HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2015-11-24
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
TOWN BOARD 4:45 p.m. – 6:40 p.m.
STUDY SESSION Rooms 202/203
4:45 p.m. Community Development Fee Structure.
(Director Chilcott)
5:15 p.m. Dinner Served
5:30 p.m. Transportation Advisory Board Parking Strategy
Recommendations.
(Director Muhonen)
6:15 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions.
6:25 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
6:40 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting.
“Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.”
AGENDA
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant
Date: November 19, 2015
RE: Discuss Stakeholder Feedback on Community Development Fee Schedules
Objective
1. To obtain definitive direction from Honorable Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees
on the level of cost recovery appropriate for the Community Development Department based
on Stakeholder feedback.
2. To obtain definitive direction from Honorable Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees
on three potential fee schedules for the Town of Estes Park Planning Division to be brought
back to the public for review and comment.
3. To obtain definitive direction from Honorable Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees on
a valuation and audit model for the Town of Estes Park Building Division to be brought back
to the public for review and comment.
4. To obtain definitive direction from Honorable Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees on
cost recovery for Floodplain Permits.
Present Situation and Community Feedback Summary
The current Town of Estes Park Development Review Fee Schedule was last amended over
ten years ago. As the economy continues to strengthen and development and construction
revert to pre-Recession levels, the Community Development Department has the opportunity
to reexamine its revenue potential. As such, the CDD has analyzed current revenue and
expenses, as well as fee schedules adopted by economically, regionally, and demographically
comparable communities. The results of this analysis were presented to the Board on
September 8th, 2015; the corresponding memo and exhibits from that worksession are
included in this packet.
Following presentation to the Board, the CDD set forth the following public participation
process for the fee schedule update process:
1. November 7th, 2015: MySidewalk online forum available for public comment until the
end of the process (https://estesparkfeeschedule.mysidewalk.com)
2. November 12th, 2015: Public Meeting to discuss current departmental cost recovery
and equity, as presented to the Board on September 8th
3. November 24th, 2015: Board Worksession to review feedback and obtain definitive
direction on updates to the Planning Division and Building Division fee structures
Memo
4. December 10th, 2015: Public Meeting to poll constituents on fee schedule options set
forth by the Board
The level of public interest on this issue is perceived to be low. The MySidewalk site, launched
on November 7th, had over 650 page views, but only 14 active participants. Additionally, while
Staff issued two press releases and conducted social media and e-mail outreach, only seven
members of the public attended the November 12th public meeting. However, Van Horn and
Cornerstone Engineering, both frequent applicants and consultants for development review
projects in the Town, were represented and provided substantial comment. The following
provides a summary of the feedback received on both the Planning Division and Building
Division Fee Structure updates, compiled from both online and in-person participation.
Planning Division Fees
The majority of stakeholders stated the following:
Development review fees are, in most cases, too low
Increases in fees shouldn’t exceed 50% (e.g. the maximum amount a development
plan fee should be raised is from $2,000 to $3,000).
Fee increases should be regular and incremental.
The cost coverage level for development review should be around 50%, as
development review plays a key role in ensuring that the Town is developed in a way
that reflects community desires and goals.
Some fees should be reduced or eliminated. Namely, stakeholders suggested that pre-
application meeting fees (currently $500) be maintained or reduced; some stakeholders
also suggested that rezoning fees (currently $3,000) should be eliminated if a rezoning
application is submitted in tandem with another application type, such as a
development plan.
Cost reimbursement at a certain cost recovery level would be a good option for
accounting for complex or large-scale projects as compared with simpler, smaller ones
of the same type (e.g. a 100-acre subdivision versus a 10-acre subdivision).
Building Division Fees
The majority of stakeholders stated the following:
The Building Division does not need to be fully self-sufficient. Plan reviews and
inspections are activities essential to public health and safety, and should therefore be
partially subsidized by the General Fund.
Memo
New builds and remodels should be valued the same way to ensure equity among all
project types.
There should be some consideration of reduced fees for more modest homes.
Proposal
Note: None of the following proposed fee structure models accounts for Public Works
or Utility Department expenses associated with Development Review.
Planning Division Development Review Fee Schedule
Cost Coverage
The Planning Division currently yields a cost recovery rate of 34% for development review.
Economically comparable communities are truly all over the map in terms of their cost
recovery, as this level is a function of the community’s development environment and
perception, how planning functions are funded, and how long-range planning efforts, such as
comprehensive plans and neighborhood plans, are funded. Based on feedback from the
development community and analysis of department function, Staff finds that that a range of
40% to 50% would be an appropriate cost recovery rate. This level of cost recovery, which
would necessitate a 25% to 45% increase in the majority of development review fees charged
and reflects public feedback, would allow for maintained or improved department operation
and customer service (the department would be estimated to yield between $25,000-$40,000
in additional generated revenue) while still remaining attractive to development and honoring
the role of planning in overall community health. However, this level of cost recovery would
still require substantial participation from the General Fund, and any additional positions (e.g.
a new plan review technician) would have to be subsidized by the General Fund as well,
though to a lesser extent.
Fee Schedule Options
Staff has created three fee schedules based on models discussed with the Town Board at the
September 8th Worksession and to-date community feedback obtained online and in-person at
the November 12th public meeting. Each fee schedule has been calculated based on a cost
recovery range of 43% (minimum) to 50% (maximum).
Option 1: Traditional (Current) Fee Model at 43%-50% Cost Recovery
Overview:
The Traditional (Current) Fee Model would entail adoption of an updated version of the
current fee schedule based on a 43%-50% level of expense coverage, charging a
standardized fee based on the type of application or project. Amounts have been rounded up
to the nearest dollar.
Memo
Standard Fee Table
Type of Application Current
Fee
Minimum New Fee Maximum New Fee
Pre-Application Meeting $500 $625 $725
Development Plan $2,000 $2,500 $2,900
Development Plan Amendment $600 $750 $870
Development Agreement Modification $600 $750 $870
Preliminary Subdivision Plat $3,000 $3,750 $4,350
Preliminary Plat Time Extension $600 $750 $870
Final Subdivision Plat $3,600 $4,500 $5,220
Final Plat Time Extension $600 $750 $870
Minor Land Subdivision $1,200 $1,500 $1,740
Amended Plat $560 $700 $812
Boundary Line Adjustment $300 $375 $435
Lot Consolidation Plat $400 $500 $580
Preliminary Condominium Map $1,200 $1,500 $1,740
Final Condominium Map $285 $356 $413
Supplemental Condominium Map $285 $356 $413
Amended Condominium Map $560 $700 $812
Improvement Agreement/ LOC $200 $250 $290
Release at Completion of Phase $300 $375 $435
Final Release into Warranty Period $300 $375 $435
Expiration of Warranty Period $200 $250 $290
BOA Variance- Prior to Construction $500 $625 $725
BOA- After Construction $880 $1,100 $1,276
Staff Level- Prior to Construction $100 $125 $145
Staff Level- After Construction $185 $231 $268
Administrative Appeal $300 $375 $435
Administrative- Board/Commission $300 $375 $435
Administrative- Staff Level $100 $125 $145
Annexation $1,500 $1,875 $2,175
Cell-Towers: Administrative Review $1,300 $1,625 $1,885
Easement Vacation $100 $125 $145
Rezoning $3,000 $3,750 $4,350
ROW Vacation $100 $125 $145
Legal Lot Determination $100 $125 $145
Street Name Change $100 $125 $145
Temporary Use Permit $50 $63 $73
Plan Review: Residential New Structure $85 $106 $123
Residential Addition $65 $81 $94
Memo
Residential Remodel $30 $38 $44
Commercial New Structure $180 $225 $261
Commercial Addition $180 $225 $261
Commercial Remodel $75 $94 $109
Condo Review (Additional Fee) $30 $38 $44
Advantages:
Simple, standardized model
Consistent with current fee structure format
Cost recovery level able to maintain or produce moderate increases in customer service
while reflecting parameters of public feedback
Disadvantages:
No mechanism for accurate assessment of per-project staff time
More complex projects are subsidized by simpler ones
Cost recovery level may not result in sufficient increase in interdepartmental revenue to
provide funding for an additional staff position
Option 2: Cost Reimbursement Model at 43%- 50% Cost Recovery
Overview:
The Cost Reimbursement Model would set forth a cash deposit which would be sufficient to
cover 43%-50% of the Town’s expenses in considering land use applications, including, but
not limited to, staff time, attorney fees, other consultant fees (i.e. planning, etc.), and
administrative costs. Expenses incurred would be tracked by the Community Development
Department and charged up to the designated deposit. Any funds held by the Town and not
expended, would be refunded to the Applicant upon completion or termination of the project.
Expenses incurred over the initial deposit would be charged at a determined hourly review
rate.
Review Deposit Fee Table
Type of Application Current
Fee
Minimum Deposit Maximum Deposit
Pre-Application Meeting $500 $625 $725
Development Plan $2,000 $2,500 $2,900
Development Plan Amendment $600 $750 $870
Development Agreement Modification $600 $750 $870
Preliminary Subdivision Plat $3,000 $3,750 $4,350
Preliminary Plat Time Extension $600 $750 $870
Final Subdivision Plat $3,600 $4,500 $5,220
Final Plat Time Extension $600 $750 $870
Minor Land Subdivision $1,200 $1,500 $1,740
Memo
Amended Plat $560 $700 $812
Boundary Line Adjustment $300 $375 $435
Lot Consolidation Plat $400 $500 $580
Preliminary Condominium Map $1,200 $1,500 $1,740
Final Condominium Map $285 $356 $413
Supplemental Condominium Map $285 $356 $413
Amended Condominium Map $560 $700 $812
Improvement Agreement/ LOC $200 $250 $290
Release at Completion of Phase $300 $375 $435
Final Release into Warranty Period $300 $375 $435
Expiration of Warranty Period $200 $250 $290
BOA Variance- Prior to Construction $500 $625 $725
BOA- After Construction $880 $1,100 $1,276
Staff Level- Prior to Construction $100 $125 $145
Staff Level- After Construction $185 $231 $268
Administrative Appeal $300 $375 $435
Administrative- Board/Commission $300 $375 $435
Administrative- Staff Level $100 $125 $145
Annexation $1,500 $1,875 $2,175
Cell-Towers: Administrative Review $1,300 $1,625 $1,885
Easement Vacation $100 $125 $145
Rezoning $3,000 $3,750 $4,350
ROW Vacation $100 $125 $145
Legal Lot Determination $100 $125 $145
Street Name Change $100 $125 $145
Temporary Use Permit $50 $63 $73
Plan Review: Residential New Structure $85 $106 $123
Residential Addition $65 $81 $94
Residential Remodel $30 $38 $44
Commercial New Structure $180 $225 $261
Commercial Addition $180 $225 $261
Commercial Remodel $75 $94 $109
Condo Review (Additional Fee) $30 $38 $44
Advantages:
Reflects public feedback
Accurate assessment and cost recovery per-project
Applicants have the ability to reduce their review fees by submitting complete, code-
compliant development review applications
Memo
Disadvantages:
Staff training required for accurate time and expense tracking
More complex implementation
Option 3: Combination Model at 43%-50% Cost Recovery
Overview:
The Combination Model would require a Cost Reimbursement structure for more involved
applications, such as Development Plans, Minor and Major Subdivisions, Code Amendments,
and Annexations, while simpler applications, such as Administrative Appeals, Legal Lot
Determinations, and ROW and Easement Vacations would use a flat fee.
