estes Park. My family is coming from out of State to celebrate graduation, and everyone is excited about the Lazy B. I think it is great to have another tourist attraction, but also one that the locals can enjoy. Bobbie and Mike Brown O EC E[I I VEr APR 15 2016 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan 1 message Donna Egan <dmcde@hotmail.com > Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:59 PM To: "kthompson@estes.org" <kthompson@estes.org > Hello Karen, Would you please see that the attached memo is posted for the Planning Commission to read? Thank you. p Subject: Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan I have reviewed the Staff Report and Agency comments on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan. I strongly urge the Commission to do their homework, in addition to reviewing this document. The item which seems to be minimized in this report is the overwhelming opposition to this proposal, not only from adjacent businesses and home owners but from throughout the community. Could it be both support and empathy driving this opposition....if it happens on Mills Drive it can happen in my neighborhood also? This report continues to overlook the devastation to a neighborhood. The proposed road widening and turning lane will cause undo hardship to these homes and business. Section 3.11 of the State Highway Access Code requires "turn lanes not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property". In this case hardship is an understatement. Devastation might be the correct wording. Please go out to Mills Drive and take a look at the proposal. Also, take a look at the existing campground entrance. At the prior meetings, I heard 3 different reasons why Lazy B can't use this entrance. So far, none make sense to me. Thank you for your time, To: The Estes Park Planning Commission From: Donna Egan, Estes Park Resident Date: April 15, 2016 Donna Egan E 5 T E $ I fl) PARK Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Lazy B 1 message Jan Holdorf <estespiper@hotmail.com> Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:11 PM To: "kthompson@estes.org" <kthompson@estes.org> Love The Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers. I can't imagine it going away after all the work they have done to get it going again. It's just a great experience. I know I enjoyed my time there. It's so Estes Park! Please don't make it go away. Sincerely, Jan Holdorf Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone A ESTES____.[PI,PARK Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Re: Lazy B 1 message Richard Anderson <guestmt@yahoo.corn> Reply-To: Richard Anderson <guestmt@yahoo.corn> To: "kthompson@estes.org" <kthompson@estes.org> Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:13 PM From: Richard Anderson <guestmt@yahoo.com> To: "kthompson@estes.com" <kthompson@estes.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 3:05 PM Subject: Lazy B To Whom it may concern, This should be allowed [Lazy B Wranglers]. Wholesome family entertainment, considerate hours, congeniality, tourist dollars to the town of Estes Park, and an added calling card for the town of Estes Park. I have enjoyed the previous show and would enjoy this one. And i might add so would many others. Respectfully, Rich Anderson April 12, 2016 Estes Park Community Development Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review To Whom It May Concern: 1 2 it) COMMUNI7YDEVELOPMENT This letter is intended to describe our concerns about potential adverse impacts that could result from the proposed Lazy B Ranch and Wrangler event center. We believe the proposed site design is the primary cause of these impacts, specifically the design to route traffic onto Mills Drive instead of the existing entrance to the property. We also believe the proposed phasing plan using a tent would have a disproportionate impact on the surrounding properties. As longtime Estes Park residents, parents, workers, property owners, business owner and employer, we are fully invested in Estes Park. We own Sun Cottages, located on Mills Drive across from the proposed Special Review use. We purchased Sun Cottages in 2005 and have since invested significant personal and financial capital in the property. We purchased Sun Cottages as a long-term financial investment and have consistently provided long-term housing for residents of Estes Park. As nearby property owners, we desire to see the neighborhood develop in a responsible manner that is a success for individual property owners, neighborhood residents, and Estes Park in general; the proverbial win-win outcome. If successful, the proposed entertainment facility would positively impact Estes Park's economy. At the same time, a successful but unmitigated facility would negatively impact surrounding land uses and public facilities. A win-lose outcome, with the nearby land uses and public facilities bearing the brunt of the impacts. Our chief concern relates to unmitigated negative impacts to Mills Drive and the "Rock Inn" intersection with County Road 69B. The issue of the turn-lane is an apparent conundrum of paramount concern: • If installed: It would not be built to proper specifications. • It would negatively impact the existing entrance to the RV park. • It would have a significant negative impact on the Rock Inn. • It would alter the decade's old Rock Inn parking and "create a hazard to pedestrians or motorists, invite or compel illegal or unsafe traffic movements or block or alter access to adjoining properties or uses." (Ap. • If not installed: • It would add delays for traffic going to the YMCA, Windcliff, the Dunraven and the Estes Park Campground. • It would require a stop-sign on County Rd 69B.( Spur 66) • This is why the turn-lane is warranted. Charles d hristina Santagati a‘3 • Either way the introduction of commercial traffic to Mills Drive would be a substantial change from the historic use as a service entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park and would without a doubt negatively impact land uses located on Mills Drive. We believe the site design could be amended to resolve this conundrum by installing the warranted turn-lane as the approach to the existing RV park entrance. This would eliminate imposed impacts to Mills Drive, the Rock Inn, and County Rd 69B. This would have the added advantage that existing traffic to the RV park would have a turn lane and could in fact reduce the overall impact of the property on County Rd 69B. Our secondary concern relates to the phasing plan. • The development code allows major entertainment event centers in the Accommodations zone district, but only 'indoor facilities'. We believe the phased tent concept violates the requirement for indoor facilities. • Because a noise study was not submitted, the potential impact of using a tent to contain the amplified sound and audience cheers cannot be determined and no mitigation techniques can be proposed. Without a noise study, it is impossible to determine if the phased project can comply with the Town's noise ordinance, which could lead to enforcement problems. • We are concerned about the potential for half a building to remain unbuilt, and potential for the temporary tent to become permanent. If infrastructure funding is a concern, perhaps the use could locate at the new events center for the first 2-3 seasons until capital can be raised to fully mitigate the potential impacts. Additional comments are outlined in an attachment. In summary, we believe: • The proposed site design has several potential impacts on nearby land uses and public services. • The site design does not mitigate these impacts to the maximum extent feasible as required by the development code. • The proposed design creates the impacts; specifically, the design to direct traffic onto Mills Drive instead of through the existing entrance as required by the development code. • The proposed phasing plan will create additional impacts to the neighborhood. Because of this, we respectfully request the Planning Commission recommend disapproval of the current site design. Respectfully, S,3 Additional Questions and Comments: Table 4-7 of the development code requires "to the maximum extent feasible, the number of curb cuts shall be minimized by consolidation, shared driveways or other means." The driveway and street design standards in the development code specifies shared driveways are "strongly encouraged" (ApD.III.B.6). • We believe the traffic study required by EVDC 5.1.0 does not fully assess the impacts of the proposed use on existing roads, intersections and circulation patterns, does not demonstrate compliance with the traffic facility standard set forth in §7.12 of the EVDC, and does not set forth mitigation measures to eliminate or substantially reduce such impacts. We believe a turn-lane at the existing entrance to the RV would eliminate such impacts. • Two of the requested variances seem to be at odds. One request is for reduced parking requirements, and justifies this request by referencing the public transit system. But another variance request is to waive connectivity standards to the transit stop. • The loading dock is designed such that it fronts Mills Drive; this location appears to result from using Mills Drive as access point. Landscaping is proposed to provide a visual buffer, but this will have little impact on noises of truck backing up and workers loading and unloading equipment and supplies. • We are concerned about potential impact of year-round use. Once approved, the venue could be used for any number of events, such as concerts or weddings. What is impact if the operation is successful and expands into a year round operation, with events 200-300 nights a year? • We are concerned about potential change to hours of operation. The Statement of Intent notes activities between 5-8 PM. Does this include deliveries, trash pick-up, and employee activities? • Phase Two proposes expanded hours of operation, but does not indicate what these will be or any future approval process. • We are concerned about potential use of firearms in western shows, as has occasionally occurred at the Elkorn Lodge. The development code specifically prohibits the use of firearms at such events. The Statement of intent does not to speak to this issue. • We question the long-term impact of approving this special review use. The recent Estes Park Housing Authority study quantifies the long-term trend and need for workforce housing; should this land that allows housing as a use-by-right be instead dedicated as an unproven entertainment venue? The EVDC does not provide for any new RV parks, which makes this a limited resource. What is the impact of losing these RV spaces? DATE: April 12, 2016 TO: Estes Valley Planning Commission FROM: Maureen and Jay Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive, Estes Park, CO RE: Addendum to February 24, 2016 Public Comments This is an addendum to the comments we sent in February in anticipation of the hearing that was set for earlier on Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers application for a special permit to build a Major Indoor Entertainment Venue on the property located at 1665 Hwy 66. It has been clarified to me that the Spur 66 Management Plan that I cited is obsolete and the current Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan is the one guiding us now. On pages 74-79 of the draft plan it includes the Spur 66 Neighborhood Plan. On page 78, it states, "The commercial campground at the Spur 66 Park entrance intersection should evolve into housing." Two of the waivers that are being requested have to do with required setbacks. They appear to be necessary to fit the building into the space. In one instance the developer wants to avoid putting loading areas at least 110' from the center of the street (Section 7.11.2.b). Their location on the plans is only about 110' from our front door! Another waiver requested is from providing the required number of parking spaces. The proposal also states that they will dedicate a new 20' utility easement and an additional 15' of R-O-W along the south property line. I do not believe that there is 65' of space between the south property line and the SE corner of the proposed building. Could it be that they are proposing to put this facility in a space that is not large enough? Their application states that the lot size is 30+ acres. Surely they could find room for it without asking for development code requirements to be waived. We have had time to review the Wetland and Wildlife Impact study reports. It seems to me that both were hurriedly done without much actual gathering of data. In one instance the ground being frozen was cited as a reason. They appear to have been done over a very short period of time in late fall or early winter. I also note that they were done by the same person who is listed as the project engineer on the application. This leads me to wonder about a conflict of interest. Could more thorough studies be ordered? We object to the issuance of a temporary use permit that allows for an entrance to be established on Mills Drive. This seems inappropriate when action on this application has generated so much public concern. A very permissive application of the EVDC was made to grant this permit without governing body review. Section 4.4 - A.1.a of the Estes Valley Development Code reads as follows: A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District. This district implements the "A-Accommodations" land use category set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. It applies primarily in highway-oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higher-intensity accommodations such as multi-story hotels and motels. A variety of related tourist-serving retail and commercial uses, such as restaurants, bars and gift shops, will he permitted, but only as accessory uses to a principal accommodations use and only if such supporting uses are located inside the same structure as the principal use. Stand-alone commercial or retail uses will not he permitted in this accommodations district: instead, such uses may he developed in the other commercial zones. Our request to you is that you deny this application and advise the applicants that "such uses may be developed in the other commercial zones." Thank you for considering our objections. COMMUN! DE 4ENT April 12, 2016 Lazy B Ranch To whom it may concern: I would like to make it clear that the Lazy B Developers have not presented a single parking solution to The Rock Inn. Although Lonnie Sheldon, of Van Horn Engineering, stated in the second public meeting that they are working with us, this is completely untrue. Until that meeting, I had never met him and have not heard from him since. Michelle Oliver has been very public about saying she has paid for 4 different parking solution designs. When I met with her and Randy Jackson, I was told by Randy that his partner in the RV Park was not willing to allow the Lazy B to use any more land other than what is on their current plans. Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns. Tim Roemer Rock Inn 970-586-4116 Note from the Community Development Department: The following 82 pages were submitted by Tim Roemer on April 12, 2016. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address ( Additional Comments 1/2- Ift.s.Lot 1 (7-2 VO4-ft-1 Pe\-- f1 /4 4 /41\ 16c000\f& S-cAraZa /2:1SD A)da-„QielW, 4.4 . 031-A04 /4Z.LoGoAlli 9 75() &PM* ZD 5. -1-k-001 \ KS 2150 .,\T/A441 7. .1\ \\IVileb 1W-115ht 8. cAA Oh Serr -Pi- Atia re7 21 50 Noilio ?4 r 9. I \IL CWA- 10. 1. 3. ‘-7-9\6( r • 11416 KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 411 5-10 G p ESTA-TE S OR, ON•-i‘ l L 2011r9 b (\it+rtA-,L N et- +es Pte' ic 3 pc/uttzi 1-1(04k- r 1447/4/1 A/Y •(1-01 a K)b iC4( 15 g- 5ecaqd itxr,ei- 2_15. .-k-„,/-‘ f--11 n_ 2150 Not,,,A,4 led Et-e< 1{ 3. VLS C5re_52-\4- //4-s evel 7. Sar-t->"- Not<e 8 1—c V\CSOV 9. nr 10. br \Oka SO- KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name 1. b04 1.-ekt-JS4-1/\ *ho Address Additional Comments IR.:23k5WIA1 RIO CYzA(Ce CO q..65-15— k Orr e.0- •TOiA4rCr 6. cYe-r-4f r\f-ftsr-- toix-eA 60-6-tetvieei3P-44 7q 7 S-1-ei.,4e nv1/4 w 7, s gcstio 5t Rave,tn. btv\iit usits foL5g bur r -70T1,6-6 33\1(0 EP U) cask r\--- KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address 1. 2 qszo PA c:3-f•-e.-12'-c---Q_ C-7 i p. Pk Pi< bis k A,R Co g,b ?c7 Additional Comments TT 15 e.:-k.;,,A i1U-4 1 ro ):?t A-ku F-ore e2-c T i-t (-^tvk Pc›f-e-4),i/ID Fkc,6,_i ex 310,,-1-- Ef CC) S'061-1 W 10-75-ixSA g_r-P,,ao 20511 5 vAAJ 6 sTEVEAts 1 6,0 td.5 1_10/ 1(4 G. 1-a Park (rdci 7/102C/4 / Aie /la, 40e/4 Afri=kr P9) 8. (Chda W/ A./ Ig((67ik,o Wet/SA aT-e,t7 fez re21/ 7 9 ' itYLL )r)_slq- • e C4-1(+7 *VT 6(0 0,?Ind 5. i i-d,tb#1-uft KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name 1.cum(114(r14D 2. Address k:ouilk- J cp Ps CO 7/3 07A-a-Ly -6-kks Additional Comments PV I / 13 14— Ct an tric-i-;1-\„„ye_c o r \ ` -e-v S c c _e zs ) '3 U \.1( 4. 