HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-03-17Prepared: March 2, 20015
* Revised:
STUDY SESSION AG ENDA
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
12:15 p.m.
Estes Park Town Hall, Room 202
12:15 Lunch Chair Hull
12:25
Review of Minutes (5 minutes)
Chair Hull
12:30 Avalon Drive Rezoning
(10 minutes)
Senior Planner Shirk
12:40 Silver Moon Rezoning and Amended Plat
(10 minutes)
Senior Planner Shirk
12:50 Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley
(10 minutes)
Planner Kleisler
1:00 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Modernization
Appendix One: Economic Profile (10 minutes)
Planner Kleisler
1:10 EVDC Amendment – Pet Grooming & Retail Animal Sales
Discussion (5 minutes)
Planner Kleisler
1:15 Adjourn to meeting Chair Hull
Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may
occur before this meeting at approximately 12:00 p.m. The public is welcome to attend study
sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted.
Prepared: March 2, 2015
* Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 17, 2015
1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not
exceed three minutes.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, February 17, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
4. AVALON DRIVE REZONING, 1650 Avalon Drive
Owner: Cindy Younglund-Liddell & Robert Liddell
Applicant: Cindy Younglund-Liddell & Robert Liddell
Request: Rezone 1650 Avalon Drive from E–Estate to R-2–Two Family Residential
zoning
Staff: Dave Shirk
5. SILVER MOON REZONING & AMENDED PLAT, 175 Spruce Drive & an Adjacent Vacant Lot
Owner: Silver Moon, LLC
Applicant: John Sullivan, Van Horn Engineering
Request: Rezone one parcel from RM–Residential Multi-Family to CD-Commercial
Downtown, and combine two parcels into one lot of record zoned CD
Staff: Dave Shirk
6. ASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEY - AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW, TBD Steamer
Drive
Owner: Stanley Land Holding, LLC
Applicant: Greg Rosener
Request: 1. Revisions to the approved Development Plan, including but not limited to:
shifting the location of the Accommodations-2 building approximately five
(5) feet to the northwest; building the Accommodations-2 building 4’11”
above the maximum height limit; reconfiguring the entry & parking lot; and
revising the storm drainage plan.
2. Minor Modification to the Amended Plat, including but not limited to
dedicating a new utility easement to align with the sewer line, modifying
drainage easements to better accommodate upstream basins, & adjusting
the location of the pedestrian easement to follow the revised entrance road
alignment.
Staff: Phil Kleisler
CONTINUED ON OTHER SIDE
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
7. RIVERVIEW PINES DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT
Applicant request to continue to April meeting
8. DISCUSSION CONERNING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
To allow Pet Grooming & Retail Animal Sales in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district
9. DISCUSSION CONCERNING ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODERNIZATION
Appendix One: Economic Profile
9. REPORTS
A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
1. Barrel Beer Garden Variance approved March 3, 2015
2. Weires Residence Variance denied March 3, 2015
3. Wilson Variance Variance approved March 3, 2015
B. Estes Park Town Board
1. Marys Lake Replat Amended Development Agreement continued to April 24, 2015
2. Backbone Adventures Special Review approved February 24, 2015
C. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners
1. High Drive Heights Amended Plat approved February 17, 2015
D. Flood Recovery
10. ADJOURN
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree,
Wendye Sykes, Russ Schneider and one vacant position
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Hills, Klink, Murphree, and Schneider
Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk,
Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, and Recording Secretary
Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Sykes, County Liaison Michael Whitley
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were nine people in attendance. Each
Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. Chair Hull explained the process for
accepting public comment at today’s meeting.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes, January 6, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed 5-0 with one absent and one vacancy.
3. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-04, AT&T MONOPOLE, 1435 Prospect Mountain Drive
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant proposes to install a 100-foot
telecommunications monopole to allow antenna additions, new technology and greater cell
phone coverage in the Estes Valley. New antennas would provide additional data capacity. The
tower would allow two future carriers to co-locate on the tower, helping minimize the overall
number of structures on Prospect Mountain. The site is where approximately twelve existing
antennas are already located.
In summer of 2014, Staff approved a 70-foot tall monopine in approximately the same location as
the proposed 100-foot tower. In the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), towers are not
allowed. A monopine simulates a pine tree and does a good job of concealing the antenna. It was
determined by staff that a 100-foot monopine would be more visible than a monopole of the
same height. Officials at Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) agreed with staff. The applicant
submitted a photo simulation, which was included in the meeting materials and posted on the
Town website. Planner Shirk explained there would be very few changes around the perimeter
due to the mountains, but coverage would improve near the base of Prospect Mountain.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Shirk stated a special review requires the application mitigate, to the maximum extent
feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the
environment. The application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No
comments were received from adjacent property owners. Planner Shirk stated one of the
potential adverse impacts could be a view disruption, and he has been discussing the issue with
the officials at RMNP to determine their preferences. A historic resources survey completed,
which found no historical or archaeological resources would be affected. Comments provided by
the Fire Marshall can be addressed in the building permit process. The Larimer County
Commercial Radio Mobile Service regulations are adopted by reference in the EVDC, and states
the most preferred alternatives must be used. He briefly reviewed all the criteria used for
preferred alternatives. He stated the proposed tower would hold three carriers, eliminating the
need for additional towers, and would be camouflaged in a manner appropriate to the site’s
context and surrounding environment. He stated the tower must be painted or coated in a color
that blends with surrounding buildings and the natural environment. Staff recommends the tower
be painted a dark green color to help minimize visual impact. The applicant proposes to leave it
unpainted. This issue will need to be discussed by the Planning Commissioners. Planner Shirk
stated the applicant will need to comply with all required FCC regulations concerning cell towers.
Staff Findings
1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the County Commission for the
proposed Special Review application.
2. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply
with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
3. The proposed tower will allow for future antennas to co-locate and help minimize the total
number of towers on Prospect Mountain.
4. The proposed monopole satisfies the purpose and intent of a concealed antenna.
Staff recommended approval of the Special Review application, with conditions of approval listed
below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion concerning the spacing requirement in the Larimer County Land Use
Code. Staff determined putting the tower close to others would reduce the visual impact. The
applicant will need to comply with FCC regulations concerning interference.
Public Comment
Rick Holpp/applicant and consultant for AT&T Wireless, stated he preferred a dull galvanized
color and thinks it would be less visible than dark green. Galvanized metal is dull and non-
reflective. Commissioner Schneider suggested the applicant revise the document that states the
tower would not be seen from the Stanley Hotel. It was his opinion that it would be seen from
that location. Mr. Holpp stated the FAA would not require this tower to be lit.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Alan Fraundorf/Town IT Manager suggested receiving a positive response from the FCC to ensure
this proposed tower would not have any effect on the existing towers that are already there
(emergency services, etc.). He recommended receiving written approval from the FCC that there
would be no impacts to existing antennas. Mr. Holpp stated the FCC regulates the existing
frequencies to ensure to interference, and the proposed tower must comply with those
regulations.
