HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2020-06-09June 9, 2020
4:45 p.m. – 6:45 p.m.
Board Room/Virtual
The Town Board of Trustees will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of
Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19 and
provided for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020.
4:45 p.m. Housing Authority Peak View.
(Director Hawf)
5:05 p.m. Downtown Estes Loop Quarterly Update.
(Director Muhonen)
5:25 p.m. Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program for Downtown.
(Director Muhonen)
6:00 p.m. Land Use Planning IGA.
(Director Hunt)
6:35 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions.
6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting
Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.
AGENDA
TOWN BOARD
STUDY SESSION
1111 1
2222 2
PEAK VIEW APARTMENTS
Peak View Details
► Economic Impact
► Sales tax dollars remain in Estes Park when individuals/families live, shop and play here
► Ability to grow diverse, year round economy
► Reduce individual/family commuting costs
► Reduces in-commuters
► Increase ability to attract and retain employees
► Reduce turnover and training costs for business
► Social Impacts
► Sustainable housing in Estes Park provides individuals/families to grow and take root here
► Consistent and acceptable living conditions improve health
► Increased academic performance
► Increased response time, creating safer community
► Long Term Affordability and Benefits
► Rents will be less than market rates, targeting less than 100% AMI in Larimer County
► No Income Restrictions, No Income Qualifying
► 1 Year Lease
► Occupant Maximum -2 people per bedroom, plus 1 person
33 3
Peak View Details
►26 Apartments
►6 one bedroom/one bath at $1,200
►12 two bedrooms/two bath at $1,570
►8 three bedrooms/three bath at $1,850
►Amenities
► In-unit full-size washer and dryer
► Stainless steel appliances
► Pets permitted
► Storage (bike locker)
► On-site grill and picnic area
►Requirements
►At least one member of household is employed or self-employed in EPSD-R3 boundaries
:.:::::.=._
► Working 30hrs a week year round
►Annual verification requirements
PEA!( VIEW APARTMENTS
-··-· -----
UXAtt0Nntet:w1u.o,ne;:e: mo, eeeTION!l�PC"INOlncnnP.t,l. � c:>.HN, c.olOUOO
----------------====-===,===�;;:: -.,. t
PEAK VIEW
Schedule
44 4
PEAK VIEW COST
Construction S223,ooo per unit
$229 per sqlt (25,370sqft)
Soft Costs
IE architect, legal, testing, surveys, utilities, loan fees
Property Pay Off
(current mortgage)
Water Tap & Permit Fees
TOTAL
PEAK VIEW
Amount
$5,800,000
$1,290,000
$ 360,000
$ 250,000
$7,700,000
SOURCES for FINANCING THE DEVLOPMENT
Source Amount
Bank of CO Loan $4,960,000
CHFA $ 890,000
EPHA cash $ 900,000
EPHA (Refi Asset) $ 700,000
TOTAL $7,450,000
GAP $ 250,000
Our lenders were asked to stretch their muscle to bring an additional $850,000
to the project, after we experienced a $1.1 million dollar shortfall.
55 5
PANDEMIC IMPACTS ROHE
►Lost Revenues TOOK ON l'lEW MEANINGS
►Increased Unemployment -�=��
Request for Waivers
Peak View would like to pursue a formal request to the Town Board to waive
water tap fees and building permit and plan review fees
►Water Tap Fee -$201,863
►$237,414 charges for (26) multi-family fees
►$35,551 credit for 4 current
►Building Permit and Plan Review Fee -$35,240
►$23,493 Building Permit Fees
►$11,746 Plan Review
66 6
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Date: June 9, 2020
RE: Quarterly Update on Downtown Estes Loop Project (DEL)
Objective:
Update the Town Board on the activities that have taken place on the Downtown Estes
Loop (DEL) project since the March 10, 2020 Town Board Study Session.
Present Situation:
Right of Way: Purchase of six parcels is complete. Agreements for Possession &
Use are in place for the remaining parcel, and the property owners have been
paid the appraised value for their parcels. The district court will determine if
additional compensation is warranted. Demolition of acquired buildings is
completed. Removal of the buried fuel tank at the former Donut Haus, final lot
grading, and reseeding of the purchased lots remains to be completed. Right of
Way plans are being finalized for the acquisition of 29 easements and right of
way slivers in 2020.
Budget: Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) has update to the
project budget from $17.2 million to $21.5 million to reflect the estimated
additional costs to complete the preliminary engineering (design, right of way
acquisitions, easement acquisitions, and building demolition) in 2020 and the
construction potentially in 2022/2023. A copy is included in the proposed
amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Town and CFLHD.
Schedule: The project schedule anticipates completion of the construction
documents by the end 2020. Right of way and easement acquisitions are
expected to extend into the first quarter of 2021. Contingency planning is
underway for the potential delay in project construction to 2022/23. The Town
has completed the water system upgrades under Moraine Ave, Rockwell Street,
the post office parking lot, and W Riverside Ave.
Memorandum of Agreement (MoA). A copy of the first draft of the amendment to
the MoA is attached. CFLHD declined to included the TABOR clause and other
items requested by the Town. A copy of the requested items is attached.
777 7
Amicable negotiations remain in progress, as all parties are committed to
following the legally correct path forward.
Proposal:
The TAC proposes to continue the design and right-of-way acquisition efforts in 2020
and bid the construction work in early 2021.
The PW staff submitted a grant application to the US Dept of Transportation for funding
from the 2020 Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program.
An award could fund replacement of the Riverside and Rockwell Bridges and Big
Thompson River channel widening downstream to US36. This work was
environmentally cleared in 2016 as Phase 2 of the DEL project.
Advantages:
The project benefits are numerous and include relief to the Town’s downtown traffic
congestion problems, improved downtown mobility for bicyclists, reduction in downtown
flood risk from the Big Thompson River, improved fire protection, and closure to
property owner uncertainty surrounding the DEL.
Disadvantages:
Some community members do not support the partner agencies building the DEL.
Action Recommended:
n/a
Finance/Resource Impact:
The 2014 Memorandum of Agreement between the Town, CDOT, CFLHD, and RMNP
estimated this project would cost $17.2 million with construction occurring in 2016. In
2019 CFLHD dedicated more than $2 million of additional Federal Lands Access
Program (FLAP) funds to cover increased right of way acquisition costs. The Town
remains obligated to pay a local match of $4.2 million (CDOT devolution funds) for the
Phase 1 project. The Town has spent $3,823,977 to-date. A total of $7.98 million has
been spent on the project to-date. CDOT provided an additional $580k to cover the
costs of the ROW acquisition and structure demolition efforts. The Town has the option
of contributing an additional $600,000 if the resurfacing of West Elkhorn Ave is desired
as part of this project.
Level of Public Interest
The known level of public interest in this item is high.
Attachments:
Preliminary copy of consultant presentation slides for the Phase 1 project
Draft amendment to the MoA
Town email request for revisions to the MoA
888 8
6/5/2020
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Downtown Estes Loop Project
Estes Park Town Board Study
Session
June 9, 2020
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Today’s Agenda
• Progress Update
•Right of Way
•Town-CDOT IGA
•MOU Amendment/
Budget Update
• Project Schedule
• Next Steps
•Q&A
999 9
6/5/2020
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Project Scope – Phase 1
• Phase 1:
– Reconstruction and realignment of
Riverside Drive
– Reconstruction of the Ivy Street Bridge
– New and Coordinated traffic signals with
Riverwalk
– Associated transportation improvements
along Elkhorn and Moraine
– New on street bike lane on Moraine and
Riverside
– Continuous sidewalks along entire Loop
– Channel Improvements between Ivy St
and Rockwell St
– Wayfinding signs, parklands
• Does not include:
– Rockwell and Riverside Bridges
– Relocation of Public Restroom
– Downstream Floodplain Improvements
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Right-of-Way Acquisitions Process
• CDOT is the lead agency for Right of Way (ROW) Acquisition on the Project.
• Process follows Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Uniform Act).
• CDOT has purchased 6 of 7 full
purchase properties, and has
possession agreements with the
remaining 1 owner.
• CDOT is assisting property
owners and tenants who require
Relocation. Payments to one
tenant are scheduled and two
business owners are still within
the time limits to submit re-
establishment claims
• One property is in
condemnation, pending court
scheduling.
X
CDOT owned properties
101010 10
6/5/2020
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Summary of Right-of-Way
Acquisition Process
Draft Presentation subject to change.
General Condemnation Process
111111 11
6/5/2020
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Right-of-Way in detail
• The 8 structure removals are complete.
• The pre-trial disclosures, exchange of documents and preparation is
in process for the single, active condemnation. Delays have occurred
due to the pandemic, with a court date pending.
• Minor Right-of-Way plans changes are being finalized and CDOT will
proceed with the second portion of the Right-of-Way acquisitions once
plans have been authorized.
- Additional 8 fee acquisitions, 1 permanent easement, 20 temporary
easements are estimated in the second portion of acquisition.
- No additional relocations are currently identified.
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Town/CDOT IGA
Estes Park/CDOT IGA Outline
• Maintenance
– Snow Removal
– Striping/Pavement Markings
– Landscaping/
– Sidewalks
– Lighting
– Storm Sewer – Town of Estes Park
– Signage
– Traffic Signals and Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons
– Enhanced concrete crosswalks/intersections—CDOT will maintain grey or colored concrete.
Stamped concrete will be maintained by Estes Park
• Right-of-way
– Ownership of parcels purchased along new Riverside Alignment will be transferred to Estes
Park at no cost
– CDOT will retain existing ownership along E. Elkhorn Ave, Moraine Ave. and the portions of
the acquired parcels needed to maintain the roundabout
• Maintaining US 36 Transportation Function
– Riverside (E. Elkhorn Ave. to Moraine Ave.) will be designated as a new segment of US36
and will maintain the lane capacity and usage of the facility as outlined in the final plans.
Should Estes park change the usage or reduce lane capacity, CDOT retains the right to
convert E. Elkhorn Ave and Moraine Ave back into two-way configurations
121212 12
6/5/2020
Draft Presentation subject to change.
MOA Amendment
• Draft completed by CFLHD and is attached in
the study session packet
• Items Updated / Amended:
– Language for local match requirement to be consistent with
current FLAP Project Agreements
– Update the Project Funding Table to reflect the additional FLAP
and CDOT funding that was provided to cover increased ROW
costs
– Update the Project Budget Table to reflect current costs and CN
cost projections
–Formally include the West Elkhorn (Option X) work, as it
currently is outside of the project extent per the original Project
Agreement
• TABOR clause and other revisions remain under
discussion
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Budget Update
PROJECT BUDGET FOR ALL SEGMENTS
Item
Estimated Cost for
CFLHD Performed
Services
Comments
Preliminary Engineering (PE)
and Environmental
Compliance
PE Subtotal $2,880,000
ROW Acquisition & Utility
Relocation ROW Subtotal $7,100,000
Construction Contract (CN)
CN Subtotal $10,120,000
Schedule A $9,520,000
Option X $600,000
100% of Cost Borne by
Town of Estes Park.
Construction Engineering (CE) CE Subtotal $1,400,000
TOTAL $21,500,000
131313 13
6/5/2020
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Project Schedule
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Construction Schedule Scenarios
Major Factor Driving Schedule:
– CLOMR application approval
– Right of way and easement acquisition
Contingency Planning:
• Plan A- Current CN Schedule
– Advertise Spring 2021
– Construction 2021/22
• Plan B- Alternative CN Schedule
– Advertise Summer 2021
– Construction 2022/23
141414 14
6/5/2020
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Next Steps
•Upcoming Milestone: 95% submittal of plans in Fall 2020
– Ongoing Design Refinements
– Continue Right of Way Acquisition (Full and Partial)
– Finalize Channel Hydraulic Analysis – Submit FEMA CLOMR
Application
• Monthly Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings
– Members include representatives from CFLHD, CDOT, Estes Park
• BUILD Grant Submitted May 19, 2020
• Town Board Quarterly Updates
– next presentation on September 22, 2020
Draft Presentation subject to change.
Questions and Answers
151515 15
FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM
PROJECT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Project / Facility Name: Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive
Project Route: CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1)
State: Colorado
County: Larimer County
Owner of Federal Lands to which the Project Provides Access: National Park Service
Entity with Title or Maintenance Responsibility for Facility: Town of Estes Park
Type of Work: The project is to include preliminary engineering, construction and construction
engineering for the reconstruction on Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive in the Town of Estes Park.
The routes are currently two lane routes at varying widths.
The Schedule A- Downtown Estes Park Loop- Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive project segment
would reconfigure the circulation system through Estes Park by realigning and reconstructing West and
East Riverside Drives into a continuous one-way (eastbound) roadway and reconfiguring Elkhorn
Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one-way configuration (westbound) creating one-way couplets through
Estes Park that would be US Highway 36. The reconfiguration would also include upgrades to
Rockwell Street to accommodate additional traffic from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to one-way in
the westbound direction.
In addition, a segment of West Elkhorn Avenue (Option X) was identified as a need following the
project application process and programming of Schedule A- Downtown Estes Park Loop- Moraine
Avenue and Riverside Drive. The purpose of Option X is to improve the riding surface and to extend the
useful life of the pavement as part of the devolution of the U.S. 34 Business Route. This segment of the
project will be 100% funded by the Town of Estes Park.
This Agreement does not obligate (commit to) the expenditure of Federal funds nor does it commit the
parties to complete the project. Rather, this Agreement sets forth the respective responsibilities as the
project proceeds through the project development process.
161616 16
Parties to this Agreement: Town of Estes Park (TOEP), Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT), NPS, and Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD).
The Program Decision Committee approved this project on August 26, 2013.
AGREED:
Town of Estes Park Date
Colorado Department of Transportation Date
National Park Service Date
Chief of Business Operations,
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
Date
171717 17
A.PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT
This Agreement documents the intent of the parties and sets forth the anticipated responsibilities of each
party in the development, construction, and future maintenance of the subject project. The purpose of the
Agreement is to identify and assign responsibilities for the environmental analysis, design, right-of-way,
utilities, acquisition and construction as appropriate for this programmed project, and to ensure
maintenance of the facility for public use if improvements are made. The parties understand that any
final decision as to design or construction will not be made until after the environmental analysis
required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is completed (this does not prevent the
parties from assigning proposed design criteria to be studied in the NEPA process.) Any decision to
proceed with the design and construction of the project will depend on the availability of appropriations
at the time of obligation and other factors such as issues raised during the NEPA process, a natural
disaster that changes the need for the project, a change in Congressional direction, or other relevant
factors.
If Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds are used for the development or construction of this
project, Town of Estes Park, Colorado agrees to provide a matching share equal to 17.21% or more of
the total cost of the project, as detailed more fully in Section J below.
B.AUTHORITY
This Agreement is entered into between the signatory parties pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C.
204.
C.JURISDICTION AND MAINTENANCE COMMITMENT
Town of Estes Park, Colorado has jurisdictional authority to operate and maintain the existing facility
and will operate and maintain the completed project at its expense.
D.FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY COORDINATION
Town of Estes Park, Colorado has coordinated project development with the National Park Service.
The National Park Service support of the project is documented in the original project application.
Each party to this agreement who has a primary role in NEPA, design, or construction shall coordinate
their activities with the National Park Service.
E.PROJECT BACKGROUND/SCOPE
Schedule A- Downtown Estes Park Loop- Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive
The project application for Schedule A was submitted under the FLAP project call for applications in
May of 2013.
The project traverses thru the Town of Estes Park via Elkhorn Avenue (US34/36), Moraine Avenue (US
36) and West and East Riverside Drive. The proposed project would reconfigure the circulation system
through Estes Park by realigning and reconstructing West and East Riverside Drives into a continuous
one-way (eastbound) roadway and reconfiguring Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue to a one-way
configuration (westbound) creating one-way couplets through Estes Park that would be US Highway 36.
The reconfiguration would also include upgrades to Rockwell Street to accommodate additional traffic
from the change of Elkhorn Avenue to one-way in the westbound direction.
181818 18
Figure 1 – Project Area Map
Roadway. The West and East Riverside Drive and Ivy Street segments will be
reconstructed/realigned using a 25-mph design speed with two 12 foot travel lanes. The
application did not include any shoulders but the Town discussed the desire for some sort
of on-street bicycle lane, and CDOT standards generally require a minimum 4 foot
shoulder. The application shows parallel on street parking on the southern section of the
roadway, but no on-street parking on the northern end of Riverside Drive where there are
existing driveways, which would lead to backing out onto the US highway.
Route Segments:
The project application stated current average daily traffic (ADT) as 10,000 with current
seasonal ADT of 17,900 and projected ADT of 14,000 with a projected seasonal ADT of
25,060. These numbers represent the general total ADT through the project area using
the existing and proposed roadway segments to travel through Estes Park towards Rocky
Mountain National Park. ADT information shown for each roadway segment is an
estimation of the current configuration verse proposed project configuration for each
segment (Current/Proposed).
Segment 1: Elkhorn Avenue (US 36/US 34 Business) from E. Riverside Dr. to
Moraine Ave.
Currently two lanes westbound and one lane eastbound with curb and gutter and attached
sidewalk/streetscape. The Project will reconfigure this segment by restriping to two lanes
in a one-way configuration in the westbound direction expanding to two left turn lanes
and one through lane at Moraine Avenue intersection.
191919 19
Figures 2 and 3 – Existing Elkhorn Avenue
Segment 2: Moraine Avenue (US 36) from Elkhorn Avenue to Crags Dr./W.
Riverside Dr.
Currently two lanes southbound and one lane northbound expanded to include an
additional northbound lane from Rockwell Street to Elkhorn Avenue. The existing
roadway has curb and gutter and attached sidewalk/streetscape. The Project will
reconfigure this segment by restriping to two lanes in a one-way configuration in the
southbound direction expanded to include a left turn lane in addition to the two through
lanes from Elkhorn Avenue to Rockwell Street.
Pedestrian walkway connectivity will be provided by extending the existing sidewalk on
the east side of Moraine Ave southward to connect to the proposed sidewalk on the west
side of W Riverside Drive described in Segment 3 below. A new enhanced pedestrian
crossing equipped with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons will be constructed on Moraine
Avenue south of Davis Street.
Figures 4 and 5 – Existing Moraine Avenue
Segment 3: W Riverside Dr./Ivy St./E Riverside Dr. (Moraine Ave. to Elkhorn Ave.)
Currently these three roadway segments make up the parallel alternative route to Moraine
Avenue/Elkhorn Ave. These segments currently include a northbound and southbound
lane with varied on-street and adjacent parking (parallel, diagonal, straight in,
202020 20
driveways), and sections of curb and gutter and attached sidewalk. The Project will
reconstruct and realign these segments into a continuous roadway segment with two
northbound lanes with curb and gutter and attached sidewalk, and sections of parallel
parking. The proposed project includes creating a new intersection of Riverside
Drive/Crags Drive/Moraine Avenue to provide eastbound Moraine Avenue traffic a
through movement to this segment which will become the northbound section of US 36
through Estes Park.
Figures 6 and 7 – Existing Riverside Drive
Segment 4: Rockwell Street from Moraine Ave to E. Riverside Dr.
Currently one lane from Moraine Avenue for approximately 250 feet to the existing
adjacent public parking lots, then one lane eastbound and westbound to East Riverside
Drive. The Project will keep this configuration; however, the amount of traffic will
greatly increase as this will be the eastbound route for traffic traveling eastbound on
Elkhorn Avenue west of Moraine Avenue.
Figures 8 and 9 – Existing Rockwell Street
Bridge. The project includes the reconstruction of what was the Ivy Street bridge across
the Big Thompson River. This new structure will be on a skew and likely need to be
raised to provide the same or better clearance above the river. There is uncertainty in the
application if any improvements are needed at the Rockwell Street or East Riverside
Road bridges, they appear to be wide enough to accommodate the project.
212121 21
Figure 10 – Existing Ivy Street Bridge Figure 11 – Ivy Street Bridge Joint
Roadway segments 1 and 2 are classified as urban minor arterial in rolling terrain with a
design and posted speed of 25 mph. Roadway Segments 3 and 4 are classified as urban
collector in rolling terrain with a design speed of 25 mph.
Specific areas of concern or areas of required work by functional discipline are as
follows:
Right of Way
Right of Way mapping of existing parcels/property boundaries is required. There are
potentially 5-7 full relocations and 10-20 other partial right-of-way acquisitions, and
numerous TCE's. The CDOT will lead the right-of-way acquisition process.
Utilities
Numerous utilities will need to be relocated including City wet utilities (water, sanitary
sewer) and private dry utilities (electrical, gas, communications). New Street lighting
will be required for the project. Potholes and/or ground penetrating radar will be required
to locate utilities.
Environment and Permits
Due to the potential for Section 4(f)/6(f), 106 issues and the overall level of
change/chance for public concern, an Environmental Assessment is assumed.
Survey
Full survey of all roadway segments for this project is required. Use of LIDAR may be
used to develop topographical mapping.
Bridge
The Ivy Street bridge will be reconstructed on a new alignment; the bridge will be
skewed across the Big Thompson River. It is assumed that Ivy Street can be completely
closed during construction.
No improvements are proposed at the Rockwell Street or East Riverside Road bridges, as
they appear to be wide enough to accommodate the project.
222222 22
Hydraulics
The Big Thompson River channel between Ivy St and Rockwell St will be modified to
improve hydraulic capacity and provide safe, interactive, recreational human access to
the water from the walkway along the west river bank.
Highway Design
This 4R project is short in length but full of challenges from the typical section for a US
highway, curvilinear alignment, on-street parking and access, pedestrian movements, and
construction phasing.
New traffic signal hardware and software will be installed at four locations: Elkhorn
Avenue at Riverside Avenue, Elkhorn Avenue at Moraine Avenue, Moraine Avenue at
the Riverwalk pedestrian crossing, and on Riverside Avenue at the Riverwalk pedestrian
crossing. A new colored concrete intersection will be provided at Elkhorn/Riverside
Avenues.
Pavements
E. Elkhorn Ave and Moraine Ave are candidates for mill and overlay. Existing paving
should be reused when possible. Pulverized asphalt can be used as high-quality fill or
base course in new pavement sections. CDOT design procedures and review will be
required for any State Highway pavements.
Geotechnical
Field investigations are anticipated for reconfiguration of the Ivy Street bridge and
retaining walls at the Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive intersection. Right-of-entry
agreements may be required for the retaining wall boring access. All borings will also
require permitting from the Town of Estes Park and Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT).
Option X: Segment 5- West Elkhorn Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation
This segment of the project was not approved work under the original agreement and will
be funded 100% by the Town. This segment was identified as a need following the
project application process and programming of Schedule A- Downtown Estes Park
Loop- Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive. The purpose of Option X is to improve the
riding surface and to extend the useful life of the pavement as part of the devolution of
the U.S. 34 Business Route. Additionally, the installation of signage would improve
safety along the roadway.
The Town applied for and received $4.2 million funding under the Colorado Department
of Transportation (CDOT) Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships
(RAMP) Program for the “devolution” of US 34 Business Route (West Elkhorn) back to
232323 23
Town ownership and maintenance between the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection and
Wonderview Avenue. The devolution funds were then used for the required local agency
match toward the Downtown Estes Loop FLAP project. The mill and overlay project is
proposed to extend the useful life of the pavement as part of the devolution of U.S. 34
Business Route.
This 1.5-mile-long segment of Elkhorn Ave contains one travel lane in each direction and
was devolved from CDOT ownership to TOE ownership to generate local match funds for
this project. TOE has the option to request including in the project design bid drawings
a bid alternate consisting of a 2" thick mill-and-overlay HMA resurfacing of this segment
and the associated restriping. TOE has until December 8, 2020 to notify CFLHD of
TOE's commitment to pay the cost for the Project to construct this extra work provided it
does not exceed an additional $600,000. CFLHD is not obligated to award this bid
alternate and the Town is not obligated to pay the extra cost if the bid alternate price
exceeds $600,000.
Environment and Permits
A Categorical Exclusion is anticipated for this work.
Survey
Full survey of all roadway segments for this project is required. Use of LIDAR may be
used to develop topographical mapping.
Highway Design
The proposed project is composed of milling, overlay, striping, and sign installation
242424 24
within the existing roadway right of way and facility footprint for this 1.3-mile segment
along West Elkhorn Avenue. The milling and overlay project is proposed to extend the
useful life of the pavement as part of the devolution of U.S. 34 Business Route. New
signs would be installed to enhance safety along this segment of the roadway.
Pavements
Pavement rehabilitation for West Elkhorn is anticipated to be a mill and
overlay. Existing paving should be reused when possible. Pulverized asphalt can be used
as high-quality fill or base course in new pavement sections. CDOT design procedures
and review will be required for any State Highway pavements.
252525 25
F.PROJECT BUDGET
Figures are estimated from assumption in the original Application, Scoping
Report, and Project Delivery Documents. Cost(s) are subject to escalation
increases, depending on formal programming year.
PROJECT BUDGET FOR ALL SEGMENTS
Item
Estimated Cost for
CFLHD Performed
Services
Comments
Preliminary
Engineering (PE)
and Environmental
Compliance
PE Subtotal $2,880,000
Schedule A $2,780,000
Option X $100,000 100% of Cost Borne by
Town of Estes Park.
ROW Acquisition &
Utility Relocation
ROW Subtotal $7,100,000
Schedule A $7,100,000
Work conducted under
Inter-agency ROW
Agreement with CDOT
for full acquisition
parcels.
Option X- $0 No ROW work required.
Construction
Contract (CN)
CN Subtotal $10,120,000
Schedule A $9,520,000
Option X $600,000 100% of Cost Borne by
Town of Estes Park.
Construction
Engineering (CE)
CE Subtotal $1,400,000
Schedule A $1,300,000
Option X $100,000 100% of Cost Borne by
Town of Estes Park.
Schedule A Total $20,700,000
Option X Total
West Elkhorn Pavement Rehabilitation $800,000 100% of Cost Borne by
Town of Estes Park.
TOTAL $21,500,000
262626 26
G.ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments
CFLHD Develop and sign the Project
Agreement
Develop and sign the Reimbursable
Agreement
Manage project development
schedule and preliminary
engineering costs
Perform pavement and geotechnical
investigations
Obtain necessary permits
Prepare environmental documents
and make project decisions based on
the NEPA documents
Prepare the PS&E
Advertise and award the contract.
Bids will not be solicited by CFLHD
until the TOEP and CDOT have
concurred with the plans and
specifications.
272727 27
Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments
Town of Estes Park Review and sign the Project
Agreement
Review and sign Reimbursable
Agreement
Review and provide approval for
Highway Design Standards
Attend reviews and meetings
Provide available data on traffic,
accidents, material sources,
construction costs, and any other
relevant information
Review the plans and specifications
at each phase of the design and
provide project development support
Provide 95% Plans, Specifications,
and Estimate Approval for
procurement process
Provide support to CFLHD, as
requested, for the development of
environmental documents.
Provide ROW and utility information
and coordination
Provide water source(s) for design
and construction use
Coordinate utility relocations
Obtain permits other than those
required for Federal constructed
projects
PS&E activities will
not commence until
agreement(s) are
executed
Colorado Department of
Transportation
Review and sign the Project
Agreement
Attend reviews and meetings
Provide available data on traffic,
accidents, material sources,
construction costs, and any other
relevant information
Review the plans and specifications
at each phase of the design and
provide project development support
Provide 95% Plans, Specifications,
and Estimate Approval
Provide support to CFLHD, as
requested, for the development of
environmental documents.
282828 28
Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments
Provide ROW and utility information
and coordination
Procure ROW
Obtain permits other than those
required for Federal constructed
projects
National Park Service Review and sign the Project
Agreement
Attend reviews and meetings
Review the plans and specifications
at each phase of the design and
provide project development
support
In coordination with the CFLHD,
ensure that completed plans,
specifications, and estimates
(PS&E) are consistent with the
intended outcome.
Provide support to CFLHD, as
requested, for the development of
environmental documents.
Designate a representative who will
be the primary contact for
assistance during construction.
Attend the final inspection with
CFLHD and EC upon completion
of construction.
H.ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES – SCHEDULE (This section may be
abbreviated with only a tentative project schedule based on the application
pending a more in-depth scoping of the proposed project. If so, a more detailed
schedule thereafter should be developed and approved by the parties or the
Programming Decisions Committee, as appropriate.)
292929 29
Responsible
Lead
Product/Service/
Role
Schedule
Start-Finish
Comments
CFLHD Project
Development
Planning
See attached schedule Project
Development Plan
CFLHD NEPA Possible EA
CFLHD Engineering
Design
Preliminary
through Final
PS&E
CFLHD Geotechnical/
Pavement
Investigation and
Recommendations
Perform site
investigations and
provide
recommendations
TOEP, CDOT, & NPS 100% PS&E
Approval
CFLHD Acquisitions Design and
Construction
Contracting
CFLHD Construction
Administration
Construction
Management and
Engineering
TOEP, CDOT, & NPS Construction
Acceptance
I.PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS Final design standards will be
determined through the NEPA process.
Criteria Comments
Standard CDOT Possible width exception
on Riverside Drive
Functional Classification Urban Minor
Arterial
Surface Type Hot-Asphalt
Concrete Pavement
Design Volume 14,000
303030 30
J.FUNDING
Funding Source Estimated
Funding
% of
Total
Project Comments
Federal Lands
Access Program
(FLAP)
$16,720,000 77.77% FLAP funds are allocated for
Schedule A only.
Town of Estes
Park $4,200,000 19.53%
Cash Match Contribution:
Priority of local match is to
contribute funds to Schedule A.
100% of cost attributed to Option
X (West Elk Horn Avenue)
Colorado
Department of
Transportation
$580,000 2.70%
In-Kind Contribution:
Hazardous Material Abatement for
Full-Acquisition Parcels
Demolition of Buildings for Full-
Acquisition Parcels
Legal Fees and Settlement Costs
for Seven Full-Acquisition Parcels
Total $21,500,000
The funding priorities for the project is Schedule A, followed second by Option X. If
during the implementation of the project it is determined that the total project cost
exceeds $21,500,000, the Central Federal Lands Highway Division, the Town of Estes
Park, and the Colorado Department of Transportation mutually agree to award Schedule
A if possible within the $21,500,000 funding even if means the Option X cannot be
awarded. If insufficient funds exist to award Schedule A, then the Central Federal Lands
Highway Division, the Town of Estes Park, and the Colorado Department of
Transportation will either mutually agree in writing to reduce the scope of the project, or
execute a modification to this agreement to change funding amounts.
313131 31
K.MATCHING SHARE REQUIREMENTS
Town of Estes Park will provide 17.21% of the total Federal Lands Access Program eligible
project costs required for the project through construction contract completion, closeout, and
resolution of any disputes, in an amount not to exceed that provided in separate funding
agreements.
Matching or cost sharing requirements will be satisfied following the obligation of funds to the
project as detailed above in Section J.
Matching or cost sharing requirements may be satisfied following the obligation of funds
to the project by: allowable costs incurred by the State or local government, cash
donations, the fair and reasonable value of third party in-kind contributions (but only to
the extent that the value of the costs would be allowable if paid for by the party
responsible for meeting the matching share), including materials or services; however no
costs or value of third party contributions may count towards satisfying the matching
share requirements under this agreement if they have or will be counted towards meeting
the matching share requirements under another federal award.
Costs and third party contributions counting toward satisfying a cost sharing or matching
requirement must be verifiable from the records of the party responsible for meeting the
matching requirements. The records must demonstrate how the value of third party in
kind contributions was derived. Voluntary services sought to be applied to the matching
share will be supported by the same methods that the party to this agreement uses to
support allocability of personnel costs. Any donated services provided by a third party
will be valued at rates consistent with those ordinarily paid by employers for similar work
in the same labor market. Supplies furnished will be valued at their market value at the
time of donation. Donated equipment or space will be valued at fair rental rate of the
equipment or space. All records associated with valuations or costs under section K shall
be accessible and be maintained for three years following project close-out.
A Reimbursable Agreement (RA) will be executed to commit the match contribution
and initiate project delivery for CO FLAP 34(1) & 36(1). The CFLHD will bill Town
of Estes Park upon completion of the work in the RA, as tentatively outlined in the
RA. The CFLHD is limited to recovery of the matching share of actual costs incurred,
as reflected in the invoice provided by the CFLHD.
The CFLHD shall not incur costs which result in matching funds exceeding the
maximum cost stated in the Reimbursable Agreement without authorization by Town
of Estes Park in the form of written modification.
323232 32
L.PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS - POINTS OF CONTACT
The following table provides the points of contact for this project. They are to be the first
persons to deal with any issues or questions that arise over the implementation of each
party’s role and responsibility for this agreement.
Name/Title Organization Address/Phone Number/Email
Greg Muhonen
Director of Public
Works
Town of Estes
Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 402-7400
gmuhonen@estes.org
James Usher
Program Engineer
CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 350-2176
James.usher@state.co.us
Cheri Yost
Chief of Planning
NPS- ROMO Rocky Mountain National Park
Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 586-1320
cheri_yost@nps.gov
John Knowles
CFLHD
Project Manager
CFLHD 12300 W. Dakota Ave. Suite 380
Lakewood, CO 80228
(720) 963-3415
John.knowles@dot.gov
M.CHANGES/AMENDMENTS/ADDENDUMS
The agreement may be modified, amended, or have addendums added by mutual
agreement of all parties. The change, amendment, or addendum must be in writing and
executed by all of the parties.
The types of changes envisioned include, but are not limited to, changes that significantly
impact scope, schedule, or budget; changes to the local match, either in type or
responsibility; changes that alter the level of effort or responsibilities of a party. The
parties commit to consider suggested changes in good faith. Failure to reach agreement
on changes may be cause for termination of this agreement.
A change in the composition of the project team members does not require the agreement
to be amended.
It is the responsibility of the project team members to recognize when changes are needed
and to make timely notification to their management in order to avoid project delivery
delays.
N.ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES MATRIX
Issues should be resolved at the lowest level possible. The issue should be clearly defined
in writing and understood by all parties. Escalating to the next level can be requested by
333333 33
any party. When an issue is resolved, the decision will be communicated to all levels
below.
FHWA Town of Estes Park CDOT R4 NPS Time
John Knowles,
Project Manager
Public Works Director
Greg Muhonen
Resident Engineer
Mike Keen
Chief of Planning
Cheri Yost 30 days
Wendy Longley,
Project Management Branch
Chief
Town Administrator
Travis Machalek
Program Engineer
James Usher
Park Superintendent
Darla Sidles 60 days
Curtis Scott,
Chief of Engineering 90 days
O.TERMINATION
This agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of all parties. This
agreement may also be terminated if either the NEPA process or funding availability
requires a change and the parties are not able to agree to the change. Any termination of
this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to
termination. If Federal Access funds have been expended prior to termination, the party
responsible for the match agrees to reimburse CFLHD as outlined in the Reimbursable
Agreement.
343434 34
353535 35
6363636 36
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Belle Morris, Transportation Advisory Board Chair
Date: June 9, 2020
RE: Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program for Downtown Estes Park
Objective:
Present 4 options for potential selection of a one weekend test of a Stay Healthy Streets
Pilot Program for Downtown Estes Park.
Present Situation:
Public health executive orders from the state and county have mandated maintaining
physical distancing of at least 6’ between persons as an effective tool for slowing the
spread of the COVID-19 virus. This separation is not possible on the downtown
sidewalks during the congested summer visitation days. The Town of Estes Park
embraces a responsibility to help protect the physical, mental, and economic health of
our community. To this end, the citizen Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) has
spearheaded the development of a draft Stay Healthy Streets pilot program to address
these new physical distancing needs in downtown Estes. This could be accomplished
by repurposing the existing vehicular use of some traffic lanes on Elkhorn Avenue, and
allowing pedestrians, bikes, and trolley to use these lanes. This proposal could also
test the recommendation from the adopted Downtown Plan to move toward multimodal
equity on downtown highways. These options were presented to the community for
review and comment. The results of this survey are summarized separately in the
attachments.
Proposal:
Staff and the TAB propose the Town select one weekend in July (Friday through
Sunday) to test one of the options proposed in the draft plan, team with the community
to evaluate the successes and challenges encountered during the test, and consider
implementing one of the options for additional days during the summer guest season.
The test is intended to answer these questions:
1. Did the lane repurposing improve or harm the guest’s sense of safety and enjoyment of
their time in Estes?
2. Were business sales improved or harmed?
373737 37
3. Did this approach to crowd management reduce or advance the spread of the COVID-19
virus?
4. What unintended adverse consequences resulted from this test?
5. Should this pilot program be repeated? If yes, for what duration?
Advantages:
Provides expanded areas for pedestrians and/or recreational uses when the
existing sidewalks along Elkhorn Avenue are heavily congested with visitors. This
aligns with Larimer County and CDPHE health directives to protect residents,
employees, and visitors.
Aligns with the objectives of CDOT’s proposed grant funding program to enhance
the quality of life, livability, and safety of all transportation options within the local
communities.
Reduces vehicular traffic congestion, noise and air pollution downtown.
Retains direct, vehicular access to loading zones and all private and public
parking lots.
Reduces pedestrian congestion at intersection crossings and allows unrestricted
crossing of Elkhorn Avenue within the closure boundaries.
Improves usage of the parking structure and walking, biking, or riding the shuttle
to the downtown.
The limited-use center lane in the closure area improves schedule reliability for
the free trolley service while preserving delivery and emergency vehicle access.
This demonstrates community commitment to actively mitigating downtown traffic
congestion and emphasizing transit use.
Tests the feasibility of multimodal mobility recommendations contained in the
Downtown Plan.
A detour plan is already developed for Option 2 (Halloween closure).
Temporarily repurposing street areas actively helps brand Estes Park as a
mountain destination that prioritizes visitor and resident health and safety.
Disadvantages:
The community sentiment and feedback are divided on this issue.
Businesses located on Elkhorn Avenue do not receive the visual benefit of front
window marketing exposure to drive-by automobile traffic.
Closure of the Elkhorn Avenue/Big Horn Ave/Moraine Avenue intersection
requires RMNP visitors to learn and navigate alternate detour routes.
New traffic patterns disrupt established routines of roadway users during the test.
Traffic volumes, noise, and pollution are increased along the detour routes.
The closure and reduction in open traffic lanes will increase traffic congestion on
Elkhorn Avenue east of the 34/36 traffic signal.
Traffic barriers and signage must be installed and removed to perform a
weekend test of the pilot program.
Coincident, two-directional travel conflicts by the trolley, delivery trucks, or
emergency vehicles could occur within the closure area
383838 38
Action Recommended:
This proposal has been reviewed and discussed by the citizen TAB, Public Works
Department and Police Department staff, and we recommend Option 2 be tested on a
weekend in July. The community opinion survey results will be shared at the study
session. Staff should return to the Town Board to present the findings from the test and
discuss future options.
Finance/Resource Impact:
While existing traffic control devices could be used for a short, week-end test, additional
traffic barriers and signage must be acquired, installed, removed, and stored if this
advances to a longer duration program. Estimated costs of new cones and continuous
barriers for a long-duration programs range from $54,000 to $118,000. These costs
could be reduced by about 90% if CDOT will allow straw bale barriers. Additional
electronic signs could be included for additional cost (rental at $135/day per sign). On
June 4, 2020, the Executive Director of CDOT asked the Transportation Commission of
Colorado to authorize the disbursement of $4.1 million in Multimodal Options Funds to
help local governments deliver safe spaces to walk, bike, dine, and conduct business
within their communities. If approved, the Town could apply for these funds for this pilot
if there is a desire to implement this pilot program for a longer time duration.
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest is high. Over 770 responses were received on the opinion
survey regarding the proposed pilot program options. About 40% support No Change.
About 60% support testing a street repurposing concept of some configuration.
Attachments:
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program proposal and maps - Link
TAB letter of support - Link
Community survey results - Link
Presentation slides
393939 39
1
DRAFT CONCEPTS
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program for Downtown Estes
Park
Introduction
The Estes Park Downtown Area is under a State Order, “Safer at Home”. The Order
directs critical and non-critical businesses to operate with restrictions- intending to
“open up the economy while preventing another spike in COVID19 cases and
overwhelming our medical systems”. Safer at Home is a phased approach that will
continue to be updated by Colorado’s Governor and the Larimer County Health
Department. Responding to the State, County and Local guidance, the Town of Estes
Park could implement temporary changes to the Downtown traffic patterns, by
repurposing portions of the streets for greater access by pedestrians, bikes and
shuttles. Such improvements could provide safe physical distancing when sidewalks
are filled with shoppers. Additionally, through Safer at Home, diverse industries such
as retail, tourism, restaurants, have been provided opening guidelines to enhance
public safety measures. Restaurants are now allowed to have inside dining at a
40
2
reduced capacity with cleaning and safe physical distancing restrictions. With an
open street plan, restaurants and businesses could potentially extend into the public
space for additional capacity allowing more opportunity for adequate six feet
distancing. A key component to the Safer at Home phase(s) is implementing physical
distancing. This proposal, “Stay Healthy Streets”, provides three options for
Downtown Estes Park. The proposal included within this document is a pilot program
that was designed to promote flexibility, business resiliency, and environmental health
stewardship. The program aligns with the Town of Estes Park’s Complete Streets
policy which requires consideration of all users in the transportation network when
evaluating proposed changes.
Physical Distancing and Masks
Pandemic. To slow the spread of the COVID19 virus, essential acts of physical
distancing require changes to daily life. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has stated that COVID19 has spread through close contact from
person to person. Also, an asymptomatic person may unknowingly spread this
aggressive virus to others. Walking shoulder to shoulder can increase the transmission
of COVID19 by asymptomatic carriers; respiratory droplets can easily spread from one
person to another when shouting, laughing, sneezing, coughing, touching objects and
sharing tight spaces. If those transmitted droplet s enter the mouth, eyes or nose, a
person can become dangerously ill from COVID19. With the ease of spreading the
COVID19 droplets, the virus is highly contagious. The CDC has recommended diligent
safety behaviors to reduce the spread of the virus and the risk of medical service
facilities becoming overwhelmed. The best way to prevent the COVID19 illness is to
avoid being exposed to the virus by diligently washing hands, keeping at least six feet
distance from others, routinely clean and disinfect surfaces, and wearing face
coverings.
