HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2016-07-26The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Town Board Minutes dated July 12, 2016 and Town Board Study Session July 12,
2016.
2. Bills.
3.Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated June 15, 2016 (acknowledgement
only).
4.Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated June 17, 2016 (acknowledgement only).
5.Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated June 21, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (outside entities):
1.ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1.ACTION ITEMS:
A. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016-01 - LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS. Planner
Gonzales.
Prepared 7/17/16
* Revised:
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
B. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY & SALUD CLINIC. Planner McCool.
Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, The Neighborhood Subdivision, 995 Dry Gulch Road & 1950
Red Tail Hawk Drive.
1.SUBDIVISION - Combine a portion of Lot 1 to Lot 2 (proposed Lot 2A), then
subdivide the remainder of Lot 1 into two residential lots (proposed Lots 1A &
1B)
2.ORDINANCE #18 - 16 - REZONING - Rezone proposed Lots 1A & 1B from O-
Office to R-1-Residential per the proposed Development Plan.
3.FEE WAIVER REQUEST - Request waiver of development application fees
only (not building permit fees).
C. ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER. Planner McCool.
Metes and Bounds, 650 Community Drive.
1.MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT – Dividing the Park R-3 Campus into 2 lots.
2.FEE WAIVER REQUEST – Request waiver of development application fees.
4.ACTION ITEMS:
1.ORDINANCE #19-16 ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE 2016 – 2019. Director Bergsten.
2.ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT OCCUPANCY LIMIT FOR VACATION HOMES IN
TOWN LIMITS. Trustee Walker.
5.ADJOURN.
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 12, 2016
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 July 2016.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody 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.
MONTEVERDE, COSTA RICA SISTER CITIES PRESENTATION.
Mayor Jirsa welcomed the delegation from Monteverde, including Milena Ramirez,
Maria Elena Corrales, Yadira Trejos Sequra, Heidy Perez Bravo, Raul Fernandez
Rojas, and Fabiana Cruz Ruts. The Town first entered into a formal Sister Cities
agreement between the two communities in February 2004, and since then, Estes Park
has benefited from a constant exchange of ideas with Monteverde’s citizens and
government. Members of both communities have traveled to share cultural, economic,
educational and environmental experiences over the past 12 years. Estes Park and
Monteverde formally renewed the Sister Cities relationship. Mayor Jirsa and Mayor Pro
Tem Koenig presented their honored guests with a handmade key to the Town.
HIGH SCHOOL PRESENTATION – SISTER CITIES SCIENCE EXCHANGE.
The students involved in the Sister Cities Science Exchange provided a presentation on
their visit to Monteverde, including visits to Reserves, setting of trapping cameras, bird
watching, water quality testing, tree planting, and cultural exchange.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Tony Schetzle/Town citizen stated concern with the pre-decisional bias on the topic of
the Loop project evident during the study session and the manner in which the
presenters were interrogated. The Environmental Assessment presented at the study
session is not a decisional document, rather a document to ensure the project would not
cause unmitigatable environmental damage. The Town would benefit from the approval
of the EA not only for the No Action or Alternative 1 (one-way couplet), but for a subset
of other projects that could be completed and be complimentary to flood mitigation and
parking issues. No further studies would be required for these future projects and no
additional costs for NEPA studies in the future.
Arthur Messal/Town citizen commented on a number of items, including the need for
more public input on the development of the Fish Hatchery property; the study session
discussion on the Loop was good, but the project purpose no longer exist because the
Park is full; there is a need for a master plan to address parking and traffic issues; and
objected to the Habitat project.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
3
Board of Trustees – July 12, 2016 – Page 2
Trustee Norris commented the Estes Valley Planning Commission would hold its
regularly scheduled meeting on July 19th. He stated the initial chip sealing program
appears to be going well. He requested public feedback on the program.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee
has been cancelled for July.
Trustee Holcomb reminded the citizens the Transportation Advisory Committee would
meet on July 20th to continue discussions on how to improve transportation in Estes
Park.
Trustee Walker congratulated Western Heritage for a successful rodeo.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
The Policy Governance report was not included in the Town Board packet and would
therefore be continued to the August 9th meeting.
1.CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Town Board Minutes dated June 28, 2016 and Town Board Study Session
June 28, 2016.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes
a. None
4.Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated June 7, 2016
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink) to approve the Consent
Agenda Items, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1.BROOK COURT STREET IMPROVEMENTS & MORAINE AVENUE DITCH
PROJECT CONTRACT. Engineer Ash presented a contract to complete the
2013 flood recovery projects located at Brook Court and Moraine Avenue. A
contract was issued to Osmun Inc. to complete the work in September 2014.
The contract was terminated a year later for non-compliance with contract
documents. Public Works issued a Request for Bid to complete the
construction of the drainage infrastructure, concrete curb and gutter, and
asphalt paving on Brook Court and complete drainage infrastructure for the
Moraine Avenue ditch. Two bids were received from Mountain Constructors,
Inc. for $207,478 and Walsh Construction Inc. for $311,128. Staff
recommended contracting with Mountain Constructors, Inc. with RG Associates
providing construction management services for the two projects. Staff
requested a total project budget of $230,000 to address unknown construction
conditions that may arise, a 10.8% contingency. As the project was not
completed by Osmun in the timeframe necessary for grant funding support, the
Town would be responsible for the matching funds payable from the General
fund. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Holcomb) to approve the
construction contract for the Brook Court Street Improvements and the
Moraine Avenue Ditch Project, to Mountain Constructors Inc., for a
contract cost not to exceed $207,478 and provide Public Works with the
spending Authority up to $230,000, and it passed unanimously.
2.RESOLUTION #17-16 SETTING DIRECTION FOR SENIOR SERVICES &
THE ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER. Town Administrator Lancaster
stated the Community Center is an Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
project that the Town would help fund through the 1A sales tax. The project
4
Board of Trustees – July 12, 2016 – Page 3
has experienced significant cost increases requiring the District to cut back on
the building size and programming presented during the election, which has
impacted the Senior Center. Via mobility is not impacted in anyway as the
service is budgeted separately. The District has requested the Town provide a
commitment on the availability of the 1A funds for the construction of the facility
in order to understand the services the center would provide. This in turn would
provide direction on the design for the building and allow them to move forward
with contracting the building for construction. The 1A ballot language requires
the District to pull a building permit by January 2017 in order to receive the
sales tax funds. Construction costs continue to increase and may increase
dramatically after the November election if any portion of the $1 billion in school
construction passes this fall. The original design had a commercial kitchen
which has been removed and has been included as an add-alt for the
construction bid. The Town did not receive a viable bid for the continued meal
service in 2017, therefore, the Town continues to review alternative options to
provide senior meal service and the Meals on Wheels program. The Town
continues to address a budget deficit and review the core services provided by
the municipality. The Town and the District are working together to try and
optimize the services provided to the citizens of the community within the
financial constraints of the District. After the review of over 30 options, the two
entities came to the conclusion that a merging of the senior services with the
District’s programming would provide numerous benefits, including
programming and staffing to create a multi-generational facility. The Resolution
would provide the Town and the District guidelines for the development of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing the District with the 1A funds
and outlining how senior service programming would integrate into the multi-
generational Community Center.
Those speaking against the proposed Resolution included Jay Morgan/County
citizen, Jan Verschuur/Town citizen, Maureen Marsh/Town citizen, Larry
Emsing/Town citizen, Phil Zwart/Town citizen, Susan Robertson/Town citizen,
Judy Fontius/Town citizen, Vicki Papineau/Town citizen, Donald Holmes/Town
citizen, Barbara Fisher/Town citizen, H.J. Skiphyde/County citizen, JoAnne
Wilson/Town citizen, Sonja McTeague/County citizen and Mary Born/Town
citizen. Senior Centers help to keep people engaged in the community as they
go through the aging process; Recreational Districts have a different culture
focused on youth activities and programming, whereas Senior Centers focus on
social services in addition to activities; stated concern with the lack of meals
and the reduction of the Senior Center within the Community Center; voters
voted for an increase size of the Senior Center to improve programming; the
current Senior Center should remain in operations; the food service needs to
remain and improve; a space for a kitchen should be included in the District’s
plans even if it is not built-out immediately; the current Senior Services works
well and should remain in the current building; the notice sent to voters stated
the Community Center would provide enhanced senior services and is what
voters voted for; the current design would be a reduction in services; the home
cooked meals are important to the seniors and a kitchen is needed to provide
these meals; a catered meal would not be the same; a number of seniors rely
on the meals and the comradery they get at the center; moved to Estes Park
because of the Senior Center and the knowledge the Town cared about the
senior population; the Meals on Wheels program is important to the community
and must be maintained; and the senior population provides a lot of volunteer
hours and gives back to the community, and therefore, they are paying back
and giving back to the community.
Those speaking in favor of the Resolution included Michelle Hiland/Town
citizen and Art Messal/Town citizen. Moving senior services under the purview
of the District makes sense and would support the multi-generational facility
versus a standalone Senior Center. The new Community Center would be able
to provide services and space for the growing senior population. A standalone
Senior Center would not be necessary as the District can provide the
5
Board of Trustees – July 12, 2016 – Page 4
programming and would integrate the community. The proposed Resolution
provides a great solution to a difficult problem.
Board comments were heard and have been summarized: Trustee Norris
stated the Town and District have been reviewing a solution to the situation to
benefit the community. He would need to understand what programs would be
retained and cut in order to support a future MOU. He stated the Senior
Services kitchen was to be used as an emergency shelter in the Estes Valley
during disasters. Trustee Holcomb stated concern the District has an emphasis
on the recreational aspect, concern with the cost sharing, loss of space, loss of
meals, and the current staff may be replaced with recreational staff. He stated
the Meals on Wheels program must be retained. He requested an assurance
that services would be retained. Trustee Nelson commented the project is the
District’s and the comments should be heard by their Board. He stated the
project has broken promises for not only the seniors but for those supporting
other spaces such as daycare. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned if the
Seniors could stay in the current building or move the kitchen equipment to the
new Community Center to reduce the cost of a new kitchen. The Resolution
allows the Town to continue working with the District on options for senior
services. Trustee Martchink commented a multi-generational center excites
him but not at the expense of reducing services. The Community Center would
provide additional multipurpose space for senior activities and benefit the entire
community. Trustee Walker would support the Resolution because the District
would be better at addressing the senior services. Mayor Jirsa stated the Town
needs to be a community that does not leave any one segment of the
community behind, including the seniors, kids or workforce, and therefore,
would support moving forward with the development of the MOU.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Martchink) to
approve Resolution #17-16 approving the negotiation of an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District for the Estes Valley Community Center, with the amendment to
the Resolution to include the integration of enhanced services to the
fourth Whereas, and it passed unanimously.
3.NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL TOURISM AUTHORITY
APPOINTMENTS. Mayor Jirsa recommended to the Board his appointment to
the Authority as the elected official and Mike Abbiatti as the community at large
representative. It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to approve
Mayor Todd Jirsa as the elected official and Mike Abbiatti as the member
at larger to the Northern Colorado Regional Tourism Authority, and it
passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado July 12, 2016
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of July, 2016.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending:All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Director Muhonen and
Town Clerk Williamson
Absent:None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
FISH HATCHERY PROPERTY DISCUSSION.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated the Town owns 70 acres at the Fish Hatchery
property, including the Hydroplant Museum, Vickie O’Connor picnic area, employee
housing, Town storage, and undeveloped land. The Board provided staff direction in
April 2015 to consider the potential use of the entire property and not limit the options to
the current developed areas. Since that time the Town has received a number of
unsolicited ideas for development of the property. The staff requests Board approval to
move forward with issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of
workforce housing on the Town owned Fish Hatchery property. The process could
include parameters to insure proposals meet the goals and objectives of the Town
Board and make a meaningful impact in the supply of workforce housing in the Estes
Valley.
Trustee discussion has been summarized: Trustee Walker stated the project should
allow employers such as the Town, School District and Hospital to offer housing as a
benefit to its employees. The Town should not manage the housing development. He
would recommend guidelines that would include 53 standalone units, 300 townhomes,
100 2-bedroom condominium units, 150 studio apartments, communal space with child
care and designed in a manner to allow the shuttle system to service the development
in three stops. The guidelines would provide developers an idea of what the Town
would be looking for in a proposal. Staff stated the RFP should be general enough to
allow for creativity.
Trustees Nelson and Norris suggested the RFP should contain some direction but leave
it open in an effort not to constrain creativity. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated deed
restrictions in other communities have not proven to be effective and should be
reviewed before implementation. She also stated concern with locating workforce
housing on the property due to its distance from downtown and the possible need for
shuttle services year-round to provide transportation to town. Trustee Norris suggested
the RFP responses could include the Development Code changes needed for the
proposed development. Mayor Jirsa commented the RFP should contain enough detail
for the respondents to provide a meaningful response.
UPDATE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NEPA PROCESS - LOOP.
Director Muhonen stated the Downtown Loop project would address the traffic
congestion in downtown Estes Park through the use of federal funds earmarked to help
improve access to the country’s National Parks. The Federal Lands Access Program
7
Town Board Study Session – July 12, 2016 – Page 2
(FLAP) grant required an Environmental Assessment (EA) be completed for the project.
The EA found no significant impact with the implementation of Alternative 1 (one-way
couplet) as defined by the federal regulations. The final action of the EA process
requires the partner agencies to demonstrate written concurrence with the EA findings
in order to allow the one-way couplet to move forward and provide the clearances to
widen the river channel downstream and improve the Riverside and Rockwell Street
bridges in the future. The approval of the EA does not necessary require construction
of the project.
James Herlyck/Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) and Cory
Lang/Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) presented the EA for the
Downtown Estes Loop project required under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The proposed project history was reviewed, including the award of $13 million
in Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds in September 2013 and $4.2 million in
CDOT RAMP funds to the Town for the devolution of West Elkhorn Avenue to
Wonderview Avenue in October 2013. The funding for Phase I would
construct/implement the Loop, one-way couplet, from Riverside to Moraine, improve
intersections, and reconstruct the Ivy Street bridge. Future phases would include
reconstruction of the Rockwell and Riverside bridges, relocate public restrooms and
improve channel/floodplain along the roadway. These future phases are not yet funded.
The EA process developed a range of alternatives through a public process, developed
screening criteria, conducted a primary screening and conducted a comprehensive
secondary screening. The final screening resulted in either no action or the
implementation of Alternative 1, the one-way couplet. Alternative 1 provides improved
intersection ratings from the current F rating during a peak Saturday in the summer to a
B and C rating in 2018 and D and E rating in 2040; improved multi-modal traffic with
improved sidewalks and bike lanes; floodplain improvements, opportunities for gateway
signage into downtown and Rocky Mountain National Park; and landscape
enhancements. The EA determined the environmental resource impacts of Alternative
1 would include the displacement of 13 parking spaces, 7 full property acquisitions, and
5 partial acquisitions. The EA reviewed the impact on economics, noise, impact to
Town owned parks, visual, and the floodplain. The EA would be open for public
comment from July 5 – Aug 5 with staff to hold meetings with the community during this
period to gather further comment and provide further information on the project. CFLHD
will review comments received and develop responses in coordination with the project
team and issue a final decision of no significant impact on the project.
Trustee Walker stated the independent utility seems high, the project would be
premature if the floodplain issues upstream are not addressed first to protect the project
assets; the Park is already full and there is no need to improve access to the Park; the
EA states the project would improve commercial development along Riverside and
Moraine which is not the intent of the project; stated the data used in the EA is not
current data, i.e. implementation of the Barnes Dance and improved signage directing
additional traffic to the Fall River entrance; and the EA does not adequately address the
impact the project would have on the 7 displaced businesses.
Mayor Jirsa concurred with Trustee Walker’s comments and stated the project would
only improve traffic flow from Riverside to Crags intersection, improving a small portion
of the roadway; visitor complaints are related to the lack of parking and not traffic;
questioned if the EA completed air quality testing; commented the air quality would not
improve in the valley because the stack of cars would move from downtown to the
entrance of the Park; and there are several studies that refute the statement that one-
way streets decrease pedestrian conflicts with traffic. He stated the project comes
down to priorities and he commented the Town priorities should be addressing flood
mitigation and parking before the Town addresses traffic.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned why the parking structure downtown was turned
down as a viable alternative. The structure would have allowed visitors to park at the
garage and utilize buses to access the park, thereby reducing congestion and air
8
Town Board Study Session – July 12, 2016 – Page 3
pollution. She questioned if there was a master plan for road improvements to access
the Park. Mr. Lang stated the project goal was to improve access to the National Park
and the parking structure did not meet the goal. He stated a master plan does not exist.
Trustee Nelson commented the Town needs to address the issue within its jurisdiction
and manage the congestion within the Town boundaries. The Town should focus on
what the project can do for its citizens. He questioned the traffic flow impacts the
project would have on West Elkhorn. Mr. Lang stated the traffic flows would remain at
the same levels. The project would have no impact.
Trustee Norris stated concern with the project cost estimates because of the rising cost
of construction at nearly 10% a year over the last few years. He requested the project
team address the cost of inflation and how the project may change in light of the
increased costs; would all components of Phase I be compatible with future phases for
bridge replacement, parking structure, etc.; public safety response time would improve
with the improvements; the EA outlines a reduction in the number of conflicts; the
modeling has outlined a three to four time increase in congestion downtown with the No
Action alternative; he questioned the confidence level of the predictions; and he stated
concern with economic impact during and after the construction of the project and the
possibility of reversing the traffic flow if it is determined to have a detrimental impact to
the economy. He stated the Town should discuss issues raised on Park access with
the new Park Superintendent. Mr. Lang stated CDOT uses historic growth rates and
travel design models that would indicate a 90% confidence rating. The roadways could
technically be reversed.
Trustee Martchink commented the No Action alternative would increase the number of
congestion days from 11% today to 40% in 24 years; the widening of the sidewalks
downtown would improve economics and the bike lanes would improve safety; and the
intersection is rated F today and would still be rated F with the new configuration which
concerns him.
Trustee Holcomb commented the Board needs to improve the Town to the best of its
ability as the Town does not have control over what the Park and CDOT are doing. The
Town cannot solve all the issues but it can improve the items within its controls.
Attorney White stated the Loop project would not be subject to a citizen initiated
ordinance as outlined by previous Supreme Court findings. The Loop project would be
an administrative action and only legislative issues are subject to the initiative process.
Attorney White and Administrator Lancaster stated the Town does have the right to not
move forward with the project because the Town owns Riverside Drive. The funds
received from CDOT for the devolution of West Elkhorn must be used for transportation
related projects.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Walker requested an action item on the next Board agenda to discuss the code
enforcement of occupancy of 9 or more guests in vacation homes. The Board
consensus was to add the item to the July 26th meeting as an action item.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig requested the bills be placed in a separate document from the
Town Board packet.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Staff would add to the list of future agenda items the process used for setting Town
Board agendas.
The August 9th study session would include a discussion item on the funding
mechanism for Estes Valley Investment in early Childhood Success (EVICS).
9
Town Board Study Session – July 12, 2016 – Page 4
Trustee Holcomb requested staff provide information on RTD as an option to improve
transit in the valley. Administrator Lancaster would provide an executive summary for
the Board’s review.
Trustee Norris requested a discussion on the Hwy 34 closure and how it may impact
employers in the valley. Administrator Lancaster stated a meeting would be held on
July 14th with key members of the community to discuss the impact further and have a
presentation from VanGo on how they may help to address the issue of commuting from
the valley during the construction.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 15th, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Rooms 202 & 203 of Town Hall, in
said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of June, 2016.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Ann Finley
Gordon Slack
Ken Zornes
Tom Street
Stan Black
Belle Morris
Also Present: Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager
Absent: Gregg Rounds
Amy Hamrick
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was moved and seconded (Slack/Finley) to approve the May meeting minutes with
changes and the motion passed unanimously.
Finley extended appreciation to Bob Holcomb for his write-up about the Loop.
PROJECT UPDATES
Chair Campbell re-introduced CDOT’s Rich Christy, Keith Wakefield, and contractor,
Steve G. who came back to discuss the Hwy 7 design progress and present
new/additional ideas for discussion with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB).
There was much discussion regarding the lane sizes, school zones, bike/pedestrian
lanes, and the coordination required due to the upcoming Hwy 34 closure and the Estes
Park peak visitor season. Moving forward, CDOT and Public Works (PW) would begin
communicating on the plan’s progression. Public Works would bring new information
back to the TAB as part of their updates. CDOT’s Rich Christy would return to the TAB
when plans are finalized to present the end-result of their studies.
Regarding the Loop, the Environmental Assessment (referencing economic and
environmental impacts) was submitted and had been returned with a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). However, there must be a letter of support/approval by
partnering agencies. This will be taken to the Town Board to determine whether they or
the Town Administrator would write the letter of support. The EA was submitted
11
Transportation Advisory Board – June 15th, 2016 – Page 2
publicly at the June 29th public hearing. The Town Board chose not to take action that
would halt the project. Director Muhonen stated that it is a statutory requirement when
requesting federal funding that an additional public hearing would need to take place.
