HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2021-09-28The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, September 28, 2021
7:00 p.m.
In Person Meeting – Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public
ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT
By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific
agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at
https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, September 28, 2021. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during
the agenda item and added to the final packet.
OPTIONAL REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING
Remote options for participation in the meeting will be available by call-in telephone option or online
via Zoom Webinar which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office. Instructions are also available
at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”.
Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not
via the website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
CALL-IN (TELEPHONE OPTION):877-853-5257 (toll-free) Webinar ID: 982 1690 2040
ONLINE (ZOOM WEBINAR): https://zoom.us/j/98216902040 Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PROCLAMATION CONFLICT RESOLUTION MONTH RECOGNITION.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated September 14, 2021 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated September 14, 2021.
3. Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2021 and Estes Park
Planning Commission Study Session Minutes dated August 17, 2021
(acknowledgement only).
4. Estes Park Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Minutes dated August 12, 2021
(acknowledgement only).
Prepared 2021-09-17
*Revised
Page 1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
5. Resolution 69-21 Contract for Holiday Lighting & Exhibits with Elevation Holiday
Lighting for three seasons, first season 2021-2022, $97,784, Budgeted Annually.
6. Letter of Support for a Grant Application to the Economic Development Administration
for the Fall River Trail Project.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1. LARIMER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT UPDATE.
Public Health Director Gonzales.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. RESOLUTION 70-21, WINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISION, 621 PINEWOOD LANE,
ELAINE WINSLOW, OWNER/APPLICANT. Planner Bergeron.
Applicant proposes subdividing their 2.5-acre residential property into two lots for
residential use in the E-1 (Estate/1-acre min.) zone district.
B. ORDINANCE 14-21 AMENDING CHAPTERS 4 AND 11 OF THE ESTES PARK
DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (CD) ZONING DISTRICT AND DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR TALLER BUILDINGS. Director Hunt.
To allow maximum building height to increase from 30 feet to 42 feet, and to
provide for modest design standards (upper-floor stepbacks, building articulation,
and similar measures) for taller buildings in the CD Zoning District.
ADJOURN.
Page 2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 14, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall and Virtually in
said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of September, 2021.
Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Patrick Martchink, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Carlie Bangs
Marie Cenac
Barbara MacAlpine
Scott Webermeier
Cindy Younglund
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Koeing called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATION CONSTITUTION WEEK. Mayor Koenig recognized Constitution
Week, September 17 – 23, 2021.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Younglund) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee comments were heard and have been summarized: A proclamation was
presented to Nancy Almond in recognition of 15 years dedicated to early childhood in the
Estes Valley; the Community and Family Advisory Board (CFAB) was unable to meet due
to a lack of a quorum and further discussion on the structure and goals of the Board would
be discussed; Visit Estes Park (Local Marketing District) approved their 2022 operating
plan, moved offices to 1692 Big Thompson Avenue, purchasing visitor geo data and
vacation home rental data from Destination Analyst to assist in marketing; the Larimer
County Behavioral Health Policy Committee has allocated $2.5 million in impact funds to
area organizations, including three organizations in Estes Park; Larimer County
Commissioners approved $48 million to build a new mental health facility at Trilby/Taft
with an opening date in May 2023; the Economic Development Corporation Board of
Directors has an opening with Jim McGibney/Chair stepping down in December;
CompPAC held a joint meeting with Town Board members and County Commissioners
led by Logan Simpson, Town Administrator Machalek provided a presentation on the
future direction of the Town at their regular meeting, and discuss on completing one joint
Comprehensive Plan or two separate documents for the Town and unincorporated
Larimer County; and a plea for individuals to get vaccinated for COVID-19.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance Monitoring Report - Policy 3.8. Town Administrator Machalek
presented his policy governance report for policies 3.8. He reported full compliance.
Administrator Machalek stated there have been inquiries on the continuation of publicly
held Board meetings. Discussion was heard amongst the Board and included the need
to look at the current statistics, the number of individuals becoming sick from the Delta DRAFTPage 3
Board of Trustees – September 14, 2021 – Page 2
variant that are vaccinated, requested Tom Gonzales/Larimer County Health Director to
speak to the Board on at an upcoming meeting; discussion regarding mandating masks
for indoors, and the need to increase testing options and availability.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated August 24, 2021 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated August 24, 2021.
3. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated July 15, 2021 (acknowledgement only).
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated June 16, 2021 and July 21, 2021
(acknowledgement only).
5. Authorize Letters of Support to the Colorado Housing Finance Authority for the
Trail Ridge and Park Ridge Apartments Rehabilitation Projects.
6. Resolution 64-21 Fourth Amendment to the Larimer Emergency Telephone
Authority Intergovernmental Agreement continuing the partnership to provide E911
infrastructure and support.
7. Resolution 65-21 Grant Funding Application to the Colorado Department of Local
Affairs for the Planning Grant Program.
8. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Report.
It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Webermeier) to approve the Consent
Agenda, and it passed unanimously.
LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. LIQUOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING FOR GALEX LLC DBA CHELITOS
MEXICAN RESTAURANT, 145 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, HOTEL AND
RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Mayor Koenig adjourned the regular session
of the Town Board meeting and convened the Board as the Liquor Licensing
Authority for the Town of Estes Park. She opened the public hearing for the Show
Cause Hearing and confirmed the licensee or their legal representative was not in
attendance. The Town hired Kristin Brown/Special Prosecutor to represent the
Town. Ms. Brown filed an Entry of Appearance with the Licensing Authority and
requested a motion to continue the hearing to the October 12, 2021 meeting. It
was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Younglund) to continue the Show
Cause Hearing for Galex LLC dba Chelitos Mexican Restaurant to October
12, 2021, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Koenig adjourned the Liquor
Licensing Authority and resumed the regular Board of Trustees meeting.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION 67-21 TERMINATION OF 2004 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR FALL RIVER VILLAGE, 200 FILBEY COURT. Director Hunt stated the
original PUD development in 2004 was approved to convert the mobile home
development to a condominium development, including residential units. A
development agreement was executed with the PUD which did not allow short-
term rentals or allow the property to be used as a mobile home development. He
stated the property was superseded in 2017 with a new subdivision plat and in
2018 a new PUD, Fall River Village II, was created to rezone the property to a
mixed-use development. The new development allowed for short-term rentals of
less than 30 days and the development of an event center. With the approval of
the new PUD, staff finds no useful purpose or function for the previous
development agreement.
Trustee Younglund commented she would need additional information on the
history of the property before considering the requres, and questioned the
conversion of the entire proeprty to short-term rentals. Staff stated a previous DRAFTPage 4
Board of Trustees – September 14, 2021 – Page 3
Board approved the conversion of the property to short-term rentals with the
approval of the Fall River Village II PUD in 2018.
Greg Rosener/Town citizen stated the property owner made significant investment
in the property based on the approval of the previous PUD in 2018. He spoke in
favor of terminating the 2004 development agreement.
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Bangs) to approve Resolution 67-
21, and it passed with Trustee Younglund voting “No”.
2. RESOLUTION 68-21 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS #6 TO
THE 2021 BUDGET. Director Hudson presented a supplemental budget
appropriation to address transportation grant funded projects, the Museum annex
foundation project, a vacation home impact fee study, and Trailblazer staffing
reorganization. Public comment was heard from Scott Thompson/County citizen,
Bob Fixter/Town citizen, Jeff Abbot/Town citizen, and Heidi Riedesel/County
citizen questioning the need for the vacation home impact fee study and stating
the data needed to complete said study could be provided by local realtors,
property owners, and management companies. Board discussion was heard and
summarized: the vacation home fee study would provide information and options
for the Board to consider; the fee study would not implement a fee; further public
review and discussion would be heard prior to the implementation of a fee; the
need to identify the impact short-term rentals have on the availability of workforce
housing; recognize there needs to be multiple funding sources to address the
workforce housing issue; and a need to define workforce and the different needs
for seasonal workforce versus long term workforce. After further discussion, it was
moved and seconded (Webermeier/Younglund) to approve Resolution 68-21,
and it passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION 66-21 CDOT AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION CRRSAA FUNDING TO SUPPORT ESTES TRANSIT (CDOT
PO #491002603). Manager Solesbee stated CDOT was awarded $78 million in
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA)
funding to assist Colorado rural public transportation providers during the COVID-
19 pandemic. On February 5, 2021, the Town received notification from CDOT
that Estes Park’s CRRSAA allocation would be allocated $361,017. The funds
would be used to support transit operation to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
COVID-19; enhance access to health care, education, employment, etc.; assist in
the maintenance, development, improvement and use of public transportation in
our Transportation Planning Region (TPR); encourage and facilitate the most
efficient use of all transportation funds; and encourage mobility management,
employment-related transportation alternatives, joint development practices, and
transit-oriented development. It was moved and seconded
(Younglund/MacAlpine) to approve Resolution 66-21, and it passed
unanimously.
4. 2022 STRATEGIC PLAN ADOPTION. Town Administrator Machalek presented
the 2022 Strategic Plan. He stated the Town received a number of specific
requests/recommendations pertaining to solid waste management and recycling.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Webermeier/MacAlpine) to
approve the 2022 Strategic Plan, and it passed unanimously.
5. POLICY 208 - NAMING OF TOWN-OWNED PARKS, OPEN SPACES, AND
FACILITIES. Town Administrator Machalek presented an updated policy to
renumber the policy from 205 to 208, and developed two distinct processes for
naming a facility versus naming a park/open space. It was moved and seconded
(Younglund/Martchink) to approve Policy 208, and it passed unanimously.
6. ORDINANCE 12-21 AMENDING CHAPTER 10.06 OF THE ESTES PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PAID PARKING. Manager Solesbee presented
an ordinance to extended the “Local 30-Minute Permit” to a 60-minute permit for
2022. The change was recommended after a survey was conducted to receive DRAFTPage 5
Board of Trustees – September 14, 2021 – Page 4
feedback in August from permit holder in 2021. It was moved and seconded
(Cenac/Webermeier) to approve Ordinance 12-21, and it passed unanimously.
Mayor Koenig called a 10-minute break at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting
at 9:05 p.m.
7. ORDINANCE 13-21 AMENDING SECTION 5.20.110 OF THE ESTES PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TRANSFER OF BUSINESS LICENSES FOR
VACATION HOMES AND BED & BREAKFAST INNS. Town Clerk Williamson
stated the Town Board at their August 24, 2021 meeting requested staff bring
forward options to consider limiting the transferability of vacation homes. Staff with
Attorney Kramer presented Option A to limit the transferability of vacation homes
licensed in 2017 after the effective date of Ordinance 29-16, or Option B to limit
the transferability of vacation homes for any home licensed after the effective date
of the proposed ordinance. Board discussion was heard and summarized: the
Board questioned if the Board moved to approve Option A would the current owner
have the option to transfer but all future owners would be limited; the current
grandfathered properties would be able to transfer so long as the property
continues to renew the license annually and transfers the property to a new owner
per the code regulations; a decision on transferability should be delayed until the
data from the impact fee study has been completed; stated concern with a
commercial business operating on a residential zoning district and only paying
residential property tax rates; and questioned if either option was adopted would it
address those licenses being held by an owner that does not rent their property.
Those speaking in opposition of the limiting transferability included Greg
Rosener/Town citizen, Joe Gallagher/Town property owner, Nathan Welton/Town
citizen, Bob Fixter/Town citizen, Jeff and Becky Robbins/Town citizen, Scott
Thompson/County citizen, Richard Mulhern/Town citizen, and Heidi
Riedesel/County citizen. Comments were heard on charging a larger transfer fee,
raise the cap, to include properties on the waitlist as grandfathered for either
option, Option B would be preferred if the Board were to move forward with limiting
transferability, transferability was discussed and allowed with the formation of the
ordinance in 2016.
It was moved and seconded (MacAlpine/Webermeier) to continue the Town
Board meeting past 10:00 p.m. to complete the agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
Donna Carlson/Executive Director of the Chamber commented the organization
would be willing to aggregate the voices of their vacation home members and
provide the Board with data.
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Cenac) to continue the discussion
of the Ordinance until the fee impact study has been completed and provided
to the Board, and it failed with Mayor Koenig, Trustee Cenac and Trustee
Webermeier voting “Yes”.
It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Younglund) to approve Ordinance 13-
21 Option B, and it passed with Mayor Koenig and Trustee Cenac voting “No”.
Whereupon Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 10:36 p.m.
Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFTPage 6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado September 14, 2021
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of September,
2021.
Board: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, MacAlpine, Webermeier, and Younglund
Attending: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, MacAlpine, Webermeier, and Younglund
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Damweber, Town Attorney Kramer, Town Clerk Williamson,
Directors Hinkle and Garner and Deputy Town Clerk Beers
Absent: None.
Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
WESTERN HERITAGE (WH) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU).
Proposed changes place marketing and advertising to the general public under Section
1, Duties and Responsibilities of the Town of Estes Park. The change would remove the
provision requiring the Town to pay WH $1.68 per ticket sold for the event. The Board
requested adding language to Section 1.09 regarding WH keeping delegates informed
of all meetings and correcting the reference in Section 1.03.h related to lodging funding.
PRE-ELECTION TOWN BOARD COMPENSATION.
The Town Board reviews compensation for the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees
prior to each regular municipal election. The last review was completed in October 2019
where the Board approved an increase in board salaries for members newly elected in
2020: Mayor - $12,000, Mayor Pro Tem - $10,000, and $9,000 for Trustees. Staff
reviewed the Board salaries versus health insurance premiums for 2021 and the
proposed premiums for 2022, finding premiums are within the bi-weekly salary ranges if
a Board member were to select family coverage options for medical, dental and vision.
Staff recommended maintaining the current Board salaries which are within the mid-
range of other municipalities. Board discussion ensued regarding: anticipated increases
in insurance premiums; options to compensate Board members who do not elect for
insurance; increasing the compensation to expand future candidate interest in running
for the Board of Trustees; reconsidering the mid-point compensation range for
employees and the Board and extrapolating the percentage of employee compensation
increases over the last four years for review. Staff would provide options for
consideration at the October 12, 2021 meeting.
QUARTERLY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (COMPPAC)
UPDATE. Chair Heiser and Vice Chair Leavitt provided a review of the development of
the Comprehensive Plan. Highlights included: project overview, schedule, milestones,
feedback received by the committee, data and outreach plans. Chair Heiser requested
Board preference for a single plan of the Estes Valley area within a three-mile radius of
the Town or separate plans for the Town and County areas. Director Garner stated the
plan would contain a table of contents identifying responsibility for the Town, County,
dual and staff responsibilities. She added community engagement would occur in
October and staff would research other communities with a similar joint area. Board
consensus was in favor of a single plan with distinct jurisdiction areas and to include
school system needs into the plan.
DRAFTPage 7
Town Board Study Session – September 14, 2021 – Page 2
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee MacAlpine stated she received concerns regarding noise from a concert held at
the Stanley Hotel. She requested clarification on noise restrictions. Town Administrator
Machalek stated staff has been in contact with the Police Department regarding the
incident and potential options available to address harmful and intrusive noise.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Town Administrator Machalek requested and it was determined to s chedule the Pre-
Election Town Board Compensation and Vacation Home Waitlist discussions on
October 12, 2021 and potential ballot questions and the Estes Park Grand Prix items on
October 26, 2021.
There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m.
Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk DRAFTPage 8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 17, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING
COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado.
Meeting held VIRTUALLY in said Town of Estes Park on the 17 day of
August 2021.
Committee: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Janene
Centurione.
Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice-Chair Heiser, Commissioner
Centurione, Commissioner Elkins, Commissioner Hanson,
Director Randy Hunt, Director Jessica Garner, Senior Planner
Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Planning Technician
Charlie Rugaber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund,
Acting Attorney Brandon Ditman, Town Board Liaison
Barbara MacAlpine
Absent: none
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Also attending were Matt Ashby
and Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates consultants. He introduced incoming Community
Development Director Jessica Garner, who began her employment on July 26.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins) to approve the consent agenda. The
motion passed 5-0.
ACTION ITEMS
1. MINOR SUBDIVISION 621 Pinewood Lane
Planner Bergeron reviewed the proposal for a minor subdivision. The applicant, Elaine
Winslow, proposes to subdivide the E-1 zoned property to create another lot of one
acre in size suitable for residential development. Both resulting lots would meet
minimum lot size and other dimensional criteria for subdivision within the E-1 Zoning
District. The applicant proposes a "no-build" easement to preserve the view from the
existing home on the parent lot and declares limits of disturbance (LOD) for proposed
Lot 1 to preserve existing trees. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision.
Page 9
DISCUSSION:
Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering, answered that the access easement on
Pinewood Lane is existing. Planner Bergeron noted that limits of disturbance are
required on the preliminary plat, not the final plat and that not all of the trees in this
area will be taken down.
Owner Elaine Winslow stated that a small 2300 square foot handicapped accessible
home was planned for the new lot and intends to preserve as many trees as possible.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Bart Dannels, neighbor, approved of the lot split and clarified that the road between
the two properties is not a public access road and only goes to his house.
It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Centurione) to recommend that the Town
Board APPROVE the Winslow Minor Subdivision, in accordance with the
findings as presented. The motion passed 5-0.
2. CODE AMENDMENT: WIRELESS TELECOM FACILITIES
Senior Planner Woeber
Staff requested this item be continued to the September 21, 2021 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to continue the Code Amendment
to September 21, 2021. The motion passed 4-0 with Centurione absent.
3. CODE AMENDMENT: DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT
Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates, explained that the Code Amendment under
consideration would amend the Estes Park Development Code to allow for greater
building height in the CD Downtown Commercial Zoning District as a use by right. The
purpose is to allow for greater opportunity for mixed-use development and add much-
needed housing units. Specifically, building height within the CD Downtown
Commercial Zoning District would be amended from 30 feet to allow up to 42 feet. The
42-foot height limit was derived from discussions with developers, the Planning
Commission, and a review of approved downtown plans. At 42 feet, developers can
comfortably build commercially viable three-story mixed-use buildings in the CD
District. The amendment is being drafted such that there are no additional restrictions
on building use. The height limit is intended as a maximum allowable with no
exceptions through special review. The Board of Adjustment could grant variances in
cases for which the proposal meets variance criteria. The guidelines under
consideration would only apply to new construction or additions that exceed 30 feet in
height.
This amendment was contemplated and called for in the Estes Park, Colorado
Downtown Plan (adopted Jan. 2018). The plan stated, as a key objective, "…a
moderate increase in density and building height to promote housing development
and Downtown activity." (p. 52) The plan also included additional discussion regarding
design constraints to minimize the visual impact on the downtown district. Specifically,
Page 10
the plan indicated a need to include setbacks and building articulation to ensure visual
continuity with existing buildings in the downtown district. Additionally, the Estes Park
Economic Development Corporation ("EDC") has advocated for increasing the
availability of workforce housing. Updated Purpose Language to include "the
encouragement of reinvestment in downtown buildings to encourage reinvestment in
downtown buildings and encourage upper-story workforce housing in a walkable,
mixed-use context."
DISCUSSION
After discussion in the earlier Study Session, the following proposed sentence was
added to the Purpose Language: The section is also intended to encourage
reinvestment in downtown buildings and encourage upper-story workforce housing in
a walkable, mixed-use context.
The top floor is required to have an 8 foot step back. The setback on the street frontage
of lots is 8 feet, and the plan is to change it to zero. Vice-Chair Heiser suggested not
including this in the code amendment, and Chair Comstock agreed. Director Garner
clarified that the setback would be behind the sidewalk, not from the curb. Director
Hunt saw no reason not to keep the 8-foot setback. Changing 11.5.c.2 to add 8 feet
from the façade plane is a workaround for this issue.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bob Leavitt, 740 Rams Horn Drive, questioned why "workforce housing" was not in
the phrasing of the code amendment and is in favor of the 8-foot setback from the
façade.
