HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2018-06-26The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated June 12, 2018, Study Session Minutes dated June 12,
2018 and Joint Study Session Minutes dated June 14, 2018.
3.Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated May 15, 2018 (acknowledgement
only).
4.Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated May 17, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated May 16, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
6. Revised Policy 107 - Public Posting of Town Board E-mail.
7.Second Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with Prospect Mountain
Water Company, Inc.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1.ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK FALL RIVER ENTRANCE REPORT.
Superintendent Sidle & PAO Patterson.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. FINAL PLAT RECORDATION DEADLINE EXTENSION TO AUGUST 25, 2018,
Grand Estates Apartments Minor Subdivision, Lot 35, Grand Estates Subdivision,
Fred Kropp, FNP Kropp Real Estate Investments, LLC. Planner Woeber.
Prepared 06/15/2018
*Revised 06/22/2018
*
1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
B. AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP, Lot 6 of Mary’s Lake Replat, 534 Promontory
Drive, Unit 13 (Promontory at Kiowa Ridge), Van Horn Engineering/Applicant.
Planner Hathaway.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE #11-18, Rezoning Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700
N Saint Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-
2 - Two-Family Residential to RM - Multi-Family Residential, Prospect of Estes
LLC/Applicant. Planner Woeber.
B. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, 700 N Saint Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor
Lodge), Prospect of Estes, LLC, Vincent Chung. Planner Woeber.
C. MINOR SUBDIVISION & FINAL PLAT, Portion of Lot 5, Little Prospect Mountain
Addition, TBD Stanley Circle Drive, Danny A. West/Applicant. Planner Becker.
D. RESOLUTION #13-18 & ORDINANCE #12-18, Annexing Lot 2 Eshelman Minor
Subdivision, 1901 Fish Creek Road, Chris & Marlys Eshelman/Applicants.
Planner Becker.
ADJOURN.
*
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 12, 2018
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said
Town of Estes Park on the 12th day June, 2018.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Trustees Carlie Bangs
Marie Cenac
Patrick Martchink
Ron Norris
Ken Zornes
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
Absent: Cody Walker, Mayor Pro Tem
Greg White, Town Attorney
Mayor Jirsa called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Zornes)to approve the Agenda,and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Cenac announced the Rooftop Rodeo would be July 5-10, 2018 with the parade
on July 5, 2018 at 10:00 am. All Trustees are invited to participate in the parade.
Trustee Bangs participated in the Mayor’s chat on June 7, 2018. She stated Jennifer
McAtamney from The Town of Breckenridge would speak on childcare and housing on
Friday, June 15, 2018. She attended the Stormwater Master Plan & Utility public meeting
and she encouraged citizens to participate in the online survey.
Mayor Jirsa attended a ribbon cutting at Beef Jerky Outlet on June 12, 2018.
Trustee Norris stated there would be a Joint Meeting of the Town Board, County
Commissioners and Planning Commission on Thursday June 14, 2018 and the regular
meeting of the Planning Commission would be on Tuesday, June 19, 2018.
Trustee Zornes attended his first Open Lands Advisory Board meeting, and he was eager
to learn more from the board. The Local Marketing District Board met June 12, 2018 and
discussed the district’s future direction, the recent marketing campaign for the opening of
State Highway 34, and the upcoming visitor survey.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
x Town Administrator Lancaster provided an update on Policy 3.1 Customer Service.
The areas of concern, in regards to customer service, included how welcoming Town
Hall feels, general knowledge of Town services by employee, and facility
maintenance. A customer service training program would be implemented for all
staff, similar to the City of Boulder. DRAFTaryary
er at er at 7:007:00 p.mp.m.and all dd
ris/Zornes/Zornes))to to approve approve tt
MMENTSENTS
DRnnounced the Rooftopnounced the Roo Rodd
at 10:00 amat 10:00 am. AllAll TTrusteesrust
ngsngs participated inparticipated in the
om The Town ofom The Town of B
20182018..She attShe at
d citizend citizen
3
Board of Trustees –June 12, 2018 –Page 2
x Trustees are encouraged to comment on the potential loss in funding of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund program expiring September 2018. The program
provides funding for parks and open spaces.
x A Request for Proposals (RFP) for a prosecuting attorney would be completed and
is supported by Chief Kufeld and Judge Thrower.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated May 22, 2018, Study Session Minutes dated May 22,
2018, and May 31, 2018.
2. Bills.
3. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated April 3, 2018
(acknowledgement only).
4. 2018 Shuttle Services Contract with McDonald Transit Associates, Inc.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Martchink)to approve the Consent Agenda
with the addition of Policy 3.1 Customer Service,and it passed unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. FINAL TOWNHOME PLAT,Raven Rock Townhomes, Promontory Drive at
Marys Lake Road, Applicants James R. Mackey And Susan M. Mackey.
Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing and Director Hunt presented the Final
Townhome Plat for Raven Rock Townhomes with the preliminary plat
approved on December 12, 2017. The final plat subdivides the land into 38
townhome lots and three outlots in addition to dedicating the necessary
easements for the development of 19 duplex buildings. Staff recommended
the Board approve the Raven Rock Townhomes Final Subdivision Plat with
the conditions a final letter of credit for infrastructure improvements be
submitted, a Right-of-Way permit be obtained, and portions of Gray Jay Way
are renamed for emergency response purposes and to limit confusion.
Vanhorn Engineering was available for any additional questions or
comments. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and
seconded (Norris/ Cenac)to approve the Ravenrock Townhome Final
Subdivision Plat as submitted with conditions as stated in the staff
report,and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Kimberly Disney, Recording SecretaryDRAFT t Assot Ass
approve thapprove e Co
e,and it passed and it passe unan
LAT,T,Raven Rock TownhRaven Rock TownhAApplicants nts James R. MaJames R. Ma
ed the public hearing and ed the public hearing and
at for Raven Rock Towat for Raven Rock
December 12, 2017. TheDecember 12, 2017. T
lots and three outlots lots and three outlots
ents for the development r the development
Board approve the Raven Board approve the
e conditions a final lettee conditions a final le
submitted, a Rightsubmitted, a Right-of-WaWa
are renamed for emeare renamed for
nhorn Engineerinhorn Enginee
entsents..MayoMayo
ed ed (No(No
4
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 12, 2018
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town
of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of June,
2018.
Board:Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes
Attending:Mayor Jirsa, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and
Zornes
Also Attending:Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek, and Recording Secretary Disney
Absent:Mayor Pro Tem Walker and Town Attorney White
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
QUARTERLY UPDATES ON DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP PROJECT.Director
Muhonen and the Project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provided a history and
updated the Board on progress of the Downtown Estes Loop Project. TAC presented
updated design concepts to the Parks Advisory Board (PAB) and the Transportation
Advisory Board (TAB) in March 2018 and additional landscaping designs were reviewed
by PAB in April and May 2018. The final design of the project is 70% complete and the
Colorado Department of Transportation has continued the Right-of-Way (ROW)
acquisition process for 7 parcels identified for full acquisition. Two ROW offers have
been submitted and all other purchase offers are pending the potential withdrawal from
the project. TAC proposed continuing the design and acquisition efforts in preparation of
bidding the construction work in early 2021.
Town Administrator Lancaster presented the issues associated with withdrawal from the
Downtown Estes Loop Project. He highlighted the financial impacts, the loss of funding
for flood mitigation, impacts to property owners along the route, and the potential loss of
funding for future transportation projects.
Trustee questions and comments have been summarized. Questioned if the timeline for
the project could be accelerated? The financial consequences of discontinuing the
project. What infrastructure improvements wouldn’t occur as a result of discontinuing
the project? The impacts on downtown during construction and community concern on
the project.
Trustees discussed continuing the current course of the project, accelerating the
timeline of the project with a Resolution of Support, or holding a referendum election on
the project. It was determined to bring a Resolution of Support to accelerate the timeline
of the project to the Town Board on July 10, 2018.
REVIEW OF TOWN BOARD E-MAIL POLICY.Town Administrator Lancaster
explained Policy 107 regarding the public posting of Town Board e-mail. He highlighted
the reconsideration of the opt out provisions, the addition to exclude e-mails from any
attorney providing legal advice, and clarification on the removal of posted e-mails from
public view. The Board discussed the email policy and it was determined to remove the
opt out provisions, add the exclusion of attorney e-mails, and add clarifications on the
removal of e-mails. Town Administrator Lancaster would bring forward Policy 107, with
revisions, for Board adoption on June 26, 2018.DRAFTdingding
own Attorney Wown Atto
N ESTES LOOP PRON ESTES LOOP PROFTry Committee Committee (TAC) (T prov
owntown Estes Loop Prn Estes
s Advisory Boards Advisory Board (PAB)(P
and additional land additiona andscapndscap
he final design of the al design of the projproj
nsportation has coon has continuntinu
arcels identified for full acarcels identified for f
her purchase offers are pher purchase offers a
sed continuing the design sed continuing the design
ion work in early 2021.work in early 2021.
ator Lancaster presented ator Lancaster prese
stes Loop Project. He higstes Loop Project. He hig
igation, impacts to propeigation, impacts to prope
ure transportation pure transportation
and command comm
acac
5
Town Board Study Session –June 12, 2018 –Page 2
UPCOMING RENEWAL DATE FOR LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT.Administrator
Lancaster explained Section 7.1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Estes Park
Local Marketing District (LMD), between the Town and Larimer County, in which the
LMD would be reviewed for continuation or dissolution by July 1 of any calendar year.
He explained the dissolution would result in the loss of the LMD bed tax which currently
generates over $2 million annually for the marketing area. Board consensus was to
continue the LMD.
TRUSTEE & ADMINSTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.None.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.Town Administrator Lancaster clarified
the July 10, 2018 meeting would include a discussion of the annexation of Fawn Valley
and other enclaves. Staff requested and the Board confirmed the September 25, 2018
Study Session would be cancelled due to training by FEMA on the Emergency
Management System. The policy dictating Town funding of outside entities would be
scheduled for discussion at a future Study Session.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m.
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
DRAFTmeeting atmeeti
FTmberly Disneymberly Disney,RecordingReco
6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 14, 2018
Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the ESTES PARK TOWN
BOARD, LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSION, AND ESTES VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town
of Estes Park on the 14th day of June, 2018.
Town Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes
County Commission: Chair Johnson and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter
Planning Commission: Commissioners Doyle, Foster, Hull, Leavitt, Murphree,
Schneider, and White
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, County Manager
Hoffman, Attorney White, Larimer County Attorney
Haag, Community Development Director Hunt, County
Planner Whitley and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: County Commissioner Gaiter, Mayor Pro Tem Walker and
Estes Valley Planning Commissioner Murphree
Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Jirsa and co-chaired by Larimer
County Commissioner Johnson.
Mayor Jirsa and Commissioner Johnson provided opening remarks and stated the joint
meeting would be a collaborative effort to discuss the development of a new
Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley. Commissioner Johnson stated Larimer
County has been developing a new Comprehensive Plan for the County minus the
Estes Valley. The process provides the community with the opportunity to be involved
in the future planning of the area and to address the concerns, wishes and desires of
the community. He further discussed the use of Systematic Development of Informed
Consent (SDIC), the need to identify the stakeholders including those with dissenting
viewpoints, utilize a fair process, and the process would require significant staff
involvement.
EVPC Chair Leavitt commented a new Comprehensive Plan would provide a vision for
the community 20 years from now, identify the key issues impacting the community, a
framework for future planning and zoning, the need for full and active support
throughout the development of the new plan, broad engagement by the community, and
the need for guidance on planning and zoning issues before the new Comprehensive
Plan has been completed and adopted.
Timeframes
The initial timeframe outlines advance work to be completed in 2018, core task list to be
completed in 2019-2020, and final adoption in early 2021. The advance work would
identify roles and responsibilities, identify the entities and stakeholders to be involved in
the process, and defining working groups.
Trustee Cenac stated the Comprehensive Plan should be a living document reviewed
and updated on a regular basis. She stated funds should not be allocated to the project
unless the document would be updated after formal adoption. She recommended an
update every 3 to 5 years.
7
Joint Town Board Study Session – June 14, 2018 – Page 2
Discussion ensued on the timeframe and when a consultant could be hired to begin
work on the development of the planning process and when could community meetings
be held. It was noted by staff, the 2021 adoption would be the worst-case scenario and
the timeline could be accelerated. The group discussed the need to adopt the Plan
prior to the next election, with some members stating the new Board would need to
have buy in because they would be implementing the Plan and corresponding code
amendments. The general consensus was to complete the Plan as soon as possible to
move the community forward.
EVPC Commissioner Doyle stated the development of a grant application and securing
funding for a consultant would take time and may not be identified until later in 2018.
The EVPC, staff and stakeholders can develop a proposal prior to identifying a
consultant. This would allow the Town and County to drive the direction of the process
rather than the consultant and complete work in advance.
Commissioner Johnson stated a combined grant application with the Town and County
would be seen by DOLA as a stronger application. County staff could assist the Town
in developing the grant application because they recently completed a successful
application for the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Suggested Budget
EVPC Chair Leavitt stated the Planning Commission would request additional funding
for 2018 to complete initial work and hire an additional administrative assistant for the
project.