There was valid concern that the materials needed for the parking structure will not only
increase in price, but that the delivery of the material will be impacted by the US34
shutdown.
There had been no changes involving scope or schedule for the Fish Creek project. 44 of
the 48 property owner agreements have been signed and returned.
SEMA, the contractors hired for the Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation project, indicated that
the project was still on schedule and on budget. Phase one was still set to be complete
by the end of June. It was determined by the contractor that rather than lay the full 5” of
asphalt to phase one, they will lay 3” while phase two is underway. This would allow the
material trucks and other traffic to use the new portion of the road and if damage is
caused by the heavy equipment, there would still be a new surface at the end. Once
phase two is complete, they’ll lay the 5” of asphalt and will apply the additional 2” of
asphalt to the phase one surface. In the interim, this will result in puddling and the
potential view from the residents/public that the project wasn’t properly completed.
The 2016 Crack Seal project had been completed and the Notice of Final Payment
would be publicly posted. Any remaining roads would be rolled into next year’s budget.
TAB INITIATIVES
The Trustees met to finalize the 2017 TAB objectives. Chair Campbell distributed a draft
of the Paid Parking Implementation Strategy & Employee Parking Program after taking
into account other towns’ case studies. There were three possible vendors. Chair
Campbell stated vendors can provide examples of how paid parking programs are
handled in other municipalities. The idea was proposed to break the initiative into two
groups: Locals and Visitors. Board member Street would be sending out the study
reflecting that 40% of town traffic is due to drivers looking for available parking.
Prior to submitting the proposal/plan to the Town Board, the TAB would need to find an
objective to minimize the impact of paid parking on local residents.
12
Transportation Advisory Board – June 15th, 2016 – Page 3
A motion was made to present a paid parking plan inclusion of preference to local
residents. The motion was made (Black) and seconded (Slack). The TAB voted 5 to 2
against the motion.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:03 pm.
13
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 17, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Board Room, in said Town of
Estes Park on the 17th day of June, 2016.
Present: Merle Moore
Celine Lebeau
Carlie Bangs
Terry Rustin
Vicki Papineau
Ronna Boles (& Paige the baby)
Also Present: Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Cody Walker, Trustee Liaison
Lars Sage, Estes Arts District
Absent: Dewain Lockwood
Co-Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Boles/Moore) to approve the May meeting minutes with
minor corrections and the motion passed unanimously.
Arts District: Peter Gaustad, illustrator of last session’s Bigfoot drawing, came before
the PAB to personally ‘sell’ the idea of placing the Bigfoot on the restrooms located at
Elkhorn & Riverside Drive. Mr. Gaustad was resistant to bringing art that represents
animals that are ‘common’ or ‘typical’ to the area, stating that that type of art would not
spur conversation like a painting of Bigfoot. The PAB reiterated its objection; less
because of the idea, more due to the particular piece of art and it’s similarity to a gorilla.
Chair Lebeau encouraged Mr. Gaustad to bring a different rendition of the Bigfoot art
display at a future PAB meeting. He agreed. Parks Supervisor Berg provided a brief
14
Parks Advisory Board – June 17th, 2016 – Page 2
overview of the AIPP approval process so that it was understood what’s involved as he
moves forward.
Another presentation was made on behalf of the Arts District, summarizing the impact of
bronze mice being placed all around another municipality. It generated discussion and
appreciation for the arts. Town Administrator Frank Lancaster thought it would be a fun
idea to have bronze picas placed around town ‘Picas In The Park’. These were quoted
at $1,200/ea. However, that was a general idea and they won’t necessarily be created
by the quoting artist. Board member Rustin had a concern with the price difference and
mentioned that the price should be closer to $300/each. The bronze picas could be
privately sponsored, if they were deemed public property, or they could be sponsored
by businesses.
Parks Supervisor, Berg, made a point to relay his concern over the initial yarn-bombing
of the parks/public spaces due to staples being the method of attachment to the trees.
This is destructive to the trees and that method is not permitted. Although they were not
aware this method was used initially (preferred method is fishing line), this issue will be
addressed within the Arts District.
Asst. Town Administrator, Travis Machalek: Mr. Machalek brought to the PAB the
proposal for a pilot project for utility box art mural wraps. Using photos or drawings,
large wraps (graffiti-proof and weather-proof) would be created for application to the
utility box. The PAB was very supportive of this proposal. Additionally, Mr. Machalek
stated it would use art created by local residents/students in the community. The artists
would be paid for selection of their art and it would also be made public to other
jurisdictions via the utility box wrap vendors. Any time the specified piece of art was
selected for purchase, the artist would receive payment.
15
Parks Advisory Board – June 17th, 2016 – Page 3
The other possibility is artists painting the utility box, however the cost and time to
maintain a painted surface is much higher than the wrap.
Development Code Plant List: Co-Chair Moore brought to the PAB a comprehensive
plant listing for review. He stated there are perennials, vines and grasses yet to add. It
was suggested that the list be broken down by native and non-native plants. Director
Muhonen suggested supplementing the list with installation procedures, etc. to add
additional value to the document. Co-Chair Moore will return next month with a finalized
list.
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE
The Parks Department is very busy. No additional updates provided due to time
constraints.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Lebeau adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m.
16
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
June 21, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry
White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Klink, White, Schneider, and Hills
Also Attending: Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Planner Carrie McCool, Town Attorney Greg
White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent:None
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 15 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1.PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes, May 17, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (White/Hills) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Murphree recused himself from the next agenda item.
3.LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 3, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISIONPLAT, REZONING, &
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016‐04; 995 Dry Gulch Road & 1950 Red Tail Hawk Drive;
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. She stated the applicant was Habitat for Humanity of
Estes Valley and Plan De Salud Del Valley. The application is three‐fold: (1) request for a minor
subdivision of Block 3, Lots 1 & 2, The Neighborhood Subdivision; (2) rezoning of the proposed
Lots 1A and 1B from O–Office to R‐1–Residential; (3) a development plan for additional parking
for the Salud Clinic on the proposed Lot 2A and two single‐family dwellings for affordable housing
on the proposed Lots 1A and 1B.
Planner McCool stated The Neighborhood Subdivision was originally platted and approved in
2005, with the intent that housing would be developed to accommodate local affordable housing
needs. The Salud Clinic opened in 2006, and mainly serves a low‐income population. Portions of
Lots 1 & 2, Block 3 have steep slopes, and replatting portions of the site would avoid steep slopes
when developing the two residences to be built by Habitat for Humanity, whose mission is to
work with volunteers and partner families to build efficient modest‐sized homes for low‐income
families. Planner McCool stated the request to rezone the parcels from O–Office to R‐1–
17
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
June 21, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Residential would place the two proposed single‐family dwellings in the correct zone district for
their use, while allowing the proposed Salud Clinic parking area to remain in the O–Office zone
district.
Planner McCool stated the entire application is compliant and consistent with the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan and meets all the criteria necessary for approval. The application was routed
to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners within a 500‐foot radius of the subject
property. Planner McCool stated one written comment supporting the project was received
before the staff report was finalized. Any additional public comments received following the
Planning Commission meeting would be posted to the Town website’s Current Applications page.
Planner McCool stated the applicant requested a minor modification regarding impervious lot
coverage. Per the Estes Valley Development Code, the maximum coverage allowed is 50%. The
applicant proposed 56% lot coverage for proposed Lot 2A. The Planning Commission has the
authority to grant this minor modification. Planner McCool stated the current lot coverage for Lot
2 is 62%; therefore, the proposed development would become increasing compliant with this
standard. In considering the minor modification, it would advance the goals and purposes of the
EVDC, not exceed the maximum of 25% deviation from the zone district standards, result in less
visual impact of parking adjacent to Red Tail Hawk Drive, and relieve practical difficulties in
development the site. Regarding grading, the existing slope presents challenges for site design.
Efforts have been made to avoid steep slope to the maximum extent feasible. Due to the
topography, Planner McCool stated the development plan includes retaining walls on some
portions of the site, particularly along the shared driveway for proposed Lots 1A and 1B.
Planner McCool stated the EVDC sets for specific standards landscaping and buffering in areas
where commercial and residential are adjacent to one another. These standards are typically met
with a natural screen of evergreen trees and shrubs. The applicant has proposed using deciduous
trees instead of evergreens, stating this type of tree would provide more sunshine on the south
side of the Salud parking area, thus keeping the parking lot clearer of ice and snow in the winter.
Not all the trees proposed are on the EVDC’s preferred planting list and would provide less
screening of the parking area in the winter. Staff set forth some conditions of approval regarding
landscaping and screening, and the Commissioners can decide whether or not to apply them to
the recommendation to the Town Board. Planner McCool stated the EVDC has specific standards
for lighting to ensure it is fully cut off and fixtures are downcast to minimize glare and light
trespass. The cut sheets submitted by the applicant were illegible, and staff has added a condition
of approval for the applicant to provide some additional and legible information regarding lighting
of the parking lot.
Planner McCool stated the Salud Clinic parking lot currently has 49 parking spaces. The
development plan proposes an additional 29 spaces, with the minimum total required spaces at
47.The higher number proposed is due to documented use as well as the projected visitation as
services are expanded. Regarding the driveways for the two proposed single‐family lots, a shared
driveway is proposed due to the challenges of the steep slopes and lot configuration. A
18
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
June 21, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Declaration of Covenant and Restrictions was submitted, and there are some conflicts between
that document and the EVDC with regard to the number of parking spaces required for single‐
family dwelling units. A condition of approval has been added to ensure the conflict is resolved.
The Public Works Department has requested the shared access and maintenance agreement be
referenced on the plat prior to recording.
Regarding drainage, Planner McCool stated the applicant proposed some private drainage
easements. The Public Works Department requested a drainage plan to demonstrate compliance
with the 2005 drainage report, as well as to evaluate the new drainage infrastructure.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was one comment regarding drainage, and Planner McCool stated the Public Works
Department requested additional information to ensure proper drainage of the site.
Public Comment
Amy Plummer/applicant representative stated the conditions of approval are reasonable and
agreed upon by the applicant. She will contact the Public Works Department to get what they
need regarding drainage. Plat notes requested will be taken care of. Regarding parking on Habitat
for Humanity sites, in the past, neighbors have not wanted to see more than two parking spaces
per lot. The covenants were trying to say each lot would have one parking space in the driveway
and one under the carport. She stated the covenants will be changed to state there will be two
parking spaces for each lot, which will make parking code compliant. The landscaping plan was
initially proposed with deciduous trees because of the potential for ice to build up when
evergreen trees create shade in the winter. The applicant would prefer to have some deciduous
trees on the south side. Ms. Plummer suggested creating more flexibility in the EVDC regarding
screening with evergreen trees. The requested lighting sheets have already been submitted to the
Community Development Department.
Judy Nystrom/Habitat for Humanity Board Member stated she was not pleased with the results of
the Habitat community on Halbach Lane. The regulations for the next Habitat project on Kundtz
Lane were revised and improved to blend in more with the surrounding neighborhood. Affordable
housing is badly needed in the Estes Valley, and the families chosen for Habitat houses maintain a
long‐term relationship with the Habitat board.
Bruce Brown/president of Salud Foundation stated the current parking situation at the clinic is
grim. There are not enough spaces for the clients served. A grant was recently awarded, which
will allow expansion of the services provided at the clinic, and the additional parking spaces would
be greatly appreciated.
Dennis Berg/resident of Vista Ridge Condominiums was concerned about how Habitat homes in
his neighborhood would affect their property values. Other concerns were lack of maintenance
and lack of landscaping by homeowners. He was opposed to the project.
19
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
June 21, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Joan Olson/resident of Vista Ridge Condominiums was opposed to the rezoning that would allow
the Habitat homes, based on the future homeowners and past track records of what happens to
the housing, parking, and landscaping with this type of housing.
Dennis Sohocki/resident of The Neighborhood was concerned the graphics did not show the
reality of the project. He recommended renovation of some of the older homes in the Estes Valey
old housing projects instead of always building new. He was concerned about a drop in property
values in his neighborhood if this project was approved. He was opposed to Habitat homes being
built at the proposed location. He stated it was not fair to have a project imposed on them, when
they purchased their property knowing it was zoned for office use. He stated there was no
shortage of affordable housing in his area. He was opposed to the project.
Art Messal/resident of Vista Ridge Condominiums was concerned about the quality and density of
the project. He stated the area has very high density, and the impacts of this project would affect
many more people than a single‐family residential neighborhood. He stated the site was
inappropriate for single‐family homes, and adding a parking lot would make things worse. He was
not happy with past Habitat projects, and objected to every aspect of this project.
Dena Sohocki/resident of The Neighborhood was opposed to the zoning change request and
thought a zoning change sign should have been posted on the proposed site. She stated there
were many neighbors that were not aware of the proposed project. She purchased her property
thinking the parcel would always remain O–Office zoning. As a volunteer with Habitat for
Humanity in the Denver area, she stated the homes were not high quality and rapidly
deteriorated in appearance. She stated the proposed lots are extremely small and narrow and the
area would not be safe for families with children. If the project were approved, she recommended
allowing only one single‐family dwelling.
Jenny Page/treasurer of local Habitat for Humanity organization stated the project would comply
with landscaping and drainage standards. The covenants will spell out the parking restrictions,
and no more than two cars will be allowed. Trailers, boats, etc. will not be allowed. She stated this
area has the last existing affordable lots in the valley that Habitat can build on. Floor plans have
not been chosen, as homes are designed to meet the family’s needs. She stated the most recently
completed Habitat home passed inspection, received a Certificate of Occupancy, and was very
well‐built.
Steve Murphree/Habitat board member was surprised and disappointed by the stigma that
people perceive about Habitat homes. The home under construction on Kundtz Lane would be a
good one to visit in order to gain a better understanding of the material and craftsmanship. He is
trying to do his part to bring affordable housing to Estes Park and strongly doubts the two
proposed homes would affect property values in the area. He encouraged people with concerns
to visit the project on Kundtz Lane (off of Riverside Drive). The homes are well‐kept and
maintained. He stated these proposed homes would most likely be the last ones in Estes Park, and
20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
June 21, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
encouraged the Planning Commission to support the project. He stated all funds have to be raised
prior to commencement of construction.
Dennis Berg returned to the podium to state only two families would be positively affected, and
approximately 90 families would potentially be negatively affected.
Joanna Barton/resident of Vista Ridge Condominiums stated she was concerned about the safety
issue due to the slope of the proposed lots.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Chair Hull stated all Commissioners perform site visits of applications. It was confirmed that
notices were sent to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the property and the
information was posted on the town website. A legal notice was published in the local
newspaper.
Comments included but were not limited to: concerns about the stabilization of the sloped lot; it
seems like a lot of development on a small piece of land; signage is not required on proposed sites
of development. Town Attorney White recommended and preferred one vote be taken for the
entire project, as it would not make sense to approve the subdivision without approving the
rezoning request. There was brief discussion regarding the Commission’s decision‐making
authority on the separate pieces of the project (subdivision, rezoning, development plan).
Attorney White reiterated the project should be taken to a single vote as a package rather than
separate votes.
Planner McCool once again explained the subdivision proposal, which includes an outlot for which
the Public Works Department has requested additional information regarding drainage and
maintenance. The applicant proposes to revegetate the outlot.
Conditions of Approval
1.Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a.Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated May 2, 2016;
b.Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated May 26, 2016;
c.Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo March 7, 2016.
2.Prior to recordation, a Drainage Plan that demonstrates compliance with the 2005 report
shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
3.Prior to recordation, a plat note indicating ownership and maintenance of said drainage
easement shall be included on minor subdivision plat.
4.Prior to recordation of the minor subdivision plat, the Declaration of Covenant and
Restrictions shall be revised to ensure conformance with the town parking regulations.
21
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
June 21, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5.Prior to recordation, a plat note shall be included on the plat that references the shared
access and maintenance agreement between lots 1A and 1B.
6.Prior to development plan approval, a revised landscape plan demonstrating conformance
with §7.5, Subsection F, “Landscaping and Buffering” of the EVDC shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department.
7.Prior to development plan approval, lighting cutsheets and lighting pole details shall be
included on the Development Plan for review and approval by the Community
Development Department.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to recommend approval of the subdivision plat to the
Town Board with the findings and recommended by staff and the motion passed 6‐0 with
Murphree recused.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Hull) to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the
Town Board, to rezone proposed Lots 1A and 1B from O‐Office to R‐1–Residential with the
findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion failed 3‐3. Commissioners
Schneider, Hills, and Hull voted in favor. Commissioners White, Klink, and Moon voted against.
Commissioner Murphree recused. The motion failed.
Attorney White stated because the rezoning motion failed, the development plan cannot be
considered for a vote. A recommendation of approval was needed in order for the development
plan to move forward. Single‐family residential dwellings are not allowed in O‐Office zone
districts.
4.REPORTS
A. Interim Director Cumbo reported the County Commissioners approved a Supplemental
Condominium Map at Wonderview Condominiums
B. Downtown Plan Update – Interim Director Cumbo reported staff met with the #2 finalist for
the Downtown Plan. This consultant revised their scope of services with a significant increase
in cost. The proposal is still under review and an agreement has yet to be agreed upon. This is
tentatively set for action by the Town Board on July 26, 2016.
C. Floodplain Mapping Update – Environmental Planner Kurtz reported a public meeting will be
held at 10 a.m. on August 24, 2016 to announce the results of the recent hydrology study. The
State has hired AECOM to conduct the floodplain mapping, and the downtown area should be
completed in October. The Silver Jackets group will use that information to complete their
report, hopefully in February, 2017. Other areas in the Estes Valley will be studied this spring
and a public process will occur regarding the new floodplain maps. A tentative FEMA adoption
date is 2020, which is when flood insurance requirements would commence. The process with
FEMA is very extensive and time‐consuming and the public will be included and have appeal
rights.
D. Interim Director Cumbo stated interviews for a new Community Development Director were
conducted yesterday and she was optimistic a new director would be hired soon.
22
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
June 21, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:41 p.m.
_________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
23
24
Estes Valley Board of Trustees, May 24, 2016 Sunny Acres, Amended Plat and Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memo
To:Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Audem Gonzales, Planner I
Date:July 26, 2016
RE: Special Review Development Plan- Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers, 1665
HWY 66, Town of Estes Park; Michelle Oliver/Applicant.
______________________________________________________________________
Objective:
Review of the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan
application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code.
Present Situation:
The subject property is zoned A-Accommodations. The 30.75-acre site is presently
developed with the Elk Meadow RV resort which is accessed from Spur 66 (HWY 66) to
the east. The property also contains a private road (Mills Drive) which is accessed off
Spur 66. The land uses surrounding the site range in use type from multi-family residential
to the east, commercial to the southeast, single-family residential to the south, and
National Park offices/facilities to the west. The southern portion of the site is used for
overflow parking for the campground.
Proposal:
The applicant requests approval of the three-phase Special Review Development Plan to
accommodate a 750-person occupancy Chuckwagon Dinner and Live Entertainment
facility on a ~5-acre site located at 1665 HWY 66. The ~5-acre site is proposed to take
place where overflow parking is currently handled on the Elk Meadow RV Resort property.
The proposal entails a 17,910 SF building, 192 space parking lot, widening of Mills Drive,
installation of a right turn lane on Spur 66, and landscaping.
This application also includes a request to locate the loading area for the building within
the 110-foot setback from the street center line. The proposal calls for a 61.6-foot setback
from the street center line. This request shall be heard by the Board of Adjustment.
This application also includes a request to encroach into a 50-foot wetland setback up to
10% or 5-feet. The Minor Modification request is a staff level decision.
25
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan
The applicant has proposed the following measures to address and mitigate potential
impact on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment:
1.Traffic and parking considerations
a.A traffic study was provided with this application and that study determined
that at turn lane from Spur 66 onto Mills Drive will be required.
b.Mills Drive is proposed to be widened to 24’ with curb and gutter from the
beginning of Mills Drive from Spur 66 to the entrance of the Lazy B Ranch
and Wranglers site.
c. The entrance to the event facility is proposed to come off of Mills Drive to
reduce the potential for backing up along Spur 66. Also, having the entrance
off of Mills Drive is what would be required if this development area were to
subdivide from the larger 30.75-acre parcel.
d.The applicant has proposed hiring an off-duty traffic control officer during
peak traffic periods each evening during the summer season.
e.The applicant has proposed utilizing the free Estes Park shuttle service to
offer an alternative mode of transportation to the event facility.
f.The applicant has proposed contracting with bus tour companies to offer an
alternative mode of transportation to the event facility. The proposed parking
lot provides five parking spaces for tour buses.
g.A shuttle service is proposed to be provided for Lazy B employee
transportation to and from their homes.
h.Limited employee housing may be provided on-site
2.Environmental Impacts
a.The development area has one designated wetland area. The preliminary
wetland screening has found a potential second wetland area on the far west
side of the site. A formal Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation shall be
conducted to verify wetland areas and establish setbacks.
b.No critical habitat or threatened/endangered species habitat were found on
the site.
3.Noise impact and hours of operation
a.The proposed hours of operation are 7 nights a week from 5-8PM.
b.Music performances are proposed to occur only from 7-8PM.