41
3
Safety guidance. To safeguard the Estes Valley community, visitors, and seasonal
residents, the Town Board and Larimer County support guidelines that encourage
wearing a facial covering when a minimum of six feet of separation from others cannot
be achieved. Some describe wearing a face mask as uncomfortable, too hot and not
100% reliable in preventing COVID19; however, the face covering offers a measure of
protection to others in case you are infected. Respiratory droplets will be blocked from
exiting an asymptomatic carrier’s mouth or nose, which reduces the spread of the
virus. The CDC recommendation to wear face coverings does not replace the need for
physical distancing. Keeping at least 6 feet distance from others, avoiding groups and
mass gatherings reduces exposure locally as well as globally has been recommended
by the CDC.
The Problem
Planning for Thriving Tourism. Estes Park has a traditional downtown with narrow
sidewalks and closely-clustered store front businesses that welcome up to 3.5 million
visitors annually. According to RMNP Superintendent Darla Sidles, 4.6 million people
visited the national park in 2019 and 80 percent went through the east side entrances.
Estes Park’s proximity to RMNP as a “gateway community”, has influenced the
number of visitors to Estes Park in search of accommodations and safe experiences.
Residents and workers also share the downtown corridor for shopping, dining, Library
access, to attend meetings at Town Hall or special events at Bond Park. Estes Park is
one of the most sought-after destinations in Colorado. As a result, The Town’s
sidewalks and streets will continue to be congested and well-traveled during the peak
summer season.
Not enough space. The current traffic plan and sidewalk spaces do not allow enough
42
4
room for adequate physical separation to reduce the spread of COVID19. This could
create an unacceptable risk of Covid 19 exposure and infection for both residents and
visitors. Estes Park should be prepared for a high number of visitors even with the
uncertainty created by the pandemic. These visitors will be concentrated in the
downtown area, especially Elkhorn Avenue, and will likely create intense crowding up
and down the downtown sidewalks. The pandemic will still be with us and the crowding
will likely make it impossible to keep the CDC recommended safe distance of six feet
between people to prevent COVID 19 transmission and infection. Downtown sidewalks
are adorned with landscape features, benches, and seating walls. These streetscape
features contribute to the narrow nature of the downtown environment. Masks alone
should not be relied upon to provide sufficient separation during these uncertain times.
Visitors and residents will want to be safe and feel safe, and may not choose to dine,
shop or dwell in downtown if they feel that the Town has not done enough to make
them feel safe and secure.
RMNP opened to the public on May 27. A reservation system has been approved that
will reduce the number of visitors by about 40% and meter the times in which people
will enter the park. With less visitors using the trails at any one time, it is hoped that
this will result in adequate social distancing.
A Proposed Solution: Stay Healthy Streets
43
5
Stay Healthy Streets
Across the country and the globe, cities, towns and small communities are opening
their streets to pedestrians and bikes in order to allow added exercise opportunities
while maintaining safe physical distancing. Arvada, Loveland and Breckenridge are
three examples in Colorado. Communities are choosing to make mental, physical and
environmental health a priority during the COVID19 pandemic. Providing more outdoor
space by repurposing some of the roadways allows activities that improve socializing
and community connections while respecting six feet of physical distancing. Estes
Park has the opportunity to choose to repurpose street spaces to be used for safe
activity that could encourage additional economic vitality.
Downtown streets could be opened for pedestrians, bikes and trolleys. The spaces
freed up from the usual heavy traffic and pollution could be repurposed for
entertainment, accessible shopping, safe physical distancing and active movement.
Implementing Stay Healthy Streets could provide a safe welcoming experience for
visitors that expect Estes Park to be a destination that restores health and offers
enjoyment. Stay Healthy Streets is designed to be a temporary pilot program that can
be adapted and changed for optimum participation and safety. Moving pedestrians
away from the limited sidewalk spaces into repurposed street space could provide an
enhanced destination experience.
Complementary Actions To Enhance Distancing And Help Business
Downtown Parks. In newly available street spaces and Downtown parks, people could
wander about more freely with facial coverings and appropriate distancing. The
potential for restaurants to share sidewalk spaces in front (or back) of their business
could increase their dining capacity as well as add to the outdoor lifestyle many visitors
appreciate. If repurposed spaces are not used by some restaurants, the town could
allow other areas to be used by those purchasing meals through curbside takeout.
Surrounding Destinations. Estes Park is not the only Colorado destination town to
consider an open streets concept or build upon what they have already started. Other
towns are opening up outside areas to permit drinking of alcohol so that outside diners
could have a more complete outdoor dining experience. The Town would need to be
willing to consider changes to licensing and permitting for businesses in Stay Healthy
Streets areas.
Adaptability. During the current “Safer at Home” orders and its future guidelines, there
will need to be a willingness to adapt to changes that reflect the immediate needs of
44
6
public safety. For instance, changing the Estes Park mask ordinance from mandatory
to voluntary usage suggests a responsible implementation of physical distancing in our
downtown should be explored. Safe distancing, for walkers, bikers, wheelchairs or
strollers will be available if the congested downtown streets are opened up for multi-
modal usage.
Remaining active is important for physical and mental health, but is essential for
accessing jobs and services, too. As warmer weather arrives in Estes Park, many will
rely on safe multi-modal options that align with safe 6 feet distancing. Sidewalks in
downtown are too narrow to accommodate responsible physical separation safety
guidelines. Implementing “Stay Healthy Streets” allows the needed space to be active,
move throughout the Downtown and access shops safely. Ma sk usage is currently
voluntary and will not be guaranteed as a tool used in the shared spaces of downtown.
Economy
Providing a safe environment for visitors and locals is key to a successful business
season. Many visitors are coming from more densely populated cities and towns to
enjoy the spacious areas around Estes Park. Introduction of the Stay Healthy Streets
pilot program could potentially encourage more people to choose Estes Park as their
destination. Closing one or more lanes to cars could provide the option for dining to take
place on the street or in areas usually reserved for on street parking. Estes Park could
potentially allow restaurants to install parklets in on-street parking spaces or loading
zones.
As communities across the country adjust to methods of red ucing the spread of the
highly contagious COVID19, destination towns need to be particularly cognizant of the
need for safe spaces in areas of business. Many families may prioritize safety and how
well prepared a town is for their stay. It is vital that a Downtown reflects a strong, safe
and welcoming message. There are plenty of destination towns that families can plan to
visit, but Estes Park has the opportunity to be exceptional by demonstrating a strong
commitment to safety through Stay Healthy Streets.
45
7
Recreation
The streets of Downtown are public spaces and providing entertainment can attract
families. Adding FUN to the Stay Healthy Streets could lift the spirits of visitors and
encourage them to make pleasant memories. Adding safe distancing entertainment can
allow adequate people management- spread out locations where people may gather.
Adding trolley access to the Stay Healthy Streets plans allows additional family
entertainment and ability to view all the wonderful storefronts for future shopping. For
visitors not wanting to walk the streets, the frequent trolleys circulating through the
corridor will provide a wonderful option in accessing downtown.
Providing designated bike lanes, that are shared with trolleys, allows access to the
downtown corridor that has never been experienced before. Safe riding could possibly
encourage multi-modal alternatives when families and visitors choose to visit the
downtown area. Bike rentals will be able to add the downtown corridor to their safe bike
route in a Stay Healthy Streets plan for Estes Park.
46
8
Pilot Program Implementation Options
Included below are narrative descriptions of three options for repurposing parts of
downtown streets during a trial weekend. Separate maps are included in the Appendix.
A No Action option is also addressed. Initially, one option could be tested on a pilot
basis for one weekend in July (after Wonderview Avenue has reopened). If the
community deems the pilot successful, Stay Healthy Streets could be expanded to
additional weekends and into some weekdays during the remaining of the peak
visitation months through October. Resident, business, and visitor feedback would be
sought before proceeding beyond the pilot stage. The pilot would allow for “testing” the
open street plan to find out what works, doesn’t work, and what visitors appreciate
about spending time in our downtown. A short survey could be utilized to capture their
experience. Since CDOT owns and operates Elkhorn Ave and Moraine Ave, their
approval will be necessary.
Emphasis is placed on extra space for pedestrians, outdoor business options, and
recreation opportunities. These pilot program options are offered from a systemic
perspective intended to encourage broader utilization of the parking structure and
increased access to downtown via walking, biking, or via the free trolley during the
peak visitation hours. For 2020, the downtown shuttle service will run from 10am to
11pm, daily, from July 1 to October 4. Community Service Officer support at the
downtown intersections is expected from 9am to 6pm daily thru mid- August.
47
9
OPTION 1—Lane Reductions (no detour)
Proposed Scope
1. This option reduces the number of traffic lanes on Elkhorn Ave to one in each
direction, and repurposes one outside traffic lane to use by pedestrians. Between
Riverside Drive and the Fall River Bridge, the northern lane is repurposed for pedestrian
use. Between Wonderview Ave and Riverside Drive, the southern lane is similarly
repurposed.
2. A combination of water-filled traffic barricades and cones will be used to delineate
the lane closures where automobile traffic travels adjacent to pedestrian traffic.
3. The lane reductions will be set up at 10am on Friday and remain in place overnight
for the full duration of the weekend pilot program test. The devices will be removed early
Monday morning.
4. Existing loading zones will remain available for delivery vehicles and customer use
for parcel pickup.
5. The new electric trolley will mix with other automobiles in the traffic lanes.
6. Traffic signals would operate normally with Community Service Officer support at
intersections.
48
10
Benefits
1. Expanded areas for pedestrians and/or recreational uses are is provided along one
side of Elkhorn Avenue.
2. Motorists can drive by shop windows and see merchandise.
3. All side-street intersections and commonly used visitor route to RMNP remain open
to traffic.
4. Direct, vehicular access is retained to loading zones and all private and public
parking lots.
5. This option will increase congestion on the downtown streets which is expected to
improve usage of the parking structure and walking to the downtown.
Challenges
1. Expanded area for pedestrians is limited to one side of Elkhorn Avenue, leaving the
opposite sidewalk crowded and congested. One-way directional travel for pedestrians
could be explored along Elkhorn Avenue.
2. No additional physical distancing benefit is delivered along Moraine Ave.
3. Downtown trolley likely to be delayed by traffic congestion in the reduced number of
open traffic lanes.
4. Reduction in open traffic lanes will increase traffic congestion on Elkhorn Avenue
east of downtown.
5. Additional traffic barriers and signage must be acquired, installed, and removed at an
added expense. Estimated cost for long-term use is $4,000 for 148 cones and
$114,000 for 414 barriers (5’ long).
6. Safe pedestrian crossings of Elkhorn Avenue are limited to the signalized
intersections.
OPTION 2—Limited Closure
Proposed Scope
1. This option closes Elkhorn Avenue to motorists between Riverside Drive and Spruce
Drive and repurposes the outer traffic lanes on both sides of the street for pedestrians.
Additionally, between Wonderview Ave and Riverside Drive, the southern lane is
repurposed for pedestrian use.
49
11
2. Within the closure area, the center lane remains open for use by emergency
vehicles, delivery vehicles, bikes, and the trolley.
3. Detour routing for through traffic will be signed using Spruce Drive, Riverside Drive
and MacGregor Avenue similar to the Town’s annual Halloween roadway closure.
RMNP traffic should be detoured around downtown at the Hwy 34/36 intersection.
4. A combination of water-filled traffic barricades and cones will be used to delineate
the lane closures where automobile traffic travels adjacent to pedestrian traffic. Internal
to the street closure, 36” tall cones will be used to separate the trolley lane from the
pedestrian spaces.
5. The road closure and lane reductions will be set up at 10am on Friday and remain in
place overnight for the full duration of weekend pilot program test. The devices will be
removed early Monday morning. The center lane will remain open to emergency and
delivery vehicles at all times.
6. Existing loading zones will remain available for delivery vehicles and customer use
for parcel and/or pickup/drop-off for those with limited mobility.
7. Traffic signals will operate on 4-way flashing red lights supplemented with manual
control by Community Service Officers from 9am to 6pm.
Benefits
1. Expanded areas for pedestrians and/or recreational uses are provided along both
sides of Elkhorn Avenue and one block of Moraine Avenue. This aligns with Larimer
County and CDPHE health directives to protect residents, employees, and visitors.
2. Vehicular traffic congestion, noise and air pollution are diverted around downtown.
3. Direct, vehicular access is retained to loading zones and all private and public
parking lots.
4. Pedestrians may freely cross Elkhorn Avenue within the closure boundaries in
between occasional trolley uses of the center lane. This reduces pedestrian bottlenecks
at the Moraine and Riverside intersections by allowing continuous, uninterrupted flow.
5. Provides potential repurposing of sidewalk space for outdoor expansion of adjacent
retail and restaurant uses.
6. Vehicular restrictions downtown encourage use of the parking structure and
alternative modes of transportation.
7. The limited-use center lane in the closure area improves schedule reliability for the
free trolley service while preserving delivery and emergency vehicle access. This
demonstrates community commitment to actively mitigating downtown traffic congestion
and emphasizing transit use.
50
12
8. This option tests the feasibility of recommendations contained in the Downtown Plan.
9. Temporarily repurposing street areas actively helps brand Estes Park as a mountain
destination that prioritizes visitor and resident health and safety.
Challenges
1. Businesses on Elkhorn Avenue do not receive the visual benefit of marketing
exposure to drive-by automobile traffic.
2. Closure of the Elkhorn Avenue/Big Horn Ave/Moraine Avenue intersection requires
RMNP visitors to learn and navigate alternate detour routes.
3. New traffic patterns disrupt established routines of daily users.
4. The north access to the Wiest parking lot is temporarily closed.
5. Additional physical distancing benefit along Moraine Avenue is limited to one block.
6. Traffic volumes, noise, and pollution are increased along the detour routes.
7. The closure and reduction in open traffic lanes will increase traffic congestion on
Elkhorn Avenue east of the 34/36 traffic signal.
8. Additional traffic barriers and signage must be acquired, installed, and removed at an
added expense. Estimated cost for long-term use is $6,000 for 191 cones and $48,000
for 168 barriers (5’ long).
9. Coincident, two-directional travel conflicts by the trolley, delivery trucks, or
emergency vehicles could occur within the closure area.
OPTION 3—Limited Closure Plus Lane Reductions
Proposed Scope
1. This option is a slightly expanded version of Option 2. This option closes Elkhorn
Avenue to motorists between Riverside Drive and Spruce Drive and repurposes the
outer traffic lanes on both sides of the street for pedestrians. Additionally, between
Wonderview Ave and Riverside Drive, both the northern and southern traffic lanes are
repurposed for pedestrian use.
2. Within the closure area, the center lane remains open for use by emergency vehicles,
delivery vehicles, bikes, and the trolley.
3. Detour routing for through traffic will be signed using Spruce Drive, Riverside Drive
and MacGregor Avenue similar to the Halloween closure. RMNP traffic should be
detoured around downtown at the Hwy 34/36 intersection.
51
13
4. A combination of water-filled traffic barricades and cones will be used to delineate the
lane closures where automobile traffic travels adjacent to pedestrian traffic. Internal to
the street closure, 36” tall cones will be used to separate the trolley lane from the
pedestrian spaces.
5. The road closure and lane reductions will be set up at 10am on Friday and remain in
place overnight for the full duration of weekend pilot program test. The devices will be
removed early Monday morning. The center lane will remain open to emergency and
delivery vehicles at all times.
6. Existing loading zones will remain available for delivery vehicles and customer use
for parcel pickup.
7. Traffic signals will operate on 4-way flashing red lights supplemented with manual
control by Community Service Officers from 9am to 6pm.
Benefits
1. Expanded areas for pedestrians and/or recreational uses are provided along both
sides of Elkhorn Avenue and one block of Moraine Avenue. This aligns with Larimer
County and CDPHE health directives to protect residents, employees, and visitors.
2. Vehicular traffic congestion, noise and air pollution are diverted around downtown.
3. Direct, vehicular access is retained to loading zones and all private and public
parking lots.
4. Pedestrians may freely cross Elkhorn Avenue within the closure boundaries in
between occasional trolley uses of the center lane. This reduces pedestrian bottlenecks
at the Moraine and Riverside intersections by allowing continuous, uninterrupted flow.
5. Provides potential repurposing of sidewalk space for outdoor expansion of adjacent
retail and restaurant uses.
6. Vehicular restrictions downtown encourage use of use of the parking structure and
alternative modes of transportation.
7. The limited-use center lane in the closure area improves schedule reliability for the
free trolley service while preserving delivery and emergency vehicle access. This
demonstrates community commitment to actively mitigating downtown traffic congestion
and emphasizing trolley use.
8. This option tests the feasibility of recommendations contained in the Downtown Plan.
9. Temporarily repurposing street areas actively helps brand Estes Park as a mountain
destination that prioritizes visitor and resident health and safety.
52
14
Challenges
1. Businesses on Elkhorn Avenue do not receive the visual benefit of marketing
exposure to drive-by automobile traffic.
2. Closure of the Elkhorn Avenue/Big Horn Ave/Moraine Avenue intersection requires
RMNP visitors to learn and navigate alternate detour routes.
3. New traffic patterns disrupt established routines of daily users.
4. Closure of the north lane on Elkhorn Avenue provides limited physical distancing
benefits for adjacent sidewalk users, as there is abundant park, driveway, and
landscaped areas along this frontage.
5. The north access to the Wiest parking lot is temporarily closed.
6. Additional physical distancing benefit along Moraine Avenue is limited to one block.
7. Traffic volumes, noise, and pollution are increased along the detour routes.
8. The closure and reduction in open traffic lanes will increase traffic congestion on
Elkhorn Avenue east of the 34/36 traffic signal.
9. Additional traffic barriers and signage must be acquired, installed, and removed at an
added expense. Estimated cost for long-term use is $7,000 for 240 cones and
$102,000 for 366 barriers (5’ long).
OPTION 4—No Change
Proposed Scope
This option proposes no changes to the downtown traffic patterns.
Benefits
1. Visitors traveling to downtown and RMNP continue to use familiar, established
routes.
2. Motorists can drive by shop windows and see merchandise.
3. Direct, vehicular access is retained to loading zones and all private and public
parking lots.
4. No new expenses are required for additional traffic barriers and signage.
5. No new controversial topic, with the associated conflict and division, is introduced to
the community.
53
15
Challenges
1. Downtown sidewalks will be congested during heavy visitation periods. Physical
distancing of six feet or more on existing sidewalks is impossible due to crowd density.
This could expose downtown employees and guests to symptomatic and asymptomatic
carriers of the COVID-19 virus.
2. Downtown streets will be congested with vehicular traffic congestion, noise and air
pollution.
3. Conflicts between automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists occur during competitive
use of limited street and sidewalk space.
4. Downtown trolley schedule likely to be delayed by traffic congestion in the traffic
lanes.
References
The concept of street closure, whether temporary or 24/7 has been implemented in
various cities, including Denver, CO, Oakland, CA, New York City, NY, Seattle, WA,
Austin, TX, Portland, OR and various cities throughout the world.
Best practices like social distancing, sanitation, 50% capacity, and providing
employees masks are required by the State for retail businesses.
https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2020/public-health-face-covering-
54
16
order.pdf
https://www.6sqft.com/most-nyc-sidewalks-are-too-narrow-for-proper-social-
distancing/?fbclid=IwAR0ycgxSgwhC168Ev0zssnhwZfh3KII8asSTUsgnnYSBrdoiAeR2z
iA37rE
How to Protect Yourself & Others
Breckenridge May Close Main Street for Pedestrians and Restaurants
Large Areas of London To Be Made Car Free
Cities Converting Streets To Public Space
Why NYC Needs Closed Streets
Denver's closed streets attract people eager to break coronavirus quarantine, stretch their
legs
The Coronavirus Shows It’s Time To Remake The American City
55
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 50 100 150Feet
1 in = 125 ft±Town of Estes ParkPublic Works Department
Stay Healthy StreetsPilot ProgramOption #1 (1 of 2)
Legend
Barriers (10' long) and 36" Cones (2 per 20' gap)
36" Cones (25' spacing)
Expanded Physical Distancing Area
56
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 50 100 150Feet
1 in = 125 ft±Town of Estes ParkPublic Works Department
Stay Healthy StreetsPilot ProgramOption #1 (2 of 2)
Legend
Barriers (10' long) and 36" Cones (2 per 20' gap)
36" Cones (25' spacing)
Expanded Physical Distancing Area
57
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 50 100 150Feet
1 in = 125 ft±Town of Estes ParkPublic Works Department
Stay Healthy StreetsPilot ProgramOption #2 (1 of 2)
Legend
Barriers (10' long) and 36" Cones (2 per 20' gap)
36" Cones (25' spacing)
Type III Barricade
Expanded Physical Distancing Area
58
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 100 200Feet
1 in = 158 ft±Town of Estes ParkPublic Works Department
Stay Healthy StreetsPilot ProgramOption #2 (2 of 2)
Legend
Barriers (10' long) and 36" Cones (2 per 20' gap)
36" Cones (25' spacing)
Type III Barricade
Expanded Physical Distancing Area
59
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 50 100 150Feet
1 in = 125 ft±Town of Estes ParkPublic Works Department
Stay Healthy StreetsPilot ProgramOption #3 (1 of 2)
Legend
Barriers (10' long) and 36" Cones (2 per 20' gap)
Type III Barricade
Expanded Physical Distancing Area
60
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 100 200Feet
1 in = 158 ft±Town of Estes ParkPublic Works Department
Stay Healthy StreetsPilot ProgramOption #3 (2 of 2)
Legend
36" Cones (25' spacing)
Type III Barricade
Expanded Physical Distancing Area
61
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
From: Belle Morris, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board
Date: June 3, 2020
RE: Letter of Support, Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program for Downtown Estes
Park
Dear Honorable Mayor Koenig and Trustees,
The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB ) recommends a limited closure of Elkhorn Avenue
to motorists for a 3 day weekend in July; with a follow-up evaluation to identify the successes
and challenges encountered. Using the findings, we ask the Board to consider implementing
additional days during the summer guest season.
Stay Healthy Streets pilot program is intended to elevate the welcoming spirit of Downtown
Estes Park, while simultaneously sending the message that Estes Park cares about the safety of
visitors, residents and workers. The need to provide physical distancing created by the COVID-
19 pandemic, can be accomplished by repurposing the existing vehicular use of some traffic
lanes on Elkhorn Avenue, and allowing pedestrians, bikes, trolley to use these lanes. As a
result, visitors will be able to relax and enjoy their shopping or dining experiences. A family
desiring to escape to beautiful Estes Park can do so without worrying about overcrowded
sidewalks and traffic congestion that increase their risk acquiring a contagious virus. Family
members can return home with store bought purchases rather than worrying about their
health. Estes Park is a community that values outdoor living; testing Stay Healthy Streets during
a 3-day weekend can provide an opportunity to respond to a public healthy situation and
enhance business in the Downtown.
TAB researched extensively how nations, cities, towns and small communities were responding
to COVID-19. Many were considering, or beginning to implement, opening streets to
pedestrians and cyclists as Stay at Home orders were being enacted. With time, communities
began to realize the need to encourage social distancing and vehicles were impacting the ability
to accommodate due to lack of space. Eventually, neighboring communities such as
Breckenridge, Arvada and Denver began implementing directives to transform certain streets to
multimodal accommodations only. TAB identified similar health and safety concerns in
Downtown Estes Park and thought it was our role to begin dialogue about options for
Downtown. After robust discussion, research the TAB voted to recommend limited closures
to downtown streets, Option 2.
62
Option 3 was second choice, followed by one vote for No Change and one vote for Option 1.
TAB values the community dialogue about the Stay Healthy Streets pilot program and asked
(alongside Public Works) for a community wide survey (poll vote) about the Options. Additional
community feedback is necessary and appreciated. TAB shares the importance of making sure
Downtown thrives economically and remains environmentally resilient. Aligning with the
philosophy of the newly adopted Complete Streets policy, Options 2 and 3 recognize all users in
the transportation network.
The TAB thanks the Honorable Mayor, Wendy Koenig, and Town Trustees for allowing the
opportunity to provide our recommendation. It is our intention to provide our collaborative
decision, after a robust review of an issue.
Sincerely,
Belle Morris
Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board Chair
63
STAY HEALTHY STREETS PROPOSAL
TAB Summary
64
TAB SHS Option Summary
◦Option 1 –Lane Reductions (No Closure) –1 vote
◦Option 2 –Limited Closure –5 votes
◦Option 3 –Limited Closure Plus Lane Reductions –2 votes
◦Option 4 –No Change –1 vote
◦Option 5 –Other -None
65
TAB SHS Comments
While I understand the importance of getting people to the park I think it is important to show visitors that we care
about their health and safety. If we do not show that we are proactive people will not come up here to go to the
park. By utilizing option 3 we are enforcing the guidelines put out by Larimer county. I think that the visitors and
locals will appreciate this effort that has been put forth by our town to make this happen. As a side note I have
never understood the idea that driving by retail is a good marketing strategy...it would seems that walking by
would have much more value. (voted #3)
2 or 3 option based on available resources. (voted #3)
I would like to see a robust test of Stay Healthy Streets to assess the effects of the lane closures. What we learn
from the test will help to determine what tweaks are needed in the future. I prefer Option 2 because I do not
believe a lane closure on the north side of Elkhorn between Wonderview and Riverside is as critical as it is along
the storefronts. (voted #2)
66
TAB SHS Comments (con’t)
Safer Streets Survey Input/Comments –Scott Moulton TAB Member
Option two seems like the best option for this pilot program.
◦Seems to strike a balance between effectiveness between stated immediate goals concerning safety of our citizens, workforce, and
visitors related to Covid19. This option also levies this opportunity to test the feasibility of a forward -looking option as presented in the
Downtown Plan.
◦One weekend as a pilot does not seem to make for an effective test case. I would propose which ever plan is adopted is trialed fo r a
minimum of two weeks and preferably four.
◦Traffic control, marketing (VEP should play large role here) , directional signs, especially guiding visitors to parking garage for
walking/trolley options will be key here. Marketing efforts should be focused on intent of the program, and directional infor mation.
◦Follow-up survey collection should include collection data points for current experience, changes, forward looking feedback should a
portion of the model become permanent.
◦Businesses should be assisted with marketing efforts, encouraging a more pedestrian friendly experience, ability to roam around Estes
while enjoying the wide-open space and unique shopping experience. Providing marketing assistance could help create buy -in for
nervous DT business who fear a loss in vehicle traffic will reduce walk -in business.
◦Execution is KEY, and rarely can a plan be executed perfectly the first time, which is why this pilot should be run over the course of a
few weekends.
Reasons against choosing other options:
◦Option one seems like a half measure, both for the immediate safety concerns related to Covid19 and the test case feasibility. It
simply does not go far enough given the effort required.
◦Option three while I feel may be a more full scope solution, for the immediate need and as a pilot program I believe it may
complicate the effort more than is necessary. (voted #2)
67
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
June 5, 2020
Option 1 - Lane Reductions (No Closure) - 47 Selected This Option
Option 2 - Limited Closure - 93 Selected This Option
Option 3 - Limited Closure Plus Lane Reductions - 270 Selected This Option
Option 4 - No Change - 316 Selected This Option
Option 5 - Other - 50 Selected This Option
Option 1 - Lane Reductions (No Closure) - 47 Individuals Selected this Option
1
Why option 1?
You need to leave some traffic options through major downtown for merchant visibility.
Sidewalk crowding on Moraine isn't an issue.. don't make it into one. Let's be honest the issue is the two center blocks of Elkhorn.
re options 2 and 3: It is naïve to think that people will increase their usage of shuttle service if they are worried about being in close proximity to others.
So if you are going to close the street, close it, just as you do for Halloween. maybe only for for key dates like July 4th and Memorial and Labor Day. Don't leave a lane open for "shuttle bus"
service.
2
Trying the least restrictive option FIRST to see how things go would be my idea. I hate the idea of trying to get every car going to RMNP to follow a new route.
Perhaps you could get signage set up that would give tourists options on other ways to get to the park entrances....and if enough of those vehicles start using the alternative ways with no problem
for local residents on the new routes, then you could move to Option #2 at the end of the summer.
3 Option 2 and 3 have a strong potential to hinder emergency services.
Option 2 and 3 presume that there will be fewer guests/ vehicles in Estes during this "Safer at Home" phase. If this prediction is not accurate and Estes still has day visitors and guests who are
lodging in the 70% or above range of normal, the traffic may become a very frustrating experience.
4 I would choose option 3 if it weren't for the businesses on the west end of Hwy 36. The Stay Healthy Streets is a marvelous solution for the downtown corridor, but puts a significant barrier
between customers and businesses down the road. So much so, that I cannot yet support the closures. If we can solve this unresolved and I'm sure, unintended consequence of the proposal,
then full steam ahead!
5
Temporary lane reduction to achieve social distancing is OK if face masks are not mandatory. Please do not divert traffic to areas where there are no sidewalks, like Virginia or Wonderview. Local
residents are also concerned with healthy lifestyle; increased traffic would make use of these two streets in residential areas extremely dangerous for local pedestrians.
6 Thank you for soliciting citizen feedback.
7 "Since CDOT owns and operates Elkhorn Ave and Moraine Ave," No, that is not the case Those street are public rights-of-way owned by the public ... they are maintained and managed by CDOT
for the public.
Options 2 and 3: Simply stating "RMNP traffic should be detoured around downtown at the Hwy 34/36 intersection." was easy enough to throw into the draft, but not informative. As a result of
this lack of information, these options are non-viable.
777 Individuals Completed the Survey - 737 Read the Plan, 40 Did Not Read the Plan
Page 1 of 42 68
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
8
As I noted in a letter to the editor, I was very apprehensive that there were no health care professionals included in the several iterations of the re-opening plans for Estes Park business. This
should be a signal to all residents of Estes Park, that the usual self interested groups such as the EDC and hotel groups would use the Covid pandemic to pursue their long agenda of closing Elkhorn
Avenue to promote tourist businesses. This outline of "health" plan for reopening affirms my suspicions.
The Town Board sold our citizens out by ending the "mandatory" mask policy for downtown. Masks protect people from acquiring the virus whether social distancing is happening or not. Just
look at the current rates of increase in Covid in all the mid-West states that did not require closings and mask wearing. So, ANY POLICY FOR ESTES PARK REOPENING SAFETY MUST INCLUDE
MANDATORY MASK WEARING DOWNTOWN. The businesses on Elkhorn don't want to be bothered by restricting entry of our many mid-West tourists for not wearing masks. Too bad! This is
happening in many States. While it is not important to have 100% compliance for masks, requiring masks downtown will decrease exposure to contracting the virus for everyone. I'm
disappointed but not surprised that the Town Board didn't have the courage to vote for health instead of being little pawns to local business.
A rationale plan would be to include option #1 (closing down one lane on Elkhorn in each direction), PLUS REQUIRING MASKS DOWNTOWN. If some ignorant fools don't comply with the mask, at
least the Town could hold its head up high and be proud that it stood for the right thing to do.
I am concerned that the few "not best and brightest" business owners in Estes will make our weak Board and police Dept. do the wrong thing, just to maintain the mid-West status quo.
9
Appreciate the adaptability of the plan and offer of non-binding pilot to assess feasibility.
Concerned about (significantly) increased traffic on Wonderview making it difficult for residents to get in and out of their homes in addition to added road noise.
As well, concerned that diverting all traffic around downtown rather than through downtown will adversely affect merchants/businesses at a time with we need to increase visibility and access to
those businesses, not restrict it.
Closing the off-street parking lots (or charging for parking) will divert more traffic to the (free) parking structure and increase pedestrian activity in downtown.
It seems counter-intuitive to suggest that increasing rideage on the (semi-)enclosed Trolley is lower risk than diminished social distancing outdoors, where the air circulation is FAR better in
reducing potential asymptomatic spread.
I believe the risk we're attempting to mitigate is that of the asymptomatic spreader. Masking and distancing while indoors will be far more effective than distancing only while outdoors. In other
words, I think this effort to increase outdoor distancing has diminished returns over efforts to ensure masking and distancing while indoors.
10
Contrary to what you said about options 2 & 3 I believe option 1 will be best for social distancing. This option has the potential of not bringing more tourists downtown whereas options 2 & 3 will
enable this. Options 2 & 3 have the potential of filling downtown sidewalks & closed streets with more tourists than there are now. Social distancing will not be possible and with the mandatory
mask wearing abolished the spread of COVID19 is imminent. Another reason option 1 is better is for traffic flow. With option 1 we will continue to have a flow of traffic through the downtown
area. With options 2 & 3 traffic will have to be diverted around the downtown area....kind of like a doughnut with the hole being downtown . Diverting the traffic into the outside part of the
doughnut will cause some major problems. An increase traffic flow on perimeter streets will cause ...more noise, more pollution, and unsafe conditions for neighbors to walk and play in their
neighborhoods. Most of those perimeter streets do not have sidewalks adding more problems around the perimeter.
11 One way pedestrian traffic would help with option 1.
Page 2 of 42 69
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
12 My worry is that full closures limit access for visitors to some of the businesses at the end of the strip. It disproportionately creates more access to certain businesses. My recommendation would
be to keep one lane in each direction open and close off all the parking spots along the road to expand walking areas. Additionally, included in the plan needs to be expanded outdoor seating
arangements for restaurants.
13
Those of us with businesses at the west end of Elkhorn I believe will suffer if traffic cannot get down to us.I own Penelopes, we have already taken a huge hit.My block has many restaurants !If
we don't have the visibility how will any of us make it through winter.I hope We can figure out the best plan without killing anyone's business .
14 I think it's worthwhile to try a pilot test. But the navigation detours from options 2 and 3 would cause immense disruption to the traffic flow with major backups on the downtown detour streets
as well as east of the 34/36 intersection. Rerouting traffic to this extent would only make sense if the Fall River RMNP entrance were greatly expanded -- then Wonderview could handle a larger
portion of the park traffic and the downtown detours would be less of a problem.
15
The scientific (not politically biased) evidence is clear regarding the value of social distancing and masks to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Without a requirement for masks outdoors
downtown, social distancing becomes even more important for protecting our visitors and residents. Therefore, some form of Healthy Streets implementation is merited. I worry that options 2
and 3 may cause visitors to cut through neighborhoods (e.g., 4th street) if there is a bottleneck prior to the 36 and 34 intersection. Option 1, on the other hand provides opportunities for more
social distancing while still leaving a traffic lane each way downtown. Since Moraine is effectively one lane heading to RMNP, Option 1 should not cause significant additional traffic problems. We
would be remiss not to give some kind of Healthy Streets option an experimental try.
Option 2 - Limited Closure - 93 Individuals Selected This Option
1
Safer Streets Survey Input/Comments – Scott Moulton TAB Member
- Option two seems like the best option for this pilot program.
o Seems to strike a balance between effectiveness between stated immediate goals concerning safety of our citizens, workforce, and visitors related to Covid19. This option also levies this
opportunity to test the feasibility of a forward-looking option as presented in the Downtown Plan.
o One weekend as a pilot does not seem to make for an effective test case. I would propose which ever plan is adopted is trialed for a minimum of two weeks and preferably four.
o Traffic control, marketing (VEP should play large role here) , directional signs, especially guiding visitors to parking garage for walking/trolley options will be key here. Marketing efforts should
be focused on intent of the program, and directional information.
o Follow-up survey collection should include collection data points for current experience, changes, forward looking feedback should a portion of the model become permanent.
o Businesses should be assisted with marketing efforts, encouraging a more pedestrian friendly experience, ability to roam around Estes while enjoying the wide-open space and unique shopping
experience. Providing marketing assistance could help create buy-in for nervous DT business who fear a loss in vehicle traffic will reduce walk-in business.
o Execution is KEY, and rarely can a plan be executed perfectly the first time, which is why this pilot should be run over the course of a few weekends.
- Reasons against choosing other options:
o Option one seems like a half measure, both for the immediate safety concerns related to Covid19 and the test case feasibility. It simply does not go far enough given the effort required.
o Option three while I feel may be a more full scope solution, for the immediate need and as a pilot program I believe it may complicate the effort more than is necessary.
2
I would like to see a robust test of Stay Healthy Streets to assess the effects of the lane closures. What we learn from the test will help to determine what tweaks are needed in the future. I prefer
Option 2 because I do not believe a lane closure on the north side of Elkhorn between Wonderview and Riverside is as critical as it is along the storefronts.
3 Option 2 or Option 1
4 This could be good if traffic patterns and parking can be safely modified.
However, new data sugges
Page 3 of 42 70
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
5
Option 1 does not provide enough reduction to make it worth the effort.
Option 3 is too restrictive.
Option 2 provides most relief where foot traffic tends to be heaviest
A suggestion. Seriously consider leaving Big Horn drive open across the Hwy 34/36 intersection essentially leaving
the entire thoroughfare open. There are very few food venues in that area with a need to “spread out”. And with appropriate signage and traffic control signs and officers you would have access
from one side of town to the other, especially to the Beaver Meadow entrance. I believe (E or W ?) Riverside Drive will become horribly congested unless you provide another route. Also provides
more accessibility to businesses etc on that side of town. The Fall River Entrance is not set up to handle heavy traffic. Otherwise I like experimenting with an open mall-like concept downtown.
Thanks for your hard work. I’ll miss using several of my shortcuts into downtown, but I think this will help the businesses and guests to stay safe, assuming they respect the distancing.
6 We own the silver moon inn and it is in the downtown area. How would our guests get to us. Also, we depend on walk ins and we get those by people driveing by. It has been a hard year for us
and we need to get walk ins ie people stay with us but don’t have reservations.
7 Option #1 doesn’t seem to enable enough social distancing, but #3 provides limited benefits over #2.
Is it possible to conduct the trial in June instead of July?
8 Interesting considerations. Not sure traffic flows will be great in either of the closure instances, but traffic flows are challenging every summer.
9 Everything that can be done needs to be done to keep our community safe. People are dying if this virus.
10 Great idea and thanks for piloting it! The traffic downtown ruins the strolling through Elkhorn.
11 I assume that private parking lots on the north may be accessed by Wonderview.
12 I find it very hard to believe that you can make this work. On the other hand, I do think a pedestrian mall downtown would be very cool. Where you are going to put the traffic, especially prior to
the loop, is another matter! By the way, just to be clear: I oppose the loop.
13
I have worked as a Community Service Officer for several summers in the downtown area. From my conversations over the years, there is a significant amount of community support, both from
business owners and guests, to turn downtown into a pedestrian mall type area. I think this change would be highly beneficial to the flow of traffic, as well as increase the enjoyment of our visitors.
14
I have thought for many years that we need a downtown pedestrian area. My family owns a business downtown and far from harming business by not having drive by 'shoppers', I think it will
make the downtown area much more conducive to shopping - less noise and congestion, less stress, more relaxed atmosphere. Having a more fun atmosphere downtown with cafes and
restaurants using the sidewalk and entertainment will make it a much more pleasurable experience. I think it's high time we did something like this -and yes, it will help prevent COVID-19 spread
as well - an added benefit!
Ideally, I would love to see the whole Elkhorn corridor closed off. But because that's not an option, I chose Option 2 - to have limited lanes in the Wonderview to Riverside section might just cause
too much frustration with the slow traffic being reduced to a single lane. But I would also be very open to Option 3.
I applaud the Town for thinking this through and coming up with what I think is a very viable solution for COVID-19 and long-term potentially for the betterment of the Estes Park experience.
15 People defy orders out of principal, so try different traffic sign messages to find one that works.
Keep Us All Safe - Please Mask Up
16
I hope you consider running the pilot longer than one weekend. The first weekend can be used to get the tweaks out and then the following weekends can be great. I want our town and tourists
to stay healthy and I definitely don't want a wave 2 to make us all lockdown again and have zero dollars and deeper cuts financially.
Page 4 of 42 71
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
17 Option 3 is confusing. You would have no RMNP traffic to the Moraine entrance?
18 Would prefer to exclude bikes and keep area for pedestrian use. Bikes can create more safety concerns than auto traffic and then we would have to designate additional space for people to park
bikes. If we do this, keep it focused on pedestrian and trolley use.
19 Option 1 is too much disruption for too little gain.
Option 3 is just too disruptive (traffic flow has always been a problem for Estes).
Option 4 will have people continue to be packed in like sardines.
But any option taken needs to give careful thought to how to improve traffic flow - especially to RMNP.
20 Reverse traffic direction on Rockwell paired with one-way traffic on Riverside creating a couplet similar to the Loop.
21 Allowing recreational and business activities outside the businesses, along the closed sidewalks, defeats the purpose of providing additional pedestrian spacing. Close the two lanes for
pedestrians, leave two open for vehicular traffic. Businesses stay in their buildings. Period.
22
Option 2 is most idea to me as it provides pedestrian traffic to easily maneuver along downtown as well as vehicle traffic. Option 1 requires pedestrians to change sides of the street. Option 3
would appear to create backups from the light as all turning traffic and merging traffic traveling west bound, have a short span to merge into one lane.
Naomi Hawf - EP Housing Authority
Option 3 - Limited Closure Plus Lane Reductions - 270 Individuals Selected This Option
1
While I understand the importance of getting people to the park I think it is important to show visitors that we care about their health and safety. If we do not show that we are proactive people
will not come up here to go to the park.By utilizing option 3 we are enforcing the guidelines put out by Larimer county. I think that the visitors and locals will appreciate this effort that has been
put forth
by our town to make this happen. As a side note I have never understood the idea that driving by retail is a good marketing strategy...it would seems that walking by would have much more value.
2 2 or 3 option based on available resources.
3
I looked everywhere on website/facebook for a draft of this plan but could find it nowhere! So, I support closing some traffic lanes/areas so pedestrians can have more space to spread out.
Evenings where the town is like Halloween could be nice. I don't know if it is only sporadic if restaurants could adapt that quickly -set up tables and then quickly take them down before the next
day sounds like a lot of work. If the plan was actually available perhaps it addresses this.