Trustee Martchink requested information on the process used by the County to begin
the Comprehensive Planning process and questioned if staff completed tasks prior to
identifying the consultant. He stated concern with completing work that would need to
be redone by a consultant. Prior to issuing an RFP/RFQ the County identified the work
to be completed, frame work for what is comprehensive, topics of concern, and identify
key elements such as identifying areas (neighborhoods). The use of local citizen
boards provided extensive knowledge on key areas of concern for the community.
Trustee Norris stated consensus was reached on identifying key stakeholder groups,
start discussions with stakeholders, begin grant application, and develop descriptive
RFP. Trustee Cenac stated the Board has not agreed to move forward with the project
and funding, which should be addressed at an upcoming meeting before moving
forward.
Director Hunt stated staff would request additional funding, $5,000 in funding from both
the Town and County, and $10,000 from the current Community Development fund
would be used to complete advance work in 2018. He stated an RFP/RFQ would be
ready in September.
Other Resources:
Director Hunt stated the staff would be busy with this project and would require
additional resources to ensure normal work load and project work load are completed
on time.
Consultant Selection
Director Hunt reconfirmed the RFP/RFQ would be completed in September 2018 and
released in late November/December once the 2019 budgets have been approved.
Trustee Cenac questioned the procedure used to select the consultant. Director Hunt
stated the selection would be made by the Town and County through an interview
process. The RFP/RFQ would be reviewed by all three bodies prior to release.
Content
EVPC Commissioner Doyle reviewed plans from Fort Collins, Fruita, Salida,
Silverthorne, Parker, Ault, Lakewood and Summit and Garfield County plans to identify
8
Joint Town Board Study Session – June 14, 2018 – Page 3
the specific content of Comprehensive Plans, including introduction and background,
vision, guising principles and future directions, issues and elements, implementation,
action plan and monitoring, and appendices. Overall Comprehensive Plans tend to be
very similar in content and the items addressed.
EVPC Chair Leavitt stated Resolution #08-17 outlined the key elements to be
addressed through an update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Director Hunt stated reviewing well structured Plans developed for Colorado
communities would aid in the development of a structure for the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. He also stated the process utilized by Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
a successful community driven process, would be appropriate.
Stakeholder Involvement
EVPC Chair Leavitt stated the stakeholders should be identified and engaged at the
beginning of the process. County Manager Hoffman stated the County had success at
engaging the community by attending events already established such as a pancake
breakfast. The County utilized a stakeholder group with a representative from each
neighborhood and large groups. This group would provide feedback and report back to
the main stakeholder group.
Trustee Norris stated the community can be divided into retirees, working families with
and without childcare needs, and Hispanic community as stakeholder groups.
Administrator Lancaster would recommend the Board and Planning Commission attend
SDIC training. The training addresses the process for identifying the affected interest
parties in order to address each groups different interests through a process of Citizen
Participation by Objective (CPO).
Consensus
Trustee Norris would provide a list of items in which consensus was reached including
items related to the content of the RFP/RFQ proposal, stakeholder identification, SDIC
training and use of the CPO process, timeline, communication plan, grant application,
and identifying a steering committee. Both the Town and County would schedule the
item for an upcoming meeting to take action on supporting the Comprehensive Plan
project. The DOLA grant application would be prepared and submitted in December.
Miscellaneous
The group discussed concerns regarding the process and comments have been
summarized: concerned with the scope and the amount of work to be completed,
direction of the process continues to be unclear, how to get public engagement, the
process should be comprehensive and involve all sectors of the community, identifying
a creative consultant, utilizing an effective community engagement process similar to
the process used by Jackson Hole, develop and interim plan to move applications
through the process during the development of the new Plan, and develop a plan to
regularly update the new Plan once it has been adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
9
10
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 15, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull,
Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker, Steve Murphree
Attending: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Schneider, Foster, and
Baker
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Planner I Robin Becker, Code
Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County
Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve Murphree
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 60 people in
attendance.
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the agenda, striking Item 4b,
Large Vacation Home, as presented and the motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of April 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
B. Large Vacation Home-REMOVED
It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed 4-0 with Foster abstaining.
4. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 557 Landers Street. 4-bedroom, 10-person
occupancy. Owner: Linda Small
Code Compliance Office Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .56-acre, Large
Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size, there is also a 10 foot setback on the west
side which causes no concern to neighboring properties. There have been no public
comments received.
11
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 15, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to approve the vacation home at 557
Landers Street and to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants. The motion passed
5-0.
5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 1091 Marys Lake Road: 4-bedroom, 10-
person occupancy. Owner: Bruce Stotts and Blaine Moats
CCO Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .69-acre, Large Vacation Home use
requires 1-acre lot size. Setback on one side is 9 feet, which is less than the 25-foot
requirement. There have been no public comments received.
It was moved and seconded (Baker/White) to approve the vacation home at 1091
Marys Lake Road and to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants. The motion
passed 5-0.
6. REZONE PROPERTY AT 920 DUNRAVEN FROM CH-COMMERCIAL HEAVY TO CO-
COMMERICAL OUTLYING.
Planner Becker read the proposal to rezone the entire lot to CO. The purpose is to build a
microbrewery/tasting room. The existing building has 2700 square feet of which 1200 is
basement. The existing building would require little modification and no additional
buildings would be needed. The microbrewery is envisioned to be a 5 bbl. brew system
and the tasting room would occupy approximately 2000 sf. of indoor and outdoor seating
area. Staff recommended approval of the proposed zoning change.
Committee and Staff Question:
The proposed 19 parking spaces are surrounding the property. Baker asked what the
changing conditions for this rezone were. Director Hunt answered that when the EVDC
was written in 2000 microbreweries were not on the radar and microbreweries are not
allowed in CH zones, thus the need for either a Code Amendment to add CH or rezone to
CO. This property is adjacent to existing CO and the area is transitional to CO. Leavitt
and White noted that the applicants Statement of Intent was very valuable and served its
purpose of clarifying what the plans are.
Public Comment:
None
It was moved and seconded (Baker/Schneider) to approve the Zoning Map
Amendment request from CH to CO to the Town Board of Trustees according to
findings of fact with findings recommended by staff and taking in to account the
further clarification of the town policy to accommodate the growth of
microbreweries. The motion passed 5-0.
12
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 15, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
Baker comment for the record: Future similar motions should take the requirement
for changing conditions more seriously.
7. REZONE TBD STANLEY AVENUE FROM E-ESTATE TO RM-RESIDENTIAL
MULTIFAMILY.
Planner Becker stated that the area to be rezoned is comprised of one lot totaling 0.07
acres and is currently owned by the Town of Estes Park. The existing zoning of the
property is E. This lot is for a retention pond, not additional housing. The adjacent 0.50
acre lot to the south is owned by Mike and Cindy Kingswood and is zoned RM. There is
currently an existing single family house on the property. Staff recommended approval of
the proposed zoning change.
Director Hunt reviewed how rezoning is a discretionary legislative matter and different
from development plans which are ministerial and not discretionary. The Comprehensive
Plan is an appropriate criterion in discretionary reviews, such as rezonings.
Staff and Commission comment:
This lot will be used for a retention pond, not additional housing. The plan is well buffered
from other zoning in the neighborhood.
Applicant comment:
None
It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to approve the Zoning Map Amendment
request from E to RM to the Town Board of Trustees according to findings of fact
with findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0.
8. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF DANNY WEST PRELIMIMARY MINOR
SUBDIVISION PLAT .
Becker reported that the proposal entails creating two legal lots from the existing one
undeveloped lot. The resulting lots will be approximately .68 and .68 acres in size, with
residential use and access from Stanley Circle Drive. The proposed lots meet the E-
Estate minimum lot size. There were no written public comments received. Adequate
public facilities are available. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary
Minor Subdivision Plat.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None
Applicant Discussion
None
13
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 15, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Foster) to recommend approval of the Danny
West Minor Subdivision Plat to the Town Board of Trustees according to findings of
fact, including findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion
passed 5-0.
9. REZONE 700 N SAINT VRAIN AVENUE FROM A-ACCOMMODATIONS AND R-2-
RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY TO A-ACCOMMODATIONS AND RM-RESIDENTIAL
MULTIFAMILY
Planner Woeber summarized the applicant proposal to continue using the motel in its
current location. The A-zoned portion of the property would be reconfigured with a replat
and decreased, from 4.6 to 2.16 acres. A portion of the property now zoned A, along with
the portion currently zoned R-2 would be rezoned to RM. This would be 4.57 acres.
Applicant intends to develop the RM property with a multi-family project. Details of the
project are in the planning stages. The rezoning has been submitted with an Amended
Plat, which reconfigures the two existing lots. Staff emphasizes the plat amendment is not
subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission; it goes only to the
Town Board. There are no outstanding concerns or comments from reviewing agency
staff. Written comments have been reviewed and are posted to the Town Website at
www.estes.org/currentapplications. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Zoning
Map Amendment, with the following comment: Staff has some reservations regarding the
proposed RM zoned site, where safe and adequate access to a multi-family development
would require careful planning.
Staff and Commission discussion:
Schneider questioned the lack of a submitted Development Plan. Leavitt asked how it is
that zoning doesn’t follow lot lines. Hunt stated that Split Zoning on a lot is not best
planning practice, however there are times it does show up.
Applicant Discussion
Paul Brown, Concept Design Build, reviewed the history of neighborhood, motel and
zoning of the Little Prospect Sub Division. The current owner’s vision is to create a
Boundary Line Adjustment and a work force housing development.
Daniel Chung, owner’s son, gave background information on his family, community ties
and the purchase of two motels in Estes Park.
Lonnie Shelton, Van Horn Engineering, cited how many zoning districts this property has
been over the years. He stated that a Preliminary Concept Sketch Plan was submitted in
November to get information on what would be needed from affected agencies. This
process of “testing the water” makes sense from a cost perspective. The Development
Plan will come later if the rezone is approved. Utilities show sewer, water and power are
all adequately available based on an arbitrary 70 unit development. Public W orks
recommended additional right of way and drainage easements.
Paul Brown gave 8 responses to the Neighborhood letter received:
14
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 15, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
1) Code Requirements in Section 7.5.F.2.a.3.c mandate buffering in addition to the
existing landscaping and road separation.
2) Waiting for Comprehensive Plan review is not necessary according to the Planners
expert opinion. This lot is a prime location for RM zoning.
3) Each rezone application is a case by case submittal. Since 2017, RM is the only
zoning district for increased density and height allotment. 2% of land in the Estes
Valley is zoned RM. This location makes practical sense given the size and location.
4) The Development Plan requirement was waived by the Community Development
Director.
5) Most of the 22 RM uses are by Special Review which would require a public hearing
process.
6) The two most likely uses for this property after the rezone are development or sale for
development.
7) Safety items will have to be addressed with the forthcoming development plan,
including traffic, parking, pedestrians, bicycles and intersection safety.
8) Proper buffering and a well-designed Development Plan will minimize impact on the
neighbors.
Commission Comment:
Leavitt noted that this was the first time the Planning Commission has heard or seen anything
about the Preliminary Concept Development Plan. Hunt responded that it was submitted
under the Preapplication process, not the Application process therefore not made public.
Paul Brown answered the questions raised by commissioners that neighbors have not been
met with, but it would be in best practice to meet with them and all town folk at some point,
here will be a traffic study if requested and that the safest access entrance would be off of
Stanley Avenue, not Stanley Circle.
Public Comment:
Peggy West, Richard Mulhern, Don Silar, Kreg Leymaster, Bob Ernst, Patty Bartlett/Stanley
Circle residents, all spoke in opposition to the rezone, stating the following concerns and
suggestions: History of a neighborhood agreement; departure from original property owners
plans; affected property values; lack of long term planning; assurance that R2 is the buffer
zone between A and E; RM comes with 22 possible uses; 7 of which are highly possible,
mainly multi-family; improper to waive a development plan; rezoning would drastically change
the character of the neighborhood; 80+ households are affected; traffic impacts; and a
request to place rezoning on hold for 5 years in order to update the Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code.
Applicant Discussion:
Lonnie Shelton rebutted the public comments stating that the Planning Staff recommended
this and reiterated the expense of providing a full Development Plan prior to approval of a
rezone. Many of the 22 uses would be by Special Review. Traffic impact studies look at
number of trips, not number of cars to determine use. There are six things we can agree on:
rezone is logical next step for this property in creating potential affordable or attainable
15
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 15, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
6
housing close to down town; the parcel is one of the few vacant parcels close to town and
can provide needed housing; the town needs affordable housing; adequate utilities are
present, and things could be done to make traffic and drainage better; support for rezoning by
the Planning Department and this Commission allows team to move forward to design
something in an RM zone which would come back to this Commission and involve a public
meeting; the Planning Commission is the proper approval authority.
Staff and Commission Discussion:
Foster commented on the number of projects on RM/workforce housing since last July, noting
that neighbors have uniformly opposed them, emphasizing the large juxtaposition between
neighbors and town concerns and will be voting against the rezone, despite it having some
potential benefit to the town. The only way to allocate rezoning to RM is to do it
comprehensively and fairly, not on a first come first serve basis. Spot zoning is being done
on an ad hoc basis. Buffer zones in the Comp Plan are consistent between single family and
higher density, with higher density use having a disadvantageous effect on neighborhoods.