Frank Theis/town resident was concerned the FAA would require a light on top after the project
was approved.
Planner Shirk stated the application could be continued to allow time to receive confirmation
concerning lighting and interference.
Commissioner Klink made a motion to continue the application until a written response is
received by the FCC and the FAA concerning compliance with their regulations, including but not
limited to affirmation that no lighting is required, and there will be no interference with other
frequencies. The motion failed to receive a second and died. Town Attorney White stated the FCC
and FAA are Federal agencies, and they may not provide letters, or any other communication,
especially within 30 days. He suggested requesting information from the applicant concerning
those issues.
Rick Holpp stated the height limit for requiring lighting of an antenna is 200 feet, and the
proposed tower is 100 feet. He stated AT&T is operating a tower now on top of Prospect
Mountain with no interference. He assured the Commission of compliance with all rules and
regulations. He stated interference is measureable and it is the job of the radio frequency
engineers to make it all work. He requested to not continue the application, as the development
window is short and time is of the essence. Planner Shirk suggested adding a condition of
approval to have the information prior to the County Commission meeting, which is the decision-
making body. There was further discussion concerning the final color of the structure, and Mr.
Holpp stated the galvanized color is very dull, and would not be very reflective. He encouraged
the Commission to allow the galvanized color rather than dark green.
Following that discussion, Commissioner Klink withdrew his motion to continue.
Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioner’s hearing, applicant shall provide
letter from a radio frequency engineer verifying that the proposed tower would not interfere
with existing structures/antennas, and a written explanation from the applicant referencing
the specific FAA regulation concerning the lighting of towers.
2. Tower, antennas, and appurtenant structures and equipment shall be galvanized to minimize
reflected light; final color shall be subject to review and approval by Community Development
staff.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3. Shall comply with Larimer County Land Use Code Section 16 “Commercial Mobile Radio
Service (CRMS) Facilities”, including requirement to allow additional carriers to co-locate and
requirement to remove abandoned towers.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend approval of Special Review 2014-04, as
described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the
motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy.
4. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-05, BACKBONE ADVENTURES, 1851 North Lake Avenue
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The application requests approval to operate a scooter,
motorcycle, and jeep rental business at 1851 North Lake Avenue. The applicant is Kenneth Hitch,
and the owner of the proposed location is Vansteenburgh Engineering Laboratory, Inc. The
applicant desires to expand into the southern building on North Lake Avenue. The business,
Backbone Adventure Rentals, is currently operating out of a building adjacent to Coyote Mountain
Lodge atr 1360 Big Thompson Avenue. Planner Kleisler stated adjacent lots at the proposed
location are zoned for Accommodations, Commercial and Residential uses. Sombrero Horse
Stables are across Dry Gulch Road to the east, and they use the area immediately to the east of
the subject building for overflow parking. The Lot in question is zoned CO–Commercial Outlying.
Planner Kleisler stated the business is classified as Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals, and is
permitted by Special Review in the CO–Commercial Outlying zone district. Special Review requires
applicants mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land
uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The Planning Commission is the
recommending body, with the Town Board making the final decision. This project is on the Town
Board agenda for the February 24, 2015 meeting. Affected agencies and adjacent property
owners were notified, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. Staff received one
comment from a neighbor adjacent to the existing location, stating the issues he had with
scooters going down his street, running stop signs, using horns.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant requested minor modifications to three sections in the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC): Section 5.1.R.2, which state the “Front yard setback areas shall
be landscaped to provide a buffer between the right-of-way.” Given the existing building location
to the property line and right-of-way, there is no space for this landscaping. Staff supports the
request given the site constraints would force any landscaping on to the public right-of-way. The
second minor modification request is to Section 7.5.G.3.C.1, which requires that one tree be
included in each landscaped island. Staff supports the plan to not include a tree in the proposed
island because it would interfere with the existing tree and would create site visibility issues near
the intersection. Planner Kleisler stated irrigating the proposed island would be difficult, and
there is also an existing overhead power line nearby.
Planner Kleisler stated staff had some concerns about parking and vehicle circulation. A shared
parking agreement with Sombrero Stables for the area to the east of the project would help with
parking and circulation. The area directly in front of the garage doors would be used for parking,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
with wheel stops installed for safety. The existing awning is in public right-of-way, and the
applicant is aware it needs to be removed. The building is very close to the southern property
line, meaning parking and landscaping will not be feasible there. Planner Kleisler stated the
applicant has requested a minor modification to the minimum parking requirement. A total of
nine spaces are required for the proposed use. The initial request was for eight spaces; however,
one of those (the ADA space) would have been located in the right-of-way. Therefore, staff
supports allowing the applicant to have seven spaces in order to be keep the accessible space out
of the right-of-way.
Planner Kleisler stated staff requested the applicant to address issues such as noise, hours of
operation, and routing details. The applicant submitted documents outlining peak months (March
– October) and hours (8 a.m. – 6 p.m., seven days a week). During off peak months, hours would
be 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., seven days a week. The applicant has indicated he would install noise reducers
on both the scooters and motorcycles, when possible. Planner Kleisler stated all vehicle storage
would be inside the building, or screened to comply with the EVDC. At staff’s request, the
applicant provided a very specific (and EVDC compliant) area where rental vehicles would be
parked.
Staff Findings
1. The Special Review application complies with EVDC Section 3.5 Standards for Review,
provided that the application is revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval
by staff and affected agencies.
2. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard to
the special review use approval within three (3) years of the approval shall automatically
render the decision null and void. Additionally, if the legally established special review use is
abandoned or discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years or more, then the
decision originally approved such special review shall automatically lapse and render the
decision null and void.
3. The requested Minor Modification to Section 4.4.C.4 Density and Dimensional Standards,
regarding the existing structure’s awning that protrudes into the public right-of-way, does not
advance the goals and purposes of thie Code nor relieves practical difficulties in developing
the site;
4. The requested Minor Modification to landscaping and buffering requirements, as described in
the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site;
5. The requested Minor Modification to minimum parking requirements, as described in the staff
report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; and
6. This is a recommendation to the Estes Park Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is the
Decision-making Body for the proposed Special Review application.
Staff recommended approval with conditions, listed below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Town Attorney White commented the existing business near Coyote Mountain Lodge is legally
nonconforming. If the number of vehicles increased, it would constitute an increase in the
nonconforming use, which would be a code violation and could require the use to be abandoned.