4 I think people that live here don’t really ever experience the downtown corridor. They stay home and vote to keep everything open, when it doesn’t affect them at all. As a person who works
downtown every day, it means a lot.
5
I live in Estes Park and I think this would be a great thing for our town. Not only would it make the downtown corridor safer for pedestrians and cyclists but I expect it would encourage families to
spend more time downtown which would have a positive impact on the businesses. Option 3 is my favorite but any of the 3 options would be an improvement.
6
As a resident but not a business owner, I am not sure how owners would view restricted traffic on Elkhorn -- detrimental or not?
As a senior resident at higher risk for the virus, I would favor the maximum space allocated to foot traffic to minimize the spread from outside sources. Estes Park has done a fantastic job
containing the virus within the community, but visitors cannot be as easily controlled and contained. I also feel that the mask regulation should be mandatory.
7 I think it would be awesome to have the downtown shut down to walking and more pedestrian use. I think more people would go downtown and stay longer. It would be more fun than walking
along and sucking in the exhaust.
I think businesses would do better and gain more business. Should be this way all the time if you ask me.
8 Option 3 is BEST!!!
Page 5 of 42 72
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
9 Good thoughts!
Let’s give it a try.
10
Option 3 is an excellent plan to increase social distancing.
Pedestrians discover much more than drive-by-drivers do - and spend more business-valuable time and $$ downtown. The creation of a much more relaxed - and safe - pedestrian area should be
welcomed by all downtown businesses. I hope they unanimously throw their support behind Option 3. With the relaxing of liquor laws and outdoor dining the restaurants can only benefit.
The additional safety benefits of social distancing that this plan provides are real and crucial to the health and safety of all Estes Park visitors and residents.
11
I am for all of this. The park quota system and now the lane closure will surely keep all those non residents out of Estes Park just like it is winter peaceful time or EP 30+ years ago. Why not just
give people who own property a pass to come into the valley and keep everyone else out or make them pay a fee to enter after all non residents don't pay property taxes. Residents know better
than GO DT during the summer so they will stay virus free. The non residents who catch the virus will just take the virus home with them before they show symptoms. The shop keepers should
wear n95 masks and other protective gear anyway.
You can always on your new modern electronic signs warn visitors that crowded Estes Park streets are a danger to ones health due to the virus.
Pretty soon we will have our valley and park all to ourselves just like it used to be!!!!
12 This is a great opportunity to explore more ways to make downtown more exciting and entertaining destination for people for more reasons than just shopping and eating. I think we can make
something good out of this opportunity. Look at the success in Boulder, Vail, Aspen, and now more and more mountain communities are looking at this option to make downtown a more
"happenin'' place to come.
13
I think this idea is brilliant for our downtown during the pandemic, especially now that the mask order has been lifted. Give people plenty of room to move around!
14 As a local resident living close to downtown, using option 4 would allow me to feel safer about walking downtown. As it stands now, I will not be walking there anytime soon which is
disappointing because we do enjoy visiting with people from all over the country and world. Too many people are treating this virus as it's over, we cannot be part of that thinking. Our local
population is an older demographic take needs protection.
15
Some new studies by environmental health engineers now show that 6 feet is NOT sufficient for social distancing. The lab results have demonstrated that a virus can travel 18 feet in under 5
seconds. Therefore, maximizing spacing and continued masking is critical to control the spread of Covid 19 here in Estes Park
https://neurosciencenews.com/six-foot-covid19-16424/
16 I am hesitant to go downtown for health and safety reasons. I think Option 3 would provide the safest situation for tourists and residents. I think it is likely that we will see a surge in Covid cases
regardless of what the town does to facilitate social distancing. I will not be going to Safeway this summer nor will I go to any restaurants in Estes Park, but I appreciate that the Town Of Estes is
trying to find middle ground.
17
I think closing the street on occasion is worthwhile, and I think we have to take one lane down... for extra space. But I have talked to many business owners on Elkhorn about how this would effect
them. A complete closure on anytime other than a serious holiday with time to plan outdoor activities for the businesses... would be disrespectful. Hope you dont allow fun and games outside the
businesses with the extra space. This is for health concerns not some kind of experiment with outdoor restaurants on main street.... you're messing with the fairness factor. Better not push it.
18 Only Option 3 seems to provide enough SPACE for people to keep proper COVID-19 distance from each other. Be brave, Estes Park! Be bold and innovative! Take action NOW to show that we are
serious about keeping everybody safe!
Page 6 of 42 73
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
19
This seems the safest option. Yes, we need people to be able to visit and spend money in Estes. But that is not worth risking countless lives when common sense preventative measures are
possible. We usually go up to Estes about twice a month year round. I was dismayed at the recent town decision regarding masks.
20 When the loop project is started I would suggest taking the same approach for pedestrian corridor. It would be great to see more of pedestrian usage of traffic lanes since you have just west
bound traffic with the loop.
21 I fully support any effort to turn all or part of Elkhorn into a pedestrian mall. I feel strongly that this should have happened years ago, and is without a doubt the right thing to due in light of
coronavirus.
22
The marketing exposure "con" doesn't make sense. Mostly pedestrians purchase, not drivers. European towns have been successfully enjoying downtown pedestrian zones for decades.
23
Please, I am begging you, as an owner of two business, require masks inside retail shops. We can only do so much but if the town requires it, we are safer.
I do like the lane closure options. Those will work well. But you have to include wearing masks inside retail shops
24
i have not read the plan so i dont know which option to choose above, but i am in favor of keeping the healthiest so whichever plan is strictest im in favor of. thank you
25
I (a 40+ year resident) would love to see the downtown area closed to traffic to allow more room for pedestrians and space for outdoor dining. It's worked so well elsewhere!!
26
A comment: What provisions are made with any of the options for handicapped access to the downtown area? Could there be a specified access point where folks could be let off and picked up?
27
Our priority should be to keep Estes Park residents healthy and safe while allowing our business community to adapt to the ever changing conditions they are facing in this pandemic.
28
By eliminating masks used in Estes Park are you opening up the possibility for suites from individuals who catch covid at a business that permits the entrance of persons without masks?
Can an individual sue Estes Park Township for not having instituted masks?
I would ask the board to consider the mask and non-mask controversy in a similar light to passive smoking and its affects on the non-smoker's health.
What is the number of infected populace coming from Estes that will affect the overall present decision by the business community?
What number of valley resident infections will change the course of the present policy?
29 Wear masks!
30
Rerouting RMNP traffic away from downtown should be done for any option. If this had been done years ago and done well, we may not have needed the loop.
Use of the trolley seems questionable regarding possible exposure to the virus. Perhaps occupancy of trolley should be limited.
31
Let’s try something different! I walk downtown a lot even during the summer and the traffic fumes are horrible in the summer. Less traffic would allow more room to social distance, more time
to window-shop, and cleaner air spurring more food purchases. We won’t know for sure about any traffic issues until we try. Now seems like a good time to experiment.
32
This would be a great way to reduce traffic through town. Free up police for other duties. The main drag through town is short enough for any to walk, especially those who will walk it anyway as
they love the outdoors. Hopefully it would be beneficial to shops and especially restaurants. Much safer for all, and hopefully better for shop owners. Neither the town nor the park should be
allowed to be overrun with vehicles. We have a lifetime pass to the park and are more than happy to make reservations. Truly believe the downtown area would be much more enjoyable for all if
made a pedestrian mall, like the Pearl Street mall in Boulder.
33 This option seems the safest for all the tourists coming up to have enough space.
Page 7 of 42 74
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
34 Recommend labeling street names on the maps and providing maps showing the detour routing to/from RMNP for each alternative. I'm not clear what the detours are and that is more important
to me than the various options for street closures.
35 By closing the Elkhorn, it is obvious that social distancing would be much easier to accommodate. Being a tourist town is one thing, but the town of EP needs to remember its citizenry are older
and much more vulnerable to COVID-19.
Please take the necessary actions to protect people...Mandatory masks would be a wonderful addition.
36 thank you for figuring out options and asking for input.
I feel like the town trustees sold out the town and it will hurt the businesses in the long run by relaxing the request for wearing masks.
37 Option 3 will be the best for maintaining pedestrian separation and maximum prevention of virus transfer.
I see the largest challenge for Option 3 is the routing of traffic to and from RMNP and routes 34, 36 and 7. Can a balance be made so that the park north entrance is not overwhelmed? I think it
can be done but will involve lots of signage and traffic personnel.
Good exercise. Good work.
38 The relaxing of restrictions puts each of us at more risk. Maximum protection of our health must be the first priority. People from all over will bring some slightly different variants of SARS-CoV-2.
The hospital will get COVID-19 cases. Please focus on health safety first, tourism etc. second.
39
In order to maintain a safe social distance between people, the number of people must be reduced in the area. It is better to have some business that is safe and protecting health of citizens, than
to risk an outbreak in Estes Park. ONCE it gets out that the crowds are building in the area, intelligent people will decline to visit Estes Park.
It can become another OZARKS issue that happened last weekend. Some who attended the packed crowds at the pool (which is the same proximity to a packed restaurant) have already tested
positive for COVID-19. Within two weeks, they can expect a lot of sick people in that area who were at those events.
THIS will put a bad name on the location, whether the OZARKS or Estes Park. Please consider the stigma of an infected or outbreak town when people will not want to visit here and enjoy our
beautiful village.
40
While some people may be inclined to spend more time in the commercial district under a given constraint, whether it's a mask requirement or reduced vehicular access, because they feel "safer,"
others will be less inclined to visit or spend time there because of the actual or perceived nuisance. Based on my own preferences, I think that masking requirements reduce usage and reduced
vehicular access would increase usage, but at this point I think that opinions on this must be recognized as lacking data to back them up.
Regardless of what one thinks of the options, I am impressed by the careful thought that has gone into laying out the pros and cons for each.
41
It seems wise to consider a long range view of revising traffic and pedestrian patterns for the community of Estes Park and for the Park itself, even beyond the problem of the pandemic. More or
less “forcing” car addicted Americans to choose walking, trollies, bicycles, as a healthier way to view, shop, and enter the Park on a regulated schedule would improve the public’s experience and
the environmental impact on the Park. This is a time like no other to make meaningful and lasting change.
42 You could just reinstate the mask ordinance
43
Everyone should be required to masks in the town of Estes Park. The influx of visitors while necessary for the economic survival of the town should not come at the expense of the health of the
local population. Requiring masks will help to decrease the spread of the virus in the town while still allowing visitors.
Page 8 of 42 75
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
44
All subject to strict guidance regarding social distancing and wearing of masks.
Our observation in last few days when town loosened up, a large portion of visitors don't bother wearing masks, or social distance. Given visitors come from all over this is a disaster waiting to
happen and unfairly dangerous for the people who live here.
This can be a wonderful plan and could be a pattern for permanent change giving downtown a more human ambiance and less traffic noise and fumes. But as stated above, in the current
pandemic strict guidelines need to established and enforced. To do otherwise is naïve, as we have already noted in downtown and in the national park.
45 Are ALL shops requiring masks when indoors. When the city decided to not require masks outdoors downtown, the majority are not wearing masks or have one available. How are these folks
entering stores when they don’t have one on their body? Are shop owners all following the masks indoors policy...I’m doubting it which is endangering our local residents. Please assure me that
everyone is following the above policy. Thank you!
46 A permanent pedestrian mall, similar to Pearl Street in Boulder, would be a good consideration.
47
Downtown is a breeding ground for Covid-19. Social distancing is IMPOSSIBLE. RMNP limited numbers to 60% capacity. Is it possible to limit the number of visitors coming into Estes Park?
48
Pedestrians will need more space to social distance and the restaurants will benefit from extending dining space outside. Visitors need to expect traffic to move slow and to use alternate routes to
access their destination. The cost of barriers and cones is considerable so shouldn’t they be set up for a longer time than just Friday to Monday so it’s not changing from weekday to weekend?
49 Why did Estes recently stop requiring masks downtown? Please reinstate that.
I like that we are proposing closing streets and hope we continue to push for the best alternative to the status quo.
50
Start with #3 and adjust as needed to accommodate the needs of public health, then adjust where possible to meet the needs of local businesses. Having a safe layout will attract tourists.
51 Providing pedestrian/bike and trolly traffic is a great solution. The only issue I see is that Wonderview is closed until July 2. Is it possible to move the opening of the roundabout up to
accommodate any of the plans that include minimizing traffic through downtown?
52
Joe Elkins here, I think option 3 would be the best option for public safety . I don’t think visitors are driving through downtown to preview the stores they want to browse. I believe visitors want to
get out if the car and browse the shops while walking. They are exploring while out on foot. I think lane restrictions and road closures will create a pedestrian mall type experience.
An issue I think that will have to be figured with any of these plans is how to get visitors to the main parking areas on behind Indian Village and south of The Barrel next to Davis Hill if Elkhorn is
going to be closed. This is not an impossible problem to solve, but it will need to be considered first.
53 This plan would also allow restaurants to place tables outside!
54
I know shops worry that if people aren’t driving by they won’t see them. However, I believe if people are coming downtown to eat and shop, once they park they will come onto the pedestrian
mall and take more time to see what’s there. When driving by you sometimes miss things. People are then looking at the people and dogs walking down the street. Possibly the elk. And the
frustrations of the traffic jams keep them from noticing things too.
A leisurely walk around the town would be nice.
As we know, you can’t make everyone happy.
55 Please do something. The size of the town plus the incredible number of tourists is putting us all at risk. Also, CHANGE IS GOOD. I know Estes isn’t known for it, but please, now is the time for
change. Thank you.
56
We need people to be safe and feel safe, and that will be good for business over the course of the season. More pedestrian areas will also be good for business, increasing foot traffic and allowing
for an environment overall that will lead to people spending more time downtown. Pearl Street and the 16th Street Mall are good for business, not bad, and improve the downtown experience
for visitors. It's something to try, as much as possible, and this is the best possible time.
Page 9 of 42 76
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
57
Having a "ped mall" will greatly increase safety downtown. This would also allow a food truck area for our local vendors whose income has been severely disrupted due COVID-19.
58
I very much appreciate this initiative by the town, and the proposal for a weekend trial.
While the driving concern may be safety for people in this pandemic, it also has the potential to increase the appeal of Estes Park, making it a more relaxed place to stroll, browse and eat/drink. I
think visitors will linger longer.
A trial is essential to study traffic flow and parking, and will provide some information on pedestrian use. However, the real potential of option 2 or 3 will only be realized when business plans for
"parklets" (as described in the proposal) are implemented. These are common in "strolling areas" in several towns, providing socializing with distancing.
In any case, as part of this, I hope the town looks into providing additional spaced seating wherever possible (around Bond Park for example) ie. more places to eat an ice cream.
59 I appreciate the "outside the box" thinking!
60
1. VEP needs to conduct or contract for visitor research. Given the general air of caution, believe visitors are likely to be drawn to Estes Park if the Town appears to take the Coronavirus threat
seriously. This seems like a prudent step to make visitors feel welcome and safe. VEP should conduct similar survey of visitors who experienced the healthy streets plan--both those visitors who
visited the downtown and those who felt inconvenienced.
2. With Halloween, Estes Park already has valuable experience in how closing down the main streets will work.
3. VEP should market our temporarily pedestrian-friendly open air downtown as a great thing to come down and experience--something special (just like Halloween).
4. Cost of the barriers--can't the town get more creative and use existing resources as barriers? E.g., corral fencing from the Events Center complex, hay bales, school buses from the school
district, a few fire engines from Mr Klink?
5. I remember the George Washington Parkway in Alexandria, VA, being closed during the 1970's gas shortage. Families came out and enjoyed the parkway on foot and by bicycle. Turned out to
be lovely, and one of my fondest memories from living in the DC area as both a child and an adult. This experiment could turn out to be something special for residents and visitors alike.
6. Businesses are located across the Estes Valley. If visitors shun Estes Park because they envision the downtown as a "petri dish," everybody suffers. Our business community is not just Elkhorn,
and Elkhorn business owners should have a say, but not the decision.
7. I appreciate the steps former Mayor Jirsa and the current Mayor, Town Board, and Town Administrator have taken to protect residents from this unexpected health crisis. We are first and
foremost a community, as much as we value guests and our role as a premier mountain destination.
61
This is a great idea to assist with social distancing and in ways I think it will be more inviting to visitors.
I apologize for not knowing where in the timeline we are on The Loop but will the work be continuing during the summer months? Just curious if any of the now vacant lots where the structures
were taken down for The Loop could be repurposed in anyway to help assist with the social distancing/parking/traffic and new ordinances we are now under if no further construction work is
going to be done until later this fall?
Also I know this is probably too late but is it possible to move the Farmer's Market to the Fair Grounds vs. the Visitor Center, especially if trying to ease congestion from the downtown area and
allowing the best social distancing practices. The fair grounds seems like a better set up for the market (as in Longmont & Loveland) especially for our senior residents who fall in the higher risk
category. For those residents the walk from the Parking Garage to the Visitor Center's parking lot might discourage them from going especially with social distancing and unfortunately not
everyone wears a mask. If you are concerned about visitors not going to the market I think signage would be able advertise and direct them to the Fair Grounds. The Farmer's Market in Santa Fe,
NM, is not on their main drag but we saw it advertised and easily found it when vacationing there in the past. Thank you for consideration on this and keeping us safe!
Page 10 of 42 77
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
62 If the town would have come up with a traffic re-direction/flow improvement plan using many of these same concepts
-water filled barriers
-changing traffic direction with temporary lane flow redirects
-2 lanes going towards RMNP morning to early afternoon
-2 lanes moving away from RMNP late afternoon & evening
and do this from May to October all the mess of the "LOOP" would not have been necessary......
63
Estes Park has the opportunity to do something really exciting with this pilot! So many other Colorado communities are already implementing this in some way and with each passing day,
downtown is getting busier and busier Thank you to TAB for leading this effort and for asking for community input.
64 I suggest the pilot programs go for more than one weekend.
65 This plan comes closest to providing better social distancing downtown.
I have long felt that the downtown area should be closed to all traffic. Make it a pedestrian mall with bicycle/hiking thoroughfare.
It would be good to try this in a longer term trial, ie several months, to allow local citizens and police to get used to it and "iron out the kinks".
66 We have very little to loose and much to gain by trying these proposals during designated weekends. We should encourage locals to spend time down town during these designated weekends so
we have a first hand experience of the pros and cons.
67 Please just close down Elkhorn entirely for the summer and cycling season! And we need more bike paths. More bikes = fewer cars and less congestion, and it is easier to social distance on a
bicycle. How about a shared trail that encircles Estes Park, like The Loop in Tucson? Thanks.
Option 4 - No Change - 316 Individuals Selected This Option
1
First off, if the anti-loopers hated the idea of Elkhorn being one-way, they are going to go ballistic over removing their drive-by traffic completely. Be prepared for all of the "You're trying to make
us like {fill-in-the-blank} and destroying our town."
Second, where is all of this traffic going to go??? It's one thing to shut down Elkhorn for Halloween night ... totally another to shut it down in the height of tourist season. Even though I anticipate
fewer cars this year, I still cannot imagine keeping up the traffic while shutting down our main street.
Third, people aren't going to socially distance anyway. They just aren't, no matter how much you try to educate them. Some will try, but on the whole, it's not going to happen. You had a good
plan in place with the masks, and you backed off of that (which is unfortunate).
We are seasonal residents, and love wandering and spending downtown. It won't be happening this year, due to pre-existing conditions and the lack of social distancing. We will do what we can
remotely, but downtown Estes just isn't a safe place to be right now. In this survey, I voted for no change, but it really doesn't matter, because we won't be downtown this year.
2
The data does not support your efforts to try to contain COV19 in this manner. We do not need another confusing "feel good" ordinance much like the mask in public areas.
It would be interesting, however, to test the concept like Boulder has on Pearl Street and Ft. Collins street closed for a more friendly downtown, but you are limited on parking. Unlike both
Boulder and Ft. Collins.
3 The photos at the end of the proposals are difficult to figure out. Street names need to be placed on the streets in the photos.
Closing Elkhorn will make traffic going to and from Rocky Mountain National Park terrible- very confusing, and a long route.
Page 11 of 42 78
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
4
We chose "Leave us the hell alone." Let people decide for themselves and quit trying to mess with everything. Although, we know that you already plan to do whatever you want because that is
how this town operates. You did that with the Loop, you did it with paid parking and now you will do it with this and our opinions really don't matter. People don't need you to "manage" them.
Everyone knows the risks; they know what they need to do; and you just need to stop interfering in people's lives and our businesses.
5
It would really help if you gave us a link so we could read the plan. Both town newspapers talk about this survey and your desire for feedback but I couldn't find the plan anywhere to be able to
read it. I went to the town website and couldn't find anything there either on the proposed plan. I received an email with a link to this survey, but no link to the plan.
Based on not having any idea of what the plan proposes, my opinion is that you should not close down the street in any way, shape or form. Do not reduce the lanes, do not close anything.
Traffic in town is already bad enough as it is. Closing lanes will only make things worse. It is already bad enough that 34 is closed so you can not go around that way.
6
This insanity needs to end now. No restrictions whatsoever. Reopen our town. Think for yourselves, look at actual science and metrics, and don't buy into the crazy panic the media has
propagated.
I own retail store frontage on Elkhorn Ave, and the power trip CO governor and EP government restrictions just forced my tenant to go belly up and close his shop. I'm worried about him and his
mental state, and now I'm losing a lot of money and looking for a new tenant during this Covid crisis.
And what is the response of our elected officials? Well, to cancel our July 4th fireworks of course. I'm on the Rooftop Rodeo committee, and we cancelled that two months ago. We are a tourist
town, or have you forgotten?
The unintended consequences of this shutdown are not being considered, Child and spouse abuse and drug abuse are rampant, and the suicide rate is going through the roof around the globe.
I'm speaking from a personal standpoint because my son, who was an EP employee and community event planner, died from suicide last summer. Depression is a very real thing that causes
devastating effects throughout the community, but our town officials won't consider this, and are in fact exacerbating it.
7
Government seems to have the uncontrollable urge to want to fix the things that aren't broke, which has the consequence of making things worse, and demonstrating incompetence. Stop it!
8 It’s perfect the way it is.
9 This proposal suggests that lane closures may bring more tourists to Estes, and also provide better social distancing and making everyone safer, these two things do not go together, you are either
keeping us safe by keeping tourist numbers at lower levels or you are not. I question whether you are doing this for the good of the town and the people in it or if you are doing it to get more
money. Please consider traffic problems that would arise from this and the locals in town that would be forced to take over long detours to get to work or home. This would be a poor decision on
your parts.
10 Any chances are an overreaction like the downtown mask rule was.
Page 12 of 42 79
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
11
Despite the claims that the closures would be temporary, they would develop constituencies. My guess is that they already have constituencies. And the notion that street closures might protect
us from the virus is the merest guesswork without any supporting evidence.
A year ago, all we heard about was traffic congestion, and lack of parking. Now, our planners want to improvise something like a downtown walking mall on the basis of protecting us from the
virus. Always protecting us they are!
These proposals would exacerbate our traffic and parking limitations, and tend to make us more dependent on public transportation - which in fact HAS been shown to spread the virus.
I recommend doing nothing except limiting visitation, particularly by rationing access to RMNP - as the park is already doing - and waiting for a reliable vaccine or treatments. We are having one
bad commercial season, but probably only one. Rather than reinventing downtown, I recommend simple patience.
12 We have one Main Street. It should not be closed to through traffic. Visitors will be delayed and confused and sitting in traffic, as will locals. No, no and no. This idea has been pushed around for
the last 40+ years and the reason it has never been implemented is because WE HAVE ONE MAIN STREET. The Loop idea is not a great idea, but this idea is totally insane. Please, make people
wear masks and be done with it.
13
We have one Main Street. It cannot be closed to through traffic. Visitors and locals will sit in traffic for much longer, creating more congestion and confusion as to how they will reach their
destination. There will be additional unnecessary costs involved. This idea has been kicked around for 40+ years and the reason it has never been implemented is because WE HAVE ONE MAIN
STREET. The loop is a poor idea. This one is a disaster. No, No and No.
14 I do not feel that this is necessary. People will continue to pack into bars, restaurants, and stand too close even when there is room to space out. If people will ignore it anyway, I feel it will add
confusion and chaos to our traffic patterns unnecessarily.
If we believe that people will actually use the space to spread out, then it could have benefits for healthy & safety. I think the downside for traffic, confusion, and impact to businesses will not be
worth it.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
15
The reason stated for this project is to meet social distancing needs for public safety, however, the supporting data provided appears to be coming from a long term traffic plan.
My opinion is that covid is being used as an excuse to implement a new trarfic plan, I am against this method and the proposed solutions.
16
Traffic can already get bad up here and Options 1-3 will simply make traffic worse.
Visitors already jaywalk constantly without consequence nor do they suffer consequences for parking all day on the shoulders of Hwy 34 and such on busy days. If you shut down downtown
traffic, visitors will illegally park even more because they won’t want to take time to find a parking spot.
Also, as for the “safe distancing entertainment”, having it in “spread out locations where people may gather” defeats the purpose since people would be “gathering” around these.
17 I don't see how options 1-3 will be workable with so much of the through traffic wanting to go to the park's Beaver Pt entrance. Otherwise this directs most of the visitors to the Fall River
Entrance which will be inundated, and can't handle the increased number of cars.
I would continue to promote masks downtown since social distancing is difficult.
Page 13 of 42 80
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
18
The New England Journal of Medicine published on May 21, an article regarding wearing masks in a healthcare setting. Most of the article deals with that topic.
However, the 2nd paragraph states:
"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact
within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from
a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."
Information, data, "science," opinions, suggestions, etc., etc. change frequently, often directly contradicting previous info & recommendations!
To base ANY change on ANY of this aforementioned data, etc., is a folly, and a waste of time, energy, money and public good will.
19 Why bother? Or, try them all. Most of our visitors and apparently enough residents don't care about spreading the virus, so much so that they were able to sway the Town Board to remove the
mandatory mask ordinance from downtown. I think the protesters that were allowed to not wear masks or social distance during the ordinance and Safer at Home proved that people will do as
they please.
Thanks for all your hard work, there are some valid pieces to each option.
The voices of this community keep saying, "if you're afraid, stay home". I've also heard this from merchants. There ya go.
Stay healthy and good luck.
20 Are you out of your damn minds? Are trying to kill business in Estes Park? Let's make it harder to move traffic around town.
21
Estes is already experiencing lighter than normal visitor flow. First weekend of RMNP open was light and offered little congestion of any kind in park or town, indicating that "crowds" will most
likely continue to be lighter than normal years. The RMNP decision to allow visitation by reservation only will tend to limit crowds also. This summer looks to be light on the heels of a horrific end
of March and April. Don't add more barriers to visitation to Estes Park and downtown this year!!
22 Just build the loop!
Option 1, 2, and 3 will have traffic backed up to Lyons.
23 Open the town. This is STUPID!
24
No change and also close Estes Park from Tourism because we do not have the infrastructure to keep our population healthy and have the huge amount of tourists coming to town that we
normally get every Summer. Has anyone thought about HOW we the residents are going to be able to survive this pandemic adding millions of people to our town? Did the Town of Estes Park
think about the fact that we only have one regular grocery store in Estes Park and how crowded is going to be with tourists coming? Has anyone thought about the kind of nightmare that this
town is going to be when we the residents try to keep our life’s going while millions of tourists take over this town? It’s time for the town of Estes Park to make their residents and their well being
a priority instead of thinking about what would be better for tourists and businesses... You cannot have a healthy economy if you don’t have a healthy population. Lives matter more than anything
and should be a priority for the town of Estes Park since the town of Estes Park works for its residents and not the opposite.
25 Estes Park streets are not the issue, sidewalks are the major
concern and social distancing in Downtown, for any Project, will be impossible, if wearing masks caused such concern for the Police and Town Trustees.
26
Stop it...this mall type ( Boulder ) mentality... let Estes be Estes.... Covid is on thee Ed way out.... You already have people on the streets.... We don’t need a bigger cluster Efff
27 This town’s knee jerk reactions are overblown. You are killing our businesses!!
Page 14 of 42 81
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
28
I have not heard any adequate thoughts on where all of the diverted/denied traffic is going? Eliminating parking at any level is unexceptable, then forcing or even encouraging public
transportation seems irresponsible. How about we finish the roundabout and allow the public to find their own level of comfort here in Estes Park.
29
Why is Estes Park having a more ridiculous and panicked reaction than almost anywhere in the United States? The Rocky Mountain national Park is 40% shut down, they’re canceling everything
including firework shows, they were enforcing the mask requirement after the state of Colorado lifted it, and now you’re trying to close streets? What the hell is going on? There has not even
been a COVID-19 crisis in this town. Why are we more shut down than New York City? This is insanity.
30
These plans are all based on the assumption that the town is fully informed about COVID spread, risk factors, and proper mitigation.
In fact, the WHO and CDC have changed their tune on all of these things by the week. Several weeks ago, nobody was supposed to wear a mask. Then it was everyone must wear a mask. Today,
the WHO says you should only wear a mask if you're directly providing care for a COVID-positive patient.
Additionally, it has come out in the past two days that it is exceptionally difficult to contract COVID from surfaces AND asymptomatic carriers. But we're still spraying everything with disinfectant
even though we KNOW that it isn't actually making any difference and forcing potential asymptomatic carriers and the uninfected to wear masks and distance from each other when again, we now
know it doesnt make any difference.
Nobody can explain outliers like Hong Kong and Japan that didn't have lockdowns but had extremely mild impacts from the virus; in death totals, in particular.
We were supposed to be devastated with millions of deaths as it ravaged the healthy population with unbelievable mortality rates. It didn't. We've found out that hospitals are being subsidized by
Medicaid to report more COVID deaths than are existing.
People are sick of the goalposts moving. At first it was just to flatten the curve to prevent hospitals from being overrun. Then hospitals had to lay off staff because it didn't happen. Then it became
low-to-no new cases. Then it became a vaccine.
This sounds like the last gasp of desperate politicians and fear mongering Karens trying to make the point that despite all evidence to the contrary, the boogey man virus is still 'getting' us and that
politicians can't be seen doing nothing, so they must do SOMETHING, even if that something has no basis in reality.
My point is this: nobody has any idea what is going on. Making drastic changes to our downtown space is fine for a temporary weekend festival. Breaking down our functional traffic patterns will
not tourists bring.
As a resident living west of the McGregor roundabout construction and being forced to already go through additional downtown construction traffic limitations and seasonal traffic pickup just to
get groceries, I can already tell that we don't need any more traffic limitations; particularly those based on a dubious scientific assumption of the day that will be different tomorrow.
When the science comes out showing that yet another restriction and burden was ineffective and pointless, how long will it take to fix it? How much will it cost our town to deal with yet another
restriction we may not even need? Why must we accommodate the minority of our citizens that have staked their personal social media and political reputations and world view upon the idea
that COVID was the beginning of the end times? When will this madness end? How much scientific evidence does it take to finally put this away? Does everything have to be done through
dramatic hyperbole?
It's a bad virus, yes. The government made it a thousand fold worse by making radical policy decisions enforced by the barrel of a gun that had no provable positive effect and have in just a matter
of weeks been proven useless and harmful. Does it really need to be ten thousand fold worse by fiat? Really? Stop.
31 I'm high risk. I take it as MY responsibility to take charge of my own health. It's no one else's unless you work in a grocers or doctor's office.
32 Stop these asinine ideas. Our businesses will go broke. Just let us continue as is.
33 This is not the time to make it even harder on these businesses. Business owners have already taken a 2 month hit and don’t have any idea what the next months will look like and if enough
people will come back to make SOME money in the summer... not even what they lost .
I work in Travel and live in NJ. 28 years of coming to Estes annually . Travel is definitely not on the list for people this year ..because of the virus and because of jobs...I would be encouraging
those that can come to come and not making it less desirable to do so.
Destroy the shops in Estes and you really won’t have to worry about the traffic.
34
No change. Social distancing is possible on our current sidewalk spaces if people wish to do it. That is up to them to do if they wish. We should not impede traffic to fix a problem we don't have.
Page 15 of 42 82
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
35
Let people’s personal rights and freedoms be expressed. If people choose not to come or come visit due to risk of Covid, then it may help reduce traffic and visitors which is what the State of
Colorado wants anyway.
I cannot believe a Town would go to so much trouble to protect a few? How many cases/deaths in Estes Park due to Covid so far.
Might as well stop people from driving by car as the risk to get to Estes by car is greater than the risk of Covid as proven out now by MANY organizations including CDC.
I implore the town council and Mayor to stop acting out of fear and look at the real numbers.
Stop negatively impacting businesses/tourism by governmental actions.
Thank you for allowing comment.
We do appreciate the work you do and care you have for Estes but let’s be reasonable, please!
Steven and Lori McCrane
325-642-0439
36
This is insane. We have traffic issues downtown every summer, and visitors are starting to come back. We're even tearing down buildings to make the loop to improve traffic flow. Bad idea.
37 We don’t need any changes. Colorado has told Todays not to come and they’re not coming. There’s no need to close the street for any reason
38
I am extremely worried that other businesses throughout town will not be accessible. For example, how are people going to get to Moraine Avenue and the upper end of Elkhorn Avenue? As all
businesses in Estes are struggling right now, this wide be death blow to many if customers cannot get to these businesses. Please think about all businesses and not just Elkhorn Avenue!
39 This might work in a big city with many parallel streets and lots of intersections, but given the terrain of our town and lack of adjacent streets and intersections, I don't see how we can divert
traffic during peak visitation times (weekends) and not overwhelm other parts of town.
Specially, something that was not addressed was access to RMNP. Would the Fall River entrance be the only way in, approaching from the East? Would there be adequate detours and signage to
take visitors from 34/36, up Stanley, part the hospital, over Moccasin and back down to Moraine to access the Beaver Meadows entrance? What would all of this do to traffic patterns on
Wonderview, Hwy 7, and even Mary's Lake Road?
I do appreciate that all of the options give space for emergency vehicles, but how effective will trolleys be this year with limited capacity? If pedestrians cross Elkhorn willy nilly on the weekends,
how will they be kept from crossing as they please when Safe Streets isn't in affect?
40
Where would you reroute traffic? Are now building the loop and closing downtown would negate the advantages of the loop. If you are going to close the downtown during the peak traffic time,
you need to build a good bypass. Should have made the loop project much bigger and two way. Side streets are not good detours. Wonderview is not good because the majority of people want to
go to the Bear Lake area. Routing people around on Wonderview would increase pollution in the Park. If Estes Park had a good bypass, the idea of closing downtown would be great, but there is
not a good detour. Other towns that close their downtown have good bypass's. Halloween is not a good example of closing downtown because it is a time of low traffic, mainly only locals.
41
What about all the traffic, and parking? It's hard enough to find parking spaces now..My father lives in Estes, and when I visit, we always have difficulty finding parking. Especially with his health
issues. Trolleys require going up stairs don't they? Will this require even more walking to park? I have to say no change because we need to park close to our destination.
42 Don’t shove this down our throats. Aren’t you screwing things up enough with the upcoming loop and paid parking.
43 First came the mask ordinance to look good. Now comes the second wave of fixing fear.
44 We've had so much change, it would be nice to keep something the same. Also, I hope that if it does change, it doesn't change again in a couple of weeks, like the mask ordinance did. This flip
flopping gets to be too confusing.
45 I'm afraid it would cause too much congestion and other problems on nearby streets.
Page 16 of 42 83
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
46
Closing ANY part of Elkhorn will create a traffic nightmare for tourists and locals alike. Estes does not have enough rerouting capability to accommodate so much traffic. It congests unbelievably at
the 34/36 intersection at times; I can’t even imagine the mess these new proposals would mean to not just this intersection, but to the whole town.
Also, social distancing is not enough. The masks must be mandatory again. I briefly went to one store downtown yesterday and HALF of the people on the street were NOT wearing masks. If you
leave it to people to be responsible, they just will not do it.
I appreciate your wanting to keep Estes open and to keep Estes safe. Even with a little extra room on the street, the crowds that Estes draws just cannot be a safe environment. Large crowds
cannot be safely distanced. Just go to Safeway when it’s busy. There are just too many people to truly be safe.
Good luck. I just don’t think the town can be truly safe with the crowds we get and changing the traffic will just bring misery to tourists and to us.
Thank you for your efforts.
47 Don't mess with Estes Park any more than you already have!
48 We can’t handle alll the added traffic on the bypass. Most cars can’t get out of Safeway , Stanley, and devils gulch road, and Mac Gregor the way it is now. 3 to 4 million in the summer would be
impossible. For safety leave it the way it is. The loop was studied for years and the masks will take care of the virus. There will be a vaccine soon the scientists say and they know better than the
city.
49 None of the proposals any detail or definitive thought as to where/how traffic would be detoured or re-routed.
Only the obvious results of disrupting an already bad traffic flow were mentioned, e.g.
"...will increase congestion on the downtown streets"
"Reduction in open traffic lanes will increase traffic congestion on Elkhorn Avenue east of downtown."
"The closure and reduction in open traffic lanes will increase traffic congestion on Elkhorn Avenue east of the 34/36 traffic signal."
"Traffic volumes, noise, and pollution are increased along the detour routes."
If there is genuine concern about tourists health, why was the mandatory face covering ordnance downtown rescinded?
50
I do not want this to be put into law once Covid ends. I know if we give the town a green light now, they won’t go back. We already have a Loop that no one wanted, we can’t let Wonderview be
next. It’s residential overall. The businesses and homes along there can’t have a constant stream of stopped traffic going to the park. There’s no turn lane so you’re just stuck.
51
Strictly by the numbers, the threat of COVID to any one individual is almost zero. It really is - despite all of what you hear on the news and from "experts" who are simply guessing at things
anyway. Threat of exposure is dropped farther by the wearing of masks and distancing. The former is a nuisance - but a sound idea. The latter is going to be all but impossible to enforce. At
some point in time, we are going to have to "carry on" threat or no threat. The Town is likely going to be crippled financially by the revenue losses the closures have had so far. Let's not make the
financial problem worse by the expense of moving barricades around. I think a lot of these ideas - and many of the COVID reactions by cities and businesses - are simply PR gestures.
Having said all that, I think EP would be better off if its core downtown were free of cars altogether. Barring that, I'd like to see one-way traffic that The Loop project is intended to provide. Or,
consider a car-free downtown, say, between 5 PM and 10 PM on weekdays and 10 AM to 10 PM on weekends. Perhaps Option 3 then is the closest to the "no cars" ideal. As a Town resident, I
would not be opposed to trying Option 3 or even options 1 or 2.
Page 17 of 42 84
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
52
This sounds like an idea that has sprung from the notion that Elkhorn Avenue should become a "pedestrian mall" which is a concept brought out every few years by folks new to the community
who have little or no history of how we got to the one way couplet on a state highway. This does not take into consideration the fact that Elkhorn Avenue is a State Highway (from 36/36 to
Moraine Avenue).
Lane closures and limited closures create confusion lead to frustration and subsequent loss of vehicle and pedestrian traffic necessary for the downtown economy.
The Town, CDOT, Central Federal Lands and other agencies have spent countless hours and millions of dollars reconfiguring the travel to and from Estes Park to get to and from the Nation al Park
and Estes Park.
marking is occasionally an issue and with the reductions in favorite Estes Park activities and limited park admissions the traffic in town this year is likely to be less this summer. Social distancing is
a personal responsibility and no matter what you do to try to keep people apart it is just not going to happen.
You will further exacerbate frustrations of visitors and merchants alike if you restrict vehicle flow, parking options, pedestrian traffic and gathering places. Leave it alone.
53 Is the Town really looking for helpful feedback from the comunity to held guide a decision, or have they already decided on lane reductions and limited closures? My guess, is there is already a
decision, and community feedback is just an afterthought. Just like the downtown loop.
54 closure would be difficult for handicapped people and would limited library access
55
First of all, this survey should be directed towards the people whom livelihood it affects, not towards a populous who want all traffic diverted from Estes Park all together. I have paid a high price
to own specific property in downtown EP and for that price I depend on pedestrians walking on the sidewalk by my building. It’s location determines the volume of food traffic I need to drive the
sales numbers. I pay a lofty amount of property tax that gives me that opportunity. The pattern of traffic of pedestrians going up and down each side of Elkhorn and in and out of buildings is a
patten. They are often unaware of a specific businesses location until they literally walk in our door and realize where they are. At a time when we are all desperate for sales, I am counting on
those traffic pattens that my building investment and property tax payments entitle me too. These decisions will negatively impact my business beyond what the shutdown already has.
Secondly, your survey allows any person to submit multiple votes. Whatever survey results you may believe you have will not be accurate. This is the second survey I have submitted.
Page 18 of 42 85
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
56
You state there is a sense of urgency in getting feedback from residents. I hope you are hearing and listening.
Estes Park cannot afford to nor should it be a "nanny" to everyone.
The COVID pandemic is a fact of life and people are choosing to take the risk of running businesses and travel. Those risks are necessary for the survival of the economy. Owners, employees, and
visitors will have some protection wearing masks indoors. People outside on the streets can choose to wear a mask or not. Giving them a few more inches or feet of space will not make enough
difference to justify the expense and effort to make visitors feel more comfortable. Their safety lies in their own hands - if they choose to travel and whether or not to wear a mask and follow
health guidelines. Portable hand sanitizing stations at various locations may be a good idea any summer.
We've walked on Trail Ridge Rd three times since the Park opened. People have a whole highway to spread out - and some wear a mask and some don't. Some move over as people walk toward
them - and some do not. The Town cannot dictate actions so there would be little if any difference in safety and spread of COVID.
We drove through downtown on our way home from the Park on Saturday. Parking lots were full, people were out shopping and strolling the sidewalks. Some wore masks, some did not.
If the numbers spike, the Park and the Town may be forced to shut down again. Any effort and expense would be a waste. If the numbers don't spike, then people are doing what they should
already, have immunity, or the transmission isn't as easy as thought. We have the added advantage of high altitude Colorado sunshine as well.
Again, do not commit to micromanagement of the actions of visitors and residents. Thank you!