13P 4r3 00)e._ii "Obyo 5. .42/1:000“ 1V<zi#(-Aod14- deA V1-91 M e Pi 0 6. az te /4g/e-Cp-vive C- mss. Gs"4:41,744-t--11:.€-C-ra: 4117 /410; 7 4-2 7. /4 eLi • It) 40-1-obilA .? Lares Pe- ?/-e4.5t._'D6A)rre-s- o r -000 s. 14/ .5,17d---/- /bes l/?is Orrin N Mcie-oc-e /0cro 9)4-r.:1 -poits 9. 10. Q o retoKto\ut 0/1 KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name '414/ Address Additional Comments r r If ‘` eve i0 ag alCI &_erse ,11 IS '1:1(10. vb-1— Uyc_ exi5 3. -4.-0( Pl a, 'NleZ t-st. \,1 Favr 9. e e U, Co q0-5- Lis 3 E:a_n_AH- Q3 EP co I/C-3 F WokkdAlti:4-i # 01 C4-€f P6f Ca ern -vcr; 1 e,f Al colt rtiejq4iiclop4,(S 301 nonce ( u se 14.4 efmAce Yoldho !Jo KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 1. C)A) I COU/k) 2. Me3a n 890 r.,con 1,r) -61 CO i7 \N\\ \ \ Oc 4. _.4 Sc\r"\e-r-c ti eV 5. 6. -S14-4)e-r/L- Va:± 5409 E. Q7110\--r1+1--- oei-vOrr w c?5:57-:;t( iece. 7. 911/4AND\ava 9. 121\/t t'il (c) (e C— 5Ci°4 tin ‘1_7 (e I KK 731 tr 10. CAI /Chit lort,S 6fir tiVel /-7) ri kr 11 C/CliA 101- ( el e I elez-4-7, . KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional C 2. 1 Tothc, (McV, 653 .51:14kge 06944 tu-) s i/€0,e i(tO v t, 0 3. Arc[ iea 11-.tk 130 k 20c-1 rwalce C.0 oko s rriculL,e) etherz cAti fie! s -eeitixtriced too rzteL. C.(N COall. 5. *4 16w es-cs 9-7 Aft-c v---66a_ LA I P 4/. 7. e-19 4744- 10 he,r,e_4 ALeJs ciA4, 0 (t2:;7.ca ,r-knoU)--r.:\ Dkc muLs c. is PH P, CO 8. 9. Address WOn6ie) VA) Ave- 17,,sk (° 5;' 5 t7 ,te 6. I .,/fe g./.7go CdciA4Q-el " / 7i.cmia,s 07'1 Li [-1(`;-ch;l ic (r Name • 2. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Additional Comments Jr eLe — te..e/ - 5. y -t- 171S 4,1:1is-bk 6. crin \ke tv i .71/ ArOk A 7. 8. am-116 ,A 061eiL- ( / 100 11 fe); Rt4 P eu AlC--ci,se. cV,\ KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Additional Comments I rri e + ci . .5 eve. op ,o v s E5-4e5rPaysk_ I a/DC/0- Name 1 'ILI 4911"4-' *IA2A1\ 3C:?4,1--6Ct, S. kt h (.)c-1(-Ct Address /14 ' ° /?/O 8,qt-4rit- or. 235g Coloy-r-At-1-14 3ge) US Hwy •S kr) iktd t•-)r, 62.,z, abik -3 ‘c-1 S CO VS I:- fZ1) OA,014,4 /L. 6. C IOC kL~"~ Z«S Fis14 Cia.Gt i2 7. /WI/Al Laukcivoniu 1 i Bulkidetz,11-1,u4,1104 . lute ki n-iy. 8. rv o g(t,,JciL,scy, 9. /02 P? 10 (y 644, fi • X 4_, 28q S 1<loriJa 2AL,i, 6k. 4. OP. L` cc 1 o 5. OLAA,0_,AA p fq--uua I //5 /7 (-4( )-;f:Tiliel Pb \L,r1 tjb til O-OS Vim. CIE ‘6L1.5 c \-0 \'5•Nc.k k)obose__.3 10. 10. i. 3. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments Gxrit II Pi6eatoi"--- 7s( &_3(eLp_ co 0(i% )u; KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 1. \\K\ 6\z,\1 cyl-A--sc\vai IoW A>rkvi`i SU) Vico 60-eisoN 3. ---OriWki tOCO (AS Fe LAI Y C 1 E r, co \cc. -36, /sr? co 4. 6,KAe-r\ nIKI.,6 coc20 ttu,,\ 3,2 a?, C, 5. ?" i c3TLe l'-‘_-,, lg •``) "1 ‘'‘'4 Du vLQ •-- C C) ))1t60A 166D 3, 5 LL couobi'N 4ve 7 9. 114 (t.5/( 2253 EAGLE CO Fr fzp—eicisTiN6 ELK A,%-pkoek.1 ETr--m,Jo_e 8. N 07-holl 5atti9ll 10. ,, P. OP/19,17, Sita 69/cR 41/ Ec051 7 3. \ ov,oc 4. 5. at-tAIA KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name 1. ckf,4,Q01cre 2.C6,1 V I g315 Address rr-elileJCf co 43 A-7 '7 C , Additional Comments c -277,c) 0 ( Cotho, co geld( Y--Vat (-74:11) i"rD r037 \•• 7. •-.)0...gcry,.. cs- PIS 4:,0„,t,s L)r, C No LDPK 8. Sc„..1(s /4/ 2.4( S' • 6-7.-6..-oerS /051 :14-'kem co 4 29‘301--ctock-CA/I:LI-Q R Co (5cF'1 r:Re*.'eq: I %.3 k ;-Vi,SS 10. 6q-ee \A-C4V &113- po -go( i-1 62 A pk c some 04 AD kAsi4-5 re TOSS cuttc\II\AI-Cr;DIA WAAL, `O( 1,'\5 r~i ble ki 9. INAtlext Cnc..kkc, e/%4=4 ( 2).0(( JUL( 1)k.4 (cq- CC) 500-Waio- D57s 0 it C KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. 'PO ''FfS At; r Address Additional Comments r-7 t-qaA bo IA CO MI -1 i.r411 30 1i r 5 he/et-wed Co is °I/ 3 4. e cc t bWi5 /4,01 / A1479 /77 dig PirkK CO 5. 4 I I If eA-7 / 104/j / 6 0 0 Aieft:// C v 6 Co LS aS 1):EQ, Cv c -k1+-1 - 4 !4 ( <te* Name 0 kPtil Doc s 2. )66 Ori,u 3. -3-a vved pte iooki Vi i( it/** e5e(i/t 9. VIA ILL r,c, (iv 10. A I/Miterdi Name = jno 2 . 6/eEe, Address Additional Comments 5. OC ( -2- 5 . C_e-n t e-•-v-1 (-‘cb 2. 9 LI-7 z N fug U 6. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. 4 f4x,f+-w-t D sz ?es- 5, dee/ 7 U5#[( ±0.11e5 g-5fer Pztr Zed 16 co)-io FT-12c- slculicyt 0 Milks c29,At'iie___ DtArt Do 1/4- (-)r, -Tr /61( 1)(4)1 DrPL)( 9. -7 P '4)44 10. sr-k Ge- g7517 70,1/ S 05- 8. 9. ? KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Address Additional Comments n5 i Se L5 CC rict Sf free+ -'1 es 5 1? 3 / hit 7 GU 5--y7 (?)(1kAk\ La J O? 4. ifiititjir'Un VI 0 (-6{4 -- 2-0 S , w mc)7 h aele4k C-(1-4(A_ remt\ 5. 1--zNckt s 1---A5v) C_ y-ei Lc, -L. SAS 'PAC k_ e ,g6s-17 6. Name 1. 2. 3. ( 7. 10. /;?",- Rcd 4 ) t e)d/72-1 if ie_A 565.9 KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name &At-0v 2. 44-4 co,c 3. 5 i4rifttJ 4. Address Additional Comments Qoiri...wwevia le 0 Rez-4((.c( — emu cA) tUckrti 6,,,, r) T4 Sel1 5. Roc, lc zit) IA/ Ec. ( La-e-eAtt a itnic) t't —4102- 5:10 Tica-d-e— .344( ,)i•wia-,..) d 01,44--, cv yas-t, 4te.:1-nti Lol nA (4 qe,31-7 Este 4 14evt'ai 7. v ov- .>k9A) t‘--ti/C 10 -3rAA,e- I Weak-Jaw-) 191714,011v am/ ?-s, 5 6-fez y LL zg r(r20 0-1-k f77 -17)0 ;1 E0 Vic fv\c6 n6fi 4e5 ikrk. ccis/-7 8.41( E/ cox (0 ( c-c? 9 emu- C112/1N- 10. ct-59 ref (cor-72- Name Address 1. 4-Mectilifi6 2..1 flark‘.615on 3. 1 4j,6.-S sZ31 Ok)* 4. ; LI c I c KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Additional Comments -Thf 5 to/ ecoriol Cef i a E5k5 ams-Le ape, Can-eomewa poK-Abk 1 bohnte arK fh_f_E/ic dee, and ofiebufloitcre r‘ity 5-c- 5 <51- .Vc 4 P's0-312 E-411t e, c)cor\r-, C o %&c.1 1 o-% po.„ kI t t v•-:.`,k14 Vlrre-LV t .1‘; 4 • t,o-c c de"Vs..4 ‘&6;-EQ.A- wik -R4-eig_ Et'APLoN55 Lea ? 10. T)C,Y\N...,0-‘, -,0 1_64,(LA) `446-4- Loaudza ce-drui4 -tULLc riye KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. // ,14r4 F._ 775- 41n,y h/7 6)1(-( 1c • ,4 9 2. Hd/he 5) 0,617 172 3Aititt5Lc- It 5 O 1 (7/6.19 14‘ p z..Lt r gas (Ai .Pra e Or /6. MetAzigi&Letlyti-11,1 Ceed 6_,ow )\4 P, co as 41/9 8. yqw. iLiq51c`ifihe Wg05X-1-- Name Address A ditional Comments 1 3 ' Jill StkkoLie:(iz. 4. G145-c.E.1 P c,-Li cc y-0.5-1 1\014)1 nss Ua S, (06 a co,ity, 1 -7 ScreU 6,4 oe 0 4 re 6,16,1 -41.)e/54-1 sock pus tke old -Ffriks trove tootjl ai koinsiv er vc.c&-tincA re G. _5 so 11 Le re u t ripleyre's I iVe P poe(9 ekr\r\ eci /4 c ks 10. V-RAptc.to,_ bcAtv (i nt, -g-u-yluihotea btiyy)s 0-93 B05-4-o Cu ear -extip \ faAa_ Dc V--ocle, n MASC._ dikr ivvk cLC -s \ Q..01 LAYDYIk., ce.) Name 1. 2. 1.4)).AAm..4,t 5)1/6 )0 gc)- 3. S(.Cpa_ pt-t -Cpa mac. CJt 5. f TDC' ST-CTA (L-k- 7 8<frito F- IrKOPS 9. C:A_CU N'& 10. )•J( WA --cVt(P1.°3 KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Address Additional Comments 10V- Pau_ \40-1 ctto ---s,%(-1,<-kobt)J4 L P 26C I I? c),10\01.0 0Le c vvicAmak,k, cuLk go519- qc.) l CoLyvt,10(-,A_Je_ bc- Paxk OD Eni 1. [Mar Oweitk_ 2&riArUA aviL.) 3. AA2(te, 7. 8. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments C.1.6,106ruiv4,41-c—,,,t& etAA- et-i-e-.0 0..5 L./card- 10915-1-;( S Kalif iVen 87efrodicA aocl cir pert y °-)`-i 6 kil/ 6;i1ctivkci, w ould 3,e71--kr lectkk\-4 adOGOViiik Eyes Paa , ON/ 2,07 0-0 o.y CX) _5\ 9.4kox Ccd7 ttlAgv) U.0-A6i) 2.'RUC.,\I•OSS INIQCLW\ 9. 10. 3 Aro. (1/40v Cal \‘....),(\ s?.(\kcit. tr-0-\-0,0 cjiD b/9-X9 e L.J tor 4in y oe 77/-PAr-e7? J3 Oraerd0 7050/ 67,AlpiAet6 /LyS511954--ae 01/4 _,t 1-r Cd11— till 10 /L4de,64,4 3‘,64 (;252 (3/ C1-4zst W9to Z1z5 -13 1cgrese Oval Q4e AID 2O -) gar - dr ,9 (co <zos- -17 1 NkQ_cs 3t) pAsit,,A 0‹ Estes P4 4(, co 805-/ KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name if-1 ;v_ tic) to viSe vv Address itional Comment wevtk-'*-er.fau- '<ce Es-<es 40c. 1C.71Jac_r-,(70 S: 3e scluz f\\)2- 5o Lac PI P 03-0 o I3oX1 46-3 --FleAce *11W-re- '" Le_itA7c- .( Pi [p 3 P30 Part e515 go Pa-e-k. Co g4 .S/7 ode 'Pitt (7 0d-u 5-7 KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 5. (-N 6 243 243g 6" Kat A-4 9-0V-A 3 MR. af2UP c-e-etfrr i nito 6-3 titt 0 It lI 1( 73 eivo /0/Afe- io 845 s 1 7 Le.„9- Lv ad,ty_ k PL 7. Tra u 8 WA°101\A Lena/ oil 0(),Poy 10. 3tkatM_ YOw r of- /4-Gr. 1C- Dc Additional Comments Piex&. ciov,\V crkaviC;6..c. c.or or. ,„ Name Address Gc/G5- /4.6 Ce 1. Rock rtniut / 7.a gulevt 4P-e 6,47 79 S ri 5 7 \A •••••••,-A r1‘. 1.3c1 5. ss-- 141131LD .(\ Cihr KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOOD We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Qipeetirli ,›Y's 4 tk4 (TY 1. 0.1_,Atiz.E. CE4 65' 2. (OS ItsJ)01.:1- -1,)ee gpst 4 1-.3.4 /0 w/e-/-5,6D tifyA 3-3(0 Pitibeie osik iQ KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments Z /0 0,,A;c -)- -. P. SF-s.4°/.5iVs r , C)-- k c z,t(SGZ51 7.1?4114- (,92AA41- &J.9411A1-e4---1"--v-- Lenqrt..4,,f 05-0 3 - f^-12 55 4-05 9. 10. Lt.Ls 6)-1AIL 4_0 tto- d afiLt_, S52 le a— is -50 L E co TC--tie01 5-MYVA1 bele-6 5-7)tc;e-4a7": 6. Joe_ Pt, fiefl Additional Comments ce ‘gepe_c7G 8. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. /1/.2,q40-7htcA pa - tp, et) /33-7//4,9e/z. rim ,4-v Pc_r 631-s c 6 r6/7 7 rvp s 'Tct 86,ri TI G---5 Lvv CP co gross -7 .2- 5, e-,z4 vet 5rial et-egeo 42_ L-0 12i9 Name 1. 1273/6-t4-*E_ 2. PAr-I 3. 11•10 '1 Mitt/1 112E Address 5tV 4ohern Pr /00 I gifrufriagN 7. Ma,/ ArA Kata.„, RACt (-1,\C. 1,)00.4-1\4_ A,Vitc-A_QA1). PN-INtev 1-7) 6-'1* kctil cANtlittc.) ›,c-t70?/ CO 40,,, it ft :Ty ./.1 KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 1. ---Th 6:- ----e_... \(71---()--12e---- n41 /4. 1,<Cle-"L Co vg-r LA ,a_.,( 17, re.44 k,.,„ ‘.4-44.iaLf t...s -17-__rs ""(74- CV) -14E-1-017f. - Pevi-i.i Is oLn-g-tv,ZakS ,11 Pt -s ) IA) cg!Z-17 00 vtis-Ii2_w_i\o-Fi-t_or 3 3h.4._, 4."74- ""-6(''''. -I- /4"1-rt""- 6,s1..,,, ,:„......._, -,..,--,/,-7.7 J:2-Pic 3. ---(e-t-i),...--,-/--4....., )--7,--",.5 Vim 774,54. — 3 u.i.cfc-_.5 j...,,,,, ..„(..__j--e.r Cra-"--7 , ,0,714- i l--,,rykj #2 ,7--e\- . i f ,L,.,t d ,c 1%r 1.6- ekrEoN. --Lk-t, IJ/ f { /41:e-4244w-4a V46- 4' AL PL ward £13 , 0 x30.9b zeike;.e. /km 'try exia35 a- efed_. e,)°). 114tMi et tti 6. 44-/At41,6 a-- //Ai- kl&pid‘k,-; ie0( zraeeds4,1 _e A4(44/0Yage L13 Of101 9016 /70 , 5- 77/q T;/ b03 Ryn Avv. saes RA_ out s,--7-f-hpsy.e I ci-w4k_ cz-k , IA 52.21() nzt!‘ PrK 61- KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments reaffv\-- 3-3_3 b--1/ • 2. 6 e / 06 ,ricts odes 41,35 61qvAvorcreP 3. a Pa. /4eW L-6 5- \1/4-It'N 1(VIC-RS"N 11 03 rf\I-J-5 c‘ lex-•Cia`z_ IT.,PkV-rk 6. 17 0 3 44 Ti.-4 S 0,..4/- 0L),?.) 8 03 107? ; //c 9. 4. 10. 3. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 1. u 5 ‘--on c, r 1"1 2. T_TC0112.1.-Z_ Cc-a Y-wYlav(()Hte,e1-- (celq(0(-6/1-P3e--, Ntrnaeth--z__ 1 vtrylAii.-) ,?30--- Xf-t,L•i/J-0.0zL titAt, LC4144- •64-eAti-- (46 a Sal 641 kooky bi). 9. itisoy,r SIVA- 1/ a C i4 (1A it tui E P ZosiN " r7_ ‘-olzr-AINtif a. CbvkAA 5. Name Address , JO,Lie - Additional Comments 60,'I ik illa ;al • J 1. /7z id, /6; 19( &vgoccakr)(d- gop/c Ce) i&os7 2. 3. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12144 .2.,P1 KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State H ighway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. in addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments '27 SO Lk) C tat}-xx "1"-c nfz2af`9 Q to.e i. ah ek 5(00 powler-ock Dr. esgs Paite 6/0 PS 8. ..2)0Aos 27 fOiboeiwi --til /CO 8'65'(21 4. 404b e" Dc—nte-1s 5li0 t cA ote-.05-4.. Dr. s5 P Co. ?c,51'1 5. /14 t Y34 t L Koc. 37 Pprwt.,4,4,s,p,„ -6 5 e.--C) i05 1 7 6. ktr-z- q 3 r? -cc s' Sq/Zae u,-ho Q57 7. r ) f6 ) 'btz-yt'ku-ykNescr., 0,0Q_ OD, CD c3o5 --r) 6. 500 9. r40 10. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address 1. 4; A :1tpAr 7W 4,-(` 2. fCsf c ?Y.,/ c <,-f k.4Td0e Additional Comments oivfilra,o LA), et t—ior 7 • fir41.--(451-A 76-0 E r;y__120S0N- - ,t r>s o KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 01,b--tv c 2,0s7,5 24 te !I_ Dv 5. G, 10e4v/t_ S70/25 ‘f_41 RS' fik aer-cf de 4)1 329 Ai r /b')7 CO Ake 5T1- 24121t Civti441.6 4e gaSti KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. N ame Imeiw Address Addr 1. 2. Wia•'(‘s )o CPP K Sfop -41V 3. N_ ackyva-i\ek___ 551 Pa CLI6-Ciz._ l7 r. taxi 4. LIAAelL Cuff/bit_ 07.0 P;r\auavi L--q‘ Park, kWAIA- 09,14-3pOtA, 5 L ‘") 01/vtiv if,ka41-7,c/i541 7. 8. 9. 10. Ye. 11. 04,k, gaS0 "). Shan-r,,., C+ ) -ies 3. -.EX3 i'AC`& 4. 10. 9. ( KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes `the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 1. 1 (111(.71.--411i\ 2. 1Ct ikolcb 6. (3o, mwko„,1 -r- (,0 7. 190/rrizi;x, )11 1("r S. 4ki 0/6 Cre.c. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments ,/ eeri 7/7"&"6" t? 55 gi6Y---a/ay (4, :/--/le2ver- 2/ex ZdZtt /5 Reielejl.. /:,1 74,/ I le, „75.. - e,c(ter I is S 0,c)(luc-ef 3 I c; 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments Salazar 51/ St Vrain lane tp.,co Sovi 2 S:47 &ge, 56/ agfaii ts ,ett-ii el° 4"I'5 )7 b9/r) 09019, Cd67-2,04- C 8,06 • 4. ;a 275-0 ^13(Yi-Aerfr- /-L-2 Acy c r 5(7 CCU 5. 6' iNCAJ k: 5 kiA 604- -3 C5 f 91,a4.- Co t&S-( 7. 7-‘k"7Z-131-7' )1c6-1-ki 8. -W)J6V-I/LA-r\ CO g/65 - 9, M0\k-A.- -717- SG 10. Name Oli/iSCC 2. A, (UCAC Address Additional Comments 2-1" S1) 5=ortir Py) goc/ 7 KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. 3. 1 0 ,L.uno-VA — U 4. 'FL) T -re 5 5. CakliV.946L9 Caac-9 6. kt,, 7. N. t l\r64M+ 6-/44/4(-1- z7-5-0 Co 05/7- z 75-D r.)6+1:(0,1/‘Ci - ,let-tuia-k d “7: (A) Fp 51 2 ?50 IL ki\o -l—ce- --17 50Ser zi56 ..5eA91./ 5o5/7 /it 6,1(.423 Co ff D ( 7 4. ,\ (6Zc5 (1) 5. 7 C h24Zh k-A2 04)12---. a 30 6)7, DP-- 0,47,-11‘37k-r )LC3r\ KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments L..? Lin.Lv‘.---• e. Afic 2. //r ykl‘a r ?z? 3. \-\ fq Q-C-% 0 0, /0 5-- 6/7-, eo Fa-rr, CP00 Ve.3 9 n* L lelf d `CCQIA t 0-Y1 10. At. 2.150 Ki0+0\t'o,k za. Es're.)s 90\0(--- No.416th f5 c. Sc 5-4-t Occ-o-A L•20Ac Es ic-s -,4t(_ KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State H ighway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments oio gi kisd46(4 5-07 c. 4 Esmy Ark/Co 2. cm. it.M1 ) 3. RDETV--- (,D -0(4(.23 s-7 CID r'5 I -? 4. \Loaf( 1-0 014.33, 1136 . 61'2,(D s jr i 32-56 ris h Crean - ste-s Paw.. CO 005 11 6. A) 6R-0 r6S19- --V-)) gi177 16(qttl ki(PJA 031 6Tic 00(L.Co '%5Gie.QS/e: We -23 8. vito-c:5 'd-461-11)--) 9. Q uoV 10. I5S-1 S. 9.. u/WA AVC 654e-- S Wor Y-0 0 bzI)L S3\0"/ t44 C lft1)-44. Name 1. J"; cv. F ee'\-; 5e-t, Address 22&4 Ee,r ci Este .; Additional Comments KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 4-vitkAks rore,v1/4-4- oc.AV ravtle < ok,et-Sccry1/4- n.h9LAA-- t KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name 1. Address Additional Comments 67_ v42yo4 31" lfeq Efie,5 C7,70(- CO 5. ;10-a,3 \\l'elt\(,w pAGDuANbr, (101 p R_401 /1 Ktr ice_745Y rlou C a 56S7-1 S53 oi5vv, 3 U 2 '44.2 (ze ee, 6 r) 7. 10. KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet a nd dark neighborhood on [Mills Drive. According to the State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 130 - );-k j[f 1114 (.,tilt ( , pc1_64 (Aid OD716-t-- _ /s liaue v--7 tic y*.C•C' g2 -4-0(4_2(As e (2_ca.-46 5 ,,-(q/1 /4 ;c ct ,5,55 firc-61/(eoff: A\ 1 ,t e,,f 1-e,J 11AA-5 E cs-1 )735 Prca-i9-0=t9-1) Cklcc_ )s cckvA,- t(»c4.6f,-( laihq (,0_,Ltk •Lvef___ c, Ca pirkovitti KEEP TOUR BUSES OUT OF ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOODS We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Laz B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Hjghway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According tothe State Highway Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. Name Address Additional Comments 2. /7c/ mtm 61i 7 /5 Z "6141) 4. s. 6. '7 1 . 3. 8. changeorg The Rock Inn Recipient: planning @estes.org Leifer: Greetings. Keep Tour Buses Out Of Estes Park Neighborhoods Comments Name Location Date Comment kate ellard Boulder, CO 2016-04-01 I work in Estes and frequent this establishment often...and think it's a shame you may put Lical people out of a job...Take up a collection to get the Water main..instead of allowing some non local person to take over 2016-04-01 I stay in this area every year and we always visit Rock Inn one of the few great gems in Estes. Something like this in this area is a terrible idea especially given the very poor planning. 2016-04-01 I am a supporter of the Rock Inn's rights. 2016-04-01 There isn't enough room in Estes for the buses that already frequent our town in the summer months....I would really like the town to start prioritizing starting with us homeless locals that keep this town running in the first place. 2016-04-01 Stop trying to ruin my home!!! Between this and the loop...there is a reason that people visit Estes and there is a reason people live in Estes. Stop destroying it! I support the Rock Inn 2016-04-01 I used to live in Estes and think poorly planned development plan would only add more headaches to an already busy town. The Rock Inn is one of those local spots that many people frequent year after year and this kind of development would hinder not only the Rock Inn but likely the Dunraven Inn as well as access to the other businesses on Route 66. 