Schneider echoed Fosters comments, and questioned what alternatives have been
considered besides rezoning. While he supports need for additional housing, his concern is
the unintended consequences impacting 80 households, with traffic increase and safety
concerns and would like to see development plan prior to approving a rezone of this size.
White quoted from Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan section, 5.1: encourage of a variety
of housing types and price ranges, stating that she believes there is a market for duplexes.
Section 5.3: establish a balanced program to encourage R2 zone development, stating that
visual buffering is required with R2 Zoning and ending with the comment that RM is not
appropriate here and she cannot support a change to RM.
Baker noted that public comment is hard to ignore. The context is insufficiently formulated in
the comp plan to be a factor in consideration. The potential impact is too great, with a
possible 500% density increase, he declared that he can’t see changing code without any
development plan with that high of an increase and we need to vote no.
Leavitt mentioned Chapter 6, 5.2 in the Comp Plan does state that this neighborhood is
required to have a visual buffer zone, and commercial property should not be extended,
arguing that RM is borderline to CO zoning. RM is not a good fit for this property, R2 is. A
Statement of Intent would have helped the process. We don’t have any good guidelines for
what to do with upzoning at this point. He would like the applicants to see what can be done
with R2 zoning as this is a good transition zone into the neighborhood. The property rights of
the 80+ residents in the area need to be taken into account, adding that with the other two
recently approved projects close to this property, traffic and safety is also a concern.
It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to deny the 700 N Saint Vrain Avenue
Zoning Map Amendment application finding that it is incompatible with Chapter 6, 5.1,
16
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 15, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
7
5.2 of the Comprehensive Plan and FC5* requiring future developments provide a
visual buffering between adjacent residential uses, it represents spot zoning at a time
we haven’t done a comprehensive plan review of RM zoning, negative impacts of
significant density increase of nearly 500 % does not justify the rezoning for purpose
of affordable housing. The motion passed 5-0 to deny the rezone.
There was a 5 minute break at 3:39pm, meeting resumed at 3:44
11: SPECIAL REVIEW: EAGLE ROCK SCHOOL, ALLOWING A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL
IN AN RE-1, RURUAL ESTATE ZONING DISTRICT
Planner Woeber described the Special Review criteria and the history behind it. The
applicant is proposing expansion of facility primarily to begin establishing more
faculty/staff housing. Staff recommended the school and related facilities be allowed as
an approved Special Review use, as well as allowing for planned expansions and
upgrades in the future. Special Review would allow the use within the identified 140-acre
school area.
Staff and Commission comments:
Baker asked if all future projects would be covered by this special review or would it come
back to the Planning Commission at some point. Woeber answered that it would be at the
Community Development Director’s discretion, depending on the scope of the project.
Hunt added that minor additions would not, but anything that increases the intensity of use
would trigger a future Special Review, with a fairly low threshold by which it would be
brought before the Commission.
Applicant Discussion:
Cole Gaylor, MIG Consultants, described the need for this Special Review, stating that
there are 14 families on staff at Eagle Rock and the intent is to offer housing and reduce
commutes for the employees in this 5-10 year plan.
Jeff Liddle, Head of School, reviewed the functional and practical reasons. Eagle Rock is
a boarding school and has been understaffed for 20 years due to their need for 24/7
staffing. Intention is to satisfy needs and hire and retain staff. Funding has been secured
to build a triplex this summer.
Public comment:
None
Staff and commission discussion:
It was noted that Eagle Rock has excellent track record
It was moved and seconded (Baker/White) to approve the Special Review Use for a
Non-Public School to the Board of Larimer County Commissioners with the
17
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 15, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
8
findings and conditions of approval as recommended by staff and the motion
passed 5-0.
12: WIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
Staff recommended continuance to June 19, 2018 to resolve issues for applicant and
staff.
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Baker/Foster) to continue the Wind River Development
Plan to June 19, 2018 and the motion passed 5-0.
Baker asked for the following comment be on record: The practice of automatically
waiving a Development Plan in association with a zoning request has proven
problematic and should be on case by case basis as opposed to a standard
practice.
13: REPORTS
Introduction of new staff member Brittany Hathaway, Planner II, from Houston area.
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
*reference FC5 should be 5.3 per motion by Sharry White
18
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 16, 2018
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall on the 16th
day of May, 2018.
Present: Gordon Slack
Tom Street
Belle Morris
Amy Hamrick
Ann Finley
Also Present: Carlie Bangs, Town Board Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Janice Crow, GM of Rocky Mountain Transit Management
Absent: Stan Black
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Street) to approve the March meeting minutes
and all were in favor.
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Finley) to approve the April meeting minutes
and all were in favor.
TAB MEMBER UPDATE:
The TAB introduced themselves to the newly appointed Trustee Liaison, Carlie Bangs.
Chair Morris requested any information that could be provided from the interview
determinations made for the new TAB members. Trustee Bangs stated the interview team
consisted of herself, newly appointed Trustee Marie Cenac, and Chair Morris (observer
comments only – no selection authority). The newly selected TAB members, announced
at the recent Town Board Meeting, are Janice Crow, the General Manager of Rocky
19
Transportation Advisory Board – May 16, 2018 – Page 2
Mountain Transit Management, and Ron Wilcocks, Owner of Earthwood Galleries of
Colorado and advisory board member of the recently completed Downtown Plan. The
final TAB member selection and appointment will be made at the next Town Board
Meeting.
There were five individuals that applied to be members of the TAB with one withdrawing
prior to interviews. The interview team consisted of Trustee Liaison Carlie Bangs, Trustee
Marie Cenac and TAB Chair Belle Morris. Trustee Bangs stated she looks forward to all
working together for the benefit of the community.
SHUTTLE UPDATE
Janice Crow presented this month’s Shuttle Update. The Town’s Transit Program
Manager Brian Wells is attending courses to become a Certified Transit Manager this
week. Crow stated that all shuttle stops have been established. Another item in the works
is GPS connectivity which will provide the public real-time information on the location of
a given shuttle. There have been no updates on the second LoNo grant application for an
electric bus. The Shuttle Committee is very pleased with this year’s sponsorship support.
Full shuttle service begins Saturday, June 23 and will end after the 2018 Estes Park
Scottish Festival.
TVC GOALS / 2019 PRIORITY PLANNING:
Chair Morris revisited with the TAB, the Transportation Vision Committee’s Roadmap to
the Future, Appendix K. This portion of the document contains the findings and a timeline
transportation goals for Estes park. The purpose of this review would be to determine
where the TAB is standing today and plan on where the TAB focuses efforts moving
forward. Member Finley stated she’d like for the TAB to review all the different timetables
(1-to-5 year goals, 5-to-15 year goals, 15-to-30 year goals.).
Member Finley has been researching consultants that assess, define, and implement
wayfinding signage. With less experience on our hands it would be beneficial to have
someone with this type of knowledge. Finley further stated that there is a group at
CU/Denver with an internship program for wayfinding and signage. Finley plans to email
the lead of this initiative to get more information. Member Hamrick emphasized the
importance of the focus being dynamic and planning for future change. Member Slack
suggested that wayfinding signage be affixed to the Town’s bear-proof trash cans to avoid
another hole to dig.
20
Transportation Advisory Board – May 16, 2018 – Page 3
Member Finley also suggested incentives to shuttle riders. Co-Chair Street suggested
providing the incentive to those parking outside the downtown core. Since the shuttle
service is free it would have to be a private business that provides the incentive.
Chair Morris proceeded to engage the TAB in reaching a decision on what the TAB’s
focus of support should be for 2019 prior to the budget discussions in June. It was
determined to focus on:
Seasonal expansion of the Town’s shuttle service and the potential reinstatement
of the Green Route. Member Hamrick suggested thinking more “big picture”.
Hamrick suggested breaking into groups and spending the next 6-8 months
working on, and brainstorming, those categories captured in Appendix K.
Plan for wayfinding downtown. Finley will research potential funding for a
consultant.
2040 Multimodal transportation plan (Transportation Master Plan to implement in
2019)
Chair Morris asked Director Muhonen if a letter of support is needed regarding a
roundabout for the Community Drive/US 36 Intersection Improvement project. Muhonen
stated that the Town Board already approved $90K for pursuit of a roundabout and that
no further action needed from TAB, unless they want to convey that information to the
Town Board regardless. If so, it would be need mid-day tomorrow for inclusion in the
Town Board Packet. Member Slack expressed his thoughts that a memo would be in
order. A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Hamrick) for Chair Morris to prepare a
draft memo based on the 2019 budget recommendations to the Town Board. The memo
would be circulated for individual member comments. Muhonen will take the memo to the
Town’s Leadership Team.
Hamrick provided an example approach she’d like seen taken in the preparation of the
memo: “Here are items from the Transportation Visioning Committee (TVC) that we’d like
to see funded for next year. . .” Hamrick stated it may be best to provide guidance more
that specific direction.
ESTES PARK REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITY LIST:
Director Muhonen introduces the creation of the Estes Park Regional Transportation
Project Priority List. Larimer County employees worked on the I-25 widening project with
CDOT. During the project, it was determined there are many transportation needs in
Larimer county but no funding. Larimer County implemented an infrastructure funding
strategy started with the creation of a Regional Task Force and Technical Advisory
21
Transportation Advisory Board – May 16, 2018 – Page 4
Committee (TAC). All Larimer County municipalities would be represented. Director
Muhonen is a member of the TAC. All projects identified require the need to be regionally
beneficial and be contained in an adopted plan. The projects must also fit into one of the
following eligibility categories: roadway expansion, roadway safety, complete streets,
intersections, bridges, intelligent transportation systems, etc.
There’s a pool of projects contained in adopted plans from which to draw. Muhonen needs
to identify projects with a minimum cost of $1M. The FLAP2 (Moraine Multimodal) should
identified as the top priority. Intersection improvements at each end of Mall Road by
utilizing roundabouts (combined) should also be a listed priority. The question came up
of the appropriateness of adding a recreational path joining Loveland and Estes to
establish the vision.
PROJECT UPDATES, David Hook, Engineering Manager
Moraine Avenue Improvements:
The project is ongoing with plans remaining that the road will be open Friday, May 25.
Director Muhonen is actively at the project site to discuss conduit placement
DMS – Dynamic Message Sign Installation:
The Town’s Streets Division crew is working on foundations, conduits, and wiring for sign
installation. A partial shipment of the structural steel has been received with hopes of
having the remaining steel tomorrow. The plan is to set the signs in place tomorrow
through Monday with significant completion by end of day tomorrow. Next steps include
training on the programming, operations and maintenance of signs.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Morris asked the TAB for their thoughts on holding a Transportation Symposium at
the 2018 Farmers Market. Morris stated that due to lack of attendance at the public
meetings, this forum may be a good way to communicate information on complete streets
and shuttle schedules. Co-Chair Street suggested a questionnaire be used to provide
focus. Street further suggested a TAB homework assignment to come up with questions
to bring to the next regularly scheduled TAB meeting.
Hamrick conveyed her support for this effort. Hamrick also suggested, prior to planning,
a conversation take place with those in charge of the Farmers Market to ensure feasibility.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.
22
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Town Attorney White
Utilities Director Bergsten
Water Superintendent Eshelman
Date: June 26, 2018
RE: Second Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with
Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc.
Objective:
Review and, if appropriate, approve the Second Extension of Agreement to Operate
Water System (the “Agreement”) between the Town and Prospect Mountain Water
Company for the Town to temporarily operate the Prospect Mountain Water Company
system pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
Present Situation:
The Town currently operates the PMWC water system for the PMWC Bankruptcy
Trustee. The agreement needs to be extended while the Town, Bankruptcy Trustee,
and PMWC customers work toward a long-term solution.
Proposal:
Staff proposes we extend the agreement and continue operating the system for the
Bankruptcy Trustee.
Advantages:
• The approval of the Second Extension of Agreement ensures that the Town will
continue to provide treated bulk water to the Prospect Mountain customers and
provide a responsible operator of the water system.
• The Town will be reimbursed for its costs of operating the system.
• The approval of the Second Extension of Agreement and operation of the Prospect
Mountain water system will allow continued negotiations to pursue a permanent
solution to the provision of treated water to the Prospect Mountain customers.
Disadvantages:
• The Town will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the Prospect
Mountain water system; however, this is what we do and we do it very well.
23
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the approval of the Second Extension Agreement
Budget:
The Town’s Water Utility budget is not impacted as all expenses incurred are
reimbursed pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
Level of Public Interest
High. The PMWC customers and Bankruptcy Court are very interested continued water
service to properties.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny the Second Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System
between the Town of Estes Park and Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc.
Attachments:
Second Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with Prospect Mountain
Water Company, Inc.
24
SECOND EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT TO OPERATE WATER SYSTEM
THIS SECOND EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT TO OPERATE WATER SYSTEM
(“Extension Agreement”) is effective May 25, 2018, by and between the Town of Estes Park, a
Colorado Municipal Corporation (the “Town”) and Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc.,
debtor in Chapter 7 bankruptcy Case No. 15-14286 TBM “Prospect Mountain” or the
“Company”); together “the Parties”.
1. The Parties entered into an Agreement to Operate Water System (“Agreement”)
on March 8, 2016.
