Update: This article was updated after publication to reflect the vote count to approve a development plan on the property at 242 Virginia. The vote was six to one and not unanimous.
The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees quashed any revisions to the current noise ordinance at its regular meeting last night, citing confusion and lack of enforceability. Part of their decision was based on testimony from Dr. Kenneth Blehm, a retired industrial safety professor who lives in Colorado Springs.
“Why did you let that happen? Why did you allow the industry to go next to the condominium? Why did you allow the noise producing venue to go next to the babbling brook homeowner’s association over here? If you have that type of placement, you’ve got unique conditions that you can’t control,” said Blehm.
“You may have caused those by regulation, by zoning or community planning, or lack thereof, but you’re not going to solve that by writing your noise ordinance,” he said.
Town staff have been working on an updated noise ordinance that is based on decibel limits, but a consensus could never be reached among the board members. Public opinion was also split with homeowners for a stricter ordinance and many business owners and individuals involved in the local performing community against changing anything. A consensus also could not be reached about whether to measure decibels at the emitting property or the receiving property. Consideration was also given to rapidly changing conditions and mountainous terrain that impact how sound carries.
“You can’t cross the (property) line and magically reduce the decibels unless you control the source, which means you’re going to soundproof the emitting source,” Blehm said. “It can be done, but once again, it’s probably pretty doggone expensive and not very practical.”
Trustee Marie Cenac effectively stopped further conversation on the subject with her take on the matter. “We’ve talked about this almost every year at some point for the past six years (I’ve been on the board)…I’m not going to vote for any change in the decibel limit because I just don’t think all these numbers prove anything to me. I don’t understand enough for me to vote on these noise ordinances… can five decibels make a difference? Maybe not. Maybe it does. Do I feel sorry for this lady with the house 12 feet away (from an outdoor music venue)? Oh,100%.”
“Should we have, a long time ago, made impact zones between commercial and residential? Probably, but we didn’t. I’m not voting for any change at this point,” Cenac said.
Trustee Bill Brown motioned to table the ordinance until the next board meeting, but Trustee Cindy Younglund offered a substitute motion to deny Ordinance18-24, which passed 6-1, with Brown voting against.
PUD revisions pass with Igel and Cenac dissenting
Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck presented a revised Ordinance 17-24, which deals with Planned Unit Development overlays on non-residentially zoned areas in Town with certain restrictions. “The PUD process will be available for projects of 10 units or less,” he said, “and the discretionary approval to a maximum height of 38 feet is only available for projects obtaining workforce or attainable housing with the compatibilitysection to include parking and noise (considerations).”
This ordinance allows for PUD in any non-residential zone rather than only the commercial outlying zone and would depend on a submission on its public benefit for approval. Also, line-of-sight and shadow casting studies would be required with each application.
Christine Poppitz spoke out against the passage of the PUD overlay ordinance, saying, “it would allow a way to creatively address housing needs. However, at what cost? Creatively addressing housing needs can be done through the existing Estes Park Development Code, passing ordinance 17-24 makes room for too much interpretation with the defining and enforcing of what public benefits are.”
The Ordinance passed 5-2, with Trustees Mark Igel and Cenac dissenting.
EVICS receives an additional $38K of 6E funds after a close vote
In a narrow vote last night, Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success was allocated $38,260 of 6E funds to reimburse for child tuition assistance already paid out in “good faith,” and to make up for reduced funding received in May of this year.
This request was put on the agenda by Mayor Gary Hall and supported by testimony by Housing and Childcare Manager Carlie Bangs and Christina Kraft, EVICS board member.
“I want to reiterate that EVICS acted in good faith in distributing these funds to our families in Estes Park. In February of this year, Colorado Childcare Assistance Program was frozen, so there was a significant amount of increases in requests,” Kraft said. “Our understanding was that the town would support that out of 6E money, but we were told to wait to request because we were finalizing the process.”
As a small, local nonprofit EVICS provides for those students in need of preschool and daycare tuition, but the reduction in the requested amount in May was unexpected. “I feel strongly that, especially with 6E funding in place, we should not have to go to our community and ask our community members to support that shortfall in scholarship money, as we have had to in past years,” said Kraft. Some board members were concerned that this would set a precedent, since the Board had already granted a reduced amount, but others brought up plans were also made to revisit this request at a later date.
“I do want to draw the board’s attention to the fact that staff has recommended this both times, because we do recognize that this money went directly to tuition assistance in our town,” said Town Administrator Travis Machalek. “We recognize there was a lot of churn at the end of 2023 and it took us time to come together, to come up with a plan for 2024. We do believe that EVICS was operating in good faith that they (would receive the funds for) tuition assistance spent in early 2024 which is what we’re talking about,” he said.
Bangs confirmed sufficient 6E funds were available to fulfil this request.
The request was approved 4-3, with Trustees Hazelton, Younglund, and Igel voting against.
Crazy Ed Kelsh’s property to be developed into a residential subdivision
When one of the Town’s most colorful characters passed away in 2013, he left behind a narrow lot of land located at 242 Virginia Dr. Ed Kelsch’s property was acquired by Charles Bailey, of Hygiene, a “life-long multi-family developer,” about eight years ago. He submitted the final plat for a new subdivision consisting of three buildings with a total of six units, drainage, landscaping, and a paved driveway and sidewalk traveling through the development for approval during a public hearing at Tuesday’s board meeting.
Hornbeck recommended approving the development, saying it meets EPDC and Comprehensive Plan standards, meets minimum lot size standards, and exceeds open space requirements.
Several members of the public urged the board to reconsider based on possible impacts on wildlife and surrounding homes. The final plan was approved by the board in a six to one vote with the mayor voting against.
2025 Strategic Plan adopted
The board voted unanimously to approve the 2025 Strategic Plan presented by Machalek, who said adjustments needed to be made since the passage of the 2025 Town budget on Nov. 12.
“You’ll notice a few objectives that are being removed from the strategic plan for the final version because the decision packages accompanying those items were not funded through the budget process,” Machalek said.
The next Town Board meeting will be held on Dec. 10 at 7 p.m. in Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Ave.