Two five-minute recesses were taken to get the correct updated language for a
motion.
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins) to recommend the Town Board
APPROVE the Downtown Building Height Code Amendment, with the following
changes to the staff findings: in addition to advancing the ideas of the 2018
downtown plan, this code amendment is consistent with the policies and goals of
the comprehensive plan as it relates to aging building infrastructure, fires and
flood. This amendment will create opportunities for improvement and
redevelopment of the Downtown District, advancing the ideas of maintaining the
downtown core as the hub of Estes Park's economic base, sustaining the tax base
and allowing for more residential units in the downtown zone. Additionally,
changing section 11.5.c.2, adding an 8-foot setback from the façade of the building.
The motion passed 5-0.
REPORTS:
Director Hunt gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan update. There will be a joint
meeting on Thursday, August 26, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. Consultants Logan Simpson has
compiled massive amounts of data which will be summarized and made available to the
public soon. Identification of issues and public input will be ramping up.
Page 11
There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 3:07 p.m.
Matt Comstock, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Page 12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 17, 2021
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually on Zoom.
Commission: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Janene
Centurione
Attending: Comstock, Centurione, Elkins, Hanson, Heiser,
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Director Jessica Garner, Senior
Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Planning
Technician Charlie Rugaber, Town Board Liaison Barbara
MacAlpine, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Elkins
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 11:00 p.m. This study session was held
virtually via ZOOM and was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park
YouTube channel. Jessica Garner, the incoming Director, was introduced.
Mike Scholl, consultant from Ayres Associates, began the discussion by presenting the
Lidar building height data in the downtown corridor. Two buildings are roughly 65 feet,
and a handful are above 30 feet but less than 42 feet. Vice-Chair Heiser asked for
clarification on Short Term Rentals vs. Hotel use above 30 feet. Liaison MacAlpine
asked for wording to encourage residential housing in the downtown corridor. After
considerable discussion, it was decided to add language to the Purpose and Intent
statement of the amendment.
The next CompPac meeting on August 26, facilitated by Logan Simpson, will be a joint
meeting. The Planning Commission is encouraged to attend. Different departments
have been guest speaking at the regular CompPac meetings, discussing their current
and future goals. All meeting recordings are on the town’s YouTube channel and
available for viewing. Public engagement opportunities will pick up in September. Data
collected by Logan Simpson will be available soon.
Upcoming code amendments were discussed. Having available the ability to provide
denser workforce housing development in a new zoning district (RM-2) by allowing
double density. Ayres Associates are looking into development standards related to
parking space ratios, building height and 32 units per acre (examples via video from
other communities).
Page 13
Planning Commission Study Session August 17, 2021 – Page 2
Vice-Chair Heiser made it known that if any member of the public has concerns about
current issues, please reach out and let those concerns be heard. If there is an issue of
“crisis proportion,” it needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Planner II Bergeron spoke on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and how they could
help resolve the current housing crisis. Proposed changes were reviewed that remove
some barriers to development and allow for a more straightforward process. As it
relates to attached ADU’s, it was stated that it is not intended to create a duplex. An
attached ADU may be up to 49% of the principal dwelling unit’s habitable square
footage (800 feet maximum) and must be fixed to a foundation. Occupancy
requirements were discussed at length. An analysis of how many single-family lots are
currently non-conforming was requested. Allowing tiny homes was discussed, and their
differences from ADUs were distinguished, along with the elimination of minimal width
for a dwelling unit.
Due to time restraints, the Report section of the agenda was tabled.
Chair Comstock adjourned the Study Session at 1:00 p.m.
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Page 14
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 12, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held via ZOOM in said Town of Estes Park on August 12 2021.
Committee: Chair Matthew Heiser, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Members
David Bangs, Eric Blackhurst, Chuck Cooper, Kirby Nelson-
Hazelton, John Schnipkoweit, Dave Shirk, Karen Thompson,
Rose Truman, David Wolf, Matt Comstock, Mike Kennedy
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Larimer
County Community Development Director Lesli Ellis, Trustee
Barbara MacAlpine, Parking and Transit Manager Vanessa
Solesbee, Town Clerk Jackie Williamson, Recording
Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Member Bangs
Chair Heiser called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Nelson-Hazelton) to approve the agenda. The
motion passed with a visual thumbs-up vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
ACTION ITEM:
Approval of Minutes from July 22, 2021
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Kennedy) to approve the minutes. The
motion passed with a visual thumbs-up vote.
New Community Development Director Jessica Garner was introduced. She and Director
Hunt will be sharing the title until his retirement in October.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: (all comments have been summarized)
1. Parking and Transit Manager Solesbee presented a PowerPoint to the
Committee. She explained that the transit program started in 2006 with a
shopper shuttle, growing to six fixed routes today, and serves 12 town-sponsored
events. Funding comes from the General Fund, sponsorship programs, Federal
stimulus bills and Federal and State grants.
The parking program is mainly funded through the General Fund. A special
revenue fund was set up in 2021 to include citations, permits, and fees to
reinvest the profits to needed projects. There are 25+ Level II and III Electric
Vehicle charging stations around town.
The Future: EV Infrastructure and Readiness Plan; more involvement with
trail planning and bike paths; consideration of who roadways are for, how
can they meet the needs of residents; impact fees; parking codes within
affordable housing projects; connecting housing projects to public
transportation.
The plan is to keep the vision on the big picture and not throw too many changes
to the community in a short amount of time.
2. Town Clerk Williamson discussed the history of Vacation Homes in the Estes
Valley and the steps required to get a Vacation Home or Bed and Breakfast
license. Three items that could affect the Comp Plan are transferability,
residential cap and potential revenue sources. Considerable conversation was
held on these three issues.
Page 15
CompPAC – Aug 12, 2021 – Page 2
3. Branding and logo discussion/decision was tabled to a future meeting.
OTHER:
Chair Heiser stated that starting in September, he would like to see the Committee set
priorities and goals for internal discussions relating to the Comp Plan. He welcomes
any thoughts on this.
The August 26 meeting will be a joint meeting on Zoom at the regular 9:00 a.m. time.
Three November and December meetings fall on holidays. Changes to dates will be
discussed at a future meeting.
There being no further business, Chair Heiser adjourned the meeting at 11:15 a.m.
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Page 16
UTILITIES Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Supervisor Tyler Boles, Line Superintendent Joe Lockhart
Date: September 28, 2021
RE: Resolution 69-21 Contract for Holiday Lighting & Exhibits with Elevation
Holiday Lighting for Three Seasons, First Season (2021-2022) $97,784,
Budgeted Annually
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
To obtain approval to award the 2021 – 2024 seasonal display installation, maintenance
and removal contract to Elevation Holiday Lighting.
Present Situation:
Over the past seven years the Town has been improving the way that downtown looks
during the holidays. We use LED lights to increase energy efficiency and the longevity
of the light strands. This year’s design follows our previous three years design using
the same clean flow from Elkhorn Avenue through the parks that are decorated
annually.
Our contract for this service has expired and we recently went out to bid for a contract
from the fall of 2021 through the spring of 2024. In the Request for Bid we spelled out
the design to the potential contractors in great detail and we are expecting the
downtown area to keep the same attractive and festive look.
We received quotes from two vendors. They are as follows:
Elevation Holiday Lighting
300 Magnolia Drive, Nederland, CO 80466
Winter 2021/2022 = $97,784
Winter 2022/2023 = $97,784
Winter 2023/2204 = $97,784
Page 17
Adam’s Tree Service
3813 Dollar Lake Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517
Winter 2021/2022 = $125,000
Winter 2022/2023 = $127,500
Winter 2023/2204 = $130,050
Proposal:
We propose to accept Elevation Holiday Lighting’s bid. Both companies were
interviewed and we found both to be responsive and responsible.
Both Adam Strong of Adam’s Tree Service and Mike Szymanski of Elevation Holiday
Lighting have vast knowledge and experience with lighting, exhibits, lifts and
maintenance. Our recommendation is based on the lower cost submitted by Elevation
Holiday Lighting.
Advantages:
•The lower annual cost will help us level out an annual budget for holiday
decorations
•We anticipate having the same quality of service work and reliability as in the
past without increasing our annual budget
Disadvantages:
•This business is not local, but resides near our Allenspark electric service area.
•This is a new business to the Town; however, we received a good
recommendation from another mountain town with similar maintenance issues for
displays.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of acceptance of the bid from Elevation Holiday Lighting
and execution of the proposed contract which is attached hereto.
Finance/Resource Impact:
502-6501-560.26-15 Light & Power Fund $97,784
Level of Public Interest
High – this program is well-received by our residents and guests.
Sample Motion:
The item is on consent. If it is removed a sample motion would be:
I move to approve the agreement with Elevation Holiday Lighting.
Attachments:
1.Resolution 69-21
2.Services Contract
Page 18
RESOLUTION 69-21
APPROVAL OF A THREE-YEAR
SERVICES CONTRACT
WITH ELEVATION HOLIDAY LIGHTING, LLC
WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to enter into the services contract
referenced in the title of this resolution for annual installation, maintenance and removal
of seasonal lighting and exhibits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the Elevation Holiday
Lighting services contract referenced in the title of this resolution, in substantially in the
form now before the Board.
DATED this day of , 2021.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
Page 19
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO SERVICES CONTRACT
Holiday Lighting – Fall 2021 through Spring 2024
The parties, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Town), a municipal corporation, and
Elevation Holiday Lighting LLC (Contractor), a limited liability company registered with the
Colorado Department of State, whose address is 300 Magnolia Drive, Nederland, CO, 80466,
make this Contract this __________ day of ____________________, 2021, at the Town of Estes
Park, Colorado, considering the following facts and circumstances:
1 RECITALS:
1.1 Town desires to use the services of Contractor outlined in Contractor’s Proposal; and
1.2 Contractor has agreed to provide the Services outlined in its Proposal, on the terms
and conditions stated in this Contract.
2 CONTRACT: This Agreement is a Contract, representing the entire and integrated
agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior negotiations, written or oral
representations and agreements. The Agreement incorporates the following Contract
Documents. In resolving inconsistencies between two or more of the Contract Documents,
they shall take precedence in the order enumerated, with the first listed Contract Document
having highest precedence.
The Contract Documents, except for amendments executed after execution of this Contract, are:
2.1 Change Orders;
2.2 Notice to Proceed;
2.3 This Contract;
2.4 Notice of Award;
2.5 Request for Proposals, containing 6 pages, dated July 23, 2021;
2.6 Contractor’s Proposal, containing 1 page, dated August 15, 2021; and
2.7 Insurance Certificates – Current certificate needs to be provided prior to starting
work.
3 SCOPE OF SERVICES: Contractor shall provide and furnish at its own cost and expense all
materials, machinery, equipment, tools, superintendence, labor, insurance and other
accessories and services necessary to provide its Services in strict accordance with the
Attachment 2
Page 20
Town of Estes Park Services Contract -- Page 2 of 10
conditions and prices stated in the Contract Documents. The Town will provide all necessary
lights and decor.
4 BEGINNING WORK AND COMPLETION SCHEDULE: The Contractor shall begin
services under this Contract upon receiving Town’s notice to proceed. Contractor shall
timely perform its Services, according to the project schedule as indicated in the Request for
Proposals, incorporated herein by reference.
5 PRICE: The Town will pay Contractor for the performance of this Contract, not to exceed
$97,784 for the 2021/2022 season and contingent on performance for each of the remaining
years, $97,784 for the 2022/2023 season and $97,784 for the 2023/2024 season, as the Price
for the total Services performed as stipulated in Contractor’s Proposal, incorporated herein
by reference. This Contract does not create a multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or
other financial obligation. Each request for service shall incur a concurrent debt for that
request only. All financial obligations of the Town under this Contract are contingent upon
appropriation, budgeting, and availability of specific funds to discharge such obligations.
6 TIME OF PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR: The Contractor shall bill its charges to the
Town periodically, as described in the Request for Proposals. Each bill shall contain a
statement of the time the primary employees spent on the Services since the previous bill, a
brief description of the Services provided by each such employee, and an itemization of
direct expenses. The Town will pay each such bill which it finds to be in accordance with
this Contract within forty-five days of its receipt. If Town questions any part of a bill, finds
any part of a bill does not conform to this Contract, or claims the right to withhold payment
of any part of a bill, it will promptly notify Contractor of the question, nonconformity or
reasons for withholding.
7 QUALIFICATIONS ON OBLIGATIONS TO PAY: No partial payment shall be final
acceptance or approval of that part of the Services paid for, or shall relieve Contractor of any
of its obligations under this Contract. Notwithstanding any other terms of this Contract,
Town may withhold any payment (whether a progress payment or final payment) to
Contractor under the following conditions:
7.1 Contractor fails to promptly pay all bills for labor, material, or services of consultants
furnished or performed by others to perform Services.
7.2 Contractor is in default of any of its obligations under this Contract or any of the
Contract Documents.
7.3 Any part of such payment is attributable to Services not conforming to this Contract.
(Town will pay for any part attributable to conforming Services).
7.4 Town, in its good faith judgment, determines that the compensation remaining unpaid
will not be sufficient to complete the Services according to this Contract.
Page 21
Town of Estes Park Services Contract -- Page 3 of 10
8 CHANGE ORDERS: Town reserves the right to order work changes in the nature of
additions, deletions, or modifications, without invalidating this agreement, and agrees to
make corresponding adjustments in the contract price and time for completion. All changes
will be authorized by a written change order signed by Town. Work shall be changed, and
the contract price and completion time shall be modified only as set out in the written
change order. Town shall issue no Change Order or other form of order or directive
requiring additional compensable work that will cause the Price to exceed the amount
approved.
9 SERVICE OF NOTICES: The parties may give each other required notices in person or by
first class mail or by email to their authorized representatives (or their successors) at the
addresses listed below:
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
Tyler Boles, Crew Chief
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Email: tboles@estes.org
CONTRACTOR:
Michael Szymanski, Owner/Manager
Elevation Holiday Lighting
300 Magnolia Drive
Nederland, CO 80466
Email: mike@elevationholidaylighting.com
10 COMPLIANCE WITH LAW: Contractor will perform this Contract in strict compliance
with applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, statutes, charter provisions,
ordinances, and regulations (including sections of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration [OSHA] regulations, latest revised edition, providing for job safety and
health protection for workers) and all orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals applicable to
work under this Contract. Contractor shall protect and indemnify Town against any claim or
liability arising from or based on the violations of any such law, ordinance, regulation, order,
or decrees by itself or by its subcontractors, agents, or employees. Town assumes no duty to
ensure that Contractor follows the safety regulations issued by OSHA.
11 PERMITS AND LICENSES: The Contractor shall secure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges, files, and taxes and give all notices necessary and incidental to the lawful
prosecution of its Services. Anyone conducting business in the Town of Estes Park is
required to have a business license which can be obtained from the Town Clerk’s Office.
12 PATENTED DEVICES, MATERIALS AND PROCESSES: The Contractor shall hold and
save harmless the Town from all claims for infringement, by reason of fee use of any
patented design, device, material, process, or trademark or copyright and shall indemnify the
Town for any costs, expenses, and damages, including court costs and attorney fees, incurred
by reason of actual or alleged infringement during the prosecution or after completion of
Services.
13 INSURANCE: Contractor shall, at its own costs, secure and continuously maintain through
the term of this Contract the minimum insurance coverages listed below, with forms and
insurers acceptable to Town. In addition, Contractor shall maintain such coverages for the
insurance listed in Paragraphs 13.1, 13.3 and 13.4 for two additional years. For any claims-
Page 22
Town of Estes Park Services Contract -- Page 4 of 10
made policy, Contractor shall include the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting
periods to maintain continuous coverage.
13.1 Professional Liability for at least $1,000,000.
13.2 Workers' Compensation according to the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of
Colorado and Employer's Liability with limits of at least $500,000. Contractor shall
require any subcontractor hired by the Contractor to carry Workers’ Compensation
and Employer’s Liability coverage.
13.3 General liability, including contractual liability, of at least $1,000,000 per each
occurrence plus an additional amount adequate to pay related attorney's fees and
defense cost. Coverage shall include bodily injury, property damage, personal injury,
and contractual liability.
13.4 Comprehensive Automobile Liability with minimum limits for bodily injury and
property damage coverage of at least $1,000,000 per each occurrence plus an
additional amount adequate to pay related attorneys' fees and defense costs, for each
of Contractor’s owned, hired or non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in
performance of this Contract.
13.5 The required general liability and comprehensive automobile liability policies shall
contain endorsements to include Town and its officers and employees as additional
insureds. The required professional liability and workers’ compensation policies or
coverages shall not contain endorsements including the Town, its officers or
employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary
insurance. Any insurance or self-insurance benefits carried by Town, its officers, or
its employees, shall be in excess and not contributory to that provided by Contractor.
13.6 Contractor shall, upon request, provide Town a certified copy of each required policy.
13.7 As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, before beginning
work under this Contract, Contractor shall furnish certificates of insurance certifying
that at least the minimum coverages required here are in effect and specifying the
liability coverages (except for professional liability) are written on an occurrence
form to:
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Attention: Tyler Boles, Crew Chief
With the exception of professional liability and workers’ compensation, policy or
policies providing insurance as required will defend and include the Town, its Board,
officers, agents and employees as additional insureds on a primary basis for work
performed under or incidental to this Contract. Required insurance policies shall be
Page 23
Town of Estes Park Services Contract -- Page 5 of 10
with companies qualified to do business in Colorado with a general policyholder’s
financial rating acceptable to the Town. The policies shall not be cancelable or subject
to reduction in coverage limits or other modification except after thirty days prior
written notice to the Town. General liability and automobile policies shall be for the
mutual and joint benefit and protection of the Contractor and the Town. These policies
shall provide that the Town, although named as an additional insured, shall
nevertheless be entitled to recover under said policies for any loss occasioned to it, its
officers, employees, and agents by reason of acts or omissions of the Contractor, its
officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or business invitees. They shall be written
as primary policies not contributing to and not in excess of coverage the Town may
carry.
13.8 If Contractor is self-insured under the laws of the State of Colorado, Contractor shall
provide appropriate declarations and evidence of coverage.
13.9 Contractor shall not cancel, change, or fail to renew required insurance coverages.
Contractor shall notify Town's designated person responsible for risk management of
any reduction or exhaustion of aggregate limits, which Town may deem to be a
breach of this Contract.
13.10 The Town relies on, and does not waive or intend to waive, by any provision of this
Contract, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections
provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, § 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S.,
as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the parties, their officers, or
their employees.
13.11 If any insurance required here is to be issued or renewed on a claims-made form as
opposed to the occurrence form, the retroactive date for coverage will be no later than
the commencement date of the Services and will state that in the event of cancellation
or nonrenewal, the discovery period for insurance claims (tail coverage) will be at
least 72 months.
13.12 Contractor shall not cancel, non-renew or cause insurance to be materially changed or
replaced by another policy without prior approval by Town.
14 INDEMNIFICATION:
14.1 Contractor and its agents, principals, officers, partners, employees, and subcontractors
("Indemnitors") shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the
Town, its officers, employees, and agents ("Indemnitees") from all claims, damages,
losses, liens, causes of actions, suits, judgments, and expenses (including attorneys’
fees), of any nature, kind, or description ("Liabilities") by any third party arising out
of, caused by, or resulting from any Services under this Contract if such Liabilities
are: (1) attributable to bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, or death of any
person, or to the injury or destruction of any tangible property (including resulting
loss of use or consequential damages) and (2) caused, in whole or in part, by any
Page 24
Town of Estes Park Services Contract -- Page 6 of 10
error, omission or negligent act of the Contractor, anyone directly or indirectly
employed by it, or anyone for whose acts Contractor may be liable.