4.Other potential impacts
a.Light from headlights of cars as they exit should only occur for a short time
period after 8PM. The extensive landscape buffer along Mills Drive offers a
filter from light and noise.
b.The viewshed to the north from residents south of Mills Drive will be
improved by this development proposal. Currently, the view consists of a
broken down wire fence, high wires, piles of debris and dirt, and a lot full of
RV’s. This proposal calls for a tree lined Mills Drive with overhead power
lines to be buried underground in the same trench that is excavated for the
new water main. The proposed building will block the view of the RV lot and
improve the overall appearance of the property.
26
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan
c. Dust from the dirt parking lot (first two project Phases) will be mitigated by
surface spraying (water or soil tackifier) prior to events or during high wind
storms.
Advantages:
Complies with standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code;
Is consistent with a number of key goals included in the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan, including Community-Wide Policies that address issues such as land use,
community design, growth management, mobility and circulation, and economics;
Offers a mitigation solution to potential traffic congestion resulting from cars stacking
up on Spur 66.
Expands tourism and arts industries.
Re-develops a currently underutilized site and increases commercial tax revenue for
the Town.
Disadvantages:
Increases trip generation and parking congestion at the HWY 36/Spur 66 intersection.
Currently, traffic congestion is a problem at this key intersection. The proposed
mitigation effort at this location was denied by CDOT.
Mills Drive is a private road that is used like a public road with several single-family
homes located along it. Potential conflicts with increased traffic and car headlights
exiting the venue onto Mills Drive exist at this location.
Potential increased incidences with wildlife, especially bears, are created with the first
phase of this proposal. A temporary tent facility increases the risk for bear/human
conflict. This is already an issue with the campground.
ACTION RECOMMENDED:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on April
19, 2016 and voted to continue the hearing to May 17, 2016. The Planning Commission
held a second public hearing for this application on May 17, 2016. The Commission voted
4-3 (0 absent) to recommend DENIAL of the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special
Review Development Plan.
The Planning Commission’s denial of the application focused on their finding that the
application did not substantially comply with the Special Review criteria, which requires
that the application “mitigate”, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts
on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. “Maximum extent
feasible” is defined in the EVDC as a situation in which “no feasible and prudent
27
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan
alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize
potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken.
Planning Commission members were concerned with wetlands, runoff from impervious
surfaces, traffic congestion, the required right turn lane, and Code interpretations on use
definitions and table of allowed uses.
The applicant has chosen not to revise the application to reflect comments made during
the public hearing.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
High: The Planning Commission received a very large amount of written comments
regarding this project, the vast majority of which expressed general opposition. The
Commission also considered public testimony from several adjacent residents in
opposition to the project. Comments emphasized the potential adverse impacts of this
proposal which included; increased traffic, feed preparation pollution, light pollution,
increased bear activity, noise, etc. The Planning Commission received very little written
comment in support of this project. The Commission considered public testimony from a
few community members in support of this project.
Written public comments concerning this project are available at
www.estes.org/currentapplications. Comments will be added to this webpage as they are
received.
Sample Motions:
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Special Review Development Plan
application:
1.I find that the application substantially meets the review criteria, and move to
APPROVE the Special Review with no conditions;
2.I find that the application substantially meets the review criteria, and move to
APPROVE the Special Review application with the following Conditions of Approval:
1.Compliance with affected agency emails and memos:
a.Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated January 25, 2016
b.Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 27, 2016
c.Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 1, 2016
d.Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19,
2016
e.Larimer County Engineering emails March 2, 2016 and April 6, 2016
28
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan
2.The applicant shall submit an amended road design plan set addressing the
comments from Larimer County Engineering in regards to the right turn lane
being extended.
3.The applicant shall amend the development plan set as follows:
a.Change 125PPL/Bus to 50PPL/Bus
b.Remove installation of right turn from Phase 1 and include in Phase 2 plan
c.Under required parking, change 3.5 people/vehicle to 3.75 people/vehicle, per
traffic study analysis.
d.Change required 215 spaces to 200 spaces, per traffic study analysis
e.Change water main extension distance to building from 525’ to 250’
4.Variance approval by the Board of Adjustment is required for off-street loading
area location.
5.A noise reading shall be performed prior to the first show in the temporary tent to
ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Noise study results shall be
submitted to staff for review and approval.
6.Dust mitigation efforts shall be performed by the applicant as proposed in the
Statement of Intent for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dirt parking lot prior to every
show and during high wind storm events.
7.A JWD (Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation) shall be conducted on the site to
formally delineate the potential wetland areas.
8.Plans for the food service operations shall be approved by the Larimer County
Department of Health and Environment prior to issuance of a building permit.
9.A photometric study shall be submitted to staff before construction of the final
parking lot design.
10. 15’ Utility easement shall be recorded separately from development plan
11. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any
building or grading permit.
3.I find that the application does not substantially meet the review criteria, and move to
DENY the Special Review application;
4.I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application
and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional
materials.
29
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Special Review Development Plan
Attachments:
Application and Planning Commission Staff Report www.estes.org/currentapplications
Planning Commission Minutes from May 17, 2016
30
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve
Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Klink, White, Schneider, and Hills
Also Attending: Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Planner Audem Gonzales, Town Attorney Greg
White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent:None
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 60 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1.PUBLIC COMMENT
2.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes, April 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Moon/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously.
3.PORTION OF TRACT B, THE KEEP MINOR LAND DIVISION; ROBISON CABINS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2016‐03, 1220 Griffith Court
Planner Gonzales stated the applicant requested the public hearing be continued to the June 21,
2016 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Hull stated public comment would be taken, but it
would be better to provide the public comment at the June public hearing so those comments
could be heard by the applicant.
Public Comment
Ned Sequin/County resident stated he thought there was going to be a special study session
today on this agenda item. Interim Director Cumbo was not aware of a special study session. She
stated the application was not fully processed and was not ready to take to a public hearing.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to continue Development Plan 2016‐03 to the June 21,
2016 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously.
4.SPECIAL REVIEW 2016‐01, LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS, 1665 Spur 66
Chair Hull stated this item was continued at the April meeting, at the request of the Planning
Commission. Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. Because this meeting was continued, he
would not provide the full staff report again. He stated the proposed site is a 5‐acre portion of the
31
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
30+ acre parcel that currently contains the Elk Meadow RV Park, and is within the town limits. The
proposed use is a chuckwagon dinner and live performance in a facility just under 18,000 square
feet. 192 parking spaces and landscaping are also part of the development plan. The project
would be completed in three phases. The use for this special review is categorized in the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) as Indoor Entertainment Event, Major, which is permitted by
Special Review as a principal use in the A–Accommodations zone district.
At the April meeting, the Commission requested additional information pertaining to the Special
Review Development Plan for the chuckwagon dinner and performance facility. Requested
information included additional details on the temporary use classification (mainly regarding the
tent) and Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) input on the Spur 66 and Highway 36
intersection. The Commission desired to give the applicant additional time to address parking
concerns with the adjacent business, Rock Inn Mountain Tavern.
Regarding the tent, Planner Gonzales stated the application proposal falls under the use
classification Indoor Entertainment Event, Major. Phase 1 of the proposal includes a temporary
tent. The Planning Commission questioned whether or not the use of a temporary tent was
considered “indoor.” The Estes Valley Fire Protection District and the Town of Estes Park Division
of Building Safety classify this tent as a structure. The Division of Building Safety would also
require building permits for use of a tent over 180 days. Therefore, staff determined the use
would take place within a structure, making it an indoor use.
Regarding the Spur 66 & Highway 36 intersection, Planner Gonzales stated CDOT felt the
development proposal did not pose a major impact on the overall traffic situation at this location.
CDOT commented they are opposed to a four‐way stop sign at this intersection at this time. They
stated future traffic conditions may warrant reconsidering their position on traffic mitigation at
this intersection.
Regarding the Rock Inn parking concerns, Planner Gonzales stated the Commissioners can ask the
applicant about any discussions that may have occurred.
Planner Gonzales provided additional information regarding the temporary use. He stated the
Temporary Use Permit was approved in February, 2016, for events occurring from May 15
through September 30, 2016. Operating hours are 5:30 – 8:00 p.m. daily. Staff used the provisions
found in the EVDC to allow a Temporary Use Permit for longer than 30 days for this type of use.
The approved permit allows up to 250 people in the existing lodge building at the RV Park.
Planner Gonzales stated this is the third consecutive year the Lazy B has been issued a temporary
use permit at this location. Parking associated with the temporary use will occur in the overflow
portion of the RV site located along Mills Drive. Temporary use permits are reviewed by staff, and
further discussion at this meeting is outside the purview of the Commission. Planner Gonzales
invited those with questions to call or visit the Community Development Department.
Staff and Commission Discussion
32
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioner White was concerned about possible wildlife issues if the temporary tent was
being used for dining. She spoke with Police Chief Kufeld, who told Commissioner White he would
like to meet with the applicant to discuss the new wildlife ordinance. Other comments included
but were not limited to: (1) The western portion of the existing pond is considered a wetland,
which requires a 50‐foot setback. The applicant requested a minor modification to encroach 2.6
feet into the wetland setback. Staff approved this minor modification, as the amount of the
encroachment was within staff’s authority to do so. There is also another wetland area on the
site, which has a 50‐foot setback and will not be encroached upon. Historically, stormwater has
drained into the existing pond, and that will not change. The method the stormwater drains into
the pond will be changed to drain through piping rather than sheet flow. The drainage report was
approved by Town Engineer Kevin Ash; (2) There were concerns of conflicts in the EVDC’s Special
Review provisions regarding principal and accessory uses. Under the “indoor use” provision, there
are no additional provisions stating it must be an accessory use; therefore, it was interpreted as a
principal use permitted by Special Review. The EVDC clearly allows several uses as principal uses
unless there are additional regulations. It was suggested the code conflicts be identified and
amended to clarify and eliminate unintended consequences on future projects.
Public comment
Troy Krening/attorney representing applicant stated his assignment was to meet with the owners
of the Rock Inn. He errored and did not meet at the scheduled time. He took full responsibility for
not attending the meeting.
Chair Hull stated the Planning Commission is tightly bound by the Estes Valley Development Code.
If a person commented at the last meeting, it is not necessary to speak again today, as those
comments are a part of the public record. Public comments today will be limited to three
minutes.
Ed Grueff/county resident stated when the former Lazy B was here, he always took his guests
there and it was a positive experience. He has no stake in this application. He offered his
volunteer assistance to the applicant to assist with their food service. There are procedures in
place for food cleanup and storage to not attract wildlife, including animal‐resistant trash
containers. He believes this project is an opportunity to get people to invest in the community
without having to come up with any more money. He thinks people will stay in Estes Park longer
when they have this type of event to attend. He did not think light pollution would be an issue,
since it would still be fairly light when the show ended. Food is already being cooked at many of
the camp sites in the Elk Meadow RV Park, so he did not see food service as an issue. He has
heard many rumors about this project, and was disappointed in the immaturity of many involved
against the proposal. Mr. Grueff stated the Lazy B would be good, healthy entertainment for the
town and he was supportive of the project.
Charley Dickey/town resident stated the Planning Commission decision today would be a
testament to the ability to find a balance between property rights of land owners and adjacent
property owners and business development in the Estes Valley. He stated it did not appear this
33
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
issue would be resolved by compromise and the recommendation by the Planning Commission
would only satisfy one side. Michelle Oliver and her business partners have the right to use the
property as allowed in the EVDC. He had a similar experience with a construction project near his
home. Attorneys became involved, and the result was not in favor of the HOA. Another
development project at the Elkhorn Lodge did not come to fruition due to local opposition and
lack of support. Mr. Dickey conducted an unofficial survey regarding the Lazy B project and
submitted the comments received as public comment.
Paul Fishman/town resident stated a big issue at last month’s meeting was traffic. He stated the
developer would not incur the added expense for a turn lane if CDOT or Larimer County didn’t
require one. The proposed turn lane would be located in a right‐of‐way area, not on the Rock
Inn’s property. According to the developer, there are plans to subdivide the property, which
would require a separate entrance off of Mills Drive. The applicant has met the requirements of
the EVDC. He supported the project, and encouraged the Commissioners to recommend approval
to the Town Board.
Alec Hodges/Estes Valley resident stated close attention should be paid to how development is
guided in the Estes Valley. He was concerned about wildlife entering the tent, and stated the live
music in the tent would violate the codes. He questioned the “indoor use” classification. He
stated the local economy could not support a business such as the Lazy B, especially with the
proposed performing arts center and the event center at the fairgrounds. However, he was
supportive of a sidewalk along Mills drive to reduce risk to pedestrians. He stated although the
Lazy B offered to allow Rock Inn patrons to use Lazy B’s parking lot before 5:30 and after 8:00, it
would not be a workable solution since their busiest time is 5‐8 p.m.
Ned Sequin/county resident stated traffic coming out of Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP)
following an afternoon rain shower is very heavy and would create gridlock. He is not opposed to
the project, but does not think the proposed location is the appropriate place.
Art Messal/town resident stated he was not associated with the drama or organizations involved
in this proposal. He stated this project is in conflict with uses in the A–Accommodations zone
district. He did not agree with the classification as Indoor Entertainment Event, Major. He stated
this project was irresponsible, as traffic is already heavy at this time of day. He stated the tourism
mentality worked when he was in middle school, but now there is a “tourism at all costs”
approach. Mr. Messal stated there is a time period each summer when “Estes is simply full.” He
was opposed to the type of tourism that affects many and benefits few. He stated this project
would lower the quality of life for Estes Park residents. He stated the project does not meet the
EVDC requirements, did not comply with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and he was
opposed to it.
Michelle Hiland/town resident stated she was concerned the zoning regulations had not been
interpreted correctly. She was concerned about traffic and the timing of the Lazy B’s operating
hours. She was concerned about the temporary structure attracting bears. She was opposed to
34
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
taking away parking from neighboring businesses; however, stated a sidewalk should be built
along Mills Drive to increase pedestrian safety. She did not think the benefits of an additional
tourist attraction would benefit the area. She was opposed to the project.
Marcia Rothschild/town resident stated she was a part of the Barleen family, who ran a similar
business in Estes Park for decades. Eventually, the business moved out of Estes Park because it
was not sustainable. She was concerned about the success of the proposed Lazy B venture. She
stated the Rock Inn was listed as one of the top five historical places to visit in Estes Park. She was
opposed to the project and the negative affect it would have on the Rock Inn.
Bryan Gillam/Rock Inn business partner stated what friends of the Rock Inn have done or written
is not the Rock Inn’s responsibility and the Rock Inn has not directly told them what to do;
therefore, the Rock Inn cannot be held responsible for those actions. He stated they were willing
to listen to the Lazy B, but felt disrespected when Mr. Krening did not attend the meeting and did
not apologize. He has begun taking video recordings to be able to set the record straight. He did
not think this project fit within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. He was opposed to the
project.
John Vernon/county resident stated traffic would be a big issue because people would be coming
to the Lazy B at the same time many people are leaving RMNP. He stated a commercial
enterprise this close to the RMNP boundary was irresponsible. This proposal represents predatory
business practices at its worst, meaning it would hurt the historic Rock Inn. He felt the code
contradicts itself, and wondered why is staff supporting the project instead of supporting the
spirit of the zoning code.
Ann Vernon/county resident was disappointed the Lazy B’s attorney did not attend the meeting
with the owners of the Rock Inn. She was opposed to staff’s interpretation of the EVDC relating to
zoning. She was concerned about the crowds, traffic, noise, etc. related to this project. She stated
both the Planning Commissioners and Staff should be unbiased to both the developer and the
citizens. She encouraged the developer to find a different location for this project.
Mike Bilos/town resident stated he thinks there were more people that signed “the petition”
than the number of people that voted in the last election.(NOTE: Petition referred to was
submitted by Bryan Gillam, business partner of the Rock Inn.) He was opposed to the project at
the proposed location. He thought the Town should consider subsidizing the project at a different
location, and it would be in the Town’s best interest to help the developer find a different
location.
Meryl Noyes/county resident stated the widening of Mills Drive will take away the parking space
in front of her house.
Kaci Yoh/town resident finished Alec Hodges’ comments. She was concerned about the
intersection of Hwy 66 and Hwy 36, and wondered who the responsible party would be if the
35
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
intersection was to be rated as “F” by CDOT. She thinks the Town Board and Planning Staff would
be responsible for any future intersection rating. She was opposed to a project that would have a
negative effect on a year‐round business. She thought the media was biased and pushed the big
business agenda without considering the quality of life for residents. In the coming years we will
have many decisions to make regarding development in Estes Park.
Johanna Darden/town resident was concerned that Colorado Parks and Wildlife was not
consulted about this proposed development. She stated the review of the proposal shows an
unmapped wetlands, and she questioned the qualifications of the person selected to conduct the
wetland delineation study. She stated the noise could be disturbing to the campers at Elk
Meadow RV Park.
Troy Krening/applicant representative stated on May 12, 2016 RMNP provided a comment
regarding the project, stating the Park took a neutral stand on the project. There have been
comments about the success of the business, which is not in the purview of the Planning
Commission. The parking problem at the Rock Inn (parking in the right of way) is not the Lazy B’s
problem. He stated the town is now aware of the problem at the Rock Inn. Mr. Krening stated
Larimer County is requiring the turn lane, not the Lazy B developers. Elk Meadow RV Park (130
spaces) guests will most likely be attending the Lazy B dinner and show, which will reduce the
amount of traffic. Mr. Krening reminded the Commissioners that CDOT did not see this
development proposal as negatively affecting the traffic flow at the intersection of Hwy 36 and
Hwy 66pur 66. This proposed project is about whether or not the applicant meets the code and
whether or not staff has provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make an
informed decision. He encouraged the Commissioners to recommend approval of the proposed
project. He stated the viciousness, personal attacks, and disrespect directed to Ms. Oliver and Mr.
Jackson are unconscionable. He stated a harmonious relationship between the Lazy B and the
Rock Inn will probably not happen, and reminded the Planning Commissioners that a compromise
with the Rock Inn is not part of the decision being made today. He urged the Commission to
recommend approval of the Lazy B project.
Public Comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner White stated the Commission cannot base their decisions on community surveys,
popularity contests, parking conflicts, or behavior. There were over 250 pages of public comment
posted to the Town website and read by the Commissioners. The Planning Commission
recommendation is based on whether the applicant mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible,
potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the
environment. Commissioner White stated she would not be supportive of this project because
she did not think the applicant mitigated those impacts to the maximum extent feasible. She
referred to the comment issued by RMNP regarding this project. Estes Park is a gateway
36
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
community to RMNP, and that is the primary reason people visit this area. We need to be mindful
of the Park and the relationship we have with them.
Commissioner Schneider stated he still had concerns regarding the wetland area and potential
runoff from the impervious surfaces. He stated the environment we have to protect includes not
only the wildlife and vegetation, but also the human environment.
Commissioner Hills appreciated all those citizens that provided public comment for and against
the project. She had concerns about the traffic and the proposed turn lane. There are other areas
in town where people back out from parking spaces directly into traffic. The Rock Inn does not
have to be negatively impacted by the turn lane. Overall, her concerns have been addressed.
Commissioner Klink stated this recommendation was a difficult one. He stated parking at the Rock
Inn does not seem to be a real issue. He was bothered by the impression that it was the
government’s job to determine if a competitive business moves in next door. Competition is part
of running a business. According to the EVDC, the applicant is responsible for mitigating traffic for
one‐quarter mile (1800 feet) from the proposed site. The intersection discussed today is more
than 1800 feet from the site, so the Planning Commission cannot use that intersection as part of
their recommendation. He stated the fundamental issue is the interpretation of the zoning code
for a project like this. Integrity demands we interpret the code in a balanced manner, and if we
error, we error on the side of impacts to our residents and visitors. When the Supreme Court
looks as cases, they look at the intent of the people that were writing the code. There are lots of
things that conflict. He thinks this application is an accessory use to true accommodations, and he
struggles with making a recommendation where he believes the code has been misinterpreted.
Commissioner Klink stated if the Commission recommends approval, he would like to see the
sidewalk along Mills Drive be required, based on the testimony of public comments.
Chair Hull stated the Commission is tightly bound by the parameters of the EVDC. The Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan is used as a guide. She agreed with Planner Gonzales that there are some
gray areas of the EVDC. With that in mind, Accommodations zoning allows for a variety of
commercial uses as accessory uses located inside the same structure as the principal use. She
quoted from the EVDC, Entertainment Event, Major. She did not see this provision as applying to
an event that occurs every day in the summer. She would not support the project for these
reasons.
Commissioners Moon and Murphree had no comments.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Schneider) to recommend disapproval of the Lazy B Ranch &
Wranglers Special Review to the Town Board and the motion passed 4‐3. Commissioners
Schneider, White, Klink, and Hull voted in favor, with Commissioners Hills, Murphree, and
Moon opposed.
REPORTS
37
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
May 17, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1.Interim Director Cumbo reported the Town hopes to have a contract awarded at the next
Town Board meeting for a new consultant for the Downtown Plan.