2016-04-01 As a 35 plus year resident of Estes Park and a frequent visitor to the Rock Inn in opposed to the stupid plans this newcomer wants to do that will affect so many in a harmful way 2016-04-01 The Rock is a historical place that already lacks parking. This is a busy establishment year round and they need all the parking they can get. Please don't take that away from them. 2016-04-01 While I lived in Estes Park I frequently visited the Rock Inn and lived in the the immediate area, though not on Mills Dr. Eliminating the parking in front of the Rock Inn for a turn lane would create an unnecessarily dangerous situation at the entrance of the restaurant and inconvenience the restaurant and its patrons. Why compromise an established, successful, popular, and locally owned business for another that is not established or proven in the town? Additionally, though I did not live on Mills Dr., I frequently visited friends who lived on the street and increasing traffic on the road would eliminate the quiet nature of the neighborhood in my opinion, 2016-04-02 This new business idea seems to lack much in the way of planning. So why should ep planning dept quickly approve such major changes to an historic area? Focus your efforts on changing the code for signage for well established businesses downtown. Let this new business prove itself for 3 years before you go approving major changes and exceptions 2016-04-02 Love the Rock Inn - it's already difficult to find parking during tourist season and on weekends year round. Please do not destroy a thriving business. 2016-04-02 I'm signing because the Rock Inn is an amazing place for locals and vistors! 2016-04-02 I have a business up the street from the Rock Inn, We don't need more traffic on that road. 2016-04-02 My daughter lives there and I am familiar with this Inn. I would hate to see it ruined or left with no parking. I know it's busy during tourist season, but it's also a lot of people's home. Robin Brunk Longmont, CO Emily Potter Strasburg, CO Jean Patterson Fort Hood, TX Donna Elston Estes Park, CO Allison Rodgers Estes Park, CO Nicole Smith Fort Collins, CO suzi greenfield Loveland, CO Anne Cooper Loveland, CO Kurt Friederich Telluride, CO Julie Akers Omaha, NE Jackie Welch Canton, OH Brad Klein Estes Park, CO Judie Phillips Salem, IL Name Location Date Comment Vicki Papineau Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 This area is zoned for housing! Unsafe traffic, intrusive lighting, noise and air pollution would result next to RMNP and in a residential area. Pat Cleeland Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 City planners should protect small businesses. The Rock Inn is a gem! Amanda Mills Livermore, CO Mike Holmes Estes Park, CO Kim Carlson Estes Park, CO Stewart Card Des Moines, IA Amy Hathaway Denver, CO Lois Scott Estes Park, CO Mary Lou Harger Estes Park, CO Kim Cavanagh Broomfield, CO Monica Sigler Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 I've been coming to Estes since I was a child and I hate what is happening to it. When I first moved to Colorado permanently, we lived in Drake and the Rock Inn was our regular place. Keep this place and this town from turning into the next Vail or Breck. Keep the local places local. 2016-04-02 Don't destroy my neighborhood, don't build what you don't need and Estes, don't approve business plans that lack an actual plan! 2016-04-02 The Rock Inn by far is the best and most popular restaurant in Estes Park. Seems like there would be a better solution. Don't bring back the loop idea either. We have been homeowners since 1920s and am sure concerned about recent planning efforts in our town. 2016-04-02 This seems to me to be the typical Estes Park planning or lack thereof. I loved the Lazy-B but this is not the way to bring it back, by destroying local businesses and neighborhoods. 2016-04-02 I can't believe how much this town is selling out. From hurting great small business and not warring about keeping workers in housing. Our greed is going to ruin us. 2016-04-02 Our summer residence is just up the road on Eagle Cliff. 66 is in no way suitable for continuous bus traffic nor is the area suitable for that amount of noise. The Rock Inn and its parking area should not be infringed upon 2016-04-02 We have been visiting Estes for years and never miss stopping in at The Rock. Great food, great music and great people. We always feel welcome. We don't want to see a single thing change! It is our home away from home. 2016-04-02 I like the idea of a chuckwagon in Estes Park but see no reason to take away the Rock Inn parking in front or cause the Mills Drive neighborhood so many problems. 2016-04-02 This plan will do so much harm to the residents of Estes park. It is ill conceived and badly planned. Losing the Rock Inn would be an abomination. Noise and air pollution would be unacceptable 2016-04-02 I have a vacation home on Eagle Cliff just down the road from the Rock Inn. My whole family enjoy eating at the Rock Inn. 2016-04-02 This whole thing is rigged, I also live across the street. It's zoned accommodations. We need a camp ground or housing a lot worse than a 2 story chuckwagon place. I personally don't like to tell people what to do with their land. But they bought this 9 years ago knowing the zoning. This is a quiet peaceful side of town where I can actually hear the river on some evening. And watch meteor showers because there isn't a lot of light pollution. As a 40 + year resident I'm shocked at our towns sell out. I miss our town fathers who really cared about not only the town but the residents. By the way how did they sneak that city zoning in. The county wouldn't allow this 2016-04-02 It's the right thing to do 2016-04-02 I love the Rock. We travel from Kansas every year To Estes and always go to the Rock. Jill Schladweiler Estes Park, CO Julia Underwood Wichita, KS Michael Taylor Fort Collins, CO Mike Banfield Overland Park, KS Jake Virant Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 Who yo dadd-ay? Name Location Date Comment Bill Niles Longmont, CO Jason Lykins Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 We lived in Estes Park for 6 years and know what this would do to the Rock Inn. It would also be terribly unsafe. If Elk Meadow wants to do this they should use their own property, they have plenty of space. 2016-04-02 Quit messing with everything. Leave something for the people who live here 2016-04-02 If the planning board is pro business, then protect the Rock Inn a much loved, year round, locally-owned concern. 2016-04-02 The development of this area is unacceptable and over-reaching. The Rock Inn front parking and Mills Drive should be priority, and the newcomer should respect that. 2016-04-02 I do not believe one entity should destroy the livelihood and peace of a community for thier own profit. Elk Meadows Campground currently has the access and capicity to accommodate the tour buses they propose to have. There is no need to impact multiple businesses and community members in a negative way which the proposed action by Elk Meadows would clearly have Thomas Sopko glen haven, CO Walt Banfield Estes Park, CO Sandy Grice Glen Haven, CO Dana Ostos Corpus Christi, TX 2016-04-02 the same greed is happening here in Jackson Hole! 2016-04-02 I agree with Kurt and Amy's comments that I just read here. And you can kiss my ass if you disagree. 2016-04-02 I lived in Estes Park on Mills Drive at a cabin just across the street from the restaurant and frequented it often. Estes is known for its quaint, mom-and-pop charm and small businesses. No amount of corporate money should be able to buy out the character and impact the peace and livelihood of residents or business owners. 2016-04-02 A tour bus turning lane would be very dangerous and would negatively affect the business at the Rock Inn. We love this neighborhood. Please make other plans kevin coughlan jackson, WY Jay Roemer Steamboat Springs, CO Kelly Frazier Mobile, AL Stefanie Miller Louisville, CO 2016-04-02 I love the Rock Inn and Estes park! Amy Fox Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 Really hating this who,e idea..., Will Monks Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 I support the views of the Rock Inn Julie Guzzetta Arvada, CO 2016-04-02 Too close to Rocky Mountain NP. Food cooking will attract bears and increase air pollution. Linda Langer Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 I don't want the elimination of the parking and porch of Rock Inn and the encroachment of this paving into Rock inn space. Sena Krula Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 I hate seeing this town just become for profit and not caring about the people who live there currently. I was born and raised here and at this rate, I won't be coming back to support this and raise a family there like I always thought I would. robert anderegg Wellsboro, PA 2016-04-02 This is wrong. Kimberly Card Des Moines, IA 2016-04-02 I own a home with my family on Eagle Cliff and The Rock Inn is by far our favorite drinking and dining establishment in Estes. During a recent 9 day stay, we ate there 5 nights. I can guarantee we will not be visiting a chuck wagon tent to eat BBQ more than one time in a season. What a shame to take a local gem and potentially destroy it in the name of 'progress'. As someone who lives off this road, I'm very concerned about the of the impact the volume of traffic flowing in and out of this venue around dinner time. Please don't let this happen. Maureen Andersen Denver, CO 2016-04-02 I have a 2nd home in Estes Park & spend alot of time, money & bring alot of guests to the Rock Inn Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 2016-04-02 drake, CO 2016-04-02 Lawrence, KS 2016-04-02 Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 Littleton, CO 2016-04-02 Key West, FL 2016-04-02 Key West, FL 2016-04-02 Key West, FL 2016-04-02 Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 New York, NY 2016-04-02 Fort Collins, CO 2016-04-02 Fort Collins, CO 2016-04-02 Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 Fort Collins, CO 2016-04-02 Matt Cohen Pete Noto Dan Fuller Jim Day Bipin Pokharel Marc Buehler Dina Santi Rick Keith bruce darby bruce darby Keith Bechard Nathan Meyers Rich Kurtzman Tiffany Banfield Ashley Buehler Linda Hamilton Name Location Date Comment William McCauley Lawrence, KS 2016-04-02 Every time our family visits the Estes Park, we ALWAYS visit the rock inn! Great food, people and music, the places rocks, even on bluegrass nice. The town leadership would be fools to ruin it by taking the front parking for tour buse turn lane. Chris Banfield Fort Collins, CO 2016-04-02 The Rock Inn is a special place in Estes Jennifer Cope Denver, CO 2016-04-02 I love rock inn! Don't let Estes change! Kaci Yoh Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 The current development plan takes away 20-25% of the parking for an existing, proven business supporting year-round employees. Let's support The Rock Inn who in turn supports local musicians and community businesses (Kind Coffee, Healthy B Attitudes Tea, and the Vegetable Peddler to name a few) and encourage the planning committee to explore other options. Because it is worth repeating: The Rock Inn currently provides year-round employment to sustain 26 residents of Estes Park (who already have a place to live). There are existing venues in town to support this venture that do not have perceived access issues as well as a current entrance to the proposed venue that do not require disruption to a year-round residential neighborhood and business. I don't need hear yodeling within 50 ft of where I sleep. If Estes Park is to retain the charm that makes it such a wonderful town, it MUST protect gems such as The Rock INN at all costs. The Rock Inn is a Landmark please don't mess with it! I am a frequent visitor to Estes and The Rock Inn. I can't see how this can be a good thing. Save the Rock Inn! As a Hwy 66 Business owner - this is CRAZY. Come on Planning Board - wake up here. The last thin we need is more buses trying to access this small road. I aslo am concerned about taking property that has been used for DECADES even though it might be right of way areas, without more discussion and thought. The park doesn't have the right to over run small businesses in Estes.vthe rock in brins slot of money to Estes. Respect No business has the right to disrupt or impede the on anyones quality of life estes park would be very short sighted to allow this sort of side show circus nonsense in that very special part of town by the park This would have a vastly negative impact on The Rock Inn which has been a pillar of the community YEAR ROUND for almost 80 years. These enterprises that seek only to skim the cream off the top of the tourist season with no regard for the year round community have no place in the long range success of this very special town. It is ludicrous that the city of Estes Park would jeopardize an existing, successful business for some out-of-towers flight of fancy. Frequent visitor to Estes Park and the Inn, this is truly idiotic what they propose. NO TOUR BUSES IN PARADISE (ESTES). It's a terrible idea We own Idlewilde by the River and it would affect our business and the livelihood of those around us I care about Estes Park, Rocky Mountain National Park Name Location Date Comment Bryan Gillam Estes Park, CO Heather MacLennan West Des Moines, IA Heather Mrozek Golden, CO Roberta Browning Edwardsville, IL 2016-04-02 The proposed location for the chuck wagon space does not fit the area nor the current zoning. There are many other options available in the town that are zoned commercial currently and have a more fitting "western" feel than the proposed lot and adjoining RV park 2016-04-02 The Rock's entrance is an intrugal part of their ability to conduct business. And if 66 is widened without sidewalks and proper draining, that would lead to dangerous conditions for the tourists of Estes that enjoy viewing the wildlife. With the added noise, wildlife may also choose not to come down into that area, which would completely change their environment and the ability of residents or tourists to enjoy. Find a better way to route traffic that does not upset the delicate balance of what that neighborhood is outside of the tourist season. 2016-04-02 The Rock Inn is a unique and special part of Estes Park, and has been for many years. My husband's grandparents visited the Rock Inn on their honeymoon in the 1940s. My husband and I met each other by the fire 8 years ago, and continue to enjoy the Rock Inn whenever we are in town. We love that it's located close to RMNP, the quiet and peaceful setting, the history of the building and the warm, friendly atmosphere. The plentiful parking and the fact that it's NOT in the midst of the busy downtown area are also a huge part of what makes the Rock Inn a great place. The idea of removing their parking lot, which would absolutely have a negative affect on this long-established business, makes zero sense. The fact that it would be done for a brand-new, unestablished, 100% seasonal business, that honestly sounds like the human equivalent of a cattle feed lot and would make no contribution to the year-round community, makes it clear in my mind that the entire venture is a mistake. Please don't. 2016-04-02 I use to live off Mills Drive and when I visit Estes Park I make sure to visit the Rock Inn. Allowing busses and encroaching on the already limited parking for this busy business is in no way acceptable. I understand Estes is growing but, the enjoyment of the area and its patrons shouldn't be disturbed because of it. At what cost will you go to keep pushing more and more people into a small space? 2016-04-02 Yes Estes Park is a destination; but it is also someone's home. Respect those people who make the city run by respecting their neighborhood. 