HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Special Town Board 2022-12-06The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
5:00 p.m.
Board Room – 170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
In Person Meeting – Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public
ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT
By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific
agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at
https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, December 6, 2022. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during the
agenda item and added to the final packet.
REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE IN 2023
REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING
Remote participation in the meeting will be available by call-in (telephone) or online via Zoom Webinar
which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office. Instructions are also available at
www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”.
Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not
via the website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
CALL-IN (TELEPHONE):877-853-5257 (toll-free) Webinar ID: 982 1690 2040
ONLINE (ZOOM WEBINAR): https://zoom.us/j/98216902040 Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION 98-22 ESTES FORWARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE
LAND USE MAP. Director Garner.
To consider the approval of the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan to provide a
practical and long-term guide for addressing issues related to the future development
of the Estes Valley.
ADJOURN.
Prepared 11-23-2022
*Revised
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on ACTION #1
RESOLUTION 98-22 ESTES FORWARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment,
and written comments received on the item.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2. STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
item. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
4. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the item which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Board consider a motion.
7. SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
*NOTE: Ordinances are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required
to do so by State Statute.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Wendy Koenig
Town Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director
Date: December 6, 2022
Re: Resolution 98-22: Approving the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan
Town of Estes Park, Applicant, Logan Simpson, Consultant
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
The applicant requests the Town Board review the draft Comprehensive Plan (“The
Plan”), and open and close a public hearing to consider and adopt Resolution 98-22 to
approve the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan.
Present Situation:
Colorado municipalities and counties are authorized to prepare Comprehensive Plans
as a long-range guiding document to achieve their vision and goals. The Plan provides
the policy framework for regulatory tools like zoning, subdivisions, and other policies.
The Estes Forward Plan promotes the community’s vision, guiding principles, goals,
policies and action items, and seeks to provide balance between the built and natural
environment.
The Town’s (and County’s) existing Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1996. In
2020, the Town applied for grant funds from the Department of Local Affairs’ (DOLA)
Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Funds (EIAF) to support the process of
developing the Plan and was awarded $150,000 to match the Town’s investment in late
2020.
The Town initiated the process to update the Plan in early 2021, which included hiring
the firm Logan Simpson to help facilitate the process, creating a Town Board-appointed
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CompPAC), and working on engagement
strategies to bring the community into the planning process. The fourteen CompPAC
members convened for the first public meeting in May, 2021, and met several dozen
times throughout the next year, with the last formal CompPAC meeting in September,
2022. Larimer County also convened the Estes Valley Planning Advisory Committee
(EVPAC) to act in a similar capacity as the CompPAC.
Development of the Estes Forward Plan included preparation of an Existing Conditions
Report to establish a baseline of conditions, including the current demographics and
population counts, the current and future land use mix in Town and in the Valley, the
economy, health indicators, housing, natural resources, and infrastructure. The full
report is included in the appendices of the Plan.
The Plan also included the preparation of a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and
corresponding land use categories to identify potential changes that address the
opportunities and challenges facing the community over the next twenty years.
Additionally, the Plan update included a series of goals, policies and action steps that
comprise the bulk of the Plan document and will be used to guide the community and
policymakers toward the shared vision and guiding principles. The Estes Forward Plan
is supported with a variety of maps and diagrams, most notably the Future Land Use
Map in Chapter 3.
Proposal:
Comprehensive Plan Content
The Plan contains the following chapters:
1) The Introduction & Plan Development chapter provides information about the
Comprehensive Plan, including background, how it’s applied, the resiliency focus
and themes used, the vision and guiding principles, and community engagement
throughout the process. Neither the resiliency themes, nor the guiding principles
are organized in terms of priority.
2) The Policy Framework chapter provides each resiliency theme with a series of
goals, policies and actions to provide guidance to the Town, County, and Both
(Town and County) on how to direct change, manage growth and resources over
the twenty-year life of the Plan. Chapter 2 defines and explains how to interpret
each set of goals, policies and actions, and delineates the responsibilities by
jurisdiction.
3) The Future Land Use chapter provides information about the Town and
County’s proposed land use categories, including how they were developed,
where they are located within each jurisdiction and how they address character,
built form, and appropriate land uses and development types. The categories
consolidated many of the former land uses into a framework that’s easier to
interpret. The categories, land use map, and the policies in Chapter Two are
designed to protect and enhance the character of the Town and County, and
prevent costly infrastructure and long-term maintenance associated with sprawl.
