HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2022-04-19
PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY
Tuesday, April 19, 2022
1:30 p.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
The Estes Park Board 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. Procedures for
quasi-judicial virtual public hearings are established through Emergency Rule 06-20 signed by Town
Administrator Machalek on May 8, 2020, and outlined below.
Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/93771272278
Or Join by Telephone:
1. Dial US: +1 833-548-0276 (toll free)
2. Enter Webinar ID: 937 7127 2278 followed by #
The meeting will also be live-streamed on the Town’s Youtube Channel and recorded and
posted to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
Public Comment
When the moderator opens up the public comment period for an agenda item, attendees
wishing to speak shall:
1. Click the “Raise Hand” button, if joining online on the Zoom client, or
2. Press *9 and follow the prompts if joining by telephone.
3. If you are watching live on YouTube, please call the number listed above, and mute your
computer audio for the duration of your remarks.
Once you are announced, please state your name and address for the record.
To participate online via Zoom, you must:
• Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer.
• Using earphones with a microphone will significantly improve your audio experience.
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.
Prepared April 14, 2022
1
NOTE: The Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, April 19, 2022
1:30 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Planning Commission Minutes dated March 15, 2022
ACTION ITEMS
1.Development Plan, Raven Rock Planner II Bergeron
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.Stanley Home Museum Annual Update Planner Woeber
2.CPAW Update Planner Bergeron
3.Special Study Session Director Garner
4.In Person vs Virtual Meetings
5.CompPlan Update Director Garner
ADJOURN
Prepared 4/14/2022
2
3
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 15, 2022
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 15 day of March
2022.
Committee: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Janene
Centurione.
Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice-Chair Heiser, Commissioner Elkins,
Commissioner Hanson, Director Jessica Garner, Senior
Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Planning
Technician LJ Baur, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund,
Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison Barbara
MacAlpine
Also Attending: Mike Scholl, Matt Ashby, Ayres Associates consultants
Absent: None
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT none
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser) to approve the consent agenda. The
motion passed 5-0.
ACTION ITEMS
1.Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision Senior Planner Woeber
Planner Woeber reviewed the staff report for the Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision.
The 4.44± acre site is within the E-1 (Estate) Zone District. Currently, there are two
residences on the property. The proposed subdivision creates an additional single-
family lot for a single-family home. Staff recommended approval of the Minor
Subdivision with one condition of approval:
1.Prior to recordation of the Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision, the owner/applicant
shall guarantee installation of public improvements for water and sewer
infrastructure per recommendation of the Town Utilities Department and the
Estes Park Sanitation District. This may involve installing the improvements or
submitting an improvement agreement, subject to review and approval by
Community Development.
Owner Mark Adelmann thanked the Commission and the Staff for working with him
over the past months.
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to recommend that the Town
Board approve the Golden Leaf Minor Subdivision with findings and condition
of approval recommended by Staff. The motion passed 5-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1.Missing Middle Mike Scholl, Ayers Associates
At the November 11, 2021, Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented Missing
Middle housing types and discussed potential changes to the Zoning Code to
facilitate denser development. The discussion was a follow-up to a previous
draf
t
4
Planning Commission – March 15, 2022 – Page 2
discussion on the proposed RM-2 Zoning District. This incentive-based system
allows building at higher densities and reduces regulatory burdens such as parking
requirements in exchange for some affordable components.
While the Planning Commission indicated a general desire to allow for greater
densities, it was clear that a more nuanced approach was needed to ensure
compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods and the town overall.
As a result of the feedback from the Commission, Staff was provided direction to
explore the concept of the Missing Middle. The Missing Middle refers to medium-
density (gentle density) housing types that can be more easily integrated into single-
family residential neighborhoods while providing much-needed housing options. The
Planning Commission informally signaled that they would be favorable to
considering this approach.
Staff will start building online modules to be viewed on EngageEstes.org, followed by
a staff workshop to review the existing code and create a draft amendment.
Staff will also begin planning community engagement sessions in conjunction with
the Comprehensive Plan process to share ideas and gather input.
Director Garner noted that this concept is about expanding choices, not dictating
terms. It provides variety and options for a framework in the future.
2. CPAW (Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire) Planner II Bergeron
This analysis of recommendations provided by the CPAW team is based on their
review of the Estes Park Development Code and related documents. The review
lens focused solely on strengthening wildfire mitigation and reducing wildfire risk. As
such, recommendations should be reviewed and considered with other community
priorities and competing interests.
The recommendations supplement additional CPAW products and tools to increase
understanding, support, and action around community wildfire risk mitigation.
Some key recommendations and concurrence for updating the Development Code
to reduce wildfire risk are:
• Update Zoning Standards
• Update the Subdivision Standards
• Enhance mapping of Wildfire Hazard Areas
• Educational Materials
• Enhanced setbacks and consideration of other-dimensional aspects
• Fire hazard in campgrounds and short-term rentals
Landscaping standards could be one of the urgent Codes to rewrite prior to the
Comprehensive Plan adoption.
3. Discussion on Virtual vs. In-Person meetings
Discussion included the potential need for police presence and public
participation.
Commissioners preferred hybrid meetings.
4. Comprehensive Plan Update
The Committee had two joint meetings with the Estes Valley Planning Advisory
Committee, discussing Community Choices. Policy development is the next step
in the Plan rewrite.
There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
draf
t
5
Planning Commission – March 15, 2022 – Page 3
_______________________________
Matt Comstock, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
draf
t
6
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Chair Matt Comstock
Estes Park Planning Commission
Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director
From: Alex Bergeron, Planner II
Date: April 19, 2022
Application: Raven Rock Townhomes Development Plan
James and Susan Mackey, Owners/Applicants
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the
development plan request, subject to the findings described in the staff report.
Land Use:
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Accommodations
Zoning District: A (Accommodations)
Site Area: 10.13 acres
Objective:
The applicant requests the Planning Commission review the proposed request, and
open and close a public hearing to consider and approve a development plan for a 38-
unit duplex townhome development.
Location:
Parcels 3402121001 through 3402121038 (38 townhome lots) AND Parcels
3402122001 through 3402122003 (3 outlots); collectively Raven Rock Townhomes
subdivision and hereinafter referred to as “the Property.”
The Property is located on the easterly side of Marys Lake Road, approximately midway
between Marys Lake and the junction of Marys Lake Road with Highway 7.
Background:
The Property currently consists of vacant land located in the A (Accommodations) zone
district. It was annexed into the Town in 2017 and subdivided into the existing lot
configuration with the recordation of a final plat in July 2018. The subdivision was
approved by the Town Board in December 2017 following an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s denial in November 2017 of a 38-unit townhome development.
8
again seeking development plan approval (see Attachment 1: “Application Form” and
Attachment 2: “Statement of Intent”). With the exception of a few minor edits, including
new street names and updated paperwork, the development plan application is the
same development plan approved in 2017 (see Attachment 3: “Development Plan” and
Attachment 4: “Elevation and Floor Plan Drawings”).
Project Description
Overview: The proposed development would include 38 townhomes which present as
duplexes (19 buildings), spread over approximately 10 acres. The units are to be sold
as residential dwellings to individual owners. The owners would be able to use their
properties as vacation homes, including use as short-term rentals.
Location and Context:
Map 1
Project Location
9
Map 2
Zoning Map
Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary
Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses
Subject
Site Accommodations A
(Accommodations) Vacant
North Accommodations EV A
(Accommodations) Vacant
South Accommodations EV A
(Accommodations) Vacant
East Residential PUD
E (Estate)/
EV A
(Accommodations)
Residential/
Vacant
West Rural Estate A
(Accommodations)
Religious
Assembly/Accommodations
10
Project Analysis:
1. Buildings, Lots, and Access
The Property is approximately 10.13 acres in size. The townhome lots and
outlots contained therein are platted and recognized by Larimer County and the
Town of Estes Park. Interior streets have been dedicated, and the street names
proposed in 2022 have been accepted by the Larimer Emergency Telephone
Authority (LETA) upon inquiry. The townhome products meet the standards of
the EPDC.
The proposed structures are duplexes, each with a two-car garage and parking
for two additional vehicles on the driveway for each property. The structures
would be approximately 27.5 feet in height, which is below the 30-foot height limit
for the A (Accommodations) Zone District, and consist of two full levels and a
walk-out level. The color scheme is earth-toned, using green and off-white for the
body and trim of the buildings, and orange as an accent for the gutters and
doors.
2. Natural hazards
The Property is not located in any mapped natural hazard areas.
3. Landscaping
An alternative landscaping plan approved in 2017 has been honored in this
review, with acknowledgement that the plant species proposed are acceptable in
the Town’s most up-to-date planting recommendations. 164 new trees and 273
shrubs are collectively proposed to meet arterial & non -arterial street landscaping
and buffering objectives. Please see Page 6 of the Development Plan for more
detail.
4. Town Utilities
The Town of Estes Park will supply water and electricity to the site, and the
applicant will submit construction plans for Town acceptance prior infrastructure
installation.
5. Sanitary Sewer
The Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) provides the sanitary sewer
service for this site. The Property will be connected into the existing main on the
southeasterly side of the Property.
6. Fire Protection
The Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD) is the provider of fire-related
emergency response services to this site and has reviewed this development
plan application. They have provided fire suppression guidance to the applicant.
7. Streets and Trails
A traffic impact study was submitted at the request of the Public Works
Department (see Attachment 5: “Traffic Impact Study”). Public Works reviewed
the submitted study, and recommend a new eight-foot-wide trail along Marys
Lake Road. Although this was not a requirement of the previous approval and the
area is a lower priority on the adopted Trails Master Plan, the trail is a desirable
11
amenity that would increase safe options to access the area without adding auto
congestion to the roadways.
Reviewing Agency Comments:
In addition to the agencies identified in the section above t his request has been routed
to other relevant reviewing agency staff for review and comment. Comments received
support approval of this development plan. Prior to construction, the Town will require
an Improvement Agreement that outlines public improvements and infrastructure
needed for the project, and will work with the applicant as the Agreement is drafted and
finalized.
Public Comment/Outreach:
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with Town and State public
noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report about half a dozen verbal
public inquiries were received, with some opposition indicated, and two written
comments have been received for the development plan request.
All written comments received in writing will be posted on our website and made
available via this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNDQIqUBXtDxJpNsYHMvq-9VECD1zGWW/view?usp=sharing
• Written notice was mailed to adjacent property owners by April 1, 2022.
• Legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on April 1, 2022.
• Application was posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website as of April 1,
2022.
• “Development Proposal Under Review” sign was posted at the Property on February
28, 2022.
Staff Findings:
1. The Development plan is generally consistent with the goals and policies set
forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
2. The development plan complies with applicable standards set forth in the EPDC.
3. Adequate public facilities will be made available to serve the proposed project,
and an Improvement Agreement to ensure the same will be signed by the Town
and the applicant upon acceptance of construction plans and cost estimates.
4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns remain.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission Approve the development plan, based on
staff findings listed above.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Little/none.