2016-04-02 Potentially destroying a well-established business that has historical ties to the community, for an idea, a maybe, doesn't make sense. Especially if you have to create more havoc and chaos for those who live and work in that area and our peaceful park area. A little more thought needs to go into this before decisions are made and a new plan should be developed. Molly Hamsher Steamboat Springs, CO Allison Skapin Estes Park, CO Gail Ross Clifton Heights, PA 2016-04-02 We visit The Rock Inn often and feel like family. It would be a crime to disturb the beauty of the area with traffic and noise. Peggy Welsh Alexandria, VA 2016-04-02 The Rock Inn is my favorite place when I visit Estes, which is often. Adam Aldridge Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 This primeval. Sydnie Torphy South Harmonville, TN 2016-04-02 Former resident of Mills Drive and employee of Rock Inn. My family has a timeshare at Rams Horn and recognize the noise pollution this would cause during our stays. Linda Novak Omaha, NE 2016-04-02 Fond memories, still enjoy going there, Do not need more tour buses!!!! Rock Inn has long history in EP and this would be disastrous. Name Location Date Comment Melissa Gamber Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 I grew up in Estes and lived near to the Rock. We were frequent regulars during our time there and I still make it a stop nearly every time I head up into town. 66 Spur isn't in a state to handle this kind of traffic and disruption to the neighborhoods. There are plenty of suitable locations (Elkhorn Lodge?) for this sort of establishment without harming locals, visitors, and our small businesses. Karen Glogau Tallahassee, FL 2016-04-02 Love Estes the way it is :) debora Trout Lyons, CO 2016-04-02 I hate to see this happen to a neighborhood and local business. john stephens Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 I don't want bus express lane & losing Rock Inn front parking lot. Why is EstesPark aggresively promoting this type of stupid tourism promotion at the expense of residents & worsening the current traffic situation, which is already bad? John Meyer Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 The Rock is awesome and needs the space for parking Dinesh Shakya Denver, CO 2016-04-02 Keep Estes park classi and clean. Thank you Maddie Banfield Fort Collins, CO 2016-04-02 I grew up at the rock inn and never want to see this happen! Save Estes and the rock!!! Chris Kennison Fort Collins, CO 2016-04-02 Adding traffic related to the projected 750 audience members they hope to attract will ruin this quiet neighborhood. Steve Jonker Lyons, CO 2016-04-02 They don't need the turn around. They need to find other options. Conor Brown Fayetteville, AR 2016-04-02 I have been a seasonal employee in Estes park for 12 years and a visitor for much longer. Long story short- while development, growth, and change are essential for any community, not all growth is in the best interest of the town. While every situation has pros and cons, in this case Estes Park would be better suited exploring different avenues Barb Davis Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 The Rock Inn is a historical treasure ! ! ! Mark Owen Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 It is fundamentally wrong to take away from one established and we'll loved business to speculate on another. There is no reason not use the existing RV/Campground entrance to handle the expected increase in traffic. It easily handles motor homes and buses already. Jenna Murphy Hau'ula, HI 2016-04-02 I am from estes and currently live where your buses ruin unique experiences (in Hawaii). There should be no tour buses at all in my opinion Star Johnson Basehor, KS 2016-04-02 This will ruin Estes Park. Allison Ditto Woodway, TX 2016-04-02 Estes Park is a beautiful, unique place. Cluttering it with tour buses will take away the quiet beauty. Keep Estes the way it is! Susie Alexander Spring, TX 2016-04-02 I don't want the quaint village feel of Estes Park ruined. Donna Chenoweth Jacksonville, IL 2016-04-02 Enos Mills would be appalled! Tyler Goodro Loveland, CO 2016-04-02 This is one of the dumbest town suggestions I have ever heard. John Armstrong Peoria, IL 2016-04-02 I believe the proposed plan is NOT good for the Estes area. Name Location Date Comment Mary Banfield Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 Like so many, we began visiting Estes 30 years ago and brought our kids here for summer vacation to enjoy the mountain experience. 20 years ago we moved Parker, CO, only to see the charm of that once small town ruined by mass development. 10 years ago we had the good fortune to move to Estes Park. Our dream of living in a mountain town came true. We immediately Sound a community of mountain loving people at the Rock Inn. We have watched it grow and succeed over the years. Family and friends visiting from out of town look forward to going to the Rock as part of their Estes experience. I attended the public meeting last week to hear the Lazy B presentation. It was disturbing on so many levels and they lost control of the presentation within minutes. The double talk and pandering was disingenuous. Asked why the existing entrance to the Elk Meadow RV Park couldn't be used, we were told that the tour buses arriving would interfere with the RV's arriving at the same time. How is it okay for the Planning Board to agree that the owner should have no consequence to their planned development, yet agree to impact a long established, locally owned successful business? Why has this project been so fast-tracked when other businesses have faced years of red tape? Why is an exception to the current zoning, which will so negatively impact the neighboring businesses and residents, be approved when Estes already has the albatross of an Event Center which was intended for just such "special events" sitting unused? All the parking and infrastructure is readily available there. Oh, wait, I forgot. The greedy out-of-town developer wants to profit off the land he owns without impacting his poorly rated RV park. We were told at this meeting that Estes wants a "Western Cowboy" identity. I couldn't disagree more! We are a mountain destination. Everything in town is named for our mountain heritage. These chuck wagon western themed enterprises have history of bankruptcy and failure. When these come-lately, inexperienced owners fail, it will be too late. The character of the area will be forever marred, the neighboring businesses lost and the lives of the residents on Mills Dr ( yes, named for Enoch Mills, I believe, not Roy Rogers), forever changed. I implore the Estes Park Planning Board to take a step back and reconsider. Will Estes Park grow and develop? Of course, it will. But let's be smart about it and retain the charm that our tourists come to experience. Becoming another Branson is not an aspiration I have any desire to see. Clearly, I needed to vent. Thanks for your consideration. John Dotson Carmel, CA 2016-04-02 Oppose expansion of machinery at this location. Elizabeth Adams Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 I am opposed to the Lazy B. For the folks impacted close to the site as well as my business which is in the same area. Also, because I do not resonate with this for the evolution of Estes Park. I have lived here for 20 years and this feels like it down levels the beauty of our Mountain Home Town. Edee Nuetzel Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 I feel the development of this area would be detrimental to the beauty and accessibility of the present area. Kim Munoz Spring, TX 2016-04-02 do not want tour buses in RMNP this would I want to eliminate the Rock Inn Richard Snyder New York, NY 2016-04-02 Tour buses are NOT wholesome Name Location Date Comment Rebecca Caldwell Estes Park, CO Dawn Hemstreet Salem, OR Ron Thomas Estes Park, CO Warren Musselman Lyons, CO 2016-04-02 My family and I are year round residents that live near the Rock Inn. We love to bike into town with our 2 small children in the summer, and increasing the traffic on this road, especially tour buses who often don't take care to mind foot and bike traffic worries me as to our safety. The Rock Inn is a successful business and staple of Estes and every night you can drive by and see that each of those parking spots threatened to be taken away are in use. Let's support our local, year round businesses and employees and make smart decisions for Estes. There has got to be a better solution, let's find it. 2016-04-02 I was a lot ng time resident if Estes Park and the LAST thing hwy 66 needs is a turn out for a chuck wagon tourist trap!!! The reason people live and visit us Estes Park is the grandeur of the scenery. Please don't encourage development that will take away from that. There are enough tourist opportunities for the millions that visit. 2016-04-02 Once again another carpetbagger with dreams of recreating some 1950's fantasy that never existed wants to come and change the community. What is really disturbing is the town's willingness to be bribed by a mere water line into allowing this. 2016-04-02 I've lived in Estes Park for over twenty years and fully agree this is in no way good for the Rock or for the towns people in that area. 2016-04-02 Can we not find a better use of extra cash than to widden a road in a quiet neighborhhod? 2016-04-02 I believe there are better and less impactful solutions to this traffic problem. 2016-04-02 The Lazy B supporters should use the campground entrance and existing buildings for a few years to see if there is really a need/demand for this venue. Cowboy Music was a thing at one time but I don't think it is an attraction in today's world. The Rock Inn already has a parking problem. Maybe they should ask the campground owners if diners could park in that space. And there is way too much traffic going to the Y and Windcliff on this stretch of road. Plus, how does this impact the accessibility of the RMNP satellite fire station or access to the utility area housing and offices of RMNP? Let's keep development on the east side of town where there re already several empty buildings from "great ideas" of the past. 2016-04-02 Let's not spoil this beautiful area! 2016-04-02 I am against and vote NO on LAZY B Ranch & Wranglers Development Plan. This is not in the best interest of Estes Park as a community. 2016-04-02 We have to take care of our own town and we have to protect our neighborhoods. It's bad enough that so many vacation rentals are taking over homes in family neighborhood. When I could not be in Estes Park my house was left empty and yes, it was a risk because it was broken into several times but neighborhood kids. But I would never have ever considered renting it out to vacationers for a shameful amount of money. That's what hotels, motels and time shares are for! All of this GREED needs to be stopped! 2016-04-02 The Rock Inn is a landmark that has been there for over 60 years. The building and its parking lot have been a fixture of the Estes scene whether as a music venue, steakhouse, or bar. When is Estes going to say enough is enough to the tourist economy? Patricia Loos Estes Park, CO Maisie Greer Estes Park, CO Gale More Castle Rock, CO sybil barnes Estes Park, CO Kimberly Hutton Lewiston, NY Barry Knolton Estes Park, CO Myrna Goff Estes Park, CO Barb Artz Estes Park, CO 2016-04-02 The Rock is a great little spot that locals can still "feel local" withouth all the tourism hype! Name Location Date Comment Erik Oftedahl Lyons, CO 2016-04-02 West Estes is a home away from home for me. It is a place left untouched by certain elements of society that often I need a break from. These new plans would most definitely bring those things I am getting a break from, to the door step of where I find sanctuary. Dianna Duclos Topeka, KS 2016-04-03 Estes should stay exactly as it is! Josie Neuzil Estes Park, CO Sally Jane Robertson Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 This would change the entire feel and business of the Rock Inn and I don't see why a turning lane is needed on that road, of all roads. The money could be better spent on other projects to easy traffic jams/issues 2016-04-03 As a small lodging business in Estes park and a 25 yr resident of Estes , I stand with the issues the rock inn owners stated. The small 2 lane road is no place for bus traffic. The existing business atmosphere and operation will be negatively impacted . The city does not currently have the infrastructure to support a larle facility like the one planned. It would also impact local residents living in that area with noise and overcrowding and impede the already overloaded traffic flow I say no Janann Eldredge Denver, CO 2016-04-03 The new business is out of scale for the size of the town. Christopher Solis Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 I am signing this petition for multiple reasons. The best music in town already resides at the Rock Inn, and parking is tight there to begin with. I have lived within a mile of the proposed changes for two years, and increasing the tour bus traffic on Moraine Avenue is a nightmare I don't care to endure. The driving force behind the resurrection of Lazy B is a stage mom, looking for an outlet for her 10 year old fiddle playing son. I understand the desire, and wish the kid well in life and his musical career. However, this is another example of money weilding influence in our town, Essentially hamstring-ing the best music venue in town so your little boy can be famous one day is the ultimate insult to those of us that try so hard to work, live, and perform here. Kelly Morrissey Mount Pleasant, MI 2016-04-03 Ex parkie, loves this place. Cool atmosphere and a short walk for us. Keeps us safe and allows us to meet and collaborate over good food and cold beer. 2016-04-03 A fenyleman came in where I work and asked for support for an entertainment venue that sounded harmless. This is much more impactful than was described. 2016-04-03 The Rock Inn provides a special place for many people, locals and visitors alike to connect and enjoy each other's company in a small town, fun setting. Since moving away, it is one of the things I miss the most about Estes Park, and it appalls me that an out of town developer could completely ruin that through selfish, poorly planned and backwards thinking development. Ruth Slade Pierce, CO Stephanie Scrutchins Drake, CO Keven Owens Campo, CA 2016-04-03 As a former resident of Estes Park, I am signing this to keep the tour busses out. There is no need to have those monstrosities driving through town. Catherine Peacock Sacramento, CA 2016-04-03 I love Estes Park. Buses can add so much noise and pollution to sully this natural wonder. Name Location Date Comment Bronson MacDonald Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 I believe in establishing a new business but not harming a pre-established businesses that provide jobs to many local residents, feed many locals and is a place for the community to join in festive moments to a wonderful date night location! I was there tonight and had a romantic beautiful dinner with my husband and we also had a wonderful conversation with one of the owners. We can't let a new business be greedy and change the face of another business for their tour buses. Shame on them! Sonya Perez Kansas City, KS 2016-04-03 Of the residential area that will be disrupted! Dave Rusk Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 I'm signing because I do not want to see an increase in traffic. Lauren Molle Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 I love the Rock Inn and I don't want to see it get hurt by this stupid tourist trap of an idea. Sheryl Ponzer Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 I love Estes Park and I support it and the people in it! Andria Amen Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 The turning lane would create incredible hardship for The Rock Inn and is completely unnecessary. Holly Charboneau Drake, CO 2016-04-03 Please do not allow this travesty to happen to an Estes Park locally owned business. This is not in the best interest of the residents or patrons of the Rock Inn. Kitty Gk Dorval, Canada 2016-04-03 I am a Canadian resident and visit my favorite restaurant rock inn whenever I visit Estes. I would be devastated if they would shut it down Craig Adams Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 there is already an existing drive that can be used. Marcus Hake Fountain, CO 2016-04-03 I'm signing because the Rock Inn was my favorite memory from Estes. It's such an important piece if the town and should be left alone. Sean Nunan East Longmeadow, MA 2016-04-03 Former employee of The Rock Inn. if anything should be proposed it should be more parking. Anyone who's been around Estes in the summer especially on a Thursday or Friday or when Chain Station is in town knows how packed The Rock gets. Adding a bus lane would be a terrible mistake! Shari Kleist Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 It is just as important to cherish the old as to accommodate the needs of developers. The people who keep Estes going are the ones who remember family visits year after year. They don't want to see their memories dissappear. Daniel Casso Lakewood, CO 2016-04-03 I'm signing because local, established businesses should not be harmed or changed in the name of tourism expansion. Anne Cridler Guadalupe, CA 2016-04-03 We don't want tour buses in peaceful neighborhoods. Brenda Longacre Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 This is an historic venue, with stories dating at least as far back as the flood of '76. Leave it be. Michael foster Fort Collins, CO 2016-04-03 Because I don't want to see that! Gina Paige Mansfield, TX 2016-04-03 We have owned property on High Drive for 50+ years and are greatly disturbed by this proposed establishment. 