4) The Implementation chapter guides elected and appointed officials, Town and
County staff, and the public in developing programs and actions that implement
the adopted Estes Forward Plan’s goals and policies. Each implementation
action is a procedure, program, or technique that requires action, either alone or
in collaboration with other agencies, organizations, or partners. Completion of the
implementation measures will be subject to funding availability and staff
resources, and will be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure they are being
addressed.
Advantages:
The 1996 Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley is obsolete, and does not reflect
current demographic or contextual data, an appropriate mix of land uses, nor advise
sufficiently on the current context of climate change, health and social considerations,
and many other areas of community interest. The new Plan, which is partially funded
with grant dollars from DOLA and is the product of eighteen months of work with the
community, is a compendium of updated and relevant information to move Estes Park
through the next twenty years with greater accuracy and feedback from residents,
property owners, key stakeholders and partner agencies about wants, needs and
concerns.
Disadvantages:
Should the Board choose to deny the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, the Town
will need to refund the grant funds to DOLA, and explain to the public that the Plan will
not be adopted. Since the current Comprehensive Plan is twenty-six years old, the
Town will again need to generate the funds (approximately $300,000) to generate a new
Plan and restart the process. The outdated Plan currently being used does not address
the community’s present needs, but can continue to be used if the new Plan is denied.
Action Recommended:
The Planning Commission approved the Plan and adopted Planning Commission
Resolution No. 01-22 on November 15, 2022, with a few non-substantive changes to
the Plan. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 98-22 for the Estes Forward Plan.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan was budgeted to cost roughly $300,000 to
complete, and of those funds, $150,000 came from the EIAF funds from DOLA as a
grant. Those funds have been spent in 2021 and 2022 producing the Plan and paying
the consultants for the work. Moving forward, the Plan is utilized on a daily basis by both
staff and the public, and will be key to guiding the upcoming Development Code update
in 2023.
Level of Public Interest:
Throughout the process of updating the Plan, engagement with the community has
been a critical factor. The Town initiated the process by establishing the online hub,
EngageEstes.org, as a resource for the community to find information and updates, as
well as watch any of the CompPAC or additional public meetings focused on the Plan.
Due to the ongoing pandemic, the meetings were initially conducted virtually, and
gradually expanded into in-person meetings if safe. The team worked to ensure
meetings were accessible to the Latinx population, and also provided free food and
childcare in addition to translation and interpretation options in a variety of locations
throughout Town.
Staff and the consultant team devised a series of events that helped to inform the
subsequent stages of the Plan, including the following:
•Listening sessions during the initial audit of the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan
•Surveys, online questionnaires and virtual workshops to better understand the
needs and concerns from the community
•Development of a “Meeting in a Box” kit for the community to bring back to
smaller groups, facilitate dialogue and submit feedback
•Small group meetings
•Public workshops
•Interactive mapping activities
•Community conversations to dialogue about controversial issues
•Quarterly updates to the Board of Trustees
•Joint study sessions with the Planning Commission and Town Board
•Updates via social media, Town newsletter, newspaper, and EngageEstes.org
When the draft Plan was completed, staff shared the Plan widely and worked with the
CompPAC and EVPAC to collect comments. This process continued with each
successive draft, and staff convened the CompPAC for a final joint study session in
October before the final draft of the Plan was released in early November.
Comments received from the community were carefully vetted throughout the planning
process, and all public comments submitted during the draft Plan review are included as
an attachment to the staff report.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution 98-22.
Attachments:
1)Resolution 98-22
2)Adoption Draft Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Link
3)Future Land Use Map Link (Allow 30 seconds for rendering or see image)
4)Estes Forward Appendices Link
5)Draft Plan Public Comments
RESOLUTION 98-22
APPROVING THE ESTES FORWARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the
“Town”) has considered the approval of a comprehensive land use plan for the Town of
Estes Park pursuant to C.R.S. 31-23-208; and
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning
Commission held at least one public hearing thereon, notice of the time and place of
which was given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
municipality and in the official newspaper of the county affected; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted the Plan by the affirmative votes
of not less than two-thirds of the entire membership of the Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AS FOLLOWS:
1.The Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan dated December 2022 and the Future
Land Use Map dated October 25, 2022 are hereby adopted and approved as the
Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Estes Park.