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate.
12
Sample Motions:
I move to APPROVE the Raven Rock Townhomes development plan in accordance
with the findings as presented.
I move to deny the Raven Rock Townhomes development plan, finding that [state
findings for approval].
I move to continue the Raven Rock Townhomes development plan to the next regularly
scheduled meeting [state reasons for continuing].
Attachments:
1.Application Form
2.Statement of Intent
3.Development Plan
4.Elevation and Floor Plan Drawings
5.Traffic Impact Study
6.2017 Meeting Minutes from Planning Commission and Town Board (actions
highlighted)
13
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.
ANNE CHANDOU
100 Ute Lane
For Against Neutral
Raven Rock Development Plan
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 write today to oppose this development for the same reasons it was opposed in
2017.
This plan is NOT consistent with the Comp Plan.
The unsupported statement of the storm water from the retention ponds does not
have an ecological location that will not have adverse affects on the downstream
location and also does not take into consideration migratory routes of the elk herds.
The designated wetlands in the Arapaho Meadow Plat will be adversely affected by
additional water flow from planned retention ponds in the Raven Rock Development
plan.
Please, listen and heed the wishes of your citizens and the neighborhoods that will
be adversely affected by this unsightly and unneccessary development.
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.
Chandou Francois
100 Ute Lane, Estes Park, CO 80517
For Against Neutral
Raven Rock Development Plan
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 oppose this development for many of the same reasons it was opposed in 2017. In
particular, I take exception to Staff finding 1) The plan is "generally consistent" with
the Comp Plan, when in fact the Nov 2017 Planning Commission rejected the plan
because it was NOT. While the Comp Plan is not regulatory, you should heed its
decision; 2) The blatant conflict with stormwater and their adverse downstream
impact where the National Wetlands Inventory and the Arapaho Meadows Plat have
designated R4SBC in blue and PEM1C in green, as wetlands. Both are precisely
downstream from the RR Development Plan.
The emphatic good of our community should prevail over individuals' special
interests, unequivocally when the latter are not even regulatory!
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:*
kevin conrad
2240 Arapaho Rd. Estes Park, CO 80517
For Against Neutral
Raven Rock Development Plan
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.
National Wetlands Inventory - Arapaho
Meadows.html 105.53KB
Arapaho Meadows plat.pdf 586.23KB
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
I write today to oppose this development for many of the same reasons it was
opposed in 2017. Specifically, I take exception to Staff finding 1: the plan is
"generally consistent" with the Comp Plan, when in fact the Nov 2017 Planning
Commission rejected the plan exactly because it was not. I understand the Comp
Plan is not regulatory, but it must guide your decision. What has changed? My
second objection is to an unsupported statement in the Stormwater paragraph: "The
location of the releases ( the stormwater from the retention ponds) is such that no
adverse impacts will result downstream." Where is the study or data to support this?
I refer you to the above attachments from the National Wetlands Inventory and the
Arapaho Meadows Plat. Two designated wetlands, R4SBC in blue and PEM1C in
green are immediately downstream in outlots C and A of HOA common property.
How will these wetlands be changed by additional water flow? How much additional
water? Where is the data? First, do no harm
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY WEBSITE:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlan
ds-mapper/#watershedTabPane
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Raven Rock Townhome Development
1 message
Bob Shafer <bobshafer98@gmail.com>Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 2:34 PM
To: planning@estes.org
Estes Park Planning,
I am writing in regards to the planned Raven Rock Townhome Development and providing comments for the April 19
meeting at 1:30 to be reviewed with the Planning Commission and attendees.
I live in the Promontory and was quite surprised to hear a planned development for over 30 townhomes off of Marys Lake
Road and Promontory Drive. I’m not opposed to development, but this defined area is congested already. I’m listing a few
comments for discussion and consideration.
1) Meadows Townhomes, with 36 short term rentals.
2) Sky Run and Marys Lake Condos with short term rentals.
3) The Promontory has 22 Condos and short term rentals.
4) The approved Marys Lake Hotel will have over 30 units.
5) Kiowa Ridge is a community with over 17 homes.
6) Rocky Mountain Evangelical Church with masses on Saturday, Sunday and other weekly events
I reviewed all the documents over the past few years and surprised that a more recent traffic study is not being done this
year of 2022. As a resident of the Promontory, I have seen heavy traffic the past 2 years since Covid started, with more
tourists on road trips, and people moving into the area, all utilizing Marys Lake Road to drive to the Park entrance.
I would also like to bring up for further consideration, if the Raven Rock Development gets approved, the Planning
Commission only allows long term rentals, such as 30 days or greater to reduce the amount of traffic on Marys Lake
Road, and possibly help with workforce housing.
Thank you,
Robert Shafer
508 Promontory Drive
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.
Bob Shafer
508 Promontory Drive, Estes Park
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.
In regards to the Raven Rock Development, I am against this project. It will add
much traffic congestion with the development of the townhomes, along with the
elimination of the Elk migration along this area of Marys Lake road. In addition, with
the Marys Lake Lodge being redeveloped as a hotel for 40+ guests, the Sky Run
Condos, the condos along Marys Lake road which are directly across from the
proposed Raven Rock condos, and the condos at the Promontory, traffic from cars
and people will greatly cause harm to the environment and the safety of cars and
people traveling on Marys Lake road.
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Raven Rock Townhome Development
1 message
Bob Shafer <bobshafer98@gmail.com>Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 2:34 PM
To: planning@estes.org
Estes Park Planning,
I am writing in regards to the planned Raven Rock Townhome Development and providing comments for the April 19
meeting at 1:30 to be reviewed with the Planning Commission and attendees.
I live in the Promontory and was quite surprised to hear a planned development for over 30 townhomes off of Marys Lake
Road and Promontory Drive. I’m not opposed to development, but this defined area is congested already. I’m listing a few
comments for discussion and consideration.
1) Meadows Townhomes, with 36 short term rentals.
2) Sky Run and Marys Lake Condos with short term rentals.
3) The Promontory has 22 Condos and short term rentals.
4) The approved Marys Lake Hotel will have over 30 units.
5) Kiowa Ridge is a community with over 17 homes.
6) Rocky Mountain Evangelical Church with masses on Saturday, Sunday and other weekly events
I reviewed all the documents over the past few years and surprised that a more recent traffic study is not being done this
year of 2022. As a resident of the Promontory, I have seen heavy traffic the past 2 years since Covid started, with more
tourists on road trips, and people moving into the area, all utilizing Marys Lake Road to drive to the Park entrance.
I would also like to bring up for further consideration, if the Raven Rock Development gets approved, the Planning
Commission only allows long term rentals, such as 30 days or greater to reduce the amount of traffic on Marys Lake
Road, and possibly help with workforce housing.
Thank you,
Robert Shafer
508 Promontory Drive
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.
Chandou Francois
100 Ute Lane, Estes Park, CO 80517
For Against Neutral
Raven Rock Development Plan
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 oppose this development for many of the same reasons it was opposed in 2017. In
particular, I take exception to Staff finding 1) The plan is "generally consistent" with
the Comp Plan, when in fact the Nov 2017 Planning Commission rejected the plan
because it was NOT. While the Comp Plan is not regulatory, you should heed its
decision; 2) The blatant conflict with stormwater and their adverse downstream
impact where the National Wetlands Inventory and the Arapaho Meadows Plat have
designated R4SBC in blue and PEM1C in green, as wetlands. Both are precisely
downstream from the RR Development Plan.
The emphatic good of our community should prevail over individuals' special
interests, unequivocally when the latter are not even regulatory!
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.
ANNE CHANDOU
100 Ute Lane
For Against Neutral
Raven Rock Development Plan
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 write today to oppose this development for the same reasons it was opposed in
2017.
This plan is NOT consistent with the Comp Plan.
The unsupported statement of the storm water from the retention ponds does not
have an ecological location that will not have adverse affects on the downstream
location and also does not take into consideration migratory routes of the elk herds.
The designated wetlands in the Arapaho Meadow Plat will be adversely affected by
additional water flow from planned retention ponds in the Raven Rock Development
plan.
Please, listen and heed the wishes of your citizens and the neighborhoods that will
be adversely affected by this unsightly and unneccessary development.
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:*
kevin conrad
2240 Arapaho Rd. Estes Park, CO 80517
For Against Neutral
Raven Rock Development Plan
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.
National Wetlands Inventory - Arapaho
Meadows.html 105.53KB
Arapaho Meadows plat.pdf 586.23KB
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
I write today to oppose this development for many of the same reasons it was
opposed in 2017. Specifically, I take exception to Staff finding 1: the plan is
"generally consistent" with the Comp Plan, when in fact the Nov 2017 Planning
Commission rejected the plan exactly because it was not. I understand the Comp
Plan is not regulatory, but it must guide your decision. What has changed? My
second objection is to an unsupported statement in the Stormwater paragraph: "The
location of the releases ( the stormwater from the retention ponds) is such that no
adverse impacts will result downstream." Where is the study or data to support this?
I refer you to the above attachments from the National Wetlands Inventory and the
Arapaho Meadows Plat. Two designated wetlands, R4SBC in blue and PEM1C in
green are immediately downstream in outlots C and A of HOA common property.
How will these wetlands be changed by additional water flow? How much additional
water? Where is the data? First, do no harm
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.
Estes Park Planning Commission
April 19, 2022
Raven Rock Townhomes
Development Plan
Presented by Alex Bergeron, Planner II
Vicinity and Zoning Map
Key Points
•The Property is 10.13 acres in size and is located in the A(Accommodations) Zone District.
•The Property previously had a development plan approved in December 2017, but the development rights expired due to inactivity.
•Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) §3.8.E (Effect of Approval/Lapse) allows for three years to begin construction following final approval of a development plan
•Despite delayed construction, the Property was fully subdivided into 38 townhome lots in July 2018 in anticipation of development.
Proposed
Elevations
Development Code Review Criteria
•Impervious coverage:
§4.4.C allows 80% coverage; 36% coverage proposed
•Density:
§4.4.C allows 50 townhomes; 38 townhomes proposed
•Building height:
§4.4.C allows 30 feet; townhomes will meet height requirements
•Parking:
§7.11 requires 76 spaces; 152 spaces provided
•Landscaping:
Project provides 164 trees and 273 shrubs.
The overall project is over on required landscaping and Staff has accepted the plan.
•Public Trails and Private Open Space:
Project provides ~2 acres out of 10 acre site will be protected and undisturbed
§7.4 Public Trails are not planned by the Town for the east side of Mary’s Lake Road.
Development Code Review Criteria
•Sanitary Sewer: Complies with §7.12.D
Existing downhill from the development.
•Water: Complies with §7.12.E
Water main running through Mary’s Lake Road
Fire Protection: Complies with §7.12.G
Three fire new hydrants provided
Emergency access easement provided
EVFPD has advised on fire suppression
•Stormwater Drainage: Complies with §7.12.F
Three on-site detention ponds
Will not exceed the historic outfall quantities for a 100 year event
Channel and berm provided (overdesigned with 1 foot freeboard)
Detention pond 3 was relocated outside of the 50-ft wetland setback
Development Code Review Criteria
•Transportation: Complies with §7.12.H
Access via a new Raven Rock Road (will be dedicated as a Town ROW).