2. The Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on May 25, 2016.
3. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement provides that the Effective Date of the Agreement
shall be the date of entry of an order by the Bankruptcy Court approving the Agreement.
4. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provides that the term of the Agreement shall be
one year from the Effective Date, unless terminated or extended by the written agreement of the
Parties.
5. The Parties have previously entered into an Extension of Agreement to Operate
Water System which extended the term of the Agreement to and including May 25, 2018.
6. The Parties hereby extend the term of the Agreement to and including May 25,
2019.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO PROSPECT MOUNTAIN WATER
COMPANY, INC.
By: By:
Todd Alyn Jirsa, Mayor Daniel A. Hepner, Chapter 7 Trustee
ATTEST:
By:
Town Clerk
25
26
Board Email Revisions 6/26/2018 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Policies Page 1 of 2
Effective Period: ongoing
Review Schedule: Annually - March
Effective Date: June 27th, 2018
References: Policy Governance 1.2
TOWN BOARD POLICY
107
Public Posting of Town Board E-mail
1. PURPOSE
To provide the highest level of transparency and ease of access to the general public of
all public record emails generated by Town Trustees.
2. APPLICABILITY
This policy shall apply to the incoming and outgoing emails of the Board of Trustees,
including the Trustees, Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem.
3. PROCEDURE
a. A copy of any email sent to or by a member of the Town Board will be automatically
posted to a page accessible through the Town website for a period of one year. These
emails may be accessed at www.estes.org/boardemails.
b. Public addresses contained in the to/from/bcc/cc fields will not be posted. However,
all information contained in the body of any email to Board members will become
public, including any personal information added by the user.
c. Emails will not be publicly posted when the subject line contains any of the following
terms:
i. Private
ii. Confidential
iii. Work Product
iv. Personnel
v. Personal
d. Emails which include the Town Attorney’s email address in any location of the email
will not be publicly posted. Emails to or from other attorneys working on behalf of the
Town will not be publicly posted.
27
Board Email Revisions 6/26/2018 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Policies Page 2 of 2
e. Any emails which are not public record or are not allowed to be publicly inspected
pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act or any other State or Federal legislation
or regulation, will not be posted
f. Requests to remove and e-mail as outlined in section h below, should be directed to
the Town Clerk, Public Information Officer or Town Administrator
g. Posted emails may be removed by the Town only under the following circumstances:
1. Posted emails, which upon review, are not public record or not allowed to
be physically inspected under the Colorado Open Records Act or any other
State or Federal legislation or regulation.
2. Emails that contain obscene or libelous information.
3. Any constituent may request removal of posted emails because the
constituent expected that the email would be confidential or was a personal
or private matter.
4. Any Trustee or the Mayor may request removal of posted emails because
the constituent author of the e-mail expressly informed the Trustee or the
Mayor that the author intended that the email would be confidential or was
a personal or private matter.
5. E-mails that are not related to town business or town activities.
6. E-mails that contain confidential town information that should not be
disclosed on the internet, such as town purchase confirmations containing
credit card information, purchase order numbers or other information that if
disclosed would pose a security or financial risk to the Town.
7. E-mail containing suspected malware or viruses.
h. Emails posted to the site are not monitored real-time. The Town of Estes Park is not
responsible for the content of emails sent by users.
Approved:
_____________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
28
Rocky Mountain National Park
Fall River Entrance Station Improvements
Rocky Mountain National Park
Need for the Action—this project is needed to:
•Address operational issues related to the current entrance
station and buildings constructed in 1960s (when visitation was
one third of what it is today)
•Reduce traffic congestion
•Improve visitor access and convenience
•Provide a safe and efficient work space for park employees
Fall River Entrance Station Improvements
Rocky Mountain National Park
Fall River Entrance Station Improvements
Alternatives Analyzed in the Environmental Assessment
•Alternative 1: No-Action
•Alternative 2: Retain Entrance in Current Location; Rehabilitate Existing
Buildings;
•Alternative 3: Retain Entrance in Current Location; Remove and Construct
New Buildings (Proposed Action & Preferred Alternative)
•Alternative 4: Move Entrance to the West; Construct New Buildings
Four entrance lanes, including one automated fast pass lane is common to all
alternatives
Rocky Mountain National Park
Fall River Entrance Station Improvements
ALTERNATIVE 3
RETAIN LOCATION/REPLACE BUILDINGS
Rocky Mountain National Park
Fall River Entrance Station Improvements
Steps in the
Environmental
Process
Rocky Mountain National Park
Fall River Entrance Station Improvements
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING
BY JULY 20 2018.
•Submit comments online at:
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/ROMO
•Or mail/hand-deliver written comments to:
Superintendent
Rocky Mountain National Park
1000 U.S. Highway 36
Estes Park, CO 80517
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date:June 26, 2018
RE:Final Plat Recordation Deadline Extension to August 25, 2018, Grand Estates
Apartments Minor Subdivision, Lot 35, Grand Estates Subdivision, Fred Kropp,
FNPKropp Real Estate Investments, LLC
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Grant an extension to a requirement within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) which
requires a final subdivision plat to be submitted within sixty (60) days of Town Board approval.
Location: 507 Grand Estates Drive, located approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of
Big Thompson Avenue (aka Highway 34) and Grand Estates Drive, within the Town of Estes
Park.
Present Situation:
The EVDC, Section 3.9.F.3., reads as follows:
“Effect of Approval of a Final Subdivision Plat. Within sixty (60) days from the date
of the Board's action on the final subdivision plat, the Applicant shall make all required
revisions, if any (see §3.2.E above), and shall submit the final subdivision plat to the
Town for recording. If the final plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty -day
time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.”
Per that Section, the applicant’s deadline for the final subdivision plat for the Grand Estates
Apartments Minor Subdivision was 60 days after the March 27, 2018 approval. That deadline
was May 26, 2018. This was not met, primarily due to the applicant having required final
construction documents that are still in the review process.
Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
29
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JUNE 26, 2018
GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS, FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL EXTENSION
PAGE | 2
Proposal:
The applicant has requested an extension to the deadline 60 days from the June 26, 2018 Town
Board date (Attachment 1). The new deadline, proposed by the applicant, is August 25, 2018.
Staff notes that August 25th is on a Saturday, and Town offices are closed. The deadline then
will be the day before, which is Friday, August 24, 2018. Staff advises all parties that any
further extensions will need to make a strong case that exceptional circumstances are present
in order to gain approval.
Advantages:
• A subdivision that has been through an extensive review and approval process will be
able to be finalized and recorded.
Disadvantages:
• None.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees approve the request to submit the
final subdivision plat, for the Grand Estates Apartments Minor Subdivision, on or before August
24, 2018.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low for this request.
Sample Motions:
1. I move to approve the request to exceed the required 60-day deadline, and to allow the
applicant to submit the final subdivision plat for the Grand Estates Apartments Minor
Subdivision on or before August 24, 2018.
Attachments:
1. Extension Request
30
31
32
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Brittany Hathaway, Planner II
Date:June 26, 2018
RE:Amended Map of Unit 13, The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominium
Map, 534 Promontory Drive, John Michael Gould, Owner; Lonnie Sheldon,
Van Horn Engineering, Applicant.
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Review and take final action on an Amended Condominium Map, in compliance with the
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The subject property, known as Unit 13 within The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge
Condominiums, is existing. There is an existing 10’x20’ deck located on the second
floor, of which the applicant wishes to expand.
Proposal:
A 10’x10’ deck addition is proposed as an extension to the existing 10’x20’ deck located
on the second floor. The proposed addition will not impede existing drainage patterns or
roadway.
Advantages:
Allows for the construction of a deck addition to an existing structure.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Amended Map of Unit 13 of the Promontory at Kiowa
Ridge Condominium Map.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None 33
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the Amended Map of Unit 13 of the Promontory at Kiowa
Ridge Condominium Map.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Statement of Intent
3. Amended Map
34
638
638
650
565
451
2625LAKEWOODCT
KIOW
A
D
RKIOWA DRUNIT 2
UNIT 1
UNIT 11
UNIT 16
UNIT 8UNIT 15
UNIT 9UNIT 12
UNIT 13
UNIT 18
UNIT 2
UNITS19A & B
UNIT 5
UNIT 4
UNIT 7
UNITS21A & B
UNIT 14
UNIT 10
UNIT 19
UNITS20A & B
UNIT 3UNIT 22
UNIT 21 UNIT 20
UNIT 17
UNIT 6
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 50 100Feet
1 in = 96 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development
Promontory at Kiowa Ridge
Printed: 6/11/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Subject Property
35
36
37
38
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date:June 26, 2018
RE:Ordinance # 11 – 18, Rezoning Request, Rezoning Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain
Addition, 700 N. St. Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations
and R-2 –Two-Family Residential to RM – Multi-Family Residential and Retaining a
Portion of A - Accommodations, Vincent Chung, Prospect of Estes,
LLC/Owner/Applicant.
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing and make a decision on a request to rezone property currently zoned A,
Accommodations and R-2, Two-Family, Residential to RM, Multi-Family Residential and retaining a
portion of A, Accommodations.
Location
Lots 1 and 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, Town of Estes Park, located west of the intersection of
Highway 36 (aka N. St. Vrain Avenue) and Stanley Avenue. See Attachment 1.
Present Situation:
The property currently consists of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Little Prospect Mountain Addition, with split zoning
that is not consistent with existing lot lines. That portion of the property currently zoned A,
Accommodations contains a motel (Twin Owls), which was established in 1955. The property also
contains a four-plex structure which is apparently used as employee housing, as well as a storage
shed. A portion of the property along Stanley Circle Drive, to the southwest, is zoned R-2, Two-Family,
Residential and is undeveloped.
Proposal:
Applicant proposes continuing the motel use in its current location. The A-zoned portion of the property
would be reconfigured and decreased, from 4.60± to 2.16± acres. A portion of the property now zoned
Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
39
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JUNE 26, 2018
700 N. ST. VRAIN AVE., REZONING
PAGE | 2
A, along with all of that portion currently zoned R-2, would be zoned to RM Multi-Family Residential.
This would be 4.57± acres. Applicant intends to develop the RM property and has recently done some
additional, preliminary site planning. Plans for development were submitted after the Planning
Commission review (and recommendation of denial) at their May 15, 2018 meeting. A narrative and
site plan are attached, see Attachment 5. Staff emphasizes this is not a formal application or
development plan, subject to any approvals, but only a conceptual illustration at this time.
The rezoning has been submitted with an amended plat, which reconfigures the two existing lots, Lot 1
and 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, which was platted in 1927. The subdivision is recorded at
Reception No. 328986 in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. The reconfigured lots
are being reviewed by the Town Board concurrently with this rezoning, under the agenda item called
“Boundary Line Adjustment, 700 N. St. Vrain Avenue.” Typically, a simple boundary line adjustment,
rearranging the configuration of the two lots, would be a staff-level review process. However, the Town
Department of Public Works requested the applicant dedicate right -of-way along Stanley Circle along
the southwest of the property, and that dedication requires Town Board review and approval.
Staff has attached a map showing the current zoning configuration, as well as the proposed zoning
(Attachment 4).
Review Criteria
All applications for text or Official Zoning Map Amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and
Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and w ith other
applicable provisions of this Code. In accordance with Section 3.3D “Standards for Review” of the
EVDC, all applications for rezoning shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and
criteria:
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected.
Staff Finding: The change that the rezoning would allow for is to increase multi-family housing,
preferably, though not necessarily, in the workforce/attainable market niche. Workforce and
attainable housing are critical needs, but the community has a housing supply problem in other
market segments as well. The need to increase available housing in the Estes Valley area is a
condition that has been recognized for many years. The Estes Park Area Housing Needs
Assessment, produced by the Estes Park Housing Authority in January 2016, states, “The
shortage of housing is a more pressing problem currently than affordability; however, with
housing in such short supply, prices are rising and will continue to do so.” The Assessment
identifies various issues related to the shortage and affordability of housing in the Estes Valley
area. Increasing multi-family zoning and potential development is one way to begin addressing
this.
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible
and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth
and development patterns in the Estes Valley.
Staff Finding: Staff has waived the development plan requirement per Section 3.3.B.1 of the
Estes Valley Development Code:
“All applications seeking to amend this Code to allow a change from one (1) zone district
to a different zone district or seeking to amend this Code by changing the permitted uses
in any zone district shall be accompanied by a development plan. This requirement may
be waived by Staff if it finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or
40
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JUNE 26, 2018
700 N. ST. VRAIN AVE., REZONING
PAGE | 3
other factors associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify
such waiver.”
The EVDC implies (erroneously) that a “rezoning development plan” is necessary in order to
determine whether a rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In fact, rezoning in
and of itself is one of the legislative matters that should be reviewed for Comprehensive Plan
consistency. By contrast, a development plan attached to a rezoning cannot be made binding.
A concept plan is a reasonable illustrative component, as long as it is not made binding.