14.2 If more than one Indemnitor is liable for any error, omission or negligent act covered
by this Agreement, each such Indemnitor shall be jointly and severally liable to the
Indemnitees for indemnification and the Indemnitors may settle ultimate
responsibility among themselves for the loss and expense of any such indemnification
by separate proceedings and without jeopardy to any Indemnitee. This Agreement
shall not eliminate or reduce any other right to indemnification or other remedy the
Town, or any of the Indemnitees may have by law.
14.3 As part of this indemnity obligation, the Contractor shall compensate the Town for
any time the Town Attorney's Office and other counsel to the Town reasonably spend
on such claims or actions at the rates generally prevailing among private practitioners
in the Town of Estes Park for similar services. This obligation to indemnify the Town
shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
15 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Contractor shall perform all Services under this
Agreement as an independent contractor, and not as an agent or employee of Town. No
employee or official of Town shall supervise Contractor. Contractor shall exercise no
supervision over any employee or official of Town. Contractor shall not represent that it is
an employee or agent of the Town in any capacity. Contractor’s officers, employees and
agents are not entitled to Workers' Compensation benefits from the Town, and
Contractor is obligated to pay federal and state income tax on money earned under this
Agreement. Except as this Agreement expressly states, Contractor shall, at its sole expense,
supply all buildings, equipment and materials, machinery, tools, superintendence, personnel,
insurance and other accessories and Services necessary. This Agreement is not exclusive;
subject the terms of this Agreement, Town and Contractor may each contract with other
parties.
16 PROVISIONS CONSTRUED AS TO FAIR MEANING: Any tribunal enforcing this
Agreement shall construe its terms as to their fair meaning, and not for or against any party
based upon any attribution to either party.
17 HEADINGS FOR CONVENIENCE: All headings, captions and titles are for convenience
and reference only and of no meaning in the interpretation or effect of this Contract.
18 NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES: The parties intend no third-party beneficiaries
under this Contract. Any person besides Town or Contractor receiving services or benefits
under this Agreement is an incidental beneficiary only.
19 TOWN’S RIGHT TO BAR PERSONNEL FROM WORK SITE: For conduct the Town (in
its sole discretion) decides may violate applicable laws, ordinances rules or regulations, or
may expose Town to liability or loss, Town may bar any person (including Contractor’s and
subcontractors’ employees) from the Town's work sites. Such a bar shall not require any
employee's discharge from employment, but shall merely prohibit the employee's presence at
Town’s work sites. Such a bar shall not warrant an increase in contract time or Price.
Page 25
Town of Estes Park Services Contract -- Page 7 of 10
20 WAIVER: No waiver of any breach or default under this Agreement shall waive any other
or later breach or default.
21 TERM: This Contract shall commence on October 1, 2021, and shall continue through May
1, 2024 with the option of 2 additional renewals, for one year each, upon agreement of both
parties.
22 TERMINATION:
22.1 In addition to any other available remedies, either party may terminate this Contract if
the other party fails to cure a specified default within seven (7) days of receiving
written notice of the default. The notice shall specify each such material breach, in
reasonable detail.
22.2 Town or Contractor may, at any time, terminate performance of the work, in whole or
in part, for its own convenience. The Town may effect such termination by giving
Contractor written Notice of Termination specifying the extent and effective date of
termination. The Contractor may effect such termination by giving the Town written
Notice of Termination specifying the extent and effective date of termination. The
Contractor must give a minimum of 180 days’ notice of termination prior to the
commencement of installations (October 1st) of each calendar year. In case of
termination, for convenience, Town shall pay Contractor for work satisfactorily
completed, to the date of termination. The Town shall determine the portion of work
completed as outlined by the scope of work listed in the Request for Bid under
Section 6: Approximate Quantities and General Design.
22.3 If either party so terminates, the Contractor shall promptly deliver to the Town all
drawings, computer programs, computer input and output, analysis, plans,
photographic images, tests, maps, surveys and writer’s materials of any kind
generated in the performance of its Services under this Contract up to and including
the date of termination.
23 SUSPENSION: Without terminating or breaching this Contract, the Town may, at its
pleasure, suspend fee services of the Contractor hereunder. Town may effect suspension by
giving the Contractor written notice one (1) day in advance of the suspension date. Upon
receipt of such notices the Contractor shall cease their work as efficiently as possible, to
keep total charges to a minimum. The Town must specifically authorize any work performed
during suspension. Since suspension and subsequent reactivation may inconvenience the
Contractor, Town will endeavor to provide advance notice and minimize its use. After a
suspension has been in effect for thirty days, the Contractor may terminate this Contract at
will.
24 ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATION: Except as stated, neither party may assign its rights
or delegate its duties under this Contract without the express written approval of the other.
25 SUBCONTRACTING: Except subcontractor clearly identified and accepted in the
Contractor's Proposal, Contractor may employ subcontractors to perform the Services only
Page 26
Town of Estes Park Services Contract -- Page 8 of 10
with Town's express prior written approval. Contractor is solely responsible for any
compensation, insurance, and all clerical detail involved in employment of subcontractors.
26 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE: The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern
enforcement and interpretation of this Contract. Venue and jurisdiction for any court action
filed regarding this agreement shall be only in Larimer County, Colorado.
27 AUTHORITY: This instrument forms a contract only when executed in writing by duly
authorized representatives of Town and Contractor. By their signatures on this document,
the signatories represent that they have actual authority to enter this Contract for the
respective parties.
28 INTEGRATION: There are no other agreements on the same subject than expressly stated or
incorporated in this Contract.
29 UNLAWFUL EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS: Contractor
shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this
Contract. Contractor shall not knowingly contract with a subcontractor that (a) knowingly
employs or contracts with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract or (b) fails to
certify to the Contractor that the subcontractor will not knowingly employ or contract with
an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract.
30 VERIFICATION REGARDING ILLEGAL ALIENS: Contractor has confirmed the
employment eligibility of all employees newly hired for employment to perform work under
this Contract through participation in either the E-verify program administered jointly by the
United States Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration or
the employment verification program of the Colorado Department of Labor & Employment.
31 LIMITATION REGARDING E-VERIFY PROGRAM: Contractor shall not use either E-
verify or Colorado Department of Labor & Employment program procedures to undertake
pre-employment screening of job applicants while performing this Contract.
32 DUTY TO TERMINATE A SUBCONTRACT; EXCEPTIONS: If Contractor obtains actual
knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Contract knowingly employs or
contracts with an illegal alien, the Contractor shall, unless the subcontractor provides
information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted
with an illegal alien:
(a) notify the subcontractor and the Town within three days that the Contractor has actual
knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and
(b)terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if, within three days of receiving
notice that the Contractor has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or
contracting with an illegal alien, the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting
with the illegal alien.
Page 27
Town of Estes Park Services Contract -- Page 9 of 10
33 DUTY TO COMPLY WITH STATE INVESTIGATION: Contractor shall comply with any
reasonable request of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the
course of an investigation pursuant to C.R.S. 8-17.5-102 (5).
34 DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT: In addition to any other legal or equitable
remedy the Town may be entitled to for a breach of this Contract, if the Town terminates
this Contract, in whole or in part, due to Contractor’s breach of any provision of this
Contract, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Town.
CONTRACTOR
By:
Date
Title: _______________________________
State of )
) ss
County of )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by , as a
member/partner/manager/limited partner/agent (select one) on behalf of
, a Colorado limited liability company, this _______ day of ____________________,
2021.
Witness my hand and official Seal.
My Commission expires .
Notary Public
Page 28
Town of Estes Park Services Contract -- Page 10 of 10
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
By:
Date
Title: _______________________________
State of )
) ss
County of )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by , as
of the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation, on
behalf of the corporation, this day of , 2021.
Witness my hand and official Seal.
My Commission expires .
Notary Public
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 29
Request for Bids
Holiday Lighting & Exhibits
Fall 2021 through Spring 2024
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Power & Communications Division
615 Elm Rd
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Initial Advertisement: Friday, July 23, 2021
Submittal Deadline: Friday, August 6, 2021 by 3:00 p.m. MDT
EXHIBIT A TO SERVICES CONTRACT
Page 30
Page 2 | 6
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Listed below are conditions essential to the successful completion of the project.
1. GENERAL
1.1. The Town seeks a qualified contractor to partner with on the annual installation, maintenance and
removal of the seasonal exhibits. Contingent on performance, this is a one to three-year contract.
2. PROPOSAL DATE AND TIME
2.1. Sealed bids must be submitted (a) electronically through the BidNet Direct Purchasing Systems or (b)
by email to both tboles@estes.org and ksterling@estes.org no later than 3:00 p.m., Friday August 6,
2021. For email submissions, please note “Holiday Lighting & Exhibits” in the subject of the email with
your bid proposal attached.
2.2. See form of Bid Proposal on page 6 of these specifications. Bid proposals should conform to this
format. Submittals by mail, delivery or fax will not be accepted.
2.3. The bid opening will take place at 3:20 pm on the same day in the Estes Park Power &
Communications Shop, 615 Elm Road, Estes Park, CO 80517.
3. PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
Tyler Boles, Crew Chief, Power & Communications Division
P. O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: (970) 577-3607 /FAX: (970) 586-3762
4. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED WALK -THROUGH
4.1. A highly recommended walk-through will be conducted on Monday, August 2, 2021 at 10:00 am, at
the Power and Communications Shop, located at 615 Elm Road, Estes Park, CO, 80517.
5. PROJECT LOCATION
5.1. Generally the downtown area of Estes Park and extending outward East on Highways 34 and
36, South on Highway 7, and West on Highways 34 and 36 approximately two (2) miles.
6. APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES AND GENERAL DESIGN
NOTE: Light & Power will provide the display design on an annual basis. While the maximum number of
trees to be decorated and general locations will remain the same, design details may change year to
year. Each year’s design will be reviewed with the contractor in late spring or early summer to allow for
purchase of replacement bulbs and strings.
6.1. String and maintain lights in approximately one hundred fifty (150) total trees in the following areas:
downtown (W Elkhorn Ave from Wonderview to Tregent Park), Confluence, Tregent, and Bond Parks,
Sheep Island & Legion Islands; wrapping bridges at entry ways to parks; hanging twinkle lights on shelter
Page 31
Page 3 | 6
at Bond Park and public entrances to Town Hall; and wrapping decorative light poles through downtown
with twinkle lights.
6.1.1 String and maintain lights in approximately seventy (70) street trees in the downtown corridor
area/W Elkhorn Ave including their trunks. Wrapping the trunk of the tree and stringing canopies.
6.1.2. String and maintain lights in approximately thirty (30) trees in “Confluence Park”: ten (10) large
trees and approximately twenty (20) small trees. String and maintain lights on the three eastern
bridges entering the park and Riverwalk.
6.1.3. String and maintain lights in approximately twenty-one (21) trees at Bond Park: approximately
five (5) Blue Spruce trees, cluster of four (4) Cottonwood Trees, and twelve (12) Aspen trees around
Town Hall; string lights around the peak of the shelter building at Bond Park and west entrances to
Town Hall.
6.1.4. String and maintain lights in approximately ten (10) trees at Tregent Park: two (2) Spruce trees,
approximately three (3) Cottonwoods, approximately five (5) Aspens.
6.1.5. String and maintain lights in approximately nine (9) trees at Sheep Island: approximately four
(4) Spruce trees and five (5) Aspen trees.
6.1.6. String and maintain lights in approximately ten (10) trees at both large and small Legion Islands;
approximately four (4) large Evergreen trees and one (1) Aspen on the small island; approximately
four (4) large Evergreen trees and one (1) Aspen on the large island.
6.2. Hang and maintain approximately one hundred thirty (130) rigid rebar trees on highway street light
poles on Highways 34 and 36 and 7.
6.3. Erect displays, layout power cords for flood lights and cover with evergreen boughs for each display
located more specifically at:
6.3.1. The Card Shop – in front of Municipal Building with four small trees
.
6.3.2. Christmas in Bugville – in front of the Library with four small trees.
6.3.3. The Lady in the Shoe – at the Intersection of Stanley Avenue and Hwy. 7.
6.3.4. Santa Claus and Reindeer – on top of the Knoll.
See attached Appendix 1 for a sample design map.
7. TOWN’S OBLIGATION
7.1. The Town will design light display and supply all bulbs, string lights, extension cords, and boughs.
The Town will also be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stars and required repairs to
electrical outlets.
8. CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES
8.1. The contractor shall provide all labor and equipment to pick up materials from storage, verify
operation and repair as required on all displays, rebar trees, twinkle lights, ancillary hardware and lighting.
The contractor shall identify and report nonfunctional power outlets. The contractor shall install, maintain,
and remove after the holidays, as described in Section 9 below, all rebar trees, twinkle lights and
Page 32
Page 4 | 6
displays. While installed throughout the holiday season, all power cords must be well groomed and kept
so as not to be hazardous to pedestrians. Lighting, power cords and hardware are specific for each
display and shall be returned to storage in an orderly manner which allows them to be kept together and
ready for use the following season.
8.2. The contractor is required to own or rent a bucket/lift truck. No agreement will be made with a
contractor that does not have or rent a functional bucket/lift truck. The contractor shall provide all traffic
control to State standards and abide by all rules and regulations as stated in the MUTCD Manual.
8.3. At the end of the season, the contractor is responsible for re-reeling all lights from the trees back onto
the reels, which were provided by Light and Power. Reels of lights must be re-reeled carefully and stored
properly for the following season to reuse. Reels should be plugged in before being stored to verify all
lights are still working correctly.
9. PROJECT SCHEDULE
9.1. Start Date: Not before October 1, but immediately after.
9.2. Deadline for Completion of Installation: The Saturday before Thanksgiving Day.
9.3. Removal Dates:
9.3.1. For displays and rebar trees: January 15 of the following year.
9.3.2. For twinkle lights: February 25 of the following year.
10. REPAIR OF BROKEN OR DAMAGED MATERIALS
10.1. From storage and until removal at the end of the season, the contractor is responsible for all repairs
and expense of repairs to any broken or damaged displays, rebar trees, twinkle lights, ancillary hardware
and decorated landscape trees of any kind whether be it by wind or contractor error. All items must be
returned to the storage facility at the end of the project in as good, if not better, condition than when taken
from storage.
11. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
11.1. The contractor will check all displays, rebar trees, twinkle lights and ancillary hardware and make
repairs as necessary including changing all burned out lights of any kind once per week or as safety
hazards are identified by the project administrator.
12. CONTRACT AWARD
12.1. One contract will be awarded. The management and payment of sub-contractors and employees is
the duty of the general contractor.
12.2. The Town retains the right to reject all submittals for any reasons. Selection is also dependent upon the
negotiation of a mutually acceptable contract with the successful respondent. A sample contract is attached
hereto as Appendix 2. Each submittal must be valid for not less than one-hundred-twenty (120) days from the
date of receipt.
Page 33
Page 5 | 6
13. PROPOSAL TYPE
13.1. Lump sum (not to exceed). The quantity of actual trees decorated and hung may deviate from the
estimate. Please provide a price per tree decorated and rebar tree hung. A final count will be made in the
end and the lump sum bid will be adjusted either up or down.
14. PAYMENT SCHEDULE
14.1. Startup costs of 20% of the lump sum will be paid at the beginning of the project. Contractor must
submit an invoice no later than September 14th for the startup costs. The payment will be available after
October 1st when the project begins.
14.2. After completion of installation, the contractor may invoice for no more than 40% of the lump sum.
14.3. Upon removal of the rebar trees and displays in January, the contractor may invoice for no more
than 20% of the lump sum.
14.4. Upon removal of the twinkle lights in February, the contractor may invoice for 20% of the lump sum
of the project. The Town will pay all but the remaining 5% of the lump sum which will be kept as
retainage and paid only after no claims are received three (3) weeks after the last publish date of the
“Notice of Final Payment”.
14.5. Any work accomplished that is not described by these specifications will be negotiated and
compensated separately. A written proposal of additional work must be submitted by the contractor and
approved by the Town before said additional work can proceed.
15. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS
15.1. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including the
ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations of the Town. The Consultant shall solely be responsible
for payment of all applicable taxes and for obtaining and keeping in force all applicable permits, licenses,
and approvals. A current business license, issued by the Estes Park Town Clerk, is required to render
the services described in this contract.
15.2. The Contractor represents, warrants, and agrees that it (i) has verified that it does not employ any
illegal aliens, through participation in the Basic Pilot Employment Verification Program administered by
the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, or (ii) otherwise will comply
with the requirements of CRS 8-17.5-102(2)(b)(I). The Contractor shall comply with all reasonable
requests made in the course of an investigation by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If
the Contractor fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS 8-17.5-101, et seq., the Town
may terminate this contract for breach of contract, and the Contractor shall be liable for actual and
consequential damages to the Town.
15.3. If the Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this contract
knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Contractor shall: (a) notify the subcontractor and
the Town within three days that the Contractor has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing
or contracting with an illegal alien; and (b) terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three
(3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to sub-paragraph (a) above, the subcontractor does not
stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien, unless the subcontractor provides information to
establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien.
Page 34
Page 6 | 6
FALL 2021 TO SPRING 2024
BID PROPOSAL
I have read and understand the terms and conditions of this project:
COMPANY: _____________________________________________________________
NAME & TITLE: _____________________________________________________________
DATE: ___________________________________________________________________
UNIT COST:
Per Tree Decorated: __________________________________
Per Rebar Tree Hung: __________________________________
Lump Sum for all Displays: __________________________________
PROPOSAL AMOUNT:
(Winter 2021/2022) = $_________________________________
(Winter 2022/2023) = $_________________________________
(Winter 2023/2024) = $_________________________________
We have a functional bucket/lift (up to 40-foot) truck w/operator:
Yes, we have or will rent a functional bucket/lift (up to 40 foot) truck and operator
No, we do NOT have a functional bucket/lift (up to 40 foot) truck
SIGNATURE: _____________________________________________________________
COMPANY: _____________________________________________________________
ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
PHONE: _____________________________________________________________
Elevation Holiday Lighting
Michael Szymanski - Owner/Manager
August 15, 2021
$425
$62
$4,000
97,784
97,784
97,784
Elevation Holiday Lighting LLC
300 Magnolia Drive
Nederland, CO 80466
Office: (720) 460-1707 Cell: (262) 347-9091
Page 35
j
j
j
jjjjj
jj
jj
jjjjjjjjjj
kj
kjkjkj
jjjj
j
jj j
j j j j j j j
j
j
kj
jkjkjkjj
kjjkj kj
jj
jj
jj
j
jjjjkj jjjj
j j
j
j
j
j
jjj
jjj
jj
kjkj
kjj j
kjkjj
j j j j j
j j j j j j j j jj j
j j j
j
jjjjjjjjjj
This document was prepared for internal use by the Townof Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, the town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 90 180Feet
1 in = 178 ft±Town of Estes Park
Power and Communications Division
Appendix 1:Holiday Tree Light Design SampleStreet Trees
EXHIBIT A TO SERVICES CONTRACT
Page 36
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Christy Crosser, Grants Specialist
Date: September 28, 2021
RE: Letter of Support for a Grant Application to the Economic Development
Administration for the Fall River Trail Project
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Support Letter
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Support staff to submit a grant application to the Economic Development Administration
(EDA) for the Fall River Trail Project. These funds are from the American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA) Travel, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation.
Present Situation:
ARPA was signed into law in March 2021. This funding opportunity references trails and
the economic benefits of trails. The Department of Treasury has allocated funds to
various federal department including EDA within the Department of Commerce.
EDA has a “rolling” application process and the first review will be in October with an
application due date of October 1. The amount of funds for the region that include
Colorado is limited to only $19 million. It is expected that these funds will run out quickly
so staff would like to meet the first review scheduled in October. The Fall River Trail
Project is a priority listed in the Town Strategic Plan and the Estes Valley Master Trails
Plan, so every funding opportunity is considered.
Proposal:
EDA grant programs focus on economic development. Staff propose to consider
benefits for the lodges and restaurants long the corridor and connecting to downtown.
The grant application has not been substantially written at the time of submitting this
memo and support letter.