2.The Plan as adopted shall include all portions of the Estes Forward
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map including all maps and
descriptive matter therein, including without limitation the following:
a.Introduction and Plan direction
b.Policy framework
c.Future land use
d. Implementation
e.Appendix A: Glossary of terms
f.Appendix B: Existing conditions report
g.Public Engagement Summaries
3.The action taken by the Planning Commission shall be recorded on the maps
and Plan and descriptive matter by the signature of the Chair or Secretary of the
Commission.
4.An attested copy of the Plan shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorder of
Larimer County, Colorado.
5.The adoption of the Plan creates no agreement between the Town and any other
party, and the Town adopts the Plan only with respect to the Town itself. Larimer
County may adopt the Plan separately as well, on its own behalf. The Town
reserves the right to unilaterally amend the Plan it has adopted, as relates to its
own jurisdiction, consistent with all applicable law.
DATED this day of , 2022.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 3
Date Name Comment Address and How
10/21/2022 Kent Smith
We just finished re‐reading the comp plan draft and noticed that one
thing that is not mentioned in any sector is solid waste.
We think it is critical to include: innovative and comprehensive regimen
for solid wasted diversion.
There are a number of places where this issue could be inserted and is
most critical for the preservation of our ecology and our economic
sustainability. We mentioned this in the meeting but are not seeing it
in the draft. Without a plan we are at the mercy of our visitors.
We have discussed this with Travis as well as it being the frequent
subject of Judi's columns.
Add Goal I3: Establish an innovative and comprehensive solid waste,
recycling, and composting management system.
1. The Town and County support solid waste diversion, reduction, and
reuse programs and policies.
2. The Town and County inform and educate the public and visitors
about waste management programs and practices throughout the
Estes Valley.
10/22/2022 Frank Theis
On pages 19‐22, under recommended actions by both the Town & County, I think
continuing to work with the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition should be included for the
Wildlife Plan Update, Wildfire Mitigation on private lands, and Flood Mitigation &
resiliency. On a related note, I think the Watershed Master Plans, which were developed
immediately after the 2013 flood by the Town & EVWC for Fish Creek and Fall River, and a
couple of years later for the Big Thompson by EVWC, should be mentioned as guiding
documents which have been adopted by the Town & County (and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board which paid for most of the work).
Added Estes Valley Watershed Coalition to NE 2.E, NE 3.B, NE 3.C, NE
4.A, NE 4. F, NE 4.G, NE 5.A, and NE 5.D
Fish Creek, Fall River and Upper Big Thompson Plans were added and
linked on page 2.
10/19/2022 Barbara MacAlpine
While reviewing the Comp Plan draft for the nth time, I had a few questions that you
might address. They are more about form than substance. I wanted to get your opinion
before making a suggested change on the online version.
At the beginning of the document, members of various boards, commissions, and
committees are listed, including those who are former members. Shouldn't Janene be
designated as a former member of the EP Planning Commission? Same question about
the EVPAC: Olivia Harper is no longer listed as a board member on its website; I believe
her term was slightly extended through the summer but has now ended. It would seem
consistent to add "former member" after her name.
Here's another name question: Rosemary Truman is a member of CompPAC. She is listed
as Rose Truman. Is that her preferred name? I've only spoken with her a few times
(unfortunately) and don't really know what she likes to be called, but it would be a shame
to get it wrong.
Finally, there is an occasional reference to the Town of Estes Planning Department, which I
always find confusing. Isn't Planning considered a division within your department? Am I
being picky? I'm wondering if there might be a better way to reference that unit.
Added (Former Commissioner) after Janene Centurione's name
Added (Former Member) after Olivia Harper's name and added Scott
Stewart (new member according to EVPAC website)
Changed to Rosemary (not Rose)
ATTACHMENT 5
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
Overall health care in general – hospital has not really been addressed. Should there be
more expectations about the hospital and how health care fits in long term? Identifying
available land – should it be redevelopment? Map regarding future study areas. Those
areas go out of the town limits and go into the county – down 34 and other areas. Those
would be zoning issues going forward. Talk about the annexation policy that wasn’t very
clear. Not very well covered. Statements about encouraging reducing short‐term rentals.