1) The Rock Inn has stood the test of time and is one of the few cornerstone businesses left in Estes Park. This must not be allowed to happen to them! 2) The traffic on the Y road has one way in and one way out. The additional cars and tour buses will only make this situation louder and more dangerous for those in the area who have thrived on peace and quiet and restoration that is the sanctuary of Estes Park. 3) The beauty of the nighttime sky will be eliminated by the imposing lights of a vast parking lot. 4) No, no, no! Cathy Lewis Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 The introduction of large numbers of tour busses in that area would be horrifying for both locals and tourists using the corridor. Additionally, it would be unjustifiably detrimental to longtime, well established restaurant, The Rock Inn. Name Location Date Comment JoAnn Stegura Clear Lake, MN 2016-04-03 We love the Rock Inn. It is so quaint, and everyone is so friendly. Parking is at a minimum during July when we visit. That says a lot for the popularity of the business. Please don't let them destroy the ambience, JoAnn Stegura Clear Lake, MN 2016-04-03 Love the Rock inn! It's out of town enough to be quaint. Parking can be difficult in the summer when we visit. Please don't destroy the ambience. CYNTHIA DOHENY Tallahassee, FL 2016-04-03 I oppose the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan, because it would pose an unreasonable hardship for the Rock Inn and would disrupt the serenity of the adjacent neighborhood. Belle Morris Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 Tour buses negatively impact our traffic downtown Estes Park as well as business parking. Tour buses can drop off customers and park at the Fairgrounds. Estes Park has an effective shuttle service that offers options to passengers. There is no reason the Rock Inn needs to be impacted this way by this poor proposal. Take the shuttle!! Jason Martinez Anna Haug Kristi Noyes Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 I am signing this petition because yes I am new resident to Estes Park for a little over a year and have met some wonderful residents of this great town that live in that neighborhood. I am an individual with an extensive background with Hilton Corp in marketing and operations and can see this addition to be a complete catastrophe to the town and its returning supporting clientele. This town is somehow showing the fact that they want to bring in new business but to destroy another local business that has been around for years? That is not right! Is this town going to sacrifice the sorted topic of coin to make its residents upset and cause a lack of trust to a place they call home? I have thought this through and through and cannot see this working as a successful business as there is a business plan that seems like it was put together by a 5yr old. I am completely against this proposal and hope this town that I now call home will have the same opposition. Last question: WHO on earth would pay $40 for brisket, beans, a biscuit and a swing your partner doseedo band for 2 hours and the END? NOBODY!!!! Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 This would take away from the rock inn and the quiet are and neighborhood. Kansas City, KS 2016-04-03 I have a Good friend Michelle Thomas who frequents this business, and I have heard nothing but good things""") This is a local business that has been in the community for years. I think it would be a big mistake to take away a business that has become the glue and fabric of th neighborhood. Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 Mills Drive is the road I take to get to my home located in the edge of the National Park. This would disrupt the current limited flow of traffic in this area as well as hurt the parking for patrons of the Rock Inn which is always packed on week-ends. Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 This project impacts the neighborhood where good friends of mine live as well as it affecting the Rock Inn. Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 I do not want to see buses in residential areas. I want to see the Rock Inn have more parking, not less. I want the development in Estes Park to reflect much needed housing, not for- profit tourist attractions. Estes Park, CO 2016-04-03 I own a home on Mills Drive. The proposed development would change the fabric of the Mills Drive neighborhood, for the worse. Miki Wollett Jeanette Terry Lawrence Sage Garth Lewis Patty Risley El Paso, IL 2016-04-04 I love Estes the way it is. My Parents lived there and I did also, my family has been coming to Estes since 1965. I completely disagree with the greed that is driving the changes in town. Very sad to see. Name Location Date Comment Jennifer Diefenbach Fort Lauderdale, FL 2016-04-04 I urge the Estes Park Planning Board to vote No on this plan. I've never been to Estes but my cousin grew up going to the Rock Inn and the pictures she posts of Estes show me a town of untrammeled beauty that I would love to visit. Shannon Rice Dallas, TX 2016-04-04 Estes Park is such a beautiful and peaceful place. I certainly don't want it ruined by this garbage. Samuel Lawrence Estes Park, CO 2016-04-04 If it's not broken dont fix it. James Shuler Estes Park, CO 2016-04-04 This venue will be in front of our property disturbing our peace and degrading the property values of the entire hillside with light and noise pollution every night. What could you possibly be thinking? Heather Stone Estes Park, CO 2016-04-04 No, don't do it! There is an event center that is virtually empty most of the time. Stop coming to our town and over selling it at every turn. It's our town. Knock it off!!!! Molly Vetter Redondo Beach, CA 2016-04-04 This isn't the kind of development that we love visiting Estes Park to see. beckie greer estes park, CO 2016-04-04 i do not want that development off of spur 66 and impacting our awesome local restaurant that does so much for our community... Sharlyn Clark High Springs, FL 2016-04-04 I owned a home near The Rock and would not have liked this type of change in my neighborhood. Lisa Innes Estes Park, CO 2016-04-04 I love Estes Park Lynn Stepaniak Estes Park, CO 2016-04-04 The town administrators need to realize that bigger is NOT better. Pam Demke Worth, IL 2016-04-04 We have been visiting Estes Park for over 30 years, and the past 7 have made The Rock Inn one of our favorites, I think it would be horrible to screw up a good thing. A tour bus lane would really ruin things. Colleen Bair Estes Park, CO 2016-04-04 We have enough traffic issues in this town. Horrible, horrible idea. Dina Lininger Pagosa Springs, CO 2016-04-04 The Rock is an icon! Mark Eaton Olathe, KS 2016-04-04 I am signing this petition as someone whose family travels to Estes Park, staying at the YMCA of the Rockies at least 4 times a year/ minimum of one week with each visit. Suzanne Riley Estes Park, CO 2016-04-04 I have lived in Estes Park since 1970 and the Rock is s fond landmark. Linda Wagner Estes Park, CO 2016-04-04 We can't even get a loop to divert traffic but we can destroy a neighborhood and decimate the front of The Rock Inn for a development plan for tour buses? Eminent domain does not apply here. Please reconsider the damage you will do to the summer businesses, residents and neighborhood if you move forward with this development. Amy Donahue Durango, CO 2016-04-04 I'm signing because I grew up on Eagle Cliff and return to visit my parents there as often as possible. The Rock Inn is a landmark of not only that side of town, but Estes Park in general. To make changes that would affect that area in such a huge and negative way speaks to negligence and a lack of care for the local community. Keith Hammond ESTES PARK, CO 2016-04-04 This idea is crazy joshua mcclelland Crowley, LA 2016-04-04 I signed the petition Meghann Tornquist Estes Park, CO 2016-04-04 They need to re-think their plan for the roads and parking. I'm not fully against them bring back the Lazy B, but those plans just seem silly. Nevermind that some of the main highways and roads around town should be fixed from flood damage that happened in 2013 before they start doing anything else. Tori Parker Fenton, MO 2016-04-04 I'm a big fan of the area. Rick Zuba Estes Park, CO 2016-04-05 I don't like changes proposed. Name Location Date Comment Gail Ellis Estes Park, CO Jennifer Reeme Estes Park, CO Kim Pruemer Teutopolis, IL Douglas Anderson Denver, CO Shayna Gallagher Loveland, CO Thomas Booth Estes Park, CO Linda Bowling Lamar, MO 2016-04-05 It is unthinkable to take the parking area from The Rock Inn. Already they more customers than parking thus it blocks both sides of the road. While there is plenty of unused space at the Elk meadow entrance, I find it hard to believe this is even being considered. Trustees please consider carefully what these decisions mean for the businesses in our town. 2016-04-05 The idea of this is unfathomable and just plain ignorant. Nor does it seem to be well thought out. I honestly cannot imagine traveling along Hwy 66 and coming upon the scene that is being described here. It sounds problematic and quite hazardous. I vote NO and leave the front lot as is for the folKS that enjoy frequenting The Rock Inn, which is a genuine place to eat, listen to music and gather with friends on the patio. Jennifer Reeme 2016-04-05 I used to work at the Rock Inn and live nearby Estes Park. I would hate for anything to bring down the beauty and the Business of this town. The Rock Inn brings talented musicians in and great food along with amazing company willing to accept anyone! To put any of these people in danger by expanding the road and taking over the parking lot is irresponsible. The noise of traffic would also ruin the atmosphere of the music and the surrounding quiet neighborhood. There does not seem to be many pros to letting an outside company do this. 2016-04-05 Estes Park is quaint and charming. To run tour buses, add lanes to roads and make it difficult for tourists is counterproductive. 2016-04-05 I grew up in Estes and have shared many memories with friends and family at The Rock Inn. To loose such a staple in our community would be a shame. 2016-04-05 I don't want to see the character of the neighborhood changed. 2016-04-05 I don't want to see the Mills Drive neighborhood compromised. 2016-04-05 Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Hwy 66 & not create problems for their neighbors unnecessarily by widening Mills Drive. In addition, many many locals & tourists walk, run & ride their bikes on 66- to even think of not putting in sidewalks or proper drainage should be against the law. 2016-04-05 As a summer seasonal RMNP employee, the roads that this will be impacting are one of the only ways in and out of park housing. By developing where the new Lazy B wants to, it will create more traffic problems in an already congested area, not to mention ruin part of the atmosphere of the Rock Inn! 2016-04-05 I have been enjoying people and music at the Rock Inn for over a decade. My wife also worked there and has very fond memories. The Rock has a special place in our hearts. We have shared so many memories individually and with friends and family. Family members have played atTthe Rock and the Owner is a staple in the community. For the locals (my wife was a local for a short stint and I consider myself one after many years of visiting and working) it is a gathering place. A place where you know your friends will be, where you can get delicious food and a good beer. For out of towers it's a unique mountain town tavern and is unlike any other place on Estes. Widening the road would be a devestation to the locals and visitors. There has to be another way. virginia hampton Estes Park, CO Megan Nugent Greeley, CO Conor Brown Fayetteville, AR Derek Harding Estes Park, CO 2016-04-05 I think this is wrong and I love the rock! Kristen Luetkemeier Estes Park, CO 2016-04-05 I used to live in Estes Park, including briefly up on Chiefs Head Road, and frequented the Rock Inn. I have such fond memories of the Rock Inn as community center. It's an important institution to the town and the park, and parking is already tight there. Please do not widen the road capacity in or direct more traffic to that area, and please do not remove from its parking capacity or push parking closer to the building. Name Location Date Comment 2016-04-06 I feel they should see if they even make it for a few years before they talk about enlarging roads, new entrys, new bldg etc. i live out here and traffic is already bad with the Y. Also i do not believe they should be allowed to build a huge new bldg. right against our National Park. The old bldg. is certainly more like the original Lazy B and would not require all the changes. Rock Inn does not have enough parking now and they park all along the hwy. 2016-04-06 I spent last summer living in Estes and working in RMNP. It's a beautiful town, but gets so busy in the summer. We need to conserve neighborhood areas so that everyone can enjoy this great town, not just the tourists. 2016-04-06 I I9ve the Rock Inn and its people, and I would absolutely hate to see this new place go up. I see it as a problem in stealing business from the rock and we already have chuck wagon dinners around town, we don't need one that's made for tour groups. bellevue, NE 2016-04-06 I used to live in.Greeley. Love estes park. It is too beautiful to have tour buses up there. When I go to visit I dont want to be distracted by tour buses. austin, TX 2016-04-06 i don't believe our infrastructure can sustain the amount of traffic (buses} that is being proposed here - nor do i want that kind of traffic added to an already over stressed infrastructure. i also don't want access and parking decreased for The Rock Inn. Amanda Farrior greg miles Shirley mclaren Estes Park, CO Molly Cantrell Vancleave, MS Brandon Anderson Estes Park, CO Mark Donahue Estes Park, CO 2016-04-06 I have lived on the west end of Estes Park for over 35 years.The proposal on the table is so wrong in so many ways. First, it is not fair or ethical or morally right for the campground/chuckwagon people to be able to so grossly and negatively impact any one else in order for them to have personal financial gain if this thing might be successful. The Rock Inn is a long standing business venture on this end of town. The current owners are local residents invested in the Estes community. They have turned the Rock into a very comfortable tavern, gathering place where, on any given night, a wide variety of community members are enjoying a beverage, meal, friendship, music. It would horrendously impair their ability to continue this great legacy they are building if their parking lot is compromised and spur 66 comes basically to their door step. The C/C venture already has access off of the Spur. if it creates a logistical challenge for them, so be it. They can figure it out with the large parcel of land they own.They are not entitled to damage a neighboring business because it is more convenient for them. Maybe they could approach NPS for access from the north or east. Secondly, I have not seen the site plan for the chuck wagon, but I would assume they plan to front Mills Drive so the local residents can deal with the lights, noise, idling diesel buses, traffic and trash. I am sure they would put the dark side of the building towards the campers so as to protect their tourist dollars at the hardship of the local year round residents. Is it right to cater to out of town investors,here to harvest tourist dollars to be spent elsewhere and throw the owners of The Rock Inn, the west end residents and other tourists who would like to enjoy a meal and the ambiance of a casual mountain tavern under the bus? NO it is not right, fair or ethical in any body's world. As I write this, I guess I have come to the realization that I am not only opposed to the pillage of The Rock Inn's ability to continue to provide a great gathering place, but I am opposed to the whole idea of the chuckwagon period. Thank You for consideration of this most important decision which could potentially change the whole character of our neighborhood. Name Location Date Comment Tia Sillers Nashville, TN 2016-04-06 Elk Meadow already has a vast expanse of acreage and is often a significant eye sore to both 66 and the park entrance. The residential neighborhood really begins at Mills Drive and The Rock Inn is a true town institution and cornerstone of our neighborhood. Also, at this point, nothing should be allowed to be built without sidewalks . .. AND finally, Spur 66 isn't even within the town limits, so how can the town control this? Jane Brown Woodway, TX 2016-04-06 Visit Estes Park every to stay at the YMCA of the Rockies which is just down the road from the Rock Inn mark selby Nashville, TN 2016-04-06 I'm a home owner and part-time resident on Eagle Cliff Road. I absolutely oppose a turning lane at Mills Drive. The parking area at the Rock Inn is more important to many more people, both locals and tourists, than a turning lane for tour buses. Amanda Lemmond Lubbock, TX 2016-04-06 Please please do not infringe upon the parks and existing businesses! This entire chuck wagon event center idea is a mess.. Please, don't let this happen! The drainage (lack of) will end up damaging other people's properties, flood the meadows, and cause overgrazing in other areas, leading to water runoff from the melting snows causing all sorts of flooding and damages. We've had enough of that in Estes. Thad Wright Estes Park, CO 2016-04-07 I want this area left alone. We get too much heavy bus traffic on 66 as is. Bob Nickless Estes Park, CO 2016-04-07 Highway 66 has only one way out for thousands of people in an emergency, this will cause to much traffic congestion. Donna Egan Estes Park, CO 2016-04-07 Driving into town today, I followed a car with an Estes Park bumper sticker "Another Ho-hum day in paradise". I immediately became very cynical. Tour buses through residential areas just doesn't speak paradise. This neighborhood (or any neighborhood) should not be sacrificed. Especially when there are alternatives. I'm worried the new Estes Park bumper sticker will say PARADISE LOST. Kathleen Gustafson Homer, AK Violet Morisette Braham, MN Malinda Stephens Estes Park, CO Gayle Sandham Denver, CO 2016-04-08 Prioritizing tour busses over local businesses and neighborhoods is a sure step to eliminating the reasons why visitors come to Estes Park in the first place. As a locally-owned business, The Rock Inn contributes more to the local economy than any tour company whose profits go out of state. Please support The Rock instead of a company that sees Estes Park as nothing more than a means to an end...their bottom line. 2016-04-08 I have e wonderful memories of visits to Estes Park and THAT is the Town I want to share with my children and grandchildren. 