57
Closing Elkhorn to any degree is foolish! Saying a detour is as simple as Halloween makes you look uneducated. The traffic demands now or in June or in July are different than October, don't you
think? Implementing this test or longer-term plan would be negligent for this community and Public Safety is being used as an excuse. I can't even believe you're suggesting this.
58
I have visited Estes Park for several generations and love the feeling. It's why I return year after year with my family. It seems to me over the last few years there has been a push to change Estes
Park to something that is so similar to other communities it will steal the attraction of this community for me. After reading the proposals it would appear that the current Public Health crisis is an
opportunity to make changes that are more about a development plan then the safety of your residents. Please record my vote against the idea for a pedestrian Mall.
59
Some options of closures mention benefits of moving congestion, noise, and pollution out of downtown area, but fail to indicate where it’s moving to — residential areas?!!!
60 NO THANKS! Why does Estes Park goverment keep trying to change things? Why did you move here? Same reason I did. We liked it! Keep what you have nice and stop being sneaky about
development!
61 Please do not discourage tourists from coming to Estes Park.
Page 19 of 42 86
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
62 Someone suggested traffic diverted to Hwy 7 - PeakView- to
Beaver Meadows entrance? This would NOT be acceptable!
Having traffic detoured from downtown area to PeakView to
access the Park would put way more pressure on this already-
increased traffic through residential areas.
As it is now, almost all RV traffic heading to either of the 3 campgrounds along PeakView to Mary's Lake Road and then
into Park campgrounds is routed along PeakView. From Friday through Monday especially there is one RV after another traveling
down and back on PeakView. To add the additional burden of
all other traffic from the downtown area along this route would
be disastrous and entirely unfair to the residential neighborhoods
along this route.
63 Please implement no change in driving/lanes/closures but do implement one way walking on the sidewalks downtown. This would enable people to better maintain social distancing while not
adding to the traffic congestion problem.
64
Traffic is bad enough in Estes. Add this and getting anywhere around town will become a nightmare. Tourists will not know ways around downtown and will congest side streets. Town is not setup
to accommodate a change like this. This will make my commute to work twice as long and then add a tourist in front of me that doesn’t know where they are going.
65
we are not in favor of any action that makes it more difficult for people to get into RMNP. There are enough new restrictions in the Park. Very worried that word will get out that its a pain to shop
Downtown and a pain to get into the Park and people will stop coming to visit.
In areas with few cases and deaths, preventative measures seem pointless and tyrannical. These measures have destroyed jobs and small businesses. Is that really fair? People who are afraid of
exposure should self-quarantine.
Just removing the ordinance for facemarks outdoors while Downtown, has been so freeing. Wearing masks while in an indoor setting has been working well. People are respectful of that.
66
This is a ruse. A way of proclaiming Estes Park as 'safe', encouraging even more people to come, defeating the purpose and likely making the pedestrian areas more, not less, crowded. Reads like
it is conceived by marketers, not public health experts. Estes has already made a misstep by repealing the mask ordinance. This is another. Sorry to be blunt.
67 We live on the west side of downtown and any of these plans would make it exceedingly difficult for us to get through/around town. It would be different if EP had more than one main route, but
it doesn't.
68 How many times can I do this survey? So far I’ve done it 5 times. Doesn’t seem like a very accurate way to do a survey and better not be used to make any important decisions that effect local
businesses!
69 Is the Town of EP’s goal to ruin local businesses downtown?
70 Closing the street will create yet another discouraging irritation for visitors.
71 A pedestrian walkway will create more problems than it solves. This is the wrong time to experiment. I'm totally against this idea right now.
72 I call BS! This is so not about social distancing!
73
Already too much traffic on the bypass during the summer months. That would make it horrible for the residence living in the subdivision above the bypass. Please do not change!
Page 20 of 42 87
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
74
Our first choice would be no change. People will still be crowded together in stores as well as other areas on Elkhorn and the traffic impact of closing lanes would create even more bad PR than
the space on the streets might create good PR or safety. Above all we believe there should not be ANY closure.
Option 1 would be the only other option that might work if this becomes a mandate. Guests can still get to the west end of town, drive by shops and see what's there, it won't clog up parking
only on the East end (what a nightmare), and people won't be going through neighborhoods to access out of the way lots. Plus most people don't have any idea even with signage what that
would mean to wind down through residential areas and finally come into the back side of a parking lot.
Our town is simply not built to work this way. We have no parallel streets where people can park a block away from their destination then head over to the pedestrian mall.
75
I'm a local and as much as I'd like to support our businesses, I don't plan to go downtown at ALL until all this mask/distancing business is OVER. It's OUTSIDE, for goodness sake. Unless an
infected person sneezes right in your face, a mask isn't going to do anything but impair your ability to breathe. Thanks.
76 Options 1 through 3 all include barriers which include choke points which force pedestrians on to the usual sidewalks anyway.
The trolley is expected to be impacted by congestion, and will contribute to congestion by stopping traffic while it loads and disgorges passengers.
77 If the town is really worried about tourist health, why remove the requirement to wear face coverings. This is just a cheap attempt to test drive the downtown plan for expanding merchants
sidewalk area with no regard for traffic.
78
None of the new plans make enough difference to counteract the difficulties - for both locals and visitors - of the rerouting required. Pushing most of the RMNP traffic to 34 - the Fall River
Entrance, will make traffic congestion much worse as the gates are fewer and a high percentage of people are really headed to the Bear Lake corridor. Also, this summer with the road work in the
park between the Bear Lake Road and the Deer Mountain junction - there are times it will be impossible to get around.
Pushing pedestrians into the street - will distance them from the shop windows - making that less of a benefit for shop owners. The curb still in the middle of the "walking space" will make it more
dangerous for walkers and difficult for handicapped people - less ADA compliant.
You do not spell out the rerouting at the 34/36 intersection. Does that send them to the Moraine Park entrance for RMNP via Moccasin Bypass or does it send them via Mary's Lake?
All of these alternatives trade off serious problems - traffic and confusion for guests and locals - for some limited help downtown.
79
You all need to get some real education about this entire PLAN-DEMIC. You will not get it from our media, they have been bought out years ago and are corrupt. They do not have the American
peoples best interest at mind at all. They have an agenda to see if we will be sheep. Get educated first before making any stupid changes. Masks do not keep you safe, ask a drywall guy. Stand
up for the peoples rights here. We can certainly enjoy our time in the RMNP and never spend any money in town.
Do you want your town to fall victim of lack of revenue????
We the people can say to heck with coming to Estes when you force down our throats more stupid rules.
Page 21 of 42 88
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
80
First, nothing the Town can say or do will convince non-believers to wear a mask or social distance. That's just how it is.
Arvada, Loveland, Breckenridge do not have a main street leading to a popular destination. This comparison is invalid.
Entertainment in the street? Won't this just draw crowds?
The "Others are doing it" is not a good reason for us to do it.
Shoppers are not going to walk down the street. They want to be close to the shops.
If "parklets" are allowed, sidewalk users will be forced into the street --> crowding
If designate bike lanes, there must be enforcement to keep bikes IN and pedestrians OUT
Option # 1 is asking for disaster! Shutting down 2 lanes completely asks for SAFETY issues.
Point 5 of #1: is not a valid reason but a hope for behavior.
#2 Option: Just where is Hwy 36-to-RMNP going to be directed? The choices seem to be over Moccasin Drive (already far too busy in summer) or via Hwy 7 to Mary's Lake. (confusing, too long
and not built to handle such traffic) Increased use at Fall River Entrance is very bad -- it is already too small to handle the traffic with massive back ups along 34 as it is.
Benefit #2: "traffic, noise and air pollution diverted..." And brought right past the doors of a) the hospital and b) innocent residents
No change: maybe the whole trolley thing needs to be re-thought. (route, hours, value, usage)
Yes there are problems. They are inherent with the town's age and location. COVID-19 is adding to it. Please don't jump off the bridge before some of the current projects are in place. The Loop
was advertised to fix all our traffic woes. Ask a visitor from New York and they say "what traffic?" A visitor from Denver says "I only had to wait 1 light cycle. No problem."
81 You’ve done too much already! Let it rest!
82
You cannot block traffic at any time. You will kill business. You are building a roundabout that already restricts traffic. Social distancing is already possible with current situation. If you cut off
traffic, congestion will sharply reduce tourism. It would make Estes Park a ghost town. People who fear the virus should just stay home.
83
The businesses have already suffered tremendously and this is absolutely a horrible idea to close off anything further in any way. The businesses, and residents, gave up way too much for the
numbers that have been presented. They also have given up way too long for a short running curve that has long passed the peak. Now we try to recreate the town in entirety???? This was and
has been a tourism town since inception. To close off downtown would impact travel to/from my business. I cannot bear any more; nor can other business owners I visit with. People that sit on
the butt have tons of time to envision a bunch of crappy ideas to play with. Each rule, regulation, change costs business owners (and their customers). Before implementing anything ask yourself
is it REQUIRED. It is not. You already have the large wastewater project in the hopper, let alone the recovery from this disasterous COVID garbage, and people have had the cram down from
corporations for 30 years. There is no slush fund to cover these huge price tags, then you want to add a silly and unnecessary change following a very disastrous impact from COVID. STOP. STOP.
STOP before there is no tourism business left to walk to and from. You want a pedestrian area to view empty buildings??? Enough. Go back to work - something in manufacturing or construction
where something really gets done.
84
Everyone in our residential neighborhood on Wonderview is very concerned about any additional traffic as it is not safe for us now when we try to exit our driveways out into the road area. High
speeds (much higher than posted) by many vehicles plus the trees, bushes, curves and hills make Wonderview and Fall River Road dangerous streets. The elimination of the additional traffic
volume, noise and pollution as cited in Options 1, 2 and 3 for downtown will be diverted to our neighborhoods!! There is something WRONG with that picture!!
I know this summer and fall will be hard in the downtown with Covid 19 rules, but we need to be patient. The loop will be completed and hopefully will help.
Also, the costs for developing ugly barriers, etc. to allow these options are not in the budget. Please: Do Nothing.
People walking and shopping downtown will adapt to the distancing and face masks as needed now.
Thank you,
Connie Phipps
585 Wonderview
Page 22 of 42 89
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
85
First you decide to put in a loop to streamline traffic that was unpopular. You wouldn’t let people vote on it. Next, you construct an unneeded traffic roundabout. Now, it looks like you’re going
to constrict traffic that you supposedly are putting in the loop for and it looks like the purpose of the roundabout was part of a plan for diversion of traffic away from downtown. I think it’s time to
stop playing games, be transparent, and be honest with people. I guess that’s not the Estes Park way though like the Scott Walker issue.
86
Physical distancing recommendations apply to situations of prolonged exposure (more than 10 minutes) and people of different households. Passing a stranger or walking with my family do not
fit these criteria. Therefore physical distancing recommendations are not needed by the majority of people as they walk downtown. The only place where this could be a potential issue is at the
crosswalks. Perhaps changing the timing to increase the frequency could accommodate this issue. And despite a crowd at the crosswalk, any exhaled droplets would be quickly dispersed and
carried away by the natural breeze in Estes Park. These other proposals seem like a lot of expense and time.
87
1) Covid19 appears to be fading for now and in general for Summer months - when downtown is busiest. Plus, a vaccine may well be on the way. If physical distancing is not necessary, this plan
will cause significant disruption and pain for no good reason.
2) Anyway you look at it, this plan creates winners and losers - which is not conducive to bringing a community together.
3) The additional traffic on West Wonderview, which after all borders residential neighborhoods will undoubtedly be SIGNIFICANT, while I personally can't imagine anyone using the Riverside
option to approach the park via 36.
4) The confusion this will cause returning guests can't possibly generate good will, and 1st time guests will need to buy new maps or be completely confused. Highway 36 via Elkhorn is the google
maps preferred approach to RMNP and has been forever.
5) For Wonderview homes, reaching 36 e.g. Coffee on the Rocks, which can easily be done via West Elkhorn becomes MUCH more difficult, and will only add to the daily congestion.
6) The Downtown Estes Loop project will bring substantial change to the traffic flow, but appears to be in the end a great thing. This change appears to be well thought out and not rushed
superficially. 2 major changes to the downtown traffic flow in the next year or two seems to be needless and will cause too much confusion to locals and all visitors.
7) As evidenced throughout the country on a weekly basis, social distancing can NOT be enforced and will often be ignored, regardless.
8) if elder citizens want to get to Elkhorn, they will be forced to park and catch the trolley since walking won't be desirable for many. The trolley will have significant social distancing issues for the
most vulnerable population - who are much more likely to use it.
88
I believe people are faced with so many changes in this time — peoples frustration levels are already high. I am against making a complicated visitor experience especially when it already is
complicated enough with rules, regulations and limited capacity in establishments and our Park. I am against limiting the flow to Rocky Mountain National Park and causing congestion and more
confusion. The frustrating visitor experience will stick with the visitor. And then what during normal times there’s more construction for the loop and another changed avenue.
89 Challenges with all the plans seem to make the status-quo (with 60% park attendance) the least undesirable.
- With traffic signals (options 1 and 2), people will bunch up anyways.
- Option 3 blocks traffic going N/S creates traffic jams
- Trolleys create as much problems as these plans attempt to resolve
90 Who thinks up this crazy stuff and who has time to write 21 pages of anything.
91
Tho' I like and appreciate the vision to address pandemic/distancing. I don't like the consequences of traffic constriction/redirection effect to the immediate other roads/streets. For now, suggest
just staying with managing of distance and mask guidelines in place....again avoiding other consequences of trying to make plan suggestions...
john pearson
92
If we had to choose one option other than #4 I would choose #2 because there is no need to widen the sidewalk on the north side along the library, muni building and Bond Park. I chose #4
because I think lane reduction will multiply the traffic congestion and create adverse unintended consequences along Hwy 36 from Lyons to RMNP. Everyone should be wearing a mask and using
hand sanitizer downtown because they cannot avoid being within 6' of each other. Anyone not wearing a mask in a crowd should be given a free sample of COVID19.
Page 23 of 42 90
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
93
This sounds like a California plan, not an Estes Park plan. Let's let people who chose to come to Estes this year take responsibility for their own decisions about social distancing. We do not need
to incur the expense of setting up barriers, confusing people about where they can and cannot drive, and diverting additional traffic into neighborhood areas and onto Wonderview Ave. Those
who are living in fear need to just stay home and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
Your plans encourage those who are driving through to "window shop". No, no, no. They need to pay attention to their driving, not gawk around. This pandemic has been turned into a panic-
demic. The effects have already taken their toll on our economy: plans like this threaten to do even more damage to our country than the underlying health issue.
Let's make the best decision for the citizens of Estes Park.
NO CHANGE!!!!!
Steve & Cheryl Kiteley
515 Far View Ln.
94
The traffic along Wonderview during the visits by tourists is continuously busy and noisy. We've caught people camping, urinating and defecating on our property (775 W. Wonderview). We have
worked hard over the last 17 years attempting to save a home (built in 1899) and preserve a piece of Colorado history.
Now I learn that the town is investigating routing the traffic past our home. It is so dispiriting that such an idea is even being considered.
Is our only recourse litigation?
Respectfully,
Gary S. Cahill
95 All of the descriptions are confusing. I'm game for anything that will help restaurants with ample easements for outdoor seating, although I do see the potential for retail to sell merch on
sidewalks. I just cringe to think of the traffic confusion.
96
I don't know that you want to hear what I say about the Stay Healthy Streets! Estes Park needs to continue as people know Estes Park. Most of our visitors are families and it is not our
responsibility to hold their hand, encourage them to exercise, be a "destination that restores health and offers enjoyment."
This Stay Healthy Streets Plan sounds like it was written as a middle school project and coming up with ideas that are NOT appealing to the Town's citizens who are also the Town business
proprietors . Granted, 99% of businesses are hurting from the shutdown of basically the world, but this is not the first time nor will it be the last...we are not the only community that is suffering.
Estes Park's configuration for traffic is not conducive to walking malls. Knowing the round-about is planned for getting people in their cars around the town and out to RMNP, there are 30+
residences along the routes of Wonderview and of Fall River that in summer already deal with heavy traffic...and the visitors/tourists would have no idea how to get where they want to go which
is downtown to shop. I can give you many examples of current travelers.
I am NOT IN FAVOR of the Stay Healthy Street Plan!!!
P.S. I may not have gotten all of the photos with bikes, but I AM NOT a robot!
97 How can the town restrict access on a state highway?
98 We live off of Wonderview Avenue and certainly don't want all the detoured traffic to travel along that road on their way to the Fall River entrance to RMNP. You can't expect all the visitors to
want to enter the Park from that entrance. Trying to detour traffic around downtown will be a nightmare. Other cities that are implementing road closures have good alternatives when it comes
to detouring traffic. Estes does not. People can choose on their own if they want to enter a crowded pedestrian area just as they choose to enter grocery stores/restaurants/shopping in their
home towns.
Page 24 of 42 91
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
99
If all the rioters and looters can be on the streets with no spike in virus hospitalized casses, what are we waisting time no nonsense. Open the town up and move on !
100 How about NONE OF THE ABOVE... and let's go back to life without all the hype. We have been told we all will get this virus eventually. Let's open the stores, the park and get back to life before
we are visited by the Murder Hornets and have to shut down again.
Your fear it's not my fear.
101 Closing off the ONLY main street, which also happens to be a state highway ,will not solve anything or make anyone safer. There is nothing wrong with a pedestrian mall if you have side and
arterial streets, but we don't. This idea has been proposed numerous times and now the idea is that folks will be safer and shop longer. PLEASE stop with the pedestrian mall idea...it has been
proposed with varying reasoning for at least 20 years and it will not solve anything. Unfortunately, the Town's geography has one main street and we have to live with that...there is no way to
change it.
Part of this proposal states that our sidewalks don't allow for social distancing...I measured the sidewalks on both E.and W. Elkhorn and the narrowest spot was 71/2'. Most of the sidewalks allow
14'-21' of space.
I also found the bike lane especially interesting. I thought the whole idea of the lane closures was to promote shoppers to stay downtown longer and shop with safety in mind. Bicyclists are not
shopping!
I realize that the Town and Chamber are trying to come up with a way to help businesses. The only answer to that is ..when the pandemic is over, business will return. Thank you for trying, but
please leave Elkhorn Ave. alone.
Sincerely,
Ann Taylor
102
It appears that you are using the virus to make changes in Estes Park that have been wanted by those who want to have complete control of everything in Estes Park! We have not had any
problems getting through Estes. Sometimes slower than we like but you can destroy a town by making changes that will change the downtown forever. People come to Estes to get away from
the valley. They enjoy the fun on the streets and going in and out of the stores. They know there will be lots of people in Estes and that is part of the fun. We are not business owners but we
don't think these changes would be good for the downtown or for the downtown businesses.
Page 25 of 42 92
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
103
Dear God! Are you kidding? What is wrong with you? Just give all the business owners a one-way ticket out of town and kiss all their taxes goodbye. No fireworks either. You couldn't possibly
be more disconnected from reality here.
What about: Delivery access? Parking (because we've done a bang-up job of that to date)? Legal implications? Moral implications? Safer streets? -- Who cares if there are no more businesses to
line said streets. Foolish. Ignorant. Arrogant in the extreme. Again. Enough.
(Very) Long-term gains? Possible...MAYBE. Short-term gains? Downtown goes out of business in whole. Didn't see many down-sides listed in your plans for the status quo.
Also -- Denver, New York, Seattle, et al, are HARDLY comparable to a tiny mountain town with TOTALLY different needs and issues. Not remotely analogous, as you SURELY must realize. Trolley --
Really? GREAT for social distancing. What ACTUALLY is the agenda here, anyway? The proposal says "possibly" a lot. Well, this will "probably" destroy/bankrupt/deeply hurt most of us
downtown. How are you so blind to this?
Choose then, in this lunacy, to spend what remains of our tax money more wisely -- before we are all forced out of business and are all no longer able to provide it. Foresight and reasonableness
have left our local government. Looking at selling and leaving now. Thanks for that. We're not the only ones. Anyone of you see the "For Rent" signs downtown -- or CARE? Of course not. Your
actions continually indicated otherwise.
So daft. I've only ever wanted to retract my vote once -- until now. For pity's sake, do this responsibly - not in a way that will end us all.
Imminent domain has become imperial domain. What a cruel and deeply ignorant way to inflict your will. We're already working on a recall - I only hope we're not too late.
ENOUGH.
Page 26 of 42 93
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
104
I have been paying attention to this idea for several years and while I am not against some of Elkhorn Ave becoming pedestrian as part of a long term plan- in this circumstance, creating a
pedestrian mall out of Elkhorn Ave under the premise of 'healthy streets' is very misleading.
With the standards for distancing and masks loosening every day, this proposal to 'test' or implement a pedestrian mall makes it very clear that your intent is not to promote public safety in the
middle of a pandemic, but to use the crisis of a waning pandemic to implement an ulterior motive. I think this will erode any chance of public trust between the Town and the taxpayer. There
haven't been any tangible actions by the town other than signage (?!) to minimize the spread of a virus. (ie: handwashing stations)
A pedestrian mall at this point, in this crisis, is not supported by any data other than your assertion that it will be helpful, and the only support I have heard in favor of it is from those sympathetic
to discouraging tourists, or creating bike lanes, or ecological advocates. None of which who have been truly concerned about the virus crisis, other than how it met their other objectives for
progress and changes they championed before the crisis.
The comparison of the detour being as easy as the Halloween detour is comical, as the traffic and road demands are night and day opposites.
I am today, against the creation or test of a pedestrian mall any where along Elkhorn Avenue as presented.
It's worth a public conversation, but the secluded collection of public input, and charade of public participation only serves to make you feel better about meeting the moral requirement for
seeking our input, and then claiming that you have our support. The recent changes to the public participation process by the Town of Estes Park are completely unacceptable, and grounds for a
case that would challenge any decision you make "with public input". Sorry, but that's a corner you backed into by changes to the rules you recently made. No, COVID did not force you to make
the decisions you did. Please remember what the chain of command is in government, you are currently ignoring who should be at the top of that chart.
105
Running this test during a shutdown (that is, non-normal traffic patterns) will tell you absolutely nothing in the long run - other than an outside market or impassable streets are either viable or
not viable during the non-normal traffic patterns of a global pandemic. Literally no long term benefit from this as a "test."
106 Don't see the need. Low sales tax & income for town already and now you want to spend extra money for setup and implementation of a "feel good" plan which will more than likely impact
businesses and inconvenience residents and vistors alike.
107
Closing main street and rerouting will increase traffic on side streets and other routes not accustomed to the increased volume. People still gathered during the restrictions in open areas, lake
trail, etc. These plans all rely on the assumption that people will follow the rules. Spend your energy and money elsewhere.
108
**Poor timing. Residents given little info & little time to digest, share & research this issue. Proposal "hidden" away. Was that done on purpose?? Another "no vote" issue like The Loop??
**This whole thing seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. COVID-19 will not be a huge threat for years & years, yet this proposal sounds like it will be here to stay.
**EP residents & visitors are "adults". We can take care of ourselves & our families without being told to wear masks & keep 6-feet of separation. We vote, we pay taxes & we are responsible. We
don't need "wide open spaces" to shop & dine, etc.
**Traffic congestion, increased pollution, increased noise & the potential for increased vehicular accidents will be moved to surrounding residential areas & neighborhoods.
**Not everyone is capable of walking or stepping up into a trolley to experience Downtown. Being able to drive thru Town allows visitors to see what shops & restaurants they wish to visit & can
park close to.
**Hiway 34 Bypass (especially eastbound) is already like a bob-sled run with cars & trucks traveling well over the speed limit with very limited monitoring by police & sheriffs. That will only get
worse with the increased traffic. Wildlife will be even more threatened.
**Goods & services deliveries to shops & restaurants will be greatly inconvenienced. Where do they park to unload?
**Seems like money is the driving force--not the health & well being of our citizens & visitors. People love Estes just the way it is!!
Page 27 of 42 94
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
109 I don't believe we will become crowded enough this summer to even worry about this. I also believe that those who feel they are at risk will not be venturing out and placing themselves in that
situation.
110 1. To use a once-in-a-hundred-years pandemic as an excuse to rearrange down town Estes is ridiculous... an insult to residents.
2. The traffic on West Wonderview Ave. would increase substantially above its already unacceptable level.
111
This summer would not be a typical tourist season during which to conduct a pilot program. Beginning next summer, the traffic situation on Wonderview & Fall River Rd. would become hell.
I have to wonder if the state liquor division and CDOT are talking about this and Estes Park, with the loop in progress.
What does RMNP think of this?
By the end of the year, there should be a virus vaccine.
This is a big deal for our community. It is a challenge to deal with this on such short notice and when meetings are virtual.
Please don't divide the community.
112
First of all, to use COVID 19 as a reason for redirecting downtown traffic is a ruse in my opinion. The virus is not going to be with us forever. We are adults here, perfectly capable of making
prudent decisions about protecting ourselves and others.
Second of all, change is not always progress. The "Challenges" you outline on Pages 10, 12, 14 and 15 of your proposal succinctly state the major problems with any of the Option choices.
New and returning visitors are not going to be happy with trying to figure out alternative routes to get through town. The "Loop" project will further exasperate traffic flow. Wonderview (34
Bypass) is already heavily traveled with some drivers grossly exceeding the posted speed limit of 40 mph.
Having to walk long distances to get downtown will create a hardship for people with physical disabilities. Estes Park residents will endure increased traffic and pollution in their neighborhoods.
Our small town atmosphere, which we love, is slowly being eroded. We are not striving to be an Aspen or Vail, and that is on purpose.
Restricting vehicular access to downtown will not help businesses and will make it more difficult to receive merchandise deliveries.
These Closure Proposals should be put up to a vote of Estes Park citizens, unlike the "Loop" project. Call me cynical, but I say, "Follow the money!"
Page 28 of 42 95
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
113
I have several concerns with the Stay Healthy Streets proposal.
1) The proposal refers to Breckenridge, Arvada, and Loveland as communities that are exploring similar proposals. I have also heard people refer to Boulder's Pearl Street and Denver's 16th Street
malls as examples. Each of those communities have something that Estes doesn't have: parallel streets that can easily serve traffic. Even Breckenridge has a traffic bypass that easily moves traffic
around their Main Street. All you have to do is look at a map of any of those communities to see that closing a specific street would not create huge bottlenecks that would extend throughout
town.
Closing Elkhorn and/or Morraine will force traffic to make significant detours. The detours proposed in Options 2 and 3 would put a substantial number of vehicles on Riverside and Wonderview.
Riverside is already packed on summer weekends with people trying to get around Estes. I wonder how many more RVs will end up stuck on the Moccasin Bypass.
2) The proposal doesn't note any challenges to Emergency Personnel. When Elkhorn is closed for parades, the city police devote significant resources to blocking streets. Will EPPD have police
sitting at 34/36 from Friday morning through Monday morning to reroute traffic? How much will that cost?
Will the Fire District need to deploy resources to the west side of town during partial/full street closures? What do they say about driving the ladder truck down an "emergency lane" surrounded
by pedestrians?
3) As I understand it, the Loop was proposed as a way to alleviate summer and weekend congestion downtown. Much of the project is funded through the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). It
seems ironic that the Town of Estes Park would seek to restrict access to Federal lands by closing off portions (or all) of Elkhorn and Morraine. It would have made far more sense to include a
pedestrian mall in the original Loop proposal, and use funds to create a bypass around Elkhorn/Morraine (much like Park Avenue in Breckenridge bypasses Main Street).
Option 5 - Other - 50 Individuals Selected This Option
1 I am all for this concept, however with the construction on the roundabout on Wonderview this will just make the traffic 10x worse for getting to the National Park. If downtown was closed,
visitors and locals would have to navigate roads not designed for heavy traffic and the speed limit is much slower. If downtown is to be closed having it past the stop lights makes the most amount
of sense for visitor access.
2 Perhaps it would be best to see how much traffic/visitors we get now that RMNP is open before choosing an option. With limited visitation to park, traffic jams caused by limited closures of roads
might not be the best PR for Estes Park. I am seeing that many people choose to wear masks on their own, so maybe even without outdoor mask ordinance people will mostly want to protect
themselves and others.
3 Make west Elkhorn a pedestrian mall
4
My group of 10 are canceling our August Estes reservations for the first time in a couple of decades. The covid overreaction, timed park entrance, online local sentiment that seems negative
towards visitors & now this all made this an easy decision for me. I feel sorry for your business owners. Best of luck with your tax revenue this summer and going forward.
5 I looked all over the website and couldn’t find the plan. I’d love to comment but I can’t if I can’t find it
Page 29 of 42 96
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
6
I think allowing pedestrians in one lane next to moving traffic is dangerous. Pedestrians trying to maintain 6 feet distance will forget how close the vehicles are moving. Locals can avoid driving
there but guests will not know alternatives. Either close all lanes or none. Hope the state will cooperate with closing downtown and allow drive arounds to lower vehicle/pedestrian accidents.
Would like to see mandatory masks in all businesses continued. It's hard to shop and buy while watching everyone around you. If everyone has masks, more buyers would be allowed in at a time
also.
Restaurant guests would be able to remove masks only while actively eating. Not while reading menus or waiting. I think protection of the servers is extremely important. It prevents spread,
keep jobs available and doesn't make servers choose between income safety. Guests should be limited on restaurant restroom use based on size of restrooms. Going to and from tables to BR -
masks required.
Require masks in public bathrooms to keep them open. Can the town afford hire at least two (3 preferred)public restroom attendants for each bathroom? An hour before stores open through an
hour after closing. Would keep supplies readily available, would encourage handwashing before touching items to buy, would slow customers requests for restrooms in shops and restaurants.
Keeping them open is a friendly gesture, many households still have one or more unemployed, people may be willing to tip employees too. Don't be shy --put up "tip" containers both sides of
every exit. Locals and guests will benefit from increased cleaning and the positive public image presented.
Reinstate masks while anywhere downtown. Allow our summer traffic employees and police auxillary to also issue violation warnings. Direct and to the point but not harsh. Warnings would
keep awareness up without imposing fines first and not take the time of officers.
7
The safest options has always been full closure to downtown traffic on busiest days of season. There does not need to be any changes for this supposed pandemic issue, it is a mute point moving
forward and the sooner it is dropped including mask wearing the safer the entire community will be.
8 Open everything
9 Open up the town period. No masks no stupid ineffective rules like 6 ft apart, have to have a Mark on to enter but can take it off while seated yet your hands touch the mask to put it back on to
use the restroom and you touch the door yet your mask is on then wash your hands, go back to your seat then again touch your mask to remove it to eat and drink. Where I ask is the logic in that
stupidity? There is none. Open the town up and those still in fear can stay home, wear a mask if they choose and let the rest of us survive and feed our families and save this town!! Oh and recall
Mayor Koenig!!
10 Recall Travis, this is fun
11 I can’t get the link to open, but I support closing Elkhorn Completely from Bond Park west to Tregent Park. Hope that was one of the options.
12 Create one way traffic on both the sidewalks and the roads. Is there a way to implement “the loop” early?
13 Reinstate the sidewalk mask order that was just voted down instead of creating traffic nightmares by partial or full street closures.
14
Whatever you do, you can't make people courteous.
How will this work with Wonderview closed? We just tore down buildings for the loop, but now it's ok to have massive congestion and no way for locals to use town.
The town I dreamed of is no longer. I'm sure this has been said many times since the park was created.
I visited this town for 20 years as a guest. Loved the warm friendly welcome from shop owners. The draw of slower pace and fresh air. Yes, it is important for the economy to be strong. I moved
here 10 years to get away from self centered people in city.
Why do people think it's better to tear down paradise than educate people on common courtesy to others?
Anyways, thank you for trying to find a solution.
15 i support option 4 most.
traffic is already bad enough and any restrictions will make it nearly unbearable.
How about one way sidewalks? This has helped in grocery stores and I think it would eliminate much of the problem and keep traffic moving.
If we only had the LOOP completed...
Page 30 of 42 97
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
16
You don't even enforce the current restrictions in place, so why are you asking us what we want?. Just ask your businesspeople or even the contractors what they want they seem to run the Town
anymore, anyway. They are your biggest voting block.
If you would only enforce the restrictions currently in place it would be safer for not just us (older folks) but everyone, the old stay at homers, the young fear nothings, and your children and
grandchildren. I would not go anywhere near downtown with what's going on now. Its a joke!
We all know its about pleasing downtown business vs. what's the number of dead you are willing to allow. Put a number on it! We would probably just have another survey and raise the number.
BTW, Some great options from which we are suppose to decide.
I vote non of the above!
A more than 50 years disappoint resident.
I know this may be hard to wrap your head around but what in the above questionare helps protect the local healthcare workers that provide care for those and who dont feel the need to wear
there mask downtown exposing them, didn't you think about protecting them too. Or is their voting block to small. How about when you catch someone downtown without a mask you require
them to go help those fighting to save lives. huh! They openly and I might add bracingly wear there badge of " to hell with masks" while putting the healthcare workers in so much more danger
we're not talking dollars and sense we are talking lives.
17 Open up Estes Park and RMNP, we cannot wear masks downtown and enjoy the shops and candy stores!!!
I feel like if someone wants to voluntarily wear a mask they can...... it should not be mandatory 😡. Estes is my home and I grew up there and still consider it my home, plan to come back again to
retire and live!!!!
I worked for RMNP and it is one of my favorite places to go!!! I HIGHLY doubt you need to worry about the virus up there, it amazes me that you think people are stupid and can’t think for
themselves,, we can and do !!!!!
OPEN UP AND LEAVE THE DOWNTOWN ALONE!!!
Thank you
18 Open all business now with no restrictions!!!
19 I would absolutely only consider any closure if the intersection of McGregor and Fall River is open by then!
20
There is no way you should be considering any closure while the intersection of McGregor and Fall River road is closed! It would be a horrible idea to force all of that traffic on to Virginia!
Page 31 of 42 98
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
21 There should be NO trade off for MANDATORY MASKS for safe distancing. 6 ft of distancing is not going to protect anyone one from sneezing and coughing.
People will opt out of masks if not mandated!
We need to teach people how to be responsible to the larger community by mandating. It will be hard for a while, but people will adapt to the expectation.
The traffic plans for downtown will create a mess for traffic.
Redirection to the park needs to start at highway 7 so people will go to both entrances. The north entrance can't handle the traffic.
You could possible shut down west Elkhorn west of Morraine
Let restaurants expand out. Have places to sit in the street. BUT who is wiping down everything, the benches,etc?
If you close off or limit Elkhorn you are creating problems for locals as well as tourists. You will need to open up parking in new places. You will need to reroute traffic to roads that are not high
volume or through neighborhoods.
Elkhorn is the main road from one side of town to the other. Closing it or modifying lanes will back up traffic in such a way that doing daily things like grocery shopping or going to the post office
or golf course will turn into a nightmare.
You could open up the Riverside walk or reuse the streets north of Elkhorn to redirect walkers
22
Option 3 and require masks. My elderly parents live in Estes. Making masks voluntary means many from out of state will not wear them and lead to the spread of COVID in Estes. Please do the
right thing for the permanent residents and keep them safe. Stores and restaurants can be opened as you’ve stated, but do not make masks voluntary.
23 Prefer option 3 but can’t see how traffic trying to get to Beaver Meadow entrance will get through town. Can’t all be sent to Fall River entrance.
24 where can I get a copy of this plan? I can't comment otherwise.
25
While I like the idea of closing Elkhorn completely, there is no possible way to do with due to the lack of side street or alternate street infrastructure to accommodate the vehicular traffic without
causing mass chaos. IF the proposed alternate routes were sufficiently sized to handle traffic AND the Big Horn to Moraine lane is left open to cross traffic it could possibly work. However in the
proposals that are given none of these options is viable and traffic congestion will be worse, now pushed into very small residential streets that are insufficient to handle the volume.
26
Honestly - the wording in this proposal is as if there continues to be an active infection rate or people are dropping left and right. The Town of Estes needs to look at the big picture and not just
implement rules that are impractical or unnecessary. Yes, we have Larimer county and CDC recommendations but these are not the law and cannot be enforced. Is anyone involved in the decision
making even thinking for themselves here and evaluating the need in light of truth or just going along with the recommendations or because it's politically correct? For instance, the 6 ft. social
distancing has been popularized and proclaimed across the U.S. and recommended by the CDC, but again, it is NOT a law and if realistically analyzed, would be found that continuing to attempt
social distancing here is not only a waste of time, but is impractical to maintain, even if you shut down all the streets in Estes. Whether it's admitted or not, reality is that 6 ft. is nothing, especially
in consideration of the mountain wind currents and not being able to control being downwind. And just how long would the town propose to do this? And hear this - even after the "crises" is
declared over, doing this thing because of the possibility of asymptomatic people may be out there means you could be preaching the need for masks and social distancing indefinitely, especially
since Estes hosts international visitors. Please THINK about what you are doing, and not just be on the currently popular bandwagon.
27 no strong preference for any, except against No Change.
We won't be going downtown or to restaurants. Our concern is if the restrictions are minimal, these people will infect us in Safeway.
Page 32 of 42 99
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
28
Since we have already lost so much in sales tax over the three months of closure/stay at home, I am most inclined to go with Option 4 - NO Change.
I do not believe you should attempt any of this until the roundabout at Highway 34/Wonderview and MacGregor Avenue is fully functional. This street was originally designed in the 1980s(?) for
the express purpose of routing people to the north/Fall River entrance of RMNP. Many people have known about and used it for that express purpose for 40 years.
I do not think you gain anything by closing the Moraine/Elkhorn/BigHorn intersection. Most locals know that is the easiest shortcut route through downtown from any direction. You already have
the community service officers in place to help pedestrians negotiate that intersection.
If you must do something and I'm sure you think you MUST, I would say option 1 - allowing one lane east and one lane west on the block between Riverside and Moraine is an acceptable choice.
29 Even more of a closure then these options. Close the road entirely (no trolley, etc) and allow restaurants and shops to utilize the center of the current road for seating and display space while
having two very large corridors for walking on either side.
30
Close Elkhorn Avenue PERMANENTLY. Make Elkhorn pedestrian only between US34/US36 interchange and US34. It should be like the Pearl St. Mall in Boulder where pedestrians can walk from
side to side. There could be vendors throughout the "walkway" with food or items to sell, beautiful flowers and gardens, maps, artwork, etc. There would be no pollution. People going to RMNP
would use US34 or go around Riverside to US36. Keep cars OUT of downtown. People would spend LOTS more time shopping and eating downtown than they do now.
31 There are really no great choices are there? And, how about construction on the loop??
I don't envy city planners right now.
32
We need to take off all restrictions! No added rules or guidelines needed. No one way traffic. No masks. No distancing. No restrictions on numbers of customers. No restrictions!
33
How about completely blocking all traffic from The Egg of Estes to Mrs. Walsh's Garden and making this entire area a pedestrian mall? This would:
1) provide restaurants and shops the greatest amount of space to expand into with the least amount of congestion and crowding and the best opportunities to recover losses and make this a
profitable summer,
2)allow residents and visitors alike the best opportunities for enjoyment while maintaining the greatest amount of safe space possible.
Currents benches and some planters could be moved and spaced safely to make this a really attractive and enjoyable area. Cars could fill the parking garage (which is now very little used) as well
as the Events Center parking lot. The shuttle could drop off and pick up riders at each end of the "Elkhorn Mall" and those whose main interest is in visiting RMNP could still make the loop around
downtown - this would alleviate the dreaded traffic congestion immensely.
Please see www.bouldercoloradousa.com/things-to-do/insider-guides/pearl-street/
The Pearl Street Mall in Boulder has been a huge success for many years now - let's give it a try here! I think this would be the best solution for all to still salvage and make this a happy summer!
Thanks for your consideration.
34 Open fully please the businesses are dying
35 I recommend closing as much of the road as possible to make room for pedestrians to use the road for walking.
36 Close Elkhorn. Make it for pedestrians only, like Boulder.
37 I chose Other -- to make Elkhorn permanently like the Boulder pedestrian mall with lots of flowers, music, food carts, sales carts, and NO cars EVER, no POLLUTION ever, no CONGESTION ever. .
Keep Elkhorn clean and available to pedestrians.
Page 33 of 42 100
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
38
Close Elkhorn Ave from Hwy 34/36 intersection to Spruce Dr to create a pedestrian only area Friday Noon to Sunday midnight. Detour RMNP traffic around perimeter of Town. Make it something
special to reward those who risk their health and spend their hard-earned money to experience what I believe is a piece of heaven on earth. May wish to minimize residents comments regarding
visitors buying up all your food and taking food out of your children's mouths though, it kind of ruins everything the Chamber & Visitor Bureau has been doing for years. Kind of a BIG put off.
39
Close the west side of Elkhorn to cars and make it pedestrian space. Add outdoor eating. It would be awesome. All traffic can continue turning left at Indian Village or right to 34 bypass.
40
I don't see a link to the proposed plan anywhere in the opening article. Lots and lots of ads, but no link. So, it would be nice to be clear and concise as to where it can be reviewed. As far as
distancing, will you continue this for the rest of time? I mean, every single flu season to come, without end? Because, seriously. This is no different.
41 I don't think you can consider any road closures until you have opened McGregor Avenue.
42 No closure
43
I don' t think that anything should be done until the impact is thought out. If you do any downtown lane closures without close in parking you will severely impact traffic to downtown businesses,
I think the city offices should be moved out of downtown and that space be made into a parking garage. The library could also move out of downtown and maybe out by the rec center.
44 Don't matter which one as soon as there is more room the merchants will be moving there merchandise out on the sidewalk, with the attitude of some merchants I don't plan on ever shopping in
estes again.
45 make Elkhorn a pedestrian street on weekends.
46 Make Elkhorn like Pearl street in Boulder. Park Traffic can go around town and downtown is closed from the water wheel to Bond Park. This will alleviate the downtown congestion of people
looking for a "close place to park" right in front of the stores.
47
Full Closure of Elkhorn & Moraine in the core downtown.