He stated the Planning Commissioners could decide if there should be a maximum number of
vehicles at the proposed site. Commissioner comments included: the number of rental vehicles
should be relative to the number of parking spaces, care should be taken to ensure no one parked
in the right-of-way, concern that customers/employees of Sombrero Stables would encroach onto
their property; if the applicant wanted to add more paved parking, they would need to meet the
impervious coverage standards. Planner Kleisler stated an additional condition of approval could
be added if the Commission decided additional signage for no parking areas would be beneficial.
Public Comment
Jes Reetz/Applicant representative stated applicant’s desire was to mitigate impacts as best as
possible with the limitations on the property. Because there is no parking in the front of the
building, they tried to maximize the parking in other areas on the lot. North Lake Avenue can be
used by customers to get a feel of the vehicles, and the landscaping at the back will buffer the
business from the residential properties. A landscaped area on the east corner will help delineate
the entryway, and the applicant hopes to use that area as a display for rental vehicles. Large
portable planters are planned for the south side to discourage customers from parking there, and
would be moveable for Town work in the right-of-way. The south side would not be used as a
display area.
Kenneth Hitch/business owner stated they now have 6 Jeeps, 4 motorcycles, and are proposing to
bring over some scooters from the other location. He stated there would be approximately 15
total vehicles, most to be stored indoors. Due to the tight parking issue, there may be times when
a customer will be asked to park their personal vehicle off-site. A Shared Maintenance Agreement
with Sombrero Stables will allow communication between the two business owners concerning
the area east of the proposed site. Mr. Hitch stated the existing trailer on the site belongs to the
property owner. If it was moved, it would not open up any additional parking spaces.
Public Comment
Todd Jirsa/Town resident was concerned about the scooters at the current location. His concerns
included: concern about mitigating to the maximum extent feasible; disagreement with the
“Routing Past Issues” letter from the applicant; believes there are two separate businesses being
run off of one business license; concerned with scooter drivers not following traffic laws. He
showed video of scooters on Lakefront Street to support his concerns. Mr. Jirsa and Steve Lamar
(scooter business owner) attempted a mediation without success. He understood the public has
the right to use the road, but asked the Commissioners to decide if the issues have been
mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Staff and Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: If number of vehicles being
rented is a concern, the Commission can discuss limiting it; is the problem being transferred to
another location; does the Police Department have the ability to enforce the laws; law
enforcement is not a land use issue; you cannot regulate tourists having fun, and tourism is our
main industry; putting limits on the number of rentals is like telling Sombrero Ranch they can only
have a certain number of horses; the proposed location is more commercial; model traffic code
violations are administered by the Police Department; noise baffling devices on all vehicles could
be a condition of approval (if they are made for scooters). Planner Kleisler stated this was the first
Special Review application of this type for the EVDC area. Town Attorney White stated the traffic
may be an issue, but it is an issue with every business. All businesses have an impact on vehicle
traffic, and limiting the use on public roads would be a problem.
Conditions of Approval
1. Revise the site plan to note that the Jeep display area to the west of the building as “Possible
future Jeep display location. This Jeep display requires a setback variance from the Estes
Valley Board of Adjustment”;
2. Amend the site plan to reflect the following:
a. Any additional proposed outdoor display area(s);
b. Add a note stating that vehicle display shall only take place on the subject’s property in
designated areas;
3. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 13, 2015; and
b. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated January 23, 2015; and
c. Town of Estes Park Public Works memo dated January 30, 2015
4. The following shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
a. All site improvements shall be installed or guaranteed;
b. Review and approval of the existing septic system by the Larimer County Health
Department; and
c. Written letter shall be submitted to the Community Development Department stating;
(i). The exact number of rentals that will remain at current business location of 1360 Big
Thompson Avenue. The number of vehicles shall not exceed current land use approval
for the property.
(ii). Acknowledgement that any increase in the number of vehicles at 1360 Big Thompson
Avenue after that point will constitute an increase in the non-conforming use and
consequently, the use shall be abandoned
5. Recordation of the proposed Share Maintenance Agreement prior to issuance of building
permit or change of use permit; and
6. Should the Shared Maintenance Agreement be revoked, the Applicant shall provide adequate
parking and access to the site.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of Special Review 2014-
05, Backbone Adventure Rentals to the Town Board with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MARYS LAKE SUBDIVISION REPLAT, TBD Kiowa Court
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant for this amended development agreement
is Marys Lake Development, Inc., and consultant is CMS Planning and Development (Frank Theis).
The applicant proposes to amend a 2005 Development Agreement between the Town of Estes
Park and Marys Meadow Development Inc. to allow a single-family dwelling on Lot 7. This lot is
located up the hill to the south of Marys Lake Lodge, is very steep, and several acres in size. James
Tawney was the property owner in 2005, and intended to place a conservation easement on Lot
7. However, the Estes Valley Land Trust refused to accept the lot into a conservation easement.
The current agreement states that “Lot 7 cannot be developed as a single-family lot unless the
plat and development agreements are amended.” The applicant is proposing to not amend the
plat, but instead amend the development agreement requirement to amend the plat. There
would be several exhibits attached to the amended development agreement that would outline
the lot, show a building envelope, and also include a site specific survey that details the slope.
Planner Shirk stated the Development Agreement Amendment, if approved, would be recorded
and show up during a title search. This is a way to alert potential buyers of specific requirements
for that lot.
Planner Shirk stated staff reviewed the application according to the EVDC zoning standards.
Affected agencies and adjacent property owners (500 foot radius) were notified, and a legal
notice was published in the local newspaper. No providers expressed concern about the proposed
amendment to allow a single-family residence. As of February 10th, no comments were received
from adjacent property owners. Town Attorney White provided a list of recommended revisions
to the agreement, which are included as suggested conditions of approval.
Planner Shirk stated Lot 7 was originally not intended for development due to the steepness of
the lot. The original intent was open space. Because Lot 7 was not contemplated for
development, it was not reviewed for compliance with the following development standards:
Sanitary Sewer Systems, Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes, Grading and Site Disturbance,
Limits of Disturbance, Geologic and Wildlife Hazard Areas, Sewage Disposal, Fire Protection,
Drainage, Water, Electricity, and General Site Access. However, it is Attorney White’s legal opinion
that the Town must allow at least one unit on the lot to avoid this being considered a taking of
property rights. Planner Shirk stated, if approved, the lot could be developed with a single-family
dwelling, subject to compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. While the preferred
access is from the south, there are no easements in place to allow for that access. The applicant is
requesting allowance of a septic system instead of connecting to the public sewer. According to
the Larimer County Health Department, the criteria for a septic system have been met. Planner
Shirk stated the least steep slope on this lot is 35%; any lots with a slope greater than 30% require
staff review and approval of a development plan. Staff would review any proposed dwelling for
design, placement, and driveway placement. Wildfire mitigation would be required, as well as an
engineered driveway to ensure proper drainage and erosion control. As the intent of the
applicant is to sell the lot, recording all documents would make potential purchasers aware of the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
requirement of a development plan application and review process, which is not typical for a
single-family dwelling on a residential-zoned lot.