2.Interim Director Cumbo reported the Voeks Appeal, Boundary Line Adjustment and
Rezoning, as well as the Mountain Meadow Final Subdivision Plat were approved at the
May 16th County Commission meeting. Planner Gonzales added a fee waiver request for
the Voeks Rezoning request was denied by the County Commissioners.
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Betty Hull, Chair
___________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
38
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers
I.Summary of Project
II.Process and Review Criteria
III.Key Issues
IV.Advantages and Disadvantages
V.Staff Findings
VI.Staff Recommendation
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Summary of Project: Description
•Chuckwagon Dinner and Live Entertainment facility
•Located at 1665 HWY 66 and zoned A-Accommodations
•~5 acre development site of 30.75 acre site
•17,910 sq. ft. building
•750 person capacity facility
•192 space parking lot
•Three Phase development plan
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Summary of Project: Location
Summary of Project: Zoning
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Summary of Project: Photos
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Summary of Project: Photos
Summary of Project: Photos
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Summary of Project: Three Phase Development Plan
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria
1.Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
Development Plan review process to ensure compliance with the EVDC
while encouraging quality development reflective of the goals, policies
and objectives of the Comp Plan
2. Estes Valley Development Code
Development Plan review process to ensure compliance with the
zoning standards and provisions of the EVDC
3. Planning Commission Recommendation
4. Motion by Town Board
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
1.Use –Chuckwagon Dinner and Live Performance Facility
•(Entertainment Event, Major) –activities and structures
that attract people to specific events or shows
•Permitted by Special Review in A-Accommodations per
Permitted Uses; Nonresidential Zoning Districts table 4-4
2.Density and Dimensional Standards
•Minimum lot size required 40,000 sq. ft.
`217,800 sq. ft. proposed
•Maximum building height 30-feet (32 with slope
adjustment)
26.25 ft. proposed
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
3. Lot coverage
•Maximum 50%
•15% proposed
4. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards
•Compliance with standards
5. Tree and Vegetation Protection
•Tree replacement in the proposed landscaping plan
6. Landscaping and Buffers
•Street landscaping, parking perimeter and interior landscaping, and
interior site landscaping proposed
•Street landscaping exceeds requirements
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
Street Buffer Landscaping 19 trees
Interior Lot Landscaping 7 trees
Interior Parking Lot Landscaping 38 trees
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
7. Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection
•Two potential wetland areas from preliminary study
•50-foot setbacks from wetlands
•5-feet of main building is located within 50-foot setback –Minor
Modification required for up to 10% deviation from Code
8. Wildlife Habitat Protection
•Wildlife Habitat Evaluation and Impact Analysis provided
•Found no critical habitat or threatened/endangered species
•No proposed obstructions to critical wildlife corridors
9. Exterior Lighting
•Entry points of building –shielded and downcast
•Reduced lighting after 10PM
•Photometric study for proposed light poles before construction of lot
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
50-foot wetland setback
5-foot encroachment
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
10. Operational Performance Standards
•Shall comply with Noise ordinance No. 15-16
•Condition requiring noise level study prior to first show in temporary
tent to ensure compliance
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
11. Off Street Parking and Loading
•Parking and Traffic Impact study (Delrich Associates)
•Anticipated full parking lot of 200 cars –192 spaces proposed
•3-4 passengers per car (3.75)
•6 handicapped accessible spaces, 1 loading space, 5 charter bus
spaces and 10 bike capacity rack
•Free shuttle stop and soft surface trail
•3-Phase build out with parking lot set for Phase 3 –re-explore actual
traffic counts during first two phases
•May require re-design of parking lot (smaller anticipated)
•Loading areas setback 110-feet from street center line, 61.6’
proposed –Variance application
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
Soft Trail
Free Shuttle Stop
61.6’ –setback for loading dock
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
12. Adequate Public Facilities
•6” sewer line approximately 525 feet in length
•12” water main extension on north side of Mills Drive for 250 feet
•Existing overhead electric lines to be buried with water main in 15’
utility easement on north side of Mills Drive
•Current drainage sheet flows across property into pond
•Proposed –flow in streets/curb and gutter, overland flow, and flow
through catch basins in storm sewer pipes
•New fire hydrant installed
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Review Criteria
12. Adequate Public Facilities
•Southbound right turn lane required at Spur 66 and Mills Drive
•Meets threshold at start peak hours
•Sufficient County ROW for turn lane -`70 feet ROW
•Recommended limited all-way-stop sign at HWY 36 and Spur 66
(CDOT opposed to 4 lane stop)
•Mills currently 20-feet asphalt
•Local Street standard –45 ROW, 24-feet asphalt with curb and
gutter
•Currently 30-feet ROW
13. Street Design and Construction Standards
•Sidewalk along Mills Drive on north side –cash in lieu
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Southbound Right Turn Lane
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Mills Expansion
Current Mills Drive 20-feet of asphalt
Proposed Mills Drive 24-feet of asphalt
Property Line
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan
Guidelines for Spur 66 Planning Area
•Commercial uses should not be extended
•Maintain the character through building setbacks
•Campground should not expand
•Spur 66 entrance should evolve into housing
Community-Wide Policies
•Community Design
•Growth Management
•Mobility and Circulation
•Economics
•Intergovernmental Coordination
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Special Review Criteria
Applications to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential
adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and
services, and the environment.
•Traffic and parking considerations
•Environmental impacts
•Noise impact and hours of operation
•Other potential impacts
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Variances and Minor Modification
Variance to 7.11.N.2.b Off-Street Loading Requirements
•Street side loading docks shall be setback 110 feet from street
center line, 61.6’ proposed
Minor Modification to 7.6.E.2.b Wetland and Stream Corridor
Protection Buffer/Setback
•Wetlands require a 50 foot setback. Main facility building proposed
to encroach 5’ into setback. Up to 10% deviation from Code. Staff
Level approval.
•Community-Wide Policy calls for locating and designing buildings to
fit the land. The setbacks on this property greatly inhibit where a
building can be built. This proposal aims to meet those standards. A
5’ encroachment is very minimal.
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Development Phasing
Phase One –2017
•Permanent kitchen and bathroom facilities (4,560 sq. ft.)
•ADA compliant sidewalks
•Paved ADA parking spaces
•Temporary dining tent (8,712 sq. ft. 24-feet tall)
•Dirt parking lot
•Landscape buffer along Mills Drive
•Mills Drive road improvements up to entrance
•New site entrance
•Water main extension
•Sanitary sewer service line
•Soft surface trail
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Development Phasing
Phase Two –2018
•Construction of final dining/performance hall (12,200 sq. ft.)
•Internal lot landscaping
•Installation of right turn lane at Spur 66 and Mills Drive
Phase Three –2019
•Construction of parking lot
•Parking lot curb and gutter
•Storm sewer installation
•Parking lot landscaping
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Key Issues
•Increased traffic
•Light pollution
•Increased bear activity
•Noise
•Right turn lane
•Property line south of Mills Drive
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Key Issues
•Rock Inn parking/Southbound right turn lane
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Key Issues
•Rock Inn parking/Southbound right turn lane
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Key Issues
•South property line for Elk Meadow RV Park
Property Line
Proposed Mills Drive
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages:
1.Complies with standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development
Code;
2.Is consistent with a number of key goals included in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan, including Community-Wide Policies that
address issues such as land use, community design, growth
management, mobility and circulation, and economics;
3.Offers a mitigation solution to potential traffic congestion resulting
from cars stacking up on Spur 66.
4.Expands tourism and arts industries.
5.Re-develops a currently underutilized site and increases
commercial tax revenue for the Town.
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Advantages and Disadvantages
Disadvantages:
1.Increases trip generation and parking congestion at the HWY
36/Spur 66 intersection. Currently, traffic congestion is a problem at
this key intersection. The proposed mitigation effort at this location
was opposed by CDOT.
2.Mills Drive is a private road that is used like a public road with
several single-family homes located along it. Potential conflicts with
increased traffic and car headlights exiting the venue onto Mills
Drive exist at this location.
3.Potential increased incidences with wildlife, especially bears, are
created with the first phase of this proposal. A temporary tent facility
increases the risk for bear/human conflict. This is already an issue
with the campground.
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Staff Findings
•If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the
application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley
Development Code, as described in the staff report.
•The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan.
•Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the
development.
•The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, and the
Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Special
Review application.
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Planning Commission Recommendation
The Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing for this
application on April 19, 2016 and voted to CONTINUE the hearing to
May 17, 2016.
On May 17, 2016 the Planning Commission voted to recommend
DENIAL of the application 4-3, 0 absent
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Sample Motions
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Special Review
Development Plan application:
1. I find that the application substantially meets the review criteria, and
move to APPROVE the Special Review with no conditions;
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Sample Motions
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Special Review
Development Plan application:
2. I find that the application substantially meets the review criteria, and
move to APPROVE the Special Review application with the following
Conditions of Approval:
1. Compliance with affected agency emails and memos:
a.Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated January 25,
2016
b.Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 27,
2016
c.Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 1,
2016
d.Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated
February 19, 2016
e.Larimer County Engineering emails March 2, 2016 and April 6,
2016
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Sample Motions
2. The applicant shall submit an amended road design plan set
addressing the comments from Larimer County Engineering in regards
to the right turn lane being extended.
3. The applicant shall amend the development plan set as follows:
a.Change 125PPL/Bus to 50PPL/Bus
b.Remove installation of right turn from Phase 1 and include in Phase
2 plan
c.Under required parking, change 3.5 people/vehicle to 3.75
people/vehicle, per traffic study analysis.
d.Change required 215 spaces to 200 spaces, per traffic study
analysis
e.Change water main extension distance to building from 525’ to 250’
4. Variance approval by the Board of Adjustment is required for off-
street loading area location.
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Sample Motions
5. A noise reading shall be performed prior to the first show in the
temporary tent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Noise
study results shall be submitted to staff for review and approval.
6. Dust mitigation efforts shall be performed by the applicant as
proposed in the Statement of Intent for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dirt
parking lot prior to every show and during high wind storm events.
7. A JWD (Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation) shall be conducted on
the site to formally delineate the potential wetland areas.
8. Plans for the food service operations shall be approved by the
Larimer County Department of Health and Environment prior to
issuance of a building permit.
9. A photometric study shall be submitted to staff before construction of
the final parking lot design.
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Sample Motions
10. 15’ Utility easement shall be recorded separately from development
plan
11. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to
issuance of any building or grading permit.
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Process and Review Criteria: Sample Motions
3. I find that the application does not substantially meet the review
criteria, and move to DENY the Special Review application;
4. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to
review the application and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to
provide adequate time to review additional materials.
Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers; Estes Park Town Board, July 26, 2016
Planning Commission Items A
Public Comments
To: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor and Board of Trustees of Estes Park
From: Johanna Darden, 501 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Lazy B Chuckwagon Event Special Review
I ask that you read carefully the letter from Jeremy Vetter, Tucson, AZ, in which he states
clearly, reasons to oppose the Lazy B Chuckwagon Event. Many of the letters in opposition to
this project have stated the same thing in different ways, but he has hit the nails on the head,
so to speak.
Also, the reason we have an Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan is to look at the big picture, so
Estes Park and the Estes Valley will have a balance between businesses and residents so that
one does not cause harm to the other. Bigger is not better and less is often more.
Dear Town Board,
I have a letter on file with the Estes Valley Planning Commission opposing the Lazy B. I am
writing to you to ask you to vote down this huge development on the Park border.
The National Park has sent two letters to the Planning Commission with serious reservations on
the Lazy B proposal. This development sits right next to Park staff housing and their fire
department. This type of development is not appropriate for this area. It should be located in
town near the Fairgrounds (the old Ford Dealership) or possibly in the Elkhorn Lodge area.
The Town code on the matter makes this clear. The most restrictive elements of the Town code
take precedence here according to the code itself. In A Accommodations STAND
ALONE commercial or retail is not permitted in this district. Mills Dr. is a low intensity zoning
district. Code says any new uses must be consistent with the low intensity residential character
of this district.
Please see my previous letter. We have owned our place here for decades and have kept this
road near the Park a lower intensity area. Ideally this 35 acre parcel should remain a camp site
with some open space and an open view corridor approaching the Park.
Thank you,
Ann Vernon, 3175 Tunnel Rd., 80511 586 9121
39
40
41
To Whom It may concern,
A䎧退ached you will find my le䎧退er of May 18th addressed to Mayor Todd Jirsa in opposi䎞退on to the Lazy B Chuckwagon
Development. . It is my understanding that your office is in the process of pu䎰᐀ng together a package of correspondence
for the Town Board of Trustees for the forthcoming study session and Public Mee䎞退ng on July 26th. It would be greatly
appreciate if you would incorporate the a䎧退ached communica䎞退on in their package for considera䎞退on by the Town Board of
Trustees. I have requested a read receipt to this communica䎞退on as to this Le䎧退er being in received prior to the July
20th deadline. Thank you in advance for your assistance with request.
Richard D. Minker
Rambling River
Unit #1
1986 Dallman Drive
Estes Park, Co,
Richard D. Minker CCIM
Senior Vice President | Fort Worth
Direct +1 817 840 0054 | Mobile +1 817 454 5600
Main +1 817 335 5600 | Fax +1 817 335 9203
richard.minker@colliers.com | Download Vcard |
Please see my Information on Brokerage Services form which Texas law requires I share with you.
Colliers International
1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 504
Fort Worth, TX 76102 | United States
www.colliers.com
42
July 18, 2016
Estes Park Mayor and Trustees:
Please honor and respect the Spur 66 Management Plan, the Estes Valley Development Code, Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan, and the Rocky Mountain National Park mission “to preserve and protect.” Deny
commercial develop off Mills Drive. This is a residential area bordering Rocky Mountain National Park and
adjacent to a major fire station and Park Headquarters. Also hold Town staff accountable to issuing long-
term/”customized” permits for venues outside of existing codes and plans.
A concerned citizen that loves this town and RMNP –
Vicki Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Estes Park, CO 80517
Some Key Provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code (bold faced emphasis added):
Sec 4.4-A1a [this is the zoning classification for the entire Elk Meadow parcel, which qualifies
for “highway corridor” because of its frontage on Spur 66]
A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District. This district implements the highway-
oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of accommodation
uses, including relatively higher-intensity accommodations such as multi-story hotels and motels.
A variety of related tourist-serving retail and commercial uses, such as restaurants, bars and gift
shops, will be permitted, but only as accessory uses to a principal accommodations use and only
if such supporting uses are located inside the same structure as the principal use. Stand-alone
commercial or retail uses will not be permitted in this accommodations district; instead,
such uses may be developed in the other commercial zones.
Sec 4.4-A1b [for parcels on south side of Mills Drive, and arguably would be true on north side
of Mills Drive if this were designated as a separate parcel]
A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity Zoning District. This district implements the “A-1-
Accommodations” land use category set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. This district provides
for low-intensity and small-scale residential uses, low-intensity accommodations and very
limited accessory uses located along highway and roadway corridors characterized by low-
intensity residential and lodging uses, including resort lodges, cabins and condominium
developments. Aside from these limited residential and accommodation uses, no new
commercial development shall be permitted in this district. New uses, including new
accommodations, shall be developed consistent in intensity, bulk and design with the low-
scale residential character of this district.
43
Sec 13.2-C Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples
12. Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments, Indoor
a.General Definition: A building or part of a building devoted to providing amusement,
entertainment or recreation for a fee, including movie theaters and theatrical space for
dramatic, musical or live performances, indoor pinball/video arcades, bowling alleys,
health clubs, aerobic exercise studios and including such activities as billiards and pool,
other table games and similar-scale amusements.
19. Entertainment Event, Major
a.General Definition: Major entertainment event uses are characterized by activities
and structures that attract people to specific (often large-scale) events or shows.
Activities are generally of a spectator nature. Accessory uses may include
restaurants, bars, concessions, parking and maintenance facilities.
b. Examples: Examples include fairgrounds, stadiums, sports arenas, coliseums,
auditoriums and exhibition and meeting halls/areas.
c.Exceptions: This use classification does not include the following:
(1) Exhibition and meeting areas with less than twenty thousand
(20,000) square feet of total event area, which are classified as
“Retail Establishments” below.
(2) Meeting areas, banquet halls and similar uses that are part of hotels
or restaurants and area accessory to those uses, which are included
in the accommodations or retail establishment classification. See
also Sec. 5.1.C of this Code.
(3) Movie theaters, which are classified under indoor commercial
recreation or entertainment establishments.
(4) Recreation or entertainment uses conducted on a continuous
basis that are classified as indoor or outdoor commercial
recreation or entertainment establishments.
Table 4-4
According to this table, “Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments, Indoor” are
prohibited in Zone A.
Sec 7.15 Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park/Campground
E. Screening Requirements.
1.Residential areas adjoining the campground shall be screened by a fence or wall
with a minimum height of six (6) feet.
H. Application Requirements
44
1. The location and width of all roads within the site perimeters, together with the location
and type of proposed accessory uses, the location of the entrance to the park or
campground, the location of existing and proposed utility, water and sewer lines and the
location of comfort stations and outside water outlets;
Table 4-7 Vehicular Access and Circulation Requirements: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
To the maximum extent feasible, the number of curb cuts shall be minimized by consolidation,
shared driveways or other means.
Lot Widths of 200 feet or less: No more than 1 driveway curb cut per lot.
Nonarterial Streets: All driveways accessed from a nonarterial street shall be spaced at least 150
feet from the pavement edge of any other driveway or public street intersection.
Sec 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases
5. Accessory Use
shall mean a use of land or a building that is customarily and clearly incidental and subordinate
to the principal use of the land or building and that is ordinarily located on the same site or lot as
such principal use.
54. Commercial Use
shall mean activity involving the sale of goods or services carried out for profit.
191. Principal Use
shall mean the primary or predominant use of any lot or parcel, such use possibly occurring in
more than one (1) building or structure. Generally, the establishment of any one (1) use as
permitted by right or conditionally in Chapter 4 of this Code (Tables 4-1 and 4-4) would
constitute the establishment of a principal use on a given lot or parcel.
Sec 1.3 Purpose and Intent
The regulations of this Code are intended to implement the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan, as amended, and more specifically are intended to:
H. Encourage nonresidential development that preserves and protects the character of the
community, including its natural and cultural landscape, and that minimizes objectionable noise,
glare, odor, traffic and other impacts of such development, especially when adjacent to
residential uses or to the historic downtown core;
45
N. Promote higher quality in site and land planning, conservation of open areas, and more
efficient and attractive use of open areas.
Sec 1.5-B Compliance
No structure or premises shall hereafter be used or occupied, and no structure or portion thereof
shall be erected moved, constructed, reconstructed, extended, enlarged or altered contrary to the
provisions of this Code.
Sec 1.8-A Conflicts and Relationships with Other Regulations
1. When the provisions of this Code are inconsistent with one another, or when the provisions of
this Code conflict with provisions found in other ordinances, codes or regulations adopted by the
Town of Estes Park or Larimer County, the more restrictive provision shall govern unless the
terms of the provisions specify otherwise.
Sec 5.2. Accessory Uses (including Home Occupations) and Accessory Structures
A. 4. All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the following conditions:
a.The accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and customarily found in
connection with the principal use; and
b. The accessory use or structure shall be conducted and/or located on the same lot ats the
principal use; and
c.The principal use and accessory use shall be under the same ownership.
Table 5.2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts
[REMINDER: Indoor entertainment establishments, e.g., theatrical space for live musical
performances, are not allowed at all, even as accessory, according to Table 4.4, and accordingly
this category is not listed in Table 5.2.]
“Meeting rooms, banquet halls and other similar group gathering spaces and uses” are
permitted in Zone A, but: “As accessory to a principal accommodations use only. … Such
facilities shall be operated primarily for the convenience of guests, customers or visitors to
the principal use. Total gross floor area of the accessory use shall count toward any maximum
FAR requirement.”
“Restaurants, bars, news stands, gift shops, clubs, managerial offices and lounges” are
permitted in Zone A, but: “Only allowed when inside the principal building containing a
permitted principal hotel, motel, resort lodge or major entertainment event facility use.”
Sec 5.1.G. Eating/Drinking Establishments.
1. In the A, O, and I-1 zoning districts, eating/drinking establishments may be permitted in
buildings as an accessory use not occupying more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the
46
gross floor area. See also the specific use regulations applicable to hotels in Sec 5.1.J
below.
Sec 5.2.D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements [for Accessory Uses]
4. Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses
Except as otherwise expressly limited or allowed in this Section, and except for accessory
recreational facilities including swimming pools, freestanding accessory buildings and
structures shall not be larger than one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area.
9. Operations
Accessory structures, buildings and uses shall be constructed, maintained and conducted to avoid
production of noise, vibration, concussion, dust, dirt, smoke, odors, noxious gases, fly ash,
heat or glare from artificial illumination or from reflection of natural light.
Sec 3.11 Temporary Uses and Structures
E. Time Limits on Permits.
Temporary Use Permits shall be valid for a specified period of time, not to exceed thirty (30)
days, unless otherwise expressly provided for in Sec 5.3 of this Code.
Sec 5.3 Temporary Uses and Structures
C. General Standards.
1. The proposed temporary use will be located, operated and maintained in a manner consistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of this Code.