Also close some or all of other streets and parking lots as an alternate place to go (maybe Cleave, Big Horn parking lot,Virginia parking lot, parking lot at DQ, Riverside parking lot).
Create one or more true plaza areas.
Maximize area available to pedestrians.
Don't route the shuttle through the area. Pick up/discharge at the perimeter. Passengers can hoof it to/through the plaza area.
Businesses to bring in deliveries before/after stores open and visitors are prominent.
Emergency vehicles access when needed (not very often); clear their path when needed.
Save $$ on less barricades/cones.
Page 34 of 42 101
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
48
Refrain from actively promoting the Estes Park “brand.” Stop trying to encouraging additional visitors to Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park at least during the overcrowding summer
season.
Determine the natural maximum visitor number based on current parking, traffic patterns, tourist accommodations, accessibility to RMNP. Once that number is determined, let people know that
the Park and town are full and suggest another time would be to their advantage and enjoyment. To continue to try to get more people in a limited venue is counterproductive—leaving visitors
with a “never again” after taste to their visit.
It seems to us that Estes Park’s recent attempts to bring more and more visitors has done too good a job—those responsible have not looked at the consequences of their promoting a community
not equipped to handle large numbers. The Local Marketing Tax District has played a big part in creating the congestion downtown that is now trying to be fixed by hurting those of us who call
Estes home.
Fire marshals limit the capacity of group gathering places for the safety of those gathering. Yet those who are involved in promoting the Estes Park “brand” have not considered the effects of more
people invited than can safely enjoy our community.
Those who are selling Estes Park need to stop and realize the damage being done to our community through overcrowding.
Interesting observation: the proposal, Estes Park’s “Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program for Downtown Estes Park” speaks of “Benefits” but uses the term “Challenges” rather than “Negatives,”
“Detriments,” or “Potential Destructive Consequences.”
I have taken the following quotes from from your proposal. To me they are “RED FLAGS.”
From the “Introduction of the Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program for Estes Park:”
o COMMENT: This would increase the congestion, the noise, and the pollution.
o COMMENT: More visitors should not be the goal, rather the goal should be to shoot for the carrying capacity of visitation—full but not overflowing. A sensible balance between visitors to fill the
shops but not being shoulder to shoulder.
49 Other towns have closed their main streets to provide more space for pedestrians as well as for restaurants to provide outdoor seating. By rerouting the traffic around Elkhorn using alternate
routes, this can also be accomplished in EP.
50 Closure from Riverside to Spruce with center lane for trolley. South lane for pedestrians between Wonderview and Riverside. Don’t really need a pedestrian lane on the north side here. Usually
not as crowded and no store fronts. All in all, this looks like a nightmare! Good luck!
Page 35 of 42 102
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
Feedback Received via Email / Chamber Meeting
1
May 15, 2020 - Patricia Deplazes (Rocky Creek Lodge) - "Hi, I'm Patricia Deplazes, owner of Rocky Creek Lodge, 106 Mary's Lake Road. I have noticed other areas such as Gatlinburg, gateway to
Smoky Mountain National Park, are expanding pedestrian waling space by taking up some of the roadway. I think this could be a good solution as the social distancing is one of the more effective
measures that can prevent transmission of Covid 19. Our local traffic officials will know how best accomplish this. I will just say that adequate signage will be needed to prevent confusion, as
driving in Estes Park can be confusing to newcomers. My background and degree is in biological sciences, and my education along with careful study of the available peer-reviewed scientific
literature makes me believe that nadatory masks for the general public are ineffective at best and possibly increase contamination. People tough their masks, contaminating their hands and
everything they touch thereafter. Studies do NOT show that cloth masks are effective at stopping the virus. They do show that the pores in the best cotton cloth are 500+ times bigger than the
virus particles. Masks may catch some of the bigger droplets from symptomatic people (who should not be out) but that does not necessarily stop the virus particles. It does contaminate the
mask, that is then touched and spreads contamination. . .all studies state masks and respriators must be used correctly to have ANY benefit. I believe providing more space for pedestrians , along
with frequent had sanitizer stations and reminders to wash/sanitize hands and avoid touching eyes/nose/mouth (mucous membrane entry points for the virus) would provide better prevention of
spreading COVID19. Stopping the mandatory mask requirement would reduces the anger/controversy that surrounds the issue, and allow businesses that sell food/drink to operate more fully
while using best practices to slow the spread. It would prevent guests frommoving their masks up and down (contaminating their hands each time) to eat/drink and allow them to enjoy the special
treats that many consider to be the highlight of visiting Estes Park. Those that believe in mask use will still be able to wear masks. I hope the city officials will revisit the mandatory mask
requirement and instead provide better opportunities for social distancing, hand sanitizing and public education. And PLEASE tell the state tourism board to stop telling people to stay home!
Thank you, Patricia Deplazes
2
David Bard 5/15/2020 - (1st Email) Hi Donna, I know there is talk about closing Elkhorn to traffic and having it as a pedestrian mall. I want you to know I and many others are against this. We are
already inconveniencing our visitors as it is and this, along with CO Dept of Tourism saying "stay away", will only further drive people away. I'm not sure, but I thought there was a meeting
tomorrow that you were sponsoring that would have looked at this - but I'm not going to be able to attend and wanted to be heard. I find the starting premise to be false - the distancing thing.
Current science and data don't support these continued political "rules". I love how bureaucrats think it's just fine to make rules but have no earthly idea how they affect those around them.
3 David Bard 5/15/2020 - (2nd Email) Thanks Donna and Vanessa.
Here's a list of concerns:
1. Parking. How will this be managed? Parking garage is only a single location. That's the easy one. It's a quite a distance downtown to walk for some. And crossing that busy highway will only add
to the congestion.
2. Traffic Flow. Bond park still open? How many will look for parking there? Get stuck in those wanting to get out of that traffic trap? What about the library parking? Decrease the parking
availability and increase car traffic. Now what?
3. How will those heading to the park get back into town? Pass your parking spot, want to turn around? How does this happen?
4. Again, if it's so inconveniencing to folks why come? We're already down significantly in foot traffic, why add additional barriers to sales?
On the surface a pedestrian mall sounds wonderful. But the devil is in the details and at this time those details appear to be additional barriers to commerce.
These are some of the logistical concerns we have. Thanks and hope everyone's day is a good one.
David
Page 36 of 42 103
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
4
Thomas Beck 6/4/2020 - Greg Muhonen [OPTION 2]
Pedestrian Friendly Infrastructure a Winning Solution
By Thomas Beck, AIA, NCARB
Temporary implementation of a major pedestrian friendly infrastructure in downtown Estes Park may be exactly what is needed to convince detractors of the worth of a pedestrian mall, or to
prove them right in their opinion that it will hurt, rather than help, their businesses.
Pedestrian malls are incubators of social interaction in good times, and solutions for social distancing in our current times. During this extraordinary time of pandemic, we must take exceptional
precautions to ensure public safety, while inviting visitors to bring much needed business to our town. By temporarily implementing a pedestrian mall with a one-way emergency lane, restaurants
could utilize more outdoor space to gradually return to dine-in service. Retailers could interact with passers-by, even completing sales with available portable technologies without customers
having to enter the tight spaces of their store interiors. A unique opportunity for personal, custom services may well be a silver lining born of the need to social distance. The Town could
implement the closure as soon as public works could coordinate new signage and access controls, and leave it closed until after the Thanksgiving parade.
Anyone who has been here for much time knows that when thunderstorms strike in the park, the town fills up with the visitors chased out by the weather. Campers seek a little civilization,
families look for a snack outside of the vacation home, couples on a romantic getaway enjoy a meal, and tourists shop for unique items to commemorate their visit.
Thunderstorms also bring sudden water run off down streets and sidewalks. In the long term, a permanent construct could help channel water through the center of Elkhorn, creating flood control
that could save business owners’ properties in future flood events. A Zen rock garden style dry creek bed in the middle of two blocks of Elkhorn Ave could help solve downtown floodplain design
issues. Presumably, this would lower future FEMA flood insurance premiums to property owners. It might also provide a vehicle for funding the project through the federal government’s flood
mitigation program.
Well placed handicap accessible parking and a close downtown parking structure could allay fears of less mobile visitors having access in a pedestrian mall scenario. Or manned vehicles could be
specifically purposed for helping transport the mobility challenged much like is done in airports. The emergency vehicle access lane could be used by shuttle buses much like the Denver mall
allows transit buses.
Pedestrian malls that are successful have high volumes of tourist traffic generated by something other than the mall. We have this via Rocky Mountain National Park. Successful pedestrian mall
projects exist primarily in towns with populations of less than 100,000. They succeed in cities with dense urban cores, with people who live in them. We do not currently have a great deal of year-
round residents downtown, but a denser more livable downtown should be encouraged to create a more walkable downtown in all seasons.
Which is preferable, a tourist stuck in traffic looking at a shop’s window, or a tourist able to walk right in and buy something? Let’s give an Elkhorn pedestrian mall a try!
5
Laura Brown 5/16/2020 - Greg,
David Bard posed some questions to you and you tried to answer. I have one huge comment to you, speaking as a business owner. The proposed Elkhorn pedestrian only proposal is not feasible!
First, my business is located in the Pembrook Plaza next to Poppy's and Mama Rose's restaurants. All three of our businesses receive Fed Ex and UPS shipment daily if not weekly. My business
receives large boxes of 8 to 10 at a time and are extremely heavy (per shipment). The boxes are often full of jars of jams and jellies and sauces. There would be no way to take my car to a
separate location for pick up. The boxes are too large and too heavy to lift, and there would be no way to ever fit them in a car! Some of my shipments come on a large pallet and require a
motorized lift to bring to my front door. Our businesses along that part of Elkhorn Ave do not have a back door loading area. The river backs up to the riverwalk sidewalk. What would be your
solution to that problem? Secondly, how is this proposal going to make us healthier??? Where is the data to back up that bad idea???
I would appreciate your comments.
Thanks
Kathy Uribe
Page 37 of 42 104
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
6 Laura Brown 5/16/2020 (2nd Email) - Good morning Vanessa and Greg,
We wanted to write in regard to the ideas flowing around town about creating a pedestrian mall. In our experience, after
owning the Big Horn Restaurant for 15 years, this would be devastating for West Park Center if the cut off point is at
Spruce or east of that point.
We frequently heard “We’re so glad we found you when we drove by.” With no drive-by traffic, many older guests and
the guests we have who are not physically active, would never get to the end of the downtown area. They simply would
not walk that far or move on past the stop point. We have seen that with the parking garage, that many guests do not
want to walk or are not able to walk, but want to be parked near their destination. Beyond that, where would people park
to reach the west end mall area conveniently?
Moreover, the Big Horn is not the only business in West Park Center. The Design center, the thrift shops and other little
consignment shops that are there would not survive without drive by traffic. Many visitors, not just locals are “thrifters”
and they would not be able to conveniently access this area. The owner of the buildings on the west end of our parking
lot is readying to rent, and it would severely limit the types of businesses he would be able to attract if the Center is cut
off.
If this were to become a reality, I think there needs to be a way to include West Park Center to the walking mall area, but
in any event, we are opposed to the idea.
7
Laura Brown (3rd Email) 5/20/2020 - Good afternoon Wendy and Travis,
We know you are inundated with so many views on how Estes should proceed, but we did feel that we’d like to share our view of a possible pedestrian mall. We sent a version of this earlier to
Greg and Vanessa. Thank you for listening and thank you for the work you are doing. And we tried to come up with one idea below!! Not easy. Laura and Sid
We wanted to write in regard to the ideas flowing around town about creating a pedestrian mall. In our experience, after owning the Big Horn Restaurant in West Park Center for 15 years, this
would be devastating for the west end of town if the cut-off point is at Spruce or east of that point. We frequently heard, “We’re so glad we found you when we drove by.” With no drive by traffic,
many older guests and the guests we have who are not physically active, would never get to the end of the downtown area. They simply would not walk that far or move on past the stop point.
We have seen that with the parking garage, that many guests do not want to walk or are not able to walk, but want to be parked near their destination. Beyond that, where would people park to
reach the west end pedestrian mall area conveniently? We are not a Boulder or Denver with parallel streets running the length of the pedestrian mall. Moreover, the Big Horn is not the only
business in West Park Center. The Design center, the thrift shops and other consignment shops that are there would not survive without drive by traffic. Many visitors, not just locals are
“thrifters,” and they would not be able to conveniently access this area. The owner of the buildings on the west end of our parking lot is readying to rent, and it would severely limit the types of
businesses he would be able to attract if the Center is cut off. We don’t know if the current thought is to block a short area of Elkhorn, but guests will still be going into stores, walking the rest of
Elkhorn together so we’re not sure if this would really aid in safety. Perhaps using one of the parking areas mid-town with tables spread out for guests to take their to-go meals would add more to
the social distancing aspect. Or adding spread out tables in Bond Park for people to rest and be apart. If this were to become a reality, I think there needs to be a way to include West Park Center
to the walking mall area, but in any event, we are opposed to the idea. If cut off, it would be a decisive blow for these businesses and definitely could not happen with the roundabout incomplete.
Thank you for listening to our thoughts. We know this is a difficult time for everyone, and we appreciate your concern
for our town.
Sincerely,
Laura and Sid Brown
Page 38 of 42 105
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
8 Claudine Perrault 5/12/2020 - I'm very interested in the 'stay healthy streets' concept. Regrettably, I can't participate in Friday's event.
Since I cannot attend, may I pass on my request to you? It is to ask that this summer, Elkhorn is blocked off to vehicular
traffic in order to encourage social distancing, and allow that space for pedestrians instead.
The Library is eager to participate in any events on Elkhorn Avenue that can benefit our neighboring businesses, and of
course, retail customers and library patrons.
Thank you,
Claudine
9
Candace Mohr 5/19/2020 (Snowy Peaks Winery) - Just found this in my draft folder, a little late but I’m sending it anyway. Thanks for your help with Loop questions yesterday. One other thing, is it
still running on schedule? Thanks for doing the meeting with the Chamber this morning. I didn’t make any comments in the meeting, as I wanted to take some time to think about it. I imagine you
noticed that coming to consensus with downtown business owners is a challenging thing. So my two cents as a periphery business owner. I think it might be worth pursuing closing the West end
of Elkhorn (west of Moraine) to add an area for people to eat. That would also provide some pedestrian space, although that end of the street doesn’t usually get as crowded. I think you’d want to
get buy in from most of the businesses on that end to make that go smoothly. I think closing other parts of Elkhorn would create more headaches than it would solve. Traffic is already a mess and
there aren’t any good alternatives for rerouting cars around it. Even if we have lower visitation this summer, it would take a lot less to make a dent in our traffic backups. I would be concerned
with causing more confusion for guests than we’ll already have with changes to the park entrance policies. Speaking as a local trying to navigate road closures this spring, it’s pretty frustrating
when you know your way around and there aren’t very many cars, it would be really hard on visitors who are trying to use GPS/phone maps to navigate. Doing it for part of the day would not only
be hard on Town staff, but confusing for people who are going to and from the park throughout the day. Plus trying to keep
pedestrians out of the way and safe while moving barriers would be a big challenge. Allowing some vehicles (deliveries/pick-ups) to access the closed areas seems like it would be dangerous, it’s
hard to get people to pay attention under the best of circumstances, having to part the crowd to allow a car or truck though would be a challenge for the poor soul who would have to manage it.
No matter what you do, some group is going to hate it. We have enough strife and additional stress at the moment without adding another “family feud”. Doing nothing usually doesn’t cause as
much turmoil. It seems like the main problem is in the late afternoons. Perhaps the Park having staggered entry will spread out the people visiting downtown, too. That would help with the
crowding. Maybe spreading the word that downtown is less crowded earlier in the day would also get people to spread out their visits.
Thanks,
Candice Mohr
10 Kay Rosenthal 5/13/2020 - HI,
I am not a business owner in EP however, I am a resident. My husband and I have lived here since 1992. I would like to submit my support for re-purposing downtown streets for EP to facilitate
social distancing.
Thanks for being open to creative ideas that are being used elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Kay Rosenthal PhD, RN
Page 39 of 42 106
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
11 David Bard (3rd Email) - Hi Greg,
While I appreciate the hard work it will take to come to a conclusion about the ped mall concept, I must say that many
do not share the same conclusions concerning masking. There are MANY other current science-based and physician
written papers that show the relative harm masking does to a person's body. I, for one, am a past health care provider
with the US Navy and the Army. After many, many hours of personal protection training I can tell you these cloth face
masks and coverings do absolutely nothing contrary to other media reports. Kathy, also, is a health care instructor and
states the same. I had no less than three front line RNs this past weekend visit my shop and tell us the ordinance is
ridiculous. I would be more than happy to stand in front of any town administration and repeat this. As I have in
numerous emails. This past weekend there were oh so many wearing below the nose, pulling down to smoke a
cigarette, eating, etc. And as for "mask free areas"... please don't. The town needs to adopt the Larimer County
guidelines. Provide education, guidance and support. It is not the Town's job to tell us what's best for Individuals, nor is
it the Town's job to manage our personal health - it is the Town's job to provide education and support. Individuals can
choose to stay home, wear a mask or not.
Thanks Greg, be well.
David
12
Daniel Williams 5/17/2020 - Greetings Mr. Muhonen,
I have lived in Estes Park the entirety of my almost 57 years. 32 of those years I worked in the 100 block of East Elkhorn Avenue as either an employee or business owner. I'm sure there are many
challenging issue with regard to this coming summer. I understand that the town is considering turning part of Elkhorn Avenue into a pedestrian mall temporarily given concerns over covid-19. My
assumption is that the 100 blocks of East and West Elkhorn would be the targeted area of "conversion". If this is the case the only viable detour of traffic would be to 34 bypass via the intersection
of 34 and 36 or up MacGregor Avenue. Then down Bighorn Drive to access Moraine Avenue.
These are my concerns.
First and foremost Bighorn Drive is whole unsuited for such traffic. Especially for larger vehicles like RV's, fifth wheel trailers, and semi tractor trailers.
Second but no less important. I believe this particular summer crowds will be lighter than usual as many people may not have the money to travel and the general uneasiness generated by public
perception about the economy. This is not the time for half baked experiments that haven't been fully studied.
Finally deliveries to those blocks would become a logistical nightmare. I understand the town board is considering these measures to encourage people to linger longer in town. If traffic is lighter
than a typical summer which is likely I'd suggest lifting the time limits on downtown parking. I would also stress
the importance of the corner police (and all downtown employees) being exceptionally curtious to our visitors.
These are my opinions given my downtown experience. Take them for what they are worth.
Sincerely,
Dan Williams
Chamber of Commerce Comments (5/15/2020)
1
From melissa@birdandjim.com to Everyone: 11:15 AM - I think it could be a good idea for distancing but concerned with traffic flow and congestion leading to negative overall experience.
2 From Annie Vest to Everyone: 11:16 AM
Have a pass to place in cars of those who live in the downtown area so they can come and go
3
From melissa@birdandjim.com to Everyone: 11:17 AM
Yes try once and see what traffic flow happens. Being on the outskirts of town of course worry about people getting through to other businesses and the Park
4
From Annie Vest to Everyone: 11:18 AM
The concept of how we do Halloween would be a great idea. I drive through downtown everyday to get to my cabins. Its a mess and the downtown stores get bypassed a lot is my opinion
Page 40 of 42 107
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
5 From Erik Stensland to Everyone: 11:19 AM
If RMNP is going to do their scheduled construction project at Deer Ridge Junction, that would make TRR unreachable via Beaver Meadows, so it might be a good time to divert all of that traffic to
Fall River Road.
6 From Cathy to Everyone: 11:20 AM
A 2020 summer season change, then reassess in 2020 autumn?
7 From Annie Vest to Everyone: 11:20 AM
Could there be a flashing sign stating if you are going to the park then this is the direction to go. If going to downtown for shopping then this is where you travel to. Hard to explain but hopefully
you get the idea
8 From Patti Aldridge to Everyone: 11:20 AM
Cathy, I think that is a great idea
9 From Erik Stensland to Everyone: 11:21 AM
It would be great to try this in June while things are a bit slower to see if it works before applying it to the entire summer.
10 From Annie Vest to Everyone: 11:24 AM
Some people have no intention of going into the park, at least my guests don't always go into the park....weird but they don't. They are here to shop and do other things. The downtown area really
needs to get some attention since COVID has hurt everyone!!! My guests often state they wanted to shop but
were overwhelmed with all the cars and no parking to be found
11 From Patti Aldridge to Everyone: 11:32 AM
Could stores have a pass that allows that one car in like the delivery trucks? I really believe that some kind of one way traffic around downtown will decrease congestion to the park and make
people less frustrated.
12
From Erik Stensland to Everyone: 11:33 AM
European cities had the same perspective about the challenges of closing their downtowns to traffic, but what they found in the end is that business significantly increased when opened to foot
traffic. Even the elderly make great use of the pedestrian areas. Perhaps there are ways we could deliver packages to the vehicles of the elderly.
13
From Jessica’s iPhone to Everyone: 11:37 AM
We have had only positive comments from visitors in our stores (right on Elkhorn). I think positive signage and communication is key to a successful pedestrian mall.
14 From Patti Aldridge to Everyone: 11:37 AM
There will be another surge of COVID. If you look at all other pandemics. July may be a time we want at least the same if not more distance.
15 From melissa@birdandjim.com to Everyone: 11:38 AM
I am like the idea in the overall grand scheme but the quick implement and traffic will be an issue. Another troubled intersection will be the turn from Riverside onto Mary’s Lake. The traffic
backed up on Riverside for this turn and then the traffic again back up from that turn to the Mary’s Lake and 36
intersection.
16
From Cathy to Everyone: 11:40 AM
We do have certain SUPER high traffic weekends/holidays - would there be a possibility of trying a Halloween style street closure/usage for those days? Like 4th of July.
17
From melissa@birdandjim.com to Everyone: 11:40 AM
Also if we are doing this on certain days and times it will be confusing to get the message to visitors that do want to just get to the park. You could divert Park traffic to Fish Creek turning on 36
18 From Erik Stensland to Everyone: 11:41 AM
One thing that has not been mentioned is that Tom Gonzales the Larimer County Health Director was strongly in favor of this approach for Estes Park. He mentioned it about 3 times during the
last town meeting.
Page 41 of 42 108
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING STAY HEALTHY STREETS SURVEY
19
From Annie Vest to Everyone: 11:44 AM
Because I travel the route of 34 to Moraine out to 36 and then to 66 I can tell you that one of the biggest issues as far as why there is a back up is that people are leaving up to 3 to 4 car lengths
apart between each other. This stretches out the length of cars and causes a huge bottle neck. This mainly occurs out
on 36 heading towards Marys Lake........especially during the time when people start heading out of the park......around 3-5 pm.
20 From ben ferguson to Everyone: 11:51 AM
Helen Hahn: I am opposed to pilot test before Wonderview is open .Making the RMNP experience even more difficult is not helpful to tourism.
21 From Annie Vest to Everyone: 11:52 AM
People LOVE the outdoor mall in Boulder....why cant we give them that same feeling?
22 From Kirby Hazelton to Everyone: 12:01 PM
For the record, this may actually benefit Rock Cut because more people would be pushed toward our space via Riverside :) but we are always looking at it from a community perspective, not just
our own - hence my comments.
23 From Mark Igel to Everyone: 12:01 PM
This is supposed to be a solution to a public health crisis.
24 From melissa@birdandjim.com to Everyone: 12:02 PM
Again concerned about traffic and our visitors getting to the Park with out a huge mess.
25 From Mark Igel to Everyone: 12:03 PM
THANKS for this opportunity to discuss this issue :-)
26 From Annie Vest to Everyone: 12:03 PM
I am concerned about the safety of our guests and merchants, etc. I didn't mean to get off topic
Page 42 of 42 109
6/11/2020
STAY HEALTHY
STREETS
A Pilot Program for
Downtown Estes Park
Town of Estes Park
Department of Public Works
Town Board Study Session
June 9, 2020
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
Purpose
&
Context
4 SHS
Options
Outreach
•TAB
•Community
Q&A
110
6/11/2020
PURPOSE & CONTEXT
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
4
PURPOSE
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•Protection of public health by
provision of space for expanded
physical distancing
•Encouragement of visitation thru
reduction of fear of virus exposure
•Provision of new outdoor space for
business & restaurant services
•Improve the safety of walking and
biking downtown
•Encourage use of the parking
structure and new electric trolley
111
6/11/2020
5
CONTEXT
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•Impossible to maintain 6’ of
separation during busy days
•Some people stay away when
they are afraid of exposure to
COVID-19
•Communities in CO & across the
country are repurposing streets
for improved social distancing &
restaurant expansion
•CDOT is exploring new funding
for multimodal options in local
communities
4 STAY HEALTHY STREETS OPTIONS
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
112
6/11/2020
7
WEEKEND TEST
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•Every option brings both benefits & challenges (see plan)
•Test one option over a Friday through Sunday in July
(after the Wonderview roundabout is complete)
•Team with the community to evaluate the effectiveness
of the test. Learn the following:
o Did the lane repurposing improve or harm the guest’s sense of
safety and enjoyment of their time in Estes?
o Were business sales improved or harmed?
o Did this approach to crowd management reduce or advance the
spread of the COVID-19 virus?
o What unintended adverse consequences resulted from this test?
o Should this pilot program be repeated? If yes, for what duration?
8
OPTION 1 Lane Reductions (no detour)
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•Reduce the number of traffic lanes on Elkhorn Ave to one
in each direction (barricades not shown in graphic).
•Between Riverside Drive and Weist Drive, the northern
lane is repurposed for pedestrian use.
•Between Wonderview Ave and Riverside Drive, the
southern lane is similarly repurposed.
113
6/11/2020
9
OPTION 1 Lane Reductions (no detour)
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
10
OPTION 2 Limited Closure
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•Close Elkhorn Avenue to motorists between Riverside
Drive and Spruce Drive.
•Repurpose the outer traffic lanes for pedestrians.
•Close southern lane east of Riverside Drive to Kind Coffee
114
6/11/2020
11
OPTION 2 Limited Closure
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•Within the closure area, the center lane remains open for
use by emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, bikes, & the
new electric trolley. Access control by CSO’s.
12
OPTION 2 Limited Closure
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
115
6/11/2020
13
OPTION 3 Limited Closure + Lane Reductions
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•Same as Option 2 with the addition of the north lane
repurposed for pedestrians East of Riverside Drive.
14
OPTION 3 Limited Closure + Lane Reductions
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
116
6/11/2020
15
OPTION 4 No Change
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•No change to the
downtown traffic
patterns.
•No new accommodation
for physical distancing
or alternate modes of
transportation.
•Visitors free to self-
select distancing based
on their own perception
of risk.
OUTREACH
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
117
6/11/2020
17
OUTREACH –PROCESS
Completed Effort:
Draft proposal discussed with the citizen
Transportation Advisory Board on May 12th
Presented first draft of pilot program to Chamber of
Commerce member on May 15th.
Revised draft pilot program per public comments &
distributed for TAB review & comment on May 28th
Draft policy and survey released to the public May 29th.
Community input survey closed June 4th.
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
18
OUTREACH –PROCESS
Future Effort:
•Town Board study session discussion June 9th
•Potential weekend program test in July
•Public evaluation survey to follow weekend test
•Report survey results to Town Board in August
•Seek future direction to expand or terminate the pilot
program.
•Pursue grant funding if directed to expand the pilot
program implementation.
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
118
6/11/2020
19
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (Chamber & TAB input)
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•Fear exists on multiple fronts.
o Fear of spreading the virus if we do nothing.
o Fear that loss of drive-by traffic will hurt business activity.
o Fear of introducing another divisive issue to further polarize our
community. Some state this proposal is an overreaction.
o Fear of no riders on our free electric trolley.
•Optimism abounds. This is the time for the Town to help
secure the safety of our visitors and help local businesses &
employees recover from the pandemic impacts.
•A desire was expressed for the Town to consider an option
that does not require a detour. See the new Option 1.
•TAB feedback summary presented by Chair Belle Morris
20
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (community survey input)
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•The survey is an informal collection of community
sentiment. It is not scientific or statistically
significant. Many passionate comments were received.
•736 respondents read the plan. 40 did not.
•Two data sets are summarized for comparison
o All responses
o Filtered responses. Some individuals acknowledged
responding to the survey multiple times. Identical responses
reported on >2 surveys received from the same IP address
were filtered and removed for a separate comparative analysis.
This effort confirmed the difference between the two data sets
is not significant.
119
6/11/2020
21
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (community survey input)
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
•The summary of All Responses is:
•The summary of the Filtered Responses is:
776
responses
59%
Support a test
41%
Want No Change
722
responses
38%
Want No Change62%
Support a test
22
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (community survey input)
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
All Responses (776 total)
•6% (47 responses) prefer testing Option 1 (no
detour)
•12% (93 responses) prefer testing Option 2
(limited closure)
•35% (270 responses) prefer testing Option 3
(limited closure plus lane restrictions)
•41% (316 responses) request No Change in the
existing traffic patterns downtown (Option 4).
•6% (50 responses) suggest a different test
configuration (Option 5).
120
6/11/2020
23
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (community survey input)
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
Distribution of All Responses
Option 1
6% (47)
Option 2
12% (93)
Option 3
35% (270)
Option 4
41% (316)
Option 5
6% (50)
24
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (community survey input)
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
Filtered Responses (722)
•6% (47 responses) prefer testing Option 1 (no
detour)
•13% (93 responses) prefer testing Option 2 (limited
closure)
•36% (257 responses) prefer testing Option 3 (limited
closure plus lane restrictions). 13 filtered
•38% (275 responses) request No Change in the
existing conditions downtown (Option 4). 41 filtered
•7% (50 responses) suggest a different test
configuration (Option 5).
121
6/11/2020
25
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (community survey input)
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
Distribution of Filtered Responses
Option 1
6% (47)Option 2
13% (93)
Option 3
36% (257)
Option 4
38% (275)
Option 5
7% (50)
26
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (survey comments)
Key Themes Expressed in Written Comments (Option 1)
This is least restrictive &
easiest for emergency vehicles1
Minimizes RMNP traffic
diversion & associated inpacts
along detour routes
2
Better protects the need for
drive-by traffic seeing downtown
& W Elkhorn businesses
3
Give some form of Healthy
Streets option a try. Worthwhile
to test non-binding ideas.4
5
One-way sidewalks would help6
Increased outdoor distancing has
diminished benefit
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
122
6/11/2020
27
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (survey comments)
Key Themes Expressed in Written Comments (Option 2)
Best option. Balances need to
relieve ped congestion with
negative impacts1
One week-end pilot period is too
short to fairly assess the impacts2
Increases visitor enjoyment of
downtown Estes—fun atmosphere3
Careful thought needed for
detouring traffic to RMNP4
5
Hurts traffic flow around
downtown6
Keeps our community safe.
People are dying from this virus.
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
28
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (survey comments)
Key Themes Expressed in Written Comments (Option 3)
Supports giving pedestrians
space to spread out & move
around
1
More people will come
downtown and stay longer. Good
for visitor and for business2
Pedestrians make purchases, not
drivers. Make it fun, safe & easy3
Don’t overwhelm the north
entrance into RMNP4
5
A trial is essential to learn
impacts to traffic, parking,
businesses, & eating ice cream6
This virus is not over. Our older
demographic must be protected.
Mandatory masks.
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
123
6/11/2020
29
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (survey comments)
Key Themes Expressed in Written Comments (Option 4)
No good alternative routes for
detouring heavy summer
traffic. Unbearable congestion
1
Stop interfering with people’s
lives. Record sales June 6
weekend. No fear to visit Estes.2
Do not try to fix what is not
broken. Enough division in the
community.
3
Keep us safe by not encouraging
more people to come to town. 4
5
All the options will kill business
in downtown. Don’t test in July.6
Test will delay, confuse, & anger
visitors. Do not change the
familiar guest experience.
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
30
OUTREACH –WHAT WE LEARNED (survey comments)
Key Themes Expressed in Written Comments (Option 5)
Wait to see if fewer visits to
RMNP help before spending $$
on expensive barriers 1
Safest option is a full closure of
downtown streets. Permanently2
Reinstate the mask order3
Fully open all the businesses with
no restrictions4
5
Implement one-way sidewalks
and one-way streets6
Study and determine the safe
visitor capacity of EP. Limit
visitation accordingly.
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
124
6/11/2020
•Staff proposes to explore expanded physical distancing by
testing Option 2 on a Friday through Sunday.
•Dates remain to be determined based on CDOT approval of
the traffic management plan & receipt of grant funding for
additional barricades.
•Does the Town Board have concerns or other guidance for
staff regarding this proposed weekend test?
•Other questions or comments?
Q&A DISCUSSION
Stay Healthy Streets Pilot Program
125
565656126
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: June 9, 2020
RE: Land Use Planning Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE x LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION x OTHER Study Session
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES x NO
Objective:
Provide background materials presented to Town Board of Trustees and Board of
County Commissioners, in order to convey a brief history of IGA discussions preceding,
and primarily during, 2019, when the now-expired IGA and future options were under
review.
Present Situation:
Currently there is no IGA between the Town and County for land use, the previous one
having expired April 1, 2020, and no new IGA having been agreed upon by majority
vote of each governing body. At present the Town and County have separate
Development Codes, separate Official Zoning Maps, and separate procedures for
review by Town and County staff, appointed officials (Planning Commissions and
Boards of Adjustment), and governing bodies. Each jurisdiction deals with land within its
jurisdictional boundary in Estes Valley.
Although legally separate regulations, the County Development Code and Official
Zoning Map in unincorporated Estes Valley closely resemble the Town’s Code and
Zoning Districts inside the Town. This was done by design, to keep a high degree of
continuity with the former Joint Development Code and unified Zoning Map.
Proposal:
There is no proposal per se at this time, to staff’s knowledge. Rather, the Town Board
has expressed interest in reviewing the content and possible options available, in case
a new Town-County land use IGA should be deemed appropriate.
29575757127
There is a gigantic volume of material from 2019 and earlier on IGA alternatives and
possibilities. Staff has provided the primary items in your packet this evening. (We have
over 100 electronic files of additional materials, should a deeper dive be of interest…)
For the best, and quickest, initial overview of the recent history and options, I would
suggest the following attachments be reviewed in this order (numbers correspond to
attachment numbering):
1. Larimer County Estes Park IGA Discussion for July 2019 (powerpoint presentation
with a good summary; presented at the July 29, 2019 Joint Town Board-Board of
County Commissioners public meeting)
3. TB-BCC staff memo - IGA Joint mtg - 2019-09-30
12. TB-BCC staff memo - IGA Joint mtg for November 14, 2019
15. Analysis Current and New IGA comparisons with overlay district outline (this may be
easier to follow if read in conjunction with Attachments 13 (Option B) and 14 (Option
C)
Advantages:
Discussion item only; no specific advantages or disadvantages identified at this time
Disadvantages:
Discussion item only; no specific advantages or disadvantages identified at this time
Action Recommended:
Discussion item only
Finance/Resource Impact:
n/a
Level of Public Interest
Low to medium among stakeholders in general; high for some stakeholders
Attachments:
1.Larimer County Estes Park IGA Discussion for July 2019 - LINK
2.Memo to Town re IGA 090919 - LINK
3.TB-BCC staff memo - IGA Joint mtg - 2019-09-30 - LINK
4.Attachment A Sixth Amendment to County and Estes IGA for the Estes Valley - LINK
5.Estes Valley Planning Commission Resolution in Support of the JPA (2019-09-17) - LINK
6.Pros and Cons for Retaining the JPA by Bob Leavitt (2019-09-24) - LINK
7.PROS and CONS of existing IGA (Randy Hunt) (2019-09-25) - LINK
8.Small Group Discussion Notes from the July 29, 2019 Listening Session - LINK
9.IGA questionnaire results (2019-08) - LINK
10.Comment Forms Received online (2019-07 and 08) - LINK
11.IGA with County for Joint Planning and Amendments - LINK
12.TB-BCC staff memo - IGA Joint mtg for November 14, 2019 - LINK
13.IGA OptionB_Nov 14 2019 - LINK
14.IGA OptionC_Nov 14 2019 - LINK
15.Analysis Current and New IGA comparisons with overlay district outline - LINK
30585858128
COMMUNITY CONVERSATION JULY 29, 2019
THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING AREA
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS?
•Continue ongoing conversation:
•Elected officials met in February
•Town and County managers exchanged letters in May
•Provide information about the Town of Estes and
County Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) related to
the Estes Valley Planning Area (“the Planning Area”)
•Describe the IGA’s history, mechanics, and relationship
to the Comprehensive Plan
•Discuss future options for cooperative land use planning
•Seek public input
129
HISTORY OF COOPERATIVE PLANNING
IN THE ESTES VALLEY
HISTORY OF PLANNING AND THE IGA
•Early 1990s – Decided to have joint land use planning for
the Estes Valley Planning Area. The Comprehensive Plan
Task Force started the joint Comprehensive Plan
•1996 - Comp Plan adopted as part of the Larimer County
Master Plan and in 1997 as the Town’s Comprehensive
Plan
•Apr. 25, 1996 - House Bill 96-1119 was signed into law by
Gov. Romer
•Feb. 1, 2000 - First Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
approved between Town of Estes and Larimer County.
The Estes Valley Development Code and Zoning Plan
were effective 130
CURRENT IGA EXPIRES FEB 2020
ITS COMPONENTS:
1. Estes Valley Planning
Commission (EVPC)
•4 County-appointed and 3
Town-appointed members to
review developments in the
Estes Valley.
2. Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment (EVBOA)
•that is jointly appointed (3
Town and 2 County).
3. Policies for annexation
CURRENT IGA – COMPONENTS,
CONT.
4. Estes Valley Development Code and zoning
throughout the Planning Area
5. Decision-making authority with respective elected
representatives. EVPC mostly advisory, with appeals
possible to the respective governing body.
6. Generally, Town staff in Community Development
review and manage the land use code throughout the
planning area (including county area) on behalf of the
County. County staff serve as a resource. The
agreement notes staffing responsibilities and
differences related to Code Enforcement and legal
advice.
131
LATEST DISCUSSIONS
•Town of Estes has asked Larimer County Community
Development to begin to provide development review
services in the Estes Valley (unincorporated areas only)
January 1, 2020
•Town initiated discussions to allow Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) to expire and for town and county to work
together on a new/revised IGA
•Larimer County agreed to work with the Town of Estes on
these issues and host community engagement.
OTHER JOINT PLANNING EXAMPLES
132
LARIMER COUNTY
County has cooperative planning
and growth management IGAs for:
- Fort Collins
-Loveland
-Berthoud
- Windsor
Will be working with other towns
(i.e., Wellington, Timnath,
Johnstown)
LOVELAND/LARIMER COUNTY IGA
Key Components:
Also has GMA (and a
Cooperative Planning
Area and Community
Influence area).
Comprehensive
Plan: City Plan
extends into the GMA.
Code(s):
Supplementary
regulations for GMA
Overlay Zone district
conforming to city’s
plan. County refers.
133
FORT COLLINS/
LARIMER COUNTY IGA
Key Components: Cooperation
re: managing urban
development. Establishes a
Growth Management Area
(GMA).
Comprehensive Plan: County
uses City’s plan to guide
development in the GMA.
Code(s): Separate codes. County
defers to city in the GMA and
uses its code outside.
Annexation:City intends to
annex properties within the GMA
and annexes enclaves.
Other Examples
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
AND ROUTT COUNTY
Steamboat Springs Area Plan,
with study area boundary (the
light green) within which is an
Urban Growth Boundary
Annexation policies addressed.
134
Other Examples
LYONS AND BOULDER COUNTY
•IGA implements goals of town
and county comp plans and
references other partnerships.
•Lyons has a Primary Planning
Area where annexation and
development may occur (yellow).
•Also includes “Interest
Areas/Rural Preservation”
(green), and “no development
areas” (orange)
DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
135
FACILITATED DISCUSSION
(for the July 29 meeting) – 4 questions in 45 minutes
1. Three to five years from now, what is your vision of land use
and planning in the Estes Valley?
2. What do you think might be accomplished long-term with a
continued land use planning agreement between the town
and county, considering current and other examples?
3. When the Town of Estes updates the Comprehensive Plan, is it
important to plan for land uses in the Estes Valley outside
town limits, and if so how?
4. Do you have any other general input about the land use
planning agreement or how Larimer County should transition
to provide development review services starting next year?
Reconvene for report out at the end of the meeting
ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE
Through Aug. 12, go to:
www.larimer.org/planning and see link for Estes
Valley Planning
136
REFERENCE MAPS
137
LARIMER COUNTY | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
MEMORANDUM To: Travis Machalek, Town Manager, Town of Estes Valley Randy Hunt, Community Development Director, Town of Estes Valley Dan Kramer, Town Attorney From: Linda Hoffmann, County Manager Jeannine Haag, County Attorney Frank Haug, Assistant County Attorney II Lesli Ellis, AICP CEP, Community Development Director Date: September 9, 2019
Re: Estes Valley Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Options This memo is to present suggestions for next steps related to the Town and County Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for cooperative land use planning for the Estes Valley Planning Area. Earlier this year, the Town asked the County to resume development review for the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley beginning January 1, 2020. Additionally, the Town requested that the current agreement (which expires February 2020) not be renewed and that the Town and County explore other possible options for working cooperatively with respect to land use planning and development in the Estes Valley. Since that time, we’ve worked together to host a community input event and gather input via electronic means, and County staff has begun to draft intergovernmental agreement options. Additionally, the Commissioners asked County staff to work with the Town to consider two approaches to the IGA. A. The first option is to extend the existing agreement with minor amendments for one year while the parties work on reaching agreement on a longer-term cooperative land use approach. The extension would be implemented through a sixth amendment to the IGA. The sixth amendment would also provide that county planning staff will process development review applications in the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley beginning January 1, 2000. An example of such agreement is presented in Attachment A. B. The second option is to prepare an IGA that explains how the Town and County will work together on planning and address future issues such as the comprehensive plan and defining town planning and growth limits. A draft of an initial framework IGA to further discuss policy and gather Town and community feedback is provided in Attachment B.