Advantages:
• If awarded, the grant will provide funding support for the continued construction of the
Fall River Trail.
Page 37
•The Fall River Trail project is a priority for the Town so any funding that could be
available should be pursued.
•The Fall River Trail project is expensive given its location along the highway and river so
leveraging grant funds is critical for the continue work on this project.
•Design is 90 percent complete making this project an attractive option for some funding
agencies.
Disadvantages:
•Staff learned about this grant opportunity recently and immediately scheduled a meeting
with EDA regional staff. Staff learned during this meeting that the proposed trail project
might be a good fit for this EDA grant program; however, the timeframe to submit this
grant application is tight (October 1). If unable to meet the October 1 due date the
second review will the end of 2021.
•There is a 20 percent match; however, depending on the proposed trail segment staff
will work within the trail budget using 1A Trail Funds and Open Space Funds.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the attached support letter for the ARPA tourism grant
program through EDA for the Fall River Trail.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The support letter is not a financial commitment rather is for the purpose of informing
the Board about this grant application. The 20 percent cost share will be funded from
the 1A Trail Expansion Fund and the Open Space Fund. Project construction could be
scheduled in 2023 or 2024.
Staff is researching the proposed trail segment to include in this application. When this
has been determined, staff will produce a budget with available funds.
Level of Public Interest
At this time and with the submission of this grant application the public interest is
moderate.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the support letter for the ARPA Travel, Tourism, and
Outdoor Recreation grant program through the Economic Development Administration for
the Fall River Trail Project.
Attachments:
1.Support letter
Page 38
Board of Trustees 970-577-4777
wkoenig@estes.org
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
September 28, 2021
Trent Thompson
Economic Development Representative, CO and UT
Economic Development Administration
US Department of Commerce
1244 Speer Blvd., Suite 431
Denver CO 80204
RE: ARPA Travel, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation grant opportunity application
Dear Mr. Thompson:
The Town Board of Trustees enthusiastically supports this grant application to the Economic
Development Administration (EDA) with funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Travel, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation. We are interested in funds to support the continued
construction of the Fall River Trail. This trail connects businesses and residents with historic
downtown Estes Park and businesses along the trail corridor. This project will be the first
multimodal trail connecting into Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP).
The Town acknowledges the 20 percent cost share and will budget this based on the cost of the
proposed segment. The Town engineers are proposing a trail segment that fits with this EDA
grant program and the Town’s fiscal ability to support the match.
This trail will be a significant asset to this community connecting historic downtown Estes Park
with Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) and points in between. Along this corridor are
businesses that will benefit from this trail, including lodges and restaurants. These businesses
primarily employ seasonal and service industry workers. The “season” for Estes Park continues
to expand well beyond the traditional summer months. Many of these workers are typically with
lower paid wages and will not always have reliable transportation, so an alternative
transportation mode will help employers retain staff and hire more staff.
In 2020, RMNP was the fourth busiest National Park in the country even with the pandemic and
wildfires. Estes Park is a premiere destination community and is the most visited mountain
community in Colorado. It is an economic engine for this region of Northern Colorado. Nearby
communities are prioritizing connectivity of trails to benefit residents and visitors. This has the
potential for a strong economic benefit across the region including the Front Range and Grand
Lake located on the west side of RMNP.
Page 39
Board of Trustees 970-577-4777
wkoenig@estes.org
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
The Town and businesses shut down during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020,
which significantly impacted Estes Park as a destination community. Two nearby wildfires, the
largest on record in Colorado, also severely impacted Estes Park. The wildfires resulted in a total
evacuation of this community.
The good news is that Estes Park has been coming back strong. People have wanted to take
advantage of outdoor experiences which could mean a good fit with this EDA grant program.
However, we have witnessed the same challenges as other communities: a lack of labor force.
We think with this grant, support for this trail is a good fit for the ARPA tourism grant program
through EDA.
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I hope that you will review this grant application favorably
to support this important trail that will benefit businesses. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 40
10/1/2021
1
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
September 28, 2021
COVID-19 Update - Board of Trustees Estes Park
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
COVID-19 Dashboard Update
Total Hospitalized COVID-19 Positive Patients and Patients Admitted by Day
Page 41
10/1/2021
2
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
COVID-19 Delta Variant
Delta is currently ~100% of cases and there is no indication that Mu can outcompete the Delta variant
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
COVID-19 Delta Variant
Delta is currently ~100% of cases and there is no indication that Mu can outcompete the Delta variant
Page 42
10/1/2021
3
Call to Action
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
UC Health
Page 43
10/1/2021
4
Hospitalization and Vaccinations
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
Local Hospital Update
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
Page 44
10/1/2021
5
Booster
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
Mask-Wearing in Schools
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
Page 45
10/1/2021
6
Mask-Wearing in Schools
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
vent vs. high flow air mortality
COVID-19 Treatments
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
larimer.org/covid19
Page 46
10/1/2021
7
Questions from Mayor
LARIMER COUNTY: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
● What impact is COVID-19 and its variants having on urgent care and intensive care units?In the past two
months, between 55% and 30% of the patients in Larimer ICUs have been COVID+.
● What percentage of patients in intensive care are unvaccinated? 93% currently in ICU in the UC Health
system are unvaccinated
● What is the mortality rate of patients related to medical unit stays and ICU on heated high flow respiratory
treatment vs. ventilators? These patients are very sick - acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute
respiratory distress syndrome. Meta analysis of invasive mechanical ventilation found case fatality in around
half of patients, but varied by age and pandemic period. ICU mortality rates including which typically include
heated high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) range between 10 to 25% on various smaller studies.
● How are high COVID rates affecting hospitals’ ability to care for patients admitted for non-COVID causes?
Stories of long waits and delayed care, cancer patient with a cancelled bone marrow transplant because of
no post-op ICU capacity, in other parts of the country rationing care (Idaho) or searching for an available
hospital for a treatable condition where delay in care proves fatal
● Also, as seasons change and people spend more time indoors, will masking reduce the spread of COVID-
19? Yes, masks are a proven and effective way to reduce the spread of COVID.
● At what vaccination rates, will we attain herd immunity? We don’t know but there are dozens of countries
further ahead than we are (in the county and in the US) including Denmark, Singapore, Cambodia, China,
Cuba, Canada, Bhutan, France, Italy. Some of these have lifted all restrictions so it’s somewhere between
where we are (64%) and 100% - 75% of the total population would rank us among these best vaccinated
countries.
● What effect is Delta, Mu and other variants having on COVID rates? Delta is pretty much 100% of cases and
there is no indication that Mu can outcompete the Delta variant
Questions?
COVID-19 - Status Update
For questions after the update today, please contact us:
Call: 970-498-5500 (Monday-Friday 9:00am-4:30pm)
Text: 970-999-1770
Email: covidconcerns@larimer.org
www.larimer.org/covidvaccine
Page 47
Page 48
1
PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development
Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION ITEM 1.A, RESOLUTION 70-20 WINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISION, 621
PINEWOOD LANE, ELAINE WINSLOW.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the
Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the
application.
Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this
application(s) which are not part of the Board packet.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2. STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report.
3. APPLICANT.
The applicant makes their presentation.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
5. REBUTTAL.
The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to
statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may
be submitted.
Page 49
2
6. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the application which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the
application.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Board consider a motion.
7. SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
Page 50
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Alex Bergeron, Planner II
Date: September 28, 2021
RE: Resolution 70-21 Winslow Minor Subdivision, 621 Pinewood Lane, Elaine
Winslow, Owner/Applicant.
(Mark all that apply for later Town Board handling)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider and make a decision on the preliminary plat and
final plat proposed for a minor subdivision of land.
Present Situation:
621 Pinewood Lane, legally described as LOT 14 LESS S 5.02 FT FOR ST, S ST VRAIN,
ESTES PK and identified with Parcel ID 3401105014 (see also Attachment 1: Vicinity
map), is a legal lot under single ownership (Elaine and Robert Winslow; see also
Attachment 2: Application form) which is zoned E-1 (Estate/1-acre minimum)
(hereinafter referred to as “the Property”).
Proposal:
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the Property through the Minor Subdivision
process to create another lot of one acre in size suitable for residential development
(proposed Lot 1) (see Attachment 3: Statement of intent). Both resulting lots would meet
minimum lot size and other dimensional criteria for subdivision within the E-1 Zoning
District. The applicant proposes a “no build” easement to preserve the view from the
existing home on the parent lot (proposed Lot 2), and declares limits of disturbance
(LOD) for proposed Lot 1 to preserve existing trees.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary Plat on August 17, 2020, and has
recommended that the Town Board approve the Minor Subdivision.
Advantages:
• Consistent with Community Wide Policy 5.2 of the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan,
creation of the new lot would provide for additional residential development in Estes
Park, which currently has a pronounced shortage of housing stock relative to demand.
Page 51
• Sale of the newly-created lot, either vacant or post-development, would provide for
additional income for the Applicant in a manner which promotes the welfare of the
community as outlined above and in the context of scenic and environmental quality per
the aforementioned LOD and “no build” easement.
Disadvantages:
• Despite the conservation goals of the LOD, approximately 30 trees (or half the total
number on proposed Lot 1) are located in the LOD, and their felling could impact native
fauna through habitat destruction.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends Approval of the Minor Subdivision.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None identified.
Level of Public Interest
Medium. As of the authoring of this report, the Community Development Department
has received two written public comments in opposition to the proposal citing perceived
negative impacts of additional lot creation in the neighborhood. In addition, the
Department received two written inquiries on the proposal, which appeared to be
satisfactorily responded to (see also Attachment 7: Public Comment). During the
Planning Commission public hearing, one verbal comment was delivered, which sought
to clarify easement status.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees APPROVE Resolution 70-21.
I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny Resolution 70-21, finding that [state
findings for denial].
I move to continue Resolution 70-21 to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding
that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments:
1. Resolution 70-21
2. Vicinity map
3. Application form
4. Statement of intent
5. Preliminary Minor Subdivision
6. Final Minor Subdivision
7. Public Comment
Page 52
RESOLUTION 70-21
A RESOLUTION APPROVING WINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISION,
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
WHEREAS, an application for a Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
(frontage lot classification) was filed by Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. on
behalf of Elaine and Robert Winslow (applicant/owner); and
WHEREAS, the Minor Subdivision would create two new lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2, both
of Winslow Minor Subdivision, of 1.00 and 1.49 acres in size, respectively; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Estes Park Planning
Commission (EPPC) on August 17, 2021, at the conclusion of which the EPPC voted to
recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat without any imposed
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed and taken administrative notice
of the recommendation of the EPPC and the testimony, application, evidence, documents
submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees finds the applicants have complied with the
applicable requirements of the EPDC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat of the Winslow Minor Subdivision are hereby
approved, with the following conditions of approval:
1.The certification of dedication shall be removed from the Preliminary Plat,
in a manner acceptable to the Community Development Director; and
2.Within 60 days from the date of the Board’s approval of the Final Plat, the
developer shall submit the final subdivision plat to the Town for recording.
If the Final Plat is not submitted for recording within this 60-day time period,
the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.
DATED this day of , 2021.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Attachment 1
Page 53
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 54
11
Subject lot:
621 Pinewood Ln
' •
oW
LONGS DR
1
ACACIA DR
·•''
Attachment 2
Page 55
ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION
· Type of Application•• •• • • • a
Development Plan
Special Review
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Final Subdivision Plat
Minor Subdivision Plat
Amended Plat
Generai.lnformaticin
PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE BOX 0 Boundary Line Adjustment 0 ROW or Easement Vacation 0 Street Name Change Time 0 Rezoning Petition 0 Annexation Request 0 Extension 0 h · • ,·, .,.,. ="""'"".
ProJect Name Winslow Minor Subdivision
Project Description Subdivide existing parcel into two separate lots
Condominium Map 0 Preliminary Map O Final Map 0 Supplemental Map
Project Address 621 Pinewood Lane ----------------------------------1 Lot 14, South Saint Vrain Addition
� I I I �
===.:..;. _______ Area of Disturbance in Acres ---------------1
Existing Land Use
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service
Proposed Water Service
Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence
[Z]Town Dwell D None
None 0Town D Well D
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service
Is a sewer lift station required?
Existing Gas Service [ZI Xcel
0 EPSD
0 EPSD
D Yes
D Other
D Other ( specify)
D Other (specify)
[ZI UTSD 0
[ZI UTSD 0
[ZI No
D None
Septic
Septic
0None
Existing Z oning -'E'-·'-1 __________ P roposed Zoning _E_-_1 _____________ ---1
Site Access (if not on public street) Pinewood Lane .:...:;.�.;;.;;.;;;..;;:;;;;.;__:;__---:::-----------Are there wetlands on the site? □ Yes 0 No
bm1tted Complete? Yes D No Site staking must be completed at the time application is subm i tted.
[ZI Application fee
[Z1 Statement of intent
[ZI 2 copies (folded) of plat or plan
[ZI 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan
Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org
D Sign Purchase ($10)
Please review the Estes Park Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which
may in clude ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report,
wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information.
Town of Estes Park c-§,, P.O. Box 1200 o.:f. 170 MacGregor Avenue,,&, Estes Park, CO 80517
Community Develo pment Department Phone: (970 ) 577-3721 °"" Fax: (970) 586-0249 ""' www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment
Revised 2020.04.23 ks
Attachment 3
Page 56
Record Owner(s) Elaine Winslow ---------------------------------1 Mailing Address 621 Pinewood Lane, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone (970) 577-0690
Cell Phone ---------------------------------tFax ---------------------------------tEmail
Applicant Elaine Winslow
Mailing Address 621 Pinewood Lane, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone (970) 577-0690
Cell Phone ---------------------------------1Fax ---------------------------------1
Email
Consultant/Engineer Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
Mailing Address 1692 Bi Thom son Ave Suite 200 Estes Park CO 80517
Phone (970) 586-2458
Cell Phone (970) 231-5579
Fax ---------------------------------tEmail jreetz@ces-ccc.com
APPLICATION FEES
For development within the Estes Park Town limits See the fee schedule included in
your application packet or view the fee schedule online at
www.estes.org/planningforms
All requests for refunds must be made in writin�. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION
Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Sp ecial Reviews,
Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final
Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners whe re the surface
estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application
for development and meet the statutory requirements.
I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met.
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Elaine Winslow
Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Elaine Winslow
Signatures:
/:JJ1,t'rr, {:£!�c; )71c9i1 Record Owner 'iU ua� f&W Date
Applicant Date
Revised 2020.04.23 ks
Page 57
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
►I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and conse nt of the owners of the property.
►In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the
application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park
Development Code (EPDC).
►I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the
opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
The Estes Park Development Code is available online at:
http://www.estes.org/DevCode
►I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by
the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EPDC.
► I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date.
►I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
►The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to
my property during the review of this application.
►I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Park Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet
the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and
void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void.
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Elaine Winslow
Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Elaine Winslow
Signatures: C Q'-W� ) Record Owner ���-· �l,�@l�=R .... ��--�'----tfM1-�=1&J.� ..... ---------
Applicant
Date
Date
Revised 2020.04.23 ks Page 58
June 8, 2021
Town of Estes Park
Community Development
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, Co. 80517
RE: Winslow Minor Subdivision
-Statement of Intent
Existing Conditions
The subject property is currently addressed as 621 Pinewood Lane and is platted as being 2.5± acres in size.
Currently the subject property is developed with a single family residence. The subject property is zoned E-1
Estate having a minimum lot size of 1 acre.
Project Description
The owner intends to sub-divide the subject property to create an additional 1.0± parcel which will be used to
construct a single family residence.
A “NO BUILD” easement is being proposed on Lot 1 in the southeast corner to help ensure un-obstructed
views from the existing residence on Lot 2.
Utilities
An existing electric service servicing Lot 2 crosses the created Lot 1 with an easement dedicated with the plat
for the electric service.
Water Service:
A water main currently exists along the northerly property line which will provide service for Lot 1.
Sewer Service:
A “UTILITY SERVICE EASEMENT” is being dedicated across Lot 2 to provide access for Lot 1 to the existing
sewer main.
No utility mains will need to be extended for the proposed sub-division.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
Jes Reetz
Planner
Attachment 4
Page 59
OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXX XXFORMER LOT 14108,654± SF2.494± AC.PROPOSED LOT 143,681± SF1.003± AC.PROPOSED LOT 263,117± SF1.449± AC.25' BUILDINGSETBACK (TYP.)10' UTILITY &DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED WITH THIS PLAT(TYP.)25' BUILDINGSETBACK (TYP.)PINEWOOD LANEEXISTING RESIDENCE621 PINEWOOD LANE10' ELECTRICSERVICEEASEMENTDEDICATEDWITH THIS PLATLOT 15SOUTH SAINT VRAINADDITIONZONED E-1 ESTATELOT 4PINEWOOD ACRESZONED E-1 ESTATEOHP OHP OHP LOT 16PEAK VIEW AMENDED PLATZONED E-1 ESTATELOT 17PEAK VIEW AMENDED PLATZONED E-1 ESTATELOT 18PEAK VIEW AMENDED PLATZONED E-1 ESTATESSSSS105.79'264.26'N08°47'00" E 292.22' (C)S 01°17'02" W 144.14'S 43°53'36" E 51.07'S 26°19'11" E 120.85'236.18'133.74'S 08°50' W 296.4'
(
P
)S 08°50'00"
W
2
9
1
.
4
2
'
(
C
)EXISTING DRIVEWAYN 89°34'29" W 370.05' (C)N 89°34'29" W449.59' (C)N 89°34'29" W200.00' (C)N 89°34' W 370.0' (P)N 89°34' W200.0' (P)N 89°34' W450.0' (P)N 08°47' E 297.3' (P)N 89°40' W 369.8' (P)S 89°42'15" E 369.92' (C)S54°53'36"W25.30'S 00°17'45" W93.39'74.76'"NO BUILD"EASEMENTDEDICATED WITHTHIS PLAT20' ACCESSEASEMENT10' UTILITY &DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED WITH THIS PLAT(TYP.)PLATTEDPROPERTY LINEFOUND G.L.O. BRASS CAPSOUTHWEST CORNERSEC. 31, T5N, R72WFOUND 1/2 -INCHIRON ROD33.30'43.19'N 17°31'20" E 124.56'N 71°27'54" E 111.34'EASTERN EDGEEXISTING DRIVEWAY20' UTILITY SERVICEEASEMENT FOR LOT 1DEDICATED WITHTHIS PLATWWWWWWWWW5.02'BASIS OF BEARINGN 89°34'29" W10' UTILITY &DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED WITH THIS PLAT(TYP.)6.2'±4.5'±53.1'±56.3'±FENCE LIES 0.9'±SOUTH OF PLATTEDPROPERTY LINEFENCE LIES 0.4'±SOUTH OF PLATTEDPROPERTY LINE7.8'±6.1'±77407730772012"12"12"12"12"12"12"18"24"18"12"8"8"8"8"8"8"8"8"8"8"6"6"6"8"8"12"8"8"8"8"8"6"6"SUBJECTPROPERTYS
O
U
T
H
S
A
I
N
T
V
R
A
I
N
A
V
E
(A
K
A
H
W
Y
N
o
.