ROW connections are provided on the N and SE edges for internally connected roadway systems.
No additional auxiliary lanes are recommended.
Additional 10-foot public ROW to be dedicated
Traffic Impact Study by Matt Delich of Delich & Associates, Loveland, CO Updated February 22, 2022.
Mary’s Lake/Raven Rock site access intersection will operate acceptably.
No additional auxiliary lanes are recommended.
•Electric: Complies with §7.12.I
20-foot utility easement provided.
All new electric lines for this project will be underground.
Development Code Review Criteria
•Wetlands: Complies with §7.6
Two delineated wetlands identified and mapped.
50-foot setback to all wetlands provided.
•Natural hazards: Not located in mapped geologic or wildfire hazard areas per §7.7
•Wildlife: Complies with §7.8
No endangered, threatened, or special concern plant/wildlife species will be adversely affected by
the project.
Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) confirmed a wildlife conservation plan is not required.
Optional courtesy CPW review provided and advisory comments will be followed.
Elk movement through and around the project area will not be deterred or permanently interrupted.
Conclusion
•The Development Plan as proposed today is essentially the
same as was previously approved
•Changes include renaming some streets to meet LETA standards and
improved architectural graphics submitted for review.
•Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Development Plan
Raven Rock Townhomes
Development Plan
Planning Commissioning Meeting
April 19, 2022
1
Raven Rock Townhomes Site
Raven Rock Townhomes Site
3
Process –
Background
and Next
Steps
4
19 July 2017
submitted application for
Development Plan and
preliminary plat
19 Sep. 2017
Estes Valley Planning
Commission; Staff
recommendation for approval;
resulted in a continuance to
further address drainage
concerns
17 Oct. 2017
Estes Valley Planning
Commission; Staff
recommendation for approval;
resulted in a continuance to
have developer/Town
staff/neighbor dialog to address
water drainage and
compatibility with the
comprehensive plan
Oct.–Nov. 2017
Attended meetings with
neighbors and nearby HOA
representatives; provided
further drainage details and
revised the site plan to
reposition some units and
remove the detention pond
from the 50 ft wetland setback.
Process –
Background and
Next Steps
5
14 Nov. 2017
Estes Valley Planning
Commission; Staff
recommendation for
approval; resulted in a
3/2 vote to deny the
Development Plan.
15 Nov. and 30
Nov.
2017 – notice of appeal
and supplemental
notice of appeal filed
12 Dec. 2017
Board of Trustees
unanimously approve
the Raven Rock
Townhomes
Development Plan and
Raven Rock Preliminary
Townhome Subdivision
Plat.
July 2018
Final Plat of Raven Rock
Townhomes is signed
by all parties and
recorded with Larimer
County in July 2018
Process –
Background and
Next Steps
6
Development rights expired
June 23, 2021.
This followed an 18 month
extension provided by grading
permit issued to accommodate
materials stockpiling.
Again seeking approval from
the Planning Commission.
ESTESPARKPLANNINGDEPARTMEN丁 鮨
APPLICAT看ON
SubmittalDate: PLEASECHECKONLYONE￣BOX
●一 ' |''1商圏1!●獲〃 お園害獣5旧漢●看獲1宣●姻葛筆】田漢漢!営農○○問題露I'駆
綴灘 十一 ㊨p「e-App ㊤BoundaryLineAdjustment CondominiumMap
DeveIopmentPian ①ROWorEasementVacation ㊤PreliminaryMap
‘SpecialReview ㊤st「eetNameChangeTime ㊤FinaIMap
⑱P・eiimina「ySubdivisionPIat ㊤RezoningPetition OsupplementaIMap
㊨FinalSubdivisionPlat ㊨AmexationRequest
稔㊨MinorSubdivisionPIat OExtension
翳㊧AmendedPiat ⑲othe.:P!eases。。。ifvi i
ニー二二二二 筆書菊田露1菓!研両1調○○
.∴ 芯∴ prQjectName 巴uへへ12o<皮i:`かし同母e`
prQje。tD。S。「ipti。n <mhov唖AQ_山DD映Q,^+c,v`血.CAj,ふLJ
p「。j。。tAdd「。SS イ6hec見ふer小、売d
擬LegaiDescription &eP\cLへ 千 言∴; pa「ce。D#g4c)Z121Ool拭rv?4⑲21ZIOう%(鶏はs.樹」)aJz4役12zo。批J音色DZ12zc$
一国高if †・ 音 音・ 臆 己書冊至獲1研両i【●】〃
一質し ∵∵一∴ 重態1 ● ↓￣￣、’` 一子ヽ評言 藤 懸鰯 、∴三二二∴?∴ LotSizel加でa′J`でI AreaofDistu「banceinAcres「十人4C確c
ExistingLandUs。 \)久とAAJ一 ’
pr。P。S。dLandUs。 ‘呑.~n人cMへe
綴 ExistingWaterService □Town □wel再ENone □other(SPeCify) 撥 proposedWaterService 園丁own □we看l□None □othe「(SPeCify)
ExistingSantrySewerService □EPSD □uTSD □septic 図None
P「oposedSanitarySewerService □EPSD 囲u丁SD □septic
Isasewe冊station「equired? □Yes 図No
野 蒜言寄完売か講黒、□器。Z岩畳艶。…地.。へ
SiteAccess(ifnotonpub-icstreet)CL時瓜ds c@鞠c山PfoM記法D+.
s,t。S,ak-ngmuStb。。。m。,。,。d。,t。。th器。藍蹴,舘P串単調q㌔ ヽ′ Aretherewetlandsonthesite? 図Yes□No
まぶ勘ma「yContactlnformatlOn 臆 、 l ` 喜 一 臆 琴競懸 .幾敬 態 Nam。。fP.imaryC。nt。。tP。.S。n」Aへ。ぐ M久でJce寸
c。mPl。t。Ma掴ngAdd.。SS "N。r,MnPhcQ C気ee閃.帖,Sc乙C]暗
primaryContactPersonis 図owner BApp!icant □consultant/Engineer
\Attachments
.,。。S。.。V,。W,h。Est。S.。.k。。V。一。Pm。nt。。葦薫讃懸誓 図A軸Cationfee 図’statementofintent 醗字詰器霊詰㌫an
mayincludelSOcalculations,d「ainagerepo巾tra簡Cimpactana漢ysis,geOIogichazardmitigationrepo巾
Wi○dfi「ehaza「dmitigationrepo巾Wetlandsrepo巾andlorotheradditiona=nformation,
Town of Es†es Park o6 P.O. Box 1200 c6 170 MacG「egorAvenue t6 Es†es Park. C0 80517
Communi†y Deveiopmen† Deparfmen† Phone: (970) 577-3721 ・6 Fax: (970) 586-0249く6 WWW.eS†es.o「g/Communi†yDeveiopmen†
Revised 2020.04.23 ks
14
MINERAL RtGHT CERTIF看CA丁音ON
Article 65,5 of Tit!e 24 0f the Coiorado Revised Sfatutes requires appljcants for Development Pians, Special Revjews,
Rezoning, P「elimina「y and FinaI Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if c「eating a new Iot, and PreIimina「y and Finai
Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initiaI public hea「ing to atI mineral estate owners whe「e the surface
estate and the minera看estate have been seve「ed, This notice must be given 30 days p「ior to the fi「st hearing on an appIication
for development and meet the statutory 「equirements.
川ereby certify that the p「ovisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met,
Names:
Record Owne「 pLEASE PRIN青
App看icant
Signatures:
Reco「d Owner
Appiicant
D ate l 乙輸乙乙
15
STATEMENT OF INTENT
RAVEN ROCK DEVEしOPMEN丁PしAN AND TOWNHOME PLAT
Of a Metes and Bounds ParceI located in Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73
West of the 6th p.M.′ Larimer County′ CoIo「ado
Dated: Februa「y 18, 2022
Revised March l, 2022 to change ′′Owl〃 to ′′Dove’’at one location in the ACCESS
SeCtion
PRαECT LOC4 77ON:
The proposed development is within Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West ofthe 6th
P.M. The property is Iocated adjacent to and east ofCounty Road 67 (AKA Mary′sしake Road),
SOuth and east of Lakewood Court, in the southern area of Estes Park, eaSt and no忙h of Mary’s
しakeしOdge. The property address w冊be off Mary’s Lake Road and access to the 38 proposed
townhomes wiII be via Raven Rock Road. Promontory Drive exists to the southwest and wi冊ne
up with Raven Rock Road, the main entrance forthis Deve!opment Plan.
OWNER:
The owners ofthis land and the appIicants are 」ames and Susan Mackey. There is no iienholder
On the property・ They have owned the propertyfor over 25 years with the intention of bu脚ng
a home forthemseIves on the property,
PRαECT DE5CRIP77ON:
丁his p「oject is a 38 Unit DupIex DeveIopment. The Development PIan was previousIy approved
On December 12, 2017, and the FinaI PIat ofthe Raven RockTownhomes was approved and
「ecorded with Larimer County in 」uiy 2018. 1n the process of developing this approximate lO.13
acre iot, the deveIopment c「eates three Outlots (A, B, and C) that totaI approximateIy 4.38
acresfor a net project density ofone unit per 9,020 square feet, We旧n excess ofthe 6,750
Square foot minimum, aCCOmmOdating Code required factors. Annexation of this property has
been accomplished and Right-Of-Ways are granted for dedication of access to the deveIopment
as weIl as Right-Of-Way Dedication on Mary’s Lake Road to meet the Town of Estes Park PubIic
Works request. Ut冊y Easements are aIso dedicated forthe current utiIity needs as we= as
future needs associated with the buildout ofthis plan.
16
When the development is complete, the 38 units w掴be soId individua=y and used as singIe
family housingfor owners and/or residents in the Estes Va=ey. No zoning change is proposed
as Duplex units are aIIowed in the A-Accommodation zoning. An HOA wi= be formed forthe
PrOPOSed use and care ofthe common spaces and improvements.
ACC鐘着:
Currentlythe lO.13 acre lot isvacant and has no intemal roads. A single access point (Raven
Rock Road) wi= serve forthe main access with White Dove Drive branching o什Raven Rock Road
and providing access to the first tier ofduplexes. As Raven Rock Road extends northeasteriy, it
w紺meet White Dove Drive which extends to the northwest and southeast. Off White Dove
Drive, Rock W「en Circle w川ci「cle around and provide access to the second tier of duplexes.