Review Deposit Fee Table
Type of Application Current
Fee
Minimum Deposit Maximum Deposit
Development Plan $2,000 $2,500 $2,900
Development Plan Amendment $600 $750 $870
Development Agreement Modification $600 $750 $870
Preliminary Subdivision Plat $3,000 $3,750 $4,350
Preliminary Plat Time Extension $600 $750 $870
Final Subdivision Plat $3,600 $4,500 $5,220
Final Plat Time Extension $600 $750 $870
Minor Land Subdivision $1,200 $1,500 $1,740
Amended Plat $560 $700 $812
Boundary Line Adjustment $300 $375 $435
Lot Consolidation Plat $400 $500 $580
Preliminary Condominium Map $1,200 $1,500 $1,740
Final Condominium Map $285 $356 $413
Supplemental Condominium Map $285 $356 $413
Amended Condominium Map $560 $700 $812
BOA Variance- Prior to Construction $500 $625 $725
BOA- After Construction $880 $1,100 $1,276
Staff Level - Prior to Construction $100 $125 $145
Staff Level- After Construction $185 $231 $268
Annexation $1,500 $1,875 $2,175
Cell-Towers: Administrative Review $1,300 $1,625 $1,885
Rezoning $3,000 $3,750 $4,350
Plan Review: Residential New Structure $85 $106 $123
Residential Addition $65 $81 $94
Residential Remodel $30 $38 $44
Commercial New Structure $180 $225 $261
Commercial Addition $180 $225 $261
Commercial Remodel $75 $94 $109
Memo
Condo Review (Additional Fee) $30 $38 $44
Standard Fee Table
Type of Application Current
Fee
Minimum New Fee Maximum New Fee
Pre-Application Meeting $500 $625 $725
Improvement Agreement/LOC $200 $250 $290
Release at Completion of Phase $300 $375 $435
Final Release into Warranty Period $300 $375 $435
Expiration of Warranty Period $200 $250 $290
Administrative Appeal $300 $375 $435
Administrative- Board/Commission $300 $375 $435
Administrative- Staff Level $100 $125 $145
Easement Vacation $100 $125 $145
Legal Lot Determination $100 $125 $145
Street Name Change $100 $125 $145
Temporary Use Permit $50 $63 $73
Advantages:
Most closely reflects public feedback
Accurate assessment and cost recovery per-project
Simple, standardized model for less complex projects
Applicants have the ability to reduce their review fees in the case of some development
review applications by submitting complete, code-compliant documents
Disadvantages:
Staff training required for accurate time and expense tracking
No mechanism for accurately assessing staff time per-project and per-project type for
typically smaller projects
More complex implementation
Other Considerations:
1. Maintain or reduce cost of pre-application meeting.
Advantages:
Reflects to-date public feedback
Encourages scheduling of pre-application meetings, which enables staff and applicants to
have a thorough understanding of the project and the associated review process(es)
Disadvantages:
$500 fee, in many cases, does not cover the actual cost of planner and reviewing agency
time and administrative tasks and products (e.g. printing, etc.)
Memo
2. Rezonings are typically done in tandem with other expensive
application types, such as development plans. If this is the case,
the rezoning fee should be waived.
Advantages:
Reflects to-date public feedback
Disadvantages:
Rezonings are meant to be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, and should be conducted sparingly. A lowered or eliminated
stand-alone rezoning fee could increase the volume of rezoning
requests.
Building Permit Valuation: Though the current Building Permit Fee Schedule is equal to
comparable communities, such as the Larimer County Building Department, the City of
Loveland, the City of Longmont, the Town of Breckenridge, and the Town of Vail, the building
department only collects an estimated 60% of actual building permit fees because of
discounted valuations, particularly for new structures. Community feedback suggests that
while the current building division cost recovery (56%) is appropriate, inaccurate valuations
make the playing field unfair for remodels, as they are valued at full cost, while new square
footage is typically valued at only a portion of the cost.
Option 1: Maintain Existing System
Overview: This option would involve maintenance of the existing building permit valuation
system and audit system. This existing system includes a square footage model to assess
valuation for new square footage (International Code Council square footage model with the
1.99 Colorado Regional Modifier), while remodels are assessed at actual cost. This system
is expected to yield a 56% coverage rate of departmental expenses related to building
permits, including staff time and applicable overhead costs.
Advantages:
No changes required
Disadvantages:
Does not reflect community feedback
No anticipated improvements in cost recovery
Inequity among job types
Memo
Option 2: Locally-based Assessment Model and Standardized Audit Procedure
Overview: This option would require the adoption of a locally-based valuation assessment
model and audit procedure for all project types.
Valuation Assessment Model: Because of higher construction costs in Estes Park, the current
assessment model is inaccurate and enables low valuations. This option would propose an
assessment model with per square foot calculations based on a range provided by a pool of
local contractors. The ranges would encompass each of the construction types typical to the
Town. For example, new residential construction would be based on whether the home is a
Basic Home, a Spec Home, a Custom Home, and a Log Home.
Audit Procedure: This option would also include the adoption of a standardized audit
procedure for low valuations. If a stated valuation on a building permit application deviated
from the average range compiled by local construction data, the formal bid would be
requested, and the project would be audited following construction.
Advantages:
Most closely reflects community feedback
Improved cost recovery through valuation accuracy and standardized project auditing
Adherence to ICC standards with a local modifier
Greater equity across project types
Disadvantages:
Would require feedback and consensus from the development community prior to
implementation
Most complex implementation
Other Considerations:
1. Reduced fees for more modest homes, such as Habitat for Humanity homes.
Advantages:
Reflects to-date public feedback
Provides a form of public monetary support for “affordable”
construction
Disadvantages:
Difficult to implement
Necessitates qualitative judgment on the part of Building Division
Staff
Memo
Floodplain Permits
Currently, Floodplain Permits are outsourced to an external consultant, who bills the Town
hourly for review. While the Floodplain Permit fee is $50, permit reviews cost an average of
$500 to $1,000 to review, depending on the complexity of the project. Because of this huge
gap in cost versus recovery, Staff recommends that Floodplain Permits be charged to
applicants at cost.
Budget
Changes to the Development Review Fee Schedule would impact Account Number 101-1600.
Changes to the Building Permit Valuation and Audit Procedures would impact Account
Number 101-2300.
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest of the general citizenry is perceived to be low, particularly
considering the amount of participation received to-date on this topic. However, Staff
anticipates that any changes to the development review fee schedule and building permit
valuation assessment system will yield an increased level of public interest for some time after
implementation. Public comment after the fact can be handled by Staff by providing education
about the process that lead to the changes.
Next Steps
Staff will present the Board’s recommended options for both the Planning Division and
Building Division to the public at a meeting tentatively scheduled for December 10th,
2015, at which the public will be polled on said options. Poll data will be presented to the
Board in January.
Attachments
Exhibit A: September 8, 2015 Town Board Worksession Memo
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant
Date: September 4th, 2015
RE: Discuss Possible Community Development Fees
Objective
1. To obtain direction from Honorable Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees on the level
of cost recovery appropriate for the Community Development Department.
2. To obtain direction from Honorable Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees on three
potential fee schedule models for the Town of Estes Park Planning Department. Each of the
three models aims to provide a fair and equitable fee schedule for development review while
improving coverage of department costs.
3. To obtain direction from Honorable Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees on improved
cost recovery and equitability for building permit fees through changes in valuation and audit
procedures.
Present Situation and Methodology
The current Town of Estes Park Development Review Fee Schedule was last amended over
ten years ago. As the economy continues to strengthen and the development and construction
revert to pre-Recession levels, the Community Development Department has the opportunity
to reexamine its revenue potential. As such, the CDD has analyzed current revenue and
expenses, as well as fee schedules adopted by economically, regionally, and demographically
comparable communities, to devise three potential development review fee schedule models
for the Planning Division that will ensure a fair, equitable, and attractive development
environment while improving coverage of key department costs. Additionally, the CDD has
analyzed three potential valuation and audit procedure models that will improve cost recovery
in the Building Division and ensure fairness and equitability among different construction
projects.
Development Review Fee Schedule: The Community Development Department is expected
to yield $94,636 in revenue for 2015, procured from development review, planning fees, and
the Larimer County IGA. Based on the recorded Staff Time estimates for 2015 , including
estimated Planner I time, and applicable overhead, the total estimated Community
Development Department expense as it relates to Development Review for 2015 is
$274,526.72. The department is at an expense coverage level of 34% for Development
Review. The enclosed analysis examines development and plan review fees necessary to
recoup estimated expenses, including overhead, at 50%, 75%, 90%, and 100% (See Exhibit
A). The analysis also takes into account the fee schedules of demographically, economically,
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
and regionally comparable communities. The majority of such communities, as shown by the
enclosed analysis, have adopted some mechanism for covering costs for larger or more
complex projects, whether that be through an acreage fee, an additional review fee, or a cost
reimbursement model (See Exhibit C). With a clearer understanding of the fees that would be
needed to offset the Town’s actual costs, there are three potential fee structure models to
consider that would allow for improved coverage of department costs while ensuring a fair,
equitable, and attractive development environment.
Note: None of the following proposed fee structure models accounts for Public Works
or Utility Department expenses associated with Development Review.
Proposal
Option 1: Traditional (Current) Fee Model
Overview: The Traditional (Current) Fee Model would entail adoption of an updated version of
the current fee schedule based on a certain level of expense coverage (50%, 75%, 90%, or
100%), charging a standardized fee based on the type of application or project.
Advantages:
Simple, standardized model
Consistent with current fee structure format
Disadvantages:
No mechanism for accurate assessment of per-project staff time
More complex projects are subsidized by simpler ones
Option 2: Cost Reimbursement Model
Overview: The Cost Reimbursement Model would set forth reasonable non-refundable land
use fees sufficient to cover the cost of administration, inspections, publication of notices,
public hearing expenses and reproduction of materials. The non-refundable fees may not be
adequate to fully cover the Town’s expenses in reviewing land use applications so this model
would require the Town to collect a refundable cash deposit which would be sufficient to
cover the Town’s expenses in considering land use applications, including, but not limited to,
staff time, attorney fees, and other consultant fees (i.e., floodplain, planning, etc.). The Town
would expend the monies collected from the Applicant in the form of land use fees and cash
deposits, in the payment of expenses incurred in processing the Applicant’s request,
throughout the development review process, until final completion of the project. Any funds
held by the Town and not expended, will be refunded to the Applicant upon completion or
termination of the project.
Advantages:
Development pays its own way
Accurate assessment and cost recovery per-project
Applicants have the ability to reduce their review fees by submitting complete, code-
compliant development review applications
Disadvantages:
More complex implementation
Option 3: Combination Model
Overview: The Combination Model would require a Cost Reimbursement structure for more
involved applications, such as Development Plans, Minor and Major Subdivisions, Code
Amendments, and Annexations, while simpler applications, such as Administrative Appeals,
Legal Lot Determinations, and ROW and Easement Vacations would use a flat fee.