7
)PINEWOOD LN.TO A
L
L
E
N
S
P
A
R
K
TO
E
S
T
E
S
P
A
R
KPEAK VIEW DR.SUBJECT PROPERTY LINEADJACENT PROPERTY LINEEASEMENT AS NOTEDFOUND MONUMENTATION AS SHOWNSET #5 REBAR W/ ALUMINUM CAP PLS#37946BUILDING SETBACKXXXXEXISTING FENCEOHPEXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITYSEXISTING SEWER MAINEXISTING SEWER ACCESS HOLEEXISTING SEWER CLEANOUTDENOTES "PLATTED" DIMENSIONDENOTES "CALCULATED" DIMENSION(P)(C)APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE20SCALE 1" = 20'02040 60VICINITY MAPSCALE 1"=1000'I, JEAN A. DAOUD OF AZIMUTH SURVEYING, INC, A DULY REGISTEREDLAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFYTHAT THIS PLAT OF THE WINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISION, TRULY ANDCORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. REG. LAND SURVEYOR #29145APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTPURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S. AS AMENDED.ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT, IN NO EVENT, MAY ANYACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCEDMORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWNHEREON.NOTICE OF APPROVAL:SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEAPPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO THIS DAY OF , 2021 A.D.TOWN ENGINEERTOWN ENGINEERTOWN CLERKAPPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THETOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, ON THE _____ DAY OF __________,2021.BOARD OF TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATELEGENDMAYORWINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION25 AND THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 26T5N, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M.,LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADOWINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISIONELAINE WINSLOWSHEET TITLE:BY:REVISION:DATE:CLIENT:SHEET1SHEET1957.001JOB NO.JDDATESCALEAPPROVED BYAS SHOWNAPRIL 2021JLRJLRMSTDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDESIGNED BYPROJECT TITLE:2021 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED1692 BIG THOMPSON AVE.SUITE 200ESTES PARK, CO 80517PH: (970) 586-2458FAX: (970) 586-2459WINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISIONLOT 14, LESS SOUTH 5.02 FEET FOR STREET, SOUTH SAINTVRAIN ADDITION, TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OFLARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOJLRSTAFF COMMENTS DATED 06/28/202107/06/2021JLRTOWN ATTORNEY COMMENTS09/21/2021BY:)SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER )STATE OF COLORADO )THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _______DAY OF __________, 2021 BY ELAINE P. WINSLOW.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.MY COMMISSION EXPIRESNOTARY PUBLICNOTARIAL CERTIFICATECERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION:BY:)SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER )STATE OF COLORADO )THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _______DAY OF __________, 2021 BY ROBERT S. WINSLOW.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.MY COMMISSION EXPIRESNOTARY PUBLICNOTARIAL CERTIFICATEROBERT S. WINSLOWELAINE P. WINSLOWOWNER:OWNER:IMAGE TAKEN FROM TOWN OF ESTES PARK DIGITAL STREET MAPPINGPRELIMINARY PLAT NOTES:1) SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED E-1 ESTATE2) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS ARE 25-FEET FROM ALLPROPERTY LINES. LOT 1 IS PROPOSED WITH A "NO-BUILD"EASEMENT TO ENSURE MAINTAINED VIEWS FROM LOT 23) EXISTING DRIVEWAY APPROXIMATELY SHOWN TO DEPICT NOACCESS EASEMENT REQUIRED FOR EXISTING RESIDENCE4) CORNERS OF EXISTING RESIDENCE CLOSEST TO THEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINE HAVE BEEN LOCATED TO ENSUREPROPER SETBACKS. NO OTHER CORNERS WHERE LOCATED.EXISTING RESIDENCE APPROXIMATE SHOWN.KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT ROBERT S. WINSLOW & ELAINE P.WINSLOW BEING THE OWNER(S) OF THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT:LOT 14, LESS SOUTH 5.02 FEET FOR STREET, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION, TO THETOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOCONTAINING 2.494 ACRES MORE OR LESS; HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS CAUSED THESAME TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS TO BE KNOW AS THE PLAT OFWINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE AND CONVEY TO AND FORPUBLIC USE FOREVER HEREAFTER THE STREETS AS ARE LAID OUT AND DESIGNATEDON THIS PLAT, AND DO ALSO RESERVE PERPETUAL EASEMENTS FOR THEINSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES, ACCESS EASEMENTS, NO-BUILDEASEMENTS AND FOR IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES AS ARE LAID OUT ANDDESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS _________ DAY OF_____________________________, 2021.Attachment 5Page 60
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXX XXFORMER LOT 14108,654± SF2.494± AC.PROPOSED LOT 143,681± SF1.003± AC.PROPOSED LOT 263,117± SF1.449± AC.10' UTILITY &DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED WITH THIS PLAT(TYP.)PINEWOOD LANEEXISTING RESIDENCE621 PINEWOOD LANE10' ELECTRICSERVICEEASEMENTDEDICATEDWITH THIS PLATLOT 15SOUTH SAINT VRAINADDITIONLOT 4PINEWOOD ACRESLOT 16PEAK VIEW AMENDED PLATLOT 17PEAK VIEW AMENDED PLATLOT 18PEAK VIEW AMENDED PLAT105.79'264.26'N08°47'00" E 292.22' (C)S 01°17'02" W 144.14'S 43°53'36" E 51.07'S 26°19'11" E 120.85'236.18'133.74'S 08°50'
W
2
9
6
.
4
'
(
P
)
S 08°50'0
0
"
W
2
9
1
.
4
2
'
(
C
)N 89°34'29" W 370.05' (C)N 89°34'29" W449.59' (C)N 89°34'29" W200.00' (C)N 89°34' W 370.0' (P)N 89°34' W200.0' (P)N 89°34' W450.0' (P)N 08°47' E 297.3' (P)N 89°40' W 369.8' (P)S 89°42'15" E 369.92' (C)S54°53'36"W25.30'S 00°17'45" W93.39'74.76'"NO BUILD"EASEMENTDEDICATED WITHTHIS PLAT20' ACCESSEASEMENT10' UTILITY &DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED WITH THIS PLAT(TYP.)PLATTEDPROPERTY LINEFOUND G.L.O. BRASS CAPSOUTHWEST CORNERSEC. 31, T5N, R72WFOUND 1/2 -INCHIRON ROD33.30'43.19'N 17°31'20" E 124.56'N 71°27'54" E 111.34'20' UTILITY SERVICEEASEMENT FOR LOT 1DEDICATED WITHTHIS PLATWWWWWWWWW5.02'BASIS OF BEARINGN 89°34'29" W10' UTILITY &DRAINAGE EASEMENTDEDICATED WITH THIS PLAT(TYP.)6.2'±4.5'±53.1'±56.3'±FENCE LIES 0.9'±SOUTH OF PLATTEDPROPERTY LINEFENCE LIES 0.4'±SOUTH OF PLATTEDPROPERTY LINE7.8'±6.1'±SUBJECTPROPERTYS
O
U
T
H
S
A
I
N
T
V
R
A
I
N
A
V
E
(A
K
A
H
W
Y
N
o
.
7
)PINEWOOD LN.TO A
L
L
E
N
S
P
A
R
K
TO
E
S
T
E
S
P
A
R
KPEAK VIEW DR.SUBJECT PROPERTY LINEADJACENT PROPERTY LINEEASEMENT AS NOTEDFOUND MONUMENTATION AS SHOWNSET #5 REBAR W/ ALUMINUM CAP PLS#37946XXXXEXISTING FENCEDENOTES "PLATTED" DIMENSIONDENOTES "CALCULATED" DIMENSION(P)(C)APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE20SCALE 1" = 20'02040 60VICINITY MAPSCALE 1"=1000'I, JEAN A. DAOUD OF AZIMUTH SURVEYING, INC, A DULY REGISTEREDLAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFYTHAT THIS PLAT OF THE WINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISION, TRULY ANDCORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. REG. LAND SURVEYOR #29145APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTPURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S. AS AMENDED.ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT, IN NO EVENT, MAY ANYACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCEDMORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWNHEREON.NOTICE OF APPROVAL:SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEAPPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO THIS DAY OF , 2021 A.D.TOWN ENGINEERTOWN ENGINEERTOWN CLERKAPPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THETOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, ON THE _____ DAY OF __________,2021.BOARD OF TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATELEGENDMAYORWINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION25 AND THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 26T5N, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M.,LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADOWINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISIONELAINE WINSLOWSHEET TITLE:BY:REVISION:DATE:CLIENT:SHEET1SHEET1957.001JOB NO.JDDATESCALEAPPROVED BYAS SHOWNAPRIL 2021JLRJLRMSTDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDESIGNED BYPROJECT TITLE:2021 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED1692 BIG THOMPSON AVE.SUITE 200ESTES PARK, CO 80517PH: (970) 586-2458FAX: (970) 586-2459WINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISIONLOT 14, LESS SOUTH 5.02 FEET FOR STREET, SOUTH SAINTVRAIN ADDITION, TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OFLARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOJLRSTAFF COMMENTS DATED 06/28/202107/06/2021JLRTOWN ATTORNEY COMMENTS09/21/2021BY:)SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER )STATE OF COLORADO )THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _______DAY OF __________, 2021 BY ELAINE P. WINSLOW.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.MY COMMISSION EXPIRESNOTARY PUBLICNOTARIAL CERTIFICATECERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION:BY:)SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER )STATE OF COLORADO )THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _______DAY OF __________, 2021 BY ROBERT S. WINSLOW.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.MY COMMISSION EXPIRESNOTARY PUBLICNOTARIAL CERTIFICATEROBERT S. WINSLOWELAINE P. WINSLOWKNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT ROBERT S. WINSLOW & ELAINE P.WINSLOW BEING THE OWNER(S) OF THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT:LOT 14, LESS SOUTH 5.02 FEET FOR STREET, SOUTH SAINT VRAIN ADDITION, TO THETOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOCONTAINING 2.494 ACRES MORE OR LESS; HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS CAUSED THESAME TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS TO BE KNOW AS THE PLAT OFWINSLOW MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE AND CONVEY TO AND FORPUBLIC USE FOREVER HEREAFTER THE STREETS AS ARE LAID OUT AND DESIGNATEDON THIS PLAT, AND DO ALSO RESERVE PERPETUAL EASEMENTS FOR THEINSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES, ACCESS EASEMENTS, NO-BUILDEASEMENTS AND FOR IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES AS ARE LAID OUT ANDDESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS _________ DAY OF_____________________________, 2021.OWNER:OWNER:IMAGE TAKEN FROM TOWN OF ESTES PARK DIGITAL STREET MAPPINGAttachment 6Page 61
8/31/2021 Town of Estes Park Mail - Winslow Subdivision Question
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1707275929437028712&simpl=msg-f%3A170727592943…1/1
Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org>
Winslow Subdivision Question
Lawrence Gamble <pinewood670@gmail.com>Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:39 AM
To: Ryan Barr <rbarr@estes.org>, abergeron@estes.org, jwaters@estes.org
We received a notice in the mail regarding the Winslow Minor Subdivision. We live on
Pinewood Drive south of the Winslow property.
Our subdivision is Thompson's Pinewood Acres Re-Subdivision. On that plat, the
dedicated right-of-way for Pinewood Drive is 60 feet. That same plat shows the lots to
the north (including the Winslow property) although they are not a part of the
Thompson's Pinewood Acres Re-Subdivision, they are in the Dannels Addition.
On theThompson's Pinewood Acres Re-Subdivision plat it shows that the right-of-way
for Pinewood Lane is 30 feet. I believe the current street standard in Appendix D of the
Estes Park Development Code requires a right-of-way of 60 feet. Since it is a Town
maintained street, my question is whether the Town would secure the additional 30-foot
right-of-way for Pinewood Lane as part of the Winslow Minor Subdivision?
Thanks for your help!
--
Larry Gamble
(970) 586-3733
Attachment 7
Page 62
Hello Alex,
We heard from our neighbor that comments on this project have been requested via mailings. I don’t believe we received the
postcard and hope I am not too late with this email.
I am of course writing from my personal email account, as I have no concerns related to utilities in my professional position.
Our concerns are regarding what can be done to mitigate dirt and gravel from washing down onto our property at 610
Pinewood Ln. both during construction and moving forward. It is our understanding that the Winslow’s plan to not pave the
new driveway. As you can see on the photos attached, we already have an ongoing maintenance issue with their neighbors to
the west. This photos were from the relatively minor rains over the last month or so.
Each year, often multiple times I have to go into our front yard with rakes, shovels and a wheelbarrow to remove the washout
debris from our lawn.
I am not sure what the most reasonable solution is. Obviously a concrete curb and gutter along the south side of the street
would be the best solution, although the most costly as well.
I would appreciate any thoughts or ideas, or if there is even some type of enforcement that could apply so as to not
compound an already difficult situation.
Thank you for your time.
Best,
Steve Rusch
619 Pinewood Ln.
Page 63
We are against allowing this subdivision. This is a spacious, relaxed neighborhood and it seems to go against the initial
purpose and design of the area to begin dividing into smaller lots to crowd more residences in.
Respectfully,
Stan and Kathye Osborne
616 Longs Drive
Page 64
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
621 PinewoodLane
1 message
'ALAN H WAGNER' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 6:53 PM
Reply-To: ALAN H WAGNER <awagz44@aol.com>
To: planning@estes.org
This is a response from Alan and Margaret Wagner 1728 Dekker Circle. We are not for this proposed splitting of lot 621
Pinewood Lane. The lots were originally designed as is and are among the nicest in town. Now you want to divide them
up for the almighty dollar. Next thing you know they will put in condos, ect. Total negative to the character of the
neighborhood. This is a quiet area of town, it’s why we choose to live here. Now you want to change it!!! When Bernie
Daniels subdivided it this way it was done on purpose to have a good neighbor, now you want to change all the rules.
Very typical of town!! We don’t need more traffic, more people, more dogs, more noise, more rentals!!Sent from my
iPhone
Page 65
Page 66
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION ITEM 1.B. ORDINANCE 14-21 AMENDING
CHAPTERS 4 AND 11 OF THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL (CD) ZONING DISTRICT AND DESIGN STANDAARDS FOR
TALLLER BUILDINGS.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment,
and written comments received on the item.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2. STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
item. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
4. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the item which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Board consider a motion.
Page 67
7. SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
*NOTE: Ordinances are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required
to do so by State Statute.
Page 68
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: September 28, 2021
RE: Ordinance 14-21 Amending Chapters 4 and 11 the Estes Park
Development Code for the regarding maximum building height in the
Downtown Commercial (CD) Zoning and Design Standards for Taller
Buildings
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
To amend the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) to allow maximum building height
in the CD Zoning District to increase from 30 feet to 42 feet, and to provide for modest
design standards (upper-floor stepbacks, building articulation, and similar measures) for
taller buildings downtown. Minor edits are also made to the Chapter 11 header for
clarity.
The amendment’s purposes are multiple, and include: (a) expanding capability for
workforce housing and housing generally; (b) expanding capacity for commercial
development and redevelopment in the Town’s urban core; and (c) increasing the
Town’s resilience in the event of fire, flood, or other disasters.
Present Situation:
The current maximum building-height limit in the CD Zoning District is 30 feet. This
figure has not changed in at least 21 years. Downtown buildings have the same height
limit as buildings anywhere in Estes Park, except multifamily workforce- or attainable-
housing buildings, which can build to 38 feet as a result of a 2017 Code change.
Staff and the Estes Park Planning Commission initiated the code amendment to
increase building heights in the CD Zoning District (see Attachment 1 Map CD Zoning
District) in reaction to recommendations from the approved Estes Park, Colorado
Page 69
Downtown Plan (adopted Jan. 2018) (see Attachment 6) and the Estes Park Economic
Development Corporation (EDC) which identified workforce housing as a critical issue to
ongoing economic vitality of Estes Park. The amendment proposed to increase building
height limitations from the current 30 feet to a maximum allowable height of 42 feet as a
use by right. The amendment also contemplates additional design considerations
included in §11.5.
Following the 2013 flood, recognizing that the then-current Flood Insurance Rate Maps
may not have been adequate for the Town and other areas in our region, the Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB) sponsored new flood-hazard mapping for most of
riparian Estes Park, including downtown. The new maps were completed in 2020 and
are now in the process of consideration for adoption by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA.) New floodplain regulations were adopted in our
Municipal Code in 2019. These actions are relevant to this Code amendment because
much more of downtown Estes Park is now in the regulatory floodplain. Existing and
new construction downtown has to be resilient against this risk.
The Downtown Plan called for “…a moderate increase in density and building height to
promote housing development and Downtown activity.” (p. 52) The plan included
additional discussion on design considerations including upper-floor stepbacks and
building articulation to ensure visual continuity with existing buildings in the downtown
district, to help maintain viewsheds, to minimize low-angle solar shadowing, and similar
problems from the tall “rectangular cuboid” structures one sometimes finds in other
downtowns.
The EDC advocated for increasing the availability of workforce housing in Estes Park in
the report, “The Economic Benefits of Implementing Workforce Housing in the Estes
Park,” published in April of 2018 by the EDC, workforce housing was identified as
critical to the ongoing economic vitality of Estes Park. While the height increase does
not specifically require workforce housing in new development, the statement of
purpose in the amended §11.5 identifies it as a community priority.
The Planning Commission began discussing changes to downtown building height in
October 2020. Active discussion with early draft amendment language began at the
March 16 meeting and continued through the April 20, May 18, June 20, and July 20,
2021 meetings. The public hearing and motion to approve the recommended
amendments occurred at the August 17, 2021, meeting.
Additional Reference information:
Per existing Code Sec. 1.9.E, building heights are calculated from the mean average
elevation of the finished grade (highest point + lowest point/2) and the mean height
between the topmost point of the top plate and the highest ridge for a gable, hip or
gambrel roof. For a flat roof, it is measured from the highest point on the roof surface
(deck), not including parapet walls. At 42 feet in height, it provides flexibility in design for
a mixed-use development. Having some flexibility allows for the additional architectural
features that create visual interest and break up the roof line.
Page 70
To assist with public education on this topic a Frequently Asked Questions document
was created. (See Attachment 3 – FAQ)
Proposal:
The 42-foot height limit was arrived at through public discussions with the Planning
Commission, research that included discussions with real estate and construction
professionals, previously approved downtown plans, and a scan of similar mountain
communities. It was determined that a modest increase, from 30 to 42 feet, would allow
property owners the opportunity to build commercially viable three-story mixed-use
buildings. The amendment under consideration does not restrict building use or the
number of floors - only that it cannot exceed 42 feet in height.
The 42-foot height limit is intended as a maximum allowable as a use by right with no
exceptions through special review. The only method to available to exceed the 42-foot
limit would be a lengthy code amendment request.
Research on current construction requirements indicated that 42 would be the ideal
height for three story mixed-use building in the downtown. Generally, first floor
commercial spaces require 15 to 16 feet of height and residential uses require nine to
10 feet per floor. In addition, utilities and other mechanical systems require roughly two
feet per floor plus additional space for the roof and any architectural features. See the
illustration below:
At the request of the Planning Commission, staff used Light Detection and Ranging data
(“LIDAR”) to catalog existing building heights in the CD District. The information is now
available as a resource through the Town’s GIS network.
The LIDAR data indicated that several buildings are over 30 feet in height and two
buildings exceed 42 feet including the Park Theater at roughly 65 feet. The data was
intended to provide information for comparison. (see Attachment 5 – Map of Existing
Building Heights in the CD District)
The board reviewed and considered issues related to the proposed amendment
including the maximum allowable height, building uses, impact of design guidelines,
viewsheds, existing conditions, and potential impact on future investment. It was the
Page 71
intention of the Planning Commission to support height limitations and guidelines that
would promote building investment and new housing opportunities without being overly
restrictive or subjective in the application of the code.
The amendment proposes limited guidelines that would only apply to new construction
or additions that exceed 30 feet in height. The guidelines require buildings over 30 feet
to include an 8-foot stepback from the façade for any top-floor wall facing a public right
of way, including pedestrian alleys, and dedicated natural corridors. The guidelines also
require some building articulation on the first floor (street level) including windows,
doors, and other design features to discourage blank walls.
The amendment does not change existing parking requirements. The CD District is
exempt from off street parking requirements under section 7.11 of the code. Public
Works (Parking management) and Community Development staff have discussed
parking capabilities downtown, and we are reassured that adequate parking exists to
accommodate the potential impacts of this amendment – including overnight parking for
residential uses, as necessary. (As a side note, we may wish to revisit the complete
exemption of the CD District from required minimum parking provisions at a future time;
however, that should await more data from the paid-parking initiative, and in any case is
outside the direct scope of this discussion.)