Not sure if that’s part of this plan. IGA and what it did and didn’t do – unified goals and
standards for the county. Agrees that’s important. In some ways the plan has addressed
the situation. Otherwise, the plan is right on. He would be in a position to make a
recommendation to accept it.Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ DC – This is a tremendous improvement. There’s still a lot of jargon – words not in
dictionary or defined. E.g., “Placemaking” is not in the dictionary. Would be good to clean
it out – wouldn’t be that hard. If it isn’t in the dictionary, it shows up in word processing
check. Also, Plan only as good as actions, and priorities. Most organizations can’t handle 3‐
4 at a time. What are the priorities. If asking staff which ones. Not reasonable that all
those things get done. Anything that’s going to address the future – will be in the town.
Town is responsible for most. Very little that the county is expecting to change over time.
Is that realistic? Worrisome that the engine is on the town side. Why not allowing ADUs
in the county? Could that help the workforce? What is going to happen next 10‐20 years
for county. Is status quo unrealistic? Not necessarily unhappy with it but thinks It punted
on some things. Pleased with diversity and breadth of discussions. Concern that Action
Items aren’t associated.
Added "Placemaking" to Glossary of Terms
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ MK – Hasn’t had a chance to review so wouldn’t be ready to recommend and will
send comments separately.Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ LM – Annexation – hope for involvement of HOAs, etc. before trying to annex. Not
ready to discuss new IGA prior to this comp plan. That’s coming. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ FT – County is not as likely to have changes. Likes the idea that Hwy 7 shows up as a
study area. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ A lot of priorities, but by the 23 rd. Recommend to county planning commission push
to prioritize the plan. Wish for a timetable. Can’t solve it. Recommend a prioritization list
and responsibilities. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting ‐ FT ‐ Ought to have a formal voice and recommend the plan. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting ‐ DW – Agree with the concept. Not a lot more that’s going to happen. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting ‐ MK – Should and can make a recommendation. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting ‐ Get Rex’s input. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
I was surprised by the tabulation that 67% of the respondents did not support the draft
plan, with only 22% fully in favor without qualification. This may not portend positively for
a new IGA, which I believe is necessary. Is there any way to know what percent of those
taking the survey participated in this question?
Not sure where Mike got those numbers. We didn't ask for overall
support of the plan. We didn't have a survey or specific questions
that we asked during this phase
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Housing was by far the most commented on area. Limitation or reduction of STRs,
affordable housing (including year around workforce housing and suggestions that the
seasonal workforce be housed in dormitories), ecologically and environmentally sound
building principals seem to be the most popular subjects. I was also surprised at the
number of negative comments regarding additional growth (seems we have (not
surprisingly) a major disagreement between commercial and residential interests). I tend
to fall into the limited growth camp. I was, as you would guess, encouraged about
comments regarding preservation in the North End. I was also surprised to learn during
Thursday’s EVPAC meeting that the concept of historic venues had been turned down
about 10years ago. I think and would have thought this issue would have strong support.
I’m going to try to get more information to see what was involved. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Natural environment:Devils Gulch Road is a Gateway with a large number of people
coming up from Loveland and then detouring up CR 42 at the Forks. Commercial
development along Devils Gulch Road has, to date, been confined to the Town and has
been tastefully done. Let’s keep it that way. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
I like most of the provisions of this section but think many of the Goals envision the Town
expanding further into the County. I don’t object to this as long as the annexed areas
really fit the Town’s loftier goals and the expansion and development is in harmony with
the overall tenor of the general plan and compatible with the character of the area
surrounding the annexed portion.
Noted. The IGA for annexation will be an agreement between the
Town and County.