138
Page 2
Staff has been working together to review results of the July/August community engagement and define the next stages of engagement and joint meetings of the Town Trustees and Board of County Commissioners. The next event is scheduled for Monday, September 30, 2019. On September 10, would Town staff be willing to present and discuss the two above approaches with Town Trustees? Trustees’ feedback to refine or add to one of the above options or eliminate one would help guide us to prepare for the September 30 event and provide additional analysis of options. We will share Town Trustee feedback with the Commissioners at a work session on September 16. Thank you for your consideration.
139
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Honorable Chairman Donnelly
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park
Lesli Ellis, Community Development Director, Larimer County
Date: September 24, 2019
RE: Review of Draft IGA Options for the Joint Town Board/County Commission
Meeting on September 30, 2019
Objective: Seek direction for next steps related to several cooperative planning
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) approaches prior to another joint meeting on
November 14, 2019.
Present Situation:
Earlier this year, the Town and County began to explore options for working
cooperatively with respect to land use planning and development in the Estes Valley
and alternatives to the current IGA. Since that time, we’ve worked together to host a
community input event, gather input via electronic means, and prepare agreement
options. We see that an IGA is necessary and appropriate to ensure cooperative long
range planning and seamless land-use decision-making between the County and Town.
The current discussions are about how to replace and carry forward relevant parts of
the expiring IGA into our future arrangement.
Proposal:
The current IGA contains a built-in expiration or sunset date: February 1, 2020. Staff
has suggested an earlier goal to have a new IGA in place and effective on January 1,
2020, which would entail IGA approval by both Town and County governing bodies in
approx. mid-November, 2019. The next joint meeting of the two bodies is tentatively
scheduled on Thursday, Nov. 14.
140
County and Town staff have been collaborating on draft IGA language for consideration
by the Town Board of Trustees, the Board of County Commissioners, and
stakeholders. The two attachments accompanying this memorandum – Option A and
Option B – represent two options for Town and County review, discussion, and further
refinement. County staff provided Option A along with B.
These drafts are intended to aid discussions and allow examination of elements that
need additional study or detailed work.
Staff will be prepared on Sep. 30 to explain the drafts and answer questions. We will
also share any additional information that may become available in days leading up to
the meeting, including online comments.
Here is a summary outline of the attachments:
NOTE: For the June 9, 2020 Town Board Study Session, this list has been
modified from the original Sep. 24, 2019 staff memo, so as to avoid confusion
regarding attachments that are now numbered differently. The descriptions below
are the same as in Sep. 24, except for removal of the numbering.
County staff's memo to Town staff, dated Sep. 9, 2019, which accompanied
Options A and B. June 9, 2020: Included as Attachment 2.
June 9, 2020: Attachment 3 is the memo you’re reading right now.
Attachment A (“Sixth Amendment…”) – also referenced as Option A: As the
County staff memo indicates, this is one option on the table; it essentially
maintains the status quo in the current IGA for approximately one year, except to
specify that County staff will begin processing of County applications Jan. 1,
2020, and no payment from the County to the Town for those services is required
in 2020. (These elements are already reflected in both Town and County draft
2020 budgets.) Town staff made no changes to County staff’s draft. June 9,
2020: Included as Attachment 4.
An Estes Valley Planning Commission Resolution in Support of the JPA, dated
Sep. 17, 2019. June 9, 2020: Included as Attachment 5.
An additional commentary document from Planning Commission Chair Bob
Leavitt, writing on his own. June 9, 2020: Included as Attachment 6.
A Town staff compilation of "Pros and Cons" for the current IGA. (Please note
that this compilation is included as a result of various requests for a document
along these lines. It is a commentary from Town staff and should not be
construed as a formal position. As noted, County staff have not played a role in
this document’s preparation.) June 9, 2020: Included as Attachment 7.
Notetakers' comments from the July 29 listening session. June 9, 2020: Included
as Attachment 8.
Data and comments from the online questionnaire in July-August. June 9, 2020:
Included as Attachment 9.
141
Comment forms received online from the same time frame. June 9, 2020:
Included as Attachment 10.
The “original” IGA, adopted Feb. 1, 2000, and including all amendments through
Jan. 1, 2017. June 9, 2020: Included as Attachment 11.
Advantages:
Provides a framework for Town Board and County Commission discussion
regarding the IGA
Allows staff, the public, and all stakeholders to consider various alternatives
for proceeding with a joint Town/County cooperative planning structure
Disadvantages:
Although there are undoubtedly pros and cons to each alternative presented
(and likely pros and cons for all alternatives), there is no intrinsic
disadvantage to have options made available and discussing them.
Action Recommended:
Town and County staff think that either option is feasible. However, staff recommend
proceeding with further development of Option B, with consideration to addressing
board transitions such as those presented in Attachment 5A.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A at this time.
Level of Public Interest:
High interest in the joint planning framework and the IGA in general. It is unknown what
level of public interest may exist regarding the options themselves.
Attachments:
NOTE for June 9, 2020: Staff removed this list of attachments from the Sep. 24,
2019 memo to avoid confusion in numbering. Please refer to June 9, 2020 cover
memo for the list of current attachments in sequence.
142
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO AND
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK , COLORADO
This Sixth Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement Between Larimer County,
Colorado (“County”) and the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Town”) is made and effective this
_______ day of September 2019.
I. RECITALS
WHEREAS, County and Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement effective February
1, 2000, (“IGA”) addressing their rights and responsibilities with respect to land use, zoning and
development within the Estes Valley, an area comprised of the Town and a defined area of
unincorporated Larimer County adjacent to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the IGA has been subsequently amended five times; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the fifth amendment, the IGA is set to expire February ______, 2020;
and
WHEREAS, the Town and County seek to amend the IGA pursuant to this Sixth Amendment.
II. CONSIDERATION
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the County and Town’s mutual covenants, promises
and agreements stated herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the County and Town agree as follows:
III. TERMS
1. The IGA and five subsequent amendments thereto are modified to extend the termination
date of the IGA to and including February ________, 2021.
2. Commencing January 1, 2020, the County shall undertake at its own cost and expense to
process all land use applications that are submitted for properties within the unincorporated areas
of the Estes Valley and cease payments to the Town for such services. The Town shall
undertake at its own cost and expense to process all land use applications that are submitted for
properties within the Town municipal limits of the Estes Valley.
3. Except as amended herein, the IGA and all five subsequent amendments shall remain in
full force and effect as written.
143
Sixth Amendment to IGA
Larimer County and Town of Estes Park
Page Two
Dated and effective as of the first date written above.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF LARMER COUNTY, COLORADO
By:
_________________________________ Tom Donnelly, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Clerk to the Board
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By: _________________________________
Todd A. Jirsa, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Town Clerk
DATE ________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
COUNTY ATTORNEY
DATE ________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
TOWN ATTORNEY
144
ResolutionInSupportoftheJointPlanningAreaBelowisaresolutioninsupportoftheJointPlanningArea,whichwasapprovedunanimouslyattheEVPCmeetingonFebruary19,2019,andrevisedandreapprovedonSeptember17,2019.WetheEstesValleyPlanningCommissionstronglysupporttheEstesValleyJointPlanningArea(JPA)andtherelatedIntergovernmentalAgreement(IGA).Oursupportisbasedonthefollowing:•Firstandforemost,theEstesValleyisoneintegratedcommunity.Intermsofcommoncommunityinterestsandconcerns,therearenoboundariesbetweentheTownandCountyintheEstesValley.•TheEstesValleyisuniqueinthatitislandlockedandnearlyallofthelandisdeveloped.ThesizeoftheEstesValleyisnotlarge.Thus,landuseplanningthroughouttheEstesValleyisofconcerntoawiderangeofTownandCountyresidents.•Itmakescompletesensethatlanduseplanninginsuchaconfinedgeographicareabehandledonacoordinatedbasis.ThisiswhytheJPAwasimplementedmorethan20yearsago.•TheEstesValleyPlanningCommissionismuchbetterequippedtoaddresslanduseissuesintheEstesValleythantheLarimerCountyPlanningCommissionduetoourknowledgeandexperiencewithlocallanduseissues.OurfocusisontheEstesValley.TheLarimerCountyPlanningCommissionisfocusedontheentirecountyandinparticularonthefrontrangecommunitiesandtheirissues.•AprimarygoalofthenewComprehensivePlanistocreateasharedvisionforthefutureoftheEstesValley.ThiscanonlybedoneifthereisoneComprehensivePlanfortheentireEstesValley,andthiscanonlybedoneiftheJPAisretained.•TheComprehensivePlanismuchmorethanaguideforlanduseplanning.Itencompassestransportation,parking,downtownplanning,trails,utilities,wateruse,floodcontrolandmitigation,firemitigation,andmore.Thesetopicsarebydefinitionvalley-wideasislanduseplanning.•ResidentsofthecountyportionoftheEstesValleymayhaveamoredifficulttimegettingtheirconcernsaddressedbytheircountyrepresentatives(theLarimerCountyPlanningDepartment,LarimerCountyPlanningCommission,andtheCountyCommissioners).TheseCountyofficialshavebusyschedulesandmayattimeshavemorepressingissuestoaddressthantheconcernsofEstesValleyresidents.AllthisactivitywilltakeplaceinFortCollinsratherthanEstesPark,unlessspecialmeetingsareheldinEstesPark.145
•IftheJPAisdissolvedthecountyportionoftheEstesValleywillcomeundertheCounty’sComprehensivePlanandDevelopmentCode.ZoninginthecountyportionofthevalleywillhavetoberedonesincetheCountydoesnothavethesamezoningdistrictsaswehaveintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode.Protectionsprovidedtoresidentsbycurrentzoningdesignationsanddevelopmentcodewillnotnecessarilybeavailableafterthisrezoning.Someneighborhoods,suchasCarriageHills,willbedividedwithoneportionunderTownzoninganddevelopmentcodesandanotherportionundercountyzoninganddevelopmentcodes.Thiswillcreatealotofconfusion.•DissolvingtheJPAwillincreasethedissentionanddisunityintheEstesValley.RetainingtheIPAtogetherwithanewvalley-wideComprehensivePlanwillincreasecooperation,collaboration,andconsensusintheEstesValley.•DissolvingtheJPAwillaccentuatethelackofrepresentationthatresidentsexperiencewhendevelopmentprojectsarebroughtforward.Therewillbenovalley-wideforumlikethePlanningCommissionwherecitizen’sviewscanbeheard.•TheexistenceoftheJPAandIGAallowustodrawontheknowledgeandexperienceofCountyplanningstaffaswedevelopourownuniquesolutionstoEstesValleylanduseissues.GiventhepotentialnegativeconsequencesofdissolvingtheJPAandthelikelihoodofadditionalunintendedconsequences,andthelackofcompellingreasonsfordissolvingtheJPAItheresponsiblecourseofactionistoretaintheJPAandfixexistingproceduralproblemsbyrevisingtheIGA.GiventhecriticalimportancethattheJPAhasplayedinEstesValleyplanning,nogoverningbodyshouldproposetodissolvetheJPAunlessithasidentifiedandprovidedtherationaleforanalternativethatcanworkaswellorbetterthanaJPA,EstesValleyPlanningCommissionFebruary19,2019RevisedSeptember17,2019BobLeavilt,EVPCChair146
Pros & Cons for Retaining the Joint Planning Area
By Bob Leavitt
The following comments are mine alone and not those of other EVPC members.
The Joint Planning Area (JPA) refers to an area that emcompases the Estes Valley
which is jointly governed by the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. The JPA
includes a Comprehensive Plan, a set of Development Codes, Zoning Maps, Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment that are involved in managing land use in the
Estes Valley. When I use the term “JPA” I am referring to all of these things. This paper
addresses the question of whether the JPA should be retained or eliminated in the
revised Intergovernmental Agreement. I hope it is a balanced assessment that will
further the discussion of this important issue.
It is easy to confuse the Intergovernmental Agreement with the JPA. The two are not
synonymous. The IGA encompases all of the administrative and regulatory interface
points between the Town and County. The JPA addresses the method of managing
land use (in this case jointly) within the designated planning area. Clearly there are
many areas in the IGA that are out of date and in need of revision. Director Hunt’s paper
outlines many of them. It is possible to revise the IGA and address the problem areas
that clearly need to be remedied while retaining the JPA. At this time no option that
carries out this approach has been proposed by the Town or County. I think this option
should be on the table.
Reasons for Retaining the JPA
●Supports the concept that the Estes Valley is one community with many common
interests and concerns regarding land use planning. The views of residents on
land use do not change when you cross from Town to County territory, and the
boundary itself zigzags all over the place. It’s common to find Town and County
residents across the street from each other.
●Encourages cooperative planning between the Town and County by mandating
that joint planning take place.
●Has worked well for 20 years.
●Provides for the creation of a single Comprehensive Plan and a shared vision for
land use planning and many other types of planning in the Estes Valley. If the
JPA is eliminated there will be separate Comprehensive Plans for the Town and
County portions of the Estes Valley. This makes it very difficult to have a shared
vision for the future of the Estes Valley. The Town and County will each have to
147
fund their own Comprehensive Plans, and the combined cost is likely to be
higher than if working together on a single Comp Plan. Note: A Comprehensive
Plan is much more than a land use plan. Among other things it includes
economic development, roads, trails, traffic management, utility infrastructure,
wildlife habitat conservation, and fire and flood mitigation. All of these things must
be jointly planned across the Estes Valley to have a coherent and effective
strategy for the future.
●Maintains a consistent set of development codes across the Estes Valley,
avoiding potential confusion for residents and developers.
●Provides a local forum for residents of both the Town and County portions of the
Estes Valley to air their concerns and a local body to address those concerns -
the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC).
●If the JPA is eliminated residents of the Estes Valley will have to take their
concerns to the Larimer County Planning Commission (LCPC) in Fort Collins.
However, if the LCPC holds periodic meetings in Estes Park this would reduce
the problem.
●The EVPC is better equipped to address land use questions than the LCPC
because of greater familiarity with Estes Valley land use issues.
●The LCPC is very busy, having many other areas to address besides the Estes
Valley. It may be hard to get them to focus on land use issues in the Estes
Valley.
Reasons for Eliminating the JPA
●Replaces the JPA with a widely used model for Intergovernmental Agreements
between towns and counties that has been used successfully in Larimer County
and elsewhere in Colorado. Larimer County has considerable experience with
these IGA’s.
●Removes ambiguity and confusion over the roles and responsibilities for land use
planning in the Town and County portions of the Estes Valley by clearly
separating these functions. However, the County is going to take over the review
of development plans in the County portion of the Estes Valley in any new
version of the IGA, and this will mitigate the problem if the JPA is retained.
●Implements a Town Planning Commission which may be more oriented toward
the Town’s land use planning requirements than the current EVPC.
●Some maintain that the County has an unfair advantage over the Town on the
EVPC because it has 4 members vs 3 for the Town. However, if one looks at the
voting record, meeting minutes, and recordings of EVPC meetings it’s clear that
this is not an issue. EVPC members view themselves as representing the entire
148
valley. There is no Town block or County block in terms of viewpoints and voting.
In spite of the facts, if this still remains a sticking point then one could reverse the
representation in the new IGA (4 Town, 3 County members).
●The Board of County Commissioners works closely with the Larimer County
Planning Commission (LCPC) and County staff. In contrast, the BOCC and
County staff do not work as closely with the EVPC. The EVPC works more
closely with the Trustees and Town staff. As such, it may be more effective for
the County to take over responsibility for the County portion of the Estes Valley
while the Town takes responsibility for the Town portion of the Estes Valley.
●Allows the County and Town to change zoning and development codes over time
in their respective areas of the Estes Valley to address changing needs in their
areas.
●The Estes Valley Joint Planning Area is unique in Colorado. As such, it’s unclear
how well it will adapt to the future. There is nowhere else to go in Colorado to
view other examples and share best practices with other communities and
counties. Because it is unique, future changes in state law could ignore our JPA
and have unintended consequences for the Estes Valley. However, this has not
occurred in the 20 year history of the current JPA.
One can see that there are good arguments for and against retaining the JPA. However,
two points are front and center that argue for retaining the JPA.
1.The reality that we are one community in the Estes Valley. We share the same
rivers, roads, trails, schools, hospital, library, fire district, wildlife, and mountain
views among other things. Residents of the unincorporated County area are
deeply interested in Town issues and visa versa. Decisions on land use within
the county affect residents in the town and visa versa. Residents of all parts of
the valley work and volunteer side-by-side in Town. Town businesses depend on
patronage from residents of all parts of the valley, especially during the off
season. We all share a love of the natural beauty in the Estes Valley and a desire
to preserve it. We live in one interdependent community.
2.The need for a valley-wide Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan is
supposed to represent the shared vision of the community. How can we do this
with two Comprehensive Plans? The second Comprehensive Plan is likely to be
the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan, not a separate one for the
unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan
directs the implementation of the Development Code within its jurisdiction. If we
truly need a combined Comprehensive Plan then we also need a combined
Development Code for the Estes Valley.
149
The JPA worked well for many years. Then came the Mountain Coaster project and the
issue of commercial development in residential zones. I would argue that this makes it
even more crucial that we have consistent land use planning across the Estes Valley. In
many locations we have residential development close to our remaining open areas that
could potentially have commercial development. Any development that takes place near
the border between Town and County will strongly impact residents of both areas.
Thoughtful planning is needed, with an eye toward our valley-wide Comprehensive Plan
and Development Code, to address commercial and residential development projects
as they are proposed.
Bob Leavitt
09/22/2019
150
PROS & CONS OF EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND
LARIMER COUNTY FOR JOINT PLANNING AREA, DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ZONING MAP
Randy Hunt: September 25, 2019
[NOTE: This list and the thoughts therein are primarily my own. The document has undergone review at
several Town staff levels. County staff have been provided several previous drafts since early August but
have not responded with comments at this time. Therefore, please regard this document as my
professional opinion, not necessarily representing others’ views. – RAH]
The IGA overall
• PRO: Original IGA, Comp. Plan, and Codes rectified significant differences in Town and County
plans, codes, and procedures in Estes Valley; this rectification gave us a unified Planning
environment and benefited both sets of stakeholders in general.
o It’s my understanding (secondhand, but from multiple sources) that Town and County
zoning districts and land-use Codes were significantly different prior to the EVDC’s
effective date in November 1999. Anecdotal stories are told about similar developments
or projects separated by only the Town-County boundary that went through very
different processes with very different results, despite similar circumstances. Although
no two properties are exactly alike, this does make the 1990s examination of zoning
maps and regulations appropriate, and probably necessary.
• CON: It seems apparent that many of the problems before 2000 have now been resolved; thus,
one of the organic reasons for the IGA has now been fulfilled. Improvement is always a
continuous process, of course; however, evidence suggests to staff that the biggest issues were
resolved.
o No one, to my knowledge, is proposing to turn the clock back to the 1990s and reinstate
a planning era that sounds like “benign neglect” of mutual Town and County interests.
No replacement IGA should try to undo that commonality of interest.
o Even though the commonality of interest in Estes Valley continues to exist and remains
valuable, there are differences between Town and unincorporated Valley. Two
examples:
▪ Redevelopment of older and under-utilized properties is a growing need in the
Town. The CO Hwy. 7 (South St. Vrain Ave.) commercial corridor is one example.
There are pockets of redevelopment “ripe” areas in the County, but not nearly
as many.
▪ Accommodations-zoned properties in the Town and County have some subtle
but cumulatively important differences from each other. A typical Town
Accommodations use would be one of the motels along US 34 east of
downtown. In the County, our largest single Accommodations property is the
YMCA. Both examples are accommodations uses, but they are not like each
other now and likely will not have the same future regulatory needs.
• PRO: The IGA has served, and still serves, a valuable role in requiring and facilitating cooperation
on land use between Town and County, and in setting a framework for doing so.
151
o This cooperation exists at many levels and is a sound investment, with much credit to
the existing IGA. For example, our governing bodies meet jointly at least a few times per
year; the Town and County development review staff, along with other agencies, have a
conference call every Friday.
• CON: The Town of Estes Park in particular has changed and will continue to change. Population,
visitation, and the economy have grown – quite substantially by some measures. Estes Park
arguably was not an urban place before 2000. It is now.
o In my judgment, despite being a kind of abstract point, this is the strongest argument
for a future IGA that acknowledges the Town and unincorporated Valley have different
futures. Estes Park is an urban service center for residents, visitors, businesses,
institutions, and many other stakeholders. County areas in the Valley do not generate
the same needs and stakeholders do not seem to have the same wishes, as witnessed
by public dialog in recent years. Cooperative planning is important, but recognition of
differences is also important. Municipalities are not the same as counties; municipal
businesses and services are not the same as those in counties; and so on. This difference
in destinies will only grow, not shrink, as we move deeper into the 21st century.
o The IGA’s specifics do not match the reality of balance between the County and Town
interests. The Town has somewhat more population, and definitely has more “stop and
stay” visitors (visitors are stakeholders). The Town represents a substantial majority of
the Valley’s “gross domestic product”. Land use planning and regulations are closely
related to these fundamental economic and social phenomena.
o By contrast, the unincorporated Valley has most of the land area in Estes Valley. One
significant aspect of this fact is that most existing open space (designated or otherwise)
is in the County. If there’s a community-wide will to retain or enhance that, the
opportunities will always be greater in the County - just in terms of raw material.
• CON: Some seem to assume, maybe subconsciously, that something has to be broken before we
should try to fix it. The old saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is an unhealthy belief. Virtually
no planner, citizen or professional, would call that good planning. In my view, our IGA has some
functional obsolescence – but that doesn’t mean it’s broken. This does not mean we shouldn’t
try to make our IGA better. There are other common and successful forms of IGAs that work
well to coordinate land use planning in other communities.
Specific sections of the IGA
• PRO: Sec. II (Estes Valley Planning Area) - The boundaries set in the IGA for the Joint Planning
Area still make sense geographically; the boundaries are generally good at defining a
“community of interest.” There isn’t an argument to my awareness for changing the outer
boundaries of the Planning Area.
• PRO: Sec. II (Estes Valley Planning Commission) - As with the IGA and planning in general, the
fact of a joint Town/County Planning Commission, and the cooperative value of the PC’s duties,
have benefited County and Town.
• PRO: Sec. II (Estes Valley Planning Commission) - It may be noted that split view or decisions
along Town-County lines by the PC have seemingly been rare.
152
o CON: Sec. II.B (Estes Valley Planning Commission - Membership) - The County has 57.1
percent of the membership on the Planning Commission (4 out of 7 members appointed
by the County.) This ratio does not reflect the population, economic, and stakeholder
ratios between the Town and unincorporated Estes Valley. The Town has higher than 50
percent proportions for all of these measures (some are much higher, such as visitor
numbers and economic activity.) In the other direction, the unincorporated County has
considerably more than 57.1 percent of the land area in the Valley.
▪ Although as noted there hasn’t been a recent history of Town/County divisions
on the Planning Commission, there is no clear-cut way to resolve the ratio of
Town and County membership in the event this does become an issue.
o CON: Sec. II.C (Estes Valley Planning Commission - Residency) - While board and
commission residency requirements are common and typically serve a useful purpose,
questions have been raised about the IGA’s 1-year residency requirement within the
respective jurisdiction. This has come up most recently in connection with the vacant
Town seat on the PC (which remains unfilled with no applicants after 9 months…)
o CON: Sec. II.C (Estes Valley Planning Commission - Residency) - Although not a
membership matter per se, a difference has been noted in Liaison roles to the PC. The
Town Liaison is an elected official – a member of the Town Board of Trustees. The
County Liaison role has been filled by a County Community Development Dept. staff
member. While both sets of individuals seem diligent in their respective roles with PC,
there is inevitably at least a perception that the conduits are not parallel.
o CON: Sec. II.H (Estes Valley Planning Commission – By-Laws) - A minor “con” is that by-
laws stand on their own and are typically not referenced in an IGA. Currently, this
section states that the Dec. 7, 1999 by-laws shall be the by-laws of the EVPC; in fact, the
PC has modified its by-laws multiple times since then, with Town and County governing-
body approval.
• PRO: Sec. IV (Estes Valley Board of Adjustment) - In general, this section has worked well. As
with Planning Commission, a joint Board of Adjustment has facilitated cooperative planning.
Several “cons” noted for PC, such as the imbalance of a County appointed majority, are present
here in the other direction, as 60 percent, or 3 out of 5, BoA members are Town-appointed.
While possibly the original idea was to split things equally overall with each body having a
majority from the different jurisdictions, there’s a built-in apples-to-oranges aspect, as Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment are separate bodies with very different subject matter.
• CON: There are no designated Liaisons for BoA. (Not necessarily an IGA issue.)
• PRO: Sec. V (Annexation) - Overall, this section has served us relatively well. Annexations have
occurred under the IGA provisions over the years and seem to have been orderly and rational.
Some minor difficulties exist and are noted.
o PRO: Sec. V.A (Annexation – Criteria) - The list of “threshold” proposals that trigger
annexation review and decision – e.g., larger subdivisions, commercial or industrial
development, etc. – are similar to other such trigger lists, and seem to have worked for
the Valley. The list of exclusions, while not strictly necessary, is also reasonable.
153
o CON: Sec. V.A (Annexation – Criteria) - The section requiring a signed petition in
conjunction with annexation consideration is quite rigid. An annexation petition is a
defined instrument in Colorado Revised Statutes (§31-12-107). Other land-use or
annexation IGAs in Larimer County require consideration of annexation in specific
circumstances, but none other, to staff’s knowledge, require a formal petition.
o CON: Sec. V.B (Annexation – County Roads) - In principle, this section is logical; however,
the wording leads to some rigidity and lack of discretion in annexing what may be
substandard rights-of-way, and/or roads that are maintained by HOAs but need to be
publicly maintained streets post-annexation. (To be fair, the Town also has existing
substandard rights-of-way, so this is not a County-unique concern.) A case-by-case
option for review in this section would serve stakeholders better.
o CON: Although not a “con” in the IGA itself, the fulfillment of this IGA section – or any
future IGA that deals with annexation, as it likely will have to do – should be
accompanied by a Town annexation policy. An unknown matter at this time is whether a
Town policy would go into the IGA by mutual agreement with the County, or whether it
would stand on its own. Either way, the IGA should acknowledge this element.
• PRO and CON: Sec. VI (Dev. Compliance with Other Town and County Requirements) - The intent
and overall value of this section in the IGA are positive. However, the list of regulations and
requirements is: (a) not complete; and (b) has not kept up with practice.
o CON: Sec. VI.A.1 (Compliance – Floodplain) - The IGA requires separate Town and
County jurisdictions for floodplain regulations and management. This may be
pragmatically realistic, and in fact may perhaps be a necessity under Federal or State
regulations. On the other hand, it is undeniable that floodwaters, and water in general,
do not follow neatly drawn geographical boundaries. Water management is awkward
when jurisdictions follow straight line boundaries, such as many between Town and
County.
o CON: Sec. VI.A.5 (Compliance - Drainage) - Much of the same logic in floodplains applies
to drainage as well.
o CON: Sec. VI.A.7 (Compliance – Wildfire Construction) - Also follows the same logic as
water issues above. While separate administration under Building codes would be
logical, wildfire construction does not need differential regulations. Wildfire, like floods
and drainage, is notoriously disrespectful of property and jurisdictional boundaries.
Methods and best practices should recognize that fires spread in ways that differences
in Codes can’t anticipate.
• CON: Sec. IX (Staffing and Costs) - This section is seriously flawed, and has been for some time –
perhaps always. While the intent was well-meant, seemingly stemming from an understandable
wish to save County stakeholders a long trip back and forth to Fort Collins, the structure, and
certainly the execution, of this section has been troublesome.
o CON: Sec. IX.B (Staffing & Costs – Duties of the Town Community Development Dept.) -
In conjunction with Sec. IX.B.3 (cost-sharing) this section has been dysfunctional. The
County compensation has been set at $30,000 per year to the Town per year for staff
services rendered. Additionally, the Town is authorized (Sec. VII.3) to retain County
154
application fees for County projects filed under EVDC; this varies year-to-year but to
staff’s knowledge has rarely exceeded $20,000 per year. The Town Planning division’s
annual expenditures budgeted in 2019 comes to approx. $1.2 million. Thus, around 4.2
percent of the Planning budget is paid out of County sources. Department statistics
show that in 2017-2018, around 44 percent of staff’s time was spent on County matters,
with 56 percent on Town matters. (Some duties cannot be split on Town-County lines,
such as Planning Commission expenses; those are assumed to be more or less equal.)
Time is only one measure, but an important one. This ratio is not balanced, resulting in
Town taxpayers subsidizing land use planning in the unincorporated area
o CON: Sec. IX.B (Staffing & Costs – Duties of the Town Community Development Dept.) -
Some in the community have suggested that Town staff have not performed as well in
reflecting County goals and expectations in terms of project review, code changes, and
other planning matters. The current Planning staff are in effect charged by the Town
Board (by adopted Town Board Strategic Goals, 2016 through 2019) to accelerate Code
amendments, support development, facilitate development needs for workforce
housing, and several other elements that may be fairly described as business friendly. As
in most of the country, business development, multi-unit housing, and similar
developments have always been focused more in the municipality than the
unincorporated area, for good reason. This bifurcation has grown rather than shrunk
over the years, as Estes Park has become more urban while the unincorporated Valley
has not done so at the same pace. Some residents have voiced opposition, or at least
discomfort, with additional development. Since development and especially Code
changes have focused on encouraging development or redevelopment, this pace of
change has probably resulted in divergent direction for Town and County as a whole.
This is a policy level issue, and a difficult one, for elected officials. Staff has had some
degree of trouble with reconciling issues that officials themselves also have trouble
with. One manifestation is different needs, and thus different responses from staff on
projects that are perceived by some as concerning, more so in County than Town. There
is no easy answer.
o CON: Sec. IX.E and F (Staffing & Costs – Duties of the Town Attorney and County
Attorney) - Cooperation and communication at the attorneys’ level seem to have been
more than adequate over time, but there are inevitable discrepancies, similar to the
local vs. distance elements discussed above. E.g., traditionally the Town Attorney has
been physically present at all Planning Commission meetings, with attendance a more
challenging matter (time and distance) for County legal staff. Legal services have not
notably suffered, but PC members, among others, have noted the wish for clarity in this
area. The arrangement works fine with routine, non-controversial issues; however, with
more complex issues, this can be a problem. The Town Attorney is advising staff,
Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustments, but when a County project is
challenged in Court, it is the County Attorney who must defend the case. This situation
assigns the authority for giving legal advice to the Town Attorney while the
responsibility for the advice and any subsequent consequences lies with the County
Attorney. It is a basic premise of effective management that authority and responsibility
should go hand in hand to be effective.
155
o CON: Sec. IX.I (Staffing & Costs – Improvement Guarantees) - This section of the IGA has
not been changed in years and does not match current practice. The fix goes beyond the
IGA and really needs a significant rewrite of the Development Code’s relevant sections.
Coordination between the two Engineering divisions and Building divisions, although
good in practice, does not match the IGA as written.
156
[From July 29, 2019 Listening Session: Joint Town Board / County
Commissioners public meeting – Estes Park Town Hall]
Small Group Discussion Notes
The following summary compiles notes from the six table discussions and organizes it
by, first key themes, and second the four questions that participants discussed.
TOP ISSUES/THEMES reported out from Group Discussions
• Desire for a long-range comp plan that we stick to
• Preserve wildlife/view/environment
• Diverse economy/demographic population/jobs/housing/families
• The whole Valley needs to be treated as ONE unified area
• Balance between tourism and residents
• There’s strong support for cooperative planning and uniformity in planning in the
Estes Valley Planning Area
• The elected officials and Town and County staff need to work out the details of
what is not working and how the problems can be fixed
• There needs to be communication and transparency about what’s wrong with the
IGA and how we fix it
• Citizens think many elected officials want to dissolve the IGA, but citizens want to
explore more of the why/reasons for dissolving the IGA
• Take care of these issues before the work begins on the Comprehensive Plan
QUESTION #1: Three to five years from now, what is your vision of land use and
planning in the Estes Valley?
• No workforce housing in undeveloped properties
• More/No less open space
• Remain small-character feel
• Developable land needs to be carefully studied for the highest or best use
157
• Management of vacation rentals maintain current approved levels both within Town
and in Valley
• Balance of Community needs where development should occur and where it
shouldn’t
• On Board representing all areas equally
• No commercial uses in residential areas
• Comp Plan = balance of commercial needs and long -term goals
• Balance vacation home and housing needs of others in the area
• Representation of both County/City residents – we all live in the same place.
• Need for BALANCE
• A vision that is followed
• Predictability
• Separate Board for unincorporated area/IGA
• Esthetics and livability need to be considered as much as revenue and sales tax
• Commercial interests and residential concerns need to be kept separate
• Managed employee housing
• Walkability and pedestrian traffic in town needs to be more priority
• More balanced growth with nature and RMNP
• County has more technical expertise
• Need strong evacuation plan for floods
• The key is having a uniform Comprehensive Plan and uniform development
regulations
• Need homogenous regulations
• Not a lot of difference in character between land in the town and land in the county
• Would like to see a stronger relationship instead of a weaker relationship between
the town and the county
• Concerns that the relationship will be weaker
• Has been little communication from town officials on issues
• Have strong relationship with county with county oversight over the town
• Try to depoliticize planning/keep politics out of the arena
158
• Coordinated planning is essential
• There’s limited area in the town and it’s mostly built out
• Limitation of land – coordination and cooperation extremely important
• Biggest thing going for us is we have a good planning area
• The planning area should be planned together
• There is less confusion about jurisdictions with a joint Planning Commission but
can see advantage to only having a joint Board of Adjustment
• Discussions always start with the history of cooperative planning. Circumstances
haven’t changed enough to withdraw from the IGA
• Need uniformity
• Uniformity would bring strength to the relationship
• Need to talk about the problems with the current IGA and opportunities for changes
• To evaluation the alternatives we need to know what we’re trying to achieve that
isn’t being achieved now under the current system
• We haven’t talked about the deficiencies of the current system
• We’ve talked about the alternatives but not what the problems is
• Would like elected officials to comment on what they see as the problems
• Until we explore the problems, we can’t fully evaluate alternatives
• When letters between the Town and County first became public, there were some
problems listed but the solutions to those problems haven’t been explored
• The public had never heard of most of the problems cited in the letters between the
Town and Larimer County
• How can we talk about solutions if we don’t understand the problems?
• Try to fix the problems
• Put the problems in focus
• We know that there are budgetary and staffing issues between the Town and the
County
• There have been changes in state laws – are those opportunities?
• Find out from those who work with the IGA day in and day out what the problems
are
• Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
159
• It was represented that the circumstances that led to the creation of the IGA no
longer exist – what are those circumstances?
• Need better communication about what has been resolved
• What needs to be resolved?
• Frank Lancaster wrote a letter to Larimer County about the IGA – was there
community input behind that letter?
• The Park and Forest Service need to be involved in the discussion
• More affordable housing. Smaller lot sizes, permit higher buildings to
accommodate housing needs
• Forward-looking planned land use in the whole valley
• Comprehensive Plan that is actually a PLAN which stems from the IGA
• What does the community want; the community is the whole valley, not just what is
good for tourism.
• Maintain open spaces
• Inclusive, protect values, maintain open spaces
• Like to see it not change too much
• Businesspeople want tourism which negatively impacts residents
• Year-round residents that live outside downtown area want to keep dev elopment
within city limits
• Bridge commercial interest with the rural
• Frustrated by anyone who wants to divide up their property
• How can it bridge to be better? Have Town planners listen to the homeowners
instead of always favoring the developers that want to break up land
• Should have a single comprehensive plan for the valley – should be from a land
use point. We need a comp plan with the whole valley because we share fire, rec,
school, etc.
• Two fundamental problems:
• integrated land use code – Town is driving it
• Only 3% of Larimer County residents in Estes, so they are not heard by Tom
Donnelly and other Commissioners
• Have an IGA just for county to be represented
160
• Code changes to the county - proactive by the county commissioners to protect the
interest of the county residents
• Separate advisory committee to look at County issues separately to advise the
County before code changes are adopted. Commissioners never overturn town
decisions
• Big problem is annexation. Growth management areas can be a problem up
here. Onerous annexation for one property should not be allowed because they
affect everyone
• Feels disenfranchised living in Larimer County
• Town is so commercial heavy. Favoritism is for commercial activity. We have lost
the balance.
• Raising objections causes people to be called “Nuts”.
• Would like to see trails and bike paths.
• Possibly have a no development areas.
• Also, would like to have police and other services available and not have to call the
sheriff with a problem.
• How do we get city services without having the city density?
• Services can be handled differently
• Facilitator asked me (notetaker, Linda Hardin) about having city services in county
– can Town services be provided in the County? It could happen with an IGA with
the County paying the Town for the services.
• The Town wants childcare, the town wants flood control. Anything the Town wants
they try to tax people that are outside to get that
• The town’s interest is always more development, more density
• Angry about the rezoning of 10 acres on Dry Gulch Rd to 2 acre lots BY THE
TOWN. I (Linda) explained the process of the County elected officials approving
items after recommendations from the Planning Commission. It was pointed out
that the Town planning staff pushes it through even if the PC doesn’t recommend it
• The development code is a mess - should be easier to navigate and understand
• The Town should expand the boundary a little better to create a better balance
• Need to keep affordable housing in mind. We have a lot of people coming up from
the valley to work here
161
• Changes with the development code could come following a new comprehensive
plan
• Affordable housing is a problem. One struggle is pushing commercial activities into
residential zones
• Echo – clear and concise plan that is enforced consistently. Also need affordable
housing
• More affordable housing. Smaller lot sizes, permit higher buildings to
accommodate housing needs
• Forward-looking planned land use in the whole valley
• Comprehensive Plan that is actually a PLAN which stems from the IGA
• What does the community want; the community is the whole valley, not just what is
good for tourism.
• Maintain open spaces
• Inclusive, protect values, maintain open spaces
QUESTION #2: What do you think might be accomplished long-term with a
continued land use planning agreement between the Town and County,
considering current and other GMA examples offered in the presentation?
• Better representation of County residents
• Consistent Annexation – encourage annexation regardless of fiscal impact
• Community safety
• Communication and cooperation between the County and the Town
• Remain a vibrant community
• Balanced community
• Comprehensive plan that supports businesses
• Balanced growth plan
• Limit growth upwards (2 levels rather than 5)
• We need to have a Comprehensive Plan for the entire planning area
• Cooperation facilitates comprehensive planning
• Uniformity with zoning, codes and ordinances can be accomplished
• The Comprehensive Plan is 20 years old. Is it still relevant for vacant land?
162
• Estes Park is more developed that the unincorporated area
• Looking for well managed development across the Estes Valley
• Need to have discussions about where have density, open space, protection of
wildlife – will provide for better managed growth
• Do we have enough time to come up with a new IGA?
• The elected officials don’t want to talk about extending the current IGA because if
the IGA is extended, the urgency disappears
• Needs to be more transparency with the process
• Town government needs to be more responsive and transparent with citizens
• There may always be some sort of IGA but there won’t always necessarily be
cooperative/joint planning
• From examples, are there ideas that can be used?
• Couldn’t really tell from the presentation what some ideas might be
• There is no traditional growth management area in the Estes Valley like the other
examples
• Hate to lose the IGA over political differences among the elected officials
• The process used to develop the new Comprehensive Plan needs to be fleshed out
• At a minimum we need a jointly adopted Comprehensive Plan
• Needs to be strong cooperation
• Needs to be a better demarcation of political authority
• Commissioners represent a larger population – they don’t have the same focus and
attention of the Estes Valley as the Town Board
• The Estes Valley Development Code is different from the Larimer County Land Use
Code
• Balance and Inclusiveness regarding income/age/families and between the
business owners/workers and retirees
• A long term plan to supplement visitor economy such as a University or other
investors to balance the visitor/resident demographic
• Update the Comp Plan every 5 years, use it and follow it
• Land use geared to protecting the environment, follow the wildlife corridors, protect
our assets
163
• Protect the wildlife and view; that is why people live here and what drives the
community
• Flood management and improvements
• Substantive concerns – affordable housing and preserving beauty of the valley and
wildlife
• Affordable housing should not be at the expense of the rural areas
• Front range urban IGA are all about how to handle services
• Lyons and Steamboat areas both included protection for rural areas
• Nothing that protects the low-density areas of the Valley
• Eagle Rock applied for work force housing and couldn’t happen because of
zoning. The Town’s solution instead of an overlay zone, opened schools to be
allowed in every zone
• Town services extended into county without losing voice
• Continued commercial development is adding to the problem of affordable
services
• Individuals should not be allowed to annex their property at the expense of their
neighbors
• Town services in the County without losing voice
• Affordable and workforce housing solved without compromising existing rural areas
• Protecting beauty of the Valley
• Protection of wildlife
• Protection of existing rural areas (outside city limits) and residents
• Changes happening in town should not affect rural residential zones
• Development Code needs revisions
• Balance and Inclusiveness regarding income/age/families and between the
business owners/workers and retirees
• A long term plan to supplement visitor economy such as a University or other
investors to balance the visitor/resident demographic
• Update the Comp Plan every 5 years, use it and follow it
• Land use geared to protecting the environment, follow t he wildlife corridors, protect
our assets
164
• Protect the wildlife and view; that is why people live here and what drives the
community
• Flood management and improvements
QUESTION #3: When the Town updates the Comprehensive Plan, is it important
to plan for land uses in the Valley outside town limits, and if so, how?
• YES!!!!!