2. The proposed temporary use will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the
surrounding area or to the public health, safety or general welfare.
4. Permanent alterations to the site are prohibited.
5. Permanent signs are prohibited. All approved temporary signs associated with the temporary
use shall be removed when the activity ends.
6. Temporary uses shall not violate any applicable conditions of approval that apply to the
principal use on the site.
47
DATE: July 18, 2016
TO: Estes Park Trustees & Mayor
FROM: Jay Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive
RE: Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding the Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers development
plan
We appreciate the care the Planning Commission has taken in reviewing this application and urge you to accept
their recommendation and deny the application. In addition to the many issues regarding the ways that this
proposal is inconsistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan we appreciate the careful consideration of the
Development Code that was given by the commissioners prior to casting their votes. It is noteworthy that only
the four commissioners who voted to recommend denial cited the code in their comments. Other than
expressing that the parking issue had been resolved there were no comments from commissioners expressing
their reasons for voting against the motion to recommend denial. We hope that you have or will review their
comments before this issue comes up in the Town Board Meeting. (The comments begin at
time in the video of the meeting on the town website.)
Attached are some of the references from the code that they noted in their comments.
As residents of Mills Drive we are also concerned about the confusion regarding who is responsible for Mills
Drive. In the process of reviewing this application it has been treated as a public road and then defined as a
private road. It does not seem to be clear who owns the land under a small piece of the rightofway at the east
end of Mills Drive where it connects to a county road (Spur 66). We would hope that these issues would be
cleared up before any development that uses Mills Drive for access would be considered in the future.
Thank You,
Maureen and Jay Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive 970 5863896
CITED SECTIONS OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Section 3.5.b
Standards for Review.
All applications for a special review use shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and standards
set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Regulations," of this Code and the following requirement:
The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse
impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment.
Section 4.4.1.a
A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District. This district implements the "AAccommodations" land
use category set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. It applies primarily in highwayoriented commercial areas of
the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higherintensity
accommodations such as multistory hotels and motels. A variety of related touristserving retail and commercial
uses, such as restaurants, bars and gift shops, will be permitted, but only as accessory uses to a principal
accommodations use and only if such supporting uses are located inside the same structure as the principal
use. Standalone commercial or retail uses will not be permitted in this accommodations district; instead, such
uses may be developed in the other commercial zones.
Section 13.2.C USE CLASSIFICATION/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
19. Entertainment Event, Major.
a. General Definition: Major entertainment event uses are characterized by activities and structures that attract
people to specific (often largescale) events or shows. Activities are generally of a spectator nature. Accessory
uses may include restaurants, bars, concessions, parking and maintenance facilities.
b. Examples: Examples include fairgrounds, stadiums, sports arenas, coliseums, auditoriums and exhibition and
meeting halls/areas.
July 26
1:18:30
48
c. Exceptions: This use classification does not include the following:
(1) Exhibition and meeting areas with less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of total event area, which
are classified as "Retail Establishments" below.
(2) Meeting areas, banquet halls and similar uses that are part of hotels or restaurants and are accessory to those
uses, which are included in the accommodations or retail establishment classification. See also §5.1.C of this
Code.
(3) Movie theaters, which are classified under indoor commercial recreation or entertainment establishments.
(4) Recreation or entertainment uses conducted on a continuous basis that are classified as indoor or outdoor
commercial recreation or entertainment
49
Dear Trustee Martchink,
I write with regard to the Lazy B Ranch proposed development on Highway 66. The Estes Valley Planning
Commission has already rejected this proposal. I hope the town trustees will follow suit. The issue here is not
the purpose or nature of the development, but its location, which violates the Estes Valley Development Code.
The staff report for this development states that “the property is zoned AAccomodations.” It also states that the
development is categorized as an “Entertainment Event, Major” and that such uses “are permitted by Special
Review in the A Accomodations zone district.” I can find no such explicit or implicit statement in the
Development Code. Rather, Section 4.4 of the code states that “standalone commercial or retail uses will not
be permitted in this accommodations district; instead, such uses may be developed in the other commercial
zones.” This regulation explicitly expresses the intention and the spirit of the Development Code, and, clearly,
the highly commercial nature of the proposed development violates it. Other statements in the Development
Code reinforce this selfevident interpretation of the code. For example, Section 13.2, “Use
Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples,” does not include Entertainment Events under its list of
specific uses for areas zoned AAccommodations (see subsection 1b). In addition, the Spur 66 Corridor
Management Plan (a planning subarea of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan) states that “commercial uses
should not be extended along the Spur.” As a resident of the Spur 66 Corridor and a member of the citizen
committee that helped to develop this Management Plan, I object strenuously to the planning staff’s cavalier
treatment of it. The staff cite it in their report only to reject its recommendations.
Additionally, the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, under “Community Wide Policies,” expresses this policy:
“Encourage existing and future community uses to locate within a compact, well defined downtown business
district.” Plainly, the rural location of the Lazy B development violates this policy.
Finally, the Development Code (under Section 3.5, “Special Review Uses”) states that applications for
proposed Special Reviews are required to mitigate, “to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts
on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment.” The largest nearby land use and public
facility is Rocky Mountain National Park. In fact, its border touches the proposed development. The park’s two
letters expressing concerns about the Lazy B development make it clear that the Lazy B proposal would have an
adverse impact on the park. There would not be a Development Code or, for that matter, an Estes Park without
Rocky Mountain National Park as its neighbor. But being a good neighbor is a twoway street, and obliges the
town, in all due respect, to listen to its valuable and muchbeloved neighbor. Please reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
John Vernon
3175 Tunnel Road
Box 20620
Estes Park, CO 80511
970 586 9121
50
TO: Estes Park Town Board & Mayor
FROM: Mike Egan
DATE: July 8, 2016
RE: Lazy –B Ranch & Wranglers Project
Thank You for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the proposed Lazy – B Development. I am
a 10 year resident of Estes Park. Our family is the owner of Commercial & Residential Rental units at
1755 Moraine Ave., in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. We have been involved in
opposition to this project from the beginning and offer here 10 reasons that we request be considered
for rejection as part of your review. We are confident that this board will make a fair decision in this
matter.
(1) The Lazy-B site is currently zoned as A –Accommodations. Proposed project would change to
Commercial usage by way of “Special Review”. This is an extreme change in zoning and will
establish horrible precedent for use of the “special review” process. Who will take the town
seriously about any zoning if this project is approved?
(2) The ‘Spur 66” Plan for this area, developed with input from area residents, calls for the Elk
Meadow RV Park to eventually develop into housing. With the limited amount of land available
in the Estes Valley for housing development do we really want to make a change in zoning here
for this type project? Please consider the long term interests of the community and not just the
short term needs of one developer.
(3) If the business plan presented is accurate, enormous traffic problems will be created by this
project at the intersection of Highway 36 and Spur 66. C-Dot has expressed their concerns about
this problem.
(4) The Estes Valley Development Code (Section 3.5) and State Highway Access Code (Section 3.11)
both require that an impact analysis on adjoining properties regarding proposed development.
This is required even for Special Review Projects. The adverse impacts of this project have been
completely ignored. In addition, the developer has requested various waivers to street design
and construction standards including parking and loading area design, sidewalk elimination,
minimum parking requirements, and wetland setbacks. These waivers should be denied.
(5) Over 1,400 people have signed petition opposed to this project and over 300 have made written
thoughtful comments about their opposition on posts to the planning commission web site.
Many of these people are from the immediate project area. There is 100% opposition to this
project by neighbors from Mills Drive to High Drive. I urge the Town Board to review these
comments as well as the video of the two planning commission hearings of April 19th and May
17th.
(6) Rocky Mountain National Park has written to the Town Planning Commission and Town Board
expressing their concerns about the use of this proposed site by Lazy-B. These concerns include
emergency evacuation, environmental, noise issues, fire service and other. The Park rarely
comments on a town development proposals.
(7) To implement this project the Lazy-B will be installing a turn lane on Spur 66 and will widen Mills
Drive for a new entrance off of Mills Drive. This part of the project will cause extensive damage
to neighboring business and residences. All of this was well documented at planning commission
hearings. They claim this was needed because they could not use the existing entrance off Spur
51
66 due to conflicts with RV’s entering the property. This was one of several reasons they
offered. Anticipated future subdivision of the property is the likely real reason.
(8) The neighbors to this project have been greatly disrespected throughout the process by the
Lazy-B, Elk Meadow campground, town planner – Audem Gonzales, Van horn Engineering, and
The Trail Gazette. They have tried to portray the victims of this project as the villains. Example of
this was the planner issuing a temporary permit to Lazy-B to operate this summer on the site
without any prior notification to neighbors.
(9) The Business Plan presented for this project is based on extremely optimistic projections of 750
guests per night. This will require construction of a 17,000 s.f. building with 200 parking spaces
along with substantial other infrastructure work. All of this to be phased in over 3 years.
Financing for this project is highly questionable and not identified. There is a great danger that
this project could become partially completed and left abandoned.
(10) The Planning Commission rejected this project at their meeting of 5-17-16 citing non
compliance with zoning and development codes. We urge you to honor their decision.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Park Schools Subdivision
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Hearing Date: July 26, 2016
RE: Minor Subdivision of Block 3, Lots 1 and 2 of the Neighborhood
Subdivision and Rezoning of proposed Lots 1A and 1B from O
(Office) to R-1 (Single-Family Residential); 995 Dry Gulch Road
and 1950 Red Tail Hawk Drive.
Habitat for Humanity of Estes Park, Inc., and Estes Park Salud
Foundation, Owners.
Objective:
Review of Minor Subdivision and Rezoning applications for compliance with the Estes
Valley Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and to consider recommendations
from the Estes Valley Planning Commission in order to render decisions on each
application.
Present Situation:
The Neighborhood Subdivision, which is almost completely built out, was originally
platted and approved in 2005 with the intent that housing would be developed to
accommodate local affordable housing needs of the community. The Salud Clinic is
located at the intersection of Dry Gulch Road and Red Tail Hawk Drive (existing Lot 2)
is in need of additional parking to accommodate increased demand for affordable health
care services by local residents. Lot 1 is currently vacant. The subject site borders multi-
family residential uses along the north (Good Samaritan Subdivision) and south (Vista
Ridge Condominiums), single-family uses to the west and rural estate land uses to the
east. Other parcels zoned O (Office) are in the area but not adjacent to these parcels.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended approval of the Minor
Subdivision. The motion to approve the Rezoning request failed (vote 3-3). As such,
no action was taken on the Development Plan.
Proposal:
The Applicant’s approval requests are twofold: 1) replat portions of Lot 1 of the
Neighborhood Subdivision to build two affordable single-family residences and a 29-
space parking lot to meet the increased needs of the Salud Clinic as they expand their
63
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic – Minor Subdivision and Rezoning
services to the community, and 2) rezone that portion of Lot 1 (for proposed Lots 1A
and 1B) for Habitat for Humanity housing resulting in two low-income families provided
the opportunity to work with labor of volunteers and partner families to build efficient
modest-sized homes, and qualify for no-profit loans to purchase the habitat houses over
time.
Advantages:
1.Minor Subdivision Plat compliance with standards set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code once the Planning Commissions conditions of approval are
addressed.
2.Rezoning addresses changing conditions in the area by providing for two new
affordable housing units for local residents and additional parking to accommodate
current patient traffic as well as the anticipated increases in staff and patient traffic at
the Salud Clinic.
3.Conformance with the housing policies of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by
promoting a balance of housing opportunities within the community.
Disadvantages:
Neighborhood opposition of affordable housing that would be located in the area.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended approval of the Minor
Subdivision Plat with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a.Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated May 2, 2016;
b.Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated May 26, 2016; and
c. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo March 7, 2016.
2.Prior to recordation, a Drainage Plan that demonstrates compliance with the 2005
report shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
3.Prior to recordation, a plat note indicating ownership and maintenance of said
drainage easement shall be included on minor subdivision plat.
4.Prior to recordation, a plat note shall be included on the plat that references the
shared access and maintenance agreement between lots 1A and 1B.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the rezoning
request as the motion to approve the rezoning failed. As such, no action was taken on
the Development Plan. If the Town Board approves the rezoning request, it should be
contingent upon approval of a Development Plan by the Planning Commission as the
Commission is the Decision-Making Body on Development Plans.
64
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic – Minor Subdivision and Rezoning
Budget:
The applicant is requesting a waiver of development review application fees. Approval
of the request reduces the ability to recover Community Development Department
expenses associated with development review functions.
Level of Public Interest:
The level of public interest is low regarding the Minor Subdivision. Public interest is
high as it relates to the rezoning request. The Town has received written comments
from people who oppose the project due to the following concerns:
•Reduction in property values
•Single family residential use the property
•Drainage concerns
•Lots are too small for two homes and a carport with a shared driveway
•Use of low quality building materials by Habitat for Humanity
•Small size and steepness of residential lots
•Safety of potential residents and their children – Not a safe location to build
homes that house children
•Lack of adequate parking for existing homeowners – Increased congestion in the
area
•Visual appearance of low income housing
•Lighting impacts from additional parking along Red Tail Hawk Drive
The Town has also received letters of support of the project. All written public
comments received for this application package and have been posted on the town’s
website at www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Sample Motions:
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Rezoning application:
1.I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the
Rezoning contingent upon approval of a Development Plan by the Estes Valley
Planning Commission.
2.I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENY the
Rezoning application; or
3.I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the
application and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to
review additional materials.
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Minor Subdivision application:
1.I find that the application meet the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the Minor
Subdivision Plat with the following conditions:
65
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic – Minor Subdivision and Rezoning
a.Compliance with the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated
March 7, 2016.
b.Prior to recordation, a Drainage Plan that demonstrates compliance with the
2005 report shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
c.Prior to recordation, a plat note indicating ownership and maintenance of said
drainage easement shall be included on minor subdivision plat.
d.Prior to recordation, a plat note shall be included on the plat that references the
shared access and maintenance agreement between lots 1A and 1B.
2.I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the
Minor Subdivision Plat with no conditions;
3.I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENY the
Minor Subdivision; or
4.I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the
applications and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to
review additional materials.
ENCLOSURES:
1.Minor Subdivision Plat (Preliminary Plat Form)
2.Minor Subdivision Plat (Final Plat Form)
3.Rezoning Ordinance
4.Planning Commission Minutes (Included in Board Packet)
5.Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated March 7, 2016
66
67
68
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Community Development
From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Director of Public Works
Date: March 7, 2016
RE: Mularz – Completeness Review
Public Works offers the following comments and conditions on the National Park Village
Development Plan application as submitted. Comments and Conditions are applicable
for plans received on February 24th, 2016.
Transportation:
1. Condition: Driveway distance from the proposed access at Red Tail Hawk Drive
to the Salud Clinic driveway access needs to be provided. This may need a code
waiver request.
2. Condition: Driveway distance from the proposed access at Gray Hawk Court to
the intersection with Crabapple Lane needs to be provided. This may need a
code waiver request.
Drainage & Grading:
1. Condition: A drainage memo will need to be provided. This should come from a
licensed engineer. Compliance with the 2005 report should be demonstrated.
2. Condition: New drainage infrastructure proposed with this development will need
to be evaluated and sized. Proposed swales and inlets will need to be sized.
3. Comment: Developed runoff should not negatively impact the Salud parking lot.
Historical drainage patterns should be maintained.
69
ORDINANCE NO. 18-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE A PORTION OF
LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 3 OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION,
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the owners of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of the Neighborhood
Subdivision, Town of Estes Park, Colorado have filed an application to rezone a portion
of the property from O - Office to R-1 Residential and subdivide this portion of the
propertyt area into two residential lots for the purpose of constructing two single-family
affordable houses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Town that the requested rezoning change be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The zoning of a portion of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of the
Neighborhood Subdivision designated as Lot 1A and Lot 1B of the Replat of Lots 1 and
2, Block 3 of the Neighborhood Subdivision, Town of Estes Park, Colorado are changed
from O - Office to R-1 Residential.
Section 2: Section 1 shall not be effective until the occurrence of the following:
a.The approval and recordation of the Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of the
Neighborhood Subdivision, Town of Estes Park, Colorado; and
b.The final approval of a Development Plan for Lots 1A and 1B of the Replat
of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of the Neighborhood Subdivision, Town of Estes
Park, Colorado.
Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS ___ DAY OF _____________, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________________
Mayor
70
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees on the ___ day of __________, 2016 and published in
a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _day
of _______ , 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
71
72
73
74
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
I.Project Background
II.Proposal
III.Key Issues & Findings
IV.Estes Valley Planning Commission Action &
Recommendations
Habitat for Humanity/Salud ClinicRezoning and Minor Subdivision
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
•Neighborhood
Subdivision platted in
2005 with the intent
to accommodate
local housing needs
•Lot 1 -Vacant
•Lot 2 -Salud Clinic
opened in 2006
•MFR –North and
South
•SFR to the East;
Rural Estate land to
the WestVicinity Map
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Rezone Proposed Lots 1A and 1B from O (Office) to R-1
(Single Family Residential)
Lot 1
Zoned
Office
Lot 2
Zoned
Office
Lot 2A
Zoned
Office
Lot 1A
Lot 1B
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Replat a portion of Lot 1 into Lot 2 (proposed Lot 2A) to
accommodate a parking lot; Incorporate the remainder of Lot 1
into 2 residential lots (1A and 1B)
Lot 1 Lot 2
Lot 2A
Lot 1B
Lot 1A
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Level of Interest:
1.Minor Subdivision –Low
2.Rezoning –High
•Decrease in property values
•Drainage concerns
•Small lots on shared driveways
•Use of low quality building materials
•Visual appearance of low income housing
•Lighting impacts
Project Description and Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Rezoning Review Criteria:
1.Rezoning is necessary to address changes in
conditions in the area.
2.Conformance with the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
3.Provision of adequate services.
Project Description and Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Findings:
•Two single-family Habitat Homes that would help address the
severe affordable housing shortage.
•Salud Clinic provides much needed affordable health care
services to local residents –additional parking would
accommodate current patient traffic as well as increases in
Staff and Patient traffic.
•Conformance with the Housing Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
•Utility providers have the ability to serve the property.
Project Description and Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Minor Subdivision Review Criteria:
1.Conformance with the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
1.Compliance with the EVDC.
2.Provision of adequate services and facilities.
Project Description and Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS
Shared driveway access proposed for two residential lot.
Maintenance of shared driveway access is documented in a
Shared Access and Maintenance Agreement.
Finding:
The Shared Access and Maintenance Agreement shall be
referenced on the Plat.
Project Description and Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
DRAINAGE
A Drainage Plan helps us understand new drainage
infrastructure, ensure no negative Impacts and that historic
drainage patterns are maintained.
Private Drainage Easements are proposed.
Finding:
•Drainage Plan needs to demonstrate compliance with
2005 Drainage Report.
•Plat Note indicating ownership and maintenance of
drainage easements is required.
Project Description and Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
REZONING:
1.Motion to approve the Rezoning failed
(Vote 3-3).
2.No Action taken on the Development Plan.
If the Town Board approves the rezoning request, it
should be contingent upon approval of a Development
Plan by the Planning Commission.
Project Description and Background
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
MINOR SUBDIVISION:
Recommended Approved with Conditions:
Project Description and Background
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Action & Recommendation
1.Compliance with Public Works memo dated
March 7, 2016;
2.Demonstrated compliance with 2005 Drainage
Plan to be approved by Public Works;
3.Add a plat note indicating ownership and
maintenance of said drainage easements; and
4.Reference shared access and maintenance
agreement on plat.
Habitat for Humanity/Salud Clinic Rezoning and Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Any questions or comments?
Planning Commission Items B
Public Comment
Please note and forward this email to the Mayor & Board of Trustees that I am AGAINST THE
REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM O-Office TO R-Residental.
Susan Day
Vista Ridge
1763 Wildfire Rd.
Estes Park, CO 80517
Dear Mr. Mayor:
As a homeowner on Gray Hawk Court, I'm writing in regards to the potential
development of two Habitat for Humanity houses on a small corner lot in my
neighborhood. The land is zoned office and the Applicant of Habitat for against
Humanity wants it re-zoned to residential. (Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, the Neighborhood
Subdivision and potential parking lot addition for Salud Healthcare facilities.)
Our Neighborhood Committee against this development has sent written
documentation to you and all Town Trustees outlining the many negatives to
this development.
My husband Eric and I are also next door neighbors to Bob and Joy Holcomb
and I know development will affect their property value as well. Bob can't
vote on this issue due to conflict of interest.
I'm not against Habitat For Humanity, but I feel better locations can be found
in Estes Park.
Mr. Mayor, my husband and I voted for you because we know you're a man
of integrity and will listen to both sides before making the right decision. I
want to invite you, along with the Town Trustees, to come look at the property
in question and hear first hand our neighbors' concerns.
I hope to hear from you before the July 26, 2016 review. Thank you.
Sue Hansen
1855 Gray Hawk Court
541-753-7412
75
As a service non-profit provider in the Estes Valley, we support the Habitat for Humanity
project on Dry Gulch. We struggle with and are advocates for any housing options that are
available for the community. Not only do we provide housing and services for seniors in the
Valley, but we also employ 40 full-time employees. As we continue to look at the future of the
workforce within this community and the current shortage, projects such as these are
important to the Estes Valley as well as to our Good Sam community. I will not be able to
attend the meetings due to previous engagements, but wanted to forward comment in
support.