Staff Findings
1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply
with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including §3.9.E Subdivision
Standards for Review, §7.1 Slope Protection Standards, §7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance,
§7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection, §7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, and §7.12
Adequate Public Facilities.
2. The site complies with criteria to allow on-site sewage treatment.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply
with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the amended development
agreement. The Town Board is the Decision-making Body.
Staff recommended approval with conditions, listed below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Town Attorney White stated one of the notes on the existing plat of record deals with access,
which is not adequate as it now stands. He suggested adding a statement in the amendment to
change the plat note to read “Access to Lot 7 is currently restricted to an unimproved access and
maintenance agreement.” He would also add “Any other future access requires approved by the
Community Development Department.” Planner Shirk stated the only legal right of access is
through Marys Lake Subdivision. There was discussion as to whether or not an amended plat
would be required in addition to the amendment to the development agreement.
Public Comment
Frank Theis/applicant stated Jim Tawney passed away, and the development is currently owned
by the estate. Mr. Tawney’s daughter will be receiving title to the property within the year. She
intends to sell the property.
Jim Sneary /Town resident was concerned about the decline of property values at the adjacent
Promontory Condominiums, as the open space was one of the selling aspects for the
neighborhood. He was concerned about future development on the lot, in addition to the one
single-family dwelling. Soil erosion was also a concern – three existing homes have added
retaining walls because of concerns and issues with erosion and runoff. He stated the area could
be difficult to engineer due to the type of soil and rock on the lot.
Public comment closed.
Staff and commission Discussion
Commissioner Schneider expressed concern about ensuring the potential buyers were made
aware of all the conditions. Attorney White clarified the documents would be recorded, and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 10
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
would be included in the title policy. Commissioner Klink added potential buyers have a certain
responsibility to do their due diligence prior to making a purchase.
Conditions of Approval
1. The development agreement shall be revised as follows:
a. Paragraph 5 there is a typographical error in the Lot 7 description, and an addition. It shall
be corrected as follows:
“…improvements on Lot 7 is shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto. All development on Lot
7 shall be reviewed and comply with all applicable conditions of the Estes Valley
Development Code including, but not limited to:
1) §7.1 slope Protection Standards, including Development Plan Review;
2) §7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance Standards;
3) §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection;
4) §7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazards;
6) Appendix D.III General Site Access.
7) Access to Lot 7 is restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance easement.”
b. Paragraph 7 shall be deleted in its entirety.
2. The development agreement shall include an attachment that delineates site contours; the
contours provided for the original preliminary plat may be used to satisfy this requirement.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend approval of the amended development
agreement for Lot 7 of the Marys Lake Replat of Lots 2, 4, 5 and Outlot A, Marys Lake
Subdivision, to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, with a
modification to Condition 1.a.(7), to read: “Access to Lot 7 is currently restricted to an
unimproved access and maintenance easement. Any other future access requires approval of
the Community Development Department.” The motion passed unanimously with one absent
and one vacancy.
6. REPORTS
A. Planner Kleisler reported on the Comprehensive Plan modernization. Over the last two months,
priorities have shifted to flood recovery as well as heavy research on short-term vacation
rentals. Staff will likely bring some raw data on economics and transportation to the
Commission next month. The economic piece will require a full rewrite. Planner Kleisler will be
meeting with DOLA and getting feedback on the economic piece as to where we are thus far,
including a population projection. These two sections have been very time consuming.
B. Planning Commission Reviews, March, 2015
1. Amendment to an approved Special Review for the Stanley/EPMC Wellness Center.
2. Rezoning and Amended Plat at the Silver Moon Inn.
3. Development Plan at Riverview Pines.
4. Rezoning request for 1650 Avalon Drive
C. Town Board
5. A Sign Code consultant will be attending the Town Board Study Session to provide an
overview of upcoming sign code revisions.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 11
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
D. Board of Appeals
6. Chief Building Official Birchfield is working on the process to adopt the 2015 International
Building Codes with Local Amendments. The Board of Appeals is actively involved, as well
as other agencies and districts.
E. County Commission
7. The County Commissioners are hearing the Hornbein Lot Consolidation application today.
Michael Whitley is presenting the staff report.
F. Board of Adjustment Reviews
1. Variance request at 1418 Narcissus was continued from February to March.
2. Variance request concerning the containment provision will be heard in March for an
applicant who desires to open a beer garden on the slab at the former Park Theatre Mall
location.
G. Staff Level Reviews
1. Coyote Mountain Lodge Staff Level Development Plan to convert an existing event center
building into motel units.
H. Flood Recovery - Director Chilcott reported the Town Board unanimously supported the Fall
River Master Plan, as did the Fall River Coalition. The Fish Creek Master Plan is still being
revised to address the Scott Ponds. Grant applications continue to be submitted to mitigate
future flooding in the downtown area. One of the goals is to upsize the bridges to allow the
river to hold the potential water volumes. More applications are due in the next couple of
months.
I. Chair Hull reported she will be participating on the interview team for the Planning Commission
vacancy, along with Trustees Phipps and Nelson. A new Commissioner should be on board in
March.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:06 p.m.
___________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II
Date: March 17, 2015
RE: Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Modernization
Objective:
Comment on the initial strategy for modernizing Appendix One of the Comprehensive
Plan: Economic Profile.
Present Situation:
The Planning Commission and Town Board directed staff to modernize the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. Six modernization options were considered and Option 2 was
selected:
Option 2: Review and update facts, remove obsolete references, remove
information that is no longer relevant
What has been accomplished since Option 2 was selected?
As directed, staff continues to work on Option 2 to modernize the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. Staff has presented drafts to the Commission, Town Board and
County Commissioners as the project progresses for review and comment.
Appendix One of the Comprehensive Plan provides quantitative reference information
for the Economic Overview chapter. As such, the Appendix should be completed prior
to drafting the Economic Overview chapter. Staff has updated about 75% of Appendix
One with current data.
Table 1: Amended timeline for completion of each Comprehensive Plan chapter.