Advantages:
Accurate assessment and cost recovery per-project
Simple, standardized model for less complex projects
Applicants have the ability to reduce their review fees in the case of some development
review applications by submitting complete, code-compliant documents
Disadvantages:
No mechanism for accurately assessing staff time per-project and per-project type for
typically smaller projects
More complex implementation
Building Permit Valuation: Though the current Building Permit Fee Schedule is equal to
comparable communities, such as the Larimer County Building Department, the City of
Loveland, the City of Longmont, the Town of Breckenridge, and the Town of Vail, the building
department only collects an estimated 60% of actual building permit fees because of
inaccurate valuations provided by applicants, particularly for new structures. Based on
anticipated 2015 building permit revenue, the Building Department will yield $175,000, or a
56% coverage rate of total expenses related to building permits, estimated at $310,632.60
(See Exhibit B). While coverage for the Building Department is comparatively strong,
equitability is a key issue only solvable through changes in the valuation assessment and audit
structure. According to data provided by the Chief Building Official, building valuations for new
structures are typically only estimated at 60% actual cost, while new additions, porches, etc.
are estimated at 100% actual cost. This inequity could be addressed through an Estes Park-
specific valuation model, as well as a regulated and standardized audit procedure for low
valuations.
Option 1: Maintain Existing System
Overview: This option would involve maintenance of the existing building permit valuation
system, audit system, and waivers. The existing system is expected to yield a 56% coverage
rate of departmental expenses related to building permits, including staff time and applicable
overhead costs.
Advantages:
No changes required
Disadvantages:
No anticipated improvements in cost recovery
Inequity among job types
Option 2: Use International Code Council Valuation System with the Colorado Regional Cost
Modifier of 0.99
Overview: This option would entail using the most recently issued International Code Council
Building Valuation Data (BVD), which is updated every six months, with the Colorado Regional
Cost Modifier of 0.99 to estimate the value of building permit review projects.
Advantages:
Greater equity and uniformity for all construction and development types
Consistency with other Colorado communities
Disadvantages:
More complex implementation than maintaining existing system
Statewide cost modifier does not accurately depict Estes Park’s construction valuations
Option 3: Locally-based Assessment Model and Standardized Audit Procedure
Overview: This option would require the adoption of a locally-based valuation assessment
model and audit procedure.
Valuation Assessment Model: Because of higher construction costs in Estes Park, the current
assessment model is inaccurate and enables low valuations. This option would propose an
assessment model with per square foot calculations based on a range provided by a pool of
local contractors. The ranges would encompass each of the construction types typical to the
Town. For example, new residential construction would be based on whether the home is a
Basic Home, a Spec Home, a Custom Home, and a Log Home.
Audit Procedure: This option would also include the adoption of a standardized audit
procedure for low valuations. If a stated valuation on a building permit application deviated
from the average range compiled by local construction data, the formal bid would be
requested, and the project would be audited following construction.
Advantages:
Improved cost recovery through valuation accuracy and standardized project auditing
Adherence to ICC standards with a local modifier
Greater equity across project types
Disadvantages:
Would require feedback and consensus from the development community prior to
implementation
Most complex implementation
Budget
Changes to the Development Review Fee Schedule would impact Account Number 101-1600.
Changes to the Building Permit Valuation and Audit Procedures would impact Account Number
101-2300.
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest of the general citizenry is expected to be high for changes to
building permit valuation and audit procedures, as changes to the current system will impact a
wide range of construction projects and the fees incurred. The level of public interest is
expected to be high for the Planning Division development review fee schedule, specifically for
the development community, as any changes to the fee schedule will impact the overall costs
for development projects.
Next Steps
We recommend that any proposed changes to the Development Review Fee Schedule or
Building Permit Review Valuation and Audit Procedures are referred to the development
community via a Stakeholder Meeting to discuss options and perceived impact on
development pace and general environment.
Attachments
Exhibit A: Development Review Fee Schedule at Different Coverage Levels
Exhibit B: Building Permit Review Revenue and Expense Coverage
Exhibit C: Development Review Fee Schedule: Comparison Communities
EXHIBIT A Community Development Department: Planning Division Development Review Fee Schedule at Different Coverage Levels Development Revle Fees Fee Type Current Town Fee- 34% DR Expense Coverage Proposed Town Fee- 50% DR Expense Coverage Proposed Town Fee- 75% DR Expense Coverage Proposed Town Fee- 90% DR Expense Coverage Proposed Town Fee- 100% DR Expense Coverage Pre-Application Conference $ 500.00 $ 725.00$ 1,090.00$ 1,305.00 $ 1,450.00 Development Plan $ 2,000.00 $ 2,900.00$ 4,360.00$ 5,220.00 $ 5,800.00 Development Plan Amendment $ 600.00 $ 870.00$ 1,308.00$ 1,566.00 $ 1,740.00 Development/Annexation Agreement $ 1,500.00 $ 2,175.00$ 3,270.00$ 3,915.00 $ 4,350.00 Development Agreement Modification $ 600.00 $ 870.00$ 1,308.00$ 1,566.00 $ 1,740.00 Preliminary Subdivision Plat $ 3,000.00 $ 4,350.00$6,540.00$ 7,830.00 $ 8,700.00 Preliminary Plat Time Extension $ 600.00 $ 870.00$ 1,308.00$ 1,566.00 $ 1,740.00 Final Subdivision Plat $ 3,600.00 $ 5,220.00$ 7,848.00$ 9,396.00 $ 10,440.00 Final Plat Time Extension $ 600.00 $ 870.00$ 1,308.00$ 1,566.00 $ 1,740.00 Minor Land Subdivision $ 1,200.00 $ 1,740.00$ 2,616.00$ 3,132.00 $ 3,480.00 Amended Plat $ 560.00 $ 812.00$1,220.80$ 1,461.60 $ 1,624.00 Boundary Line Adjustment $ 300.00 $ 435.00$ 654.00$ 783.00 $ 870.00 Lot Consolidation Plat $ 400.00 $ 580.00$ 872.00$ 1,044.00 $ 1,160.00 Preliminary Condominium Map $ 1,200.00 $ 1, 7 4 0.00$ 2,616.00$ 3,132.00 $ 3,480.00 Final Condominium Map $ 285.00 $ 413.25$ 621.30$ 743.85 $826.50 Supplemental Condominium Map $ 285.00 $ 413.25$ 621.30$ 743.85 $ 826.50 Amended Condominium Map $ 560.00 $ 812.00$ 1,220.80$ 1,461.60 $ 1,624.00 Improvement Agreement/LDC Set-Up $ 200.00 $ 290.00$ 436.00$ 522.00 $ 580.00 Release at Completion ofPhase $ 300.00 $ 435.00$654.00$ 783.00 $ 870.00 Final Release into Warranty Period $ 300.00 $ 435.00$ 654.00$ 783.00 $ 870.00 Expiration of Warranty Period $ 200.00 $ 290.00$ 436.00$ 522.00 $ 580.00 BOA Variance- Prior to Construction $ 500.00 $ 725.00$ 1,090.00$ 1,305.00 $ 1,450.00 BOA- After Construction $ 880.00 $ 1,276.00$1,918.40$ 2,296.80 $2,552.00 Staff Level- Prior to Construction $ 100.00 $ 145.00$ 218.00$ 261.00 $ 290.00 Staff Level- After Construction $ 185.00 $ 268 .25$ 403 .30$482.85 $536.50 Administrative Appeal $ 300.00 $ 435.00$ 654.00$ 783.00 $ 870.00 Administrative- Board/Commission $ 300.00 $ 435.00$ 654.00$ 783.00 $ 870.00 Administrative- Staff Level $ 100.00 $ 145.00$ 218.00$ 261.00 $ 290.00 Annexation $ 1,500.00 $ 2,175.00$ 3,270.00$ 3,915.00 $ 4,350.00 Cell-Towers Administrative Review $ 1,300.00 $ 1,885.00$ 2,834.00$ 3,393.00 $ 3,770.00 Easement Vacation $ 100.00 $ 145.00$ 218.00$ 261.00 $290.00 Rezoning $ 3,000.00 $ 4,350.00$ 6,540.00$ 7,830.00 $ 8,700.00 ROW Vacation $ 100.00 $ 145.00$ 218.00$ 261.00 $ 290.00 Legal Lot Determination $ 100.00 $ 145.00$ 218.00$ 261.00 $290.00 Street Name Change $ 10 0.00 $ 145.00$ 218.00$ 261.00 $ 290.00 Temporary Use Permit $ 50.00 $ 72.50$ 109.00$ 130.50 $ 145.00 Planning Review of Bulldlng Permits Residential New Structure $ 85.00 $ 123.25$ 185.30$ 221.85 $ 246.50 Residential Addition $ 65.00 $ 94.25$ 141.70$ 169.65 $ 188.50 Residential Remodel $ 30.00 $ 43.50$ 65.40$ 78.30 $ 87.00 Commercial New Structure $ 180.00 $ 261.00$392.40$ 469.80 $ 522.00 Commercial Addition $ 180.00 $ 261.00$ 392.40$ 469.80 $ 522.00 Commercial Remodel $ 75.00 $ 108.75$ 163.50$ 195.75 $ 217.50 Condo Review (Additional Fee) $ 30.00 $ 43.50$ 6S.40$ 78.30 $ 87.00
EXHIBIT B Community Development Department: Building Division Building Permit Review Revenue and Expense Coverage Building 2015 Anticipated Revenue (Building Permits Only) including Waivers Building 2015 Anticipated Revenue (Building Permits Only) without Waivers Building Total Expenses (Incl.Staff Time, Prof Services, Building Repair, Office Supplies, etc.) 50% Coverage 75% Coverage 90% Coverage 10 0 % C o v e r a g e $ 175,000.00 56% Coverage $ 255,000.00 82% Coverage $ (310,632.60) $ 155,316.30 in annual revenue $ 232,974.45 in annual revenue $ 279,569.34 in annual revenue $ 310,632.60 in annual revenue Including Waivers: %Increase Required: 50% Coverage %Increase Required: 75% Coverage %Increase Required: 90% Coverage %Increase Required: 100% Coverage Without Waivers: %Increase Required: 50% Coverage %Increase Required: 75% Coverage %Increase Required: 90% Coverage %Increase Required: 100% Coverage Coverage Met Coverage Met Coverage Met 33% 60% 78% 10% 22% Expenses include: 90% Salary and Benefits 100% Legal 40% IT 100% GIS 100% Application Publications 100% Publication Fees 90% Office Supplies 100% Postage 90% Printing/Forms 100% Catering 80% Data Processing Software 80% Data Processing Equipment 100% Education/Training 100% Membership Dues/Subscriptions 100% Mileage Reimbursement 100% Vehicle Equipment 100% Future Vehicle Purchase
