HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study SessionInformal discussion among Trustees and staff concerning agenda items or other Town
matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:00 p.m.
Town Board of Trustees Study Session
Tuesday, July 14, 2026, from 4:15 p.m. – 6:45 p.m.
Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park
Accessibility Statement
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services.
Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or
townclerk@estes.org.
Meeting Participation
This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page. Click on
the following link for more information on Digital Accessibility.
Public Comment
Public comments are not typically heard at Study Sessions, but may be allowed by the
Mayor with agreement of a majority of the Board.
Agenda
4:15 p.m. Water Rate Study
Presented by Director Bergsten
4:55 p.m. Housing Definitions and Density Bonuses in the
Development Code
Presented by Manager Speedlin
5:55 p.m. Break for Dinner
6:00 p.m. Draft Code Amendment for Neighborhood Meetings
Presented by Director Careccia
6:35 p.m. Trustee and Administrator Comments and Questions
6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items
6:45 p.m. Adjourn for the Town Board Meeting
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Reuben Bergsten, Director; Jacqueline Wesley, P.E., Project Manager;
and Jason Fredricks, Water Superintendent
Department: Utilities
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Water Rate Study Update
Objective:
The Staff objective is to provide preliminary rate study findings to the Board and receive
initial feedback regarding the water rate structure and public engagement plan. New
rates will be proposed at a future Town Board meeting.
Present Situation:
The Town’s last water rate study was completed in 2019/2020 and our last water rate
increase was in 2022. Typically, rate studies are completed every three years or at
major changes in capital planning. Our "tap fees", aka system development and water
rights fees, have not been reviewed or adjusted since 2016. Adjustments to our tap fees
are include in the second phase of the rate study.
The Water Master Plan identified the need for significant capital investment to support
updating and replacing our aging water infrastructure. The Town contracted with AE2S
(Resolution 88-25) to complete a multi-phase water rate study and update our water
rates for consideration by the Board. AE2S is using the Master Plan's prioritized projects
and estimated cost to determine water rate impacts to our customers. The rate study
includes future capital project financing to fund the recommended improvements within
the water system.
Proposal:
Staff propose obtaining Board feedback on our public outreach, public hearings, prior to
staff's proposed water rate changes to be presented at a future Board meeting.
Advantages:
• Early feedback from the Board will help guide staff and our consultant in finalizing
the rate model and implementing public outreach.
• Staff and our consultant can inform the Board and public of future proposed rates
and adjust the approach depending on Board input.
Disadvantages:
• Rate information may change from this report to the final rate study; however, the
changes are not expected to be significant and will address Board and potential
customer questions prior to the public hearings.
Action Recommended:
Staff seek input from the Board regarding the rate model, recommended rate
adjustments, and public information/input plan.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Not applicable
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate, expected to increase with rate implementation
Attachments:
1. Presentation
Water Rate Study –Phase 1
Town Board Study Session
Town of Estes Park
July 14, 2026
Attachment 1
2
Today’s Discussion
▪Background and Needs
▪Expenses
o Operating Budget
o Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
o Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
▪Revenues
▪Rate Projections
▪Regional Comparisons
▪Preliminary Considerations
▪Next Steps
3
Previous Work
▪Foundational Work
o 2019 Rate Study
o 2020-2022 Rate Schedule
o 2016 Tap Fee Schedule
o YMCA Agreement
o Water Master Plan
▪Future Challenges Exist
o Inflation and Cost-Escalation
o Deferred Maintenance
o Major System Improvements
o Limited Growth Projections
o Rollback of State/Federal Funding
4
Study Objectives (the Why)
Ensure Reliable
Utility Operation
Sustainable
Utility Financial
Plan
Water
Master Plan
Implementation
Set Fair
and
Equitable
Rates
5
The Why….
“Town eyes major water
system overhaul that could
lead to rate increases”
- Estes Valley Voice – June 22, 2026
Master Plan Implementation Range:
$110M (Low) to $150M (High)
6
Study Scope (the How)
▪Current Phase 1: Multi-Year Revenue Adequacy
o Review and Analyze Data
o Complete Revenue Adequacy Evaluation
o Develop Rate Revenue Adjustment Recommendations
o Town Board Coordination and Input
▪Future Phase 2: Optimize Internal Revenue Sources
o Tap Fees, Rate Structure, Cost of Service, Alt. Revenue Sources
▪Future Phase 3: Pursue External Funding
o Detailed Assessment of WTP Project Co-Funding Strategy
7
Building the Study – Planning Scenarios
▪What is known:
▪Rate increases have not been implemented since 2022
▪Capital needs are significant
▪Planning for revenue increase needs is imminent
▪Planning must account for potential variability
▪What is Unknown:
▪Detailed design and final recommendations on facility sizing,
timing, and expected costs are not certain at this time
▪Exact implementation plans and final costs are yet to be
developed
8
Building the Study – Planning Scenarios
▪How do we address uncertainty?