2016-04-09 I believe this would cause harm to the neighborhood and a long established business which is one of our favorite places in Estes Park! 2016-04-10 I love my many visits to Estes, my favorite mountain town, and I believe in sensible development, not catering to special interests or risky, unproven concepts. Estes is a mountain town, not the OK corral. Name Location Date Comment Sheryl Kenner Leland, NC 2016-04-10 Seven years ago, after spending 30 years at a desk, I retired. One of my dreams was to visit States and landmarks I had only read about. A few weeks Into retirement I set out on a solo cross country road trip. It was amazing, I met wonderful people and sites, however one of my most memorable visit was to Estes Park and the Rock Inn. Sitting at the bar enjoying dinner and a local brew I had the opportunity to talk with the young owners, and many locals. I was so impressed how much the owner loved Estes Park and all the wonderful people that lived in this fine community. To her credit my visit to Estes Park lasted 5 Days. I have now visited 3 times. While planning another trip, I became aware of Estes Park Planning Board potentially changing the face of Rock Inn. So sad that a community would do something so terrible to these young people who's whole life is devoted to their community, and to the visitors of Estes Park. PLease do not go forward with any plan that hurts those who love their community the most! Mike Egan Estes Park, CO 2016-04-11 This proposal is total fantasy. There are 17 Development Proposals currently under consideration by the Estes Park Planning Commission. This is the only one requiring a "Special Review". I assume this is because what is being proposed is not in compliance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive plan for this area of Spur 66. The Elk Meadow Campground is zoned as "Accomodations". The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to evolve into much needed affordable housing. The Lazy-B Proposal will construct a 17,910 sq. ft. commercial building on the property. Do we really need another Events Center which will sit vacant most of the year? In addition to being non compliant with the current Comprehensive Plan and requesting multiple waivers of construction standards, this proposal will impose considerable hardships on its neighbors. A proposed turning Lane in front of the Rock Inn will eliminate at least 16 parking spaces for this very busy,locally owned business. The street widening proposed for Mills Drive will adversely impact parking and driveway utilization for all residents. All this for a highly speculative business venture? Several smaller scale Chuckwagons have failed in recent years in Estes Park. The Planning Commission should reject this proposal as being non-compliant with the existing Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission chooses to proceed with approval, they should reconsider the turn lane and Mills Drive widening component. The Lazy-B can easily use the existing entrance to The Elk Meadow Campground for this project, thereby eliminating most of the hardships to neighboring properties. They chose the Mills Drive route because of a scheduling conflict with RVs that also use this entrance. Since this is a Special Review Project, the Planning Commission wilt have wide discretion in making its decision. It is clearly stated in Section 3.5 of the Estes Park Development Code that "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". The State Highway Access Code also requires in Section 3.11 that "turn lanes not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property". Dustin Fasching Los Angeles, CA 2016-04-12 I'm a friend of Estes. Andrea Rothwell North Fort Myers, FL 2016-04-12 Sometimes what seems like a good idea ruins the very thing people come to a place for. They are coming for the magic and beauty and charm of Estes. Not a street full of noisy dirty tour busses. Name Jason Mezilis Raphael haber Location Los Angeles, CA Estes Park, CO Date Comment 2016-04-12 my family goes back through generations of those who loved and continue to enjoy the peaceful serenity of Estes Park. Please see that it is kept for the next 2016-04-12 While I may not like the bullying going on over this issue and the out right refusal by some to compromise is alarming, I can't say I support an entrance into this proposed business on Mills Drive specifically because National Park Emergency Services are located on this street and the National Park has released a letter indicating this is a concern for them. I have no issues with this business being located in this specific spot on that side of town, but I don't think The Rock Inn and Mills Dr. residents should have to sacrifice their quaint neighborhood to benefit a large events center that really should have access to Highway 66 through the RV park. I firmly believe there is a compromise to be found here that benefits both parties, but I disagree with the Mills Dr. proposal as thus far presented. Patrick Brownson Denver, CO 2016-04-12 It negatively affects my friend who lives there. neeltk.:'e2:-.' 1 DX; eDzr signe;., this setix,n I •,. 1; united States f St, ti re etch Fo:e frenis• ••• Keep me updated on that reirrpotn And ethers from The Rort,, Inn 4 Disc*/ nerree ar,11, corrnlent On this pen • tqr ."; zr2 s •v'ns 7. Vq7:i ar: 51;14 t: 7CEV4 ana a- ol Yz.. :tar elc nr..4 Y Ery1,16 • 'plaming-estes-oiy-keep-tour-buses-out-of-estes-park-neighborhoodshecluitei =5202924778iutin_source=share_petition&u - — iaettoning planning@estes org _ Keep Tour Buses Out Of Estes Park Neighborhoods ill The Rook Inn Sign this petition We are urging the Estes Park Planning Board and the Town Trustees to Vote No on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. Elk Meadow should use their existing entrance on Highway 66 to avoid the destruction of the quiet and dark neighborhood on Mills Drive. According to the State Highway- Access Code on right-hand turn lanes 'the applicant must show that the additional access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property.' The tour bus turning lane proposed by out-of-town developers that would eliminate the 79 year old Rock Inn parking lot and move traffic to mere feet from the front porch is an absolutely unacceptable 'hardship. In addition, their request to widen 66 and Mills Drive without building sidewalks or providing proper drainage is completely primeval. This petition be delivered to: planrin;(2,esie-s Dfc, Rtiod rho Signatures Name Robin Brunk Emily Potter E.V. Mills Aaron Petrie Ruthanne Erickson Sarah Allely Jean Patterson Steve Ertl maureen vetter Melissa Logan Donna Elston Amber Heine Craig Clark Susan Stoppkotte Nannette Chisholm Brian Kaepplinger Emily Gordon Cory Johnson Megan Carruthers Allison Rodgers Nicole Smith Suzi Greenfield Lynn St.John Barbara Ayres George Larkin Victoria Alexander Johnson Darci Tate-Nagel Andi Anderson Karen Anderson Location Date Longmont, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Strasburg, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Laporte, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Fort Hood, TX, United States 2016-04-01 Fort Collins, CO, United States 2016-04-01 grand island, NE, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Denver, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Noblesville, IN, United States 2016-04-01 Grand Island, NE, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Geneva, NY, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Knoxville, IA, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Fort Collins, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Loveland, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Loveland, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Grundy Center, IA, United States 2016-04-01 Loveland, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Name Location Date Anne Cooper Loveland, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Karen Hentges Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Kurt Friederich Telluride, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Carle Essig Fort Collins, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Edward DuBois Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Anne Patton Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-01 Jessica Egan Belchertown, MA, United States 2016-04-01 Edie Keller Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Elizabeth Evans Fort Collins, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Micah Callough Littleton, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Marykay Gillam WEST DES MOINES, IA, United States 2016-04-02 Ken Kestel Hawley, PA, United States 2016-04-02 Kate Ellard Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Julie Julie Loveland, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Anne DuBois Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 James OConnor West Chester, PA, United States 2016-04-02 Ben Hays Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Andrew Rydell Broomfield, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Jackie Welch Chagrin Falls, OH, United States 2016-04-02 Brad Klein Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Judie Phillips Salem, IL, United States 2016-04-02 Keely Conway Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Robin klein Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Paul Hladick Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Jared Fisher Cheyenne, WY, United States 2016-04-02 Ryan Nevius Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Anthony Amato Lone Tree, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Julie Monahan Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Diana Eldridge Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Dana Cramer Iowa City, IA, United States 2016-04-02 Vicki Papineau Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Kari Pyle Estes Park, CO, United States 2016-04-02 Name Rachel Underwood Alfredo Diaz Erin Axtell Pat Cleeland Amanda Mills Shannon Faith Jill Schladweiler Julie Underwood Mike Holmes Kelly Murray Kim Carlson Stewart Card Amy Rydell Lois Scott Kelly Smith Carol Linnig Mary Lou Harger Kim Cavanagh Monica Sigler Rebekah Scohy Suzanne Williams Aaron Freimark Brian Banfield Michael Taylor Mike Banfield Carla Anderson Jake Virant Sarah Bassow Kathy Gordon Bill Niles Thomas Sopko sharon nordic Location Jackson, MO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Livermore, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Erie, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Des Moines, IA, United States Broomfield, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Indianapolis, IN, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Broomfield, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Broken Arrow, OK, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Overland Park, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Longmont, CO, United States glen haven, CO, United States fort collins, CO, United States Date 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 Name Gail Albers Bonnie McKain Jessica MacDonald Brittany Boone Walt Banfield Sandy Grice Laura Grantham Morgan Richardson Stephanie Hulme Jason Lykins kevin coughlan Misti Marcantonio Todd Greer Alice Miller Audra Michener Jay Roemer Kelly Frazier Dana Ostos Andrew Morgan Timothy Spencer Stefanie Miller nikki morris Amy Fox Zackary Torres Jason Cox Will Monks Julie Guzzetta Mary Lee Sonke Linda Langer Joie Willuweit Cindy Best Nicholas Money Location Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Norman, OK, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Glen Haven, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Colorado Springs, CO, United States Loveland, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States jackson, WY, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Steamboat Springs, CO, United States Mobile, AL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Lyons, CO, United States Louisville, CO, United States Loveland, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Foley, AL, United States Louisville, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Roseville, CA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States West Des Moines, IA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Date 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 Name Sena Krula Carissa Cooley Kim Coffey Susan Dulmes ericca hirt robert anderegg Kashonna Shaw Virginia Hutchison Kimberly Card Theresa Ward Maureen Andersen William McCauley Chris Banfield Jerry Blackmore Kathy Bowers Meredith Russell Kristen Berg Sarah Tibbetts Jennifer Cope Kaci Yoh Bonnie Fulford-Stewart Louis Browning Deanna Szuter Monica Koenig Matt Cohen Tristan Strecker Michelle Acers Ron Best Jay Lykins Pete Noto Sue Nuccio Location Estes Park, CO, United States Laramie, WY, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Sheboygan Falls, WI, United States glen haven, CO, United States Wellsboro, PA, United States Naperville, IL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Des Moines, IA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Lawrence, KS, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Boulder, CO, United States Glen Haven, CO, United States Boulder, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park„ CO, United States Loveland, CO, United States estes park, CO, United States Minor Outlying Islands Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States West Des Moines, IA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA, United States Syracuse, NY, United States Date 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 Name Anne Gamble Dan Fuller Kathleen Fabry Tucker Stapleton Jon Pickett Jim Day Anabeth Cox John Laughlin Bipin Pokharel Ron Schneider sharon baldwin Marc Buehler Becky Weller Crystal Duclos Dina Santi Sue Darr Barbara Fuller Rick Keith Gina Parillo bruce darby Margaret Mueller Diana Walton Keith Bechard Kim Harring Holly Fishburn Courtney Davis Kathleen Spencer Nathan Meyers James Kocer Ann Johnson Rich Kurtzman Tiffany Banfield Location Thornton, CO, United States drake, CO, United States Anaheim, CA, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Lawrence, KS, United States Drake, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Topeka, KS, United States Littleton, CO, United States Omaha, NE, United States Drake, CO, United States Key West, FL, United States Bloomfield Hills, MI, United States Key West, FL, United States Sidney, OH, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Greeley, CO, United States Palatine, IL, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Queens, NY, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Centennial, CO, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Date 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 Name Ashley Buehler Jennifer Brice Kelley Stratton Kathy Rogers Linda S Hamilton Trina Nix Kim Ford Donna Holmes Bryan Gillam Teri Franklin Heather MacLennan Mianne Williams Heather Mrozek Ken Yarbrough Matt Lofquist Roberta Andruska Megan Card Gina Knudsen Ian McNeil Molly Hamsher Beth Day Renee Johnson Amy Glenney Keven Engelke Allison Skapin France's Rodgers Gail Ross Peggy Welsh Adam Aldridge Rio Roman Meredith Hudson Alicia Cannon Location Estes Park, CO, United States Salem, OR, United States McKinney, TX, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Frisco, TX, United States Plano, TX, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States McCleary, WA, United States West Des Moines, IA, United States Neptune Beach, FL, United States Golden, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Lubbock, TX, United States Malta, ID, United