EXHIBIT C Community Development Department: Planning Division Development Review Fee Schedule: Comparison Communities Application Type Estes Valley (Town) Estes Valley (County) Loveland LongmontThorntonNederlandCrested Butte Annexation $ 1,500.00 N/A $1,217 (PUD) + acreage fee* $2,282 (Not PUD)+ acreage fee* $1,000 (up to 1 acre) $2,000 (up to 10 acres) $3,500 (up to 40 acres) $3,500 + $10/acre (>40) $300+ $75 per each additional review $16,900 (Standard) $8,450 (Residential; no further development) Cost reimbursement agreement Rezoning $ 3,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 760.00 $750 + $10/acre $695+173.75pereachadditional review $1,000+$1,000depositforreview fees Cost reimbursement agreement Easement Vacation $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $305 $250 +$100/additional $250+$62.50pereachadditonal review $500 N/A Right‐of‐Way Vacation $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $305 $250 +$100/additional $250+$62.50pereachadditonal review $500 $20/25 ft Administrative Appeal $ 300.00 $ 200.00 $300 N/A 90+$22.50pereachadditional review N/A N/A Variance: BOA Prior to Construction $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $229 $250+$100/additionalN/AN/AN/A Variance: BOA After Construction $ 880.00 $ 500.00 $ 229.00 " " N/AN/AN/A Staff Level Minor Mod: Prior $ 100.00 $ 50.00 N/A $100(SFresidential)$250 (all others) $250+$62.50pereachadditonal review N/A N/A Staff Level Minor Mod: After $ 185.00 $ 50.00 N/A " " ""N/AN/A Pre‐Application Conference $ 500.00 $ 800.00 N/A N/AN/AN/AN/A Development Plan $ 2,000.00 Varies $100 General SDP $1,217 PUD Development Plan + acreage fee** $1,000 (3 year vesting) $5,000 (> 3 year vesting) $580 + $145 per each additional review $1,000 + $1,000 Deposit Cost reimbursement agreement Development Plan Amendment $ 600.00 N/A N/A DP fees include amendments $290+$72.50pereachadditional review N/A Incl. in cost reimbursement agreement Development/ Annexation Agreement $ 1,500.00 N/A $ 300.00 $750(upto10lotsor10acres)$1,500 (up to 100 lots or 100 acres) N/A Cost reimbursement agreement Cost reimbursement agreement Development Agreement Mod $ 600.00 $ ‐ $ 150.00 $250(administrative)$500 (all others) N/A Incl. in cost reimbursement agreement Incl. in cost reimbursement agreement Prelim Sub Plat $ 3,000.00 Varies $ 913.00 $750(upto10lotsor10acres)$1,500 (up to 100 lots or 100 acres) $2,500 (>100 lots or 100 acres) $230 + $15.00/acre, +25% per each additional review $500 Cost reimbursement agreement Final Sub Plat $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 1,065.00 $500(upto10lotsor10acres)$1,000 (up to 100 lots or 100 acres) $1,500 (>100 lots or 100 acres) " " $500 Cost reimbursement agreement Amended Plat $ 560.00 $ 600.00 $ 264.00 SD fees include amendments $250+$62.50pereachadditonal review $500 Incl. in cost reimbursement agreement Prelim Condo Map $ 1,200.00 $ 285.00 N/A N/AN/AN/AN/A Final Condo Map $ 285.00 $ 285.00 N/A N/AN/AN/AN/A *Acreage fee: PUD: Up to 400 $53.50 per acre; Over 400 $4.55 per acre Non‐PUD: Up to 400 $38.00 per acre; Over 400 $3.05 per acre **Acreage fee: Up to 1200 Acres $15.25 per acre Above 1200 Acres $4.55 per acre
Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees Worksession
November 24th, 2015
FEE SCHEDULE ANALYSIS:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
BUILDING PERMITS
Meeting Agenda
I.Today’s Objectives
II.Public Participation Process
III.Summary of Community Feedback
IV.Development Review Fee Schedule Options
V.Building Permit Review Valuation Options
VI.Floodplain Permits
VII.Reflection
Today’s Objectives
1.To obtain direction on the level of cost recovery appropriate
for the Community Development Department based on
Stakeholder feedback.
2.To obtain definitive direction on three potential fee schedules
for the Planning Division to be brought back to the public for
review and comment.
3.To obtain definitive direction on a valuation audit model for the
Building Division to be brought back to the public for review
and comment.
4.To obtain definitive direction on cost recovery for floodplain
permits.
Public Participation Process
•November 7th, 2015: Launched MySidewalk online
forum
•November 12th, 2015: Held a public meeting to discuss
current departmental cost recovery and equity
•November 24th, 2015: Town Board
Worksession to review feedback and obtain
definitive direction
•December 10th, 2015 (Tentative): Second Public Meeting
to poll constituents on fee schedule and valuation options
Development Review
Key Objective: Better Customer
Service through Improved Cost
Recovery
Development Review:
Community Feedback
Development
review fees
are too low.
Fee increases
should be
regular and
incremental.
Increases in
fees
shouldn’t
exceed 50%.
Cost
coverage
should be
around 50%.
Some fees
should be
reduced or
eliminated.
Cost
reimbursement
is a good option.
Estes Park Development Review:
Cost Coverage
FY 2015 Estimated
Cost Coverage:
34%
BRECKENRIDGE: 100%
NEDERLAND: 68%
STEAMBOAT: 26%
BOULDER: 200%
What level of cost coverage is appropriate for
Estes Park?
Based on community feedback and initial Town
Board feedback, an appropriate cost recovery rate
would be between 43% and 50%.
ADVANTAGES
+Digestible increases in
development review fees
(25%-45%)
+Estimated $25,000-
$40,000 additional annual
revenue
DISADVANTAGES
-Substantial subsidizing
from General Fund
-Cannot self-fund
additional staff positions
Fee Schedule Option #1: Current Fee Model
at 43%-50% Cost Recovery
ADVANTAGES
+Simple model
+Consistent with current
format
DISADVANTAGES
-No mechanism for
accurate assessment per-
project
-More complex projects
subsidized by simpler
ones
Fee Schedule Option #2: Cost
Reimbursement Model 43%-50% Cost
Recovery
ADVANTAGES
+Reflects public feedback
+Accurate assessment and
cost recovery per-project
+Applicants can reduce
their review costs through
tighter submittals
DISADVANTAGES
-Staff training required
for accurate time and
expense tracking
-More complex
implementation
Fee Schedule Option #3: Combination
Model 43%-50% Cost Recovery
ADVANTAGES
+Most closely reflects public
feedback
+Accurate assessment and
cost recovery for many
projects
+Simple model for simpler
projects
Applicants can reduce review
costs
DISADVANTAGES
-Most complex
implementation
-No mechanism for
accurately assessing costs
for some project types
-Staff training required for
accurate time and expense
tracking
Other Considerations
Maintain or reduce
current cost of pre-
application
meetings.
Eliminate rezoning
fees if submitted
with another
application.
Advantages:
+Reflects public feedback
+Encourages pre-application
meeting scheduling
Disadvantages:
-$500 in many cases does not
cover the actual cost of
planner and reviewing
agency time and related costs
Advantages:
+Reflects public feedback
Disadvantages:
-Could increase the volume
of rezoning applications
Building Permit Review
Key Objective: More Equitable Fee
Collection
Building Permit Review:
Community Feedback
Building Permit
types should
be valued the
same way.
The Building
Division
shouldn’t be
entirely self-
sufficient.
There should be
some reduction
of fees for
modest homes.
Valuation Option #1: Maintain Existing
System
ADVANTAGES
+No changes required
DISADVANTAGES
-Does not reflect
community feedback
-Inequity among job types
-No anticipated
improvements in cost
recovery
Valuation Option #1: Locally-Based
Assessment and Audit Procedure
ADVANTAGES
+Most closely reflects
community feedback
+Greater equity across
project types
+Improved cost recovery
DISADVANTAGES
-Requires feedback and
consensus from the
development community
-Most complex
implementation
Other Considerations
Reduced fees for more
modest homes, such
as Habitat for
Humanity homes.
Advantages:
+Reflects public feedback
+Provides a form of public
support for affordable homes
Disadvantages:
-Difficult to implement
-Necessitates qualitative
judgment from Building
Division
Floodplain Permits: For Your Consideration
Floodplain permit review currently yields a cost
recovery rate of less than 10% per permit.
As Floodplain permit review is currently outsourced
entirely, Staff recommends that Floodplain permit review
be billed at cost.
Today’s Objectives & Next Steps
1.To obtain direction on the level of cost recovery appropriate
for the Community Development Department based on
Stakeholder feedback.
2.To obtain definitive direction on three potential fee schedules
for the Planning Division to be brought back to the public for
review and comment.
3.To obtain definitive direction on a valuation audit model for the
Building Division to be brought back to the public for review
and comment.
4.To obtain definitive direction on cost recovery for floodplain
permits.
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: November 24, 2015
RE: Estes Park Parking Strategy
Objective:
Provide feedback to the citizen Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) regarding the
content of their proposed Parking Strategy document and their recommended
implementation priorities. The TAB requests the Town Board formally accept the
Parking Strategy and set implementation priorities at a future public hearing (potentially
December 8, 2015).
Present Situation:
• The Town has hired engineering consultants to study the parking problem for
decades. Recommended actions have been included in the 2003 Estes Valley
Transportation Alternatives Study, the 2005 Republic Parking Study, and the
2013 Estes Park Transit & Parking Study. The Town Board has implemented the
free shuttle and the Visitor Center parking structure in response to these studies.
• Citizens have offered additional short-term, mid-term, and long-term
recommendations in the 2011 Roadmap to the Future document prepared by the
Transportation Visioning Committee. In response to this study’s findings, the
Town Board created the citizen Transportation Advisory Board to further guide
decision-making on parking and other transportation matters.
• The Town Board established the following Objective in the 2015 Strategic Plan:
o Explore with the public and business partners and the Transportation
Advisory Committee, the option of paid parking in some areas.
• The Town Board is proposing to adopt the following two Objectives in the 2016
Strategic Plan:
o Complete the construction of Phase 1 of the Visitor Center Transit Facility
Parking Structure.
o Pursue funding for future phases of the Visitor Center Transit Facility
Parking Structure.
• In 2015 Public Works staff applied for, and was denied, TIGER grant funding to
implement a Smart-technology based paid parking program and add two
additional levels to the proposed Phase 1 Visitor Center parking structure.
Proposal:
Addressing the parking shortage in downtown Estes Park is complex and should be
approached from both the supply side and the demand side. The attached Parking
Policy offers nine strategies for tackling this issue. The strategies are conceptual in
nature. Additional effort will be needed to refine the scope of each. It will be helpful to
have the Board clarify if greater specificity is desired now in the proposed Parking
Policy, or if additional clarifying detail will be added by Staff and consultants when they
pursue implementation of each strategy. Concurrence from the Board on the strategies
to be included in the final policy document is essential.
This policy will have value only to the degree it is implemented. Dedication of staff and
budget resources in specific calendar years will be necessary to effectively address the
parking challenges in downtown Estes Park. Grants and/or private funding will also be
needed. Town Board agreement on the extent and timing of directing Town
resources to the specific strategies is necessary. The TAB will present their
recommended implementation priorities at the November 24, 2015 Study Session.
The advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed Parking Policy are listed
below.
Advantages:
• An adopted Parking Policy can guide future allocation of staff and financial
resources to address the increasing shortage of parking in downtown Estes Park.
• The draft policy recognizes that Estes Park cannot reasonably build its way out of
the parking shortage. More efficient and better timed utilization of existing
parking resources need to be part of the solution.