Julie Lee, Executive Manager
Good Samaritan Society Estes Park Village
1901 Ptarmigan Trail
Estes Park, CO. 80517
(970) 577-7700 ext 200
I am a single, female senior and have lived in Vista Ridge for
5 years. I work in Estes and support the local economy.
I've seen many changes in this area. the most recent of which
are the low income apartments in the adjoin neighborhood.
They don't seem to have an HOA, because there are toys
and bikes in the front and back yards of many of the homes.
If you put up more low income housing in one place you are
taking the risk of providing an area of unkempt and untended
homes. It only takes a few neglected homes in any given
area to cause home values to begin to drop. Vista Ridge residents
have strict guidelines designed to maintain an attractive
environment for everyone. The Habitat homes will not be
a part of any HOA and can allow their homes to deteriorate.
Cluttered yards, unkempt lawns and untended house repairs are
historically the end result, The entire area will suffer the loss
of home values.
Please reconsider these proposed homes in our neighborhood.
None of us can afford to watch our property values drop
and are counting on the city of Estes Park to protect it's
citizens.
Jill Zerhan
1905 Wildfire Road
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
TO:Mayor Todd Alyn Jirsa, tjirsa@estes.org
Town Trustees: Cody Walker, cwalker@estes.org, Ron Norris, rnorris@estes.org, Ward Nelson,
wnelson@estes.org, Patrick Martchink, pmartchink@estes.org, Bob Holcomb, bholcomb@estes.org
Mayor Pro Tem Wendy Koenig, wkoenig@estes.org
Town Administrator Frank Lancaster, flancaster@estes.org
Public Information Officer Kate Rusch, krusch@estes.org
FROM: Dena and Dennis Sohocki, Owners in The Neighborhood Subdivision
DATE: June 27, 2016
RE: Potential Habitat for Humanity Development of Two Houses
Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, The Neighborhood Subdivision and
Potential Parking Lot Addition for Salud Healthcare Facilities of 29 Spaces
We understand you will be reviewing a Subdivision Plat and Rezoning Request on behalf of Habitat for Humanity and
Salud on Tuesday, July 26, 2016, at 7 pm that will directly and negatively affect the Neighborhood and the adjacent
Vista Ridge townhomes. While we understand the Applicant may have good intentions, there are numerous reasons
why this rezoning request from Office to Residential should NOT be approved.
Office Zoning Versus Residential: The property is currently zoned Office. The Applicant wants to change it to
Residential. We want it to remain Office zoning. When people invested their hard‐earned life savings here, the plot in
question was zoned for Office, not Residential. The buyers of more than 90 homes here made their decisions based on
this zoning without any knowledge that the entrance to our street could contain two Habitat houses on a very small lot.
Lot is Too Small and Too Steep: Habitat for Humanity proposes to build TWO houses, most likely two‐stories each with
carports, on a very small, steeply sloped lot. Please come and personally look at the site. While the site plan may
make it look feasible, it is not reasonable that two houses would be built on this terrible lot. Because the lot is so
small, the two houses will have to share a driveway and, in order to accommodate two cars for each house, one car will
be parked in the carport and the other car directly behind the first. Development costs to mitigate the slope,
accommodate drainage issues, and to pour such a long shared driveway are going to be extremely high. This money
will come out of the budget for the houses, thus further insuring the houses will be built “on the cheap.”
Density and Parking Issues: This area already has exceptionally high residential density with a high percentage of
affordable housing units (single‐family, townhome, and apartments). Parking is already a difficult issue and there is
simply no excess capacity anywhere near these lots. Noise, traffic, pet issues, etc. are already significant problems.
The Neighborhood, Vista Ridge, and the surrounding complexes are not a traditional neighborhood. Any issues that
result from these houses will be greatly amplified. It won’t be just a few close neighbors affected – this is the densest
part of Estes Park – so those affected will number in the 100’s. Any additional affordable housing should be dispersed
throughout the Estes Park community.
Value of Real Estate Investments Will Be Negatively Affected: We believe that such a house or houses at the gateway
entrance to this area will negatively affect the value of all the homes on our street as well as the adjacent Vista Ridge
development. For the possible benefit of only two families in the Habitat houses, property values will drop for the
more than 90 homes in the immediate area. A negative impression will be created in the minds of real estate agents
and potential buyers. A conservative estimate of the value of the existing 90 homes is over $25 million. Thus, if the
Habitat houses hurt our real estate values by even 4%, that will mean a loss of $1 million, or an estimated loss to each
homeowner of between $10,000 to $15,000 as well as added difficulty in being able to sell our homes. The two
developments immediately adjacent to these lots (The Neighborhood with approximately 32 homes and Vista Ridge with
approximately 60 townhomes) are high‐quality, homogenous, and were thoughtfully planned to present a unified,
upscale feeling in the area.
Unsafe for Children: The corner where the houses are proposed is at the intersection of three streets. It is a very busy
and dangerous corner with three sharp and somewhat blind curves converging on a hill with barely enough room for
88
two cars to pass on any of the three streets. It is no place for children and we fear for the safety of any children living
in houses on these lots. The site is too dangerous.
Parking Problems: The lot is exceptionally small. Even if two parking spaces per house are provided as proposed (one
behind the other at each house, sharing a common driveway), the potential Habitat homeowners, any visitors,
emergency vehicles, and snowplows would be in a dangerous situation at or near that intersection. The proposed
carports and lack of parking are irresponsible given our climate, the site, and its location.
Problems When Habitat for Humanity Builds in a Neighborhood: If you Google “problems with Habitat for Humanity
homes and neighborhoods” you will receive a quick education on issues that Habitat would rather keep quiet. Crime
increases in many neighborhoods. The Habitat houses often do not hold their values, properties become run‐down,
and the houses leave occupants in financial trouble ‐‐ sometimes going into foreclosure – which has already happened
in Estes Park. Sometimes it is just the developer/contractor/designers and real estate agents who benefit.
Having volunteered to build houses for Habitat for Humanity in Denver, we observed Habitat uses cheaper construction
methods and materials and they typically build two‐story properties with many bedrooms and no garages. The
houses appear to be designed for families who have a number of children. Other people in our neighborhood have also
observed the same things in cities where they lived. The houses tend to be both poorly designed and seldom
maintained. Estes Park has experienced this, too, with previous Habitat houses built here.
Other Alternatives Are Available: Habitat for Humanity asserts this is “the last plot of land left to build in Estes Park”
but we all know this isn’t true. Furthermore, we suggest if Habitat is sincere about affordable housing, cost, and the
environmental and neighborhood impacts, they should instead purchase and renovate existing homes in Estes Park
that were built in the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s. Thus, they could improve a neighborhood instead of degrading it and have
less environmental impact. This has been done by Habitat for Humanity in many other cities.
Parking Lot Issues: Salud asserts they need more parking spaces, although we have NEVER seen the parking lot even
close to being full. Our concerns with the new parking lot containing 29 spaces include the fact that it will require night
lighting negatively affecting night skies for both residents and wildlife. In addition, paving such a large area will also
certainly affect drainage into the wetland across the street.
In summary, this site is virtually unbuildable for one house, let alone two. We strongly urge you as Mayor and Town
Trustees to reject the rezoning application and keep this property zoned Office. There is a reason the builder of The
Neighborhood donated the land and did not choose to build a house on it. The site should never be rezoned from Office
to Residential. Given the small size and steepness of the lot, the protection of neighborhood property values and
investments, the safety of potential residents and their children, the lack of safe street parking, the current high density
of the area, and the fact that Habitat for Humanity has other options, we strongly believe the only responsible choice is
to retain the current Office zoning.
89
90
Would you please forward my email to the Town Board of Trustees, the Mayor, the Town Administrator and the Public Info
Officer.
Please add my voice to others in concern and opposition to the proposed two Habitat for Humanity homes at the intersection of
Grey Hawk Court and Crabapple Lane. All of the reasons others have expressed why this would not be a good location I agree
with. It is a terrible location especially for the safety of the children who would live and play in the area and also for the Vista
Ridge neighborhood where I live and the Grey Hawk neighborhood.
Estes is a caring community so know the intentions of helping helping people have homes is good but please consider location
more than a building. . Location is important when anyone buys a home especially when they have children so they can run,
play and ride their bikes and be safe. It seem a location closer to schools, work and grocery store would be better so if they
don't have transportation and need to walk to those places. Also, the location being considered might benefit Salud Clinic in
the future if it grows as Estes grows. Just because the land was donated does not make it a good place to build homes on. It's
too small, too steep and on a very busy corner. Why not consider land where the occupants could have a garden in the summer
and a nice yard where children could play.
My concern too after viewing the other Habitat for Homes in Estes is to the negative impact on my neighborhood. The homes
I've seen are not well kept outside and would bring our property values down.
I urge you please to reject the proposed project.
Thank you.
Patsy J. Nevill
866 Crabapple Lane
91
Dear Mayor Jirsa and Members of the Town Board,
As a resident of 864 Crabapple Lane in the Vista Ridge neighborhood, I am concerned about
the proposed rezoning and subdivision of the small lot directly across the street from my house, in
order to permit the expansion of Salud’s parking and the creation of two residential lots. While I
support both Salud and Habitat for Humanity and appreciate the vital work they do in our community, I
have serious concerns about this specific proposal and feel that this very small, very steep lot in an
already crowded area is not the right place to squeeze in two houses, two carports, a driveway, and
29 additional parking places.
This lot is the last remaining open space in my neighborhood, and provides the last
unobstructed view of the wetlands and Lumpy Ridge for me and several of my neighbors, and for that
reason it is important both to our quality of life, and to the resale value of our homes. The Habitat for
Humanity houses that have been built elsewhere in Estes Park, such as on Kuntz Lane, which I have
recently visited, do not in any way affect the view of surrounding residences, and also provide more
safety, privacy, and space for those who live in them than I believe this project could possibly provide.
The impact on property values for the 90plus residents of this already highdensity area would also, I
believe, be far greater than the impact of any previous Habitat for Humanity developments in Estes
Park.
I also share with my neighbors concerns about traffic and safety, both for those of us already
living in this area and for our potential future neighbors in the Habitat for Humanity houses. The
proposed location of the shared driveway at a threeway intersection, which already has significant
automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic, as well as children and pets using the same intersection,
seems like a mistake to me.
The extreme steepness and poor quality of this lot increase the disruption which construction
and development would inevitably cause, and also mean that drainage, subsidence, and runoff would
be likely to cause unnecessary expense and other problems for Habitat for Humanity in building, and
for the future residents of these homes.
Finally, my understanding is that the rezoning and subdividing of this lot is also intended to
create 29 additional parking spaces for Salud. I understand that Salud will need some additional
parking; however, for almost five years my house has directly overlooked Salud’s parking lot, and I
have never or almost never seen their parking lot full even on the busiest days, and have never seen
any overflow parking on the street. Very rarely is their parking lot even half full. I understand that
Salud may require some additional parking space, but it seems clear that far fewer than 29 spaces
would be adequate for their needs.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Town Board to reject the proposed rezoning and
subdivision of this lot. Thank you very much for your consideration, and thank you for all the time and
energy you invest in making our community a wonderful place to live.
Sincerely,
Rosa Thomson
92
Dear Mr. Martchink:
As a homeowner on Gray Hawk Court, I'm writing in regards to the potential
development of two Habitat for Humanity houses on a small corner lot in my
neighborhood. The land is zoned office and the Applicant of Habitat for
Humanity wants it rezoned to residential. (Lots 1 & 2, block 3, the Neighborhood
Subdivision and potential parking lot addition for Salud Healthcare facilities.)
Our Neighborhood Committee against this development has sent written
documentation to Mayor Jirsa and all Town Trustees outlining the many
negatives to this development.
My husband Eric and I are also next door neighbors to Bob and Joy Holcomb
and I know development will affect their property value as well. As a Town
Trustee, Bob can't vote die to conflict of interest.
I'm not against Habitat for Humanity, but I feel better locations can be found
in Estes Park.
Mr. Martchink, my husband and I voted for you because we know you're a man
of integrity and will listen to both sides before making the right decision. I
want to invite you, along with Mayor Jirsa and fellow Trustees, to come look
at the property in question and hear first hand our neighbors' concerns.
I hope to hear from you before the review. Thank you.
Sue Hansen
1855 Gray Hawk Court
5417537412
July 26, 2016
93
Gree뛕 ngs,
I respec峔 ully request that this email be read at the Public Hearing on , at in the Board Room of the Town Hall
before the Town Board of Trustees.
It has been brought to our a en뛕 on that you are reviewing a Subdivision Plat and Rezoning Request on behalf of Habitat for
Humanity and Salud on .
I am wri뛕 ng because we will be DIRECTLY AFFECTED. My wife and I have built our dream home that will be right next to the proposed
building of the two homes and car port. We have chosen to make Estes Park our re뛕 rement community. We have spent a substan뛕 al
amount of our savings on building this home; $314,000 to be exact.
We were told when we picked our lot to build on that the property was zoned Office not Residen뛕 al. Had we known that this
property could be zoned for Residen뛕 al that could contain two Habitat houses on the VERY SMALL LOT we would have looked
elsewhere.
I strongly urge each of you to visually assess this lot and then ask yourself "Would I like to live next to the proposed housing? Would
this diminish the value of my $300,000 plus home?"
Not only do we believe the lot available is to small for two homes and a car port and sharing one driveway but because of the layout
we are extremely concerned about what it will take to make this possible for one home let alone two due to the steep layout.
Further, a car port and one driveway for two families is not feasible. Think about it, at a minimum this would mean two different cars
for two different families. How would that work, sharing ONE driveway? More than likely someone would park on the street which is
narrow and very limited. That is not even considering when the families have company.
I commend Habit for Humanity for their mission however, we are extremely concerned about the quality of building materials and
cra횦 manshi횦 . I dare say it will not be close to what we and our neighbors have invested in building our homes.
We have found that the people of Estes Park are very much into maintaining the environment. We applaud this commitment and
want to also have the same mindset. We are all "Stewards," responsible to protec뛕 ng the world and community in which we live,
work and play. That said, and believed, would it not make more sense to purchase and renovate exis뛕 ng homes in Estes Park? By
doing this it would be much more responsible environmentally and I dare say more fiscally responsible. Further, the request to add
29 more parking spaces in the parking lot of Salud and adding more night ligh뛕 ng will nega뛕 vely affect the night sky. Do we not all
agree that seeing endless stars in the night sky is something we all desire? Plus, we have yet to see a quarter of the exis뛕 ng parking
lot full at any뛕 me when checking on the progress of our home.
Please, I beg you to look at this request to Rezone with the eyes, hearts and minds of us as possible next door neighbors as well as
those already living in the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. Please mindfully look and consider the overall and long
term impact, small size and steepness of the lot, the protec뛕 on of the neighborhood property values and investments, the safety of
poten뛕 al residents and their children, the lack of safe parking, the current high density of the area, and the FACT that Habitat for
Humanity has other op뛕 ons. As residents we have no other op뛕 ons as we have already invested a substan뛕 al amount of our monies
to build and live where we do!
Please take heed to the Estes Park Community Development Department vote that was opposed, "Against" the Habitat rezoning at
their mee뛕 ng on Tuesday, June 21.
Thank you for genuine reflec뛕 on on this IMPORTANT ISSUE. An issue that affects more than one organiza뛕 on but actually AFFECTS
REAL PEOPLE AND REAL COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS!
Very Sincerely,
Rev. Bruce and Sallie Brackman
July 26, 2016 7 pm
Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7 pm
94
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Fwd: Letter re: Habitat and Salud requests that will be presented on 7/26/16
Patrick Martchink <pmartc hink@es tes .org>Sun, J ul 24, 2016 at 11:19 AM
To: Town Clerk <townc lerk@es tes.org>
For public record.
Forwarded mess age
From: Deborah Tyl er <daptc a@gmail.c om>
Dat e: Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:00 AM
Subject : Letter re: Habitat and Salud reques ts that will be presented on 7/26/16
To: cwalk er@es tes .org, rnorris@es tes.org, wnelson@es tes .org, pmartc hink@es tes .org, bholc omb@es tes .org,
wk oenoig@estes .org, tjirsa@es tes .org, flanc aster@es tes.org, k rusch@estes .org
To: The Town Board of Es tes Park
RE: The Potent ial Application by Habitat for Humanity Dev elopment of Two Houses
Lots 1 and 2, Bloc k 3, The Neighborhood Subdivis ion
and
Pot entiial Park ing Lot Addition for Salud Healthc are Facilities of 29 Spac es and Lighting
Honorable Mayor, Board Members, and Town Adminis trator
This letter is to inform y ou t hat I am oppos ed t o t he abov e propos als for t he f ollowing reasons .
I. Habitat Building Propos al :
1. The addition of 2 houses in the s mall s pace indicat ed will c ause havoc at the inters ec tion of
Crabapple and Gray Hawk Court. This is a double c urve from Crabapple onto Gray Hawk, and then
on wes t on Gray Hawk, and the propos ed driv eway is right in the middle of thos e curves. There is
als o a US Postal podium loc ated at that int ers ec tion, and people s t op to pic k up their mail both by
car and on foot .
2. The houses in the Neighborhood hav e been carefully planned and des igned t o blend wit h eac h ot her
and the topography. Hav ing not seen a plan of the proposed houses I am not conf ident that t here is
any c oordinat ion with the exis ting properties. Are thes e homes inc luded in an HOA?
3. All of thos e houses plus t hose in the Vis t a Ridge c ondominiums hav e garages with doors that can
prov ide cover f or a v ariety of storage problems. Car ports c annot prov ide this , and t he potent ial for
debris being blown about is great, plus what protection will there be regarding “bear proofing”?
4. Concerns hav e been rais ed about t he pos sibility of a dec rease in home v alues , with citations about
other Habit at projec t s. Should t hat happen, it will not only be t he homeowners that will s uffer, but it
als o be the Town, because there will be a los s of property tax inc ome. The est imated loss, just from
this area, is $1 million. How does the Tax As sessor f eel about this addition, and its impact on home
values?
It has been s aid that y ou c an't pick y our relat iv es or your neighbors. But, y ou c an pick y our neighborhoods . If it had
been k nown when I c hose this area to live in 3 y ears ago that hous es were to be built on the sec t ion of land in question,
I probably would not have selec ted my current liv ing spac e. This is a f airly quiet area (when t here is no road cons truc tion
happening), and the neighbors are in touc h with one another. There are many “affordable hous ing” c hoices here—Falc on
Ridge, Talon P oint, and inters pers ed in Vis it a Ridge. These have all been wellplanned and not c rammed together. Let's
not s tart that t rend.
I I. I ncreas e in Salud Parking Spac es and Lighting:
1. In the 2 ½ y ears that I hav e liv ed in this area I hav e not s een t he Salud park ing
s paces full. In fact, with the ex c eption of employee park ing, it has been v ery empty.
Ev en with the “bac k t o s c hool” t imes, t here have been empty s pac es.
2. The f acility is not increas ing its “f oot print,” so it is hard to unders tand why more
park ing will be nec essary. They are adding a dental c omponent, and at most that will
add 3 patients/hour.
3. Will drainage from that proposed park ing lot have a direc tion t hat will ens ure that the
wet lands loc ated across the s treet will NOT be impacted?
My s uggest ions would be that: (1) Habit at choose among t he s ev eral homes within Estes Park t hat need rehabilitation,
bring it or them back up t o a good s tandard of living, and add them bac k into the tax bas e as v iable; and (2) Salud re
ev aluate the park ing needs as it applies t o c urrent patient attendanc e.
Thank y ou for y our atttention t o these matters.
Sincerely,
Deborah Tyler
880 Crabapple Lane
Es t es Park, CO 80517
Trus tee Patric k Martc hink
Town of Es tes Park
170 MacGregor Ave.
P.O. Box 1200
Es t es Park, CO 80517
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016 Page 1 of 2
Estes Park Habitat for Humanity/Estes Park Salud Foundation Fee Waiver Request
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Hearing Date: July 26, 2016
RE: Habitat for Humanity of Estes Park, Inc., and Estes Park Salud
Foundation Fee Waiver Request
Objective:
Determine if the application complies with the adopted fee waiver policy and move to
approve/deny the fee waiver request.
Present Situation:
Habitat for Humanity of Estes Park, Inc., and Estes Park Salud Foundation have
submitted an application for Minor Subdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, of the
Neighborhood Subdivision; Rezoning of the southern portion of Lot 1 from O (Office) to
R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to accommodate single-family residential uses; and a
Development Plan for two single-family residential units that would provide low cost
housing built by Habitat for Humanity and a parking lot for Salud Health Center. The
parking lot is expected to accommodate increases in patient services. Salud Health
Center is located at 1950 Redtail Hawk Drive on Lot 2 and the homes would be
addressed off of Gray Hawk Court.