▪Flexible model has been built to evaluate potential range of
revenue increases necessary
▪Evaluation has included “High/Low” future Master Plan
implementation scenarios
▪We have been working with Town staff to plan for the higher
costs, but be able to adapt to better circumstances should they
be realized
9
▪Scenario Construction:
▪$40M to $50M of capital cost variability has been estimated to
date for the proposed Master Plan implementation
▪Range of $110M to $150M in capital needs in the next 10-years
▪Rate revenue increases are needed regardless of the “High” or
“Low” scenario
▪Building revenue increase strategy that can be “backed off” if
better scenario can be realized
Building the Study – Planning Scenarios
Re
v
e
n
u
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
Time
Initial Increase
Strategy
10
Model Build - Expenses Overview
Revenue
Requirement
Total revenue required each year
to meet your unique goals
Operation and Administration
Reserve Contributions
=
+
Cash Capital and Debt Service
+
11
Expenses – Operation and Administration
▪$7.0M to $10.0M by 2035
▪Accounts for Rising Costs
o Unique Escalation Factors
▪25% Future Purification
Increase for new WTP
▪No Significant Fleet Needs
Staff w/ Benefits - $3.0M
Utilities - $260k
Chemicals - $240k
Facility Allocation - $184k
Repair Materials - $170k
2026 Top Operating Expenses
12
Expenses – Operation and Administration
Category 2026
(Budget)
2027
(Projected)
2028
(Projected)
2029
(Projected)
2030
(Projected)
2031
(Projected)
2032
(Projected)
2033
(Projected)
2034
(Projected)
2035
(Projected)
Water Purification1 $1.7M $1.8M $1.9M $2.0M $2.0M $2.1M $2.2M $2.2M $2.8M $2.9M
Water Distribution $3.1M $3.3M $3.4M $3.5M $3.6M $3.7M $3.8M $3.9M $4.0M $4.2M
Customer Accounts $0.4M $0.4M $0.4M $0.5M $0.5M $0.5M $0.5M $0.5M $0.5M $0.5M
Administration and General $1.6M $1.6M $1.7M $1.7M $1.8M $1.8M $1.9M $1.9M $2.0M $2.1M
Source of Supply $0.2M $0.2M $0.2M $0.2M $0.2M $0.2M $0.2M $0.2M $0.2M $0.2M
Total:$7.0M $7.3M $7.5M $7.8M $8.0M $8.3M $8.5M $8.8M $9.6M $9.9M
Prior Year %: -3%3%3%3%3%3%3%9%3%
1 Increase in 2034 Assumes Operation of New WTP
13
Expenses – Water Treatment Improvements
▪Cost Challenges Exist
o Generational Projects, Early Stages
o Unknown Future Grant/PF Availability
o Federal Cost Escalation (BABA)
o Low Growth Rates
o No Dedicated Savings
▪Water Treatment Improvements Debt Service Assumptions
o Loan Terms: 30-Year w/ 3.5% Interest
o 120% Debt Service Coverage Ratio
o Five-year Disbursement (Starting in 2030)
o P&I Peaking at $8.7 Million in 2034 ($150M Master Plan)
14
Expenses – Cash Capital and Debt Service
$150M Master Plan Implementation
Category 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Mall Road Pipe Replacements
Mary’s Lake WTP Improvements $11M
Thunder Mountain Tank Project $3.2M
Fall River Pump Station & PRV $5.5M
New Water Treatment Plant $0.5M $0.5M $21.0M $20.0M $20.0M $20.0M $20.0M
Big T Tank Project $5.6M
Glacier Creek Improvements $1.6M
Miscellaneous/Pipe Improvement
Projects $0.1M $0.1M $0.1M $1.6M $2.1M $2.1M $2.1M $2.1M $2.5M
Total:$3.8M $13.2M $32.2M $21.6M $22.1M $22.1M $22.1M $2.1M $2.5M
Primarily Debt-Funded 10-Year CIP Total: $147 Million
15
Expenses – Ten Year Projection
$150M Master Plan Implementation
16
Revenues – Overview
▪2026 Budget
o $8.2M in Revenue
o 85% is Rate Revenue
o Fixed and Volumetric Charges
▪Growth Projections
o .5% for Residential Classes
o 1.5% for Non-Residential Classes
o 0% for Bulk Water
o 0% for YMCA
17
Revenues – Future Rate Revenue Needs
$150M Master Plan Implementation
Category 2027
(Projected)
2028
(Projected)
2029
(Projected)
2030
(Projected)
2031
(Projected)
2032
(Projected)
2033
(Projected)
2034
(Projected)
2035
(Projected)
% Rate Revenue Increase
(including growth): 16%16%16%16%16%13%13%11%6%