• The proposed Parking Policy was created by citizens of Estes who represent a
broad view of opinions on this subject. There are no additional consultant costs
required for the preparation and adoption of this parking policy.
• The policy will influence the provision of ample and accessible parking which can
positively impact the economic vitality of Estes Park.
Disadvantages:
• The proposed strategies are not highly detailed and will require additional effort
to refine scope, impact, and costs of each.
• While the TAB has discussed this topic in many announced & open monthly
meetings, no broadly advertised public process has been implemented yet
regarding the acceptance or adoption of the proposed strategies.
• Implementation of the proposed Parking Policy will require the use of staff and
financial resources that are already under demand for other Town priorities.
Action Recommended:
Critically and carefully review the proposed Parking Policy. Provide direction to the TAB
regarding desired revisions to the content and the implementation priority order. Begin
consideration of a selected strategy to be implemented in 2017.
Budget:
The Town budgeted $960,000 in 2013 and another $750,000 in 2015 for a parking
structure to be built at the Visitor Center. This is part of Strategy 1 in the proposed
policy. No funds have been budgeted in 2016 to pursue a paid parking program or any
other strategies contained in the proposal.
Level of Public Interest
The known level of public interest in this item is high.
Sample Motion:
Direction, but no formal motion, is desired at this Study Session.
Attachments:
TAB memo dated November 18, 2015 and draft proposed Parking Policy dated October
2015
PUBLIC WORKS
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kimberly Campbell on behalf of the Transportation Advisory Board
Date: November 18, 2015
RE: Proposed Parking Strategy
The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) has developed the attached Proposed Parking Strategy in an effort
to identify priorities, to identify appropriate grant opportunities, and guide decision-making as it relates to
downtown parking initiatives.
The report outlines a set of strategies which if followed are intended to ensure that future downtown parking
initiatives will achieve preferred objectives. Many of these key points are highly interrelated and
implementation must be coordinated to ensure an optimal outcome.
If the Trustees find the strategies in this report agreeable, we ask that the Town adopt the Parking Strategy to
guide future planning.
** Updated version. Corrections to Table 2 – Estimated parking structure capacities.
1 | P a g e
PROPOSED
PARKING STRATEGY
Prepared by the Transportation Advisory Board
Presented to the Town of Estes Park
October 2015
INTRODUCTION
There is a strong public sentiment that Estes Park needs additional parking downtown. A new parking
structure providing roughly 100 net new spaces is currently planned for the Visitor Center South lot with the
potential to expand to roughly 310 net new spaces. This location is expected to ease pressure on the
downtown parking supply, but not satisfy the need for additional parking.
Engineering studies estimate 500 additional parking spaces are needed to adequately accommodate the
locals and visitors desiring to park downtown during the peak summer season. What is known is that each
time a vehicle is unable to find parking downtown, local businesses lose a revenue opportunity and the Town
misses out on potential tax receipts.
While there are no simple parking solutions, a few key strategies will be valuable in guiding future parking
solutions. The following proposed parking strategy was developed through months of collaborative
conversations and research by the Transportation Advisory Board. We believe these strategies will keep
decision-makers focused on what is important downtown – the visitor experience. If we can maintain our
focus on the visitor, and not over-emphasize the vehicles themselves, we will be able to find a solution to our
congestion and parking shortage without jeopardizing the character of our Town.
While the Transportation Advisory Board collectively stands behind these recommendations, it was difficult
to develop a strategy on which we could agree. Divergent views brought divergent solutions. All had merit.
The strategies proposed here are thought to balance these divergent views and highlighted the best
solutions. Implementation of these strategies will still be challenging. In particular, the topic of the best
location for a parking structure downtown is likely to elicit strong and divergent opinions.
BACKGROUND
Over the years, the Town of Estes Park has commissioned a variety of transportation studies. Some of these
specifically studied the downtown parking inventory and its utilization. Below is a summary of the key
findings of the most recent reports:
Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study: In 2003, the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives
Study (April 2003) was conducted to “develop a well-balanced, multi-modal transportation system
that addresses existing deficiencies and accommodates future travel needs for the Estes Valley in a
P a g e 2 | 16
safe and efficient manner.” (page E-1). One aspect of the study was an analysis of the utilization of
existing downtown parking spaces.
According to this study, the Town is projected to need 545 additional parking spaces by 2020 (page
ES-3 and page 59) to accommodate demands from an increase in tourists visiting Estes Park and
RMNP, as well as a growing Estes Valley population and continued commercial development. The
report anticipates that current over-capacity parking conditions could increase from 25 days per year
(in 2003) to 75 days per year in 2020 (page ES-3). Key parking recommendations from this study
were fixed route transit routes through town with increased intercept parking east of downtown.
Table 1: Rocky Mountain National Park attendance
Year Actual RMNP Attendance Projected Attendance from Estes Valley
Transportation Alternatives Study
2000 3,185,392 3,379,800
2005 2,798,368 3,732,600
2010 2,955,821 4,173,800
2014 3,434,751
2015 4.1 million forecast 4,731,900
2020 TBD 5,446,600
Source: Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study, Table 8 (page 49) and
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%2
0(1904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=ROMO
While today we can see that while this study over-projected visitor growth in the National Park, it
appears correct that parking demand continues to grow.
2005 Republic Parking Study: In 2005, the Town commissioned the Republic Parking Study. Republic
Parking conducted a comprehensive analysis of the parking supply and utilization. Their
recommendations (page 193) included improved signage, visitor and employee shuttles, alternate
employee parking and some unique options such as golf cart shuttles and valet options. The report
did not include a recommendation for a significant expansion of downtown parking capacity. Their
analysis questioned whether a structure would be cost effective, given the high construction and
maintenance costs and seasonal usage.
Roadmap to the Future: In April 2012, the Transportation Visioning Committee presented its report
to the Town Trustees outlining its vision for Estes Park’s transportation system 20 years in the future.
Its recommendations were categorize into five areas:
1. Information distribution
2. Shuttles & Public Transportation
3. Parking
4. Road Configuration
5. Multi-modal Transportation
The TVC then broke out its recommendations into short-term, mid-term, and long-term
recommendations.
2013 Estes Park Transit & Parking Study: This study was initiated to evaluate transit and parking
enhancements that could be implemented to improve the visitor and resident travel experience
P a g e 3 | 16
during the peak summer season. The study reviewed transit and parking operations in the peer
communities of Aspen, Durango, Breckenridge and Springdale, UT. The study evaluated current
deficiencies with the Town’s parking and shuttles, and recommended additional transit parking and
revised transit routes.
2015 Downtown Parking Survey: in May 2015, an informal survey of Estes Valley residents was
created by Charley Dickey & Paul Fishman of the Downtown Parking Task Force, a citizen group, to
determine the public sentiment toward the current parking situation and to determine preferred
parking solutions. This survey was distributed by email and Facebook. While not scientific in its
approach, it did get over 800 participants and remains a valuable indicator of current public
sentiment.
Data from these reports was reviewed and discussed by the Transportation Advisory Board in their efforts to
create this parking strategy.
Guiding Principles
When developing any transportation or parking improvement, we encourage the Town Trustees and staff to
keep in mind the following guiding principles:
o Protect the natural environment:
Be future-oriented when planning developments along waterways. These cannot be
returned to their natural state. Keep these areas accessible to people, not vehicles.
Encourage alternate modes of transportation. Provide wide sidewalks, bike lanes,
shuttles.
Balance the desire to park downtown with a duty to protect the family friendly
downtown zone and its natural amenities.
Reduce pollution & improve air quality
o Design downtown to be a fun, family friendly destination , not simply a connector to RMNP.
Create an attractive, welcoming environment that invites guests to wander, sit, play, eat, shop
relax and enjoy being here. Emphasize the pedestrian experience. Maintain green spaces,
riverfront plazas and create strong pedestrian and cyclist connectivity.
o Build in harmony with nature: make parking areas architecturally attractive and consistent with
nature and existing structures. Highlight the natural beauty of the area.
o Do not allow vehicles to become the dominant characteristic of downtown Estes Park
Objectives
They key objectives we want to accomplish with this parking strategy are:
Make downtown more accessible, inviting and attractive to our residents and visitors. Make it
easy to get here, stay here and play here
Reduce congestion & pollution by reducing unnecessary vehicle circulation
Keep it simple. First time visitors should easily find parking, shops, and attractions.
P a g e 4 | 16
Proposed Parking Strategy
There are nine key points to our proposed downtown parking strategy:
1. Strategically increase the parking supply
a. Build new inventory in downtown or perimeter locations, not remote locations
b. Mitigate congestion with strategically placed parking
c. Enhance shuttle utilization by integrating shuttle stops
d. Consider future development opportunities
2. Simplify parking
3. Provide exceptional directional signage
4. Reduce parking demand through alternate modes
5. Implement a pay-to-park program
6. Encourage business owners & employees to park remotely
7. Redirect oversized vehicles to remote parking areas
8. Protect residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown
9. Develop a special event management plan
The report that follows will discuss each of these components in detail.
Strategy 1: Strategically increase the parking supply
The need for additional parking inventory downtown is evident during the summer and fall seasons by the
number of cars circling the parking lots and downtown streets looking for empty spaces and the cars parked
as far away as MacGregor Avenue north of Wonderview Avenue. With a small downtown area surrounded by
mountains that inhibit expansion and a main thoroughfare that runs right through the middle, it is
challenging to determine the correct location for additional parking. The location of any new parking
inventory will have a significant impact on traffic congestion, pedestrian right-of-ways, future development
activities, and downtown aesthetics.
The following criteria should be central to any determination of future parking locations:
a. Build new inventory in downtown or perimeter locations, not remote locations
b. Mitigate congestion with strategically placed parking
c. Enhance shuttle utilization by integrating shuttle stops
d. Consider future development opportunities
Each criteria is explained below.
a. Build new inventory in downtown or perimeter locations:
While the Town shuttles remain a valued amenity, it is challenging to overcome the American desire
to park near their desired end-destination. As such, public sentiment appears to prefer downtown
parking spaces. When evaluating prospective parking lot locations, we looked at three parking zones:
1) downtown, 2) perimeter (within ¼ mile of downtown), and 3) remote (locations that require
shuttle service to downtown).
When selecting a location for future parking expansion, we recommend that additional spaces be
built in a “downtown” or “perimeter” location. Remote parking, as evidenced by the low usage of the
P a g e 5 | 16
fairgrounds parking lot and the results of the 2015 Downtown Parking Survey, is not a preferred
location for new parking inventory. This may be the result of a lack of awareness & signage.
Due to the limited availability of land on which a new surface lot could be built in or near downtown,
we have focused our analysis on those existing downtown and perimeter parking lots or parcels of
land that are large enough to support the construction of a moderate-sized multi-level parking
structure similar to the proposed Visitor Center Transit Hub Parking Facility.
Table 2: Potential parking structure locations and capacities
Lot Name Estimated
Structure Size
# Spaces in
existing lot
Estimated # Spaces
in 3-story structure
Location
Visitor Center South Lot
(in progress)
125’ x 255’ 102 260
361 with 4 levels
Perimeter
Town Hall – North portion 125’ x 455’ 281
combined
524 Downtown
Town Hall – South/Library lot 142’ x 255’ 260 Downtown
Riverside Lot 125’ x 275’ 91 284 Downtown
Post Office Lot 125’ x 350’ 93 380 Downtown
Weist (rectangular portion
along Moraine Ave.)