Staff also presented information on viewshed and shadow analysis as it relates to
building height. A shadow analysis had been completed for the existing building stock
that included some three-dimensional imaging. It was determined that simply requiring
an analysis, absent non-subjective criteria for staff to make findings, would create
confusion about its regulatory purpose, and therefore it was not included in the final
Code language.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the Town Board amend the Estes Park
Development Code as follows:
• Modify §4.4, Section C.4. Table 4-5 to allow for building heights to be increased from
30 feet to 42 feet as a use by right and to make other minor changes.
o Higher protrusions such as antennas or chimneys would not count toward
height (no change from current Code – see Sec. 1.9.E.)
• Modify §11.5 to require design standards involving buildings proposed to exceed the
current 30-foot height limit. New design standards for taller buildings are simple:
o A “stepback” of eight feet on the uppermost floor, on any side facing a
public right-of-way or other public space (see Downtown Plan excerpt,
Attachment 6, p. 38 – the building photo in the upper left corner shows a
top-floor stepback.)
Page 72
o Blank walls cannot exceed 10’ in height by 15’ in length without a window
or doorway when visible from a public street or other public space.
o Walls would need to include any two of a list of features within every 30
horizontal feet, such as windows, doors, trim, change in roofline, or
several other choices.
o These design standards would not apply to any current or new downtown
buildings at or below the 30-foot limit – only to taller buildings.
• Other minor changes include renaming some sections in EPDC Chapter 11 to
better align with this proposal, such as renaming §11.5 from “Height Exception
for Residential Developments in the CD Zoning District” to “Building Height in the
CD Zoning District.”
Advantages:
• Generally aligns with Downtown Plan (adopted 2018)
• Aligns with Town Board Strategic Goals: Prioritize EPDC amendments that impact
housing; incentivize downtown housing; implement the Downtown Plan; several
goals re environmental resiliency and safety
Disadvantages:
• Downtown building height increases are not popular with some, due to concerns
about blocking views, street shadowing, increased population and traffic in narrow
spaces, and other reasons.
Action Recommended:
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Code amendment.
The Estes Park Planning Commission, at their August 17, 2021 meeting, forwarded a
unanimous recommendation of approval for the Code Amendment, by a vote of 5 – 0.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A – No direct cost to General Fund or other funds
Level of Public Interest
Medium to High. All written comments will be posted to:
www.estes.org/currentapplications
To date of this writing (Sep. 9, 2021), a total of 25 written comments have been
received.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance 14-21, including findings
as identified in the Ordinance.
Page 73
I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny the Estes Park Development Code
amendment as stated in Ordinance 14-21, finding that… [state findings for denial]
I move that the Town Board of Trustees continue the Estes Park Development Code
amendment as stated in Ordinance 14-21 to [date certain], in order that… [state
direction to staff pursuant to continuance]
Attachments:
1.Ordinance 14-21
2.Exhibit A - EPDC Amendment Downtown Bldg height
3.Frequently Asked Questions Building Height Code Amendment
4.Map CD Downtown Zoning District
5.Map of Existing Building Heights in the CD District (Aug. 2021)
6.From 2018 Downtown Plan - Downtown Building Height (Jan.2018)
7.Estes Park PowerPoint Small Town Architecture Presentation Density+Massing
-Steve Lane (April 26, 2017)
8.Public Comment received as of September 15, 2021
Page 74
ORDINANCE NO. 14-21
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 4 AND 11 OF THE ESTES PARK
DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (CD) ZONING DISTRICT AND RELATED DESIGN
STANDARDS
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2021, the Estes Park Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Park Development Code to
change the allowable height to forty-two (42) feet from the existing thirty (30) feet, to
incorporate design standards for buildings over 30 feet, and to make other related minor
adjustments in Downtown Commercial (CD) Zoning District development standards; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2021, the Estes Park Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado finds the
text amendment complies with Estes Park Development Code section 3.3.D and has
determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendment to the Estes Park
Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A, be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Section 4.4 and Chapter 11 of the Estes Park Development Code are
hereby amended by the addition of underlined material and deletion of stricken material
as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In Exhibit
A, ellipses indicate material not reproduced as the Board intends to leave that material in
effect as it now reads.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2021.
Attachment 1
Page 75
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the day of , 2021 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day
of , 2021, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 76
EXHIBIT A
§ 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts
(…)
C.Density and Dimensional Standards.
(…)
4.Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning
Districts.
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
Minimum Land
Area per
Accommodation
or Residential
Unit (sq. ft. per
unit)
Minimum Lot Size [7] Minimum Building/Structure
Setbacks [4] [8]
Max.
Bldg
Height
(ft.) [9]
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Area (sq ft) Width (ft.) Front
(ft.)
Side (ft.) Rear (ft.)
A Accommodation
Unit =1,800
[1];Residential
Units: SF =
9,000;2-Family =
6,750;MF = 5,400
(Ord. 16-10 §1;
Ord. 19-10 §1)
40,000 [2] (Ord.
15-11 §1)
100 [3] Arterial =
25 [5];All
other
streets =
15
15 [6]
(Ord. 15-
11 §1)
10 [6] 30 50
A-1 10,890 [10] (Ord.
19-10 §1; Ord.
16-10 §1)
15,000 [2] (Ord.
15-11 §1)
50 [3] Arterial =
25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
15 (Ord.
15-11 §1)
10 30 30
CD Accommodation
Units Only =
1,800;SF & 2-
Family
(standalone) =
9,000;
Dwelling Units
(1st Floor) 1 unit
per 2,250 square
feet of gross land
area
Dwelling Units
Accommodation
uses = 20,000
5,000
All other uses =
n/a
SF & 2-
Family
(standalone)
= 25;
MF
(standalone)
= 100;
All other
uses = n/a
25
Minimum
= 8
Maximum
= 16
If lot
abuts a SF
residential
property =
10;
All other
cases = 0
[11]
If lot
abuts a SF
residential
property =
10;
All other
cases = 0
[11]
30
42;
building
s higher
than 30
feet are
subject
to §11.5;
n/a
Attachment 2
Page 77
Zoning
District
Minimum Land
Area per
Accommodation
or Residential
Unit (sq. ft. per
unit)
Minimum Lot Size [7] Minimum Building/Structure
Setbacks [4] [8]
Max.
Bldg
Height
(ft.) [9]
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Area (sq ft) Width (ft.) Front
(ft.)
Side (ft.) Rear (ft.)
(2nd Floor or
higher floors) No
minimum gross
land area per
unit (Ord. 15-03
§3)
CO n/a Lots fronting
arterials =
40,000 [2];
Outdoor
Commercial
Recreation/
Entertainment =
40,000 [2]
All other lots =
15,000 [2]
Fronting
arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial =
25 [5];
All other
streets
=15
15 [6] 15 [6] 30 65
O Residential Units
(2 nd Floor)
1 unit 2,250 sq.
ft. GFA of
principal use
15,000 [2] Fronting
Arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial =
25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
15 [6] 15 [6] 30 50
CH n/a 6,000 [2] 50 15 0 [6] 0 [6] 30 80
I-1 n/a 15,000 [2] Fronting
Arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial =
25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
10 [6] 10 [6] 30 80
(…)
Notes to Table 4-5
(…)
[11] For purposes of these cells, the term “SF residential property” means any property whose use (whether
occupied or vacant) is in accord with §13.3.92 of this Code at the time the relevant building permit(s) are issued for
development of the subject CD-zoned property, provided that the relevant building permit(s) entail a change in the
setback distance adjoining the single-family property use. Notwithstanding any development approval under this
Code for a lesser setback, this footnote may require an additional setback as provided in these cells if an adjacent
single-family use is established prior to issuance of the relevant building permit(s) at the CD-zoned property.
Otherwise, the relevant building permit(s) shall not be issued.
Page 78
CHAPTER 11. – INCENTIVES AND DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS IN THE CD
ZONING DISTRICT
(…)
§ 11.5 BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN
THE CD ZONING DISTRICT
[Reserved for Future Use]
A. Purpose. This Section is intended to provide clear and transparent design
guidelines for projects seeking to build above 30 feet in height in the CD Zoning
District through construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings.
The section is also intended to encourage reinvestment in downtown buildings
and encourage upper-story workforce housing in a walkable, mixed-use
context.
B. Eligibility. Proposed developments in the CD (Downtown Commercial) zoning
district are eligible to build to a maximum height of 42 feet, if consistent with the
guidelines of this Section. This Section's height allowance for downtown
residential projects shall not be available and shall not be applied in any zoning
district except the CD zoning district.
C. Development and Design Standards.
1. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Housing units approved under provisions
of this Section shall not be rented, leased, or furnished for tenancies of
less than thirty (30) days. (see §5.1. B). This prohibition shall be
memorialized in a note on the face of any development plan approved
pursuant to this Section.
2. The highest floor shall include a step-back of no less than 8 feet from the
building façade on any portion of the building facade facing a street right
of way, river corridor, trail corridor and any other public open area.
3. Blank walls shall not exceed 10’ in height by 15’ in length without a
window or doorway when visible from a public street, open space or
pedestrian oriented space or pathway.
4. Building projects shall demonstrate that they are meeting the design
guidelines below:
a. To encourage horizontal articulation, and to modulate the apparent
size and scale of a building, a portion(s) of the street facing façade
Page 79
should be stepped forward or backward from the predominant
facade plane of the building.
b. Storefronts and other buildings with non-residential uses on the
ground level shall include a minimum of two of the following
articulation features for every 30 feet or additional fraction thereof
on continuous building frontage to create a human scaled façade
pattern:
(1) Windows.
(2) Entries.
(3) Use of weather protection features such as a canopy.
(4) Change in roofline of a least 12 inches in depth.
(5) Change in building material or siding style.
(6) Articulation of a single building material through varying
colors, textures, or incorporating joints or an integrated trim
pattern.
(7) Vertical elements such as a trellis with plants, green wall, art
element.
Page 80
Frequently Asked Questions
Attachment 3
Page 81
Map CD Downtown Commercial Zoning District
Attachment 4
Page 82
Map of Existing Building Heights in the CD District
Attachment 5
Page 83
A VISION FOR A RESILIENT FUTURE
ESTES PARK, COLORADODOWNTOWN PLAN
JANUARY 23, 2018
Attachment 6
Page 84
4 CONCEPT & FRAMEWORK
Estes Park, Colorado - Downtown Plan January 23, 2018
38
Building Height and Scale
Buildings between a maximum of two and three stories are recommended for Downtown. However,
upper stories, and in particular the third story of a building, should be modulated to minimize the solar
impacts and perceived mass and scale of a building. Maximum heights of two stories are recommended
adjacent to rivers, sensitive neighborhood edges and topographic/environmental features. Figure 4.6
shows recommended building heights for Downtown.
Buildings up to four stories may be considered on a case by case basis on sites where the additional
height is determined to not significantly impact views, privacy or other factors. The Town should develop
a specific list of criteria and guidelines for review of such projects.
UPPER STORY ARTICULATION
Third story articulation should be required for all Downtown projects. A combination of upper floor
articulation techniques is appropriate, including:
• Stepbacks - The third floor of a building is set back further from the street or another edge than that
of the first and second floor.
• Height Variation - Some components of a building are at a two story scale with other components at
a three-story scale.
• Strategic Location of Three Story Components - Depending on the context, it may be possible to
locate a third story at a location on the site such that it has no visible impact to the street or adjacent
properties. This may include a component of a building at the rear of a site adjacent to a hillside and
away from a street.
Upper story articulation is particularly important where there is a need to address:
• Preserving a Viewshed - Stepbacks of upper floors along a street or other public way may help to
preserve mountain views.
• Maintaining a Lower Scale along the Street - Stepbacks and height variation on upper floors can
help to preserve the perception of a two story scale at the street edge, which is generally consistent
with current Downtown buildings.
• Sensitive Transitions -Third story articulation methods may be appropriate when trying to provide a
sensitive transition in scale to a lower-scaled adjacent use.
• Significant Topographic Change Between Properties - Where topography creates a more intense
grade change between two properties, articulation of upper stories may be necessary. This is
particularly important when a new building is at a higher grade than its low scale residential neighbor.
The juxtaposition of buildings in these two conditions creates a dramatic difference that should be
designed sensitively.
• Maximization of Solar Exposure - To maximize solar exposure of key outdoor spaces or the
sidewalk, height variation and upper floor stepbacks can help to ensure that sunlight shines through.
This is particularly important in winter months.
It is important that a design employs special
features to help articulate the third floor of a
building.
Some components of a building can be at a two-
story scale with other components at a three-story
scale.
35
35Page 85
CONCEPT & FRAMEWORK 4
January 23, 2018 Estes Park, Colorado - Downtown Plan 39
Figure 4.6-Recommended Building Heights
36
36Page 86
ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN PLANLunch & Share Session: Small Town ArchitectureApril 26, 2017Attachment 7Page 87
Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character •Step backs allow scale of street to remain while preserving access to sunlightPage 88
Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character Ketchum, IDGraphic by Winter + CoPage 89
Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character Ketchum, IDGraphic by Winter + CoVariations in Massing: Same floor area, with variations in scale at street edgePage 90
Density + MassingAdding Stories without Altering Small Town Main Street Character Massing Studies along West ElkhornPage 91
A couple weeks ago, Director Hunt issued a statement in response to citizen comments on these
issues. His statement appeared online and was picked up as a "Guest Opinion" by the Trail Gazette. I
read it with considerable interest, as he addressed some of the points I've made in my recent emails to
you. I think it's helpful to conduct a specific public dialog on points such as these and to gain direct
insights into the opinions and directions of the regulators. I thank him for taking these comments
seriously.
Unfortunately, in his remarks relating to the proposed downtown height increase, Director Hunt's
comments did not address two of the most important comments made by myself and others.
First, he failed to address the question of whether the increase in commercial space permitted under
the proposed language is urgently needed. He alluded to pressure on existing commercial space due to
the revised floodplain map and stated that "increased commercial opportunity is also a factor", but fails
to identify either as urgent.
I might be inclined to concede that there is some time pressure, if not urgency, on the potential flood
exposure. The proposed amendment, however, would allow for an increase in commercial space, not
removal of existing commercial space from that space affected by the floodplain revisions. If there is an
urgent issue here, it should be addressed more directly and specifically. If the result is that commercial
space is simply added upstairs in existing buildings within the designated floodplain with no change to
existing uses, it doesn't solve anything. The amendment should permit relocation of existing
commercial uses to higher floors and some other use compatible with the potential for flooding
replacing the at-risk uses. And only properties located within the designated floodplain should benefit
from this provision.
Secondly, and more importantly, he failed to address the absence of a workforce housing requirement
as part of the amendment proposal. As he points out, there is a general consensus that the workforce
housing shortage is a genuine crisis, though it might be pointed out that this crisis is nationwide and not
specific to Estes Park. How, then, does it make any sense at all to allow expansion of commercial uses,
which necessarily involve workforce increases, without anything that would tie that expansion to the
provision of workforce housing?
The proposal, as written, is nothing but a gift to the downtown property owners with no requirement
that they participate in solving a problem for which they bear some (not all) responsibility. There's
nothing in the existing Comp Plan or Downtown Plan that would motivate such a one-sided
proposal. Indeed, both propose the opposite.
Please modify the amendment proposal as necessary to address these issues. The facts and conclusions
are clear, even though they appear to have been ignored by Director Hunt.
Very truly yours,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
September 8, 2021
Attachment 8Public Comment received by 09-15-2021
Page 92
Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form
The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following
form was created for public comment on any current agenda items.
The Planning Commission 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.
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Name *
Address *
Radio Button
Agenda Item Title
Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below.
File Upload
Comments for the
Planning
Commission:*
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Teresa commerford
1710 Fall River rd
For Against Neutral
Public comment not on agenda
If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org.
If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here.
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
I’m not sure if this is the right place, but I’m definitely in favor of changing height
requirements for new buildings to 3 or 4 stories. This allows density in housing
projects that can offer more housing options. I understand we lost housing projects
due to our 2 story limit. Additional stories, depending on location, will not be
problematic. Thank you.
Page 93
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Building on top of Buildings
1 message
Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 3:07 PM'Terri Martin' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>
To: planning@estes.org
Please stop this. Don’t allow it. Our little town is becoming a rental community for people to buy and just make money off
visitors. The parking was enough this isn’t Chicago.
Regards
A very concerned citizen
Sent from my iPhone
Page 94
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Downtown Building Height Code Amendments
1 message
Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 2:11 PM'Aaron Petrie' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>
To: planning@estes.org
To whom it may concern:
As a forty year resident of the Estes Valley I’m very much opposed to the changes being suggested for the downtown
corridor. We are not Aspen or Breckenridge, as much as the powers that be may want us to be. Once upon a time this
was a real town with actual families that lived and worked here. Now it seems that we are just an investment opportunity
for non-residents with too much money and suddenly what seems like ~70% of my neighborhood is vacation rentals.
There seems to be absolutely no consideration given for the locals. Just “MORE, MORE, MORE!” to outside money.
Greed is driving this. Do we really want to create an urban corridor (canyon) downtown in our mountain village? Do we
really want to destroy the views from downtown? Bad enough that you shoved “The Loop” down our throat. Please step
back and re-think this without the dollar signs in your eyes.
I am vehemently opposed to the proposed changes.
Aaron Petrie
850 Old Ranger Drive
Page 95
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
against increasing the allowable building height
1 message
Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 12:58 PM'Larissa' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
As a long time visitor and enthusiast of Estes Park I must officially oppose the proposal for increasing allowable building
height for the following reasons:
1. Gentrification
The buildings that can afford to build up will, robbing neighboring buildings of scenic views they had access to prior to the
new construction. This will create a situation where buildings compliant with the historic height standard will have lesser
value and less access to business income as a result of the changes. That is not fair to pre existing Estes Park home and
business owners.
2.Parking
Parking is already extremely limited in Estes Park. Building up and creating new floors on the buildings in these already
congested areas will mean even more cars will need nearby parking.
3.Ruining the feel of the city
The entire draw that Estes Park has for most people has to do with the classic, old-time charm of the downtown area that
can't be found anywhere else. It is more important than ever that that classic charm be preserved at all costs for the future
of Estes Park by keeping it the way it is.
Please preserve the health and beauty of this town by voting NO to this proposal.
Larissa Boeck
Page 96
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Downtown Building Height
1 message
Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:51 PMShannon Coenen To: planning@estes.org
Planning Department, Trustees, and Planning Commissioners:
I wish to formally communicate my objection to the proposed increase of downtown building heights. The downtown area
is already congested, parking is at a premium, and the beautiful views of Estes Park would be greatly hindered by
approval of this proposal.
I heartily recognize that “work force housing” can be difficult to find here in Estes Park, but this proposal is not the answer
to that problem. In fact, creating housing downtown will exacerbate current issues, as would increased commercial
options.
Please do not increase the height of buildings in the downtown area. Residents and guests alike come for the views. This
proposal is not beneficial to the community.
Sincerely,
Shannon Coenen
4075 Little Valley Rd.
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 97
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Yes to building height code amendment
1 message
Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 2:27 PMNathan Welton
To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, planning@estes.org
I write in full and unequivocal support of increased building height in downtown.
Naysayers don’t want things to change, but things already have changed. Estes has grown and will continue to grow, and
there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it other than prepare and adapt, with intention and careful planning.
We have very little space in a geographically contained valley, we have little space to add affordable housing, and
building up is the most sustainable way to build.
In the name of sustainability, affordable housing, and progress — I urge you to pass this code amendment.