White Dove Drive is designed such that it extends to the extema=ot Iines and can be extended
by other future developments in both the northwest and southeast directions. This project w川
easiIy provide access for emergency pu「poses by having comecting roads and providing for
future connections as the adjacent parcels develop in the future. Kingbird Way, BIue Magpie
Way, American Dipper Way, and Rock Wren CircIe are intemal private access drives providing
access to Lots l-22 and lots 31-38 and wi= be maintained bythe Homeowners Association
(as shown on the attached plans). Atraffic studywas performed in Iate 2016 by De=ch and
Associates and was updated in February 2022. A= evaluations and results were in the Levei of
Se「vice A for訓movements at fuli bu胴out ofthe 38 unit deve!opment.
OPEN SPA CE:
This project includes three Outiots and provides over 4 acres of the lO+ aCreS aS Outiots which
PrOteCt the significant 「ock outcropping at the northeast comer ofthe property as we= as the
identified and mapped wetIand in the southeast comer of the p「operty. With this DeveIopment
PIan we are tryingto protect the 「ock outcroppings and the wetIands that exist on the site with
SOme additional buffe「. The wetlands on site were mapped and out=ned, then surveyed for
accuracy and protection of that vaiuable resource. These wetlands on the subject site were
mapped by an expert named DarcyTigias in 2015 and again in 2017. The de=neation reports are
attached and a part ofthis submittaI.
U77LI77ES AND ROADS:
This property is currentiy adjacent to a旧he main ut冊ies. The main lines w紺be tied into and
extended for use bythe proposed 38Townhomes. There was a Town of Estes Parkしight &
Power pIan to underground the eIect「ic lines along Mary’sしake Road and this development
PrOVided forthat space and plan through use ofa 20’ut冊y easement dedicated by the current
OWnerS tO the Town in 2016 (and shown in the Development PIan〉. The conduitsforthis project
have been insta=ed and the =nes have been moved from the poies. All new electric lines forthis
PrOject (Primarv and secondary) w=l be buried. A water main exists in Mary’s Lake Road that is
17
PrOPOSed to be comected and extended across the road nearthe no「th and south ends ofthe
development fo「ming a looped system for baIanced pressure and flow. Three new fire hydrants
are proposed internaI to the subdivision and one existing hydrant is Iocated on the no巾hwest
COrner Of Mary’s Lake Road and Promontory Drive that w冊aIso serve fo「fjre waterfor this
deveIopment. There is an existing sewer main downh冊from the deveIopment bordering
Arapaho Meadows and this deveiopment that wi= extend upward and onto this property at two
Iocations. Eight-inch sewer mains are proposed to gener訓y fo=ow the internaI roads and to
SerVe a= the units by gravityflow. Gas is proposed to comectto the existing high-PreSSu「e line
nearthe intersection of Mary’s Lake Road and Promontory Drive and to Ioop through the
development staying mainly in the roadways as shown on the Development Plan. Curb, gutter,
and sidewaIks are shown on the Development Plan on a= pu輔c roads, AII pu輔croads and Rock
Wren CircIe are designed as fire truck accessibIe, and a= radii a「e fire truckfriendIy providing
access around the site. The steepest road profiie longitudinal grade is 12% which is l% above
the Code maximum. A variance was requested forthis. Many ofthe inte「nal roads are Iess than
this maximum,
LA NDSCA PING:
This project requires landscape buffers a!ong the arteriai of Mary’sしake Road, the non-arterial
intemai roads and the district buffer along Arapaho Meadows. The requirements for bu什ering
Of the streets and districts require significant landscaping that overcrowds the t「ees, SO this
Plan proposes an aItemative. 1t w掴u輔ze more trees and shrubs than required, however
distribute them throughout the property incIuding around the units. Locating trees around the
units provides screening as we= and w冊add to the visual appea看ofthe overaII property.
S了￣ORM VA TER:
This property is not cIose to a riveryet has outfa= flow paths that a「e considered and used for
the outfa旧rom the detention that is proposed. A旧hree detention ponds are designed to not
exceed the historic outfa= quantities of stormwater releases. Ponds are designed with outlet
StruCtureS and orifice plate restrictions to mimic the historic flow releases. The location of the
releases is such that no adverse impacts w川result downstream. There is a significant o偉site
PaSS through flow to the north ofthe site, and two on-Site pass through flow from three
Cuiverts under Mary’s Lake Road that is better described in the accompanying FinaI Drainage
Report, Severa=nternai storm sewer catch basins and buried storm sewer pipes w冊transport
On-Site generated fiows to the proposed detention ponds to be constructed on- Site. The ponds
are intentiona=y kept shaIIow for safety and the side s!opes are proposed at a 3:1 (H:V〉 ratio
Siope so that g「asses w冊take hold, PreVent erOSion and Iook aestheticaIIy pleasing.
Maintenance ofthe stormwater fac冊ties wⅢ be by the Home Owners Association.
SCHED ULE:
18
The units are planned to be built in phaseswith Phase l (しOtS l- 10)to be bu航withoutdelay
following the construction/instaIlation ofthe Phase l road compIex and main ut冊y lines and
OVe「細lot gradingforthe storm drainage works. Phase 2 w旧nclude Lots ll - 22 and Phase 3
incIudesしOtS 23 - 38,丁he deveIopment is expected to be completed by September 2026,
depending on the absorption rate ofthe units into the Estes Va=ey market.
CODE VAIVER5:
AII the deveIopment and district requirements are met with this submittaI except for the
foliowing:
1. The verticaI cu「ve transition vaIues (′′k-VaIues’’) in the EPDC are not met, howeverthe
′’k-Vaiues’’from the ASHTO design guide are met. The ASHTO standards are nationa=y
accepted and our development code requirements are unnecessar時high. They do not
account for different speeds and are for a 35 -40 mph speed. We are proposing 15 mph
SPeed Iimits in this subdivision.
2. ln orderto connectthe Iower portion ofthe propertywith the uppe「 property, and to
not propose excessive cut and f町the grade ofsome portions of Raven Rock Road is
designed at 12% maximum sIope. This design grade ofthe road at 12% is a request of
l% more than the standard ll% grade a=owed in the EPDCfor public roads and 3%
more than the standard 9% and allows a mo「e harmonious and iess environmentai
disturbance deveiopment. 1t is not uncommon for roads in the Estes Va=eyto have
reIatively short stretches at or near 12% of longitudinal sIope.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36
.
2
4
f
t
9.
8
4
f
t
28
.
1
0
f
t
8.
1
3
ft
27
.
5
1
f
t
HIGHEST
FINISH GRADE
T MAIN LEVEL
FINISH FLOOR
LOWEST
FINISH GRADE
0.5' BELOW
BASEMENT
FINISH FLOOR
29
f
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
DELICH Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022 ASSOCIATES
controlled intersections is level of service E or better during the peak hours. As can be seen
in Table 1, the Mary’s Lake/Promontory intersection is currently operating acceptably with
existing control and geometry.
Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this
upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information
contained in Trip Generation, 11th Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be
generated by the proposed/expected uses at the Raven Rock Development site. Single
Family Attached Housing [Townhome] (Code 215) was used to estimate the trip
generation of the 38 dwelling units. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation to/from
the site on a daily and peak hour basis. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement
from origin to destination. The trip generation resulted in 240 daily trip ends, 14 morning
peak hour trip ends, and 19 afternoon peak hour trip ends.
Trip distribution for the Raven Rock Development was estimated using the
knowledge of the existing and planned street system, development trends, existing traffic
patterns, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution used in the
following analyses.
Trip assignment is the product of both the trip generation and trip distribution
processes. Figure 6 shows the full development site generated peak hour traffic at the
Mary’s Lake/Promontory-Raven Rock intersection.
Background traffic projections for the short range (2027) future horizon were
obtained by increasing the traffic on the area streets at a rate of two percent per year.
Figure 7 shows the short range (2027) background peak hour traffic at the Mary’s Lake/
Promontory intersection. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed Raven Rock
Development were added to the background traffic volumes to produce the total traffic
volume forecasts for the short range (2027) future. Figure 8 shows the short range (2027)
total peak hour traffic at the Mary’s Lake/Promontory-Raven Rock intersection.
Table 3 shows the short range (2027) background morning and afternoon peak
hour operation at the Mary’s Lake/Promontory intersection. The Mary’s Lake/ Promontory
intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service. Calculation forms for these
analyses are provided in Appendix C.
Table 4 shows the short range (2027) total morning and afternoon peak hour
operation at the Mary’s Lake/Promontory-Raven Rock intersection. The Mary’s Lake/
Promontory-Raven Rock intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service.
Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D.
Auxiliary lanes were evaluated at the Mary’s Lake/Promontory-Raven Rock
intersection using criteria in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS).
Figure 9 shows a schematic of the short range (2027) geometry. No auxiliary turn lanes
are required with construction of the Raven Rock Development. The Raven Rock
Development site is not expected to produce very many pedestrian or bicycle trips since
this site is somewhat far from the main sections of Estes Park.
37
DELICH Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022 ASSOCIATES
It is concluded that the Mary’s Lake/Promontory-Raven Rock intersection will
operate acceptably. No additional auxiliary lanes are recommended with development of
the Raven Rock Development.