116’ x 241’ 141 195 Downtown
Piccadilly Square 125’ x 275’ n/a 260 Perimeter
Visitor Center North 125’ x 218’ 153 285 Perimeter
*Existing space counts from Estes Valley Transit & Parking Study (Dec 2013), structure size & capac ity estimates based off Visitor
Center South Lot capacities
Current public sentiment appears to prefer a parking structure at the Post Office Parking lot.
Interestingly, the 2005 Republic Parking Study found that preferred parking structure locations were
the Weist Lot and the Municipal lot. The key point is that the preferred location of the structure
changes with the times, but the perception that Estes Park needs additional parking continues to
thrive.
Table 3: Public preference for downtown parking lot
2015 Estes Park Downtown
Parking Survey
2005 Republic Parking Study
Question 5: Where would you
like to see more parking?
Survey participants could select
multiple options.
“What do you feel needs to be
done to improve the parking?”
36% of business owners surveyed
felt a parking garage was the best
solution.*
Location % Support % Support
Post Office Parking Lot 52% 2.04%
Additional Levels at Visitor
Center South lot 49%
Municipal Lot/Library Lot 28% 10.2%
P a g e 6 | 16
Weist Parking lot 28% 10.2%
Additional Levels at
Fairgrounds parking lot 28%
Cleave Street lot 4.08%
*Page 83 of the 2005 Republic Parking Study
We support expanding the Visitor Center South Parking Structure to four levels before pursuing
additional parking downtown. Once that structure has been open for a while and utilization has
caught on, conduct a new downtown parking utilization study to determine the need and location
for additional parking inventory.
b. Mitigate congestion with strategically placed parking
Estes Park is a small mountain community with a significant seasonal influx of visitor traffic that
strains its infrastructure. This inflow of vehicles come from three primary traffic flows:
o Inbound traffic from Highway 36: This traffic has the opportunity to park at the fairgrounds
or the planned Visitor Center South lot.
o Inbound traffic from Highway 34: This flow’s first significant parking source is the Visitor
Center Lot (with a left turn) or the Town Hall Lot, which fill quickly.
o Outbound traffic from Rocky Mountain National Park: this flow largely occurs in the
afternoon. Outbound visitors from the National Park often seek food, refreshment, shopping
and relaxation and need a convenient, easy to find parking location.
Any new parking inventory should take into consideration the ability of the parking lot to mitigate
congestion along one or more of these flows of traffic through downtown Estes Park. Ingress and
egress patterns should be evaluated for each proposed location.
c. Enhance shuttle utilization by integrating shuttle stops
A new parking structure should have integrated shuttle stops, allowing visitors to leave their cars all
day and use shuttles to get around as desired. Placing the parking structure on a shuttle route with a
specially designed shuttle stop will provide the Town, and potentially Rocky Mountain National Park,
with opportunities to enhance the shuttle system as needed to meet the transportation needs of the
community.
d. Consider future development opportunities
The Town of Estes Park continues to evolve. It is inevitable. Downtown could thrive and grow, or
shrink and become more intimate. We cannot predict the future. But once a parking structure is
built, it cannot be moved. Expect it to be there forever.
With that in mind, the location of a future parking structure is significant. Do we want to use prime
riverfront land for a parking structure? Would a particular location be better for retail, or as a plaza?
Should parking be right in the middle or on the edges?
P a g e 7 | 16
It is nearly impossible to get consensus as to where the best location for a parking structure might
be. Think about land use when making this decision. Think about whether this location enhances the
visitor experience, or hinders it.
Strategy 2: Simplify parking
Estes Park’s parking can be difficult for visitors. It is broken down into more than 12 downtown parking lots
and on high traffic days, visitors often find themselves driving around searching for a lot with a vacant space.
A simplification of the parking inventory into fewer, larger parking destinations with good signage will benefit
all visitors.
As such, any new parking inventory should be moderate to significant in volume. Small lots fill quickly and
encourage drivers to circulate through downtown seeking available spaces. A parking strategy focused on a
few centralized locations can facilitate getting the majority of vehicles into available spaces efficiently and
with a less cluttered signage system.
Once the primary parking supply has been expanded, the Town should simplify the overall parking availability
downtown. This can be achieved by:
o Reduce on-street parking to reduce conflict between parked cars and congested roadways and to
allow wider sidewalks to improve visitor experience.
o Converting small parking lots to new purposes. These may include:
1. Selling for commercial development,
2. Dedicating use for special use groups (such as accessible parking, reserved employee
parking, bike parking, etc.), or
3. Converting to park or other recreational use.
o Restrict parking on residential streets to residents and their guests.
Strategy 3: Provide exceptional directional signage
The success of any downtown parking strategy lies in the ability of drivers to find available parking spaces. A
significant percentage of visitors to Estes Park are first time visitors. They do not know their way around and
rely heavily on available signage to reach their desired destination. For a visitor, it is not sufficient to find
downtown. They must then find a parking space. Particularly on high volume days, getting these visitors into
available parking spaces efficiently is integral to both reducing downtown congestion and getting visitors out
of their cars and into shops and restaurants. Signage touches all drivers and can be highly effective.
A comprehensive signage strategy for downtown that incorporates both larger scale vehicular signage as well
as smaller scale pedestrian wayfinding signage is a relatively inexpensive first step to getting visitors into
parking spaces efficiently. Both electronic and static signage options should be evaluated. Vehicular signage
must direct visitors to downtown, Rocky Mountain National Park, and other key public destinations (such as
parking lots, golf courses, the marina, the fairgrounds and the events center). Pedestrian wayfinding signage
should highlight unique destinations within walking distance of the sign (such as parks, plazas, historic sites).
Longer-term strategies should incorporate smart technologies that provide real-time parking space
availability, such as smart phone applications. These technologies are more expensive and will likely reach
fewer drivers as compared to signage.
P a g e 8 | 16
Strategy 4: Reduce parking demand through alternate modes
Building new parking structures is an expensive endeavor. For a Town like Estes Park where the need for a
parking structure is only seasonal, it is an even more challenging investment option. Rather than building
parking for every car that desires to park downtown, the Town should encourage alternate modes of
transportation such as cycling and walking, in addition to our existing shuttle system, to reduce the overall
demand for downtown parking.
Residents and visitors to Estes Park are attracted to our beautiful landscapes and the opportunities for
outdoor activities, be they hiking, photography, animal and bird watching, rock climbing or cycling. Our
population is notably healthy and active. Many of our residents and visitors prefer to get around by foot or
bike, rather than driving. In addition, a notable number of residents and visitors reside within walking or
cycling distance of downtown Estes Park. Motivating these groups to visit downtown by these alternate
modes of transportation, rather than driving, could reduce downtown parking demand.
Pedestrians: The existing walk/bike paths that connect to downtown and the shuttle systems are a great first
step in encouraging residents and visitors to leave the car behind when visiting downtown. Continued
expansion of the walking trails, such as a safe walking route along Moraine Avenue, would further indicate
the Town’s support for pedestrian traffic in downtown.
Widening the sidewalks along Elkhorn Avenue and wider landing areas at street crossings to allow people to
gather without hindering pedestrian flow would further enhance the experience of visitors and residents.
Cyclists: Cycling is a growing sport and encompasses a range of styles, including street cycling, mountain
biking and casual family transportation. At this time, downtown Estes Park is not bike friendly. We cannot
expect residents or visitors will ride bikes into town rather than driving until we provide safe methods for
them to do so. The lack of bike lanes along main thoroughfares and pedestrian trails that do not allow cyclists
leave few routes that bikes may safely travel. The heavily congested roads in the summer season further
discourage cyclists.
Bike routes: Either on-street bike lanes or off-street trails must be available in order for bicyclists to
safely travel in and out of downtown Estes. It is understood that bike lanes are incorporated into the
Downtown Loop project. If this project proceeds, this would be a significant first step in the
development of bike lanes along all main thoroughfares in and out of downtown. Further
continuation of bike lanes along Highways 34 and 36 into town and along Moraine Avenue would
significantly improved bicycle access to downtown.
In addition, a signage program along multi-use trails (such as the Fall River Trail) indicating that
bicycles are allowed might help visitors understand that these are safe trails for families and others
who would like to ride into town but may not be comfortable sharing the road with vehicles.
Bike racks: In order for cycling to be an effective method of transportation downtown, we must
accommodate parking for bicycles as well as vehicles. Currently, there are approximately 13 bike
racks in downtown Estes, but most hold less than ten bikes. In order to be effective, bike racks must
be centrally located, easy to find, have sufficient capacity and be located near shuttle stops or other
transportation options. (See Appendix A for a table of downtown bike racks)
Shuttles: The Town’s shuttle system is a great service for our residents and visitors that also reduces traffic
congestion and parking demand. In 2015, over 500,000 visitors rode the Town shuttles during the summer
season. Shuttles should remain a key component of the downtown parking strategy and efforts to increase
P a g e 9 | 16
ridership, and therefore reduce the number of vehicles downtown, should continue to be pursued. Bike racks
on the Town shuttles would further increase the opportunities for residents and visitors to get around by
bike.
Strategy 5: Implement a pay-to-park program
The Transportation Advisory Board recommends implementing a pay-to-park program in downtown Estes
Park during high traffic periods. Paid parking downtown has the potential to:
Influence visitor behavior – encourage more visitors to use the free shuttles
Improve the distribution of vehicles – encourage visitors to park at the free lots a little further
out, thus removing vehicles from downtown roadways
Provide a revenue source that could support the cost of additional parking inventory
There has been a shift in public sentiment toward paid parking in downtown Estes. In the 2015 Downtown
Parking Survey, over 50% of respondents supported paid parking in downtown Estes in contrast to only 41%
support in 2005.
Table 4: Do you support paid parking downtown?
2015 Estes Park Downtown Parking
Survey
2005 Republic Parking Study
Yes 50.8% 40.88%
No 49.2% 59.12%
There are many technology options available to implement a pay-to-park program. Town staff is best suited
to research and recommend an appropriate technology. That said, it would be beneficial to select a newer
parking technology that has the capacity to:
Monitor availability of individual parking spaces and provide data at lot entrance kiosks, smart
phone applications and electronic message signs.
Accept credit card payments
Communicate with the customer via smart phone:
o Location of available spaces
o Send text reminder when purchased time is nearing expiration
o Provide option to pay for additional time
Smart enforcement:
o Notification of occupied stalls that haven’t been paid or expired meters
The ideal time to implement a pay-to-park strategy would be at the start of the high traffic season following
the completion of the Visitor Center South parking structure. Prior to its completion and during its
construction, downtown Estes will not have sufficient parking supply to provide visitors with sufficient
parking alternatives. Upon completion of the Visitor Center South parking structure, there will be sufficient
inventory to allow downtown visitors to select to 1) pay to park in the central downtown area, 2) park free at
perimeter and remote lots or 3) to take the shuttle.