The Future Land Use Plan, Fish Creek Planning Sub-Area within the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan depicts the entire site, including that currently zoned R-2, as
“Accommodations (A).” The Fish Creek/Little Prospect Mountain, Future Land Use Section
within Chapter 6 does not mention the subject property specifically. More generally, the Existing
Land Use Summary in that Section includes the following description of the area:
“The northwest quadrant of the planning area, which includes the area west of Highway
7 and north of the golf course, includes very diverse uses. Large-lot single-family homes
can be found north of the hospital on Little Prospect Mountain. Small-lot single-family
residences and multi-family development exist east and south of the hospital. In the
Comanche/Dunraven area, a service/industrial area is located. South of this area, the
predominant land use once again returns to single-family residences. On both sides of
Highway 7 from the US 36/Highway 7 intersection to Graves Avenue, there are highway
commercial uses. The Estes Park Conference Center and Bureau of Reclamation
power plant are also located here.”
The Development Guidelines listed for the Fish Creek/Little Prospect Mountain area do not
contain a great deal of information specific to the subject property. Guideline No. FC 4. does
recommend, “Identify sites within the neighborhood for affordable housing.”
Staff notes the subject property does contain a significant portion of land currently zoned R -2,
Two-Family Residential. The Plan does not identify or address this, but rather depicts the
Future Land Use Plan for the entire property as “Accommodations.”
Chapter 6 of the Plan specifies, under Section 5.0 Housing, “Community Wide Land Use
Policies.” These include:
5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges.
5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to
provide affordable housing.
5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area.
Although this is a rezoning, and the specific development plans have not been finalized, the
proposed rezoning can establish the zoning to be able to bring about the above Policies.
Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent
of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate
services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.
41
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JUNE 26, 2018
700 N. ST. VRAIN AVE., REZONING
PAGE | 4
Staff Finding: Service and utility providers have indicated they have the ability to provide
adequate service in this area within the Town of Estes Park. Reviewing agencies have not
raised any concerns regarding possible inadequate service in the future.
Staff Comments:
1. Potential density has been mentioned by adjacent property owners, where there have been
references to inaccurate numbers. A 500% density increase was mentioned. To clarify, the
following are specific calculations only for the property proposed for development, Lot 2A.
Proposed Lot 1A, containing the existing Twin Owls motel, is not factored in, although additional
development could conceivably be proposed there in the future.
▪ Proposed Lot 2A is 4.64± acres in size.
▪ 2.24 acres of Lot 2A is currently zoned R-2, Two-Family Residential. Four (4) units per
acre is the density allowed (10,890 square feet per unit), with a potential of nine (9)
units.
▪ 2.40 acres of Lot 2A is currently zoned A, Accommodations, with a minimum land area
of 5,400 square feet per unit required for multi-family with a potential of nineteen (19)
units.
▪ Therefore, twenty-eight (28) units could potentially be constructed on proposed Lot 2A
with current zoning.
▪ If Lot 2A were zoned to RM, Multi-Family, the density, with 5,400 square feet per unit
required, gives a base density of thirty-seven (37) units, which could potentially be
doubled through incentives within the EVDC to seventy-four (74) units.
▪ The seventy-four (74) units possible through the rezoning is a 164% increase over the
twenty-eight (28) units allowed with current zoning.
▪ Note this is raw density calculation, and should not be relied on for specific planning
purposes. The calculation does not factor in potential variables such as slope, or
subdivision requirements (for R-2 development). However, factoring in those types of
variables would be unlikely to cause a vast change in the numbers either way.
Attachment 6 depicts the acreage of each proposed zoning district.
Advantages:
• Allows zoning that would provide options to establish housing that is in close proximity to
downtown Estes Park, and also the continuation of a commercial Accommodations motel use.
• The rezoning would allow for a planned proposal which could provide some much-needed
workforce housing in the Estes Valley.
42
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JUNE 26, 2018
700 N. ST. VRAIN AVE., REZONING
PAGE | 5
Disadvantages:
• Creates density on an undeveloped property.
• Increases traffic in this area of Town.
• Development in conformance with new zoning will likely involve significant infrastructure
expense and effort, if feasible at all.
Action Recommended:
The Planning Commission voted and recommended denial (5 in favor of denial, 0 opposed, 2 absent) of
the rezoning application on May 15, 2018. The Planning Commission concerns included questions
regarding this being spot zoning, the need to maintain a buffer between the subject site and adjacent
residential areas, inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and that the current R -2
zoning is a better fit for this site than the proposed RM.
Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission, and stands by this recommendation today.
Staff’s recommendation includes the following comment:
▪ Staff has some reservations regarding the proposed RM-zoned site, where safe and adequate
access to a multi-family development would require careful planning. Reservations include a
likely need to significantly improve infrastructure in the vicinity, particularly street and
intersection geometry and capacity. It is not clear how such improvements will be programmed
and funded, by whom, or when.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Very high. Written comments have been received for this rezoning. All written comments are posted to:
www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Sample Motions:
1. I move to approve Ordinance 11-18 to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700
N. St. Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-2 –Two-Family
Residential to RM – Multi-Family Residential and Retaining a Portion of A – Accommodations
and the Zoning Map Amendment application according to findings of fact with findings
recommended by Staff.
2. I move to deny Ordinance 11-18 to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700 N.
St. Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-2 –Two-Family
Residential to RM – Multi-Family Residential and Retaining a Portion of A – Accommodations
and the Zoning Map Amendment application, finding that … [state findings for denial].
3. I move to continue Ordinance 11-18 to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700
N. St. Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-2 –Two-Family
Residential to RM – Multi-Family Residential and Retaining a Portion of A – Accommodations
and the Zoning Map Amendment application, to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (State
reasons for continuance.)
43
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JUNE 26, 2018
700 N. ST. VRAIN AVE., REZONING
PAGE | 6
Attachments:
1. Ordinance #11-18
2. Vicinity Map
3. Statement of Intent
4. Application
5. Map Depicting Zoning, Current and Proposed
6. Sketch Plan Materials
7. Map, Zoning Acreage
8. Full application can be found at: www.estes.org/currentapplications
44
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS 1 AND 2, LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN
ADDITION, FROM A – ACCOMMODATIONS AND R-2 – TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO RM – MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND RETAINING A
PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AS A - ACCOMMODATIONS
WHEREAS, Lots 1 and 2 of Little Prospect Mountain Addition are currently
zoned A, Accommodations (4.56± acres) and R-2, Two-Family Residential (2.24±
acres); and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes reconfiguring the two lots through a Plat
Amendment, and then having the reconfigured/amended lots zoned A,
Accommodations (Lot 1A, 2.16± acres), and RM, Multi-Family Residential (Lot 2A,
4.57± acres); and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop the RM-zoned lot, which is
currently undeveloped; and
WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended denial of
the rezoning as proposed; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning change be
granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The zoning of the subject site shall be consistent with the lots
proposed on the Amended Plat of Lots 1 and 2 of Little Prospect Mountain Addition,
where the reconfigured/amended lots shall be zoned A, Accommodations (Lot 1A, 2.16±
acres), and RM, Multi-Family Residential (Lot 2A, 4.57± acres); and
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS 26th DAY OF JUNE, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________________
Todd A. Jirsa, Mayor
45
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees on the 26th day of June, 2018 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of , 2018, all as required by the Statutes of the State of
Colorado.
Town Clerk
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Date: June 20, 2018
To: Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees
The homeowners in the neighborhood adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 of the Little Prospect Mountain Addition
to the Town of Estes Park strongly urge you to uphold the Planning Commission’s May 15 unanimous
decision to reject the Twin Owls Amended Plat and Rezoning Proposal.
Our position is that:
• We are not opposed to the development of housing allowed by R2 zoning (including two-
family dwellings). This type of housing can attract and meet the housing needs of working
families.
• We contend that the current R2-zoned area of Lots 1 and 2 is appropriately zoned and
should remain R2.
We oppose the proposed rezoning of this property from R2 to RM for the following reasons:
1. Rezoning would eliminate the R2 use buffer between the higher density zoned Twin Owls
Motel and the lower density estate-zoned neighborhood.
• According to the American Planning Association (n.d.), city planning standards interpose
“use buffers” between high impact use zones and a lower impact use zones to serve as a
compatibility buffer. The R2 zone in this case serves to mitigate the effects of the higher
impact zone of the Twin Owls Motel on the adjacent large estate-zoned neighborhood of 80
homes.
• Homeowners have relied on this buffer zone for over 50 years. According to Larimer County
information, the Twin Owls was built in 1955, while estate homes directly across the street
were built earlier as follows: 128 Stanley Circle Drive, built in 1943; 126 Stanley Circle Drive
built in 1950; 151 Weston Lane, built in 1936; and 153 Weston Lane built in 1939.
2. R2 zoning is rare and in high demand for working families.
The 2016 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment indicates that only 0.5% of the area of
Estes Valley is zoned R2 (table, p. 105). It also makes clear that housing options in R2 are much
preferred over those in RM in attracting working families to Estes Park (tables p. 95 and 96) and
retaining families (table, p. 56). Furthermore, the Housing Assessment revealed that:
• “The community is losing families and young and middle-aged households – these are
primary workforce households” (p. 7)
• “Homeownership supports year-round residency and allows residents to invest in and
help build a more stable community” (p. 12)
• Single-family homes and duplexes are preferred types of housing for working families
(p. 12).
• Workforce households who want to move to Estes Park prefer duplexes far more than
condominiums and apartments (p.96).
• The community should “Pursue the development of additional ownership housing
immediately” (p.13).
58
• Housing such as “….duplexes and single-family homes in neighborhoods with the
amenities desirable by families should be a high priority” (p. 13)
• “Some strategies may only produce a few units but, in combination with other efforts,
are key for a diversified inventory or workforce housing that meets the wide spectrum
of needs” (p. 14).
The recommendations from the Housing Needs Assessment are also consistent with Chapter 6,
Section 5.1 of the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan that states: “Encourage a variety of housing
types and price ranges”.
We therefore strongly believe that this existing and yet-to-be-developed R2 area is a rare and
essential asset for developing Estes Park workforce housing, provided the area remains R2.
3. The intended use for the proposed RM zoned Lot 2 has important safety implications for
adults and children, due to increase in traffic.
According to information presented by Van Horn Engineering at the Planning Commission
meeting, the intended use for the new Lot 2 would significantly increase the number of people
living on a small parcel of land and have a severe impact on local traffic patterns. No traffic
impact study was presented with the proposal.
a. The Estes Park Community Development Department expressed concern for safety with
the proposed RM-zoned site. The staff report to the Estes Valley Planning Commission
states: “Staff has some reservations regarding the proposed RM-zoned site, where safe
and adequate access to a multi-family development would require careful planning.”
b. The sketch map presented by Van Horn Engineering at the May 15 Planning Commission
meeting showed the amended and rezoned RM 4.6 acre Lot 2 to be used for workforce
housing with three, three-story buildings for a total of approximately 70 apartment
housing units.
Assuming an average of 4 people and 2 cars per unit this could mean there would be
280 adults and children living on a small parcel of land with an additional 140 cars added
to the cars from the 80 existing estate homes from Stanley Circle Drive, Highland Drive,
Parkview Lane, Peck Lane, and Weston Lane and the 44 unit Twin Owls Motel entering
Stanley Avenue. All these vehicles would create a serious bottleneck at Stanley Avenue
and at the Highway 36 junction which is already hazardous in the tourist season.
c. The increase in pedestrians and traffic-- and in particular children and bicycles-- onto
roads that are already congested and dangerous is an extremely important
consideration. The intersection of Stanley Circle Drive and Stanley Avenue (where
cluster mailboxes are located) is already a problem because the drop in Stanley Avenue
makes it difficult to see oncoming vehicles as they approach the intersection coming up
the rise from the North (Highway 36).
Some of these vehicles turn onto the Southern loop of Stanley Circle Drive, passing in
front of vehicles arriving from the opposite direction of the loop.
59
Stanley Avenue is also a primary route for ambulances traveling to and from the
hospital.
d. Another traffic safety concern is the intersection of Stanley Avenue and Highway 36.
Due to heavy traffic in both directions of highways 36 and 7, especially during the tourist
season, it is currently quite difficult to turn left from Stanley Avenue onto Highway 36.
This challenge is magnified by the highway 36 turning lane onto Stanley Avenue as cars
line up waiting for oncoming traffic from town to clear.
4. No development plan accompanied the Twin Owls rezoning request as required by the Estes
Valley Development Code.
According to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 3.3.B.1, private-party-initiated
applications for code amendments (rezonings) require the application be accompanied by a
development plan.
This requirement was waived by the Planning Division of the Community Development
Department. However, re-zoning from R2 to RM has important implications:
• RM zoning would allow any of 22 possible different uses, with very different and
significant impacts on the neighborhood.
• Re-zoning the current R2 area to RM would allow a 5-fold increase in housing density, a
major change to the character of the neighborhood. This increase is in fact what the
applicant presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
We believe that this upzoning- with its drastic changes to density and subsequent development
consequences- dictates that a development plan should have been submitted as part of the
proposal. While the Estes Valley Development Code allows waiver of development plans, the
circumstances under which that waiver is permitted are very limited, and in this instance, due to
major impact and complexity of the proposed development, such a waiver constitutes an abuse
of discretion.
5. Property rights of single-family homeowners in the neighborhood would be sacrificed with
this rezoning.