38
Promontory Mary's Lake
S. St. Vrain (SH7)
SCALE: 1"=1000'
SITE LOCATION Figure 1
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022
39
NO SCALE
SITE PLAN Figure 2
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022
40
EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 3
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022
Promontory
Mary's Lake
- Denotes Lane
41
AM/PM
FACTORED 2016 PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC TO YEAR 2022 Figure 4
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022
Promontory
Mary's Lake
79/8616/19
78/1228/8
12/11
16/15
42
DELICH Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022 ASSOCIATES
TABLE 1
Current Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement
Mary’s Lake/Promontory
(stop sign)
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
Code Use Size Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out
215 Single Family Attached Housing 38 D.U. EQ 240 EQ 4 EQ 10 EQ 11 EQ 8
43
Promontory
Mary's Lake
70%
30%
SCALE: 1"=300'
TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022
44
AM/PM
SITE GENERATED
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022
Promontory
Mary's Lake
Raven Rock3/2
7/6
3/8
1/3
45
AM/PM
SHORT RANGE (2027) BACKGROUND
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022
Promontory
Mary's Lake
87/9518/21
86/1359/9
13/12
18/17
46
AM/PM
SHORT RANGE (2027) TOTAL
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022
Promontory
Mary's Lake
Raven Rock
13/12
NOM
18/17
3/2
NOM
7/61/3
86/1359/9 3/887/9518/21
47
DELICH Raven Rock Development TIS, February 2022 ASSOCIATES
TABLE 3
Short Range (2027) Background Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement
Mary’s Lake/Promontory
(stop sign)
TABLE 4
Short Range (2027) Total Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement
Mary’s Lake/Promontory-Raven
Rock
(stop sign)
48
REQUIRED GEOMETRY Figure 9
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Raven Rock Deverlopment TIS, February 2022
Promontory
Mary's Lake
Site Access
- Denotes Lane
Existing
49
APPENDIX A
50
51
52
53
54
APPENDIX B
55
HCM 6th TWSC Recent AM
3: Mary's Lake & Promotory
Mackey Subdivision 02/21/2022 Synchro 11 Light Report
Delich Associates recent am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 16 16 79 78 8
Future Vol, veh/h 12 16 16 79 78 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 19 19 93 92 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 228 97 101 0 - 0
Stage 1 97 - - - - -
Stage 2 131 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 760 959 1491 - - -
Stage 1 927 - - - - -
Stage 2 895 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 750 959 1491 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 750 - - - - -
Stage 1 915 - - - - -
Stage 2 895 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 1.3 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1491 - 750 959 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - 0.019 0.02 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.9 8.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0.1 - -
56
HCM 6th TWSC Recent PM
3: Mary's Lake & Promotory
Mackey Subdivision 02/21/2022 Synchro 11 Light Report
Delich Associates recent pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 15 19 86 122 8
Future Vol, veh/h 11 15 19 86 122 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 17 22 98 139 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 286 144 148 0 - 0
Stage 1 144 - - - - -
Stage 2 142 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 704 903 1434 - - -
Stage 1 883 - - - - -
Stage 2 885 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 693 903 1434 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 693 - - - - -
Stage 1 869 - - - - -
Stage 2 885 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 1.4 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1434 - 693 903 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - 0.018 0.019 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 10.3 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0.1 - -
57
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level-of-Service Average Total Delay
sec/veh
A < 10
B > 10 and < 15
C > 15 and < 25
D > 25 and < 35
E > 35 and < 50
F > 50
58
Table 4-2
Loveland (GMA and City Limits)
Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections)
Intersection
Component
Major
Intersection134 234 Driveway
Overall (City
Limits) LOS C LOS C No Limit
Overall (GMAs) LOS D LOS D No Limit
Any Leg LOS D LOS E No Limit
Any Movement LOS E LOS F No Limit
intersections 2 Includes all unsignalized intersections (except major intersections) and high volume
driveways 3 There are no LOS standards for I-25 Interchanges 4 On State Highways, overall LOS D is acceptable
59
APPENDIX C
60
HCM 6th TWSC Short Bkgrd AM
3: Mary's Lake & Promotory
Mackey Subdivision 02/21/2022 Synchro 11 Light Report
Delich Associates sb am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 18 18 87 86 9
Future Vol, veh/h 13 18 18 87 86 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 21 21 102 101 11
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 251 107 112 0 - 0
Stage 1 107 - - - - -
Stage 2 144 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 738 947 1478 - - -
Stage 1 917 - - - - -
Stage 2 883 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 727 947 1478 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 727 - - - - -
Stage 1 903 - - - - -
Stage 2 883 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.4 1.3 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1478 - 727 947 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - 0.021 0.022 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 10.1 8.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0.1 - -
61
HCM 6th TWSC Short Bkgrd PM
3: Mary's Lake & Promotory
Mackey Subdivision 02/21/2022 Synchro 11 Light Report
Delich Associates sb pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 17 21 95 135 9
Future Vol, veh/h 12 17 21 95 135 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 19 24 108 153 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 314 158 163 0 - 0
Stage 1 158 - - - - -
Stage 2 156 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 679 887 1416 - - -
Stage 1 871 - - - - -
Stage 2 872 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 667 887 1416 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 667 - - - - -
Stage 1 855 - - - - -
Stage 2 872 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.7 1.4 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1416 - 667 887 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.02 0.022 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 10.5 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 - -
62
APPENDIX D
63
HCM 6th TWSC Short Total AM
3: Mary's Lake & Promotory/Site Access
Mackey Subdivision 02/21/2022 Synchro 11 Light Report
Delich Associates st am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 0 17 7 0 3 18 87 3 1 86 9
Future Vol, veh/h 12 0 17 7 0 3 18 87 3 1 86 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 100 - 0 - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 0 20 8 0 4 21 102 4 1 101 11
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 257 257 107 265 260 104 112 0 0 106 0 0
Stage 1 109 109 - 146 146 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 148 148 - 119 114 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 696 647 947 688 645 951 1478 - - 1485 - -
Stage 1 896 805 - 857 776 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 855 775 - 885 801 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 685 637 947 665 635 951 1478 - - 1485 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 685 637 - 665 635 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 883 804 - 844 764 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 839 763 - 865 800 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.5 10 1.2 0.1
HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1478 - - 685 947 731 1485 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - 0.021 0.021 0.016 0.001 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 10.4 8.9 10 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A -B A B A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 0 - -
64
HCM 6th TWSC Short Total PM
3: Mary's Lake & Promotory/Site Access
Mackey Subdivision 02/21/2022 Synchro 11 Light Report
Delich Associates st pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 0 17 6 0 2 21 95 8 3 135 9
Future Vol, veh/h 12 0 17 6 0 2 21 95 8 3 135 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 100 - 0 - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 0 19 7 0 2 24 108 9 3 153 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 326 329 158 335 330 113 163 0 0 117 0 0
Stage 1 164 164 - 161 161 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 162 165 - 174 169 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 627 590 887 619 589 940 1416 - - 1471 - -
Stage 1 838 762 - 841 765 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 840 762 - 828 759 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 616 578 887 596 577 940 1416 - - 1471 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 616 578 - 596 577 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 823 760 - 826 751 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 823 748 - 808 757 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.9 10.6 1.3 0.2
HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1416 - - 616 887 656 1471 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.022 0.022 0.014 0.002 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 11 9.1 10.6 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A -B A B A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.1 0 0 - -
65
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker
Attending: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Steve Murphree, Sharry
White, Robert Foster
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner Audem Gonzales,
Planner Carrie McCool, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Planner Robin
Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley,
and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioners Baker and Hull
Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. He explained the purpose of the Planning
Commission. There were approximately 50 people in attendance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion
passed 5-0 with two absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Greg Rosener/town resident commented on the two memos presented by Town Attorney White
and Director Hunt regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission.
Rebecca Urquhart/town resident stated Town Attorney White issues opinions on how “the Code”
is interpreted.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes of October 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Large Vacation Home Rental; 1020 Otis Lane; Melissa Hawley/Owner
It was moved and seconded (White/Leavitt) to approve the consent agenda as amended and the
motion passed 5-0.
4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 17.66 - SIGNS
Linda Hardin, Code Compliance Officer (CCO) stated this item was continued from the September
19, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. She met with the Estes Valley Board of Realtors and the
Estes Park Partners for Commerce regarding the proposed revisions to the sign code to get their
feedback. The most recent revisions to the code can be viewed on the Town website.
66
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
Staff/Commission Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding political signs.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Murphree) to recommend approval to the Town Board of
Trustees the amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66 as presented,
including findings as recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-0 with two absent.
5. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR FOOD
VENDORS
Planner Becker stated this item was continued from the October 17, 2017 Planning Commission
meeting. Revisions were made following feedback from businesses using food trucks, and food
truck owners. The proposed amendment would require the applicant to undergo an application
process with a staff-level review.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Becker stated there would not be a limit on the number of food trucks allowed. Town
Attorney White stated it would be difficult for mobile food vendors to serve liquor due to state
regulations.
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Foster) to recommend approval to the Town Board of
Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners the text amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code, with findings of fact and as recommended by staff and the motion
passed 5-0 with two absent.
6. LOT 20, LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION; REZONE FROM E–Estate to RM–Residential
Multi-Family; 260 STANLEY AVENUE
Planner Gonzales stated the applicant desires to rezone 260 Stanley Avenue to proceed with a
proposed workforce or attainable housing development. Staff waived the requirement for a
development plan submittal with the rezoning application. A legal notice was published in the
local newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. No public comment was
received. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Murphree was supportive of the project. There was brief discussion regarding the
process for notifying adjacent property owners.
67
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
Public Comment
None.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend to the Estes Park Town Trustees
the 260 Stanley Avenue Zoning Map Amendment according to findings of fact with findings
recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-0 with two absent.
Chair Schneider read a statement concerning differences of opinion and the goal to be a community.
He expects the members of the public in attendance today to be respectful and accepting of the
outcome of the Commissioner’s decisions. Commissioner Murphree stated Engineers are licensed by
the state and their findings should be considered valid and accurate.
7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK
TOWNHOMES; TBD PROMONTORY DRIVE
Planner Gonzales stated this application was continued from the October 17, 2017 Planning
Commission meeting. The applicant met with the neighbors, and subsequently made some
revisions to the plans. Darcy Tiglas/environmental consultant submitted a letter stating the elk
migration patterns would not be interrupted by this development. Staff presented research on
county zoning of this parcel prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff
does not make recommendations based on the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, but uses it as a
development guideline. The comprehensive plan is not a regulatory document. Staff
recommends approval of the project.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated the most recent staff report does not include reference to the
comprehensive plan in order to avoid confusion with the public and the Commissioners who may
think the comprehensive plan is a regulatory document.
Applicant Presentation
Jim Mackey/applicant stated his team applied best practices and principles in the code regarding
this development
Joe Coop/project manager reviewed the revisions made to the plans, which were the result of
meetings with the neighbors
David Bangs/project engineer briefly discussed the final drainage design, which will be reviewed
by the Town Engineer and will be a part of the Final Plat application.
Darcy Tiglas/environmental consultant reviewed her letter regarding elk migration in the area.
According to comments from the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife Officer Larry Rogstad,
there are no set elk migration corridors across the subject property. Mr. Rogstad recommended
68
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
protecting the riparian area, building clustering, and landscaping that will keep residents safe by
not surprising wildlife. Other recommendations can be read in his letter. As a state agency, CPW
only becomes involved in local land use review at the request of the local agencies, and their
comments are advisory.
Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering commented on traffic. Greg Muhonen/Public Works
Director reviewed and approved the traffic report. Crosswalks are not warranted for this area,
and the parking requirement has been exceeded.
Jim Mackey/applicant reviewed his discussions with the neighbors and explained the changes that
were made to the plans. He clarified how square footage of the dwellings is calculated.
Public Comment
Michael Keilty/town resident submitted and read a written comment.
Dawn James/town resident thanked Planner Gonzales for sending the application to the Division
of Parks and Wildlife.
Richard James/town resident stated the applicant needs to comply with both the development
code and the comprehensive plan.
Marie Gordon/town resident stated the comprehensive plan’s overall theme is to protect the
Marys Lake corridor. She was opposed to the development.
Claire Ray/town resident stated there have been some positive revisions to the plan that would
not have happened if it were not for the continuances.
Jon Nicholas/Economic Development Corp. shared his opinion regarding what might happen if the
Planning Commission begins to base their decisions on the contents of the comprehensive plan
rather than the development code.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Each Commissioner provided a closing statement. There were final comments also made by Mr.
Sheldon and Mr. Mackey.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/White) to recommend denial of the Raven Rock Preliminary
Plat Townhome Subdivision to the Estes Park Town Board and the motion passed 3-2 with
Commissioners White, Leavitt and Foster voting for and Commissioners Schneider and
Murphree voting against.
69
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission – Special Meeting
November 14, 2017
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Foster) to deny the Raven Rock Development Plan finding
it does not meet comprehensive plan standards and it is an unacceptable precedent moving
forward and the motion passed 3-2 with Commissioners White, Leavitt, and Foster voting in
favor and Commissioners Schneider and Murphree voting against.