• Yes, plan for both
• The Town have a comprehensive plan or the Valley? (Joint effort)
• Need comprehensive plan before any zoning changes
• Need integrated plan
• There needs to be an equal weight
• There is not a difference of opinion among citizens at the town boundary
• The Estes Valley Planning Commission looks at inside and outside of town
boundaries as equal
• Makes no sense to create a separate political entity in the unincorporated area
• The valley needs uniformity in planning considerations
• The new IGA needs to look harder at annexation than the current IGA does
• Look at areas that are not part of the planning area now and see if they should be
included
• Community needs to understand what is involved with annexation
• Except for enclaves, neighborhoods need to petition for annexation
• Annexation of residential areas is a money loser for the town
• Lots of people see no advantage to being annexed
• Most of the area that can be further subdivided is in the unincorporated area
• Land in town is mostly developed
• Concerned that one person can petition for annexation for a larger area –
clarification that it takes a majority vote of the area property owners to be annexed
• Processes need to be spelled out on the town and county web sites
• Annexation issue is not going to go away
165
• Should be a narrative on the website in plain language regarding annexation –
what it means, what are the implications
• The whole table responded with Yes, absolutely!
• What is the problem with the current IGA? That has not been made clear.
• Problems with the ability to annex
• Town spending large amounts of time on county projects. If the problem is
financial, fix the finances.
• More involvement from County, don’t let town decide everything; checks and
balances
• Define who has the ultimate say
• County reacts to the citizen concerns, town reacts to business concerns
• County has a broader perspective due to dealing with other towns
• Inability of county citizens to vote on issues that affect the whole community
• Vacation Homes affecting long term housing rentals
• People outside town limits need to be heard
• Some want IGA to continue – some not sure
• Doesn’t want it to continue unless there is a separate advisory council for the
County – not with current planning commission
• The development code should be rewritten after the comprehensive plan
• Seasonal affordable housing creates unique challenges with respect to
transportation and other issues
• Appreciates having us together
• The whole table responded with Yes, absolutely!
• What is the problem with the current IGA? That has not been made clear.
• Problems with the ability to annex
• Town spending large amounts of time on county projects. If the problem is
financial, fix the finances.
• More involvement from County, don’t let town decide everything; checks and
balances
• Define who has the ultimate say
• County reacts to the citizen concerns, town reacts to business concerns
166
• County has a broader perspective due to dealing with other towns
• Inability of county citizens to vote on issues that affect the whole community
• Vacation Homes affecting long term housing rentals
QUESTION #4: Do you have any other general input about the land use planning
agreement or the transition of how the County will provide development revie w
services starting next year?
• Problems will not go away because of separate review
• Too much “developer” representation
• EVPA needs to be heard by Trustees
• Non-conforming uses be allowed to re-establish
• Have rules and stick to them.
• 1/3 of the residents are unable to vote because they are “part-time” residents
• Commissioners and Trustees need to get on same page
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
[Received in July and August, 2019 via County website portal]
Comment Forms Received
Online
1. I am very much against the unilateral breakup of the IGA by the mayor and
trustees Walker and Cenac. Estes Park government has long been indifferent and
at times hostile to residential landowners in Town since we do not contribute
equally to the tax coffers compared to commercial businesses. This trend has
taken a threatening turn when Jirsa was elected, since he has attempted to
eliminate our residential zoning laws by permitting an undefined amount of
commercial development in residential zones. The fia sco around the Walker
mountain coaster is an example of the incompetence of our current government to
represent residential taxpayers in Town. We need to keep the current IGA system
since generally, the county commissioners have demonstrated more maturity and
experience in governmental and land use matters. The current attempt by Estes
Park administrators to remove sensible protections of residential landowners rights
indicates the level of corruption in Town government. Steps to create a balanced
approach to land usage in the valley would entail.: 1) Recall of Trustee Walker to
restore some credibility to Estes Park government. 2) A balanced approach to
protect residential property owners’ rights and to put some emphasis on open
space to promote view corridors, wildlife corridors, and sensible development in the
Valley. 3) Complete a Comprehensive Plan for Estes Park and the County that will
represent public input and not just the self-interest of commercial developers. This
plan need not include boiler plate items of history etc. but should contain one map
of the Town and Valley after extensive meetings with landowners in those regions
where open land exists. This must include those wanting to profit by selling their
land for development and residential homeowners who have an equal financial
investment in protecting the value of their land and homes. There also needs to be
a reasonable list of key items that governs commercial development such as a)
noise levels, b) traffic increase, c) size of proposed commercial development, d)
parking needed for project, e) real estimate of contribution of proposed business in
terms of tax dollars generated. Unfortunately, the current administration of Estes
193
Park is both corrupt and indifferent to these principles. I doubt that much "peace"
will be attained in this Valley until the current administration is ousted.
2. We want to see residentially zoned land protected in the Estes Valley. We do not
want to see more commercial projects approved under the guise of parks and rec
on residential land. A precedent is being set that could spoil the Estes Valley
irreversibly. Very risky. We have worked hard for our home in Estes Park, and we
are very concerned that spot rezoning and manipulation of code will result in
lowering our property values. We do not want to see each project come under
special review as the Town is proposing - that opens up each project for different
interpretation. Residential land must be permanently protected against commercial
ventures. The Estes Valley is thriving! Pushing for more development is greedy. I
have read a lot of history of the past 100 years in the Estes Valley. Visitors have
been coming here all these years for an escape from the daily grind, to commune
with nature, for the small-town experience. Please work to protect residential
property rights and to keep the character of this town intact.
3. The Estes Valley is one community. The views of residents regarding land use
issues do not change when you cross from town to unincorporated county territor y
within the valley. Where views on land use differ it is due to the background of the
individuals such as retirees, business owners, developers, realtors, young families,
etc. It is not due to where they live. In terms of common community interests and
concerns, there are no boundaries between town and county in the Estes Valley.
Decisions on land use within the county affect residents in the town and visa versa.
We all share the same roads and trails, the same views of the mountains, the same
wildlife, the same utilities infrastructure, the same emergency services, the same
schools, the same tourism impact, and the same traffic congestion. The Estes
Valley is unique in that it is landlocked and nearly all the land is developed. There
is no true Growth Management Area in the way that it is used in other communities
in Larimer County. Given the highly integrated nature of the community, the fact
that the land is almost fully developed, and the valley-wide impact of all land use
decisions, we must continue to have uniform and closely coordinated and land use
planning across the Estes Valley. The only way to do this is with a single valley-
wide Comprehensive Plan that is updated to reflect current conditions. Uniform and
closely coordinated land use planning can best be done by retaining the Joint
Planning Area (JPA) with a single valley-wide Planning Commission and Board of
Adjustment. Residents of the Estes Valley who serve on these boards are much
194
better equipped to address land use questions than the Larimer County Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment. The Larimer County boards would have to
deal with land use issues and the concerns of residents living in the unincorporated
part of the Estes Valley. These County boards are very busy with a lot of other
issues on their plates. If the JPA is terminated, the development code and zoning in
the unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley would have to be retained for some
period, perhaps several years. To do otherwise would be unfair to residents and
extremely chaotic. If we have one Comprehensive Plan and one set of
Development Code and Zoning, would it make any sense to terminate the JPA?
The JPA worked well for many years. Then came the Mountain Coaster project and
the issue of commercial development in residential zones. I would argue that this
makes it even more crucial that we have consistent land use planning across the
Estes Valley. In many locations we have residential development close to our
remaining open areas that could potentially have commercial development.
Thoughtful planning, with an eye toward our valley-wide comprehensive plan and
development code, is needed to address commercial and residential development
projects when they are proposed.
4. In general statutes/laws/regulations/codes (rules) are designed to meet a specific
need. A need that has, in general, been worked out by citizen and not special
interest groups. The most important factor of having the rules work is enforcement.
When the rules are good and not supportive of special interest groups do we see
the corruption of government. Therefore it is very, very important to have in any
sets of rules the ability for independent, effective enforcement to happen and for
citizen recourse. Politics should not be the measure of truth and trust and any set
of the rules should have safeguards written in them to stop any political views from
taking over the rules or hamstringing them such that independent and effective
enforcement is blocked. One of the problems that the Estes community faced was
a rewrite of the rules in such a manner as to hide the true intent by having no
"legislative history" to fall back on when concerns or challenges arose. So, coming
up with a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGS) needs to full and complete
analysis of the impacts, cost, enforcement required and mechanisms and how
special interest groups have influenced the process to safeguard the corruption of
the rules (IGA). You ask, "well how do we do this?" It is simple to find guidelines
from other jurisdictions that have good, sound, and reasonable instructions and
formats for the production the rules ... go out and find them. Yes, implementing
195
such guidelines takes time, which means funding must be available to do the work.
(And speaking of funding it must also be allocated also for proper independent and
effective enforcement of the rules!) The reduction of funding is the primary way in
which politics control the agenda of making fair citizen based rules. So, if you are
not going to put funding and enforcement independence requirements in the IGA
you are on the road to produce another failed set of rules.
5. It is important to address both the interests of both the residents (mostly county
outside the the town, but including many in within town boundaries) and
commercial interests in arriving at an equitable land use plan. Most residents
outside the town want tranquil residential environment mostly made up of 5 or 10
acre single family plots. On the other hand the commercial interests, perhaps to
counter reduced traffic flow resulting from the potential rationing of visitors to rocky
mtn national park restrictions, are trying to find ways to make Estes park a
destination all its own. My fear is that the commercial interests will resort to a
dollyville, kings dominion, silver dollar city, knoebels or cedar point solution, while
something like stone mountain focusing on attractions derived from the history of
rnp and early estes valley would the destination venue i believe the commercial
interests want and will need. If the town relies highly visible attractions, they run the
risk of losing those who visit for the wildlife, scenery and nature and those who
moved to the valley for the same benefits. It should also be noted that the valley
can’t support more automobile traffic. We have a growing number of increasingly
dangerous air quality alerts, mostly ozone attributable to auto traffic. It’s a difficult
assignment to develop a plan that will appease most valley residents.
6. A replacement IGA should be sought. Cooperation between town and county are
essential for preserving the character of an area as tightly constrained by
geography as is the Estes Valley. The current IGA does not seem to have been
able to maintain a good balance between town and county interests in recent days.
The county’s willingness to defer to the towns administrative staff in important land
use decisions does not seem fair to the interests of county residents. The
development of a comprehensive plan for the Estes Valley is essential. Serious
thought needs to be given to just how much development the Estes Valley can
accommodate without negatively impacting commercial, community and
environmental interests, all three.
7. Although I will not be attending this evenings meeting, I want to thank you for
holding it and for your interest in soliciting feedback on this critically important topic.
196
As an Estes Valley resident, I have observed our current development plan
approach and its implementation as more and more of the Valley is dedicated to
multiple types of development, and have grown increasingly concerned as less and
less open land exists for either public parkland, conservation easements or
preserved wildlife habitat. I fear were on a path here that many other communities
have taken: we encourage development until the time has passed for any
meaningful preservation of what remains. As you know, this Valley is
environmentally critical as winter range for deer, elk, and other animals. In addition,
overall congestion in both the town and outlying areas continues to mount - we risk
creating a community where fewer want to visit, and where fewer still want to live. I
strongly encourage consideration of plans to partner with the Estes Valley Land
Trust and other agencies to purchase available parcels for protection and public
use. I further do not support any additional development in the Valley beyond town
limits. It’s time to transition from development efforts to quality of life goals that will
benefit residents, visitors, wildlife, and future generations.
8. Sidewalk -- parallel with W. Wonderview west of MacGregor
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Honorable Chairman Donnelly
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
Laurie Kadrich, Community Planning Infrastructure and Resources
Director for Larimer County
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park
Lesli Ellis, Community Development Director, Larimer County
Date: November 8, 2019
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Options for Land Use and
Related Issues for Consideration on November 14, 2019
Objective:
The meeting objective on November 14 will be to review and select an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) regarding land use planning and related issues for
the Estes Valley. The meeting will continue discussions from the September 30 joint
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and Town Trustees and other separate
follow up meetings since that time. This packet supplements the packet from
September 24, 2019 that included a number of attachments, including the summaries of
community engagement materials, the current IGA and amendments, and other
analysis.
Background and Present Situation:
Earlier this year, the Town and County began to explore options for continuing to work
cooperatively with respect to long range planning, land use and development review in
the Estes Valley. Since that time, the parties have worked together to host a community
input event in July, gather input via electronic means in the summer, prepare agreement
options and analysis through the fall, and facilitate other community input and Estes
Valley Planning Commission input related to the options.
A land use and cooperative planning IGA is appropriate and useful in ensuring
coordinated long-range planning and seamless land use decision-making between the
County and Town, and staff and elected officials all conceptually have supported
221
moving forward on a refined agreement to carry the entities into the next decade. The
Parties also have largely agreed on working together to update the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. Several details have continued to be discussed, including
whether to retain a joint Estes Valley Development Code that would be jointly
administered by the Town and County staff and whether to retain the Estes Valley
Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment, or to move toward more traditional
cooperative models working elsewhere in Larimer County and the state.
Proposal:
Select a New Land Use Planning IGA:
County and Town staff have jointly prepared a revised Option B (patterned after the
Option B presented and discussed on September 30 that is similar to other land use
planning IGAs in Larimer County) for final consideration as requested by a majority of
the Town Trustees. The option includes changes to reflect feedback given on
September 30 and since that time.
Accordingly, Town staff presents Option B as the IGA ready to be adopted by the Town
Board by resolution. Adoption of the resolution will act as approval of Option B. June 9,
2020: Included as Attachment 13.
Additionally, County staff has prepared Option C (patterned after the existing IGA) as
discussed by several elected officials on September 30. Town staff have reviewed
Option C at a general level and supports inclusion of this alternative in the packets for
consideration. June 9, 2020: Included as Attachment 14.
In light of previous Town Board meetings, Town staff has not focused on the language
in Option C to the same degree of detail as it has on Option B. Accordingly, if the
Town Board wishes to pursue Option C, Town staff requests that the Town Board
approve a motion to direct Town staff to prepare Option C for adoption at a future Town
Board meeting.
The analysis table compares and contrasts the differences between the two IGA
approaches. June 9, 2020: Included as Attachment 15.
Extend the Current IGA to Transition:
The current IGA expires on February 1, 2020. Because discussions about the final IGA
have been a moving target this fall, County staff has requested that the new IGA
become effective April 1, 2020 instead of Jan. 1, 2020 to allow for a smooth transition
time of development review services for the unincorporated area from the Town to the
County Community Development department. Town staff have discussed the extension
with County staff, agree that the logic of a time-limited extension is sound, and support
this extension proposal in principle. Town staff would note that an appropriate
compensation from County to Town for the three additional months of service would
also be appropriate. Extension of the current IGA would extend the provision therein
that the Town Administrator and County Manager may mutually agree upon an
appropriate compensation for services (see current First Amendment, Sec. 3); thus, no
direct compensation element is needed in the Extension.
222
Advantages and Disadvantages:
Staff has presented analysis about the options to the Town Trustees and Board of
County Commissioners in discussions since September 30, 2019. Attachment 6 is an
analysis table that compares the differences between the two IGA options and how they
differ from the current IGA. It also notes the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The County and Town have anticipated the costs of Option B and presented them in
their respective budget proposals for the coming fiscal year. Option C has higher
financial and resource impacts for the County and would need to be considered as part
of the budget process if selected. For the Town, Option C is not expected to
appreciably change budget impacts from those envisioned in the proposed 2020 Town
budget.
Level of Public Interest:
There is high interest in the joint planning framework and the IGA in general and several
comments received expressing concerns about changing the current IGA approach.
Actions Recommended:
Town and County staff recommend Option B. This option most closely resembles
traditional planning intergovernmental agreements in Larimer County that have been
working well for decades. Staff finds this approach will continue to allow the Town and
County to coordinate on long range planning and visioning; chart a course for future
growth management and annexation policy; and provide a high quality of customer
service to town and county residents, consistency in decision making, and cost
effectiveness in providing services to residents. Additionally, County and Town staff
recommends approving the extension IGA.
Suggested Motions and Resolution for Town
Town Trustees will take action first on November 14. Staff recommends the following
motions for the Town Trustees:
1. I move that the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees approve Resolution
38-19.
2. I move that the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees approve Resolution
39-19.
Suggested Motions for County
The County Commissioners may choose to take the same action as the Trustees or
decline to take the same action. However, to move forward with an agreement, the
Commissioners’ actions would need to mirror Trustee actions taken. Considering that,
staff recommends the following motions for the County Commissioners, with BCC at
least adopting motion number 2:
223
1. I move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement (Option __(same as
Trustees)), effective April 1, 2020 (amended as follows to be consistent
with Town direction).
2. I move to approve the Extension IGA as presented in Attachment 3,
effective starting on February 1, 2020 and expiring March 31, 2020.
Attachments:
NOTE for June 9, 2020: Staff removed this list of attachments from the Nov. 8,
2019 memo to avoid confusion in numbering. Please refer to June 9, 2020 cover
memo for the list of current attachments in sequence.
224
Option B – p. 1
Option B - Patterned After Other IGA Models
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Regarding Land Use Planning and Related Issues for the Estes Valley
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and effective this
1st day of April, 2020 (“Effective Date”) by and between LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
(“County”), a body politic organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado and
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO (“Town”) and jointly referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Parties have worked together cooperatively on land use planning since the mid-
1990s, with an initial intergovernmental agreement (IGA) effective February 1, 2000, with five
subsequent amendments, and which expires in February 2020;
B. WHEREAS, in 1996, the Town and County prepared and jointly adopted the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan for the land area in the Estes Valley Planning Area which includes lands
within Town limits and in unincorporated Larimer County, which plan is effective until updated
or superseded;
C. WHEREAS, the Parties agree that maintaining and enhancing areas of Town development in a
thoughtful and deliberate way, managing growth in the Estes Valley, and protecting open space
and conserving rural character are enhanced by cooperation in land use planning and
development review services;
D. WHEREAS, concentrating Town Level Development in areas planned and designated for such
development affords greater efficiency in the delivery of services such as water, streets and
transportation, fire and police protection and other services, and affords a measure of
predictability to landowners and residents concerning where services will be provided in the
future;
E. WHEREAS, maintaining the parts of the Estes Valley Planning Area that are designated for rural
uses as rural promotes the purposes of providing a community buffer between the Town and the
adjacent national park and federal lands, serves economic and community interests, and meets the
goals of the community as set forth through the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan;
F. WHEREAS, the purposes of this Intergovernmental Agreement (Agreement) are to:
1. Implement the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan as it currently exists or may hereafter be
amended or replaced;
2. Establish effective means of planning for future development and conservation within the
unincorporated portion of the County in the Estes Valley;
3. Assure that Town Level Development occurs only where and when facilities and services can
be provided to it and in appropriate locations within the Estes Valley that are able to support
higher intensities of development;
225
Option B – p. 2
4. Assure that land eligible for annexation to the Town are considered for annexation prior to or
concurrently with development;
5. Provide effective means for the appropriate design, construction, and maintenance of public
improvements;
6. Encourage the efficient use of land and open space conservation in appropriate locations,
including those in the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley;
7. Provide a mechanism for property owners, residents, stakeholders, and others to have input
on and be informed as to where development will occur in the future;
8. Ensure that development standards are thoughtfully aligned on either side of the Town limits,
so as to allow for intentional patterns of development that are consistent with the plan and
vision for the Estes Valley;
9. Assure that development in the vicinity of the Town does not negatively impact roads or
other infrastructure improvements in unincorporated Larimer County, and provide that when
there are negative impacts, those impacts will be appropriately mitigated; and
10. Allocate responsibilities of Larimer County and the Town of for purposes of administering
land use within their respective jurisdictions.
G. WHEREAS, pursuant to State of Colorado law, local jurisdictions are authorized to regulate the
location of activities and developments; phase development of services and facilities; regulate
development on the basis of its impact on the community or surrounding areas; plan for and
regulate the use of land so as to provide for planned and orderly use of land and protection of the
environment; cooperate or contract with other units of government for the purpose of planning
and regulating the development of land, including, but not limited to, the joint exercise of
planning, zoning, subdivision, building, and related regulations and annexation of property, all in
a manner consistent with constitutional rights and statutory procedures;
H. WHEREAS, communication among local jurisdictions, special districts, property owners and
other interested parties is essential to accomplishing this Agreement;
I. WHEREAS, any provisions in this Agreement may be implemented only to the extent legally
permitted by State and Federal Law;
J. WHEREAS, the Parties have sought community input and held hearings after proper public
notice for the consideration of entering into this Agreement; and
K. WHEREAS, in order to provide for an orderly transition to this Intergovernmental Agreement
and to allow for appropriate allocation of resources by all parties to support it, it is desirable to
extend the February 1, 2010 Intergovernmental Agreement and its subsequent amendments for an
additional two (2) months, to terminate on March 31, 2020, with this new Intergovernmental
Agreement to become effective on April 1, 2020. The extension is being accomplished by an
amendment contemporaneous with this Agreement.
226
Option B – p. 3
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants and obligations expressed herein, it is
hereby agreed by and between the Parties as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have the meanings set forth below.
1.1. Annexation. Annexation means the incorporation of land area into an existing municipality
with a resulting change in the boundaries of that municipality.
1.2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The adopted Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley
Planning Area, adopted by the Estes Park Planning Commission and the Larimer County
Planning Commission in December 1996. The Plan addresses land use, transportation, natural
resources, and other elements and guides through maps and text and generally indicates the
types, densities and intensities of land use that are acceptable for any given parcel of land or area
in the Estes Valley Planning Area. It also establishes the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary.
1.3. Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The adopted land use, zoning, and development
standards for the Estes Valley Planning Area adopted by the Town and County effective in 1999
and as subsequently amended.
1.4. Estes Valley Planning Area (EVPA). The Estes Valley Planning Area is that geographical area
including all of the Town of Estes Park and certain designated areas beyond Town limits
established in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and as depicted in Exhibit 1.
1.5. Estes Valley Overlay District (EV Overlay District). Regulations proposed to be adopted by
Larimer County in the EVPA as part of the Larimer County Land Use Code to maintain
consistency with existing Estes Valley Development Code and to implement this Agreement. In
such area generally, Town Level Development is currently not considered appropriate or desired
except where it annexes to the Town.
1.6. Larimer County Comprehensive Plan. The official vision and policy document guiding long-
range framework for decision making for Larimer County’s unincorporated areas outside the
Estes Valley Planning Area, adopted in 2019 by the County Planning Commission.
1.7. Larimer County Land Use Code. The regulations proposed to be adopted and amended by the
Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the authority of Title 30, Article 28 of the Colorado
Revised Statutes to implement the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Code
contains, inter alia, land use regulations, development standards, and development review
procedures for the unincorporated areas.
1.8. Open Space. Land that is not occupied by any structure or artificial impervious surfaces and
that is intended for long-term conservation purposes.
1.9. Rural Areas. Areas which are outside the Town’s corporate limits and which are planned or
zoned for rural estate or other rural residential uses or which are designated to remain as
227
Option B – p. 4
conserved areas. These lands are not intended to be annexed and will generally remain rural in
character.
1.10. Supplemental Regulations. Regulations proposed to be adopted by Larimer County in the
Land Use Code as part of the Estes Valley Overlay District (EV Overlay District) and that
provide for the implementation of land use, street, design, and other development standards
consistent with the Estes Valley Development Code and carried forward through the County’s
development review process.
1.11. Town Level Development. Any development which uses Town level facilities and services
provided either by the Town or special districts and which is at higher intensities than rural
areas.
1.12. Town Level Facilities and Services. Services such as central water, sewer, responsive fire
protection, urban level street construction and maintenance, and/or similar services that are
typically provided by the Town or an appropriate district and are necessary to serve Town
Level Development as defined in this Agreement.
1.13. Town of Estes Park Development Code. The regulations proposed to be adopted and
amended by the Town of Estes Park Town Board of Trustees pursuant to the authority of Title
31 Article 23 of the Colorado Revised Statutes to implement the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan or its successor Plan(s) as such Plan(s) may apply to the Town of Estes Park.
2. ADOPTION OF NEW PLANS AND REGULATIONS
This section identifies the plans and boundary maps which are referenced in this Agreement.
2.1. Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley Planning Area.
2.1.1. Jointly Prepared Comprehensive Plan. The Parties agree to communicate and
coordinate to prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley Planning Area that will
encompass the Town and the unincorporated area of Larimer County, which upon adoption shall
replace and supersede the current Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. If by December 31, 2021,
the Comprehensive Plan has not been completed or does not extend to cover the Estes Valley
Planning Area, the County shall amend its Comprehensive Plan to include policies and maps that
address the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area, and the Town shall adopt a
Comprehensive Plan to include policies and maps that address the incorporated Town of Estes
Park. While the Comprehensive Plan will be jointly prepared, each Party will adopt it for its
respective jurisdiction, and nothing in this Agreement prevents each Party from amending the
Comprehensive Plan with respect to land use decisions within its own jurisdiction.
2.1.2 Boundary to Guide Future Annexation. The Comprehensive Plan also will include a
boundary within the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary to delineate areas of the
unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area that are suitable for annexation to the Town (e.g., a
“town limit” or “town growth boundary,” or another term to be defined), and areas beyond which
should remain rural in unincorporated Larimer County.
228
Option B – p. 5
2.2. Estes Valley Planning Area Boundary. The Estes Valley Planning Area boundary is identified
in “Exhibit 1”, and attached hereto and incorporated herein, including any subsequent
amendments thereto.
2.3. Town and County Land Use Codes. The Parties agree that there shall be a Land Use Code for
the Town and a Land Use Code for the County, and upon such designations by the respective
parties shall replace and supersede the current Estes Valley Development Code as to that Party.
As used in this Agreement, the terms “Land Use Code” and “Development Code” shall be
deemed synonymous. The Parties intend that the County’s Land Use Code as currently existing or
hereafter amended or superseded will include regulations specific to the unincorporated area of
Larimer County within the Estes Valley Planning Area.
2.4. Land Use and Zoning Designations in the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area. The
County intends to recognize and carry forward the zoning districts and certain development
standards of the Estes Valley Development Code when proposing and adopting supplemental
regulations to the County Land Use Code for the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley
Planning Area in order to maintain consistency with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
These districts and standards are intended to provide continuity of development standards and
terminology within and outside the Town limits, and shall include but are not limited to standards
for steep slopes, ridgeline protection, grading and site disturbance, tree and vegetation protection,
wildlife habitat protection, exterior lighting, and allowed uses, building heights, density, and
setbacks associated with the relevant zoning districts, that are guided by the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. As the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan is updated, or as the Larimer
County Land Use Code is updated, the County shall exercise its regulatory function consistent
with the policies of the plan. Also, as the Town updates its Development Code over time, it will
forward its amendments to the County for consideration of adoption of parallel updates in the
County Land Use Code for the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
2.5. Land Use and Zoning Designations in the Town of Estes Park. The Town intends to
recognize and carry forward the zoning districts and certain development standards of the Estes
Valley Development Code via preparation and adoption of the Town of Estes Park Development
Code. It is anticipated that the Town of Estes Park Development Code’s original adoption will in
content be substantially similar to the Town-applicable provisions of the Estes Valley
Development Code as it exists at the time of adoption of this Intergovernmental Agreement,
provided that the Town of Estes Park Development Code may from time to time adopt
appropriate amendments and modifications for clarity and reconciliation of non-harmonious Code
sections, or may include changes as deemed appropriate in response to specific land-use requests
on behalf of property owners. It is further anticipated that after adoption of a new Comprehensive
Plan, a rewritten Town of Estes Park Development Code that conforms to guidance in the Plan
will be prepared and adopted by the Town.
3. LAND USE REGULATIONS AND FEES
This section addresses the relevant development standards, procedures, and fees that apply to proposed
development in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.1. Town Limits. Within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Estes Park as they exist or may
be changed through annexation, the Town shall maintain and exercise the right to review and
229
Option B – p. 6
approve development subject to the Town of Estes Park Development Code, as existing or
hereafter amended. The Parties agree that, except as modified through appropriate due process in
accordance with applicable law and procedures, all Town regulations, standards and procedures
shall apply to future development within the incorporated Town of Estes Park. The Parties agree
that land-use applications, appeals, interpretations, and variances, including those applied for at
the building permit stage, shall be processed and decided by the Town as provided for in the
Town of Estes Park Development Code, as existing or hereafter amended.
3.2. Unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area. Within the unincorporated area of the Estes
Valley Planning Area, Larimer County shall maintain and exercise the right to review and
approve development subject to the Larimer County Land Use Code (including the Estes Valley
Overlay District and supplementary regulations). The Parties agree that, except as modified by
the supplemental regulations noted below, all County regulations, standards and procedures shall
apply to future development within the unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
The Parties agree that land use application, appeals, interpretations, and variances shall be
processed and decided by the County as provided for in the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Building Permits shall be processed according to the County Building Code.
3.3. Estes Valley Overlay District and Supplemental Regulations. The County will undertake the
required legislative process to establish the Estes Valley Overlay Zone District (EV Overlay
District) and supplemental land use regulations to implement this Agreement. The County agrees
that it will require development applications for Rezonings, Special Review, Development Plans
or Site Plans, and Planned Land Division in the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley Planning
Area to meet either the Larimer County development standards, as contained within the Larimer
County Land Use Code and its technical supplements or any other standards contained in the
Estes Valley Overlay District and supplemental regulations.
3.4. Modifications and Variances to Regulations. The Parties agree that the Town or County may
allow reasonable modifications from adopted standards within their respective jurisdictions where
the Town or County in its respective discretion determines that either:
3.4.1. By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the standard sought
to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional and
undue hardship upon the owner of the affected property, provided that such difficulties are not
caused by an act or omission on the part of the owner or applicant, or
3.4.2. The proposed modification will serve to advance or protect the public interests and
purposes of the standards for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a
plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. The County agrees
it will refer any proposed modifications to the Town for its review and a recommendation.
3.5. Fees for Development.
3.5.1. The Parties agree to maintain and administer separate fees with their respective
jurisdictions in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
230
Option B – p. 7
3.5.2. The County’s Capital Expansion fees for roads, community parks, and drainage shall apply
within the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.5.3. The County’s regional park fee shall not apply within the unincorporated portion of the
Estes Valley Planning Area.
4. PARTIES’ ROLES IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, COMPLIANCE
4.1. Establishment of Improvement Districts. The County agrees to notify and allow the Town to
comment prior to establishing any improvement district within the unincorporated Estes Valley
Planning Area.
4.2. Utilities and Services. In areas where the Town has jurisdiction and oversight over the delivery
of utility services and other services relative to public improvements, the Town agrees to provide
a mechanism for the performance of inspections of any utility or other public improvements
provided by developers. In areas where special districts have jurisdiction and oversight over the
delivery of utility services and other services relative to public improvements, the Town agrees to
propose that the Town and the respective special district include terms in the intergovernmental
agreement with the special district that stipulate that the special district will perform these
inspections. The County agrees that it will propose provisions in the supplemental regulations
that the Town or the special district may charge developers an appropriate fee for this inspection
service.
4.3. Improvement Guarantees. Improvement guarantees shall be required as set forth in the EVDC,
or the Town’s and County’s respective Land Use Codes. The respective jurisdictions shall
administer and maintain all improvement guarantees. Appropriate jurisdictional agencies, such as
the Town Engineer and County Engineer, the Town Utilities Department, and the Sanitation
District(s) with jurisdiction, shall verify the estimate of construction costs, depending on the
geographic location of the improvements. Releases of security from an Improvement Guarantee
shall be authorized by the respective jurisdictional authority and released by the authorized
Community Development Department. To the extent that development in the Town requires the
construction of off-site public improvements in the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area
that are typically not associated with development in the County, the Town agrees to provide a
mechanism for maintenance of those off-site public improvements by adjacent property owner.
Such improvements include, but are not limited to, curbs and gutters, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, transit facilities, traffic signals, traffic control and traffic calming devices, drainage
facilitates, streetscapes, and medians.
4.4. Maintenance of Required Public Facilities. Maintenance of public facilities, if any, shall be
the responsibility of the Town or County, depending upon the respective geographic location of
the public improvement and subject to other applicable regulations. Each public facility shall be
subject to the policies and procedures of the respective jurisdiction.
231
Option B – p. 8
4.5. Development Review Staffing Roles.
4.5.1. Duties of the Town and County Staff. Town and County staff shall cooperate in the
review, approval, and monitoring of land use development within the Estes Valley Planning Area.
4.5.1.1. Duties of the Town Community Development Department. Town staff shall
serve as the primary administrator of the Town’s Development Code within town limits.
4.5.1.2. Duties of the County Community Development Department. County staff shall
serve as the primary administrator of the County’s Land Use Code within the unincorporated
Estes Valley Planning Area.
4.5.2. Referrals.
4.5.2.1. County Review, Town Referral within the Estes Valley Planning Area. Within
the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area, the County agrees to submit proposals for the
following proposed development applications to the Town staff for review and comment:
Rezoning; Special Review; Public Site Plan, Minor Special review, Special Exception, or any
land division application that results in the creation of one or more additional lots. The
Town’s review and comment shall include consideration of whether and how the proposal is
consistent with the Estes Valley Overlay District and supplemental regulations. The Town
agrees to provide the County with written comments, if any, within twenty-one (21) days
after the County or its authorized representative mails to the Town a request for comments in
accordance with state statute.
4.5.2.2. Town Review, Referral to County for Town Development that May Impact
County’s Public Improvements. The Town agrees to provide to the County an opportunity
to review and comment upon applications for development within the Town that may affect
the County’s interests and public improvements, including, but not limited to, road
improvements and annexations.
4.6. Additional Review Roles. The Town and the County have additional operating rules,
regulations, ordinances and requirements which may apply to development and use of property
within the Estes Valley Planning Area. These include but are not limited to the areas of
regulation noted in Table 1 below.
232
Option B – p. 9
Table 1: Review Roles of Town of Estes Park and Larimer County
Type of Process or
Regulation
Within Town of Estes Park
(Who Administers)
Within Unincorporated Estes
Valley – Larimer County
(Who Administers)
Development Review
for Planning Cases
Town of Estes Development
Code (Town Community
Development Department)
Larimer County Land Use Code –
Estes Valley Supplement (County
Community Development
Department)
Floodplain
Regulations
Town floodplain regulations
(Town Community Development)
County floodplain regulations
(County Engineering)
Sign Regulations Town sign regulations (Town
Community Development)
County sign regulations (LC
Community Development)
Building Permits Town Building Code (Town
Building Official)
County Building Code, permit,
and inspection programs (County
Building Official)
Streets and Roads
Standards
Street standards (Town Engineer) Larimer County Rural Area Street
Standards. County road
construction, safety, and
maintenance (County Engineer)
Drainage Drainage standards (Town
Engineer)
Drainage standards (County
Engineer)
Public Health and
Safety
County Health Department County Health Department
Wildfire Construction Wildfire Construction standards
in Larimer County’s building
code (Town Building Official)
Wildfire Construction standards
in Larimer County’s building
code (County Building Official)
Code Compliance Town Code Compliance County Code Compliance
Legal Counsel Primary legal advisory to Town
Staff and the Town boards and
commissions for items in town
limits and to institute and
maintain all necessary legal
actions for matters within the
town limits (Town Attorney)
Primary legal advisory to County
Staff and boards and commissions
for the unincorporated area and to
institute and maintain all
necessary legal actions for
matters therein (County Attorney)
Vacation Rentals Approved by Town (Town
Maintains its rentals and cap)
County Land Use Code (New
approvals by County; County
maintains the current cap in the
unincorporated area)
5. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVALS (PLANNING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT)
5.1. Larimer County Planning Commission. The Larimer County Planning Commission shall hear
all planning cases in the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area pursuant to the Larimer
County Land Use Code review development applications.
5.2. Larimer County Board of Adjustment. The Larimer County Board of Adjustment shall hear
all variance requests pursuant to the terms of conditions of state statute, the Larimer County Land
Use Code, and supplemental regulations.
233
Option B – p. 10
5.3 Town of Estes Park Board of Adjustment. The Town shall appoint a Board of Adjustment in
accordance with Title 31 Article 23 Part 3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Town of
Estes Park Development Code, with duties, responsibilities, and obligations as specified therein.
The Town of Estes Park Board of Adjustment shall have authority in all applications that are
designated in Statute and Code for Board of Adjustment review within the Town of Estes Park,
for all applications that are not instead reviewed by the Estes Valley Transitional Board of
Adjustment under section 5.5, below. Membership and residency shall be as specified in Title 31
Article 23 Part 3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Town of Estes Park Development
Code. It is anticipated that membership will consist of three (3) members appointed by the Town
Board for staggered terms.
5.4 Town of Estes Park Planning Commission. The Town shall appoint a Planning Commission in
accordance with Title 31 Article 23 Part 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Town of
Estes Park Development Code, with duties, responsibilities, and obligations as specified therein.
The Town of Estes Park Planning Commission shall have authority in all applications that are
designated in Statute and Code for Planning Commission review within the Town of Estes Park,
for all applications that are not instead reviewed by the Estes Valley Transitional Planning
Commission under section 5.5, below. Membership and residency shall be as specified in Title 31
Article 23 Part 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Town of Estes Park Development
Code. It is anticipated that membership will consist of five (5) members appointed by the Town
Board for staggered terms.
5.5. Transitional Roles for EVPC and EVBOA. The parties hereby continue, for a time-limited
transitional period, the existing Estes Valley Planning Commission (“Transitional EVPC”) and
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (“Transitional EVBoA”), with duties, responsibilities,
authority, obligations, and operational parameters pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement as described in “Exhibit 2.”
6. ANNEXATION
6.1. Eligibility for Annexation. The Parties agree that the term “eligibility for annexation” shall
mean any land that is contiguous to the corporate town limits via one or more points of
connection, and that it is anticipated that the Town would annex lands eligible for annexation in
the Estes Valley Planning Area at such time that a development proposal and annexation petition,
including all required fees and supplemental information, is received from the property owner(s).
When a town growth boundary is defined, lands within that area shall be considered for
annexation at such time that a development proposal is presented. The Town represents that it
will give due consideration to the desirability of annexing lands at such time that they become
eligible for annexation based upon State annexation statutes (Title 31, Article 12, Colorado
Revised Statutes (C.R.S.)).
6.2. Town Limits Annexation Area. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan will define the area
appropriate for future annexation adjacent to the Town of Estes Park.
6.3. Annexation Petition. The County agrees that it will not accept any application for Rezoning;
Special Review; Public Site Plan, Minor Special review, Special Exception, or any land division
application that results in the creation of one or more additional lots on property that is eligible
for voluntary annexation to the Town unless a written annexation request which conforms to the
234
Option B – p. 11
Town’s standard annexation conditions is submitted to the Town and is subsequently denied by
the Town. If such an annexation petition is denied by the Town, the County may accept said
application on the property and, if appropriate, approve it in accordance with the Larimer County
Land Use Code.
6.4. Future Annexations. The County agrees that, in the case of lands within the unincorporated
Estes Valley Planning Area that are not eligible for annexation but that are proposing Town Level
Development, the County shall require applicants that apply for one of the following County
processes after the effective date of this Agreement to sign an agreement to annex agreement as a
condition of development approval: Rezoning; Special Review; Public Site Plan, Minor Special
review, Special Exception, or any land division application that results in the creation of one or
more additional lots.
6.5. Annexation Agreements. The County agrees to require a binding annexation agreement as a
condition of approval on any development application for uses approved and located within the
unincorporated portion of the Planning Area that is planned for future town annexation but not
eligible for annexation to the Town at the time of development application, excluding subdivision
of 4 or less lots for residential use.
6.6. Amendment to Implement Annexation Policy. The Town is deliberating regarding the
appropriate policy to coordinate annexation with the County. The Parties agree to cooperate
diligently on the creation of such a policy to be completed within six months of adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan described in section 2.1.1 and intend to incorporate it herein as an
amendment once it is determined. Until such time, while the Town undertakes no specific
obligations with regard to annexation, the Parties agree to cooperate regarding Town Level
Development in the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area and on annexation petitions.
7. IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT
7.1. Commencement and Transition Period. Staff processing of applications for development
submitted after the effective date of this IGA shall be conducted according to this Agreement.
The County shall on April 1, 2020 resume maintaining all unincorporated-area project files and
Town staff shall have access to files. Town staff will be available to support County staff access
to historic case files for at least one year from the time of this Agreement or such time when files
may be transitioned from the Town to County.
7.2. Larimer County and Town Regulations Timing. The Parties agree that by April 1, 2020 they
will have proposed regulations to their Codes to implement the terms of this Agreement. Such
proposed regulations will address fees, land uses and development standards. The Parties further
agree to undertake the required legislative process to propose amending their respective land use
codes or related documents and procedures as necessary to implement this Agreement.
7.3. Training Regarding this Agreement. The Parties agree to (a) notify newly elected officials,
new managers and key staff of the existence of this Agreement, and (b) on an as-needed basis,
conduct training sessions on the procedures which are necessary to implement this Agreement.
235
Option B – p. 12
7.4. Mediation. If the Parities fail to reach agreement on any provisions contained in this Agreement,
the Parties agree to engage a trained mediator to help them resolve the issue.
8. PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT
Either party may seek specific performance or enforcement of this Agreement in a Court of competent
jurisdiction, but neither party shall have any claim or remedy for damages arising from an alleged breach
hereof against the other, nor shall this Agreement confer on either Party standing to contest a land use
decision or action of the other except as a breach of this Agreement.
9. THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS
This Agreement is not intended to modify the standing the Parties may possess independent of this
Agreement. This Agreement is between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County and no third-party
rights or beneficiaries exist or are created hereby.
10. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
The procedures for amending this Agreement shall be as follows:
10.1. Amendments to the text of this Agreement. The text of this Agreement may be amended
only by written agreement of both Parties. Either Party may initiate an amendment, but any such
initiation must be in writing.
10.2. Amendments to the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary. The Estes Valley Planning Area
Boundary may be amended in the Joint Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan or by written
agreement of both Parties.
10.3. Amendments to Elements of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. It is acknowledged that
the adoption of amendments to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan may necessitate
amendments to this agreement.
10.4. Separate Plans. In the event that the Town and County prepare separate comprehensive plans,
each party shall notify the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to the adoption of any
amendments to any elements of the Comprehensive Plan(s) and provide the other party with an
opportunity to make comments on any such amendments to the Plan that would in any way either
(1) affect the Estes Valley Planning Area, (2) call for an amendment to the boundaries, or (3)
cause any changes to be made to any of the Town or County regulations.