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Housing: I’m most interested in what we come up with regarding STRs. Residents are
generally opposed to STRs in Residentially zoned areas and would like to see them
reduced or eliminated. I agree with the concept of encouraging lower cost residential
housing and workforce housing and believe we should distinguish between year around
and seasonal workforces. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy Health and Social: I don’t see anything to object to or modify Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Transportation and Infrastructure: I would support some sort of Valley wide public
transportation that reduces County residents’ reliance on individual cars. It doesn’t have
to be more than a couple of connections each in the morning, afternoon, and evening, but
it has to be reliable and could utilize small park and ride lots. I especially like the section
on water. An effort to move all utility lines underground would not only enhance the
viewsheds but has the important benefit of removing what could be a cause of wildfires. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Future Land Use: I think the categories are generally ok, but as with most high‐level plans,
the devil is in the details, which I suspect EVPAC will spend much of the next few years
ironing out. We will need to establish our priorities, responsibilities and timetables as
discussed in Thursday’s meeting, although the Plan provides some amendable guidance. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Other Notes: I was sorry the screen names in the public comments were omitted. I would
have enjoyed knowing who thought what. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
While it isn’t our purview, I would like to see the Building Department encourage new
developments to use gravel or other low reflectivity surfaces in new parking lots rather
than asphalt or concrete. Noted but out of the scope of the Comprehensive Plan
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
I think this is a good plan in that it replaces the outdated plan with more specific goals and
recommendations. I still see the “them” and “us” approach and feel that a new IGA is
going to be difficult, but desirable. None the less, you, Jody and all the others who have
spent an inordinate amount of time to get us this far are to be commended for a job well
done.Noted
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 12/3/2022
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Stephanie Ahrndt-Pawson
Stance on Item: Neutral
Agenda Item Title: Comprehensive Plan To be Heard Dec. 6, 2022.
Public Comment:
To Whom it May Concern: Newer full time resident received a letter dated 11/28 on 12/2 for a meeting to
occur on 12/15/22 to propose rezone of 685 Peak View an E1 7.62 acre parcel to R-1. I do not know of
plan yet because this meeting proceeds Comprehensive Plan meeting set for 12/6 however I am aware
multiple residents voiced concern October to November of exactly this, a drastic change of 1 home per
acre to what could be 8 homes per acre is a big change. Sending this as a concern in the timing of this
along with applicants influence in the comprehensive plan and for profit development incorporation. Thank
You
File Upload
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.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
To: Trustees, Town of Estes Park
Re: Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Adoption Draft December, 2022
Public Comment: Town Trustees Should Eliminate Action Item H 1.F
The Town of Estes Park is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan for the first time in
25 years. The Estes Park Comprehensive Plan establishes land use, community design, growth
management, mobility and circulation, housing, scenic and environmental quality, economic and
intergovernmental coordination policies for the Town.
Within the Adoption Draft of the “Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan” is proposed action H 1.F
which would continue limit to short-term rental of residential units, within the limits of the
County’s Authority, and consider reducing the number of short-term rentals to encourage more
long-term rental units for housing.
For decades, homeowners in the Estes Valley have been required to obtain a license and pass stringent
life safety inspections to legally rent their home to guests as a STR. The Town capped the maximum
number of permissible STRs in residential zones in 2016. That number was fixed at 322 licenses —
perhaps approximately 5% of the total number of residential units in the Town of Estes Park.
The Town has understandably expressed concerns that the use of private homes has impacted
the availability of workforce housing. However, that concern ended more than six years ago with
the implementation of the cap number of permissible STRs in residential zones.
There is also some belief that elimination of STRs in residential zones will increase availability of long-
term rentals, however, this ignores the fact that the vast majority of STR owners utilize their homes for
personal use and enjoyment precluding the home’s use as a long-term rental. Item H 1.F is a punitive
attack on a traditional, legal and economically productive land use activity in the Estes Valley.
Short-term rentals (STRs) have been a part of the Estes Valley since the 1860s. STRs provide
vacationers with the experiences that eventually bring many of them back year-after-year, and
some to eventually move and/or retire here to make the Estes Valley a diverse place to live. By
and large, STRs have operated peacefully and harmoniously in residential zones of the Town.
Based on tax source reporting from Visit Estes Park, visitors of Short-term rentals in residential
zones of the Town of Estes Park contribute more than $5M annually more than half of which is
Town sales tax. STRs in residential zones are also on track to contribute an additional $1.4M/year to
the Town’s Workforce Housing and Childcare programs with the recent passage of Ballot Issue 6E.
Should the Comprehensive Plan be adopted as drafted and the number of legally operating STRs in
residential zones in the Town be decreased, the economic ramifications would negatively impact everyone
in the Estes Valley. The Town should therefore eliminate Action Item H 1.F from the Comprehensive Plan.
- Rich Chiappe
Director, Estes Valley Short-Term Rental Alliance
Director, Visit Estes Park
Owner, Windcliff Vacation Rentals
Broker, HomeSmart Realty Group
Estes Valley STR Owner since 2011
Full-Time Estes Valley Resident since 2017
DECEMBER 1, 2022
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 12/6/2022