Director Hunt stated the appeal process will involve a written request to appeal. The deadline to
appeal to the Town Board for the November 28th meeting is tomorrow at 5 p.m.
8. REPORTS
Senior Planner Woeber reminded the Commissioners of the Planning Refresher workshop on
November 29, 2017 from 4 to 6:30 p.m. This workshop will be presented by the state Department
of Local Affairs.
There being no further business, Chair Schneider adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Russ Schneider, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
70
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 12, 2017
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 in said Town
of Estes Park on the 12th day of December, 2017.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Holcomb) to approve the Agenda with the
continuation of Planning Commission Action Item 3.1.E to the January 23, 2018
Town Board meeting, and it passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Gordon MacAlpine/Town citizen and Tom Street/County citizen spoke to the Platte
River Power Authority (PRPA) net zero presentation at the study session. They
commended PRPA on the completion of the study; however, they encouraged them to
continue to evaluate the process and cost to move to net zero carbon by 2030 because
the industry continues to change rapidly, such as the advancements in battery
technology. The production costs are estimated to increase at this time by 30% by
2030, with an increase of 5% to the average customer.
Susan Wolf/County citizen stated the Senior Citizen Inc. Board meet to discuss keeping
the current center open after the Community Center opens because some programming
such as Silver Sneakers would not be offered at the Community Center. The Senior
Center Inc. Board has requested the Town lease the current facility to them to operate.
Karen Cherman/Town citizen stated there has been no communication with the
neighborhood on the possible workforce housing development on the Town owned Fish
Hatchery property. She would advocate the Town involve the neighborhood in
discussion before the development of workforce housing.
Charley Dickey/Town citizen supports the airing of study session meetings to provide
the public with information on topics discussed by the Board. He questioned the
adoption process for the Downtown Plan. He stated there was a lack of public
engagement in the meetings held to develop the plan. He commented the Planning
Commissioners did not attend the public meetings and there was little input provided by
the Commissioners. The Downtown Plan should tie into the development of a new
Comprehensive Plan.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Norris informed the Board and citizens the Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 19, 2017 meeting was cancelled. The Family Advisory Board (FAB)
completed the community resource guide and proposed childcare as the 2018 focus
71
Board of Trustees – December 12, 2017 – Page 2
area. The FAB would utilize the childcare survey results to develop items for the Town
Board’s consideration.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated November 28, 2017.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes - None.
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated November 7, 2017
acknowledgement only).
5. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated November 2, 2017 (acknowledgment
only).
6. Estes Park Board of Appeals Appointment.
a. Amy Plummer, replacing John Spooner, term expiring on December 31,
2019.
7. Parks Advisory Board Appointments.
a. Geoffrey Elliot, replacing Celine Lebeau, term expiring on December 31,
2019.
b. Wade Johnston, for a 3-year term expiring December 31, 2020.
c. Merle Moore, Reappointment, 3-year term expiring December 31, 2020.
8. Resolution #31-17 – Fair Housing. Request to continue to January 9, 2018.
9. Revisions to the Federal Transit Administration Title VI Plan.
10. Award Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Americawest/Prairie Fire
Development for Fish Hatchery Workforce Housing Project. Manager
Landkamer.
11. Award Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Americawest/Prairie Fire
Development Group for Dry Gulch Workforce Housing Project. Manager
Landkamer.
Mayor Jirsa removed Consent Agenda Items #10 and #11 for discussion. It was
moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda Item 1-
9, and it passed unanimously.
Consent Item 10 - Award Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with
Americawest/Prairie Fire Development for Fish Hatchery Workforce Housing
Project.
Consent Item 11 - Award Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with
Americawest/Prairie Fire Development Group for Dry Gulch Workforce
Housing Project.
Manager Landkamer reviewed the process used to receive proposals from potential
developers to develop a workforce housing development on the Town owned Fish
Hatchery property. The Town received three (3) proposals which were evaluated by
a subcommittee utilizing a scoring matrix providing an assessment of the
team/experience, schedule, collaborative community effort, programming/design,
financing/operating strategy and other unique attributes. AmericaWest received the
highest score and it was unanimously agreed by the subcommittee to recommend
72
Board of Trustees – December 12, 2017 – Page 3
the company to the Town Board. The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with
AmericaWest and Prairie Fire Development Group would be to create a
Collaborative Community Effort (CCE) process, with the intent to develop workforce
housing for the 60 – 150% of the Average Median Income (AMI). Keith
Meyer/AmericaWest and Kelly Hrabe stated the process would include a number of
public meetings to develop a proposal for the Town Board’s consideration. Mr.
Hrabe commented there are a number of decisions that need to be addressed,
including the type of housing to be developed. The groups would utilize local
contractors and suppliers to gain local input.
Trustee comments were summarized: Trustee Norris stated the development
proposal would go through the normal development process to receive approval
prior to development; Trustee Walker commented AmericaWest’s proposal was the
best solution submitted; and Trustee Martchink voiced concern with the funding
mechanism for the project, questioned ownership of the property, would there be
deed restrictions, and would a large component be rentals.
Administrator Lancaster stated the income target market needs to be identified
because Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding can only be used to
develop low income housing. The Town has a need for higher income housing at or
near 150 AMI, therefore, funding could be a challenge for the project.
Frank Theis/County citizen and C3 proposal member stated the large market driven
project would have significant impact to the community. He questioned if the
proposals could be made public to see the scope of the projects being discussed.
Art Messal/Town citizen commented no one knows about the project and a strategy
has not been developed. He stated the project should be stopped until a plan can
be developed.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Holcomb) to approve Consent Agenda Item
10, and it passed unanimously.
Trustee Walker recused himself as a neighbor to the property. It was moved and
seconded (Holcomb/Nelson) to approve Consent Agenda Item #11, and it passed
unanimously.
2. REPORTS & DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY. Executive Director Kurelja stated
EPHA recently purchased the Lone Tree apartments from the Loveland
Housing Authority. She stated the property was donated by the Town to the
Loveland Housing Authority who built the units in 1995. EPHA has managed
the property over the years. EPHA has added William Pinkham, Pete Smith
and Julie Abel to the Board. In 2016 a small four-plex was purchased on a
large lot off of Hwy 7. The Authority plans to build 26 additional units on the
site with a Development Plan to be submitted in early 2018. The development
would be workforce housing and would therefore not be built utilizing federal
funds. Deed restrictions would be used to ensure the units are utilized for
workforce housing only. Director Kurelja announced her retirement at the end
of the year and introduced her successor Naomi Hawf.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. APPEAL RAVEN ROCK TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN, JAMES
SUSAN MACKEY, OWNERS. APPEAL OF ESTES VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF DP-2017-07 ON NOVEMBER
14, 2017. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Director Hunt stated the
Estes Valley Planning Commission denied Development Plan 2017-07 at
73
Board of Trustees – December 12, 2017 – Page 4
their November 14, 2017 meeting. The property owners filed an appeal of
the decision with the Town Clerk on November 15, 2017 and an amended
appeal on November 30, 2017.
Planner Gonzales reviewed the application to develop the Raven Rock
Townhomes development consisting of 38 two-family units on
approximately 10-acres. Staff recommended approval of the
Development Plan at the September 19, 2017, October 17, 2017 and the
November 14, 2017 Planning Commission meetings. Four options were
presented to the Town Board, including denial, approval, approval with
conditions, or continue the appeal to a date certain.
Attorney White reviewed the legal issues related to the use of
Comprehensive Plan to deny a development plan. He stated
Comprehensive Plans have been viewed as advisory and up held as such
by the Colorado Supreme Court with the exception of the Condor case.
The Court has also acknowledged the general provision of a
Comprehensive Plan could not be used to deny a development plan.
Overall Comprehensive Plans have a clouded judicial review. The
adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code and zoning map was
determined to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policy outlined
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Director Hunt stated Comprehensive Plan are developed to provide a
vision for the community and incorporate the vision into the local codes,
i.e. Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The Plan contains words
and text that are not compatible with the development code language. He
addressed issues related to the deficiency of public notice for the
Development Plan, stating a notice was mailed to neighbors within 100
feet and a legal notice placed in the local newspaper.
Lucia Liley/Attorney for James Mackey stated the Development Plan was
denied based on specific land use criteria Attorney White had reviewed
with the Planning Commission and stated was not appropriate. The Plan
was continued at the first meeting in September 2017 to review drainage
concerns with a neighboring property and again at the second meeting in
October 2017 to address water drainage on the property. The Planning
Commission denied the Development Plan because it did not meet the
Comprehensive Plan standards and the Development Plan would set an
unacceptable precedent moving forward. The grounds for the appeal are
based on the fact the Comprehensive Plan was not intended to be
regulatory, the Commission did not site any evidence for the denial as it
relates to the EVDC, and the project complies with all applicable
provisions of the EVDC.
James Mackey/Property owner and developer reviewed the background of
the proposed development and stated the plan meets the EVDC review
criteria as outlined in Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning
Districts, impervious coverage, density, building height, parking,
landscaping and meets all utility requirements. The EVDC does not
require open space; however, the project provides approximately 2 acres
of untouched and an additional 2 acres for the detention ponds out of 10
acres. Stormwater and drainage has been a significant issue during the
review of the development. Three detention ponds have been added to
the development and a berm has been added to direct stormwater flow
away from the neighboring properties and the development.
Those speaking against the Development Plan: Rebecca Urquhart/Town
citizen, Matthew Gordon/Town citizen, Dawn James/Town citizen, Richard
James/Town citizen, Michael Kelty/Town citizen, Michelle Hiland/Town
citizen, and Art Messal/Town citizen. The Supreme Courts decision on
the Condor case clearly stated the Development Code must comply with
74
Board of Trustees – December 12, 2017 – Page 5
the Comprehensive Plan. The EVDC states it shall comply with the
Comprehensive Plan which makes it binding. The lack of sufficient notice
to the neighbors was not provided for during the annexations process
which allowed the Development Plan to move forward. The developer
was required to demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and to adhere to the Plan. The Planning Commission found the
Development Plan did not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan. The appeal must demonstrate the Planning Commission was
arbitrary and capricious in their decision in overturning their decision. The
community does not need additional vacation home units. The process
has been broken since the review of the Lazy B and should be addressed.
Jon Nicholas/EDC Director stated the Comprehensive Plan designated the
area for accommodations. The drainage way between Marys Lake and
Fish Creek should be protected and the proposed development would not
impact the drainage way. He stated the Town could have a reverse
condemnation action and be required to purchase the property if the
Planning Commission decision is upheld.
Lucia Liley/Applicant attorney reiterated the Comprehensive Plan should
be used as a vision for the community and the Development Code
regulations should be used to make land use decisions. The Planning
Commission denial did not outline reasons or specific areas of the
Comprehensive Plan or the EVDC in which it did not comply.