Page 98
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Do not adopt the proposed increase in downtown building height
1 message
Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:51 AMEdgar Reihl
planning@estes.org
Dear madam or sir,
I have been a regular visitor to Estes Park for many years. My parents first brought me to camp in Rocky Mountain
National Park when I was a young boy. I fell in love with the beauty of the area and returned nearly every year. In 2018 I
became a cabin donor at the YMCA of the Rockies. I chose to donate a cabin rather than buy or build my own so that
others could have the opportunity to share the experiences I have enjoyed.
Visitors come to Estes Park to enjoy the natural beauty of the area; particularly the views of the mountains. Over time, the
atmosphere in Estes Park has changed as a result of more and more business development, more traffic, and
congestion. It is no longer the "quaint mountain town" it was, and is fast becoming yet another front range suburb like
Longmont or Greeley.
Increasing the height of buildings in the downtown area will further exacerbate this process and will block the beautiful
views of the mountains that people come here for. I don't understand why anyone-- local residents or visitors-- would want
this.
Instead of blocking the natural beauty of the area and creating more density, more congestion, and more traffic, you
should work to preserve and enhance what still remains.
Please do not adopt the proposed increase in downtown building height.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
Edgar Reihl
Northbrook IL/Estes Park CO
Page 99
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Proposed change to building height
1 message
Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:42 AMKaren Wirrig <>
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
To the Town Planning Committee:
We wish to register our objections to this proposed
change in the strongest possible terms. This change
would not enhance the charm of downtown and would
dwarf existing structures. It would block views and create
an entirely different streetscape that is not in keeping with
the current village feel. As town residents and voters we
cannot support this proposal or those who may be in
favor of it.
This change would also add an additional traffic load that
cannot currently be managed. Nor would this likely
provide any workforce housing.
Please, do not vote to make this change.
Sincerely yours,
Steve and Karen Wirrig
Cheers, Karen Wirrig
Page 100
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Raising downtown building height
1 message
Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:38 AM'Amanda Gordon' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>
Reply-To
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
I remember driving to Aspen several years ago and expecting to find a quaint, John-Denver type of
town. Instead, I saw tall buildings and a small city-like atmosphere. I had a similar experience
when I visited Breckenridge. Is this what we want for Estes? Where does it stop? How much
development is too much? We run the risk of turning our pretty little town into just another over-
built, mountain tourist trap. Economic health is important, but so is the reason people choose to
live here in the first place. The taller the structures, the more we shut the mountains out.
Amanda Gordon
Estes Park
Page 101
From: Elements of Touch Wellness Spa & Estes River Retreat >
Date: Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:51 AM
Subject: Building height
To: <rhunt@estes.org>
I do believe this needs to be done
I own a house off river side drive on pine river lane
I have thought for years if I was in charge I would buy up those storage units and garage on the corner of river side drive and
create a 3 story apartment complex with commercial below
Boulder is revamping its north end - if you have not seen it it’s amazing
Page 102
Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form
The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following
form was created for public comment on any current agenda items.
The Planning Commission 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.
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Name *
Address *
Radio Button
Agenda Item Title
Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below.
File Upload
Comments for the
Planning
Commission:*
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Karen Wirrig
1600 Wapiti Circle, #26, Estes Park, CO 80517
For Against Neutral
Comprehensive Plan comments
If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org.
If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here.
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
I have noted the discussion about changing the downtown height requirement from
30 to 42 feet. I object to this change for the following reasons:
1) it will ruin the mountain views from many angles
2)it is unlikely to provide "work force housing" as the property owners would
generate far more income by making these upper units STR
3) it changes the village flavor of the town and will overwhelm surrounding buildings
that do not have the same new height
4) As a 60 year part time resident and now full time property owner, I am in favor of
developing work force housing but we have room on Hwy 34 and elsewhere for
these developments (or reuse of existing structures) that can be part of a year round
trolley route.
Page 103
Good a ernoon members of the EP Planning Commission. I would like to address workforce housing in any new height
increases downtown. I am not opposed to the height increase, in fact, it could enhance downtown. I try to be suppor ve
of what the Town decides it wants to do with its future. However, since workforce housing has been iden fied as a very
high priority issue, I am confused as to how much of a priority it truly is to the Town and its planning. With that in mind
and assuming the resolu on does not limit the added space to workforce housing, I expect the Town to focus on using
other Town sites for workforce housing as opposed to expanding workforce housing in the rest of the Valley. I hope you
will reconsider the use of the addi onal height in the new proposal. With regards,
-- Mike Kennedy
2550 Devil's Gulch Road
Estes Park, CO 80517
720.244.6411
Page 104
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Downtown Building Height Proposal Lacks Workforce Housing
2 messages
Bob Leavitt Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 12:59 PM
To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Please distribute this the Planning Commission and include it in the public comments for Agenda Item 3: Downtown
Building Height
I was surprised to see that the proposal for increasing building height downtown lacks any mention of workforce housing.
This has been one of the Town's goals for a long time. It is stated clearly as a goal in the 2016 Housing Needs
Assessment and the 2018 Downtown Plan.
From the 2016 Housing Needs Assessment
"Encouraging Downtown Housing" was one of the 11 Implementation Strategies discussed in the document.
Here is the summary:
8.Encourage Downtown Housing
Employee housing should be developed in Estes Park’s downtown area to:
*Respond to the preferences of younger employees (e.g., Millennials) to live in walkable urban centers with convenient
access to shopping, entertainment, activities and recreation.
*Provide high density, lower cost housing options in an area where it is appropriate and reduce sprawl.
*Add vibrancy to downtown and create year-round business for restaurants and retailers.
*Be convenient to public transit.
*Reduce employee impacts on scarce parking downtown. Workers living within walking distance of their jobs can leave
their cars at home.
From the 2018 Downtown Plan
Providing for housing downtown is mentioned in 16 places in the Downtown Plan. Here are 2 examples.
Page 52 - Accommodate a moderate increase in density and building height to promote housing development and
Downtown activity.
Page 58 - Development in CA-2 should provide an active street edge, new residential housing and an
architecturally diverse combination of new and renovated buildings along Elkhorn Avenue, Cleave Street
and the river interface.
One of the most important ways to meet the workforce housing goal for downtown housing is to tie it to the code change for
increasing downtown building height. This was done successfully in the code for multi-family residential development.
Given the critical need for workforce housing, the same incentive should be included in the downtown building height code
change.
Regards,
Bob
Bob Leavitt
740 Ramshorn Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 402-488-5335
Email:
Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 7:06 AMPage 105
Comments on Planning Commission meeting 7/20/21
Dear Commissioners,
I watched the video of the Planning Commission meeting of July 20 earlier this evening and
have just a few comments.
Most importantly, a number of folks have suggested that a number of "urgent" changes to the
Estes Park Development Code cannot wait for the development of the new Comprehensive
Plan. While I understand the sentiment, I must remind the Commission (and the Trustees and
Town Staff) that the existing Comprehensive Plan remains in force, by policy and perhaps by
law, until replaced by the new plan, and that any proposed Code amendments must be
consistent with it. It's my belief that some of the proposals (formal and informal) currently under
discussion may not meet that test.
With regard to the actual proposals, I find it baffling that the Commission and others would
promote the addition of commercial floor space downtown by means of a height increase,
possibly approaching 50% within the Elkhorn corridor, without seriously considering the
resulting need for workforce expansion. There is broad acknowledgement that workforce
limitations and the related unavailability of workforce housing have already led to a
dysfunctional situation. In that context, how does a proposal that will only make things worse
make any sense at all?
Simply enough, it is grossly irresponsible that the proposal includes no requirement or incentive
for the provision of workforce housing. That it would allow unrestricted commercial,
accommodations and long-term, non-workforce rental uses completely ignores current
conditions. Commissioner Heiser indicated, in fact, that what may have been an existing
requirement for residential use of such new floorspace is specifically being removed. Director
Hunt concurred.
Director Hunt referred to the workforce housing situation as a "crisis ‒ no two ways about
it". Several of the Commissioners echoed this sentiment. This need could be satisfied in part
downtown ‒ close to many of the businesses suffering from a shortage of employees. At the
same time, there is no demonstrated need for an expansion of commercial floorspace, let alone
an urgent need.
Page 106
The fact is, I've seen this movie before. As the workforce issues are magnified, the burden of
housing the expanding workforce will fall entirely on current property owners in residential
zones. In fact, Director Hunt said as much.
Without disparaging the contributions of Director Hunt to the advancement of the Town's
objectives, I am at a loss to understand why these changes are being pushed through hastily
(and not, by my reckoning, "with deliberate speed", given the lack of public engagement) under
his direction while he has one foot out the door. This is especially salient given the recent
divorce of the Town and County Codes and resulting organizational upsets, including, as
Attorney Kramer pointed out, the many changes in the composition and role of the
Commission. The last major relevant personnel change would seem to be the transition to the
new Community Development Director. For reasons of consistency and follow-through moving
forward, wouldn't it make more sense to wait until she is on board before moving on such an
impactful proposal?
In his comments on housing issues, Director Hunt seemed to advocate a shockingly different
vision for the Estes Valley than is embodied in the current Plan ‒ and, I believe, in the minds of
most residential property owners. Specifically, his advocacy of much greater density in the
Valley and extensive multi-unit housing defies tradition and would completely change its
character. By all appearances, his goal is to turn the Estes Valley into something resembling all
those loathsome Denver exurbs, or, equally distastefully, Vail. (He unconvincingly claimed that
his comments on the topic of large-lot zoning don’t apply to land currently in the County, but the
Town's traditional hegemony on Code issues calls that claim into question. He specifically
stated that he would not advocate annexation under those zoning conditions. While the Town
may not currently have any buildable land zoned RE-1, that does not mean that maintaining that
possibility has no value, especially given the professed desire to coordinate the Town and
County Codes.) The Commissioners, to their credit, offered comments in favor of focusing
density increases on the Town "core" and conserving open land elsewhere, despite the fact that
the Director seems to respect no such limits.
Director Hunt specifically stated that these changes should not wait for the new Comp Plan. I
disagree: these changes as proposed must wait for the new Comp Plan, as a matter of policy
and law.
By way of contrast, his comments on accessory dwelling units and those of Planner Bergeron
represent a more responsible opportunity for incremental change ‒ to me, at least. I would
advocate the elimination of three related provisions of the current Code. The Code currently
Page 107
provides that only a single dwelling (principal structure) is permissible on any given buildable lot,
irrespective of its size in relation to its Zone. Additionally, the Code currently prohibits detached
accessory dwelling units. And the Code does not currently allow long term rental of accessory
dwelling units. It seems to me equitable that these limitations could be removed without
increasing the potential density within the zone. This would not have a great effect on density
(or, being honest, on housing inventory) but could be a piece of the puzzle. (As I understand
Planner Bergeron's comments, these proposals exactly comport with his suggestions.)
One aside: Planner Bergeron referred to the fact that Colorado is among the fastest growing
states in the country. While true, it's my opinion that it's fundamentally irrelevant, or even
antagonistic, to our situation in Estes Park. This massive growth is occurring in the Front Range
communities, where farmland is being converted to high density housing a square mile at a
time. Nothing could be more different than what anyone wants for Estes Park, I hope; it's a
false analogy and offers no useful lessons for us. (Well, positive ones, anyway.)
Please understand that most residential property owners would see a financial benefit from
greater permitted density since they would be free to subdivide where it is not currently possible
and, potentially, to add large numbers of rental units where they are not now permissible. The
fact that calls for increased density seem to be coming almost exclusively from the commercial
and development communities, not those residential property owners, is telling.
Lastly, several Commissioners made statements suggesting an attitude of deference to "the
professionals who have made this their life's work." I would remind the Commissioners that
Staff work for the citizens, not the other way around. Staff recommendations, for better or
worse, are often made with a viewpoint rather than professional detachment, and do not in all
cases reflect community values. As such, in the planning area, they must be strictly understood
to be recommendations and must not be allowed to dictate policy by means of the undue
deference of the Boards.
Thank you for your consideration.
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Page 108
I am writing you to voice my opinion on the recent proposal to allow additional height in the downtown
corridor.
I find this simply awful, if passed, this will firstly create a “canyon” downtown which will encourage
more wind for our tourists who you are attempting to attract year around.
Secondly, this proposal will effectively block any and all sunlight downtown. There will be no sunny
side on the south, 3 to 4 stories high will just leave everything cold and dark. And storeowners will also
pay the price in lack of sunshine. Tourists will not enjoy shopping in this atmosphere and will find
more interesting and charming locations to vacation.
Thirdly, there is no parking for those hoped for apartments you want on those upper floors. Please
look carefully at the dates on those buildings and check with an architect, do you really think those old
buildings have the structural integrity to hold more levels?
Fourthly, this will effectively ruin what little charm is left in Estes. Little by little our village is being
destroyed in the name of progress. Please consider this, would you move here now as compared to
when you originally moved to Estes. What is different? What is good? What is bad? Why can’t we
get our nurses and teachers to live and work here?
Please consider more than just the added tax dollars for the Town of Estes Park, I am well aware that
unwise decisions have been made in the past but still I have hope for the future if the Town just stops
the greed and considers what Estes really is or what the residents have hope for.
Thank you,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 109
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
building heights
1 message
Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:46 PMLyle Hileman <> To: planning@estes.org
I would like to express my shock and displeasure with the visual aspect of the housing units going up on Hwy 7 near Peak
View Drive. They stick out like a sore thumb. If they are not in violation of the regulations (which apparently they are not)
then I submit that those regulations need to be revised. Frankly, I can't help but think that somebody got paid off to
approve this monstrosity.
Lyle Hileman
1042 Pine Knoll Dr, Estes Park, CO 80517
2/12000002
Page 110
9:18 AM (0
minutes ago)
Sally Stevenson
to planning@estes.org
We are greatly concerned and opposed to increasing the height of buildings in
downtown Estes Park as well as in the outlying community. The new Peak View
apartments are a travesty to the neighbors and neighborhood. The buildings tower over
the adjacent homes, blocking views, sun exposure, and impacting privacy of those
properties. This is an example of the negative future impact of the approved
development at Lexington and Hwy 7. Will all of Estes Park some day look like this?
Are four story buildings really what we want for our down town? What will happen to
our lovely mountain village?
Sincerely,
John and Sally Stevenson
1019 Pine Knoll Drive
Estes Park, CO
2/12000003
Page 111
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Amendment to building heights
1 message
Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:43 AMMARY LOU HARGER To: "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
We are totally against this. It’s bad enough to see what’s happening on highway 7. We vote no
Ken and Mary Lou Harger
Sent from my iPhone
2/12000004
Page 112
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Comments on Proposed Amendment to Downtown Building Height
1 message
Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:54 PMCHARLES HILLERSON > To: planning@estes.org
Planning Department personnel, Trustees, and Planning Commissioners:
Estes Park is a mountain town with appeal to visitors from all over the world. Visitors and residents alike want to enjoy
the fabulous backdrop of the mountains and the small town feel of downtown. Allowing buildings of three, and possibly
four, stories downtown will highly detract from that appeal. As Estes Park stands now, and has for over 100 years, it
nestles cozily in the mountain valley. Buildings of three and four stories would take away from that setting and give the
image of large cities from where many people come to vacation, escape, and relocate.
The current owners of properties downtown were aware of existing height limitations when they bought their properties.
Those owners did not buy those properties expecting to build to three or four stories. Therefore, retaining the height
limitation of 30 feet does not diminish the value of those properties. If owners want to build three, four, or more story
structures, they should look elsewhere.
Affordable workforce housing is a need accepted by all. However, it should not be at the sacrifice of Estes Park’s
character and appeal. The Peak View apartments are an example of where “upper story articulation due to significant
topographic change between properties” was not used for the benefit of those living nearby. Our home is probably two
miles from those apartments, yet we can clearly see them because they were built on a ridgeline. According to the recent
Trail Gazette article, no variance was required because these units are workforce housing. If that is used as the accepted
reasoning for allowing three, and potentially four, story buildings downtown, we have little confidence that “upper story
articulation” will be applied for any circumstance.
Due to COVID-19, there are many unknowns now that did not exist in 2018 when the Downtown Plan was crafted.
Without yet knowing the full impact the pandemic has had, and will continue to have, on businesses, workforce, housing,
and travel, COVID-19 is one more reason the Town of Estes Park should not make changes to existing codes or zoning.
Please do not continue to chip away at what attracts people to visit or to relocate to Estes Park. Be very careful of
allowing three, four, or more story buildings in the Estes Valley. And, most importantly, DO NOT allow three and four story
buildings in downtown Estes Park.
Thank you.
Carol and Chuck Hillerson
2/12000005
Page 113
Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:00
PM
Randy, please share my comments with others in town government. I think it is out of character for
Estes Park to have more than two story buildings outside the downtown, commercial areas. Stating it
is necessary to have more than two stories for affordable housing is not an acceptable
excuse. People want to live here because of the character of the town and surrounding area.
It should have been unacceptable to have three stories on Hwy 7 and Peak View. It is even worse
planning and lack of forethought to build on a high point/ridge.
Please give this considerable consideration!!!!
Wayne Newsom
Page 114
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Weigh in on proposed downtown height increase
1 message
Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 4:28 PMJennifer Wood >
To: krusch@estes.org, planning@estes.org, rhunt@estes.org
Trustees and Commissioners:
I am writing to voice my opposition to an increase in building height limits over the current 30-foot limit in downtown
Estes Park. I believe that allowing an increase to the height of buildings would fundamentally change and, ultimately,
destroy the character and charm of Estes Park. As a licensed architect, all too often I have seen exceptions granted on a
case-by-case basis become precedents, eventually leading to more, then most, then all exceptions being granted. Time
and time again I’ve seen these early good intentions lead to bad outcomes. The way to avoid that is to cap the
downtown structure height limit at 30 feet.
Furthermore, I strongly oppose the increase of height limits because the current (30-foot) limits can and do already
accommodate workforce housing. The downside to allowing taller buildings cannot be overstated. The character of our
town would be lost, the human scale of our downtown would forever change.
Green space that abuts taller buildings is lost, dwarfed and literally in the shadow of taller buildings. Even with
setbacks and upper story articulation, the solar impact will be that there is less sun available at ground level. Bond Park
and Riverside Parks are a draw and successful green spaces in part because they are not adjacent to tall buildings. The
feeling of occupying a space, whether it be a green space, town sidewalk or road, inherently changes when placed next
to a taller building. The human scale is lost no matter how many details are put on a tall building at street level. Think
of the difference between standing in Bond Park as it is versus Bond Park surrounded by 3-4 story buildings.
Imagine the photos of our town that we see taken from atop the hill above Bond Park as it is today. It is a beautiful
town. If taller buildings over the 30-foot height limit are allowed, that picture will drastically be altered. Landmarks
like the Old Park Theater would lose their prominence, overshadowed or even blocked by tall buildings. Our “natural
skyline” that is so beautiful and unique to our town would be forever blocked and changed.
Our town is special—in its location, character and charm. People come to live here and visit, in part, because Estes is a
charming town and that is largely due to the visual appearance of the town. I believe that the smaller scale, more
human sized buildings, the interesting and original architecture (Macdonald Book store and our library for example)
are a large part of what creates the charm of Estes Park.
I hope that the Planning Commission and Town Board will oppose any increase to the current 30-foot height limit in
downtown Estes Park and help to keep Estes the beautiful town that it is.
Respectfully,
Jennifer Wood
250 Courtney Lane Estes Park, CO 80517
2/12000007
Page 115
1
DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT PUBLIC COMMENT
Trustees:
My wife and I would like to weigh in on the proposal to increase the Downtown building
height restriction. Although we need more worker housing, increasing the height of
Downtown buildings is not the right way to do it. The congestion in Downtown Estes is
already too high! Of course there is also the issue of blocking views and ruining the
look and charm of Estes Park. To add to the congestion of the Town would be
irresponsible. It would also bring up the question of more Downtown parking for people
that would live there. We are strongly against that proposal.
Tony and Diane Palmer
125 Ute Lane, Estes Park
From: Cindy Hoyle <
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Weigh in on potential downtown building height amendment
To: <krusch@estes.org>
I vote NO!!!!!!!!!!!