There are many homeowners who bought their property based on the fact that the property
behind the Twin Owls, bordering Stanley Circle Drive and Weston Lane, was zoned R2. An
upzoning from R2 to RM, with the increase in housing density would impede the property
owners’ “quiet enjoyment of property” and would change the character of this single-family
housing neighborhood. This would be contrary to the directive by Estes Park Town
Administrator, Frank Lancaster, in an email January 6, 2017 to Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners. In reference to increasing density in Estes Park, he stated: “This needs to be
done in a very judicious manner, so we don’t change the character of the area…..”
6. Rezoning from R2 to RM sets a precedent for this action to occur in other R2 and estate-zoned
neighborhoods in Estes Park.
If this upzoning from R2 to RM is allowed, a precedent will be set for indiscriminate upzoning.
Anyone could buy two estate homes on adjacent lots, remove the homes, have the property
60
rezoned to RM, and build high density housing in an estate-zoned neighborhood. This approach
to zoning is considered “spot-zoning” and would encourage development not consistent or
compatible with surrounding estate-zoned areas.
7. The Community Development Planning staff recommendation to approve the proposed
rezoning based on Estes Valley Development Code Standards for Review; Section 3.3.D, is
erroneous.
• Review Standard 1: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas
affected.
o The staff finding that this standard has been met is in error. It is well established under
zoning law that a “change in condition in the areas affected” applies to conditions
around and affecting the subject property. For example, if new commercial
development begins to encroach on an area or parcel zoned for exclusively residential
use, it could be argued that a change of conditions had occurred. However, there has
not been a change in condition in the area adjacent to the Little Prospect Mountain Lots
1 and 2.
The staff claims that the change in conditions is the pressing need for multi-family
housing. That is a valley-wide need, and by no means is it a condition that is specifically
applicable to Little Prospect Mountain Addition. A shortage of housing, affordable or
otherwise, has been part of the Valley’s history for many years.
Therefore, Review Standard 1 has not been met.
• Review Standard 2: The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley.
o The staff states that “the proposed rezoning is compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan”. However, the standard requires them
to review the development plan for compatibility and consistency. There is no
development plan so it is impossible to evaluate whether or not this standard has been
met.
The staff erroneously waived the requirement for a development plan, and made their
finding based on assumptions on the complexity and type of development.
Therefore, Review Standard 2 has not been met.
o In addition, based on assumptions as to what the development plan will be, the
proposed use fails to meet at least one policy and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
(Chapter 6, Section 5) quoted in the staff report itself, “encouraging a variety of housing
types and price ranges”.
The use for which it is already zoned—single family and duplexes, identified in the
Housing Assessment as most desirable for working families, is in very short supply as
61
described earlier in this position statement. Changing it to more dense multifamily will
not increase the variety or price of housing; it simply adds to the current inventory.
Therefore, Review Standard 2 has not been met.
Approval of this amended plat and rezoning proposal at this location is contrary to the inherent
obligations of the Board of Trustees to enforce and abide by the legal standards for zoning changes in
the Estes Valley Development Code, preserve the character of our neighborhoods, and protect the
safety of citizens.
We therefore, strongly urge you to uphold the Planning Commissions’ unanimous decision and deny this
plat amendment and rezoning request.
Respectfully,
The homeowners in the neighborhood adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 of Little Prospect Mountain
Addition:
Peggy West, 153 Weston Lane
Dennis Hurt, 151 Weston Lane
Mark and Jean Wiesner, 122 Stanley Circle Drive
Bob and Patty Bartlett, 126 Stanley Circle Drive
Geoff Clark, 128 Stanley Circle Drive
Richard and Liz Mulhern, 131 Stanley Circle Drive
David and Susan King, 134 Stanley Circle Drive
Gary and Irene Matthews, 139 Stanley Circle Drive
Kreg and Jane Leymaster, 138 Stanley Circle Drive
Jim and Henrietta Lehman, 144 Stanley Circle Drive
Fred and Rita Ginther, 145 Stanley Circle Drive
Todd and Rhonda Saemisch, 146 Stanley Circle Drive
Bob and Diane Ernst, 147A Stanley Circle Drive
John and Susan Gibbs, 156 Stanley Circle Drive
Jim and Nancy Thomas, 160 Stanley Circle Drive
Mark and Kelly Igel, 168 Stanley Circle Drive
Greg and Marina Connors, 650 Highland Lane
Don and Debbie Silar, 651 Highland Lane
Ray and Luzia Sahm, 700 Highland Lane
Ford and Merry Nielsen, 315 Park View Lane
Jeff and Liz Spalding, 355 Park View Lane
Richard and Jean Ralph, 395 Park View Lane
Sources:
American Planning Association. (n.d.). Zone Buffers: Solution or Panacea. Retrieved May 1, 2018 from
https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report133.htm
Estes Valley, Colorado Development Code. (n.d.). Table 4-1: Permitted Uses Residential Zoning Districts.
Retrieved May 1, 2018 from
62
https://library.municode.com/CO/estes_valley/codes/development_code?nodeId=CH4._ZONING_DISTRIC
TS_S4.3REZODI
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. (2006). Chapter 6: Community-wide Policies. Retrieved May 29, 2019
from: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/comprehensiveplan
Larimer County. (2018). Property Search. Retrieved May 1, 2018 from
https://www.larimer.org/assessor/search#/property/
Lancaster, Frank. (January 6, 2017). Density bonus for workforce housing projects in Estes Park. Email to
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. Retrieved April 27, 2018 from:
https://groups.google.com/a/co.larimer.co.us/forum/#!topic/commissioner_gaiter_public/Kw_itSnu5x0
Rees Consulting Inc. & WSW Consulting. (January 2016). Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment.
Retrieved May 29, 2018 from:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Final%202016%20HNA%20Report.pdf
63
Planning Commission Action Item A – Ordinance #11-18, Rezoning Lots 1 & 2, Little
Prospect Mountain Addition, 700 N. Saint Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from
A – Accommodations and R-2 Two-Family Residential to RM – Multi-Family Residential,
Prospect of Estes LLC/ Applicant.
Public Comment:
May 15, 2018
To: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners, Estes Park Town Board, Town Clerk
From: Johanna Darden, 501 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO
In Re: Rezoning and 4.6 acres behind Twin Owls Motel
I oppose the rezoning of the 4.6 acres behind the Twin Owls Motel. The letter that
follows perfectly reflects my concerns. The Twin Owls Motel is "not in my backyard."
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To Planning Commissioners and Mayor and Trustees of Estes Park:
Please include this in your packet of information.
Zoning should be a safety net for property owners who will feel secure in purchasing in
neighborhoods that they wish to live in and invest in.
There seems to be a rush to rezone in neighborhoods to greater density in which the
greater density is NOT compatible with the existing zoning.
It is not a NIMBY (not in my backyard) argument.
It is about trusting in the local zoning that is already there. People invest their hard
earned money for their homes. When zoning is changed to greater density, it erodes
their trust in the governing body, can decrease their monetary investment and destroy
the character of the neighborhood in which they chose to live. There will be concerns
about noise and traffic.
Please protect our property values and more importantly the values such as peace and
serenity that many people were attracted to when they bought and invested in those
particular neighborhoods.
In the case of the 4.6 acres behind Twin Owls Motel, it is already zoned R-2. To
change the zoning to RM is unfair and would allow 20 uses such as large group homes
and mobile home parks. It would set a bad precedent for high density housing in town
and in the Estes Valley.
If workforce housing is the goal, why are so many vacation rentals allowed as well as
bed and breakfasts in single family residential neighborhoods?
Please do not sacrifice the character of our neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Susan Wolf
1637 Black Squirrel Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
wildlands3@gmail.com"
Mayor and Trustees,
As you well know, the Estes Valley is in need of these sorts of projects in order to
sustain our economic eco-system. Understanding there is no "silver bullet" solution to
managing our housing situation; here is an opportunity to make progress toward
lessening the problem of housing service and low income workers.
Further, when a private entity is willing to take on this need, it is even more important to
support and cultivate it's investment.
As an employer and resident of Estes Valley, I support this project and ask that you
overnturn the decision of the Planning Commission therefore allowing this project to
proceed.
Respectfully,
Nick Smith, Lumpy Ridge Brewing Company
Resident: 1607 Black Squirrel Drive
EPCO 80517
To Mayor Jirsa and the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park:
I urge you to support the required zoning amendments for the Twin Owls Village project.
Respectfully,
Jessica M. Brown
690 High St. #4
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-433-2223
cyberflea7@aol.com
Dear Mayor Todd Jirsa and Trustees,
I would like to ask you to reject the Twin Owls amended Plat and Rezoning Proposal.
Our home is located directly across from the Twin Owls. When we considered
purchasing our home in 2013. We met with the city planner t o discuss the zoning of the
vacant land across the street from us. He was very helpful and stated that it was zoned
R-2. We were willing to accept the fact that there may be duplexes or single family
homes built on the Twin Owls lot. He said it would be considered a transition zone
compatible to the neighborhood of homes on a minimum of 1/2 acre lots zoned Estate.
So we happily purchased our home a week after the flood.
The work force housing report indicates that individuals and families prefer to live i n the
type of housing that R-2 allows, single family and duplexes. We all want to have healthy
neighborhoods that will retain families and individuals choosing to live and work in Estes
Park. Two of our son's were born in Estes Park in the 80's. I know for certain that the
type of housing I would have been seeking as a young family would not have been a
high density three story apartment to raise our three sons.
It is also interesting that I have met several teachers that own homes in Estes Park and
choose to teach in the valley. I hope that the report takes that into consideration. It
made me question the high rate of housing units needed in the report.
I am concerned about the traffic impact if the density was significantly increased in this
area. I currently drive out of my way to avoid the congestion at Stanley Avenue and the
intersection of HWY 36 and 7. It is a very unsafe intersection. It is only a matter of time
and with increased use that there will be a fatality.
My husband and I have chosen to make Estes Park our home. It is our hope that the
people we have elected will serve our entire community. I would like to encourage you
not panic to fill our workforce housing needs. But rather complete an overall plan that
would create a healthy, well balanced community that we will all want to live and work
in for many many years.
Thank you for your time and efforts as you seek to serve all of our community,
LIZ and Dick Mulhern
131 Stanley Circle Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
I understand the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to deny a zoning map
amendment to allow the Twi Owls Village project to
move on to the development stage.
Estes Park desperately needs a project like this to provide affordable & necessary
housing to service workers in our town. I volunteer
in the town and have contact with many of our service workers. The housing situation
for them is horrible, sometimes an entire family
must find employment to be able to afford housing. We all know this is true. We all
know that the low paid service workers are
part of the infrastructure of our town and are absolutely critical for the tourism in Estes
Park.
Please reconsider this project, it sure looks to me like it could be beneficial for us all.
Thank you
Brigitte Delisa
646 Meadowview Dr
Estes Park, CO 80517
Dear Mayor and Trustees,
I am a resident and homeowner in the Little Prospect Neighborhood. My family has
owned our property since the 1940s. I am strongly opposed to the Twin Owls Amended
Plat and Rezoning Proposal.
Mr. Shelton of Van Horn Engineering stated to the Planning Commission on May 15th
that the potential of 140 vehicles from the proposed Twin Owls development would not
impact neighborhood traffic because many of the potential 288 residents would walk to
work. I agree with Mr. Shelton. That’s a possibility. It is foreseeable that the 288
residents could potentially use my property as their footpath to work because my
property and Mr. Hurt’s property at the end of Weston Lane lie directly between the
Twin Owls property and town. This trespassing will result in destruction of the quiet
enjoyment of our homes as well as increased erosion on our properties from unwanted
foot traffic. Who will reimburse us for the costs of a fence or erosion mitigation caus ed
by foot traffic from Twin Owls?
For the record, I do not object to the building of single family homes or duplexes as
allowed by current R2 zoning and which is compatible with our neighborhood. I believe
it was Planning Commissioner White who indicated that she felt that Estes Park families
would be willing to live in those. But automatic bonuses for work force and affordable
housing to allow for over 70 units in 3-story buildings is too extreme.
The Twin Owls property was purchased in 1992 zoned “as is.” There is no property
right to automatically rezone at will. Nothing to justify this extreme upzoning proposal
has been provided to date. Commissioner Baker pointed out that this rezoning – if
approved - would result be a500% increase in density.
If this rezoning is approved, will the property be deed limited for the affordable and work
force housing bonuses? Or, after a time with the work force and affordable housing be
converted to vacation properties? That’s what’s happening in Frisco and Dillon right
now. It can happen here too.
I am wondering, as one of your constituents, why the Town is allowing developers to
drive the work force/affordable/attainable housing market in Estes Park. Instead of this
patch-work development, why doesn’t the Town identify areas that support projects for
both work force and affordable housing and then let the developers bid for work? Isn’t
that how it’s done in a transparent free market system? Isn’t that the purpose of the
Comp Plan that is now being addressed? The current process seems backwards and
appears to be the tail wagging the dog. Why doesn’t the Town complete the Comp
Plan project before approving these spot developments so that they would harmonize
with that Plan? You as our Trustees now have the op portunity to get in front of this
trend before it’s too late and to make thoughtful, farsighted long-term planning your
legacy to Estes Park. This is your moment.
The truth is that not enough information has been provided for the Town Board to make
an informed decision on this proposal so I am asking that you respect the property
rights of the 80+ homeowners in the Little Prospect Neighborhood and reject the Twin
Owls proposal.