Proposal:
Habitat for Humanity of Estes Park, Inc., and Estes Park Salud Foundation are
requesting a waiver of $9,100.00 in development application fees associated with
review of Minor Subdivision, Rezoning, and Development Plan. Staff finds that the
proposal complies with the Fee Waiver Policy because this development is proposed by
“organizations providing low-income health and human services or low-income
housing.”
Pre-Application Meeting $500.00
Development Plan $2,000.00
Preliminary Plat $3,000.00
Final Plat $3,600.00
Total $9,100.00
Community Development Memo
95
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016 Page 2 of 2
Estes Park Habitat for Humanity/Estes Park Salud Foundation Fee Waiver Request
The attached letter from Estes Park Salud Foundation further describes the request.
The fee waiver policy adopted by the Town Board is also attached.
Advantages:
There is a well-recognized need in creating low-cost housing, and the need for serving
low-income residents with accessible health services. This action would assist in
addressing these needs.
Disadvantages:
Approval of the request reduces the ability to recover Community Development
Department expenses associated with development review functions.
Action Recommended:
The Community Development/Community Services Committee heard the staff report
and forwarded the request to Town Board for consideration and action. The Committee
made no recommendation to approve or deny. Because the amount is greater than
$3000.00, the Town Board is authorized to approve this request.
Budget:
Approval of the request reduces the ability to recover Community Development
Department expenses associated with development review functions.
Level of Public Interest:
The level of public interest is high for the overall project due to opposition of affordable
housing to be located in the area as well as site design and safety concerns. The Town
has also received letters of support of the project. All written public comments received
for this application package and have been posted on the town’s website at
www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Estes Park Habitat for Humanity/Estes Park Salud
Foundation fee waiver request.
Attachments:
1.Written request from the applicant
2. Community Development Fee Waiver Policy
96
97
98
99
100
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Park Schools Subdivision
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Hearing Date: July 26, 2016
RE: Minor Subdivision Plat, Estes Park Schools Subdivision
Estes Park School District R-3, Owner
Objective:
Review of the Estes Park Schools Minor Subdivision Plat application for compliance
with the Estes Valley Development Code.
Present Situation:
The 44.35 acres proposed building site currently contains the Estes Park Aquatic
Center and school buildings on one metes and bounds parcel, and includes frontage on
Community Drive, Manford Drive and Brodie Avenue. The land uses surrounding the
site are the Stanley Fairgrounds and Stanley Park (Public Open Space) to the north and
northeast and multi-family residential to the west and south. The proposed community
center building (proposed Lot 2) includes a 12,552 square foot aquatics building, and
previously contained the old elementary school, which was demolished a few years
back. On July 19th, the Estes Valley Planning Commission conditionally approved a
Location and Extent Development Plan to construct a publically-owned Community
Recreation Center on the proposed Lot 2 and forwarded a recommendation to the Town
Board to approve the Minor Subdivision Plat with one condition.
The applicant is seeking a 1’ 0 3/8” deviation from the 30’ maximum building height in
the Outlying Commercial zone district, to accommodate a defined main entry to the
community center building. The variance requests will be reviewed by the Board of
Adjustment following all other land use approvals.
Proposal:
The Applicant requests approval to subdivide a metes and bounds property currently
owned by the Estes Park School District R-3 into two lots; Lot 1 would accommodate
the existing school buildings on 37.86 acres, and Lot 2 would accommodate a new
community center with associated parking, landscaping, detention, and internal
walkways on 6.49 acres. Lot 1 is owned by the School District and is not subject to
review by the Planning Commission and/or the Town Board of Trustees.
101
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Park Schools Subdivision
Advantages:
1. Compliance with standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code.
2.Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the Minor Subdivision.
3.Is consistent with a number of key goals included in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan, including Community-Wide Policies that address issues such
as community design, growth management, mobility and circulation, and economics.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Minor Subdivision Plat with
the following condition:
1.The applicant shall provide a sidewalk along south side of Manford Drive from the
intersection of Community Drive and Manford on the west to the intersection of
Community Drive and Manford on the east.
Budget:
The applicant is requesting a waiver of development application fees, building permit
and plan review fees for the community center project. This request and the fiscal
impacts of the waiver are described in the fee waiver staff report in the July 26, 2016
Town Board packet. The impact to the General Fund is estimated at $136,700 in
reduced revenue and approximately $56,000 in increased expenses. The Town expects
to incur approximately $56,000 in consulting expenses for the expedited review of the
development application package and future building plan review fees, of which
approximately $50,000 are unbudgeted.
Level of Public Interest:
The level of public interest for the overall Community Center Project is high; however,
the interest in the minor subdivision plat is low. No written public comments have been
received relating to the Minor Subdivision Plat.
Sample Motions:
Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Minor Subdivision Plat application:
1.I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the
Minor Subdivision Plat application with the findings and conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission;
102
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Park Schools Subdivision
a.The applicant shall provide a sidewalk along south side of Manford Drive from
the intersection of Community Drive and Manford on the west to the intersection
of Community Drive and Manford on the east.
2.I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the
Minor Subdivision Plat applications with no conditions;
3.I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENY the
Preliminary and Final Minor Subdivision Plat applications; or
4.I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the
applications and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to
review additional materials.
Attachments:
1.Estes Park Schools Minor Subdivision Plat (Preliminary Plat Form)
2.Estes Park Schools Minor Subdivision Plat (Final Plat Form)
103
104
105
106
107
Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community CenterMinor Subdivision
I.Project Background
II.Proposal
III.Key Issues and Findings
I.Estes Valley Planning Commission
Recommendation
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Recommendation
Project Site
Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Community Center:
•Indoor aquatics, fitness
center, lounge/library,
senior services, gym,
classrooms, multi-
purpose rooms &
childcare (kid watch),
game room,
conference/dining rooms
& admin/support spaces
•Existing Aquatics Facility
incorporated into Building
Design
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Recommendation
Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Metes & Bounds
Parcel
Lot 2 Lot 1
Lot 1 –Existing School building site 37.86 acres
Lot 2 –New Community Center on 6.49 acres
Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Review Process
•Expedited Review Schedule.
•July 5th Submittal addressed Town Departments
and Reviewing Agencies.
•July 19th EVPC Conditionally Approved a Location
and Extent Development Plan –Recommendation
to the Town Board to approve the Minor Subdivision
with 1 condition relating the sidewalk connectivity.
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Recommendation
Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Sidewalk Connectivity
Sidewalks on both sides of the street may be required where
the EVPC determines there will be significant pedestrian
usage unless there are unusual topographic conditions that
would make the installation unfeasible.
•Existing sidewalk on the north side of Manford Drive and
pedestrian crossing are provided to properly direct
pedestrian travel.
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Recommendation
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Recommendation
Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Sidewalk Connectivity
•Drainage structure is proposed along Community Drive.
•Proposing an internal sidewalk adjoining the parking area
along the north rather than the street.
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Recommendation
Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
ADVANTAGES:
1.Consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2.Adequate provision of services and facilities to serve the
development.
3.Compliance with the standards set forth in the EVDC, if
recommended condition of approval is met.
Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
APPROVAL of the Minor Subdivision Plat with the following
condition:
The applicant shall provide a sidewalk along the south side of
Manford Drive from the intersection of Community Drive and
Manford Drive on the west to the intersection of Community
Drive and Manford Drive on the east.
Project Background
Proposal
Key Issues & Findings
EVPC Recommendation
Any questions or comments of Staff?
Estes Valley Community Center Minor Subdivision Town Board, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community CenterMinor Subdivision
108
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant
Date: July 26, 2016
RE: Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
Objective:
Determine if the fee waiver request complies with Town Board’s adopted fee waiver
policy and take action on the request.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) has submitted three
development applications for the proposed Estes Valley Community Center, a minor
subdivision plat application, a location and extent development plan application, and a
variance application. On July 19, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
approved the development plan and forwarded a recommendation to Town Board to
approve the minor subdivision plat. The variance is scheduled for Board of Adjustment
review on August 2, 2016. Staff anticipates that a building permit application will be
submitted within the next few weeks.
The EVRPD is requesting a waiver of the development application fees, building permit,
and plan review fees. Requested fee waivers total approximately $137,000.
The Town Board has adopted a fee waiver policy to support essential community needs
through consideration of waiving in-house fees assessed by the Community
Development Department. The policy states in part that public funded government
construction may be exempted from building permit fees, development review fees, and
sign code fees. It also states that the decision-making body (Town Board) will hear the
fee waiver request and may choose to waive fees based on the merits of the request.
The community center project is a publically funded government construction project.
For the exact policy language refer to the attached policy.
The Community Development/Community Services Committee reviewed the fee waiver
request at the June 16, 2016 meeting and forwarded the request for Town Board
consideration and action.
Community Development Memo
109
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
Proposal:
The attached letter from the EVRPD dated May 27, 2016, further describes the request.
The bulk of the requested fee waiver, approximately $133,000, is for building permit
fees. These fees are intended to cover direct expenses associated with review of the
community center construction plans and in-progress inspection of construction for
compliance with the Town’s adopted building codes.
Typically, Community Development does not made recommendations regarding fee
waiver requests. However, this requested waiver is significant enough that Chief
Building Official (CBO) Birchfield recommended Town Board approve a partial rather
than full fee waiver. The Division’s ability to provide plan review and inspection services
for the Community Center project within the approved departmental budget will be
compromised with a full fee waiver request. Another option to address the CBOs
concern is a budget revision to account for the reduced revenue and increased
expenses.
The CBO recommended that twenty percent (20%) of the building permit fee,
approximately $16,817, be retained. This is intended to cover the Building Division’s
general administrative costs associated with the Community Center project. The CBO
recommended no waiver of the plan review fee as the CBO intends to outsource plan
review to Colorado Code Consulting (CCC) for workload reasons.
Planning Division Fees Fee Amount
Location and Extent Development Plan $2,000.00
Minor Subdivision Plat $1,200.00
Variance $500.00
Subtotal $3,700.00
Building Division Fees
Building Permit Fees*$84,083.75
Plan Review Fees**$49,000.00
Subtotal $133,083.75
TOTAL $136,783.75
*The building permit fees are based on total construction costs of $22,500,000.
**Plan review fees are estimates that depend on the quality of submittals and the number of reviews
required. They could range anywhere from $19,000.00 - $49,000.00.
Advantages:
•Aligns with Town Board’s policy of supporting essential community needs through
consideration of waiving in-house fees assessed by the Community Development
Department.
•Waiving fees will reduce project costs for a community project that has a very tight
budget. If fees are not waived, the EVRPD may need to further reduce the size or
scope of the project.
Disadvantages:
•The fee waiver policy applies to waiver of in-house fees, not direct expenses
incurred in outsourcing. The Town has incurred and will continue to incur direct
110
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 26, 2016
Estes Valley Community Center Fee Waiver Request
expenses associate with outsourcing for this project. Community Development
outsourced development application review to McCool Development Solutions due
the applicants’ construction schedule and a staff (Planner) vacancy. The Building
Division intends to outsource the building plan review for workload reasons.
However, this policy is about seven months overdue for review and possible revision
and the policy was adopted prior to the department outsourcing a fairly significant
amount of work.
•Approval of the request would reduce the ability to recover expenses associated with
the Community Development Department’s development review, building permitting
and inspection functions.
•Approval of the request would impact the ability of the department to meet the cost
recovery goals established by Town Board.
Level of Public Interest
High – Community Center
Low – Fee Waiver Request
Action Recommended:
On June 21, 2016, the Community Development/Community Services Committee heard
the staff report and forwarded the request to Town Board for consideration and action.
The committee made no recommendation to approve or deny the request. Because the
requested fee waiver is greater than $3,000, Town Board is the decision-making body
for this request.
Budget:
The fiscal impacts are as follows:
General Fund: 101-1600-341.30-00 Charges for Services – Application Fees-Inside
$3,700 in reduced revenue
General Fund: 101-1600.423.22-13 Contract/Skilled Services
Estimated at $6,000 in outsourced development review services (budgeted)
General Fund: 101-2300-322.10-00 Licenses and Permits – Building
Approximately $133,000 in reduced revenue
General Fund: 101-2300.423.22-13 Contract/Skilled Services
Roughly estimated at $50,000 in outsourced building services (unbudgeted)
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District fee waiver request.
Attachments:
1.Written request from the applicant
2. Community Development Fee Waiver Policy
111
112
113
114
Light & Power
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Shawn Koorn, Financial Services, HDR Engineering, Inc.
Date: July 26, 2016
RE: ORDINANCE #19-16 ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE 2016 – 2019.
Objective:
To establish electric rates adequate to support the operations and planned capital
improvements for Estes Park’s Light and Power Division.
Present Situation:
To ensure continued high-quality utility services and plan for future upgrades through
capital improvement projects, we periodically review the cost of providing services as
well as projected revenue – the rates paid by customers. The Town’s public electric
utility is a cost-based entity that relies solely on user fees to operate. Costs and
revenues must be balanced in order to maintain operations and keep utilities in line with
ever-increasing federal standards. Rate studies also ensure equitable rates among
customer classes, so that one customer class does not subsidize another.
The rate study recommends a rate increase which will be proposed at the July 26, 2016
Town Board Meeting.
Proposal:
Based on the rate study, Light and Power will propose rates increases as follows:
September 1, 2016 6.25%
January 1, 2017 5.50%
January 1, 2018 5.50%
January 1, 2019 5.00%
Advantages:
The proposed rates will ensure continued high-quality electric services and finance
future upgrades through capital improvement projects. Upkeep of our systems is a
critical part of maintaining our quality of life. These proposed rates allow costs to be
equitably divided among the customer classes.
115
Disadvantages:
No one looks forward to paying more.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of Option 2 of the rate study.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
These new rates will affect all Town electric customers. Interest is high; however, all our
direct communication with customers has resulted in their understanding of why these
rates are required. Some customers will notice this change when new rates are
implemented. We will continue to provide excellent customer service and explain why
the increases are necessary.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve proposed electric rates as set forth in Ordinance 19-16, which rates
to become effective September 1, 2016.
Attachments
Ordinance 19-16
Electric Rate Summary 2016 – 2019
L&P Electric Rate Presentation
HDR Electric Rate Presentation
116
ORDINANCE NO. 19-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
LIGHT AND POWER RATE SCHEDULES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is necessary to amend
the Light and Power Rate Schedules of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: That the Light and Power Rate Schedules shall be amended as
more fully set forth on Exhibit “A”:
Section 2: These rates schedules will take effect September 1, 2016.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS ______ DAY OF _________________, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees on the _____ day of ___________, 2016 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the _______ day of _____________, 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State
of Colorado.
________________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
117
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
Energy Off-Peak
Customer Rate Class Year Customer Consumption Energy Demand
Charge Charge Charge Charge
$/Month $/kWh $/kWh $/kW
RESIDENTIAL 2016 $6.70 $0.10075 --- ---
Sept '16 $10.70 $0.10885 --- ---
2017 $14.70 $0.10890 --- ---
2018 $18.70 $0.10920 --- ---
2019 $22.70 $0.10950 --- ---
RESIDENTIAL DEMAND 2016 $7.70 $0.06021
--- 10.62
Sept '16 $12.30 $0.06505 --- $12.00
2017 $16.90 $0.06508 --- $12.50
2018 $21.50 $0.06526 --- $13.10
2019 $26.10 $0.06544 --- $13.60
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY TIME-OF-DAY 2016 $7.70 $0.11900
$0.05946 ---
Sept '16 $12.30 $0.13650 $0.06820 ---
2017 $16.90 $0.14130 $0.07060 ---
2018 $21.50 $0.14700 $0.07345 ---
2019 $26.10 $0.15200 $0.07595 ---
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY BASIC TIME-OF-DAY 2016 $7.70 $0.11946
$0.09567 ---
Sept '16 $12.30 $0.13500 $0.10812 ---
2017 $16.90 $0.14000 $0.11212 ---
2018 $21.50 $0.14750 $0.11813 ---
2019 $26.10 $0.15300 $0.12253 ---
SMALL COMMERCIAL 2016 $9.85 $0.09804
--- ---
Sept '16 $15.73 $0.10800
--- ---
2017 $21.61 $0.11000
--- ---
2018 $27.49 $0.11200
--- ---
2019 $33.37 $0.11400
--- ---
SMALL COMMERCIAL ENERGY TIME-OF-DAY 2016 $10.85 $0.12356 $0.05417
---
Sept '16 $17.33 $0.14300 $0.06269
---
2017 $23.81 $0.15000 $0.06576
---
2018 $30.29 $0.15600 $0.06839
---
2019 $36.77 $0.16150 $0.07080
---
LARGE COMMERCIAL 2016 $13.35 $0.04555
---$11.14
Sept '16 $21.32 $0.05355
---$13.00
2017 $29.29 $0.05640
---$13.65
2018 $37.26 $0.05950
---$14.25
2019 $45.23 $0.06250
---$14.80
LARGE COMMERICIAL TIME-OF-DAY 2016 $15.70 $0.06142 $0.03330 $13.40
Sept '16 $25.07 $0.07000 $0.03795 $15.25
2017 $28.12 $0.07350 $0.03985 $16.00
2018 $35.77 $0.07750 $0.04202 $16.85
2019 $53.18 $0.08200 $0.04446 $17.45
OUTDOOR AREA LIGHTING 2016 $10.77 ---------
Sept '16 $17.20 ---------
2017 $23.63 --- --- ---
2018 $30.06 --- --- ---
2019 $36.49 ---------
Available to existing customers on this rate, September through
April. All other times is Residential energy charge.
Available to all residential customers using electric thermal
storage heat.
Available to all residential customers not using electric thermal
storage heat. These rates apply September through April. The
standard Residential rate applies May through August.
Available to all commercial customers with demands of 35 kW or
less. Minimum energy consumption charge = $10/month.
Available to all commercial customers using electric thermal
storage heat with demands of 35 kW or less
Available to all commercial customers with demands exceeding
35 kW
Available to all commercial customers with demands exceeding
35 kW
Available for lighting outdoor private areas
Electric Rate Summary 2016-2019
Available to all residential customers and residential customers
with electric heat up to 25,000 kWh annually.
118
Energy Off-Peak
Customer Rate Class Year Customer Consumption Energy Demand
Charge Charge Charge Charge
$/Month $/kWh $/kWh $/kW
RENEWABLE ENERGY CHARGE 2016 --- $0.02750
------
Sept '16 ---$0.0275 ------
2017 --- $0.0275 --- ---
2018 --- $0.0275 --- ---
2019 --- $0.0275 ------
MUNICIPAL RATE 2016 $0.00 $0.09422
------
Sept '16 $0.00 $0.10000 ------
2017 $0.00 $0.10550 --- ---
2018 $0.00 $0.11150 --- ---
2019 $0.00 $0.11710 ------
RMNP ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSING 2016 $6.70 $0.06597 ------
Sept '16 $10.70 $0.06600 ------
2017 $14.70 $0.06700 --- ---
2018 $18.70 $0.06800 --- ---
2019 $22.70 $0.06900 ------
RMNP SMALL ADMINISTRATIVE 2016 $9.85 $0.04518
------
Sept '16 $15.73 $0.04525 ------
2017 $21.61 $0.04535 --- ---
2018 $27.49 $0.04545 --- ---
2019 $33.37 $0.04555 ------
RMNP LARGE ADMINISTRATIVE 2016 $13.35 $0.01541
---$10.52
Sept '16 $21.32 $0.01630 ---$11.00
2017 $29.29 $0.01700 ---$11.50
2018 $37.26 $0.01776 ---$12.00
2019 $45.23 $0.01845 ---$12.50
NOTES:
**Purchase Power Rider is a pass-through of wholesale increases from PRPA; TBD for years 2017-2019
Residential "Basic" Time-of-Day is available for every residential customer except as stated above.
These rates apply only September thru April (for May thru August, the standard Residential rate applies):
ON-PEAK for Residential "Basic" Time-of-Day Customers: 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm weekdays
Updated 7-21-16
Available to RMNP administrative accounts having an alternate
power source delivered to Estes Park's distribution system with
demands exceeding 35kW
OFF-PEAK for Residential "Basic" Time-of-Day Customers: 7:00 pm to 4:00 pm the following day and all day
weekends and the following holidays: Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and New Years
Day.
Voluntary participation available to all classes; charge per 100
kWh block **
Available to RMNP administrative accounts having an alternate
power source delivered to Estes Park's distribution system with
demands of 35kW or less
ON-PEAK for Residential Time-of-Day Customers: 6:00 am to 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm weekdays
OFF-PEAK for Residential Time-of-Day Customers: 1:00 pm to 3 pm and 10:00 pm to 6:00 am
weekdays and all day on weekends and holidays (New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day)
Residential Time-of-Day available only for residential customers using electric thermal storage heat:
Available for municipal street, park lighting and buildings
Available to Rocky Mountain National Park residences having an
alternate power source delivered to Estes Park's distribution
system
119
LIGHT & POWER RATE PROPOSAL 2016 -2019
120
Overview
Why do we perform rate studies?
What are the proposed rates?
How do we compare with others?
What capital projects we are funding?
Why is the proposed monthly base fee going up?
What can customers do to manage their bill?
What is Light and Power doing to control costs?
121
WHY DO WE PERFORM RATE STUDIES?