2/12000008
Page 116
8/17/2020 Town of Estes Park Mail - Increased Building Height in CD- Downtown Commercial Zone District
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=bfa6edde06&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1675111013822621740&simpl=msg-f%3A167511101382…1/1
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Increased Building Height in CD- Downtown Commercial Zone District
Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 10:51 AMBob Leavitt
To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>
In the Downtown Plan considerable thought has been given to the topic of "Increased Building Height in CD- Downtown
Commercial Zone District". Community Development should use the recommendations in the Downtown Plan to guide
their proposed code amendment. Furthermore, I think the EPPC should use the Downtown Plan as a major factor in their
review of this code amendment when it comes before the Commission. A link to the Downtown Plan is below. See the
section "Building Height and Scale" on PDF pages 44-45 and "Character Area 2: Downtown Core", and in particular the
side column labeled "Key Objectives" on page 58. These pages are numbered 38-39 and 52 in the document.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aebQWw76doRQVUugJMaGSv8sL88_3zka/view
Regards,
Bob
Bob Leavitt
740 Ramshorn Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
2/12000009
Page 117
Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload
9/23/2021 11:39 PM Ordinance 14-21. Linda Newman Against
I think this proposal, to allow taller buildings, will, if passed, depress tourism because, like the
Loop that supposedly is still coming, you (city planners and developers) are changing the look
and feel of the town. Tourists to this town want the quaint and familiar, not the modern and
new. The rationale about the flood plain seems specious, unless you expect businesses to
vacate the first floor. Similarly the rationale for fire safety, unless you expect the current
wood frame buildings to be taken down and rebuilt - again changing the historic, quaint look of
the town. Unlikely to generate much housing. A boon to developers?
Want to solve the affordable housing puzzle? Pay people a living wage!
9/22/2021 3:59 PM Ordinance 14-21. Reed Woodford For
Just wanted to submit my comment in support of raising the height limit on buildings in Estes
Park. It's a step in the right direction when it comes to the housing crunch here. I see this as a
way to support people that actually want to live in Estes Park and not just vacation here. Every
year it becomes more difficult for working class people to afford our town. There's no more
land, I fully support going up!
9/22/2021 2:38 PM Ordinance 14-21 Jennifer Smith Against Against this motion..
9/22/2021 1:15 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Susan Lowe Against
PLEASE do not increase the building height. What we all love is the view. It would change the
whole look of the town. Thank you, Susan Lowe
9/22/2021 10:29 AM Ordinance 14-21 Judy Russell Against And if you add residential spaces downtown, where will all those people park?
9/22/2021 6:53 AM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Garth Lewis Against
A better way to address the issue of workforce housing would be to let homeowners build
accessory dwellings and limit the size of those. Adding taller buildings downtown is going to
ruin the look of the town. The sun barely makes it to the north side of the street in the winter
as it is. This will make it worse. This sounds like another scheme for downtown business
owners to increase their rental income at the expense of the majority of residents and visitors.
Also, where are all these new residents going to park?
9/21/2021 8:42 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Deborah Dufty Against
Other than a statement that this is an “urgent issue” and therefore must be addressed prior to
the comprehensive plan, I have seen no evidence to support that claim. Employee housing
may be such an issue, and if this proposal mandated this additional space be used as employee
housing, I would be inclined to support it. But that is not the case. Building height, maximizing
the physical space in town, and the overall look and feel of the downtown area should be a
reflection of the comprehensive plan. Wait - or come up with an argument which does not
strain credulity as to its emergent nature.
Public Comment received by 2021-09-24
Page 118
9/21/2021 7:22 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Laura Boschma Against
Please do not allow a building height increase within the town of Estes Park. Currently, the
dominant buildings in the downtown skyline are the buildings within the iconic Stanley
complex and the very unique, historic, and special Park Theatre.Once tall buildings have been
erected in the downtown area, there will be no turning back. Elkhorn will become darker, feel
much more closed in, and have increased building occupant density. If, as locals, you have
tried to conduct any business whatsoever in downtown Estes over this past year, you will have
experienced a density of people unlike any we have ever seen before. Every business owner I
know has said their volume of business has been SO high this year (this in spite of COVID-
related issues with product supply chain), that they more than made up for losses related to
the first year plus of COVID restrictions. Please do not lay out a welcome mat for designer
boutiques, a Marriott hotel, or a Bass Pro Shop. Choose quality over quantity!
9/21/2021 7:21 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Paul Cooke Against
The town would be better served, in the long run, by not encouraging high density housing and
business in an already congested and increasingly congested town. By approving this item you
ensure magnifying a problem by kicking the bucket down the road. Already we have problems
that are nearly impossible to solve with traffic and housing. Making them worse does not
make the town better. Instead, better to find alternatives or limit housing. We must make a
wise tradeoff between a sustainable town and economic stability. Better to do that now when
we can. By passing this item we merely make future problems far worse—traffic, congestion,
and wear and tear on town services will grow. We need a sustainable solution to our
problems—not solutions that demand growth no matter the cost. Vote against.
9/21/2021 6:59 PM
General Public
Comment.Larry Larson Against
No! Planning commision made our build miserable. We were inches above 30'. Had to redesign
to stay below the 30'. Cost a lot in Architect fees for us to stay below. You stay below too.
9/21/2021 6:26 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Susan Darby For
I am in support of this, as long as new residential units aren’t used for vacation rentals, and
significant upgrades occur for buildings. I’d like to see property owners invest in their
infrastructure so it’s safe for staff, make buildings more year round with heating upgrades, and
attract diversity in what kind of shops we have in town.
9/21/2021 5:43 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Tom Moretti Against
Will damage or ruin downtown sight lines. Currently the old Park theatre is the only negative
impact to mountain sight lines. This change will greatly and negativity impact sight lines,
downtown density, and parking impacts. To increase affordable workforce housing, decrease
or eliminate the vacation rental permits allowed in zoned residential areas. Eliminate vacation
permits moving with home in transfer of ownership. This would increase long term rental
capacity for workforce. Add incentives outside of zone residential for workforce housing.
Don’t raise building height.
Page 119
9/21/2021 5:35 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Debbie Bangs Against
My concern would be that the increased building height will detract from the mountain town
feel to our community and lower our quality of living here with too much continued growth.
Larger cities have the taller buildings and there is not a good reason to be building up here.
Perhaps the lower height of building here, is a natural limit to growth. The idea of building up
will change the atmosphere of our community as it has in other locations. There is a quality of
life here that needs to be protected and keeping growth in check is important to the quality of
our community. More growth and expansion does not address our lower quality by
population pressures that we are already experiencing here currently.
9/21/2021 5:20 PM Ordinance 14-21 Rod Morten Against No extension of building height
9/21/2021 5:18 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Barb Ayres Against
I feel like the downtown buildings should stay at their current height. The downtown area
already feels a bit close/claustrophobic with all the people on the narrow sidewalks and all the
cars--maybe if the main street was closed off for foot traffic only it would be fine to make the
buildings taller.
9/21/2021 5:05 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Teresa Commerford For
This proposal is good for enhancing density to better housing opportunities here. All should be
onboard with this proposal as we have lost housing projects due to the inability previously to
add the third floor. Anyone against this proposal is inhibiting housing development.
9/21/2021 4:35 PM Ordinance 14-21 Donna Dommert Against against
9/21/2021 4:10 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. James Gamet, June Gamet Against
We do not support a higher building height in downtown Estes Park. Our village has a unique
character that seems to be challenged all to often. This image of a small town with a historic
heritage is part of what brings visitors to our gateway village, and is part of the attraction that
brought usI to move here 20 years ago. Allowing taller buildings in the downtown area is a
further degradation of what makes Estes unique, as compared to so many other vacation
towns. Change is inevitable, but let’s not change the character of the heart of our village!
9/21/2021 4:06 PM Ordinance 14-21 Ravit For Yes do it we need it increase density in city limits create urban areas and good housing
9/21/2021 3:58 PM
Ordinance 14-21
Building Height. Arnold Teten Against
If this passes, Estes Park will never be the same. First the loop and now 4 story buildings--
People moved here because of the small town rustic environment. This over time will ruin the
charm of the town. Can you visualize in 10 years the downtown lined with 4 story buildings?
First you move here because you love it and then have to change it to what you moved from.
We will be a Steamboat, Vail or Aspen without the skiing. Find some other location for housing
where the first floor does not have to be commercial! Move to Big Thompson/34 east, Hwy 7
south of town or even Hwy 36. All viable options rather the downtown.
Page 120
Downtown height increase: What about its impact on workforce housing??
Fred Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu> Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:32 PM
This is really quite simple: Amending the Development Code to permit expansion of Downtown commercial space
without the provision of workforce housing incentives or requirements would be grossly irresponsible. In the same
meeting where you are expected to discuss broadly unpopular density increases in residential zones to address the
workforce housing shortage, how could you possibly pass a measure that would make that shortage worse instead of
helping to alleviate it? I guarantee your voters will not soon forget your actions in this regard, and the result may not
be pretty.
It boggles the mind that the workforce housing issue is ignored in the Planning Commission's amendment
proposal. The issue was claimed to be the primary reason for the amendment but there was absolutely no serious
discussion of actually addressing it. How can that be?
Left to their own devices, reasonable developers would take maximum advantage of the amendment and add
commercial space, accommodations units or market-rate luxury apartments, not workforce units. In light of the facts,
and in consideration of guidance given in the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Plan and your own comments
when referring the matter to the PC, you have no reasonable option but to reject the proposal as written and get it
fixed.
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
meeting concerning increase in height of buildings and ADU's
wildlands <wildlands3@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 9:01 PM
Dear Mayor and Town Trustees:
I support affordable housing and workforce housing, but I am against increasing the height of buildings from 30 to 42
feet for the following reasons:
•it will result in vertical sprawl
•block beautiful mountain views
•ruin the mountain charm of the town
In addition, the town admits that the reason behind this would benefit workers but also benefit commercial interests.
How was it determined that we need more commercial establishments?
Have you taken into consideration the state of disrepair of the buildings on Cleave Street? These could be
upgraded. I understand some of the buildings are being used for storage but could be converted into workforce
housing.
The new workforce housing, Peak View apartments, is truly an eyesore at that location to many people. It does not
blend in with the environment, blocks the mountain views of some residents and just does not fit in.
As far as accessory dwelling units are concerned, this will create more density in neighborhoods which are zoned
residential. It is not fair to those residents who live in these neighborhoods who moved there under that particular
zoning and did not expect to have more urban sprawl. I would think that with these ADU's some people will not set it
aside for workforce housing or affordable housing and construct it for yet another vacation rental.
More and more Colorado mountain towns are concerned that they have too many tourists so why can't there be a
reduction in the number of vacation rentals? This will free up housing for our wonderful workers in this town.
If affordable housing and workforce housing is needed, determine accurately how many units are necessary, keep it
in the urban core without making eyesores all over the place.
Public Comment Received 09-28-2021 by 12pm
Page 121
Has the need for proper sewage treatment as well as an adequate supply of safe water for these additional
commercial interests and the additional density been considered?
Our workers must come first as well as the need for childcare!
I am concerned that the number of people inhabiting the vacation rentals and coming to Estes Park are
exceeding the carrying capacity of our town and will result in environmental degradation.
Has the operation of the sewage treatment plant been compromised because of this? Is it much more expensive to
meet the standards necessary to ensure that the effluent that is discharged does not compromise the health of the
rivers. Is it getting more expensive to treat the quantity of drinking water and maintain its high quality because of
the tourists who might be exceeding the carry capacity.
In Telluride's Mountain Migration Report 2021 ( https://www.telluride-
co.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10937/Mtn_Migration_Report_v2FINAL), there are some very good ideas such as:
LOCAL EMPLOYEE DEED RESTRICTIONS Include provisions in deed restrictions that permanently limit the
occupancy of homes to persons who are employed by a local business or in a local position serving the community.
This is especially important for deed restrictions that do not have income limits. The objective is to create a secondary
real estate market of deed-restricted homes that are occupied as a primary residence by local employees, thereby
eliminating the competition from higher-income out-of-area buyers.
PURCHASE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON EXISTING HOMES Prepare a deed restriction purchase program with
readiness to respond if opportunities arise. This means having funds available to purchase existing homes, then
permanently deed restricting the homes for occupancy by local employees. This program recognizes that preserving
existing homes for permanent resident occupancy is a necessary compliment to new construction in mountain
communities to meet housing needs.
ADOPT OR INCREASE RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE PROGRAMS Mitigate workforce housing demand generated by
residential construction. This can be done through residential linkage programs, which require new construction to pay
a fee, or build below market housing, to compensate for the housing needed by workers filling jobs demanded by new
residences and their occupants.
MID-TERM RENTALS Homes rented for one- up to five-months increased significantly during COVID and contributed
to the highest increase in market rents ever experienced in Colorado mountain towns. Mid-term rentals, however, are
not subject to short-term rental limitations that communities may have in place. Eliminate this loophole by addressing
the mid-term leasing trend through permitting/licensing, taxation, and restrictions on the number and location of mid-
term rentals similar to those imposed in some communities on short-term rentals.
REALLOCATE FUNDS TO HOUSING Reallocate funds from other priorities, for example marketing and tourism
promotion, to housing. This includes paying for employee housing out of enterprise funds for employees of those
services.
RENTAL HOUSING STOCK • Preserve existing and create new rental housing for local employees. • Take
advantage of the recent passage of HB 21-1117 in May 2021 by adopting inclusionary zoning standards that require a
portion of new or redeveloped rentals be priced affordable for local employees.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Susan Wolf
This is a very interesting article with creative ways to deal with our major problems.
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/eagle-valley/colorado-mountain-towns-say-they-cant-handle-any-more-tourists-amid-
labor-housing-crises/
Page 122
For Mayor and Trustees before the TB meeting on September 28, 2021
Bill J. Darden <bdarden@uchicago.edu> Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM
To: Mayor Koenig and Estes Park Board of Trustees
From: Johanna Darden, 501 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO
In re: Agenda item concerning height limit for buildings and ADUs
To consider an ordinance to allow a 42-foot-height limit in the commercial areas of Estes Park and to allow ADUs is
inappropriate before the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan is established. Without the overview of what we want our
Town as well as our Valley to look like, it is downright sneaky to bring these ordinances up for consideration
now. There is no reason to bring these issues up at this time.
Building height has been discussed many times in past years. When the 42-foot height of the performing arts building
to be built on the Riverwalk was approved at a meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment years ago, I attended
that meeting. The judgement made at that meeting was to be a rare occurrance.
When the fire occurred at the Historic Park Theatre, putting it out was extremely difficult because of it's height (42
feet). I believe, if not for the use of a fire truck from the fire truck museum, that fire would have spread. Tall buildings
and especially dense areas are a problem for firefighters. Years ago the Town adopted the International Fire Code. I
believe this was to bring the buildings along the Riverwalk and elsewhere in town up to code. Has there not been
compliance? It should not be necessary to allow 42-foot structures in the commercial parts or any other parts of Estes
Park on the belief that some of our buildings are old. They are required to bring their buildings up to code, and they
do not need such height to do that.
The excuse that workforce housing is needed is a lame excuse for increasing height limits to 42 feet. It is an excuse
for businees expansion. Change the ordinance to disallow vacation rentals and require visitors to stay in the lodges
and motels. Some motels are already expanding. Better yet, stop advertising Estes Park as a great place to vacation
or live. We no longer need Visit Estes Park. The Town was required to give an ok for it to be formed, and they can
decide to do away with it. We will always have visitors who want to come to Rocky Mountain National Park. Our town
can no longer accommodate so many visitors, nor can the Park. When the police did not want to enforce the wearing
of masks inside Safeway and other businesses at the beginning of the pandemic after the town ordinance was
approved to require this, the Town Board reversed the ordinance. Even now people should where masks in a grocery
store. How much more is required of our police officers due to the increase of visitors to Estes Park? Is the police
force shorthanded? Do officers work overtime? Do they have furloughs to allow time to recoup?
ADUs have been successfully fought for years. The beauty of our town is low density, and open areas. Don't allow
ADUs to help with workforce housing. It's not just housing that prevents people from working at Safeway and other
shops in town. Fear of harm from shoppers, lack of childcare, and low pay are issues. Some people commute to
Estes Park to work, because they can afford a much larger home elsewhere, they prefer better schools, or a spouse
works elsewhere. Scott Zurn, former Public Works Director, is an example. I believe Estes Park would be better off
paying for housing that was for workforce only, instead of having developers include other units. The units near Dry
Gulch Road for our workforce do not seem inexpensive enough or have requirements for definition of work that are
reasonable. I believe a day-care center should have been provided along with workforce housing?
The performing arts project used up the approximately $425K saved by the Friends of the Stanley in addition to a lot
more money. The Friends of the Stanley money was released by the Estes Park Board of Trustees when Bill Pinkham
was mayor and Wendy Koenig was a Trustee. That money was to be released only after ground breaking for a
performing arts building took place. It was released when ground breaking was not even in sight. The
project failed. We still do not have a performing arts building. The Estes Valley Community Center still is not
operating in the black. Since the Spring of 2014, the Event Center does not operate in the black. The Wellness
Center on the Stanley property also failed. These projects were supported by the EPEDC. The Town of Estes Park
pays for two directors on the EPEDC. How much time was spent by town employees on these projects? What could
we have done for childcare, etc. with all the effort and money spent on these projects. What is our cost to repair
Page 123
roads, provide rest room facilities, etc. for visitors. Let's go back to requiring rental housing with a minimum of a one-
month stay.
We need to work to insure water, clean air, and fire protection, not increase the numbers of visitors here that we must
protect and provide services for. We can still share our beautiful town, but not be overburdoned to our detriment.
Let's just be the small town that we are/were, that wants to have happy permanent residents who feel their place is
here to enjoy.
Page 124
Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance_on_item Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload
9/27/2021 11:59 AM Ordinance 14-21. Elizabeth Spalding For
My initial reaction to the proposed building height code change was definitely negative –
until I spent some time researching online and reviewing the details of the proposed
amendment.
I am in favor of the building height adjustment. Please see document attached.
Downtown
Maximum
Building
Height.pdf
9/25/2021 8:04 PM Ordinance 14-21. Bob Leavitt Against
This ordinance should be amended to include a requirement for workforce housing in
conjunction with any height increase. This is supported by the Downtown Plan and other
past and present town plans. It does nothing to further the town's critical shortage of
workforce housing if additional height us used for accommodations, commercial
establishments, or expensive condos and long-term rentals at market rates. This ordinance
may allow buildings to block some of the views of the hills and mountains from downtown.
This can only be justified if a public good is achieved with the height increase, which is
represented by the workforce housing requirement. The ordinance should be returned to
the Planning Commission to add the workforce housing requirement or amended during the
Town Board meeting.
Page 125
Maximum Building Height (Downtown Zoning District)
My initial reaction to the proposed building height code change was definitely negative – until I
spent some time researching online and reviewing the details of the proposed amendment.
Estes Park, with its natural beauty, rivers, and unique setting just outside RMNP, has so much
potential for future enhancement. Thoughtful design and development to ensure the town is
forward looking and addresses the developing needs of both the local community and visitors is
crucial to the town’s ongoing success.
Towns inevitably change, develop and look forward - all very positive things. Estes Park needs
to continue to do so to ensure that it remains vibrant and inviting. Building and maintaining a
downtown infrastructure that can provide housing on upper floors – including a range of
smaller accommodation that would not be cost-prohibitive -- would do much to support our
community going forward.
Yes, our blue skies are an essential part of the Colorado appeal. The prescribed design setbacks
for the proposed third-floor building height limitation -- a vital part of the proposed code
change -- will continue to allow the sky and sun to bathe the downtown public spaces.
Nothing happens overnight; the suggested code changes will allow the town to look to the
future, plan and adapt appropriately.
I am in favor of the building height adjustment.
Elizabeth Spalding
9/27/21
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128