Thank you,
Peggy West
153 Weston Lane
Estes Park, CO 80517
June 23rd, 2018
Good Day Town of Estes Trustees;
Fred and I came in late to this process due to being out of town. We attended the
planning commission meeting May 15th and hope that you will uphold the planning
commissions decision to reject the Twins Owls rezoning proposa l.
You have not heard from Fred nor I previously.
I am so proud of our neighbors and planning commissioners for the manner in which
this project is being debated. We are lucky to live in an environment that when things
are openly discussed a mutually agreeable outcome can be achieved.
I began reading articles regarding zoning that occurred in other tourism based towns.
There seems to be one very important lesson that they all learned after many years of
struggle, that a comprehensive plan is essential to making the area a great place to live
in and visit. When a visitor comes to an area they don’t understand why they feel an
area is safe, walkable or comfortable but they feel it.
Spot rezoning has proven to be a very bad idea in many US towns and cities because
of the precedence it sets to be repeated throughout a community. I saw pictures of
huge, flat, unattractive structures obviously planned for function not form overpowering
historic homes that would normally add warmth and beauty. I read stories of protest and
loss of long time residents due to safety concerns and congestion.
http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-miami-zoning-laws.html
When you have a sidewalk that people enjoy sitting on for a parade they don’t want to
feel that they are in an overpopulated neighborhood. They want to be able to pa rk, walk
and enjoy without gridlock and chaos. We have that now and feel that over populating
this area would create that feeling. I would guess that workforce housing users would
like to be able to enter and exit their neighborhoods without the chaos of t ourists as
well, I know I do. We want a cohesive plan to come from our planners that consider the
overall comfort of the historical owners and new development. We would like the zoning
to stay as is until a comprehensive plan is put into place.
Little prospect mountain is centered in the tourist corridor and is steeped in history as
presented by many of my neighbors. We personally live in a home that was once built
for the FO Stanley family. We live at 145 Stanley Circle Drive. We overlook the Stanley
Hotel and the new development as well as Lake Estes. We are so happy to report that
the cohesive look of the new buildings make the new structures blend beautifully into
the view that is historical and beloved by people from around the world. We want to see
that practice of cohesive form and function be followed throughout the Estes corridor. I
do not mean all white buildings that all look the same but well thought out structures that
reflect the area they are in. Height that doesn’t dwarf the neighbors, archite ctural
exteriors that are not in stark contrast to our mountain area, that contain thoughtful
buffers for building size, noise and congestion. In other cities, the architects and
developers voiced their appreciation for the predictability of pre-planed form based
areas that you can walk or drive by safely to enjoy the views, feel safe and comfortable.
You need to be able to enter your neighborhoods safely without stopping visitor traffic
but still be able to enjoy community events.
I am today asking this board to consider a comprehensive plan for the City first and
foremost. Please, do not spot rezone. I would propose that in the comprehensive plan
you also consider adopting a zoning guide for the form of new buildings rather than just
prescribe how a specific property would be put to use. Put an emphasis on street level
activity and public spaces to encourage a sense of order to Estes Park growth so we all
can continue to enjoy this beautiful area.
Happy residents due to thoughtful planning influence future prosperity in the area.
Thank-you for your consideration.
Fred and Rita Ginther
145 Stanley Circle Drive
Estes Park CO 80517
970-290-8442
Date: June 24, 2018
To: Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees
From: Bob and Diane Ernst, Estes Park
Re: Twin Owls Proposal to Upzone
We urge you to uphold the Planning Commission’s May 15 unanimous decision to reject
the Twin Owls Amended Plat and Rezoning Proposal.
The decisions you make about this proposal at the June 26 Trustees meeting has major
implications for rezoning in all estate and R2 zoned single-family housing
neighborhoods in Estes Park.
• The Twin Owls proposal is requesting that you upzone to RM a legally
established R2 zoned buffer area that has been in place for many years and is bordered
by estate zoned single-family homes; many of these homes are still in the hands of the
original family owners.
• If this upzoning is approved, what prevents this from occurring in the midst of any
R2-zoned or estate zoned neighborhood anywhere in Estes Park?
We are NOT opposed to the development of housing allowed by R2 zoning (including
two-family dwellings). Duplexes and single-family homes are the preferred type of
housing requested by working families according to the 2016 Estes Park Area Housing
Needs Assessment.
However, we are opposed to arbitrary rezoning that is contrary to a legally established
land-use plan.
• Our understanding is that ANY rezoning, on its face (prima facie) is a deviation
from the comprehensive plan and the matching land use plan for the Estes Valley.
• If this legally established zoned area is upzoned, what plan is being used to
make decisions on zoning changes in Estes Park?
• If no plan is used, what is guiding zoning changes in Estes Park?
• What will prevent arbitrary upzoning and “spot zoning” from happening anywhere
in Estes Park?
For all the reasons stated above and in the Neighborhood Position Statement, we
oppose the Twin Owls amended plat and zoning change proposal. Leave the zoning
R2.
In appreciation of your time and consideration,
Bob and Diane Ernst
Estes Park, CO
I’m not a neighbor to the Twin Owls property, but actually near the Wind River proposed
development. After one of our neighborhood meetings, one of my neighbors said, “they
should build the workforce housing over by the Twin Owls; that would be an ideal
place”. This is a clear case of NIBY-ism (Not In My Backyard), to which I’m not immune
either. This caused me to look at this Twin Owls proposal in a little more detail.
As I reviewed it, it seems that the basic problem here is that this is two lots divided near
the center by a line that runs NE-SW and the lots are zoned as “A” (accommodations) to
the north, and “R-2” (duplexes) to the south. It’s certainly reasonable that the owner of
the two lots would want to have this situation “cleaned up” by combining the two lots,
something that should have been done when the motel was built across the two lots.
At the same time, the owners are requesting to “clean up” the zoning. I was surprised
that they are not requesting that all of the property be designated “A”. Instead, they are
requesting RM (residential multi-family) zoning for a southern part of the property,
generally following what had been zoned R-2.
The RM zoning supports workforce housing, more so than the R-2 designation,
especially by allowing for the doubling of density if it meets certain requirements. This
also means more traffic, both cars and pedestrian. This is similar to the issues we face
on the Wind River project.
I believe that there is a serious need for workforce housing, so I hope the Town and
Commission support this as well. But any development should give due consideration
to traffic and other problems before approval. I understand that traffic issues on state
highways is the purview of CDOT, so I hope that local government can work with CDOT
on the appropriate issues.
Ed Ellingson
926 Village Green Lane
RE: Twin Owls rezoning of property along Stanley Ave/Stanley Circle Drive from R-2 to
RM
Dear Mayor and Trustees:
I am writing in support of the zoning commission's rejection of the rezoning proposal put
forward by the Twin Owls Motel owners to change property zoned R-2 that they own to
RM multiple family.
The original zoning for this area- which the Twin Owl owners now propose to change
was entirely responsible and reasonable. It provided for a portion of an E-1
neighborhood of family homes to be set aside for duplexes, as a buffer between these
homes- located near and around Stanley Circle Drive and the Twin Owls Motel.
Importantly, my husband and I, and others living in our neighborhood, were well aware
of the zoning. Our neighborhood is one of old summer cabins, recent renovated and
updated cabins, and newly constructed vacation and year round houses. Having
duplexes added to this mix makes sense, and will help provide reasonably priced
housing for younger professional families seeking to make Estes their home.
The zoning commissioners saw very clearly how the rezoning of an R -2 area to RM
would have negative impacts on the character of the landscape and the safety of the
families that live here (and would live here should multifamily housing be introduced in
this small area). Troubling too is the failure of the Twin Owls owners to provide evidence
of exactly what they are proposing in the form of a developmental plan for which they
would be held accountable.
My husband Jim joins me in asking the Board of Trustees and the Mayor to help us
protect the integrity of our neighborhood and provide much needed duplex housing for
our town by supporting the zoning commissions rejection of the Twin Owls proposals.
Sincerely,
Nancy P. Thomas
Date: June 24, 2014
To: Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees
Please consider my deep concern for the quality of my
neighborhood which would result from the up-zoning of the Twin
Owl lot from R2 to RM.
In 2002 my wife and I drove to Estes Park from Boulder for
lunch. We chanced to see a house for sale very close to downtown
Estes Park. We later learned the neighborhood of the house was
called Little Prospect. We were delighted in how the rooms of this
house fit our needs but we were even more in awe with the view
from the house and how serene the surrounding neighborhood was
considering how near it was to downtown Estes Park. We thank
earlier planners for taking care with lot lines, establishing windows
on the lot where homes could be built and creating buffer lots.
Before making an offer on this house we checked into whether
the zoning and development restriction would ensure the
neighborhood would maintain it’s character. And that was what was
in the zoning, development code and Comprehensive Plan at the
time.
Thus we purchased the house and we have been very pleased
with how the building restrictions have maintained the character of
the neighborhood for 16 years. Now we are aghast at the fact that
there could be major damage to the quality of the neighborhood
and a reduction in the value of home if the the requested change to
up-zone the Twin Owls property from R2 to RM.
We often in the past would drive to Frisco or Silverthorne for a
mountain getaway. We quit doing that when many three story
apartment houses that were built there totally destroyed the
character and charm of these mountain communities. The EDC now
seems to have an uncontrolled intent to destroy the charm of our
mountain community by encouraging up-zoning and then the
construction of large apartment units on any acre of vacant land
that becomes available.
The R2 zoning of the Twin Owls Lot 2 is a wonderful buffer to
Little Prospect residents and the nearby commercial properties of
not only the Twin Owls Motel but also the nearby Urgent Care Clinic
and the Ridgeline Motel.
Here is a photo of how well the buffer zone protect the
character of our property as we look down Stanley Circle Drive from
our house to Stanley Avenue. This is a terrific example of how good
planning with buffering can can protect the serenity of a individual
housing neighborhood.
Changing the zoning to RM seems to provide an almost
unlimited restrictions on changes which would impact both the view
(which is probably what most home buyers take into account when
they buy a house in Estes Park) and create traffic tie-ups.
Considering how poorly the owners of the Twin Owls Motel
maintain the facilities and the fact that low income property owners
may have limited funds to care for their property, here’s what our
buffer zone may look like.
Which one of these pictures would you like to see from your
home in Estes Park.
We beg you to not blatantly overlook the reasoning behind the
current Comprehensive Plan and the current development Codes
and to reject the Twin Owls up-zoning request. This will help retain
the neighborhood character and environment for us and for future
buyers of our homes.
Sincerely,
Gary and Irene Matthews
139 Stanley Circle Drive
PS: We acknowledge the need for more low income housing in our
community but we think this can be done in a thoughtful manor and
in a manor that is not destructive to the charm of our beautiful
community that attracts many visitors and home buyers thus the
basis for the low income housing need.
Twin Owls Village Rezone ProposalA Workforce Neighborhood Housing Community Concept
Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment•530 Over crowded households•1,020 Commuting from the Front Range•62% want to move closer•480 Unfilled jobs•Concluded that 1,480 to 1,690 housing units for the workforce by 2020•670 units to catch up•810-1,020 to keep up
Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment•From Estes Park News: Friday June 22, 2018•One home rental listed: 3 bed, 1 bath. $1,700 per month.•Under rentals listings: A local Estes Park Business Owner seeking a rental for himself.•33 Local Employers seeking to fill multiple positions•Town of Estes: 6 openings•Estes Park Medical Center: 26 openings•Estes Valley Recreation & Park District: 4 openings•At least 12 local developments brought new employment needs in the last year.
Twin Owls Motor LodgeOpened in 1955, has served travelers for 63 years. Built on two parcels with spectacular trees, wildflowers, wildlife and views of surrounding mountains.
Proposed Amended Plat and Rezone•Lot line to be aligned more or less with the building. •North portion remains A- Accommodations.•South portion to be rezoned RM - Multifamily
Original Site Plan•Shows motel, existing residence, existing utilities, culverts and detailed inventory of existing significant trees and rock outcroppings
Conditions of approval•30’ half Right-of-Way•25’ wide public drainage easement•15’ wide public drainage easement on all property lines on Lot 2A•15’ wide public drainage and utility easement on all property lines on Lot 1A
Current Zoning•Zoning split does not follow existing lot lines•North portion zoned A.•South portion zoned R-2.
Current Zoning
Twin Owls Village Concept Sketch
Little Prospect Mountain Subdivision•Original plat shows 40 lots•Arguments that an increase in density is “incompatible with the neighborhood”
Current Zoning•100 zoned E - Estate•24 original lots subdivided to create 105 total new lots
Recent Rezone Approval•On 11/14/2017, Planning commission approved the rezone of Lot 20 from E-Estate to RM-Multifamily for workforce or attainable housing with no public comment. •Spot zoning exists in the neighboring neighborhoods.
Meeting with Neighbors•Neighbors requested a meeting May 22, 2018•Expressed concern over density, noise, increased traffic, blocked views and potential to end up like other workforce projects throughout town.