States Pella, IA, United States Grimes, IA, United States Portland, OR, United States Steamboat Springs, CO, United States Urbandale, IA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Lyons, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Clifton Heights, PA, United States Clifton Heights, PA, United States Alexandria, VA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Milwaukee, WI, United States Prospect Park, PA, United States Date 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 Name Becky Guyet Linda Novak Melissa Camber Deborah Trout Karen Glogau Rachel Ryan Anita LoGiudice john stephens Spencer Hoplins Jack Cavanagh John Meyer craig frohbieter Dinesh Shakya Karen Kelly Tiffany Ochoa Angie Draeger Maddie Banfield Chris Kennison Steve Jonker Shane Clark Conor Brown Joel York Barb Davis Mark Owen Talia Barrows lynora sadler Jenna Murphy David Pardo Sarah Gabelhouse Star Johnson Marlene Hayek Allison Ditto Location Key West, FL, United States Omaha, NE, United States Greeley, CO, United States Lyons, CO, United States Tallahassee, FL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Youngstown, OH, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Broomfield, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Broken Arrow, OK, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Lyons, CO, United States Belchertown, MA, United States Fayetteville, AR, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Philadelphia, PA, United States Allenspark, CO, United States Hau'ula, HI, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Basehor, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Woodway, TX, United States Date 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 Name Sharon Owen Susie Alexander Michaela Ferguson Noelle Denisi Donna Chenoweth Terence Underwood Tyler Goodro John Armstrong Ellen Dacon Mary Banfield Kim Borrell Marilyn Herrmann Mary Banfield Alan Shadduck Janet Taylor Romy Paulson John Dotson Lizzie Adams Blossom Rountree Edee Nuetzel Peggy Donahue Kim Munoz Patricia Gildart Shari Hightower Jaime Ballard Christopher Greenlee Josh Magid Cheryl Sarnwick Matthew Rees Shauna Duell Richard Snyder Jennifer Wurgaft Location Estes Park, CO, United States Spring, TX, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Jacksonville, IL, United States Jackson, MO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Peoria, IL, United States Mountain Home, AR, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Hastings, NE, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Overland Park, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Frisco, TX, United States Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Tulsa, OK, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Allenspark, CO, United States Spring, TX, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Kirkwood, IL, United States Drake, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States San Francisco, CA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States New York, NY, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Date 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 Name anita hazeltine Rebecca Caldwell Doug Parker Kelsey Drybread Linda Griffin Derek Sutter Rich Nagel Diane Nugent Michael Grigsby Dawn Hemstreet Ron Thomas Leesa Cunningham Richard Hahn Megan Page Patricia Loos Kristan Harrenstein Scott Toulouse Emily Allerheiligen Maisie Greer Emily Thomas Gale More sybil barnes Sarah Fedorchak Tiffany Jennings Paula Edwards Carrie Legros Thomas Crews Emily Holt Kimberly Hutton Vicki Logsdon Barry Knolton Susan Thelander Location Gainesville, FL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Loveland, CO, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Fort Worth, TX, United States Los Angeles, CA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Salem, OR, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Bonner Springs, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Council Bluffs, IA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Basehor, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Arvada, CO, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Bolton, MA, United States Lewiston, NY, United States Basehor, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Date 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 Name Scot Batesel Myrna Goff Warren Musselman Jeremy Borrell Derrick Winston Barb Artz Erik Oftedahl Samantha Peters Lisa Peters Jennifer Frailey Marsha Hobert Shannon DeJaynes Dianna Duclos Kimberly Saylor mary schwanitz Josie Neuzil Sally Jane Robertson Bill Kenny Janann Eldredge Lindsay Haley Joshua Like Christopher Solis Jessica Barber Eliza Pokojski Fred Doan Marina Boyle Karen Wilbert Megan Guge Christine Shane Kelly Dione Chandler Eaton Thomas Wilbert Location Basehor, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Lyons, CO, United States Hastings, NE, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Lyons, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Glen Haven, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Topeka, KS, United States Hampton, VA, United States ferndale, MI, United States Dillon, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Philadelphia, PA, United States Lenexa, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Burlington, NC, United States Estes Park, CO, United States West Des Moines, IA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Cudahy, WI, United States Springfield, MO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Date 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-02 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 Name Katie Barnett Ruth Slade Stef Scrutchins Christina Santagati Kelly Morrissey Keven Owens justus drake Samantha Demlow Jaime Canavan Catherine Peacock Jerrica Miller Bethany Runyon Bronson MacDonald Sonya Perez Emily Zalewski Jimmy Kuch Jessa JOHNSON Patti Dolezal Dave Rusk Lauren Molle Kevin Pula Renee Gallardo Christine Kalencki James Putman Sheryl Ponzer Jesse Conejo alix Jensen Lynne Sutherland Andria Amen Jennifer Grewe Aleksandar Kostadinov Holly Charboneau Location Ault, CO, United States Pierce, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Holland, MI, United States Campo, CA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States West Bend, WI, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Sacramento, CA, United States Minturn, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Kansas City, KS, United States Lyons, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Loveland, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Winnemucca, NV, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Fraser, CO, United States Los Altos, CA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Erie, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Drake, CO, United States Date 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 Name Kitty Gk Susan Taylor Antoinette Wallace Angelina Hodge Tessa Burke Craig Adams Brenda Loveall Niki Drake Dara Palmer Jean Saul Marcus Hake Sean Nunan Pamela Meylor Ricky Papineau Aaron Awtrey Bev Stein Chelsea Ackerman Brad Wiley Pat Yoh Sharon Kleist Daniel Casso ben jackson Kevin Soviak Anne Cridler Maren Bosley Heather Johnson Brenda Longacre Jeff Legler kathie healy Kenneth Gritzman Eric Senesac Michael Foster Location Dorval, Canada Estes Park, CO, United States Albany, NY, United States Liberty, MO, United States Chicago, IL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Kenosha, WI, United States Philadelphia, PA, United States Denver, CO, United States Fountain, CO, United States East Longmeadow, MA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Hastings, NE, United States Lyons, CO, United States Lewisville, TX, United States Wauseon, OH, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Arvada, CO, United States fort collins, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Guadalupe, CA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States MILWAUKIE, OR, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Loveland, CO, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Date 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 Name Gina Paige Catherine Lewis JoAnn Stegura Timothy Tyran Megan Evans Scott Esser Jeff Briggs Hilarie Splichal Yvonne Odom CYNTHIA DOHENY Belle Morris Herb Loveall Joe Heyen Julie Klett Jason Martinez Michelle Hurni Miki Wollett Kim Minnick Nancy Elgin Jeanette Terry Anna Haug Liz DeCleene Nancy Houlihan Lawrence Sage Garth Lewis Mike Poland Kristi Noyes Ryan Cornell Scott Paige James Paige Sandy Chockla Jan Swaney Location Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Clear Lake, MN, United States Bedford, TX, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Longmont, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Littleton, CO, United States Bellvue, CO, United States Tallahassee, FL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Katy, TX, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Kansas City, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Littleton, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Date 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-03 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 Name Samantha Myers Patty Risley Lydia Wiley Chelsea young Jennifer Diefenbach Eli Ertl Larissa Gamber Shannon Rice Samuel Lawrence Shuler Susan James Shuler Denise Stookesberry Mary Ross Heather Stone Molly Vetter Jordanne Bradley beckie greer Brian Faith Pamela Wallace Renee Sniegocki Sharlyn Clark Marcia Tavel Patrick Vernon Lisa Innes Lynn Stepaniak Louis Orenstein Cynthia Basch richard herzfeldt Pamela Demke Nancy Wilson Colleen Bair Dina Lininger Location La Salle, CO, United States El Paso, IL, United States Olathe, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Fort Lauderdale, FL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Kissimmee, FL, United States Dallas, TX, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Bennettsville, SC, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Glen Haven, CO, United States Dallas, TX, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Redondo Beach, CA, United States Erie, CO, United States estes park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Gatlinburg, TN, United States High Springs, FL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Albuquerque, NM, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Boulder, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Worth, IL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Date 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 Name Mark Eaton John Calden Laura Case Jann Meadows Lauren Stepaniak Suzanne Riley Linda Wagner Julie Cuklanz Amy Donahue Breeyan Sloan Katie Bernacchi Keith Hammond Kim Floyd Colin Dowling Lynn Lykins steve klett Jennifer Hood Joshua McCLelland Meghann Tornquist Leah Ruddick Tori Parker Beth DeWitt Matthew DeWitt Shara Musick Rick Zuba Jessica Kaplan Alissa Anderson Beth Godwi Diane Calden Toni Brese Gail Ellis Devon Oline Location Olathe, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Durango, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Missoula, MT, United States Allenspark, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Fort Collins, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Fenton, MO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Fleming Island, FL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Gainesville, FL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Boulder, CO, United States Date 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-04 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 Name Lisa Slepetski Christine Smith Jennifer Reeme Megan Cohen Kim Pruemer Stacey Jacobs Julie Cardenas Sherry K Rytting Shayna Gallagher Brenda Schreiner Teresa Buttler Thomas Booth Linda Bowling Margaret Sanders virginia hampton Megan Nugent Scott Annin Kristen Zumdome Karen Davis Pat Hammond Rachel Barnes Becky Gruhl Derek Harding Rhonda Harding Kristen Luetkemeier Mark Williams bill waiters Marcus Dougan Kelly Dougan Courtney Strother Kimberly West Kevin Runde Location Moose Pass, AK, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States West Des Moines, IA, United States Teutopolis, IL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Loveland, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Erie, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Lamar, MO, United States Batavia, IL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Greeley, CO, United States Fullerton, CA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Grand Canyon, AZ, United States Miami, FL, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Longmont, CO, United States Longmont, CO, United States Grand Junction, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Saint Charles, MO, United States Date 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-05 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 Name shirley mclaren Thomas Kapr Cathy Scarborough Molly Cantrell Amy Hansen Erin Ries Brandon Anderson Amanda Farrior Narda Byczek Kaleigh Smith greg miles Mark Donahue Tia Sillers Ambree Zuba Jane Brown mark selby Amanda Smith Todd Hart Jennifer Perry Kelli Cox Ruth Rehm Thad Wright Bob Nickless Jenifer Regan Rhonda Mickelson Donna Egan Ashley Muilenburg Kathleen Gustafson Robert Warren Carole Fixter Violet Morisette Greg Nichols Location Estes Park, CO, United States Keystone, SD, United States Ocracoke, NC, United States Vancleave, MS, United States Amery, WI, United States Ness City, KS, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Crestview, FL, United States Loveland, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Nashville, TN, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Woodway, TX, United States Nashville, TN, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Hutto, TX, United States Birmingham, AL, United States Moravia, IA, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Urbandale, IA, United States Homer, AK, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Braham, MN, United States Longmont, CO, United States Date 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-06 2016-04-07 2016-04-07 2016-04-07 2016-04-07 2016-04-07 2016-04-07 2016-04-07 2016-04-07 2016-04-07 2016-04-08 2016-04-08 2016-04-08 2016-04-08 2016-04-08 Name Eleanor Roehi Patrick McCartney Cass Keninger Andrea Gohl Justin DuBois Malinda Stephens Jon-Paul Gallois Phyllis Star White Gayle Sandham Sheryl Kenner Brett Hodges Herb Mignery Amy Eldred Mike Egan Diane Pence Ashley Goedken Mary Frankel Pepper Papineau Dustin Fasching Andrea Rothwell Jason Mezilis Keith Berkes Susan Hora Chris Parsons Raphael haber Jessica Littlefield Location Estes Park, CO, United States ozark, AR, United States Independence, IA, United States Las Cruces, NM, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Wellington, CO, United States Denver, CO, United States Leland, NC, United States Stilwell, KS, United States Loveland, CO, United States Lincoln, NE, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Estes Park, CO, United States York, NE, United States Los Angeles, CA, United States North Fort Myers, FL, United States Los Angeles, CA, United States Los Angeles, CA, United States Aurora, CO, United States Salt Lake City, UT, United States Estes Park, CO, United States Los Angeles, CA, United States Date 2016-04-08 2016-04-09 2016-04-09 2016-04-09 2016-04-09 2016-04-09 2016-04-10 2016-04-10 2016-04-10 2016-04-10 2016-04-11 2016-04-11 2016-04-11 2016-04-11 2016-04-11 2016-04-11 2016-04-12 2016-04-12 2016-04-12 2016-04-12 2016-04-12 2016-04-12 2016-04-12 2016-04-12 2016-04-12 2016-04-12 To: Estes Park Planning Committee From: Chris Watters – Estes Park resident and The Rock Inn Mountain Tavern employee Date: April 8, 2016 Subject: Lazy B Ranch The creation of this venue has become a major talking point of Estes Park businesses and residents due to the many changes that will occur if the planned venue is built. As a full-‐time employee of The Rock Inn Mountain Tavern and a resident of Estes Park, I am deeply concerned by the planning of this venue for multiple reasons: ¥Light pollution – o Street lamps and parking lot lights will heavily pollute the nightscape, destroying views of the stars and damaging nighttime wildlife in the area. The secluded feeling of Western Estes Park is a reason so many residents live here and why so many people enjoy staying on this end of town. The light pollution that would occur due to the proposed enhancements of the area will essentially negate that essence of seclusion. ¥Noise pollution – o People come to Estes Park for many reasons – one of which is the peace and quiet. If we do not preserve this aspect of our small town, people will find other places to travel that provide this environment. Lost tourism is the exact opposite of what this venue promises to provide; the type of tourism this venue promotes is not in-‐line with our current tourism crowd and has the long-‐term potential to drive them away. ¥Traffic congestion – o Adding a turn lane to Route 66 would negatively affect traffic coming in and out of the National Park, residential traffic in the area, pedestrian safety (due to the lack of sidewalks -‐ as it is currently planned) and parking for The Rock Inn Mountain Tavern. More so, if the hopes of the venue truly are to have shuttle buses from the Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins areas, this would add to the dangers for wildlife crossing our roads, noise pollution that will scare away much of the wildlife that co-‐exists within our community, and air pollution that is neither beneficial nor easily combated ¥Wildlife dangers – o Some of the dangers have already been mentioned, but if the venue exists as a tent for the first year or two (as it has been proposed) and food is served to families within that tent, there will be incidents with RECEIVED - COMM DEV APRIL 12, 2016 bears and other forms of wildlife. Either they will come searching and run away without causing harm (potentially being put-‐down because of their domestication due to easily accessible food) or an attack will happen and not only will this affect some family and/or individual for a lifetime – but that bear (or those bears) will have to be put-‐down. ¥ Complete lack of planning – o Please, seriously consider this: an 18,000 square foot building could be erected, our roads changed, and our natural landscape manipulated – all on the hopes of a single business succeeding – and this business is being proposed by someone who believes that they can maintain that 18,000 square foot building, serve food, serve drinks, and provide live entertainment day-‐in and day-‐out with only 10 – 12 employees. o Employment is a major issue in the Estes Park community. Lack of affordable housing is at the root of this issue, and when asked about these concerns for any new business, we received two different responses by two of the partners heading up the proposal – 1. This is not my problem, nor my concern. 