Board comments were summarized: the Planning Commission lacked
findings for the denial, the laws of Estes Park need to be followed, the
Development Plan follows the EVDC, the application would be a use by
right, the Comprehensive Plan and the EVDC contain contradictions, the
Comprehensive Plan should not be used to handcuff developers and to be
manipulated to allow only certain types of development, the two
documents are suppose to be used to protect the neighbors, and the
Comprehensive Plan needs to be reviewed.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
Holcomb/Koenig) to approve the Raven Rock Development Plan (DP
2017-07) on appeal from the Planning Commission’s denial of same
on November 14, 2017, finding that the Development Plan meets the
Estes Valley Development Code’s requirements for approval per
EVDC Chapter 3 (Review Procedures and Standards), and it passed
unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Norris) to continue the meeting
past 10:00 p.m. to complete the agenda, and it passed unanimously.
B. PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT, RAVEN ROCK
TOWNHOMES, METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, TBD PROMONTORY
DRIVE, JAMES & SUSAN MACKEY, OWNERS. Mayor Jirsa opened the
public hearing. Planner Gonzales stated the 10-acre A-Accommodations
zoned property was annexed in 2017. The application proposed 19
duplex buildings with 38 individual platted townhome lots, three Outots,
and three detention ponds. The application aligns with the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, does not maximize the
allowed density, and provides additional accommodation units. Estes
Valley Planning Commission recommended denial of the subdivision
application at their November 14, 2017 meeting. Mayor Jirsa closed the
public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Walker) to approve
the Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision, and it passed
unanimously.
C. ORDINANCE #33-17 - REZONING FROM E-ESTATE TO RM-
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, LOT 20 LITTLE PROSPECT
75
76
1
Stanley Home Museum & Education Center
Year One Operations Review
Submitted to the Estes Park Planning Commission
April 13, 2022
Mission: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center strives to educate and inspire diverse audiences by
developing a deeper understanding of F.O. and Flora Stanley’s experiences, character, and leadership through the
interpretation and preservation of the history, context, and culture of the historic Stanley home.
As a part of the of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park’s approval on September 10, 2018 (Please see
Attachment A), of the request for a Special Review Use (S2) Application filed by the Historic Stanley Home
Foundation for the property addressed 415 Wonderview Avenue for operation of a historic house museum for local
history education of which may provide guided tours and a gift shop on a parcel zoned E-1 (Estate), the operation
was subject to 13 conditions, and condition 13 stated that “an initial annual review shall be given to the Planning
Commission after one year of operation.”
We are submitting this report with the hopeful expectation that it will satisfy the 13th condition.
Executive Summary
The operation of the Stanley Home Museum & Education Center was subject to 13 conditions as approved by the
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees. Condition 6, addressing additional landscaping, required modification to
comply with Estes Park Town Power and Communications Department’s specifications for tree setbacks from
power lines, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District’s requirements for driveway access that met minimum
standards for fire apparatus access and life-safety standards. With the required modification of Condition 6, all 13
conditions have been satisfied with the submission of this report (Please see Attachment B – emails from Jeff
Woeber re Compliance with Special Review Conditions). Details of compliance with the 13 conditions are
provided in Section I. Compliance with Conditions of Operation below.
In addition to satisfying the conditions of operation, the Stanley Home Museum & Education center has endeavored
to be a good neighbor by initiating dialogue with our neighbors on how we could include their preferences in
changes we were making to the Historic Stanley Home and property, inviting our neighbors for free tours and free
admission to our special events, providing more and safer fencing than the original, repairing and cleaning our
neighbor’s fencing, landscaping and cleaning the property and implementing fire mitigation measures, among other
details provided in Section II. Good Neighbor Initiatives below.
The Stanley Home Museum & Education center has also endeavored to be a good community member, initiating
conversations with Estes Park School District R-3 on how the museum can be used for student education and
development, becoming a part of the Estes Valley Museum network, referring our visitors to our fellow Estes
Valley museums, and other details provided in Section III. Good Community Member Initiatives below.
Finally, some operational details from the Stanley Home & Education Center’s first year of operation are presented
in Section IV First Year Highlights below.
77
2
Section I. Compliance with the 13 Conditions of Operation
Condition 1: The maximum group size for tours shall be 12 persons in any given group. No more than one group
tour shall be on the property at any time, except occasional brief and Incidental overlap at the beginning and end of
a tour.
Condition 1 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition.
Condition 2: Operating hours shall be limited to 5.5 days per week with the exception of operations on holidays
that may fall on a Monday, e g. Labor Day,
a. Monday - Closed (unless on a holiday)
b. Tuesday-Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
c. Sunday-12:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Condition 2 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition.
Condition 3: Special events hosted by museum may not extend past 8:00 pm, shall be limited to 50 people, shall
not to be held outdoors, and a maximum of 2 special events per month shall be enforced.
Condition 3 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition.
Condition 4: Use of the property for private facility events, including weddings, shall not be permitted.
Condition 4 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition.
Condition 5: A conservation easement on parcels numbered 3524300025 shall be initiated within one year of
closing by the Historic Stanley Home Foundation
Condition 5 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition. Please see Attachment C Letter to Jeffrey Boring at the Estes Valley Land Trust. While a conservation
easement was initiated, the Historic Stanley Home Foundation Board determined that pursuing and receiving the
conservation easement was not practically or financially feasible and placed the initiative on indefinite hold.
Condition 6: Additional landscaping shall add 1 tree for every 35 feet concentrated along the adjacent eastern
driveway, installed and maintained per EVDC Chapter 7 - Landscaping Requirements.
Condition 6 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition as modified to comply with required Estes Park Town Power and Communications Department’s
specifications for tree setbacks from power lines (Please see Attachment D – email from Tyler Boles, Utility
Department, Power and Communications Division), Estes Valley Fire Protection District’s requirements for
driveway access that met minimum standards for fire apparatus access and life-safety standards Please see
Attachment E – Fire Marshall Report), and the unlikelihood of planted tree survival in some purely rock or
severely rocky areas (Please see Attachment F – Summit Forestry re Stanley Home Tree Plantings). The required
modifications to the condition also received the consent of our immediately affected neighbors. Please see Trees
and Landscaping in section II. Good Neighbor Initiatives below.
Condition 7: Original fencing shall receive routine maintenance,
Condition 7 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition and exceeded the requirements. Please see Fencing in the Good Neighbor Initiatives section below.
Condition 8: On-site food preparation shall not be permitted.
Condition 8 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition.
78
3
Condition 9: The Eastern driveway shall be removed and reclaimed and shall not be used for property access.
During time of re-seeding of pavement/road base, a blockade shall be placed at the entrance from Wonder View
Avenue to prevent access.
Condition 9 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition. In addition, large rocks and a good-sized blue spruce tree with irrigation have been added to prevent any
vehicle passage through this area.
Condition 10: Shuttle service shall be required May1 - October 31.
Condition 10 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition.
Condition 11: Onsite parking shall be limited to 11 parking spaces for ADA parking and employee parking from
May 1-October 31.
Condition 11 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition.
Condition 12: Dark Sky Compliant Lighting shall be required.
Condition 12 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition.
Condition 13: An initial annual review shall be given to the Planning Commission after one year of operation.
Subsequent reviews may be at the request of the Estes Valley Planning Commission.
Condition 13 Compliance Status: The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center is in compliance with this
condition with the submission of this report.
Section II. Good Neighbor Initiatives
• Initiatives to Establish and Maintain Good Relationships with Our Neighbors: As a continuation of
the dialog with our neighbors leading up to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park’s approval of
the request for a Special Review in 2018, we have continued our conversations with our neighbors. Before
we installed the wooden buck fence to replace the rusted, deteriorating, hazardous barbed wire fence, we
discussed fencing options with our neighbors most affected by the fencing and chose an option with less
visibility: un-peeled buck fence. When original plans for tree planting along the East border of the property
became problematic given power line setback requirements and Fire Marshall requirements, we had
extended conversations with our two neighbors to arrive at solutions for screening planting that they agreed
to. We also redirected a flood light on the Carriage House away from our neighbors at their request. We
have kept our neighbors informed when significant repair or landscaping activities are scheduled. We have
invited our surrounding neighbors to our open houses and special event activities as non-paying guests, and
we have offered them private tours as well.
• Fencing: Compared to original fencing on the property, we provided additional footage of fencing to
protect our neighbors’ property. As a part of this additional fencing, we improved the back yard by
removing the original, rusted, deteriorating, hazardous barbed wire fence and installed a wooden buck
fence, safer for animals and easier to weed and clean around. Before installing the new fencing, we
discussed fencing options with our neighbors and received their endorsement. While installing the fencing
we worked with our neighbors to remove and dispose of weeds and erosion materials that had accumulated
around the old fencing. In addition, with our neighbor’s permission, we repaired, weeded, and removed
debris from around our neighbor’s fence on the Western side of our property.
• Trees and Landscaping: We planted trees, both at the top of the East driveway that we closed and
reseeded, and in the back yard to help screen our neighbors view of the back of the museum from the
North. Our closest neighbor agreed to three large wooden planters with shrubs. We asked them to choose
79
4
which shrubs they would prefer. It is our responsibility to maintain the planters with both water and
fertilizer as needed. Our neighbor closest to the Carriage House requested that we plant a cluster of Aspen
trees. In order to address their request and satisfy the required setback from the power lines, we needed to
place the trees on their property. At our neighbor’s request, we assisted in creating a berm for the trees. We
are responsible for maintaining the trees with fertilizer and watering. A drip irrigation system has been
installed to assure proper watering. In addition, a blue spruce pine tree was planted to further shield the
neighbor’s view of the Carriage House. Landscaping was also added to the front and side of the house with
planted beds.
• Fire Mitigation: We invited the Estes Valley Fire Protection District’s Fire Marshall to tour our property
and make fire mitigation recommendations. We subsequently removed dead trees, shrubs, and grasses, as
well as highly flammable junipers. We also limbed-up all trees on our property and cleaned out weeds and
pine cones from all gutters. We had to blast out some rock features to comply with the Fire Marshall’s
requirements for fire apparatus turning radius.
• Visual Property Improvements: We improved our property visually by removing dead vegetation,
landscaped the front and side of the house, weeded and removed dead shrubs from the front of the property
visible from the road and planted several aspen trees in the back yard area to shield our neighbors view of
the back of the house and driveway. We also improved and widened the driveway and created the parking
area on the lower driveway. We also created a handicapped parking area and a ramp for handicapped
access from that area to the museum.
• Other Improvements: To ensure our property would not have any detrimental impact on our neighbors,
we have engaged a monthly pest control service and have purchased a bear-proof trash receptacle.
Section III. Good Community Member Initiatives
• Building Relationships with Estes Park School District R-3: We have had preliminary conversations
with Estes Park School District about free student field trips to the museum to provide an opportunity for
our students to have a place to touch and feel Estes Park history. We have discussed establishing a junior
guide program for interested students, and also talked about setting up a guided tour in Spanish with
Spanish-speaking students conducting the tours. We have also explored providing senior high school
students the opportunity/chance to fulfill a graduation requirement of public service at the museum.