Local Examples •Examples of potential developments after which Twin Owls Village would be modeled
Local Examples
Recommendation from the Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment“Creates opportunities to effectively use limited land and financial resources for workforce housing. Do not let opposition by the vocal minority and unfounded fears unnecessarily reduce the opportunities that exist.”Page 13
Twin Owls Village Concept Sketch
Visual Buffering Currently Exists •Looking Southeast towards Weston Lane and Stanley Avenue, lots of natural visual buffer exists.•Weston Lane encroaches on the Twin Owls Property in addition to the existing natural visual buffer.
Visual Buffering Currently Exists •Looking Northwest from The Ridgeline Hotel, only a portion of the Motel can be seen.•Looking North from Stanley Circle and Highland Lane, no part of the Twin Owls structures are visible.
Visual Buffering Currently Exists •Looking West from Timberline Medical Center driveway at proposed entrance to Twin Owls Village.•Shrubs in the Right of Way would be removed for better visibility. •A portion of the shrubs on the property would be removed for access.
Public Comment•140 vehicles and 288 residents are purely hypothetical numbers and assumes a use case that borders on extreme and improbable. •Concerns over trespassing and using adjacent properties as a walking path are misplaced. As part of the concept sketch, fencing is proposed along Weston Lane and a walking path connecting to the sidewalk on N St Vraincould be a solution. •The cited 500% increase in density by Commissioner Baker is a miscalculation and the conclusion was never justified.•Units will be deed restricted for 50 years to be receive the workforce housing bonus. To convert them to a different use would require that the buildings be condominiumized, a separate process that would be cost prohibitive and not guaranteed.
Planning Commission Comments•“It represents spot zoning when we haven’t done a comprehensive plan review of RM Zoning.” •Van Horn did an assessment of RM zoning in the Estes Valley. There are 3 lots greater than 1.5 acres zoned RM, two of which are part of the Wind River proposal.•Comp Plan specifically covers the needs of the Little Prospect Mountain land use area.•“The Fish Creek/Little Prospect Mountain Future Land Use Area includes a variety of single-family and multi-family residential uses including … more intensive single-family and multi-family development closer to the community core.”•This lot is a 10 minute walk from the core and represents one of the few opportunities in the valley to truly address the housing issues we are facing.
Planning Commission Comments•“Negative impact of 500% increase in density does not justify rezoning for the purpose of affordable housing.”•This 500% number was never given any reasoning or justification and represents questionable math.•Existing Zoning (Whole Property) would allow for:•110 Accommodation Units (48 Existing in Motel, 62 on Vacant A land)•4 Duplex or 5 Single Units (On existing R-2 land)•Proposed Zoning would allow for:•48 Accommodation Units (Existing in the Motel)•37 Multifamily Units (Without density bonus) •74 Multifamily Units (with density bonus)•122 (With Proposed Zoning)/ 114 (With Existing Zoning) = 107% increase in potential use. •95 (With Proposed Zoning, no density bonus)/114 (With Existing Zoning) = 93%, decrease in potential use.
Planning Commission Comments•Comprehensive plan Chapter 6, Section 5.1 encourages a variety of housing types and price ranges.•The Twin Owls Village concept is in itself a variety of housing types and price ranges.•Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Section 5.3 states to Establish a balanced program of incentives to provide affordable housing.•Currently double density in RM zoning is the only incentive for affordable housing.•FC 5 Require that future developments provide visual buffering between adjacent residential land uses.•Any development would be required to adhere to the buffering required in the development code in addition to the existing visual buffers that currently exist.
Twin Owls Village Concept Sketch
Reasons to Say Yes•There is a need. •There is a way to fill a portion of this need with this rezone.•With a rezone, we will likely return with specifics for a development, with a chance to take a detailed look at a “real” submittal. •It is realized by this developer that with a re-zone (for property not RM), that max density may not be allowed. •There are limited, nice size parcels downtown where a difference in the employee workforce need can be made. •Yes, if housing is eventually built there will be some impact to this neighborhood. This Board has to weigh the circumstances, look to the future and determine what is the best for the Town as a whole long term.
To:
Through:
From:
Date:
RE:
Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
June 26, 2018
Amended Plat (Boundary Line Adjustment), 700 N. St. Vrain Avenue,
Vincent Chung, Prospect of Estes, LLC/Owner/Applicant.
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing and make a decision on an Amended Plat request, to reconfigure two
platted lots, which also involves dedication of right-of-way for a Town street.
Location
Lots 1 and 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, Town of Estes Park, located west of the
intersection of Highway 36 (aka N. St. Vrain Avenue) and Stanley Avenue.
Present Situation:
The property is described as Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Little Prospect Mountain Addition with a total
area of 6.80± acres. Currently, Lot 1 is approximately 3.0± acres, and Lot 2 is 3.8± acres in
size. Little Prospect Mountain Addition was platted in 1927. The subdivision is recorded at
Reception No. 328986 in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
The property is split zoned, with 4.56± acres of the total property zoned A, Accommodations,
and a smaller, 2.24± acre portion along the southwest zoned R-2, Two-Family Residential. The
zoning is not consistent with the current lot configuration.
Proposal:
This Amended Plat is to reconfigure the lots to be consistent with the proposed change in
zoning for the site. See Rezoning, 700 N. St. Vrain Avenue, being reviewed concurrently with
this plat amendment at the June 26 Town Board hearing.
Typically, a simple boundary line adjustment, rearranging the configuration of the two lots,
would be a staff-level review process. However, the Town Department of Public Works
Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
65
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JUNE 26, 2018
AMENDED PLAT, LOTS 1 AND 2 OF LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION
PAGE | 2
requested the applicant dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way, along Stanley Circle along the
southwest portion of the property. That dedication requires Town Board review and approval.
See plat, Attachment 2.
Advantages:
•Reconfigures two lots to be consistent with proposed zoning.
Disadvantages:
•Should the associated rezoning be denied, the Amended Plat would still not be
consistent with existing zoning.
REVIEW PROCESS:
This amendment to existing lots within a recorded subdivision is considered, per the Estes
Valley Development Code, Section 3.7, a “Staff Minor Modification to Approved Final Plans.”
This particular proposal involves dedication of right-of-way, which requires review and approval
on a plat, by the governing body (Board of County Commissioners). As the Preliminary Plat
does not dedicate the right-of-way, it remains staff level, with the Final Plat going only to the
governing body, and not requiring Planning Commission review and action per the EVDC,
Section 3.9.3. Thus, Board of Trustees will be able to make a dispositive decision on June 26,
as appropriate.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees approve the Amended Plat,
reconfiguring Lots 1 and 2 of Little Prospect Mountain Addition, and dedicating right-of-way for
Stanley Circle as proposed.
Note: If the rezoning request is denied, staff recommends that this Amended Plat request be
continued for two months, to August 28, 2018. An Amended Plat is still appropriate even if the
rezoning is denied, as existing zoning does not align with lot boundaries. The two-month
continuance would allow for a revised plat to be submitted and reviewed.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest
High. Written comments have been received for this proposal, although staff notes it is
predominantly the rezoning that has raised concerns, rather than this plat amendment. All
written comments are posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Sample Motions:
1.I move to approve the application for an Amended Plat to reconfigure Lots 1 and 2 of
Little Prospect Mountain Addition and dedicate right-of-way for Stanley Circle as
proposed.
2.I move to deny the application for an Amended Plat to reconfigure Lots 1 and 2 of Little
Prospect Mountain Addition and dedicate right-of-way for Stanley Circle as proposed.
.…[state findings for denial].
66
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JUNE 26, 2018
AMENDED PLAT, LOTS 1 AND 2 OF LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION
PAGE | 3
3.I move to continue the application for an Amended Plat to reconfigure Lots 1 and 2 of
Little Prospect Mountain Addition and right-of-way dedication to the next regularly
scheduled meeting. (State reasons for continuance.)
Attachments:
1.Statement of Intent, Application
2.Amended Plat
67
68
69
70
71
72
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker, Planner I
Date: June 26, 2018
RE: Minor Subdivision and Final Plat
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Review of the Final Plat application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC).
Present Situation:
The project area is located to the north of Stanley Circle Dr. west of Weston Lane. The
property is zoned E- Estate. The area is approximately 1.36-acres in size and is
undeveloped.
Proposal:
The proposal entails creating two legal lots. The resulting lots will each be
approximately .68 and .68 acres in size. The two lots will have residential uses under
existing zoning. Both lots will be accessed from Stanley Circle.
Advantages:
• Complies with the EVDC.
Disadvantages:
• None
Action Recommended:
Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat application. On May 15, 2018, the Estes Valley
Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Danny West Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
73
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval of the D. West Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat,
finding that it meets applicable Estes Valley Development Code requirements.
I move for the continuance of the D. West Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat
to [date certain], and direct that [state reasons for continuance]
I move for the denial of the D. West Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat, finding
that…. [ state findings for denial]
Attachments:
Final Plat
Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications
74
75
76
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker, Planner I
Date: June 26, 2018
RE: Resolution #13-18 and Ordinance #12-18
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider an Annexation application for compliance with
Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.).
Present Situation:
The property is approximately 2.52 acres in size and is zoned I-1 Restricted Industrial.
The Board of County Commissioners approved the Fish Creek Minor Subdivision
Preliminary and Final Plat on March 19, 2018.
The property borders Town boundaries on the north, west, and south. Directly east are
other County properties.
Proposal:
The annexation request includes approximately 2.52 acres of land zoned I-1 Restricted
Industrial within the unincorporated Estes Valley. The approved Final Plat consists of a
minor subdivision including a storage facility located off Fish Creek Road.
There are no public improvements associated with this subdivision. No annexation
agreement accompanies this annexation request.
Advantages:
• This request complies with Eligibility for Annexation standards set forth in C.R.S.
31-12-104;
• This request complies with Limitations standards set forth in C.R.S. 31-12-105;
• An annexation election is not required under C.R.S. 31 -12-107(2). 77
• Increases property tax and potential commercial tax revenue to the Town
• Re-develops an underutilized property within the Estes Valley
Disadvantages:
• None.
Action Recommended:
Planning Staff is recommending Approval of the Eshelman Annexation application.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low: There has been one written public comment received as of June 18, 2018. Any
further comments received after this date shall be placed on the applications page of
the Town website at www.estes.org/currentapplications
Sample Motion:
Below are the Town Board’s options related to Resolution #13-18 and Ordinance #12-
18:
1. I find that the application meets the review criteria and move to APPROVE Resolution
#13-18 and Ordinance #12-18 with no conditions.
2. I find that the application meets the review criteria and move to APPROVE Resolution
#13-18 and Ordinance #12-18 with the following conditions.
3. I find that the application does not meet the review criteria and move to DENY
Resolution #13-18 and Ordinance #12-18.
4. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application
and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING [date certain] [ state additional information
needed]
Attachments:
Resolution #12-18
Ordinance #13-18
Application www.estes.org/currentapplications
78
RESOLUTION NO. 13-18
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with
Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the
following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-
104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section
31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on
the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as “ESHELMAN ADDITION” to
the Town of Estes Park is as follows:
A PORTION OF THE NW OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF THE NW OF SAID SECTION 6 BEARING SOUTH 89" 14'00" EAST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6, THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, S89" 13'41" E 763.84 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S30" 44'24''W, 254.47 FEET, THENCE S1 0" 03'22"E, 98.65 FEET, THENCE S89" 13'33"E 294.63 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE WESTER N BOUNDARY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR FISH CREEK ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES: ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 88.94 FEET WITH A RADIUS OF 985.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N23"36'32"E 88.91 FEET, THENCE N26" 15'1O "E9.38 FEET, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 249.40 FEET WITH A RADIUS OF 1 176.00 FEET WITH A CHORD BEARING N32"21 '05"E 248.93 FEET, THENCE N38'27'46"E 19.18 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 6, THENCE ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED NORTH LINE OF SECTION 6, S89" 1 6'27"E 366.69 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO.
Containing Acres 2.52 Acres
DATED this day of , 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
79
ORDINANCE NO. 12-18
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY
TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED
AS ESHELMAN ADDITION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of
said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 9th day of
February, 2018 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning
one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area
hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of
May, 2018, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section
31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town Board
should consider the annexation plat on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies
with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is
considered eligible for annexation.
Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in
Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S.
Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12-
109, C.R.S., on the 26th day of June, 2018.
Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution
determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of
Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under
Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed
upon said annexation.
Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as
ESHELMAN ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved:
A PORTION OF THE NW OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF THE NW OF SAID SECTION 6 BEARING SOUTH 89" 14'00" EAST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6, THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, S89" 13'41" E 763.84 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S30" 44'24''W, 254.47 FEET, THENCE S1 0" 03'22"E, 98.65 FEET, THENCE S89" 13'33"E 294.63 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE WESTER N BOUNDARY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR FISH CREEK ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES: ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 88.94 FEET WITH A RADIUS OF 985.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N23"36'32"E 88.91
80
FEET, THENCE N26" 15'1O "E9.38 FEET, THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 249.40 FEET WITH A RADIUS OF 1 176.00 FEET WITH A CHORD BEARING N32"21 '05"E 248.93 FEET, THENCE N38'27'46"E 19.18 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 6, THENCE ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED NORTH LINE OF SECTION 6, S89" 1 6'27"E 366.69 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO.
Containing Acres 2.52 Acres
Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to
Section 37-45-136(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2018 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the day of , 2018, all as required by the Statutes of
the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
81