P a g e 10 | 16
Due to the seasonal nature of our downtown visitations, we recommend that pay-to-park technology be
implemented when average monthly traffic counts are expected to exceed 300,000 vehicles per month
(Highway 34 and Hwy 36 combined). This is the point at which downtown parking becomes limited. Based on
recent traffic volumes, paid parking would be in effect from May through October.
Graph 1: Traffic counts by month on Highways 34 & 36 (combined)
Daily enforcement is recommended from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. We recommend allowing all day parking in
most locations and removing the 3-hour time limit that currently exists. Visitors should be encouraged to stay
and enjoy downtown Estes Park for as long as they desire. A few key short-term, free parking areas will be
needed to facilitate pickups, drop offs, etc.
Rates: We recommend a three-tiered pricing strategy. Tier 1 would be the most centrally located parking
spaces in town and charge the highest rates. Tier 2 would be a bit further away and be priced more
moderately. Tier 3 would be free.
Tier 1 would include:
Town Hall/Library Parking lots
East Riverside Lot (adjacent to Dairy Queen/Casa Grande)
Riverside lot (at Confluence Park)
Post Office lot (with some short term free parking for Post Office customers)
Virginia Lot (corner of Elkhorn and Park Ave)
Curbside parking surrounding Bond Park
Brownfields lot
Tier 2 would include:
Spruce lot
Tregent lot
Performance Park lot
Big Horn lot
Moraine/Weist lot
P a g e 11 | 16
Davis lot
West Riverside curbside and lot
Curbside parking on MacGregor Avenue
Tier 3 (free parking) would be located at:
Visitor Center South parking structure
Visitor Center north lot
Fairgrounds/Event Center lot
Revenue generated from paid parking should be spent first on costs to maintain parking lots, parking
technology and enforcement costs. Once those costs have been covered, remaining funding should be set
aside for additional parking capacity in the future.
Strategy 6: Encourage Owners & employees to park remotely
With a shortage of parking in downtown, each space becomes valuable. It is in the best interest of the
downtown merchants and the Town to fill these spaces with revenue generating visitors. But each day, a
significant number of downtown parking spaces are being filled by owners and employees of the shops,
restaurants and Town Hall.
Stan Black of the Transportation Advisory Board walked downtown and made some informal inquiries about
summer staffing levels in an effort to quantify the impact of downtown employees on parking. He found over
200 businesses with about 10% of these being restaurants or bars. Interviews with shop owners indicated
two employees typically worked per shift, with two shifts per day. For food and beverage establishments, it is
estimated that they have five employees per shift. Factoring in the Town and Library, this results in roughly
600 employees at any given time during the day. Providing for carpooling, walking, cycling and shuttles, we
estimate that 300 parking spaces are being consumed throughout the day by downtown employees. With
1073 downtown parking spaces and another 256 spaces at the visitor center, 22.5% of the downtown parking
supply is being used by employees.
The question remains what can we do to encourage employees to park elsewhere and make room for
residents and visitors? It typically comes down to incentives or deterrents. For instance, the current shuttle
system is a beneficial option available to many downtown employees. Unfortunately, it does not run early
enough in the morning or late enough into the evening to meet the needs of all employees, particularly food
service employees. If the Town were to implement a pay-to-park program, this is expected to be a significant
deterrent for many employees, but it is likely years away from implementation. The Town implemented an
incentive program for Town employees in summer 2015 encouraging them to park remotely or use alternate
methods to get to work.
The Town may need to work with the business community to create a broader set of incentives for
employees to find alternate ways to get to work. For instance, could employees get entered into a drawing
for a vacation to Hawaii each time they ride the shuttles? Or a guaranteed prize from a prize catalog if certain
thresholds are met? Would downtown merchants donate prizes or make financial contributions to prize
packages? Another suggestion was to increase downtown business licensing fees, but offer a rebate (or
discount on next year’s registration) to those businesses who can document that their employees are parking
elsewhere.
P a g e 12 | 16
Any program developed will incur costs in the form of program development, education and awareness,
implementation and prizes/incentives. Measuring the results is often the hardest part of the equation (do
employees get a punch card punched by the shuttle driver? Do we staff remote parking lots with an
attendant to log employee vehicles? Do we provide RFID parking stickers on employee vehicles that record
how often they park at offsite lots?).
Hiring a consultant to develop an incentive program may be a wise investment. The situation does not need
to be studied again. What is needed is a comprehensive, actionable plan to encourage employees to park
outside downtown, developed in conjunction with business owners and business associations. This needs to
be a community effort in order to be successful.
While these may seem like expensive options, the cost to do nothing is even greater.
1. Loss of revenue to downtown merchants : If each vehicle parks downtown for an average of 4
hours, each parking space will have at least 2 cars per day. If each car purchases meals for two at
$25 plus spends $50 in downtown shops, then the downtown merchants have collectively lost
$75/car x 2 cars/day x 250 parking spaces = $37,500/day x 90 days of the season = $3,375,000 in
lost downtown revenue
2. Loss of sales tax to Town: Using the above scenario of a loss in sales of $3,375,000 times the 5%
tax rate results in a loss of $168,750 in sales tax revenue to the Town.
3. Parking Structure: If we want to continue to allow employees to park downtown, we could
construct a parking structure to replace the spaces they take up. At the recent price per stall of
$50,000 for parking structure construction, this lot would cost $12,500,000 (250 spaces x
$50,000/stall).
Strategy 7: Redirect oversized vehicles to remote parking
Buses, RVs and other oversized vehicles create challenges in our narrow downtown corridor. In addition to
our Town shuttles and Rocky Mountain National Park Shuttles, each day our town sees tour buses driving
through on their way to the National Park or bringing their passengers for lunch and shopping downtown.
Other visitors arrive in RVs and drive through town on their way to local RV parks or the National Park.
Many of these oversized vehicles desire to park downtown. Currently, there is a total of 24 designated
Bus/RV parking spaces in Estes Park (17 in the Town Hall lot, 4 at the Visitor Center lot, and 3 at the Event
Center). There are an additional 17 stalls at the Event Center lot that are extra-long, but not Bus/RV spaces
(these spaces may not have sufficient ingress/egress to accommodate buses or RVs). We need to ensure that
there are sufficient spaces to accommodate our oversized vehicle demand. These spaces should not be
downtown, but close to shuttle routes to allow passengers easy access to downtown.
The Town should:
Restripe the fairgrounds lot to accommodate a greater number of RVs
Remove the RV parking designation at the Town Hall parking lot
P a g e 13 | 16
The Town should also encourage RVs to avoid driving through downtown when possible. This can be
accomplished by:
Encouraging RV parks to direct their customers to arrive/depart via alternate routes. Consider
providing specific maps or marketing tools to help them communicate these routes to their
customers.
Specifically discuss alternate oversized vehicle routes in the transportation section of
appropriate websites, such as www.visitestespark.com or http://www.nps.gov/romo/index.htm,
and local maps.
Identify a central location, such as the visitor center lot or fairgrounds lot, with sufficient RV
parking and mark it clearly with signage, on maps, and on local websites.
In addition, the Town should adopt a policy on tour buses. This policy should dictate where tour buses may
make drop-offs and pick-ups downtown, and where they may park while waiting for their passengers. This
policy should be proactively distributed to Colorado based tour operators who operate tours in Estes
Park/Rocky Mountain National Park.
Strategy 8: Protect Residential Neighborhoods
When towns implement pay-to-park program, a common unintended consequence is increased visitor
parking along residential streets where there is no fee to park. The neighborhoods surrounding Estes Park’s
downtown will be particularly vulnerable if Estes Park implements a pay-to-park program. These
neighborhoods include:
Virginia Drive area
Big Horn Drive area
East Riverside Drive
If the Town chooses to implement a pay-to-park program, it would benefit these neighborhoods if a proactive
approach were taken to prevent visitors from parking along their roadways. One common approach is to
require residential permits for residents and their guests and not allow public parking in these areas.
The Estes Park Police Department currently issues overnight parking permits for downtown residents. An
expansion of this permit program should be implemented simultaneous with or before any pay-to-park
program is in place. Protect the neighborhood before they experience negative impacts, not after they have
been inconvenienced.
Strategy 9: Develop a Special Event Management Plan
There are a handful of days in Estes Park, where traffic congestion is exceptionally bad. These are typically
holidays or free Rocky Mountain National Park days. The most notable are the Fourth of July, Public Lands
day in September, Memorial and Labor Day weekends. A special event management plan would be helpful to
address the unique characteristics of these challenging days.
P a g e 14 | 16
The primary characteristics of these high congestion days are:
Heavy traffic, particularly inbound traffic from Highways 34 and 36 in the mornings
Parking shortages
Strong pedestrian presence
In order to address each of these issues, a strategy must be developed in advance.
Traffic Management: To address heavy inbound traffic days, such as on a Rocky Mountain
National Park free admission day, have a plan in place with CDOT to keep signals on Elkhorn
Avenue westbound green for longer periods. Consider closing some cross streets to traffic for a
couple of hours to facilitate the Elkhorn traffic, much like is done on parade days, or lengthen
the time between green lights for these side streets on high volume days. Provide good signage
on Highways 34 and 36 directing park traffic onto Wonderview as well as Elkhorn.
Create alternate parking opportunities : Make arrangements with local landowners whose
properties could serve as overflow parking on key days. Create signage notifying the public
where parking is available. Consider asking public service groups to staff the lots and charge a
parking fee as a fundraiser. For long days, such as Fourth of July, extend shuttle service to get
people back to their cars.
Possible locations for overflow parking include: Elkhorn Lodge, Our Lady of the Mountains
Catholic Church, St Bartholomew's Episcopal Church on MacGregor Avenue, and the school
district parking lots. Town would need to ensure there is no code that conflicts with these
activities.
Strong Pedestrian Presence: High volume visitor days means more pedestrians downtown.
Consider closing certain crosswalks with barricades to facilitate vehicular traffic (such as the
east/west crossing at Highway 36 where an underpass is available. Use signage to direct
pedestrians to the underpass.
Extend shuttle hours: When overflow parking is in use or on days where events such as the
fireworks show on the Fourth of July or the Rodeo or Scottish Festival keep people active long
into the evenings, continue to keep the shuttles running. Remote parking can only be successful
if the last visitor is able to return to their car easily at the end of the night.
Treating these high volume days like a special event – a SuperBowl or State Fair – needs special planning. Our
streets are not designed for the volumes they see but with intervention, the movement of vehicles and
pedestrian can be improved. Keep traffic flowing. Get cars into parking spaces efficiently. Keep pedestrians
on the sidewalks and out of the roads. Bring the community together to help with these activities. Have all
Community Service Officers on duty. Staff parking lots with community service groups. Have an abundant
supply of shuttles available.
These are busy days. These are long days. These are great days for the community to come together to make
Estes Park a great experience for our visitors.