Chapter Status
Letter of Introduction
Complete
1: The Planning Process
June, 2015: Initial Draft Presented
July, 2015: Final Draft Presented
2: Planning the Valley’s Future
July. 2015: Initial Draft Presented
August, 2015: Final Draft Presented
Proposal:
Town staff has reviewed Appendix One of the Comprehensive Plan and requests some
guidance from the Planning Commission about the following questions:
1. What should be deleted? There are various datasets that appear to have lost
relevance since 1996, such as:
a. Figure A1.8 Distribution of Employment Base. This table appears
somewhat redundant with Figure A.1.7
b. Figure A1.22 Bank Deposits. This does not seem relevant given modern
banking habits.
c. A1.24 Yellow Page Listings.
3: Economic Overview
May/June, 2015: Initial Draft Presented
June/July, 2015: Final Draft Presented
4: Land Use
Complete
5: Mobility and Circulation
April/May 2015: Initial Discussion
May/June 2015: Draft Presented
June/July: Final Draft Presented
6: Community-wide Policies
Complete
7: Neighborhood Plans
Complete
Action Plan
Complete
Appendix 1: Economic Profile
March 2015: Initial Discussion
April 2015 21: Draft Presented
May 2015: Final Draft Presented
Appendix 2: Resource Information
June/July, 2015
Page 2 of 3
2. What is missing? While reviewing the Appendix One, was there anything that
you think should be included that is not? For example, would it be helpful to
benchmark Estes Park with other Front Range or mountain resort communities?
Should we compare generational changes (change in millennials, baby boomers,
etc.)? The Community-wide Policies chapter discusses the concept of Lone
Eagles; should the percentage of residents that “work from home” be compared
with other communities?
Advantages:
N/A
Disadvantages:
N/A
Action Recommended:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Moderate.
Page 3 of 3
Appendix One • Economic Profile
Economic Profile Tables - Estes Park
The following 26 tables are referenced in Chapter Three, Economic Overview.
FIGURE A1.1 RESIDENT POPULATION BASE
Estes Larimer State of Colorado
Year Park Census Tract 28 County (000’s)
1950 1,617 43,554 1,325
1960 1,175 2,355 53,343 1,754
1970 1,616 3,554 89,900 2,225
1980 2,703 6,733 149,184 2,908
1990 3,184 9,139 186,136 3,303
1990* 3,672 9,139
1992* 3,870
1996* 5,077
2000 5,413 8,889 251,494 4,301
FIGURE A1.2 RESIDENT POPULATION BASE – GROWTH RATE
Estes Larimer State of
Year Park Census Tract 28 County Colorado
1960 (27.3)% 22.5% 32.4%
1970 37.5% 50.9% 68.5% 26.9%
1980 67.3% 89.4% 65.9% 30.7%
1990 17.8% 35.7% 24.8% 13.6%
1990* 15.3%
2000 70.0% -2.7% 35.1% 20.2%
FIGURE A1.3 RESIDENT POPULATION BASE – ANNUAL GROWTH RATE
Estes Larimer State of
Year Park Census Tract 28 County Colorado
1960 (3.1)% 2.0% 2.8%
1970 3.2% 4.2% 5.4% 2.4%
1980 5.3% 6.6% 5.2% 2.7%
1990 1.7% 3.1% 2.2% 1.3%
2000 5.45% -0.3% 3.1% 2.7%
* Town of Estes Park estimates.
Source: Decennial Census, 1950-1990.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 1
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.4 HOUSEHOLDS
1980 1990 2000
Town of Estes Park 1,230 1,444 2,541
Estes Valley 2,816 2,682 4,107
Larimer County 54,086 70,472 97,164
State of Colorado 1,062,879 1,285,119 1,658,238
Source: 1980, 1990, 2000 Census.
FIGURE A1.5
SELECTED 2000 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR
ESTES PARK, ESTES VALLEY, LARIMER COUNTY AND
THE STATE OF COLORADO
Estes Estes Larimer State of
Characteristics Park Valley County Colorado
Population 5,413 8,889 251,494 4,301,261
Median age 45 46.1 33.2 34.3
Households 2,541 4,107 97,164 1,658,238
Median household
income $43,262 $49,422 $48,655 $47,203
Persons per household 2.11 2.14 2.52 2.53
Housing units total 3,323 6,080 105,392 1,808,037
% owner occupied 60.1% 66.2% 67.7% 67.3%
Vacancy rate
- Rentals 8.9% 8.3% 4.1% 5.5%
- Owner 1.8% 1.4% 1.2% 1.4%
Median housing value $239,900 $243,100 $172,000 $166,600
Median rent $572 $519 $678 $671
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 2
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.6 EMPLOYMENT BASE – 2000
Estes Estes Larimer
Park Valley County
Persons 16 and over 4,492 7,606 198,990
- In labor force 2,877 4,690 143,110
- Participation rate 64.0% 61.7% 71.9%
Civilian employees 2,877 4,690 142,915
- Unemployed 79 135 6,012
- Unemployment rate 1.8% 1.8% 3.0%
Armed Forces 0 0 195
Average commuting time
(minutes) 15.9 15.3 21.4
Source: 2000 Census.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 3
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.7 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT – 2000
Estes Estes Larimer
Park Valley County
Employed Civilian employees 2,798 4,555 136,903
Agriculture, forestry, fishing,
hunting, and mining 39 45 2,039
Construction 286 390 12,257
Manufacturing 126 261 20,330
Wholesale Trade 39 55 3,547
Retail Trade 382 736 17,555
Transportation, warehousing,
and utilities 66 151 4,622
Information 45 124 3,818
Finance, insurance, real estate,
rental, and leasing 208 280 6,867
Professional, scientific, management,
administration, waste management 240 320 14,201
Educational, health, and
social services 346 628 28,556
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation, and food service 853 1,243 12,592
Other services 108 202 5,903
Public administration 60 120 4,616
Civilian Employees 2,798 4,555 136,903
Private wage and salary workers 2,161 3,386 102,848
Government workers 277 570 22,057
Local 197 365 9,007
State 29 52 10,057
Federal 51 153 2,993
Self-employed workers in own,
not incorporated businesses 341 571 11,386
Unpaid family workers 19 28 612
Source: 2000 Census.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 4
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.8 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT BASE
Estes Estes Larimer Larimer
Park Valley County County
2000 2000 2000 Ave. 2005 Wage
Participation rate 64.0% 61.7% 71.9%
Unemployment rate 1.8% 1.8% 3.0%
Civilian employees 2,798 4,555 136,903 $36,611
Agriculture, forestry,
fishing, and hunting,
and mining 1.4% 1.0% 1.5% $30,384
Construction 10.2% 8.6% 9.0% $39,015
Manufacturing 4.5% 5.7% 14.8% $61,935
Wholesale trade 1.4% 1.2% 2.6% $43,438
Retail trade 13.7% 16.2% 12.8% $22,994
Transportation,
warehousing,
and utilities 2.4% 3.3% 3.4% $30,753
Information 1.6% 2.7% 2.8% $43,693
Finance, insurance,
real estate, rental,
leasing 7.4% 6.1% 5.0% $38,319
Professional,
scientific,
management,
admin,
waste management 8.6% 7.0% 10.4% $60,435
Educational, health,
social services 12.4% 13.8% 20.9% $35,815
Arts, entertainment,
recreation,
accommodation,
food service 30.5% 27.3% 9.2% $12,451
Other Services 3.9% 4.4% 4.3% $25,385
Public administration 2.1% 2.6% 3.4% $36,611
Private wage and
salary workers 77.2% 74.3% 75.1%
Government workers 9.9% 12.5% 16.1% $41,296
Local 7.1% 8.0% 6.6% $36,234
State 1.0% 1.1% 7.3% $42,531
Federal 1.8% 3.4% 2.2% $63,065
Self-employed workers
in own not inc bus 12.2% 12.5% 8.3%
Unpaid family workers 0.7% 0.6% 0.4%
Source: 2000 Census, Colorado Employment and Wages (2005).