11. SEVERABILITY
Invalidation of any specific provisions of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of any other
provision of this Agreement.
12. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years from the date of its
execution. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five-year terms unless at least six
(6) months prior to its scheduled expiration, either Party should notify the other Party in writing of its
decision that the Agreement not be renewed. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon at least six
(6) months’ notice.
236
Option B – p. 13
13. COSTS
The County will participate in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by providing staffing to co-lead and
support the plan effort, and participating in costs of hiring a shared consultant and contributing to the cost
of the consultant. No other payment shall ensue from Town or County to the other party for this
agreement.
14. EFFECTIVE DATE
In Witness thereof, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective on the Effective
Date first written above:
Town of Estes Park:
By: ________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Town Clerk
The County of Larimer:
_____________________________
Tom Donnelly, Chair
Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
_______________________
Angela Myers, Clerk and Recorder
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Content:
_______________________ ________________________
County Attorney County Manager
237
Option B – p. 14
Exhibit 1: Estes Valley Planning Area Map
Exhibit 2: Transitional Duties for Estes Valley Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment
238
Option B – p. 15
239
Option B – p. 16
Exhibit 2: Transition Roles for Estes Valley Planning Commission and
Board of Adjustment
The following provisions describe the transitional period for the Estes Valley Planning Commission and
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.
1. Transitional Role of Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Parties hereby continue, for a
period up to one year, the existing Estes Valley Planning Commission (“Transitional EVPC”),
with duties, responsibilities, authority, obligations, and operational parameters pursuant to the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
1.1 Authority. The Transitional EVPC shall have authority limited to the following:
1.1.a. The Transitional EVPC shall have all of the duties, responsibilities, and
obligations of a Joint Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Estes Valley
Development Code or its successor Code(s), as those duties, responsibilities, and
obligations apply to “in process” applications, as defined here. In process applications
are land-use applications that are properly filed, and deemed by the Town’s Community
Development Director to be complete and ripe for review by the Transitional EVPC,
prior to the effective date of this Intergovernmental Agreement, but that have not reached
final disposition by the appropriate final decision-making entity by that date. In process
applications also include any applications that have been decided by staff and properly
appealed to the Transitional EVPC by that date. It is anticipated that all such applications
that are in process will be considered and decided upon in a deliberatively expeditious
fashion.
1.1.b. Members of the Transitional EVPC may, upon passage of appropriate
Resolution(s) of the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Board of County
Commissioners of Larimer County, be appointed as members of an official
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Task Force for preparation and deliberation toward
adoption by appropriate authority(s) of new Comprehensive Plan(s) for the Town of Estes
Park, the unincorporated Estes Valley, or both together. Upon such adoption, the
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Task Force shall adjourn and dissolve until such time as it
may be reconstituted by the Parties for the purposes of a future comprehensive plan.
1.1.c. Upon final disposition of all land-use applications in process pursuant to this
section, as determined by the Director of Community Development for the Town, the
Transitional EVPC shall sunset and cease existence as a Joint Planning Commission. In
accordance with Section b above, members of the Transitional EVPC are eligible to
continue in a Comprehensive Plan advisory capacity.
1.2. Membership. The Transitional EVPC shall be composed of seven (7) members. Currently
serving members of the EVPC shall be considered reappointed as members of the
Transitional EVPC, and they may serve as they are able and willing. The appointment
process that follows will need to be invoked only in the event of a vacancy. Three (3)
members shall be appointed by the County and four (4) members shall be appointed by the
Town. Each member shall serve for a four (4) year term, or until the EVPC’s sunset date,
whichever may occur first.
240
Option B – p. 17
1.3. Residency. All appointees of the Town shall be residents of the Town for at least one (1)
year prior to their appointment. All appointees of the County shall be residents of the
unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley Planning Area for at least one (1) year prior to
their appointment. All members shall continue to be residents of their respective areas during
their entire terms. A County appointee on the Transitional EVPC residing in an area annexed
by the Town may continue to serve the remainder of that member’s term.
2. Estes Valley Transitional Board of Adjustment. The parties hereby continue, for a time-limited
transitional period, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (“Transitional EVBoA”), with duties,
responsibilities, authority, obligations, and operational parameters, pursuant to the terms and conditions
of this Agreement as follows:
2.1. Authority. The Transitional EVBoA shall have authority limited to the following:
2.1.a. The Transitional EVBoA shall have all of the duties, responsibilities, and
obligations of a Joint Board of Adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the Estes Valley
Development Code or its successor Code(s) as those duties, responsibilities, and
obligations apply to “in process” applications, as defined here. In process applications
are land-use applications that are properly filed, and deemed by the Town’s Community
Development Director to be complete and ripe for review by the Transitional EVBoA,
prior to the effective date of this Intergovernmental Agreement, but that have not reached
final disposition by the appropriate final decision-making entity by that date. In process
applications also include any applications that have been decided by staff and properly
appealed to the Transitional EVPC by that date. It is anticipated that all such
applications will be considered and decided upon in a deliberatively expeditious fashion.
2.1.b. Upon final disposition of all land-use applications pursuant to Section a above, the
Transitional EVBoA shall sunset and cease existence as a Joint Board of Adjustment.
2.2. Membership. The Transitional EVBoA shall be composed of five (5) members. Three (3)
members shall be appointed by the Town and two (2) members shall be appointed by the
County. Each member shall serve for a three (3) year term, or until the EVBoA’s sunset date,
whichever may occur first. Currently serving members of the EVBoA shall be considered
reappointed as members of the Transitional EVBoA, and they may serve as they are able and
willing. The appointment process herein will need to be invoked only in the event of a
vacancy.
2.3. Residency. All appointees of the Town shall be residents of the Town for at least one (1)
year prior to their appointment. All appointees of the County shall be residents of the
unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley Planning Area for at least one (1) year prior to
their appointment. All members shall continue to be residents of their respective areas during
their entire terms. A County appointee on the Transitional EVBoA residing in an area
annexed by the Town may continue to serve the remainder of that member’s term.
241
Option C – p. 1
Option C - Patterned After Current IGA
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Regarding Land Use Planning and Related Issues for the Estes Valley
THIS INTERGOVERMENTAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and effective this 1st
day of April, 2020 (“Effective Date”) by and between LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO (“County”), a
body politic organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado and THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO (“Town”) and jointly referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Parties have worked together cooperatively on land use planning since the mid-
1990s, with an initial intergovernmental agreement (IGA) effective February 1, 2000, with five
subsequent amendments, and which expires in February 2020;
B. WHEREAS, in 1996, the Town and County prepared and jointly adopted the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan for the land area in the Estes Valley Planning Area which includes lands
within Town limits and in unincorporated Larimer County, which plan is effective until updated
or superseded;
C. WHEREAS, the Parties agree that maintaining and enhancing areas of Town development in a
thoughtful and deliberate way, managing growth in the Estes Valley, and protecting open space
and conserving rural character are enhanced by cooperation in land use planning and
development review services;
D. WHEREAS, concentrating Town Level Development in areas planned and designated for such
development affords greater efficiency in the delivery of services such as water, streets and
transportation, fire and police protection and other services, and affords a measure of
predictability to landowners and residents concerning where services will be provided in the
future;
E. WHEREAS, maintaining the parts of the Estes Valley Planning Area that are designated for rural
uses as rural promotes the purposes of providing a community buffer between the Town and the
adjacent national park and federal lands, serves economic and community interests, and meets the
goals of the community as set forth through the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan;
F. WHEREAS, the purposes of this Intergovernmental Agreement (Agreement) are to:
1. Implement the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan as it currently exists or may hereafter be
amended or replaced;
2. Provide for administration of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) within the
Planning Area;
3. Allocating Town and County resources including necessary funding for administration of the
EVDC and related functions within the Planning Area;
4. Assure that land eligible for annexation to the Town are considered for annexation prior to or
concurrently with development;
242
Option C – p. 2
5. Provide effective means for the appropriate design, construction, and maintenance of public
improvements;
6. Encourage the efficient use of land and open space conservation in appropriate locations,
including those in the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley;
7. Provide a mechanism for property owners, residents, stakeholders, and others to have input
on and be informed as to where development will occur in the future; and
8. Assure that development in the vicinity of the Town does not negatively impact roads or
other infrastructure improvements in unincorporated Larimer County, and provide that when
there are negative impacts, those impacts will be appropriately mitigated.
G. WHEREAS, pursuant to State of Colorado law, local jurisdictions are authorized to regulate the
location of activities and developments; phase development of services and facilities; regulate
development on the basis of its impact on the community or surrounding areas; plan for and
regulate the use of land so as to provide for planned and orderly use of land and protection of the
environment; cooperate or contract with other units of government for the purpose of planning
and regulating the development of land, including, but not limited to, the joint exercise of
planning, zoning, subdivision, building, and related regulations and annexation of property, all in
a manner consistent with constitutional rights and statutory procedures;
H. WHEREAS, coordination among the County and Town planning staff and communication
among local jurisdictions, special districts, property owners and other interested parties is
essential to accomplishing this Agreement;
I. WHEREAS, any provisions in this Agreement may be implemented only to the extent legally
permitted by State and Federal Law;
J. WHEREAS, the Parties have sought community input and held hearings after proper public
notice for the consideration of entering into this Agreement; and
K. WHEREAS, in order to provide for an orderly transition to this Intergovernmental Agreement
and to allow for appropriate allocation of resources by all parties to support it, it is desirable to
extend the February 1, 2010 Intergovernmental Agreement and its subsequent amendments for an
additional two (2) months, to terminate on March 31, 2020, with this new Intergovernmental
Agreement to become effective on April 1, 2020. The extension is being accomplished by an
amendment contemporaneous with this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants and obligations expressed herein, it is
hereby agreed by and between the Parties as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have the meanings set forth below.
1.1. Annexation. Annexation means the incorporation of land area into an existing municipality
with a resulting change in the boundaries of that municipality.
243
Option C – p. 3
1.2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley Planning
Area, adopted by the Estes Park Planning Commission and the Larimer County Planning
Commission in December 1996. The Plan addresses land use, transportation, natural resources,
and other elements and guides through maps and text and generally indicates the types, densities
and intensities of land use that are acceptable for any given parcel of land or area in the Estes
Valley Planning Area. It also establishes the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary.
1.3. Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The adopted land use, zoning, and development
standards for the Estes Valley Planning Area adopted by the Town and County effective in 1999
and as subsequently amended.
1.4. Estes Valley Planning Area (EVPA). The Estes Valley Planning Area is that geographical area
including all of the Town of Estes Park and certain designated areas beyond Town limits
established in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and as depicted in Exhibit 1. In such area,
Town level development is currently not considered appropriate or desired except where it
annexes to the Town. This Agreement anticipates that land within the EVPA immediately
adjacent to Town limits may be annexed into the Town when Town Level Development is
proposed.
1.5. Open Space. Land that is not occupied by any structure or artificial impervious surfaces and
that is intended for long-term conservation purposes.
1.6. Rural Areas. Areas which are outside the Town’s corporate limits and which are planned or
zoned for rural estate or other rural residential uses or which are designated to remain as
conserved areas. These lands are not intended to be annexed and will generally remain rural in
character.
1.7. Town Level Development. Any development which uses Town level facilities and services
provided either by the Town or special districts and which is at higher intensities that rural
areas.
1.8. Town Level Facilities and Services. Services such as central water, sewer, responsive fire
protection, urban level street construction and maintenance, and/or similar services that are
typically provided by the Town or an appropriate district and are necessary to serve Town
Level Development as defined in this Agreement.
2. ADOPTION OF NEW PLANS AND REGULATIONS
This section identifies the plans and boundary maps which are referenced in this Agreement.
2.1. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, The Parties agree to communicate and coordinate to prepare
a Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley Planning Area that will encompass the Town and the
unincorporated area of Larimer County, which upon adoption, shall replace and supersede the
current Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
2.2. Estes Valley Planning Area Boundary. The Estes Valley Planning Area boundary is identified
in “Exhibit 1”, and attached hereto and incorporated herein, including and subsequent
amendments thereto.
244
Option C – p. 4
2.3. Estes Valley Development Code. The Parties agree to continue to jointly administer the Estes
Valley Development Code as subsequently amended, and update it as needed to reflect changes
and updates to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
3. LAND USE REGULATIONS AND FEES
This section addresses the relevant development standards, procedures, and fees that apply to proposed
development in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.1. Town Limits. Within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Estes Park as they exist or may
be changed through annexation, the Town shall maintain and exercise the right to review and
approve development subject to the Estes Valley Development Code, as existing or hereafter
amended. The Parties agree that land-use applications, appeals, interpretations, and variances,
including those applied for at the building permit stage, shall be processed and decided by the
Town as provided for in the Estes Valley Development Code, as existing or hereafter amended.
3.2. Unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area. Within the unincorporated area of the Estes
Valley Planning Area, Larimer County shall maintain and exercise the right to review and
approve development subject to the Estes Valley Development Code. The Parties agree that land
use applications, appeals, interpretations, and variances shall be processed and decided by the
County as provided for in the Estes Valley Development Code.
3.4. Modifications to Regulations. The Parties agree that the Town or County may allow reasonable
modifications from adopted standards within their respective jurisdictions in accordance with the
EVDC.
3.5. Fees for Development.
3.5.1. The Parties agree to maintain and administer separate fees with their respective
jurisdictions in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.5.2. The County’s Capital Expansion fees for roads, community parks, and drainage shall apply
within the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.5.3. The County’s regional park fee shall not apply within the unincorporated portion of the
Estes Valley Planning Area.
4. PARTIES’ ROLES IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, COMPLIANCE
4.1. Establishment of Improvement Districts. The County agrees to notify and allow the Town to
comment prior to establishing any improvement district within the unincorporated Estes Valley
Planning Area.
4.2. Utilities and Services. In areas where the Town has jurisdiction and oversight over the delivery
of utility services and other services relative to public improvements, the Town agrees to provide
a mechanism for the performance of inspections of any utility or other public improvements
provided by developers. In areas where special districts have jurisdiction and oversight over the
245
Option C – p. 5
delivery of utility services and other services relative to public improvements, the Town agrees to
propose that the Town and the respective special district include terms in the intergovernmental
agreement with the special district that stipulate that the special district will perform these
inspections. The County, Town, or special district may charge developers an appropriate fee for
this inspection service.
4.3. Improvement Guarantees. Improvement guarantees shall be required as set forth in the EVDC.
The respective jurisdictions shall administer and maintain all improvement guarantees.
Appropriate jurisdictional agencies, such as the Town Engineer and County Engineer, the Town
Utilities Department, and the Sanitation District(s) with jurisdiction, shall verify the estimate of
construction costs, depending on the geographic location of the improvements. Releases of
security from an Improvement Guarantee shall be authorized by the respective jurisdictional
authority and released by the authorized Community Development Department. To the extent
that development in the Town requires the construction of off-site public improvements in the
unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area that are typically not associated with development in
the County, the Town agrees to provide a mechanism for maintenance of those off-site public
improvements by adjacent property owner. Such improvements include, but are not limited to,
curbs and gutters, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, traffic signals, traffic control
and traffic calming devices, drainage facilitates, streetscapes, and medians.
4.4. Maintenance of Required Public Facilities. Maintenance of public facilities, if any, shall be
the responsibility of the Town or County, depending upon the respective geographic location of
the public improvement and subject to other applicable regulations. Each public facility shall be
subject to the policies and procedures of the respective jurisdiction.
4.5. Development Review Staffing Roles.
4.5.1. Duties of the Town and County Staff. Town and County staff shall coordinate closely in
the review, approval, and monitoring of land use development within the Estes Valley Planning
Area.
4.5.1.1. Duties of the Town Community Development Department. Town staff shall
serve as the primary administrator of the Estes Valley Development Code within town limits.
4.5.1.2. Duties of the County Community Development Department. County staff shall
serve as the primary administrator of the Estes Valley Development Code within the
unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area.
4.5.2. Referrals and Coordination on Recommendations.
4.5.2.1. County Referral to Town. Within the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area,
the County agrees to submit all proposed development applications to the Town staff for
review and comment so that Town and County staff can achieve agreement on a
recommendation.
4.5.2.2. Town Referral to County. Within the town limits, the Town agrees to submit all
proposed development applications to the County staff for review and comment so that Town
246
Option C – p. 6
and County staff can achieve agreement on a recommendation and input on development
within the Town that may affect the County’s interests and public improvements, including,
but not limited to, road improvements and annexations.
4.6. Additional Review Roles. The Town and the County have additional operating rules,
regulations, ordinances and requirements which may apply to development and use of property
within the Estes Valley Planning Area. These include but are not limited to the areas of
regulation noted in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Review Roles of Town of Estes Park and Larimer County
Type of Process or
Regulation
Within Town of Estes Park
(Who Administers)
Within Unincorporated Estes
Valley – Larimer County
(Who Administers)
Development Review
for Planning Cases
Estes Valley Development Code
(Town Planning)
Estes Valley Development Code
(County Planning)
Floodplain
Regulations
Town floodplain regulations
(Town Community Development)
County floodplain regulations
(County Engineering)
Sign Regulations Town sign regulations (Town
Community Development)
County sign regulations (LC
Community Development)
Building Permits Town Building Code (Town
Building Official)
County Building Code, permit,
and inspection programs (County
Building Official)
Streets and Roads
Standards
Street standards (Town Engineer) Larimer County Rural Area Street
Standards. County road
construction, safety, and
maintenance (County Engineer)
Drainage Drainage standards (Town
Engineer)
Drainage standards (County
Engineer)
Public Health and
Safety
County Health Department County Health Department
Wildfire Construction Wildfire Construction standards
in Larimer County’s building
code (Town Building Official)
Wildfire Construction standards
in Larimer County’s building
code (County Building Official)
Code Compliance Town Code Compliance County Code Compliance
Legal Counsel Primary legal advisory to Town
Staff and the EVPC for items in
town limits and to institute and
maintain all necessary legal
actions for matters within the
town limits. Also, primary legal
advisor to the EVBOA for all
matters within the Planning Area
(Town Attorney)
Primary legal advisory to County
Staff and the EVPC for
unincorporated area and to
institute and maintain all
necessary legal actions for
matters therein (County Attorney)
Vacation Rentals EVDC (Approved by Town) EVDC (New units approved by
County)
247
Option C – p. 7
5. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVALS (PLANNING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT)
5.1. Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) shall be
a recommending body and have the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the County
Planning Commission for the area of the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area, with all
final approvals by the Board of County Commissioners. The EVPC shall also have authority and
be responsible for approving the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The authority, membership,
residency requirements, officer duties, and attendance and other requirements are spelled out in
the bylaws for the EVPC as amended from time to time by the Town Trustees and Board of
County Commissioners.
5.2. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall hear all
variance requests pursuant to the terms of conditions of state statute. The authority, membership,
residency requirements, officer duties, and attendance and other requirements are spelled out in
the bylaws for the EVBOA as amended from time to time by the Town Trustees and Board of
County Commissioners. The Town attorney shall advise the Board of Adjustment as to
applications within the Town. The County Attorney shall advise the Board of Adjustment as to
applications within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley.
6. ANNEXATION
6.1. Eligibility for Annexation. The Parties agree that the term “eligibility for annexation” shall
mean any land that is contiguous to the corporate town limits via one or more points of
connection, and that it is anticipated that the Town would annex lands eligible for annexation in
the Estes Valley Planning Area at such time that a development proposal and annexation petition,
including all required fees and supplemental information, is received from the property owner(s).
The Town represents that it will give due consideration to the desirability of annexing lands at
such time that they become eligible for annexation based upon State annexation statutes. When a
town growth boundary is defined, lands within that area shall be considered for annexation at
such time that a development proposal is presented.
6.2. Town Limits Annexation Area. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan will define the area
appropriate for future annexation adjacent to the Town of Estes Park.
6.3. Future Annexations. The County agrees that, in the case of lands within the unincorporated
Estes Valley Planning Area that are not eligible for annexation but that are proposing Town Level
Development, the County shall require applicants that apply for Subdivision of five (5) or more
lots; Rezoning; Concept Plan; Development Plan for Commercial Accommodation, Commercial,
Industrial, or Multi-Family Development of 10 or more units.
6.4. Annexation Petition. The County agrees that it will not accept any application for any property
that is eligible for voluntary annexation to the Town unless a written annexation request which
conforms to the Town’s standard annexation conditions is submitted to the Town and is
subsequently denied by the Town. If such an annexation petition is denied by the Town, the
County may accept said application on the property.
248
Option C – p. 8
6.5. Annexation Agreement. The County agrees to require a binding agreement to annex as a
condition of approval on any development application for uses approved and located within the
unincorporated portion of the Planning Area but not eligible for annexation to the Town at the
time of development application, excluding subdivisions of 4 or less lots for residential use.
6.6. Amendment to Implement Annexation Policy. The Town is deliberating regarding the
appropriate policy to coordinate annexation with the County. The Parties agree to cooperate
diligently on the creation of such a policy to be completed within 6-months of adoption of the
comprehensive plan and intend to incorporate it herein as an amendment once it is determined.
Until such time, while the Town undertakes no specific obligations with regard to annexation, the
Parties agree to cooperate regarding Town Level Development in the unincorporated Estes Valley
Planning Area and on annexation petitions.
7. IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT
7.1. Commencement and Transition Period. Staff processes of applications for development
submitted after the effective date of this IGA shall be conducted according to this Agreement.
The County shall on April 1, 2020 resume maintaining all unincorporated-area project files and
Town staff shall have access to files. Town staff will be available to support County staff access
to historic case files for at least one year from the time of this Agreement or such time when files
may be transitioned from the Town to County.
7.2. Training Regarding this Agreement. The Parties agree to (a) notify newly elected officials,
new managers and key staff of the existence of this Agreement, and (b) on an as-needed basis,
conduct training sessions on the procedures which are necessary to implement this Agreement.
7.3. Mediation. If the Parities fail to reach agreement on any provisions contained in this
Agreement, the Parties agree to engage a trained mediator to help them resolve the issue.
8. PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT
Either party may seek specific performance or enforcement of this Agreement in a Court of competent
jurisdiction, but neither party shall have any claim or remedy for damages arising from an alleged breach
hereof against the other, nor shall this Agreement confer on either Party standing to contest a land use
decision or action of the other except as a breach of this Agreement.
9. THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS
This Agreement is not intended to modify the standing the Parties may possess independent of this
Agreement. This Agreement is between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County and no third-party
rights or beneficiaries exist or are created hereby.
10. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
The procedures for amending this Agreement shall be as follows:
10.1. Amendments to the text of this Agreement. The text of this Agreement may be amended
only by written agreement of both Parties. Either Party may initiate an amendment, but any such
initiation must be in writing.
249
Option C – p. 9
10.2. Amendments to the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary. The Estes Valley Planning Area
Boundary may be amended by written agreement of both Parties.
10.3. Amendments to Elements of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. It is acknowledged that
the adoption of amendments to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan may necessitate
amendments to this agreement regarding.
11. SEVERABILITY
Invalidation of any specific provisions of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of any other
provision of this Agreement.
12. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years from the date of its
execution. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five-year terms unless at least six
(6) months prior to its scheduled expiration, either Party should notify the other Party in writing of its
decision that the Agreement not be renewed. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon at least six
(6) months’ notice.
13. COSTS
The County will participate in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by providing staffing to co-lead and
support the plan effort, and participating in costs of hiring a shared consultant, contributing to the cost of
the consultant. Beginning on April 1, 2020, the County shall provide the necessary personnel or
resources to provide professional staffing to support development review within the unincorporated area
using the Estes Valley Development Code and working with the Estes Valley Planning Commission and
Board of Adjustment when relevant. The Parties agree to share the costs of subsequent updates to the
EVDC, including any major code updates.
14. EFFECTIVE DATE
In Witness thereof, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective on the Effective
Date first written above:
Town of Estes Park:
By: ________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Town Clerk
250
Option C – p. 10
The County of Larimer:
_____________________________
Tom Donnelly, Chair
Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
_______________________
Angela Myers, Clerk and Recorder
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Content:
_______________________ ________________________
County Attorney County Manager
Exhibit 1: Estes Valley Planning Area Map
251
Option C – p. 11
252
1
Estes Valley IGA Comparisons – November 6, 2019
Issue
Option B – Patterned After Other IGA
Models (most like Option B on 9/30)
Option C - Patterned After Current IGA
(includes suggestions from 9/30)
Current IGA - old language
Use and Carry
Forward Estes
Valley Planning
Area boundary
(Planning Area)
Sec. 1 Definitions, and Sec. 2 Adoption of New
Plans and Regulations notes the Estes Valley
Planning Area is maintained.
Analysis: The Planning Area boundary has served
well and until further planning and analysis, staff
does not recommend changing the existing
boundary. It may be modified during the EVCP
update if merited then.
Sec. 1 Definitions, and Sec. 2 Adoption of New
Plans and Regulations - Same as Option B to the
left.
Whereas statement #1 (p. 1)
notes that as mapped currently,
the Planning Area includes the
Town and Unincorporated
Valley. Section II (p. 2) and
Exhibit A also serves as the Estes
Valley Development Code
(EVDC) boundary.
Use and Update
Estes Valley
Comprehensive
Plan (EVCP)
Sec. 2 (p. 4) proposes that the Parties will
coordinate to prepare a plan for the Planning
Area and notes that the plan will include a
boundary to delineate areas of the Estes Valley
that are suitable for annexation to the Town (e.g.,
a town limit or growth boundary) as well as what
should remain rural.
Analysis: The Town and County see value in
continuing to have a plan that covers the entire
Estes Valley Planning Area. This joint plan
approach is consistent with community input and
would carry forward valid aspects of the current
EVCP. Updating the plan would allow the
community to address new circumstances and
changes and better define town-level
development areas and rural or conservation
areas. Cost sharing is being discussed.
Sec. 2 (p. 4) - Same as Option B.
Whereas statements #1 & 2 (p.
1) reference the adopted plan
and its “future uniform land use
classification system” adopted
by Town Planning Commission
and County Planning
Commission in 1999 before the
IGA.
253
2
Issue
Option B – Patterned After Other IGA
Models (most like Option B on 9/30)
Option C - Patterned After Current IGA
(includes suggestions from 9/30)
Current IGA - old language
Address Which
Development
Code to Use:
Estes Valley
Development
Code (EVDC) OR
Larimer County
Land Use Code
Overlay District
Secs. 2 and 3 note that Town and County will
each have land use and zoning designations, and
the County will prepare supplementation
regulations to the Larimer County Land Use Code,
carrying forward certain provisions from the
EVDC (as noted in an outline that follows on
page 7).
Analysis: Carrying forward relevant provisions
from the current EVDC into codes for the
respective jurisdictions is a standard approach in
Town/County agreements even when they have a
jointly prepared and adopted comprehensive
plan. This approach may lead to decisions and
outcomes that are consistent with plan goals but
could lead to subtle differences between how
Town and County codes are administered over
time.
Secs. 2 and 3 reference the Town and County
using the EVDC for respective jurisdictions.
Analysis: Maintaining and administering one
Estes Valley code could create continuity and
consistency with the current code. It also means
the County will be administering two codes with
potential subsequent amendments, potentially
creating logistical and coordination challenges.
Over time, decisions could become arbitrary. It is
also likely the current code will need to be
updated after the joint comprehensive plan is
completed, which will need to be a joint effort by
County and Town. Administering the EVDC in the
County likely means additional resources for
planning coordination, administrative services,
business systems, and code compliance staffing.
Furthermore, the EVDC will need to be updated in
a few years after the plan.
Whereas statement #4 & 6
address administration of the
Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) within the Planning Area.
Planning Board:
Estes Valley
Planning
Commission
(EVPC) OR Larimer
County Planning
Commission
Sec. 5 Development Review Approvals – proposes
a planning commissions each for the Town and
County, and transitional duties for the EVPC
(Exhibit 2).
Analysis: This approach means the Town and
County each administer a Planning Commission
(one Planning Commission for unincorporated
areas of County). This could mean that the Estes
Valley does not feel like it has a local say in
development review. Means to remedy that may
be to add representation to the County’s Planning
Commission, have an advisory board, and/or
address certain transitional duties for the current
EVPC, such as continuing in a role to advise on the
comprehensive plan update.
Sec. 5 Development Review Approvals, maintains
the EVPC, but notes it as a recommending body
as suggested by County attorneys. (Note: There
is interest in reconsidering the 4-3 composition
based on population.)
Analysis: One EVPC may create one review body
with a local Estes Valley perspective. It also
means two Planning Commissions within the
County and could create legal and logistical
details that necessitate increasing County staffing
(e.g., administrative, planning, and attorneys).
The EVPC is an atypical approach for other
jurisdictions in the County.
Whereas statement #3
established EVPC in 1997.
Section III (p. 2). has duties of
Town planning commissions, for
the comp plan, and duties
pursuant to provisions of the
EVDC (including final approval
for development plans, minor
modifications, L&E, and
Conditional Use Permit).
Membership of 3 Town
members and 4 County
members. Section VIII. All land
use decisions of EVPC are
advisory only unless specifically
addressed in the EVDC (First
Amendment).
254
3
Issue
Option B – Patterned After Other IGA
Models (most like Option B on 9/30)
Option C - Patterned After Current IGA
(includes suggestions from 9/30)
Current IGA - old language
Board of
Adjustment:
Estes Valley Board
of Adjustment
(EVBOA) OR
Larimer County
Board of
Adjustment
Sec. 5 Development Review Approvals - notes
that Larimer County BOA will address variances
(Exhibit 2).
Analysis: Separating the EVBOA into separate
Town and County boards may depend on whether
the EVPC and EVDC are maintained. Separate
boards would likely be cleaner to administrate for
each Party. BOA plays a focused role on
reviewing variances, so a transitional or advisory
role would not be necessary, and the
representation issue may not be as important as
for the Planning Commission, as noted above.
Sec. 5 Development Review Approvals -
maintains the EVBOA to hear variance requests.
Analysis: As with the Planning Commission, one
EVBOA would mean the Estes Valley has one
board to review local variances. It also means
two Boards of Adjustment for the County and
potential added resources necessary (e.g.,
administrative planning) to dedicate to the joint
board in addition to the existing County Board of
Adjustment.
Section IV. (p. 3), EVBOA has
duties of County pursuant to
provision of EVDC; hears all
variance requests. Membership
of 3 members of the Town and 2
in the County.
Annexation Policy Sec. 6 Annexation notes that further discussion
will be necessary to iron out the details of an
annexation policy.
Analysis: The issue needs further discussion and
will be revisited in future agreement amendment.
County and Town staff agree that future town-
level development should occur in Town limits. A
sound annexation policy helps implement the
comprehensive plan and guide specific locations
for town annexation in the Estes Valley to occur
and not. Towns annex properties when they
identify areas where orderly growth can occur
with centralized, efficient services that are
equitable distributed and paid for. Arbitrary
annexations and enclaves tend to create
confusion around boundaries and representation
and may lead to inefficient service delivery.
Sec. 6 Annexation – Sam as Option B.
See Analysis for Option B to the left.
Section V. (p. 4), Town considers
annexation and for certain
development types. Town also
agrees to annex County roads
and rights-of-way. County
agrees to a binding annexation
agreement as a condition of
approval. Sec. VI. “At sole
legislative discretion of Board of
Trustees of the Town.” If Town
decides not to annex, it shall
continue through the EVPC and
BCC.”
Staffing for
Development
Compliance
Sec. 4. Parties’ Roles in Development Review,
Compliance provides guidance on development
review staffing roles and other department roles.
It has been updated a bit for clarification. The big
change is that County planning staff will conduct
Sec. 4. Parties’ Roles in Development Review,
Compliance - Same as Option B.
See Analysis for Option B.
Sec. VI Development Compliance
with Other Town and County
Requirements address the
respective roles of the Town and
County staff.
255
4
Issue
Option B – Patterned After Other IGA
Models (most like Option B on 9/30)
Option C - Patterned After Current IGA
(includes suggestions from 9/30)
Current IGA - old language
(See comparative
staffing table on p.
5.)
development review for the unincorporated Estes
Valley rather than Town planning staff.
Analysis: No modifications were directly
suggested on 9/30, but the increased role with
EVPC, EVBOA, and administering the EVDC will
likely result in added County staffing from
different departments.
Sec. IX (p. 7) – Town and County
cooperate.
Term Review and
Transition
Sec. 12 suggests a new term to be five years.
Start on April 1, 2020 and propose a transitional
period through the end of 2020 where Town staff
will help with research.
Analysis: The term of the agreement is a policy
decision. The timing is flexible, and the Town and
County may need to amend a new IGA after EVCP
is updated.
Sec. 12 - Same as Option B.
Sec. X.D - 10 years. Extended in
First Amendment for another
ten years to Feb. 2020. The
original agreement included a
one-year transition period
where County staff assisted with
research and attended Town
meetings.
Attributing Fees
and Costs
Sec. 13 notes that County resumes collecting fees
and there is no exchange of funds to pay for
staffing services.
Analysis: This is a more traditional and
straightforward way to administer services.
Sec. 13 – Same as Option B.
Sec. VII (p. 88) County’s capital
expansion fees in
unincorporated areas. Not the
regional park fee. Separate land
use application fees – Town
collects and keeps fees.
Costs: Town provides personnel
and County pays Town for
staffing and for half of Host
Compliance contract. The Town
keeps development fee revenue
from unincorporated area
applications.
256
5
Estes Valley Staffing Responsibilities and Decision Making (Development Compliance)
CURRENT IGA NEW IGA (B or C)
Activity Town of Estes Unincorporated Estes
Valley
Town of Estes Unincorporated Estes
Valley
LONG RANGE
PLANNING
EV Plan updates Town Community
Development Department
(CDD)) staff prepares, and
Estes Valley Planning
Commission (EVPC) decides on
plan
Town CDD staff prepares
(with support from County),
and Estes Valley Planning
Commission (EVPC) decides
on plan
Town CDD staff partner with
County staff to prepare plan,
and Town Planning Commission
and Town Trustees decide for
area in Town and recommend
for area in County OR jointly
adopt the plan for the whole
valley
County CDD staff partner
with Town staff to prepare
plan; County Planning
Commission and Board of
County Commissioners (BCC)
decide for area in County and
may recommend for area in
Town OR jointly adopt plan
for whole valley
EV Code Changes Town CDD staff prepares, and
Town Trustees and Board of
County Commissioners (BCC)
decide on plan
Town CDD staff prepares
(with support from County),
and Town Trustees and BCC
decide on plan
If EVDC - Town CDD staff
prepares (with input from
County), and Town Trustees and
BCC decide for all code changes,
irrespective of jurisdiction
If Town Code - Town CDD staff
prepares, and Town Trustees
decide for area in Town (with
recommendations from County
optional)
If EVDC - County CDD staff
prepares (within input from
Town), and Town Trustees
and BCC decide for all code
changes, irrespective of
jurisdiction
If in County Code - County
CDD staff prepares, and BCC
decides for area in County
(with recommendations from
Town optional)
DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW
Land Use Applications Estes Valley Development
Code (Town CDD)
Estes Valley Development
Code (Town CDD)
Town of Estes Development
Code (Town CDD)
Larimer County Land Use
Code Supplemental
Standards (County planning)
Code Compliance Town Code Compliance Town Code Compliance Town Code Compliance County Code Compliance
Vacation Rentals
Approved by Town (with cap) Approved by Town (with cap) Approved by Town (Town
Maintains its rental cap)
Approved roll into County
program (keep rental cap in
the unincorporated area)
257
6
CURRENT IGA NEW IGA (B or C)
Activity Town of Estes Unincorporated Estes
Valley
Town of Estes Unincorporated Estes
Valley
Floodplain Regulations Town floodplain regulations
(Town CDD)
County floodplain regulations
(County Engineering)
Town floodplain regulations
(Town CDD)
County floodplain regulations
(County Engineering)
Sign Regulations Town sign regulations (Town
CDD)
County sign regulations
(County planning)
Town sign regulations (Town
CDD)
County sign regulations
(County planning)
Building Permits Town Building Code (Town
Building Official)
County Building Code,
permit, and inspection
programs (County Building
Official)
Town Building Code (Town
Building Official)
County Building Code,
permit, and inspection
programs (County Building
Official)
Streets and Roads Street standards (Town
Engineer)
Larimer County Rural Area
Street Standards. County
road construction, safety,
and maintenance (County
Engineer)
Street standards (Town
Engineer)
Larimer County Rural Area
Street Standards. County
road construction, safety,
and maintenance (County
Engineer)
Drainage Drainage standards (Town
Engineer)
Drainage standards (County
Engineer)
Drainage standards (Town
Engineer)
Drainage standards (County
Engineer)
Wildfire Construction Wildfire Construction
standards in Larimer County’s
building code (Town Building
Official)
Wildfire Construction
standards in County’s
building code (County
Building Official)
Wildfire Construction standards
in County’s building code (Town
Building Official)
Wildfire Construction
standards in County’s
building code (County
Building Official)
Attorney Town Attorney is primary
advisor to CDD staff and EVPC
County attorney is primary
advisor to CDD staff on
matters that may relate to
County issues and may
attend EVPC meetings as
necessary and institutes and
maintains all legal actions in
the unincorporated area.
Town Attorney is primary
advisor to CDD staff and boards
County attorney is primary
advisor to County staff and
boards
Public Health and
Safety
County Health Department
(Note: Current IGA says
“Town”)
County Health Department County Health Department County Health Department
= County responsibility
258
7
Estes Valley Planning Area Overlay District for Option B – Outline
This presents an annotated outline of sections to carry forward from the Estes Valley Development Code into the Larimer County
Land Use Code.
Section 4.2
Add new Section 4.2.4 – Estes Valley Overlay District
A. Purpose.
To implement the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and to
provide for consistent and coordinated development review
and land use compliance in unincorporated area the Estes
Valley Planning Area.
B. Establishment and amendment of district boundaries.
1. To carry out the purposes of this section, the following
zoning district classifications are established within
Larimer County:
a. EV RE-1 Rural Estate
b. EV RE Rural Estate
c. EV E-1 Estate
d. EV E Estate
e. EV R Residential
f. EV RM Multi-Family Residential
g. EV A Accommodations/Highway Corridor
h. EV A-1 Accommodations/Low Intensity
i. EV CO Commercial Outlying
j. EV I-1 Limited Industrial
k. EV O - Office
2. The term "Estes overlay district" shall mean whichever of
the above districts is applicable given the location of the
subject site.
3. The boundaries of each zoning district are shown on the
official zoning map adopted for Larimer County.
C. Applicability.
1. The intergovernmental agreement between the Town of
Estes Park and Larimer County sets forth the Joint
Planning Area boundary where these regulations apply.
2. The provisions of this district apply to all rezonings,
special reviews, subdivisions, conservation developments
and any additional land development applications as may
be specified.
3. It is intended that each application of this district will be
accompanied by supplemental regulations which are
contained in Chapter 19 and the technical supplement to
this code. The supplemental regulations are intended to
set forth requirements pertaining to the type, location
and intensity of land use allowed, and additional
development standards, if any, as may be needed to
implement the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
D. Requirements
1. Within the EV Overlay, rezonings, special reviews,
subdivisions and conservation developments, and any
additional land development applications as may be
specified in the supplemental regulations, must be
developed in accordance with this section and Chapter
19.
2. Within the EV Overlay, the county land use code and the
underlying zoning district apply unless modified by the
supplemental regulations, in which case the more
stringent rule applies.
259
8
New Chapter 19 – Supplemental Regulations for the
Estes Valley
A. Establishment of Zoning Districts
1. Residential
a. EV RE-1 Rural Estate
b. EV RE Rural Estate
c. EV E-1 Estate
d. EV E Estate
e. EV R Residential
f. EV RM Multi-Family Residential
2. Accommodations, Commercial, Industrial and
Office
g. EV A Accommodations/Highway Corridor
h. EV A-1 Accommodations/Low Intensity
i. EV CO Commercial Outlying
j. EV I-1 Limited Industrial
k. EV O - Office
B. Zoning Districts and Allowed Land Uses
Note: This section will carry forward the Base Density and
Dimensional Standards for the EV Zoning Districts, Table 4-
2 from the EVDC.
Zoning
District
Max.
Net
Density
(units/ac)
Min.
lot size
Min.
Building
structure
Max.
Building
Height (ft)
Min.
Building
Width
(ft)
Area
(sq. ft.)
Width
(ft.)
Front (ft.) Side
(ft.)
Rear
(ft.)
EV RE-1 1/10 ac. 10. ac 200 50 50 50 30 20
Etc.
C. Zoning Districts and County Procedures that Apply for
Different Types of Uses
Note: This section will correlate EVDC types of procedures
(e.g., S1 = Minor Special Review) and cross reference to the
County procedure sections of the Land Use Code.
D. Development Standards to Supplement Chapter 8,
County’s Development Standards
Note: This section will carry forward parts of the EVDC
that are unique to the Estes Valley.
1. Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes
2. Ridgeline Protection Standards (including map)
3. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards /
Restoration of Disturbed Areas\
4. Tree and Vegetation Protection
5. Wildlife Habitat Protection
6. Exterior Lighting
7. Wildfire Hazard (map)
8. Geologic Hazards (map)
9. Definitions that are unique to the EVDC
260
59261
60262
June 23, 2020
Town Board Policy 105
(Agendas)
Broadband Quarterly Update
Items for Re-Scheduling (disrupted
by COVID19)
Fish Hatchery Discussion
Items Approved – Unscheduled:
Open Container – June 23, 2020
Vacation Home Regulation in
Planned Unit Developments
Discussion with County Assessor
regarding Assessment of Vacation
Rentals
Future of Human Resources
Management – HR Strategic Plan
Distributed Energy Discussion
ADUs and Sue Ballou, Partnership
for Age Friendly Communities
Reverse Decriminalization of
Municipal Code
Vacation Home Cap and
Transferability of Licenses
Consideration of 2020 Unfunded
Project Requests – June 2020
Items for Town Board Consideration:
Stanley Historic District Overview
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items
June 9, 2020
31595961263
32606062264