P a g e 15 | 16
Appendix A – Public & private bike racks in downtown Estes
The map here indicates where bicycle racks are located throughout Estes Park:
http://www.bikeestes.org/bike-racks-in-estes-park/
TITLE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
Visitor Center Bike racks (existing) On the right side of the visitor center (+- 5 bikes)
Safeway Bike racks (existing) Right side of the building (Nice view of Stanley
Hotel) (+- 10 bikes)
Kind Coffee (side) Bike racks (existing) Left side of the building (+- 10 bikes)
Ed's Cantina Bike racks (existing) Front of building (+- 6 bikes)
Library Bike racks (existing) Back of the building (+-3 bikes)
Town Hall Bike racks (existing) Front of Town Hall, close to entrance
Performance Park Bike racks (existing) Close to bridge (+- 10 bikes)
Tregent Park Bike racks (existing) (+- 3 bikes)
Moraine Avenue Restrooms Bike racks (existing)
A la carte Bike racks (existing) 2 bike racks on plaza between A la carte & White
orchid (3 bikes)
McDonald's Bike racks (existing) Between McDonald's and Parking lot (+- 8 bikes)
White Orchid Bike racks (existing) 2 bike racks on plaza between A la carte & White
orchid (3 bikes)
Performance Park parking
lot
Bike racks (existing) Parking lot (+- 6 bikes)
Riverside Drive (behind
Subway)
Bike racks (existing) Behind Subway, across from the public restrooms,
close to sidewalk
The Barrel Bike racks (existing)
Source: http://www.bikeestes.org/bike-racks-in-estes-park/
PREPARED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARDNOVEMBER 2015Parking Strategy Proposal
IntroductionCurrently, strong public sentiment for additional parking in downtown. Engineering studies estimate 500 additional parking spaces are needed. Visitor Center South lot offers 100, with potential expansion to 310 net new spaces.Each time a vehicle is unable to find parking, businesses lose revenue opportunity & Town misses tax receipt.NO SIMPLE PARKING SOLUTIONS, TAB has identified key strategies that can guide future solutions.
No Simple SolutionChallenge to agree on one strategy to implement.Diverse views brought divergent solutions, all with merit.Strategies that we proposed, offers balance to TAB’s diverse views, and highlights best solutions.Implementation of these strategies will likely elicit strong and divergent opinions (Example: best location for parking structure downtown).Visitor experience as core to all decision‐making, while recognizing their different wants and needs.
Estes Park during the busy season
Background –The Town of Estes Park has commissioned a variety of transportation studies, which is the foundation of our proposed parking strategy. PAST STUDIES2003 Estes Valley Transportation Alternative Study 2005 Republic Parking Study 2012 Roadmap to the Future 2013 Estes Park Transit & Parking Study 2015 Downtown Parking Survey‐unofficial
Guiding Principles –When developing transportation or parking improvements, we encourage these guiding principles.1.Protect the natural environment. (future‐oriented, balance desire to park downtown with a duty to protect family friendly & natural amenities)2.Design downtown to be a fun, family friendly destination. Guests wanting to wander, sit, play, eat, shop and relax3.Build in harmony with nature. 4.Do not allow vehicles to become the dominate characteristic of downtown
MAKE DOWNTOWN MORE ACCESSIBLE, INVITING AND ATTRACTIVE TO RESIDENTS & VISITORSREDUCE CONGESTION & POLLUTION BY REDUCING VEHICLE CIRCULATION KEEP IT SIMPLE – FIRST TIME VISITOR SHOULD FIND PARKING/SHOPS/ATTRACTIONS EASILYObjectives
9 Key Points to Proposed Parking Strategy1.Strategically increase the parking supply2.Simplify parking3.Provide exceptional directional signage4.Reduce parking demand through alternate modes5.Implement a pay‐to‐park program6.Encourage business owners & employees to park remotely7.Redirect oversized vehicle to remote parking areas8.Protect residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown9.Develop a special event management plan
Strategy 1: Increase parking supplyBuild new inventory in downtown or perimeter locations, not remote locations.When evaluating prospective parking lots:DowntownPerimeter (within ¼ mile of downtown)Remote (locations that require shuttle service to downtown)Mitigate congestion with strategically placed parkingEnhance shuttle utilization by integrating shuttle stopsConsider future development opportunities
Strategy 2: Simplify parking availability.To avoid ‘circling’, have a few centralized parking locations with good signage.1.Reduce on‐street parking to reduce conflict between parked cars and congested roadways. 2.Convert small parking lots to new purposesSell as commercial developmentDedicate to special use groups (employee parking, bike parking) Convert to a park or recreational use.3.Restrict parking on residential streets to residents and their guests.
Entry to parking structureEntry to parking structureStair view of parking structureStair view of parking structureProposed South Parking Structure
Strategy 3: Exceptional Directional SignageSignage: how to find a parking space or lot easily.Reduce circling traffic seeking out a parking place, direct them to a parking lot. Evaluate electronic and static signage options.Comprehensive signage strategy for downtown & destinations:VehiclesPedestrianCycling
Strategy 4: Reduce parking via alternative modesParking structures are expensive and have seasonal purpose. The Town should encourage alternative modes of transport such as walking & cycling (beyond just shuttle service).Pedestrians: Continue expansion of connected sidewalks & paths. Widen Elkhorn Avenue sidewalks Widen landings at street crossingsCyclists: A growing sport & lifestyle among sport enthusiasts, family riders, commuters, and visitors. Currently lack bike lanes & forced to use Hwy 34 to be downtown. Increase bike route development and connectionsAdd bike racks for parking and on shuttles (request for vendor to provide).
Strategy 4: continuedShuttles: A great service & in 2015, over 500,000 visitors rode the Town shuttles during summer season.The more locals and visitors using shuttle, less overall congestion.
Strategy 5: Implement a pay‐to‐park programUse during high traffic periods, pay‐to‐park:Influences visitor behavior‐encourage use of free shuttles & walking.Improve distribution of vehicles‐encourage free lots further out; thus, removing vehicles from downtown roadways.Provide revenue source for parking inventory.
Pay by PhonePay by PhonePay by machinePay by machine2015 Downtown Parking Surveyover 50% supported paid parking, compared to 41% in 2005.
Strategy 6: Owners & Employee park remotelyEach parking space that is filled has economic value & tied to generating revenue.Keep these slots filled all day by merchants, seems wasteful. Unofficial survey by Stan Black, summer staffing impacting downtown. 600 employees at any given time during the day, occupied parking downtown. Loss of revenueLoss of sales tax to TownParking structureTown needs to work with business community on incentives for employees to chose alternatives.
Strategy 7: Redirect oversized vehicle to remote1.Buses, RV’s, other oversized vehicles: challenge to narrow downtown corridor. 2.24 designated Bus/RV parking spaces (17 Town Hall, 4 VC, 3 event center) encourages to park downtown. 3.Town should restripe fairgrounds lot to accommodate more RV’s AND remove RV parking from Town Hall lot
Strategy 7: continued4.Create maps or marketing tools to help RV parks communicate about alternative routes to take. 5.Specifically discuss alternate oversized vehicle routes at transportation section on website6.ID a central location for RV parking: use signage, mapping and websites.7.Create policy‐Tour busses only allowed to drop‐off & pick‐up.
Strategy 8: Protect Residential NeighborhoodsWhen the Town implements pay‐to‐park program, an unintended consequence is parking in neighborhoods. A proactive approach advised to prevent visitors parking along roadways. PERMIT TAGS for residents & their guests.Expand current Estes Park Police Department overnight parking permits for downtown residents.Neighborhoods include:Virginia Drive areaBig Horn Drive areaEast Riverside Drive
Strategy 9: Special Event Management PlanHandful of days, EP has exceptional traffic congestion‐holidays (Fourth of July) or free RMNP days.Primary issues:Heavy trafficParking shortageStrong pedestrian presenceDevelop an advance strategy that includes:Traffic managementCreate alternative parking opportunitiesStrong pedestrian guidance with signageExtend shuttle hours
Strategy 9: continue, Special Event Management, remote parkingHigh volume days for special events‐similar to SuperBowl or State Fair‐need special parking plans. Plan include:Movement of vehicles & pedestriansTraffic flow to parking spaces efficientlyKeep pedestrians on sidewalks and out of roadsCommunity and service groups share in effortIncreased shuttle service
Prioritizing the StrategiesStrategy 1: Strategy 2: Strategy 3: Strategy 4: Strategy 5: Strategy 6: Strategy 7: Strategy 8: Strategy 9: Increase parking supplySimplify parkingDirectional signageAlternate modes Pay‐to‐parkOwner/ employee parkingOversized vehiclesProtect neighborhoodsSpecial Event Management PlanStan8542910673Bryon7 89610Anne2569108734Belle1046892537Amy3264109875Gregg1057693428Thom9458107632Kimberly1028697534# votes: 59 27 42 51 75 52 51 28 331st priority: 10 pointsLast priority: 1 voteNo vote = 0 votes
RecommendationsRecommendations are highly interrelated. Pay to Park: o2015 Strategic Plan –explore the option on paid parking in some areasoWill drive success of visitor center parking lot, especially phase 2oLikely to increase use of shuttles and alternate modes of transportationoCreates a disincentive to employee parking downtownoPlease direct staff to continue exploring technologies, grant opportunities, and an implementation strategy with the intent to fund the project in the 2017 budgetIncrease parking supplyoStrong support for finding additional funding for phase 2 at visitor center parking structureoNo question there is a downtown parking shortageoAs indicated in the draft 2016 Strategic Plan, please direct staff to continue pursuing grant opportunities for phase 2 construction of the visitor center parking structureEmployee Parking oThere are financial ramifications to employees taking up spaces that visitors could be parking inoSmall investment for a potentially significant financial returnoPlease build upon the Town’s employee parking initiative and work with the business community to build a downtown‐wide strategy of incentives for employees to park elsewhereAlternate modes: oContinue to remain committed to shuttlesoExpand bike lanes and placement of bike racksoAs indicated in the draft 2016 Strategic Plan, please include bike/pedestrian lanes wherever possible along with street improvements. Oversized vehicles: oRelatively easy project to direct oversized vehicles around downtown and improve non‐downtown parking opportunitiesoPlease instructs staff to re‐stripe the fairgrounds parking lot to provide additional oversized spaces, which is the foundation to an educational program encouraging RVs and oversized vehicles to park outside downtown.Please adopt the Downtown Parking Strategy and guide staff to pursue the initiatives described above.
December 8, 2015
Briefing on Small Water Districts and
County Improvement Districts
Update on 2015 International Building
Code Adoption and Local
Amendments, Including Property
Maintenance Code
February 9, 2016
Discussion of Noise Ordinance
Items Approved – Unscheduled:
(Items are not in order of priority)
Update on Upcoming Construction
Schedules for Major Projects
Fish Hatchery Property Discussion
Update and Report on Public
Engagement Regarding International
Maintenance Code
Town’s Role in Economic
Development as Related to Other
Organizations
Revised Purchasing Policy
Briefing on Storm Drainage and Flood
Management Issues and Management
Options. Discussion of Storm Water
Utility.
Update on Environmental Assessment
NEPA Process Draft Concerning the
Loop
Follow Up on Broadband Issues
Study Session Items for Board
Consideration:
Discussion of Vacation Rental Fees &
Code Enforcement (Requested
January 12, 2016)
Updated Long Range Pavement
Improvement Program (Requested
January 26, 2016)
Agenda Policy
Policy on Naming of Town Facilities
(After Vetting by Parks Advisory Board
and Leadership Town)
Fund Balance Policy
Update on Consideration of Transit
Going Year Round in Order to Qualify
for Federal Funding
How the Board Handles Off Cycle
Requests for Funding From Outside
Organizations
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items
November 24, 2015