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 5
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.9 INCOME
‘99 Median Income ‘89 Median Income Annual Change
Household Family Household Family Household Family
Town of Estes Park $43,262 $55,667 $29,387 $37,565 3.9% 4.0%
inflation adjusted 25,968 33,414 25,377 32,340 0.2 0.3
Estes Valley 49,422 59,468 31,809 38,492 4.5 4.5
inflation adjusted 29,665 35,695 27,469 33,240 0.8 0.7
Larimer County 48,655 58,866 29,686 36,931 5.1% 4.8%
inflation adjusted 29,205 35,334 25,636 31,892 1.3 1.0
State of Colorado 47,203 55,883 30,140 35,930 4.6 4.5
inflation adjusted 28,333 33,543 26,028 31,028 0.9 0.8
Denver/Boulder
CPIU (82-84=100) 166.6 166.6 115.8 115.8
Source: 2000 Census for 1999 income, US Department of Labor (BLS) for CPIU, previous comp plan report.
FIGURE A1.10 PER CAPITA INCOME
1999 1989 Annual
Change
Town of Estes Park $ 30,499 $17,010 6.1%
Adjusted for Inflation 18,307 14,689 2.2
Estes Valley $ 32,067 17,349 6.3%
Adjusted for Inflation 19,248 14,982 2.5
Larimer County 23,689 13,968 5.4
Adjusted for Inflation 14,219 12,062 1.7
State of Colorado 24,049 17,815 3.1
Adjusted for Inflation 14,435 15,384 -0.6
Denver-Boulder CPI-U 166.6 115.8 3.7
(82-84=100)
Source: Census Data and Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 6
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.11
LARIMER COUNTY PERSONAL INCOME BY MAJOR SOURCE
1990 AND 2000 (000’S)
2000 1990 Change: 1990-2000
IncomeDistribution Income Distribution IncomePercent/yr
Agricultural services $51,858 .7% $17,027 0.5% $34,831 11.8%
Mining 18,998 0.3 11,606 0.4 7,392 5.1
Construction 449,782 5.9 140,876 4.4 308,906 12.3
Manufacturing 1,400,732 18.2 564,485 17.6 836,247 9.5
Transportation, commu-
nication, public utilities 165,099 2.2 59,498 1.9 105,601 10.7
Wholesale trade 150,957 2.0 53,598 1.7 97,359 10.9
Retail trade 593,783 7.8 234,990 7.3 358,793 9.7
Finance, insurance,
real estate 283,202 3.7 68,918 2.1 214,285 15.2
Services 1,341,504 17.4 424,947 13.2 916,557 12.2
Government 992,900 13.0 497,308 15.5 495,592 7.2
Nonfarm income by
place of work $5,448,815 71.2% $2,073,253 64.6% $3,375,562 10.1%
Other income and
adjustments 2,208,250 28.8% 1,138,041 35.4% 1,070,209 6.9%
Personal income by
place of residence $7,657,065 100% $3,211,294 100% $4,45,771 9.1%
Per capita income $30,727 $17,162 $13,565 6.0%
Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Local Area Personal Income, Rocky Mountain Region.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 7
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.12 ESTES PARK RETAIL SALES
Retail Sales % Real Retail %
Year ($000,000) Change Sales* ($000,000) Change
Base 16.9 52.8
1970 17.9 5.9 51.9 -1.8
1971 18.9 5.6 52.6 1.5
1972 24.4 29.1 65.9 25.3
1973 25.8 5.7 65.2 -1.2
1974 28.5 10.5 64.9 -0.4
1975 31.0 8.8 64.0 -1.3
1976 34.3 10.6 67.1 4.8
1977 39.1 14.0 70.6 5.1
1978 44.0 12.5 72.6 2.9
1979 46.2 5.0 66.0 -9.1
1980 49.7 7.6 63.4 -4.0
1981 54.3 9.3 62.3 -1.8
1982 58.5 7.7 61.5 -1.2
1983 61.7 5.5 61.4 -0.2
1984 68.6 11.2 65.8 7.1
1985 75.5 10.1 70.5 7.2
1986 78.7 4.2 72.9 3.5
1987 87.6 11.3 79.1 8.4
1988 98.3 12.2 86.5 9.4
1989 104.1 5.9 89.9 4.0
1990 106.0 1.8 87.6 -2.6
1991 109.3 3.1 87.0 -0.7
1992 122.1 11.7 93.7 7.7
1993 130.8 7.1 96.3 2.8
1994 147.1 12.5 103.7 7.7
2005 160.6
Source: Colorado Department of Revenue.
*Retail sales adjusted for inflation using the Denver–Boulder consumer price index (CPI-U).
