The tale of two developments

Bookending Estes Park are two proposed commercial properties spinning their wheels while trying to become annexed into the Town.

The Elkhorn Phase 2 development, dubbed the “Upper 40,” located above the historic Elkhorn Lodge and the Springhill Suites development planned at the Olympus Lodge site, face steep odds between public outcry and the Town’s requirements to become annexed.

This is nothing new. Town of Estes Park Trustee Cindy Younglund recently said in an interview with the Estes Valley Voice that there have been cries against change in Estes Park for as long as she can remember.

Surprisingly, installing the Riverwalk behind Elkhorn Avenue in the mid-1980s was one of these developments. The one-mile stretch of the Riverwalk hosts popular, long-running events such as the Rotary Duck Race and the annual Estes Valley Plein Air Festival.

When the Riverwalk was built, outrage among downtown businesses and residents rivaled what was seen with building the Loop downtown, she said. “But now it’s the best thing in the world, right?” asked Younglund.

An organized campaign against the Elkhorn Phase 2 project, primarily comprised of nearby residents, is making things difficult for East Avenue Development, the developers.

Planned for the Upper 40 are two 110+ room hotels, treehouses, and ample parking to accommodate the lodging. Some of the historic cabins from the Elkhorn Phase 1 are being prepared to move onto the Upper 40 as well, as reported by Justin Mabey on March 25 during the annexation referral application review at the Town Board meeting.

The 43 acres included in the annexation application are undeveloped Larimer County land currently zoned Estes Valley Rural Estate, which allows for single-family homes on 2.5-acre plots. East Avenue purchased the land and wants the Town to annex it and rezone it for commercial lodging purposes.

The Springhill Suites development, on the east side of town, sits along Highway 34 as it enters the Big Thompson Canyon.

At issue is the town’s requirement that the developers install a roundabout at the intersection of Mall Road and U.S. Highway 34 to win approval for their annexation application.

“This unreasonable and unconstitutional demand will make the hotel development project unfeasible, thus resulting in our withdrawal of the project and purchase of the property,” said Chris Combs of Combs2 Enterprises, Inc. of Missouri, who wanted to build a 115-room Marriott Springhill Suites hotel and parking lot.

Estes Park Public Works Director Greg Muhonen said that, according to the applicant’s own traffic study, a traffic signal would back up traffic for 170 feet during the red-light cycle, and sightlines of 660 feet are required so cars coming up the canyon don’t plow into stopped vehicles at the intersection.

“This sight distance is not available on US34 for motorists approaching the intersection from the east due to the presence of rock cliffs on the north side of the road,” Muhonen said on March 20, which is why a roundabout is preferred.

“It would be irresponsible for Public Works to ignore the increased traffic accident risk that scientific research predicts will result from a traffic signal at this intersection.”

As far as paying for the roundabout, it is up to the applicant. Combs said this cost is estimated to be $4-5 million. Larimer County and the state own the intersection of Mall Road and US34.

“The County indicated willingness to talk about cost participation for improvements to the south leg (Mall Road) portion of the intersection if this project were to move forward. No commitments were made,” said Muhonen.

“Use of CDOT funding would have to be initiated by an appropriate grant application submitted by the Town,” he added, “The accident rates, total traffic volumes, and associated delay do not elevate the needed intersection improvements to a high priority compared to many other CDOT intersections throughout Region 4.”

But if the development goes in, the current traffic at the Olympus Lodge site will increase dramatically, making the intersection much more dangerous.

Meanwhile, on the west end of town, the neighbors along Elm Road and near Old Man Mountain are fighting a battle that they claim is much more than a “not in my backyard” type of fight.

Paul Hornbeck, senior planner for the town, said Elkhorn Phase 2 is planned on steep land with slopes of 20 to 30%.

The land also has a prominent ridgeline, which would be subject to ridgeline protection if annexed into the Town, said Joan Hooper, a neighbor to the proposed project. Hooper held a meeting at the Estes Valley Library on March 10, outlining steps residents can take to fight the proposed development.

The site is almost adjacent to Old Man Mountain, sacred to Indigenous people and held in trust by the University of Northern Colorado.

It is also a popular hiking area, and residents fear that hotel guests will walk through private property to reach that famous landmark.

The area is also an important wildlife corridor, and increased traffic with the proposed connection of Elm Road to a new road from West Elkhorn is estimated to host more than 2,000 driving trips per day at the height of the season.

If these proposed annexations, one on the east end of Estes Park and the other on the west side of Elkhorn Avenue, went forward, the developers estimated that the town’s sales tax revenue would reach $1 million per year.

In the 1870s, long before the Town of Estes Park was created, Windham Thomas Wyndham-Quinn, the 4th Earl of Dunraven from Ireland, visited the Estes Valley and decided to acquire the land.

Some think he wanted to create a private hunting reserve, and some believe he was hoping to raise cattle. However, the area was subject to homesteading for American citizens only. The wealthy Earl paid people to homestead on land and then sold the parcels back to Dunraven.

At one point, Dunraven amassed 8,000 acres in Estes Valley, primarily along the rivers that cut through the area. But he sold all his land to F. O. Stanley and B. D. Sanborn in 1908. Many think it was because the legitimate settlers opposed his control of the area.

Public opinion matters, as it always has in Estes Park. Since the town was established in 1915, annexations, rezoning, and acquisitions have occurred, but not often. Amenities and services that current residents take for granted were once fiercely opposed.

The fate of the two developments currently being considered will be determined soon. Also, the Estes Park Development Code will be revised this year.

One thing is clear: change will happen in Estes Park. Change is “inevitable,” said Younglund, an Estes Park native, who has seen it her entire life.