• Building Relationships with the Estes Valley Museum Network: We have worked with the Estes Park
Museum from the early days of working to establish the Stanley Home Museum & Education Center,
including receiving their permission to use visual materials in our promotional video about FO and Flora
Stanley with Nick Mollѐ. We have also worked with the Estes Park Museum and our fellow Estes Valley
Museums and other historic sites like MacGregor Ranch, Enos Mills Cabin, the Stanley Home Museum,
the Stanley Hotel to encourage each other’s visitors to visit other historic sites. We want to collaborate
with our fellow historic sites to learn how, together, we might create something special.
• Supporting Estes Park Visitation: In June of 2021 when we had our Grand Opening, our Grand Opening
banner was placed at the intersection of Hwy 36 and 34 and at the Visitor’s Center by the town, announcing
the opening of the new museum. This was added to the town’s calendar of events, adding an additional
event and supporting additional Estes Park visitation.
• Special Free Visitation Events for All in Our Community and Visitors: To enable everyone in our
community to enjoy and learn from visits to the Stanley Home Museum & Education Center, we have had
special free visitation events like 150 community members coming to our free brownies and tour ticket
drive by the day before we opened, and over 300 members of our community came to our free Yuletide
80
5
Holiday Open Houses to see the historic home fully decorated with wreaths, Christmas trees, and plenty of
candle lights. Our guides were there to answer questions and to share hot cider and cookies with all that
attended.
• Continued Expansion of Supporters List: At the onset of the Historic Stanley Home Foundation’s effort
to purchase, renovate, preserve and operate Rockside, the F.O. Stanley home as a cultural center for local
history education, we gathered more than 500 names of individuals who believed that preserving Mr. and
Mrs. Stanley's 1904 home as a cultural center for local history education will forever save a remarkable
local treasure. That list has continued to grow and now numbers over 1,100 individuals.
Section IV. First Year Highlights
The first year of Stanley Home Museum & Education Center operations exceeded our hopes in our startup year and
a year the world was dealing with the Covid-19 Pandemic.
• Tours number and number of visitors
o 522 tours for 2,203 visitors
• Special events and number of attendees
o We held five Vino on the Veranda events between May 28 – August 27, 2021 for 180 attendees.
All but a few of the attendees were from the local community.
o On December 11th and 12th, we held free holiday walkthroughs of the Stanley Home Museum for
the Estes Park community. 300 people toured the museum over this two-day period.
• 4,718 total estimated volunteer hours and number of volunteers
o 918 volunteer hours, 20 volunteers, Daily Interpretive Tours
o 1,144 volunteer hours, 9 volunteers, Daily Shuttle Drivers
o 105 volunteer hours, 35 volunteers, Vino on the Veranda
o 181 volunteer hours, 27 volunteers, Yuletide Open House
o 270 volunteer hours, 10 volunteers, Buildings, Grounds, Landscaping
o 2,100 volunteer hours, 10 volunteers, Foundation Officers and Board
• Support from our community
o We installed ten Interactive Sensory Boxes through the support of a $2,250 grant from the
Community Foundation of Northern Colorado.
o The community purchased approximately 195 ducks for the Stanley Home Museum & Education
Center as part of the 33rd Annual Estes Park Rotary Duck Race in 2021.
o Six local businesses made in-kind donations to the five Vino on the Veranda events we held in
2021.
o Three local music groups made an in-kind donation of five hours of music for our Yuletide Open
House.
• Other noteworthy items
o History Colorado awarded the Stanley Home Museum & Education Center designation as a State
Historic Site
o The Stanley Home Foundation was awarded $35,000 from History Colorado to have Steve Lane, a
historical restoration architect, assess the home and determine steps and projects for restoration
o The Stanley Home Museum & Education Center organized a group of 15 volunteers to help the
Estes Chamber of Commerce with their 2nd Annual Chamber Cup Golf Tournament on August 13,
2021.
81
6
Section V. Summary
With the submission of this report, The Historic Stanley Home Foundation and the operations of the Stanley Home
Museum & Education Center have satisfied all 13 of the operating conditions required by the Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees. We have also focused on establishing and maintaining good relationships with our neighbors
and being a good, contributing member of our Estes Park community. Our first year of operation exceeded our
expectations for tours, special events, volunteer involvement, and support from our community. Having described
our good neighbor and good community member initiatives in our first year, we believe our community can depend
upon us to continue our efforts in the future with the same goals.
82
Planning Division
Community Development Department
970-557-3729
bhathaway@estes.org
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
September 10, 2018 Historic Stanley Home Foundation PO BOX 2130 Estes Park, CO 80517 To Whom It May Concern, On August 28, 2018, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park APPROVED your request for a Special Review Use (S2) Application filed by the Historic Stanley Home Foundation for the property addressed 415 W. Wonderview Avenue. The Special Review Use approves the operation of a historic house museum for local history education of which may provide guided tours and a gift shop on a parcel zoned E-1 (Estate). Approval of the Special Review Use shall not constitute a change in the base zoning district and shall be granted only for the specific use approved at the specific site. Approval is subject to such modifications, conditions, and restrictions as may be deemed appropriate by the Decision Making Body. (EVDC §3.5) Operation is subject to the following conditions as approved by the Town Board of Trustees: 1. The maximum group size for tours shall be 12 persons in any given group. No more than one group tour shall be on the property at any time, except occasional brief and incidental overlap at the beginning and end of a tour. 2. Operating hours shall be limited to 5.5 days per week with the exception of operations on holidays that may fall on a Monday, e.g. Labor Day. a. Monday – Closed (unless on a holiday) b. Tuesday-Saturday –9:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. c. Sunday – 12:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. 3. Special events hosted by museum may not extend past 8:00 pm, shall be limited to 50 people, shall not to be held outdoors, and a maximum of 2 special events per month shall be enforced.
83
Planning Division
Community Development Department
970-557-3729
bhathaway@estes.org
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
4. Use of the property for private facility events, including weddings, shall not be permitted. 5. A conservation easement on parcels numbered 3524300025 shall be initiated within one year of closing by the Historic Stanley Home Foundation. 6. Additional landscaping shall add 1 tree for every 35 feet concentrated along the adjacent eastern driveway, installed and maintained per EVDC Chapter 7-Landscaping Requirements. 7. Original fencing shall receive routine maintenance. 8. On-site food preparation shall not be permitted. 9. The eastern driveway shall be removed and reclaimed and shall not be used for property access. During time of re-seeding of pavement/road base, a blockade shall be placed at the entrance from Wonderview Avenue to prevent access. 10. Shuttle service shall be required May 1 – October 31. 11. Onsite parking shall be limited to 11 parking spaces for ADA parking and employee parking from May 1-October 31. 12. Dark Sky Compliant Lighting shall be required. 13. An initial annual review shall be given to the Planning Commission after one year of operation. Subsequent reviews may be at the request of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Sincerely, Brittany Hathaway, Planner II Town of Estes Park
84
From: Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org>
Date: Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:12 PM
Subject: Stanley Home Museum Special Review
To: JoAnn Batey <joannbatey@gmail.com>
Hello Ms. Batey:
The Estes Park Board of Trustees approved a Special Review for operation of a historic house museum,
for the Historic Stanley Home located at 415 W. Wonderview Avenue in Estes Park. This was approved
by the Town Board on August 28, 2018.
There are 13 conditions of approval associated with the Special Review (see attached letter dated
September 10, 2018.) Based on documents you recently provided (which staff has on file), and a site
visit on April 22, 2021, I find the approved use is in compliance with the conditions of the Special Review
as applicable. I note that I have documentation that landscaping is being planted by May 1, 2021. This
determination is contingent on that landscaping being installed. Let me know when it is planted, and I
will come up and take a look. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeff
Jeffrey Woeber, AICP
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
970-577-3727 (Office)
719-369-9101 (Cell)
From: Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Stanley Home Museum Special Review
To: JoAnn Batey <joannbatey@gmail.com>
Hello JoAnn, I have visited the site and the landscaping with trees is consistent with the approved
development plan, including the minor revisions regarding tree locations as agreed to by myself and
Randy Hunt last year.
With that, all conditions of approval for the Special Review are in compliance. I am not aware of any
violations or complaints.
Email or call with questions or comments.
Thank you.
Jeff
85
86
Stanley House trees
Inbox
Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>
Jan 25, 2021,
12:03 PM
to me, Joe
Hello Joann,
I am sending this email to you in regards to the tree planting at the Stanley House on
Wonderview Ave. As we discussed on site last week we do not recommend any tree
planting in the power line easement because of the potential interference with the power
lines. I have attached the drawing from the Power and Communications vegetation
management policy that shows the area within the easement that the trees would be
removed to protect the powerlines and in the case of the Stanley House all of the
proposed trees in their staked placements.
Thank you.
Tyler Boles
970-577-3607
970-232-5741
Town Of Estes Park
Utilities Department
Power and Communications Division
Line Crew Supervisor
87
Notice of Fire Code Requirements
July 27, 2020
RE: FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
Applicant/Owner: Attn: Mr. Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
Historic Stanley Home Foundation
166 Virginia Drive, Estes Park, CO 8051
jreetz@ces-ccc.com
Phone (970) 586-2458
Applicable Project: The Historic Stanley Home
415 West Wonderview Avenue, Estes park, CO 80517
Thank you for the opportunity to work in partnership with the Historic Stanley Home Foundation
to assess proposed driveway access for the purpose of meeting minimum standards for fire
apparatus access and life-safety standards. The following requirements outline what is required
within the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD) as per the adopted 2018 International
Fire Code (IFC). The following shall be required:
Applicable Fire Code Section:
IFC 503,1 Where required- Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained
in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 – 503.1.3 [the Fire Code].
Fire Marshal Commentary & Requirements:
Based upon our site visit and documentation established during an actual turning radius test
with Engine 71, the driveway shall be modified to accommodate clear turning radius at both
the upper and lower driveway turns.
Additionally, the proposed planting of trees along the northeastern portion of the upper turn,
adjacent to the neighbor’s property, shall be modified and/or plantings eliminated for the
purpose of accommodating the turning of fire apparatus.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office directly if you have questions, or we can assist with
facilitating a safe and successful outcome. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD) is
dedicated to ensuring the safety of residents, guests, and the volunteers who respond to assist you.
88
Thank You,
Kevin Sullivan, Fire Marshal
Estes Valley Fire Protection District
Cell phone (970) 238-0678
Office phone (970) 577-3689
Email ksullivan@estesvalleyfire.org
89
90
91
UPDATE for Estes Park Planning Commission
April 19, 2022
Planner Bergeron
•Met with CPAW team after March Planning Commission meeting
•Discussed challenges and opportunities
•CPAW has had some organizational turnover which may affect timeline
•CPAW will try to find consultant to help us update EPDC §7.5 (Landscaping) and
Plant List in 2022
•Other Code elements will likely wait until post-Comp Plan overhaul
•Communication tools after landscaping update
92