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 8
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.13 SALES TAX REVENUES TOWN OF ESTES PARK (000’S)
Total Revenues June-September Receipts Summer as % of Total
1986 $2,443.5 $1,467.8 60.1%
1987 2,629.6 1,689.0 60.2
1988 2,811.3 1,777.4 58.9
1989 2,903.7 1,817.8 57.4
1990 3,102.1 1,940.5 59.5
1991 3,355.0 2,048.9 59.6
1992 3,702.0 2,219.4 58.3
1993 3,884.8 2,233.7 57.5
1994 4,332.0 2,486.4 57.4
1995 4,408.7 2,495.3 56.6
1996 4,571.6 2,645.5 57.9
1997 4,787.3 2,734.7 57.1
1998 5,383.4 2,969.1 55.2
1999 5,629.0 3,091.0 54.9
2000 5,921.2 3,227.1 54.5
2001 6,160.4 3,372.6 54.7
2002 6,038.5 3,377.7 55.9
2003 6,171.2 3,469.4 56.2
2004 6,302.5 3,335.2 52.9
2005 6,422.9 3,532.7 55.0
2006 6,767.1 3,758.9 55.6
2007 7,233.7 4,081.4 56.4
Source: Town of Estes Park.
Note: June–September tax receipts reflect May–August sales.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 9
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.14 PER CAPITA RETAIL SALES
2004 2005 2006 2007 04-07 Change
Estes Park $27,608 $28,072 $28,690 $29,330 6.2%
Source: Town of Estes Park.
FIGURE A1.15 OCTOBER RETAIL SALES
Sales Population Per
Capita Sales
2003 $ 11,959,900 5,576 $2,145
2004 13,232,975 5,707 2,319
2005 13,824,350 5,720 2,417
2006 11,932,763 5,789 2,061
2007 13,709,955 5,858 2,340
Source: Town of Estes Park.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 10
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.16
SPENDING BY OLDER CONSUMERS 1990 CONSUMER SURVEY
AVERAGE TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 74 and up
Income before taxes $19,744 $45,498 $56,500 $58,889 $48,108 $29,349 $20,563 Average household size 1.9 2.9 3.3 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.5 Total expenditures $22,543 $38,945 $45,149 $46,160 $39,340 $30,782 $21,908 Food, total 14.3% 13.5% 13.5% 13.6% 13.1% 13.6% 14.0 Food at home 7.3 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.8 9.0 9.6 Food away from home 7.0 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.3 4.6 4.4 Alcoholic beverages 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 Housing, total 31.5 33.5 33.5 30.7 31.4 31.4 35.4 Shelter 20.3 20.3 20.3 18.0 16.7 16.6 18.4 Utilities 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.2 7.0 7.9 8.8 Operations 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 3.8 Furnishings 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.8 3.6 2.9 Apparel and services 6.3 5.3 5.3 5.1 4.3 3.7 3.2 Transportation 23.0 21.5 21.5 19.1 19.9 18.8 13.1 Health 2.2 3.2 3.2 4.8 6.4 10.3 15.2 Entertainment 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.6 3.2 Contributions 0.8 1.7 1.7 3.3 3.3 6.6 7.4 Pensions and income 5.4 9.3 9.3 10.4 9.8 4.5 2.1 Other 9.8 6.1 6.1 7.2 5.8 5.8 5.5
Source: Monthly Labor Review, Consumer Expenditure Survey 2000.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 11
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.17 HEALTH CARE WORKERS – 2000
Estes Park Larimer County
Health Care Workers 177 12,201
Labor Force 2,877 143,110
% Labor Force in
Health Care 6.2% 8.5%
Population 5,413 251,494
Estes Park Estimate n/a n/a
Residents Per
Health Care Worker 30.6 20.6
Estes Park Estimate n/a n/a
Population
65 and Over 1,118 24,037
Elderly Population per
Health Care Worker 6.3 2.0
Source: 2000 Census.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 12
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.18
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BUILDING PERMITS (# OF UNITS)
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Year Single-Family Duplex Multi-Family Total
1972 30 51 81
1973 33 20 53
1974 12 10 22
1975 14 8 22
1976 35 18 53
1977 22 25 47
1978 19 16 35
1979 11 4 15
1980 14 39 53
1981 13 43 56
1982 12 6 18
1983 33 77 110
1984 53 8 61
1985 40 48 88
1986 17 6 23
1987 21 19 40
1988 19 23 42
1989 23 11 34
1990 29 15 44
1991 27 46 73
1992 39 18 57
1993 54 53 107
1994 83 34 117
1995 84 7 91
1996 30 22 19 71
1997 49 20 33 102
1998 46 38 42 126
1999 27 20 34 81
2000 46 22 43 111
2001 52 10 9 71
2002 38 42 13 93
2003 36 38 46 120
2004 45 26 12 83
2005 45 18 43 106
2006 32 20 42 94
2007* 18 8 14 40
Source: 1972-1981 from BBC study. 1983-2007 totals from Town of Estes Park Annual Building Permit
Summary. (Single-family from Stamey data, multi-family is total residential minus single-family permits.)
* = Through June 2007.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 13
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.19 COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Year Number of Value Real Value Assessed
Permits ($000’s) ($000’s) Value
1983 30 2,052.9 2,042.687
1984 15 1,127.4 1,080.92
1985 26 3,562.2 3,326.05
1986 5 1,050.5 973.5867 57,805.6
1987 17 1,165.9 1,052.256 91,647.8
1988 7 253.5 222.9551 85,958.7
1989 10 337.2 291.1917 101,240.9
1990 11 1,799.6 1,487.273 96,951.3
1991 20 1,739.5 1,384.952 90,433.5
1992 16 718.3 551.2663 83,461.1
1993 11 868.8 639.8 n/a
1994 19 1,364.4 962.2 n/a
1995 24 2,011.4
1996 62 2,244.5 6,366.7
1997 28 3,109.9 4,664.8
1998 76 4,328.5 6,492.8
1999 29 1,380.6 2,070.9
2000 19 1,139.3 1,708.9
2001 29 3,344.9 5,017.4
2002 81 8,961.1 13,441.6
2003 32 3,465.8 5,198.2
2004 15 2,473.8 3,710.7
2005 61 10,892.8 16,339.2
2006 8 2,801.4 4,202.0
2007* 8 1,997.3 2,995.9
Source: Town of Estes Park.
* = Data through June 2007.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 14
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.20
ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE ESTES PARK AREA
NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS
Year Residential Commercial Total Gov’t
1972 3731 777 3731
1973 3917 793 3917
1974 4063 817 4063
1975 4014 797 4014
1976 4082 807 4082
1977 4189 822 4189
1978 4342 846 4342
1979 4498 892 4498
1980 4661 922 4661
1981 4788 938 4788
1982 5804
1983 5018 965 5018
1984 5196 976 5196
1985 5340 1012 5340
1986 5380 1033 5380
1987 5386 1043 5386 38
1988 5379 1169 5379 40
1989 5417 1191 5417 45
1990 5541 1250 5541 50
1991 5649 1284 5649 50
1992 5863 1269 7132 49
1993 6120 1160 7329 49
1994 6360 1199 7559 52
1995 6544 1254 7798 48
1996
1997 6737 1295 8032 84
1998 6935 1347 8282 86
1999 7094 1405 8499 89
2000 7205 1470 8675 94
2001 7392 1488 8880 144
2002 7534 1517 9051 188
2003 7693 1565 9258 205
20041 7810 1590 9400 204
2005 7914 1638 9552 202
2006 8079 1700 9779 204
20072 8145 1727 9872 211
Source: Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department.