To ensure continued high-quality water and electric
utility services and plan for future upgrades through
capital improvement projects, we periodically review
the cost of providing services as well as the projected
revenues.
122
WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED RATES?
92% of our customers are in the:
Residential Class
Small Commercial Class
Large Commercial Class
123
A CUSTOMER’S BILL
The Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU)
uses the following energy and demand figures to
facilitate comparisons between utilities:
Residential 700 kWh
Small Commercial 2,000 kWh
Large Commercial 45,000 kWh and 130 kW
CAMU standards are used for comparisons due to our
high percentage of second homes.
124
A CUSTOMER’S BILL
125
HOW DO WE COMPARE WITH OTHERS ?
Poudre Valley REA (PVREA), like Estes, serves a large area with few customers126
EQUIVALENTS
To put the residential increase into perspective by
January 1, 2017 residential electric service will be up
$8.28 based on the CAMU standard of 700 kWh/month
Fast food for two = $10.29
Latte for two = $9.27
Images from Fox News, Trip Advisor,
127
HOW DO WE COMPARE WITH OTHERS?
Poudre Valley REA (PVREA), like Estes, serves a large area with few customers128
HOW DO WE COMPARE WITH OTHERS?
Poudre Valley REA (PVREA), like Estes, serves a large area with few customers129
WHAT CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE WE FUNDING?
130
WHAT CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE WE FUNDING?
13
1
WHAT CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE WE FUNDING?
132
WHAT CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE WE FUNDING?
133
WHY IS THE PROPOSED
MONTHLY BASE FEE GOING UP?
We have certain fixed costs on the system that occur
regardless of whether customers are using electricity:
•processing monthly utility bills
•continuous need for trimming trees along our
easements and rights-of-way
The monthly base fee is increasing to help offset the
gap between fixed costs and fixed revenue, which
ensures our customers have electricity available 24
hours a day / 365 days a year.
134
WHAT CAN OUR CUSTOMERS DO TO MANAGE THEIR BILL?
•We understand that some of our customers face
financial struggles. Utility Billing works with these
customers to find them assistance. Two assistance
programs provide support. Last year 31 families
received assistance from Colorado’s Low-Income
Energy Assistance Program (LEAP).
•Customers who do not qualify for LEAP are given
referrals to Crossroads Ministry. Crossroads has
access to Energy Outreach Program Funds which
L&P supports annually.
135
WHAT CAN OUR CUSTOMERS DO TO MANAGE THEIR BILL?
•Budget billing is available to help customers
manage their bills. Budget billing averages a
customer’s annual monthly bills which facilitates a
customer’s financial planning.
•Some customers can reduce their electric usage by
becoming more energy efficient. Estes Park in
combination with Platte River Power Authority
offers energy audits and rebates. Customers can
call toll-free 877-981-1888 or visit
http://efficiencyworks.prpa.org/
136
WHAT IS LIGHT AND POWER DOING TO CONTROL COSTS
Reducing Outages Decreases Our Costs
Outages also disrupt our customers’ lives, productivity
and their profitability. Reducing outages is the focus of
our capital projects and tree trimming efforts.
Centralized Database of Assets and Documentation
Utilities has been digitizing infrastructure
documentation to make it easily accessible throughout
the whole organization. This saves time and money
when retrieving information for daily operations and
improves our organizational knowledge base.
137
WHAT IS LIGHT AND POWER DOING TO CONTROL COSTS
Workflow Improvements
Process improvements for work orders has been
streamlined with file sharing between Finance and
field operations.
Outsourcing
Utilities outsources wherever it provides the best
value. Engineering work, tree trimming and
Geographic Information Systems are three such areas.
138
The End
Questions?
139
JuO\2, 2016Overview of the Electric Rate StudyPresented by:6KDZQ.RRUQHDR Engineering, Inc.140
2Overview of the Presentation•Review draft final rate study results•Receive Board policy direction•Next steps141
3Key Assumptions of the StudyRevenue Requirement•Starting point is the adopted 2016 Budget–O&M is escalated by annual inflationary factors–Projected expenses over the 5-year review period•Developing a capital funding plan–Based on the current capital improvement planCost of Service•Allocate 2016 revenue requirement–Functionalize costs (general plant, distribution)–Classify costs into the appropriate component (energy,demand, customer)–Allocate costs to customer classes (residential, commercial)Rate Design•Current rate structure is maintained for all customers–2 options were developed for the Town–Customer charge, energy charge (kWh), and demandcharge (kW) where applicable•Reset the Power Cost Adjustment142
Revenue RequirementAnalysis143
5Revenue Requirement –Draft Final Results$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000$18,000$20,0002016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Revenue Requirement - ($000s)Total O&M ExpensesTaxes & TransfersDebt ServiceRate Funded CapitalCurrent Total Revenue144
6Revenue Requirement - Summary•Revenue adjustments are necessary–Annual O&M expenses–Capital improvement to maintain the system–Existing annual debt service–Taxes and Transfers•Bond required reserves–Required minimum of 90 days of O&M•Minimum achieved with proposed rate adjustmentsRate Transition Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019ProposedRate Adjustments 6.25% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00%145
Cost of Service Analysis146
8Cost of Service – Draft Final Results- Recommend no cost of service adjustments at this timeRevenue147
9Cost of Service – SummaryMinor cost differences between the customer classes of service Reflects customer usage and facility requirementsResults in fair and equitable ratesProvides the Board with information for rate structure policy decisionsCost of service is one tool in the rate making tRecommend “across the board” implementation of proposed rate adjustment148
Rate Design Analysis149
11Overview of the Current Electric Rates•Current rate structure–Fixed customer charge•Varies by class of service–Also varies by season for some customers–Energy Charge (kWh)•Varies by class of service–Also varies by season for some customers–Demand Charge (kW)•Varies by class of service where applicable–Also varies by season for some customers150
12Overview of the Proposed Rate Design•Maintain current rate structure–Only the level of the rates has been adjusted•Increasing customer charge (fixed charge)–Better reflection of fixed costs on the system•Option 1 – adjust by $3.00/mo./yr. (Residential)•Option 2 – adjust by $4.00/mo./yr. (Residential)•All other customers’ fixed charges are adjusted proportionally•Other rate components (kWh and kW) were adjusted to meet the target rate revenue•Proposed rates will result in resetting the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA)–Purchase Power Rider151
13Residential Rate Design – Option 1Present and Proposed Rates2016 2017 2018 2019Proposed Rate Adj6.25% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00%Residential$/Mo.Customer Charge$6.70 $9.70 $12.70 $15.70 $18.70$/kWhEnergy Charge$0.10075 $0.11055 $0.11210 $0.11405 $0.11570PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Residential DemandCustomer Charge $/Mo.Sept - April$7.70 $11.15 $14.60 $18.05 $21.50May - Aug6.70 9.70 12.70 15.70 18.70Energy Charge$/kWhSept - April$0.06021 $0.06607 $0.06699 $0.06816 $0.06914May - Aug0.10075 0.11055 0.11210 0.11405 0.11570PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Demand Charge$/kWSept - April$10.62 $11.95 $12.45 $13.00 $13.50May - Aug0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Present Rates152
14Residential Rate Design – Option 2Present and Proposed Rates2016 2017 2018 2019Proposed Rate Adj6.25% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00%Residential$/Mo.Customer Charge$6.70 $10.70 $14.70 $18.70 $22.70$/kWhEnergy Charge$0.10075 $0.10885 $0.10890 $0.10920 $0.10950PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Residential DemandCustomer Charge $/Mo.Sept - April$7.70 $12.30 $16.90 $21.50 $26.10May - Aug6.70 10.70 14.70 18.70 22.70Energy Charge$/kWhSept - April$0.06021 $0.06505 $0.06508 $0.06526 $0.06544May - Aug0.10075 0.10885 0.10890 0.10920 0.10950PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Demand Charge$/kWSept - April$10.62 $12.00 $12.50 $13.10 $13.60May - Aug0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Present Rates153
15Residential Rate Design –Option 1 and 2Bill Impacts2016201720182019Option 1$87.09 $91.17 $95.54 $99.69Option 2$86.90 $90.93 $95.14 $99.35Present Rates$82.66 $82.66 $82.66 $82.66$0$20$40$60$80$100$120Residential Monthly Bill Impacts @ 700 kWh
16Residential TOD Rate Design – Option 1Present and Proposed Rates (cont.)2016 2017 2018 2019Proposed Rate Adj6.25% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00%Residential Energy TOD$/Mo.Customer Charge$7.70 $11.15 $14.60 $18.05 $21.50Energy Charge$/kWhOn-Peak$0.11900 $0.13650 $0.14150 $0.14700 $0.15200Off-Peak0.05946 0.06820 0.07070 0.07345 0.07595PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Residential Basic TODCustomer Charge $/Mo.Sept - April$7.70 $11.15 $14.60 $18.05 $21.50May - Aug$6.70 $9.70 12.70 15.70 18.70Energy Charge$/kWhOn-Peak$0.11946 $0.13400 $0.14000 $0.14750 $0.15200Off-Peak0.09567 0.10731 0.11212 0.11813 0.12173Sept - April0.10075 0.11055 0.11210 0.11405 0.11570PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Present Rates155
17Residential TOD Rate Design – Option 2Present and Proposed Rates (cont.)2016 2017 2018 2019Proposed Rate Adj6.25% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00%Residential Energy TOD$/Mo.Customer Charge$7.70 $12.30 $16.90 $21.50 $26.10Energy Charge$/kWhOn-Peak$0.11900 $0.13650 $0.14130 $0.14700 $0.15200Off-Peak0.05946 0.06820 0.07060 0.07345 0.07595PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Residential Basic TODCustomer Charge $/Mo.Sept - April$7.70 $12.30 $16.90 $21.50 $26.10May - Aug$6.70 $10.70 14.70 18.70 22.70Energy Charge$/kWhOn-Peak$0.11946 $0.13500 $0.14000 $0.14750 $0.15300Off-Peak0.09567 0.10812 0.11212 0.11813 0.12253Sept - April0.10075 0.10885 0.10890 0.10920 0.10950PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Present Rates156
18Commercial Rate Design – Option 1Present and Proposed Rates2016 2017 2018 2019Proposed Rate Adj 6.25% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00%Small Commercial$/Mo.Customer Charge$9.85 $14.26 $18.67 $23.08 $27.49$/kWhEnergy Charge$0.09804 $0.10910 $0.11195 $0.11520 $0.11815PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Small Commercial Energy TOD$/Mo.Customer Charge$10.85 $15.71 $20.57 $25.43 $30.29Energy Charge $/kWhOn-Peak $0.12356 $0.14400 $0.15000 $0.15600 $0.16150Off-Peak 0.05417 0.06313 0.06576 0.06839 0.07080PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Large Commercial$/Mo.Customer Charge$13.35 $19.33 $25.31 $31.29 $37.27$/kWhEnergy Charge$0.04555 $0.05355 $0.05645 $0.05950 $0.06250PCA 0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000$/kWDemand Charge$11.14 $13.10 $13.75 $14.45 $15.10Present Rates157
19Commercial Rate Design – Option 2Present and Proposed Rates2016 2017 2018 2019Proposed Rate Adj6.25% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00%Small Commercial$/Mo.Customer Charge$9.85 $15.73 $21.61 $27.49 $33.37$/kWhEnergy Charge$0.09804 $0.10800 $0.11000 $0.11200 $0.11400PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Small Commercial Energy TOD$/Mo.Customer Charge$10.85 $17.33 $23.81 $30.29 $36.77Energy Charge$/kWhOn-Peak$0.12356 $0.14300 $0.15000 $0.15600 $0.16150Off-Peak0.05417 0.06269 0.06576 0.06839 0.07080PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Large Commercial$/Mo.Customer Charge$13.35 $21.32 $29.29 $37.26 $45.23$/kWhEnergy Charge$0.04555 $0.05355 $0.05640 $0.05950 $0.06250PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000$/kWDemand Charge$11.14 $13.00 $13.65 $14.25 $14.80Present Rates158
20Commercial Rate Design – Option 1Present and Proposed Rates (cont.)2016 2017 2018 2019Proposed Rate Adj6.25% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00%Large Commercial TOD$/Mo.Customer Charge$15.70 $22.73 $24.29 $30.03 $43.82Energy Charge$/kWhOn-Peak$0.06142 $0.07000 $0.07350 $0.07750 $0.08200Off-Peak0.03330 0.03795 0.03985 0.04202 0.04446PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Demand Charge$13.40 $15.25 $16.00 $16.85 $17.45Municipal$/Mo.Customer Charge$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$/kWhEnergy Charge$0.09422 $0.10000 $0.10550 $0.11150 $0.11710PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Outdoor Lighting Area$/Mo.Customer Charge$10.77 $15.59 $20.41 $25.23 $30.05Present Rates159
21Commercial Rate Design – Option 2Present and Proposed Rates (cont.)2016 2017 2018 2019Proposed Rate Adj6.25% 5.50% 5.50% 5.00%Large Commercial TOD$/Mo.Customer Charge$15.70 $25.07 $28.12 $35.77 $53.18Energy Charge$/kWhOn-Peak$0.06142 $0.07000 $0.07350 $0.07750 $0.08200Off-Peak0.03330 0.03795 0.03985 0.04202 0.04446PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Demand Charge$13.40 $15.25 $16.00 $16.85 $17.45Municipal$/Mo.Customer Charge$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$/kWhEnergy Charge$0.09422 $0.10000 $0.10550 $0.11150 $0.11710PCA0.00776 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Outdoor Lighting Area$/Mo.Customer Charge$10.77 $17.20 $23.63 $30.06 $36.49Present Rates160
22Summary of the Rate Designs•Developed Option 1 and Option 2 to more closely reflect the fixed costs of providing service –Based on the cost of service unit costs–Recommend Option 2•Rate structures reflect general industry approaches•No recommended rate structures changes •Proposed rates will reflect the revenue needs of the electric utility•Developed for a multi-year period (2016 – 2019)161
Rate Study Summary162
24Summary of the Electric Rate Study•Revenue adjustments are necessary–Need to meet O&M expenses–Adequately fund renewal and replacement of thesystem (capital)–Maintain bond required minimum reserve levels•Cost of service analysis resulted in minimalcost differences•Option 1 and Option 2 rates were developedfor a multi-year period–No rate structure changes are recommended–Increased the fixed charge to reflect unit costs163
25Next Steps…•Receive Board input and policy direction–Recommend rate Option 2•Implement proposed rates–September 1, 2016–January 1, 2017 ‐2019
Action Item #1
Public Comment
Rates should be tied to lnflation rates
Kevin Cooper
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Todd and Cody,
Thank you for taking on the leadership of our Town Council.
I do NOT want to see rates increased until other options are considered to exclude an increase,
modify the recommendations and turn off that transfer from electrical rate revenues to the
town general fund.
I am a full time resident for 16 years so I pay the result 12 months a year.
I have experienced 2 rate increases since living here and this will be the third
In the past (Chuck Levine times) I have asked that two things be considered:
To cope with development that the developers are charged a utility fee to cover capi tal
costs for their new development before they leave town
The utility fees going to the general fund be put instead to the capital reserves for the
utility
The last increase was to cover capital needs for growth
I feel in the past that developers are favored over full time residents and commercial interests
existing already in the community. The attitude reflected in the past has been to rubberstamp
recommendations from town staff, especially once a 'study' has been completed. Everyone
seems to like a study to give them cover for voting on increases rather than digging deep and
using zero based budgeting analysis.
I voted for you two because I have lost hope in the town trustee process that the decision is
made with the existence of recommendation from town staff and once the pledge of allegiance
is said, the feedback from the public is just a formality.
Bob Holcomb and Ron Norris don't represent me, and not sure anymore about Ward Nelson. It
takes about year for newly elected trustees to fall under the spell of the town staff and laser
focus of Frank Lancaster on himself.
Chuck Bonza
1551 Fish Creek Rd
970 775 3555
165
Action Item #1
Public Comment
I think raising residential electric rates 11.75% in a six month period is unacceptable. I would
hope that these increases could be dialed back a bit and spread out over a longer period of
time. It appears that much of the capital improvements planned are not extremely time
sensitive and could take place over a longer period of time. Please reconsider making such a
large rate increase.
Susan Harris
1971 Sharon Court North
Estes Park, Co. 80517
Sent from my iPad
166
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Electric rate increase
Monica Sigler <monic ahonika@gmail.com>Sun, J ul 24, 2016 at 1:05 PM
To: townclerk @estes .org
I am s o agains t t his , it seems that t he t own just keeps on piling on the bills and making the employee staff bigger and
bigger. I wasn't happy wit h the way the electric dept s wapped out the analog meters with their AMR. I protes ted this in
April and informed St eve that I wanted my analog back . These new meters hav e pretty high RF emis s ions and affec t
my health . I was als o told that they wanted t o s witc h to an AMI meter and informed them not to do anything els e on MY
hous e without permis s ion! It seems by sneak ing in thos e AMR meters it had to have s aved money on employees
already or s hould hav e . Pleas e t hink about the c ustomers f or a c hange inst ead of this huge money wheel ! Thanks for
y our time
Monica Sigler
Sent from my iPhone
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: July 26, 2016
RE: Background on Enforcement of Occupancy Limit for Vacation Homes
Objective:
To provide background for the Town Board’s discussion on reinstating enforcement of
the occupancy limit for vacation homes within Town limits.
Present Situation:
The Estes Valley Development Code currently prohibits the rental of vacation homes to
nine (9) or more occupants. Section 5.1.B.3.a(1) of the code states: “Maximum
Occupancy. No more than eight (8) individuals shall occupy a vacation home at any
one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited by a maximum of
two (2) individuals per bedroom plus two (2) individuals.”
On February 2, 2016 the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners met in a
Joint Study Session to discuss issues related to vacation homes in the Estes Valley. At
this meeting, the two Boards agreed to the formation of a task force to review the nine
(9) and above occupancy limit.
In order to allow the task force to complete its study of this issue and make
recommendations, a consensus was reached to not address code violations on the
number of guests for vacation homes of nine (9) or more.
While staff has followed the direction from the Town Board and the Board of County
Commissioners to not enforce the occupancy limit for vacation rentals with nine (9) or
more occupants, all other vacation home regulations continue to be enforced. Staff is
not issuing business licenses or operating permits for vacation rentals for nine (9) or
more occupants.
The Town Board requested at its July 12th Board meeting that this item be brought forth
as an action item on July 26th.
If the Board chooses to reinstate the enforcement of the occupancy limit for vacation
homes, that enforcement would only pertain to those vacation homes located within
167
Town limits. Staff would need direction from the Board of County Commissioners to
reinstate enforcement in the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley.
Level of Public Interest:
Staff expects a high level of public interest in this issue from the community.
168
169
170
Action Item #2
Public Comment
We cannot make it to next session, but please note our request to enforce the 8 person limit
while under review. Dozens are cramming into houses, disrupting neighborhoods.
Bill & Rebecca Urquhart
Sent from my iPad
I live outside the town limits in a residential neighborhood. It is my experience that more than 8
people in a rental house in our quiet neighborhood is very disruptive. I wish this restriction was
enforceable in our area.
Michele Holaway
171
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Comment Enforcement of Occupancy Limit for Vacation Rentals
Kjhol ien <k jholien@aol.c om>Mon, J ul 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM
To: townclerk @estes .org
To the Town of Es tes Park May or and Board of Trus tees :
We are in co mp le te ag ree me nt with the prop o sal to reinstate e nfo rcement of the occupan cy limit for vaca tion re ntals a t the maximum of eigh t
ind ivid uals, inclu ding th e limitation of 2 individu als p er b e dro om p lu s 2 in d ivid uals. Th ere we re man y vaca tion rentals of 9 and ab ove occupa ncy
o peratin g ille gally before the temporary enforcemen t morato rium imple mentatio n in Fe b ru a ry. Th ose an d ma ny more o perate tod a y due to the
e nfo rcement mo ra torium, ca using furthe r disruptio n to ou r commu n ity's reside n tial neighb o rh oods with mo re tra ffic, parking issu es, n oise, d ust a nd
h ig h er d e nsitie s tha n a re intende d in low density zo ning districts. Th is e n fo rce ment mo ratorium h as encouraged the proliferatio n o f essentially small
h ote ls, with out o n site mana gemen t, into our sin gle family re sidential n e ig hborho o ds where th ey ca u se th e mo st d isru p tion to the d a ily lives of lo cal
citizen s.
It's o n ly fair a n d e quitable to en force all vaca tion rental regu la tions u n til wh en, o r if, the La rimer Co unty Board of Co mmissioners and the To wn B oard of
Tru ste es reach a co nse n sus d e cision to a llow high e r occupa n cy limits any time in th e fu ture.
We re spectfully u rg e the Mayor an d Town Tru ste es to suppo rt the reinstatement o f enforce me nt of the occup a ncy limit fo r vacatio n ren tals with in the
Town limits. We a lso enco ura ge th e L arime r Coun ty Boa rd of Co mmissione rs to re insta te en force me nt in th e u nincorpo rated area of the Estes Valle y a s
we ll.
Sin cerely,
Be rn ie an d Kris Holien