2. We will be able to provide adequate housing options to our employees (since there will only be 10 – 12 full-‐time). ¥ Offers nothing back to this community – o The leading member of the proposal team has made it very clear that this business offers the potential for economic growth and prosperity to the Estes Park community through increased tourism and employment opportunities. This could not be farther from the truth, considering that they only plan to provide 10 – 12 full-‐time jobs and shuttle a large portion of their customers to and from the venue with no stops in-‐between. The majority of these customers will be shuttled from Denver, Boulder, and Ft. Collins (and surrounding areas) meaning that their shuttles will be actively competing for our normally commuting visitors and bypassing every other business in the process. It has also been stated that this business would encourage year-‐round tourism, but the venue is only proposed to operate full-‐time May through September. o If this business fails, we will have an abandoned building, with an abandoned parking lot, improperly zone for commercial use, and very few options to fill that location with an alternative business that has the chance to survive in such a large venue, in such a remote location. The potential of this business surviving in this location is a gamble – the negative short and long-‐term effects are guaranteed. In my opinion, this venue is neither reflective nor contributory to the National Park or the Estes Park Community. We are risking so much to gain so little – and potentially lose a whole lot. Dale Griffith 1703 Highway 66 April 7, 2016 20s To Frank Lancaster, Audem Gonzalez, Members of the planning board and Members of the town board: My name is Dale Griffith and my family homesteaded this neighborhood many years ago. I remember riding horses as a child where the campground is now and getting hamburgers from the Old Rock Inn when it was a sandwich shop. We can still visit our ancestors in the family cemetery on what is now the Beaver Brook Resort. Over the years our family has sold off several parcels from the original acreage, including the Rock Inn land. I am writing to question how Van Horn engineering can call the land on Mills Drive between me and the Rock Inn `no man's land' when it has never belonged to anyone except my family. The widening of Mills Drive is clearly coming onto my property, and I absolutely will not allow this. Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> ESTES PAR, Opposition Letter of Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers 2 messages Erin Ax <erinax@hotmail.com> To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 12:15 PM April 9, 2016 Dear Commissioners: I am writing in opposition of the Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers proposal to develop five acres of currently undeveloped land along Spur 66. Currently this land is zoned A-Accommodation and the Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers proposal would develop this land into commercial use in place of building accommodations. As a local teacher and a member of the EVICS board, I see the incredible need for housing for families and workers here in Estes Park. This is a well-known need as reported in the 2016 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment. With the need Estes Park has, to take land that is currently zoned accommodation and allow for development that does not include accommodation of any kind does not make sense. As well, I reviewed the Neighborhood Plan for Spur 66 in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan from November 2012. Under Developmental Guidelines it states, "Commercial uses should not be extended along the Spur. " and "New accommodations should be residential in character." (pg. 76) As well, it is later stated in the plan, "The commercial campground at the Spur 66 Park entrance intersection should evolve into housing." (pg. 78) Approving the wavers and variances Lazy B has asked for supports them in developing this land in a way that does not support additional accommodations on this parcel of land. With these two sections as part of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan I hope you, as the Estes Valley Planning Commission, follow through with supporting the Neighborhood Plans to increase housing and help make this a town we want to continue living in. Thank you for your public service. Sincerely, Erin Axtell Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:52 PM To: Erin Ax <erinax@hotmail.com> Erin - ESTES A EP .PAR h; Karen Thompson < Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan - from Joha 2 messages Bill J. Darden <bdarden@uchicago.edu> To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Cc: Tom Street <tstreet5026@gmail.com> I filled out the comment as follows re: the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan, but other than clicking on "signing" nothing seemed to happen. So please use my following comment so I will count as opposed to the plan. "I vote NO on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. It's poor planning and reeks of "money talks." The Rock Inn is a great place to go to enjoy a relaxing fun time with friends and musicians. The area around it contributes to this uncongested, low traffic, nighttime environment. Support for the Rock Inn that has been thriving in the Estes Valley since I began coming here in 1977 should not have negative impacts on their business or the neighborhood (Mills Drive) nearby. -- Johanna Darden, 501 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517" Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:08 PM To: "Bill J. Darden" <bdarden@uchicago.edu> Johanna- Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Planning Commissioners. I'm curious about the problem you referred to in your first paragraph. Were you trying to comment through the Town website? If so, we need to investigate to make sure it's working properly. Do you remember the steps you took to comment? Thank you for any other information you can provide. Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Bill J. Darden <bdarden@uchicago.edu> wrote: I filled out the comment as follows re: the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan, but other than clicking on "signing" nothing seemed to happen. So please use my following comment so I will count as opposed to the plan. "I vote NO on the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan. It's poor planning and reeks of "money talks." The Rock Inn is a great place to go to enjoy a relaxing fun time with friends and musicians. The area around it contributes to this uncongested, low traffic, nighttime environment. Support for the Rock Inn that has been thriving in the Estes Valley since I began coming here in 1977 should not have negative impacts on their Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org > STES PARK Lazy B proposal 1 message epmoosemom@aol.com <epmoosemom@aol.com> Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:14 AM To: planning <estes.org> My husband and I live about a 5 minute walk from the proposed site of the Lazy B Chuckwagon project. We live in a relatively quiet area that backs up to RMNP housing. While there are rentals and accommodations in our area, it is a low-impact neighborhood. The potential noise and traffic which this Lazy B project would generate is ridiculous in this kind of neighborhood...not only on RMNP housing and other single family dwellings like ours, but also nearby campgrounds. Rock Inn is an established neighborhood restaurant which also has entertainment, but since it opened we have never had any issues with noise or music carrying up to our home....even when we are out on our deck or hot tub. The idea of tour busses and increased traffic on narrow and winding Colorado Hwy 66 is ridiculous...there are enough large busses on this road going into the YMCA property....the road is difficult to drive on safely with poor shoulders and numerous small gravel roads such as ours (no name) merging into 66. I hope this project is not approved - it should be on a few acres someplace in a more "ranch-like"setting with room for large busses and lots of cars. Nancy Matson 1843 Highway 66 Estes Park, CO 80517 0 1. E II 203 COMMUil," PMfiNT Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> COMMUNITYDEVELO un, Apr 10, 2016 at 8:25 PM FSTES Support for the Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers 2 messages Quentin Wedan <quentinwedan@gmail.com> To: mromero@eptrail.com, kthompson@estes.org To the Estes Park Planning Board and Town Trustees, P ti I am writing to offer support for the new Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers business in Estes Park. As someone with deep roots in the community, I can confidently and objectively offer an endorsement to the start up of the new supper and western show venue scheduled to open this spring. I am a former resident, a graduate of Estes Park High School, and employee for ten years at the original Lazy B Ranch. While my life and career have me traveling around the globe and across the U.S„ I am always proud to make frequent weekend trips back to Estes to visit family and friends. When hearing about plans for a new Lazy B Ranch, I made a point to personally meet with Michelle Oliver, the project manager leading the start up effort. Over the course of several meetings and conversations, I have come to appreciate what respect she has for both Estes Park, and the unique tradition, history, and heritage of western music. Those who may remember the original Lazy B, or perhaps have visited other Chuckwagon suppers and western show locations, can likely recall what a unique, enjoyable, and wholesome entertainment experience these venues provide. And of course, who can forget hearing songs like 'Colorado', 'Cool Water', and 'Ghost Riders in the Sky' ? In this modem age, there are so few entertainment experiences that the entire family can enjoy together, while also learning a little about our unique western heritage. In my ten years working at the Lazy B, I recall many families and groups from across the country, and around the world, who thoroughly enjoyed the authentic menu, and family friendly western show. People enjoyed the unique theme so much, we often hosted weddings and receptions for large groups visiting the Estes area. I have no doubt that the new Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers will once again be a popular and sought out place for both local residents and visitors alike. I look forward to bringing my own son and family to the new Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers this summer !! Best Regards, Quentin Wedan Frederick, Colorado EPHS Class of 1989 Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM To: Quentin Wedan <quentinwedan@gmail.com> Quentin - Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Planning Commissioners. Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Mike and Donna Egan gold1dog@hotmail.com via estes.org 3:12 PM (21 hours ago) to planning To: Estes Valley Planning Commission Members, Mayor and Estes Park Town Board From: Mike and Donna Egan Partners - S&E Enterprises, 1755 Moraine Ave. Highway 66 Date: February 24, 2016 This letter is to express our opposition to the current proposed plan for development of the Lazy B Chuckwagon on the Elk Meadow RV Resort Property. We are the owners of nearby (90' away) Commercial & Residential rental units at 1755 Moraine Ave. We have reviewed the Statement of Intent, Site & Building drawings, Traffic Study, and various other documents submitted by the developer. Mike Egan also attended the public meeting for the project on February 17, 2016. Outlined below are our specific objections. (1) The Statement of Intent details the proposed project and discusses some Environmental & Miscellaneous Impacts including wetlands, wildlife and obstructed views. Fine. What the plan entirely fails to address is the direct adverse impact to businesses and residents of the street re-alignment plan for Highway 66 and Mills Drive. The proposed installation of a turning lane in front of the Rock inn on Highway 66 will effectively eliminate 16 critical parking spaces for this business. The current owners have spent the last 10 years building this restaurant into a local favorite. This impact was totally ignored. As you all know, parking for any business in the Estes Valley is at a premium. These spaces are critical to the Rock Inn. The proposed widening of Mills Drive to a paved 24' cartway with curbing will infringe on the current driveways and available parking space for all the residents and eliminate off street parking entirely for some. The needs of these owners and tenants who are almost entirely year round residents have not been addressed in the plan. (2) A traffic study prepared by Delich Associates and presented on 12/14/15 indicated that the proposed turning lane at the intersection of Highway 66 and Mills Drive be delayed until after one year of operation by the Lazy-B Chuckwagon. A later report dated 1/13/16 stated that the turning lane was now required. Not sure what happened to cause this change but again, it totally disregards impact on neighbors. The Elk Meadow facility currently has a large driveway entrance off Highway 66 that adequately handles all traffic coming I and out of the campground. In the past ten years we have never seen a backup of traffic near this entrance at any hour. The same entrance can easily handle the proposed traffic coming into the proposed Lazy B operation. There is no need for an additional entrance off Mills Drive. (3) Several Waivers and Variances for this project are needed for implementation. All of these need to be looked at very carefully especially Waiver of Ordinance 8-05#, Appendix D Street Design and Construction Standards. I appears this waiver will impact drainage at Mills Drive and Highway 66. Again, an adverse impact to neighbors of project. Some closing comments. The project developer in the Statement of Intent indicated that an overwhelming positive response would be shown at the public meeting. At the meeting an overwhelmingnegative response was shown. Unfortunately, only an hour was available for public comment due to room scheduling. It appears that the developer is determined to push this through. As the governing bodies responsible for overseeing Estes Valley Development we ask the Planning Commission, Town Board and Mayor to reject this project proposal in its current form. We request that the developer and planers come up with an alternate plan that takes into consideration the impact on the people in the neighborhood - at least on the same level as the other wildlife in the area. If Lazy B would use the already existing entrance to the Elk Meadow property a major part of this impact problem would be resolved. We think a site visit by governing body members might also be helpful. Thank you for your review and consideration of this information. We can be reached at: 135 Timber Lane, Estes Park, 970-412- 9672, gold1dog@hotmail.com.