1 = Data through October.
2 = Data through May.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 15
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.21 WATER METERS – ESTES PARK AREA
Residential Commercial
Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Total Change
1983 1228 525 410 98 2259
1984 1257 533 424 94 2308 2.2%
1985 1269 572 433 70 2344 1.6
1986 1307 572 456 69 2404 2.6
1987 1314 587 477 71 2449 1.9
1988 1347 590 484 69 2490 1.7
1989 1370 1040 492 74 2976 19.5
1990 1398 1060 500 79 3037 2.0
1991 1428 1083 514 92 3117 2.6
1992 1512 1050 526 97 3185 2.2
1993 1635 1124 544 85 3389 6.4
1994 1759 1136 531 86 3512 3.6
1995 1823 1162 542 85 3612 2.8
2000 2136 1243 613 96 4088
2001 2247 1234 612 97 4190 2.5%
2002 2336 1232 626 94 4288 2.3%
2003 2434 1253 643 93 4423 3.1%
2004 2532 1262 649 95 4538 2.6%
2005 2564 1264 683 95 4606 1.5%
2006 2663 1301 741 100 4805 4.3%
20071 2682 1301 777 90 4850 0.9%
Source: Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department.
1 = Data through May.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 16
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.22 BANK DEPOSITS – MILLIONS OF $
Year-end Total Number Percent
Deposits of Banks Change
1977 23.7 2
1978 25.1 2 5.9
1979 30.1 2 19.9
1980 30.2 2 0.3
1981 33.5 2 10.9
1982 37.7 2 12.5
1983 54.8 3 45.4 (break)
1984 60.0 3 9.5
1985 65.4 3 9.0
1986 71.9 4 9.9
1987 70.0 4 5.7
1988 82.1 4 8.0
1989 84.7 4 3.2
1990 88.0 4 3.9
1991 95.4 4 8.4
1992 103.6 4 8.6
1993 111.0 4 7.1
1994 112.5 4 2.3
1999 138.0
2000 144.0
2001 N/A
2002 178.3
2003 N/A
2004 210.4 4 Banks, 2 Credit Unions
Note: 1977-82, Estes Park Bank and First National Bank of EP.
1983-85, adds Home Federal Savings (now Key Bank).
1986-92, adds Park National Bank (new bank).
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 17
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.23 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK VISITATION
Total Annual Visitors June –September
Year (millions) as % of Total
1982 2,578,902
1983 2,704,066 78.3
1984 2,220,219 78.3
1985 2,354,480 76.4
1986 2,523,122 75.6
1987 2,665,029 74.2
1988 2,686,986 76.3
1989 2,636,662 75.8
1990 2,801,259 75.8
1991 2,903,811 75.0
1992 2,942,743 73.7
1993 2,950,867 75.8
1994 3,153,450 75.7
1995 3,008,446 74.7
1996 3,119,455 73.7
1997 3,137,186 73.1
1998 3,213,744 72.2
1999 3,366,251 71.9
2000 3,380,039 70.6
2001 3,318,303 73.3
2002 3,138,066 71.3
2003 3,192,227 72.2
2004 2,943,073 71.4
2005 2,939,099 72.8
2006 2,927,921 72.5
2007* 2,268,838 N/A
Source: Rocky Mountain National Park.
* = Data through August 2007.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 18
Appendix One • Economic Profile
An examination of the listings in the Estes Park Yellow Pages for 1972, 1982 and
1992 provides an additional measure of the growth of the tourist industry:
FIGURE A1.24 YELLOW PAGES LISTINGS
1972 1982 1992 2007
Resorts and Motels 127 108 124 124
Campgrounds 12 10 8 9
Restaurants 58 52 73 67
Source: 1972 – Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Directory.
1982 – Bell Systems Directory.
1992 – U.S. West Directory.
2007 – MSN Yellow Pages and Estes Park Visitor Guide.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 19
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE A1.25 CONFERENCES
Year # of Conferences # of Delegates Estimate of Annual
Expenditures/Delegate
1991 (Aug-Dec) 15 8,600 N/A
1992 30 12,403 N/A
1993 79 14,747 N/A
1994 96 14,965 N/A
1995 88 14,635 N/A
1998 74 13,101 $373.78
1999 84 13,266 $410.24
2000 55 10,815 $450.00
2001 75 10,098 $467.91
2002 79 10,044 $465.00
2003 69 7,998 $470.24
2004 78 8,297 $490.00
2005 84 10,043 $402.42
2006 77 9,028 $447.68
Source: Estes Park Conference Center.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 20
Appendix One • Economic Profile
FIGURE AI.26
TOWN OF ESTES PARK TREND PROJECTIONS
1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 2000 2010*
Population
% Change
3,672*
3.1%
3,758*
2.3%
3,870*
3.0%
3,998
3.3%
4,258*
3.0%
5,413
4.92%
8,013
4.00%
Employment
% Change
% Employed
1,753
3.3%
47.7%
1,795
2.4%
47.8%
1,838
2.4%
47.5%
1,882
2.4%
47.1%
1,974
2.4%
46.4%
2,877
7.8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Personal
Income (1990 $)
% Change
$63.5M
$68.2M
7.4%
$71.3M
4.5%
$74.5M
4.5%
$79.3M
4.54%
$75.2M
(1.06%)
N/A
N/A
Retail Sales
(1990$)
% Change
$106M
(2.6%)
$105.3M
(0.7%)
$113.4M
7.7%
$112.2M
(1.0%)
$112.3M
1.2%
$90.2M
(4.29%)
N/A
N/A
Residential
Construction
44
73
57
107
68
97
80
Park Visitation
% Change
2.80M
6.7%
2.90M
3.7%
2.94M
1.3%
3.01M
3.5%
3.23M
2.9%
3.38M
0.91%
3M
(1.19%)
* Town of Estes Park Estimates
Note: Census income and employment data for 1990 are adjusted to conform with
Town of Estes Park population estimates.
During the 1990-2000 period, building permits were issued for 980 housing units. From 2001 through June
2007 YTD, building permits were issued for 607 dwelling units, for an average of 93 units per year. Due to
current construction trends, the construction levels are anticipated to decrease over the next two years, to 80
per year.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2008 Statistical Update Adopted July 15, 2008 A1 - 21