% Increase (Misc. Revenue): 1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Expenses -$8.9M -$10.6M -$16.1M -$14.1M -$15.9M -$17.3M -$18.6M -$20.5M -$21.2M
Revenues $9.6M $11.8M $13.5M $15.5M $17.8M $19.6M $20.1M $20.5M $20.9M
Total:$0.7M $1.2M -$2.6M $1.4M $1.9M $2.3M $1.5M $0.0M -$0.3M
18
Rate Revenue Increase Projection
$150M Master Plan Implementation
0.9%
16%16%16%16%16%13%13%11%6%2%
102%
191%
392%
267%
112%120%124%129%127%137%137%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
150.0%
200.0%
250.0%
300.0%
350.0%
400.0%
450.0%
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Projected Water Fund Balances
Total Projected Fund Balance O&M Reserve Obligation
Aggregate Rate Revene Increase Calculated Debt Service Coverage Ratio
(including growth)
19
Rate Sensitivity
$150M Master Plan Implementation
Category 2026
(Projected)
2027
(Projected)
2028
(Projected)
2029
(Projected)
2030
(Projected)
2031
(Projected)
2032
(Projected)
2033
(Projected)
2034
(Projected)
2035
(Projected)
Median Household Income1 $75,512 $77,778 $80,111 $82,514 $84,990 $87,540 $90,166 $92,871 $95,657 $98,527
% Increase -15%15%15%15%15%12%12%10%5%
Residential Water Rate2 $80 $92 $105 $121 $139 $160 $180 $201 $221 $232
% of MHI 1.3%1.4%1.6%1.8%2.0%2.2%2.4%2.6%2.8%2.8%
EPA Benchmark3 1.5-2.5%1.5-2.5%1.5-2.5%1.5-2.5%1.5-2.5%1.5-2.5%1.5-2.5%1.5-2.5%1.5-2.5%1.5-2.5%
1 https://gis.dola.colorado.gov/disadvantaged_communities/, Income is assumed to escalate at 3%/Year
2 Assumes 4,500 gallons of monthly usage
3 https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/economics/EstimatingHouseholdATPForMunicipalWaterServices_11 -2022Updated02-2023_508.pdf
20
Rate Revenue Increase Projection
$110M Master Plan Implementation
0.9%
16%16%16%11%11%11%6%6%6%2%
102%
191%
392%
267%
137%144%152%147%
135%
147%145%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
150.0%
200.0%
250.0%
300.0%
350.0%
400.0%
450.0%
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Projected Water Fund Balances
Total Projected Fund Balance O&M Reserve Obligation
Aggregate Rate Revenue Increase Calculated Debt Service Coverage Ratio
(including growth)
21
Rate Revenue Increase Projections
$110M vs. $150M Master Plan Implementation
Ra
t
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
Primary
Implementation
Secondary
Implementation
Long-term
Implementation
15%15%
12%
15%15%15%
10%10%10%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
$150M Implementation Scenario
$110M Implementation Scenario
22
Water Rate Comparisons
Steamboat
Springs, CO
Telluride, CO
Estes Park, CO
Typical SFR Rate: $82/Month*
Proposed (2027)
Typical SFR Rate: $65/Month
(2026)
Typical SFR Rate: $92/Month
Proposed (2027)
Note: Rates based on a residential class using 4,500 gallons per month
w/ 5% increases
through 2028
Pinewood
Springs, CO
Typical SFR Rate: $249/Month
(2026)
23
Regional Perspective
▪Upper Thompson WRF
o GMP Exceeded Budget, Redesign
o 10.5% Rate Increase for 2025 and 2026
▪Snake River Water District
o Master Plan Identified Issues
o $30M Bond Issue
o 12% Annual Increase for Decade
▪Windsor WRF
o Scope Reduction 6.3 to 4.2 MGD
o Cost Inflation $50M to $150M
o 26% Stepped Rate Increase
24
▪Primary Implementation:
o Get started by increasing revenue across all rate classes
- “Don’t let Perfect be the Enemy of Good”
o Continue evaluation of Master Plan Implementation to further
solidify costs and further necessary revenue increases
o Begin Phase 2 Rate Study to evaluate the optimization of internal
rate revenues (i.e. cost of service by class, Tap Fees, etc.)
▪Secondary Implementation
o Finalize evaluation of Master Plan costs
o Implement internal revenue increases by source and class
186% Increase
Rate Revenue Increases
Implementation Considerations
25
▪Incorporate Town Board Feedback
▪Finalize Primary Rate Revenue Increase
Recommendations
▪Completion of Phase 1 Rate Study Report
▪Phase 2 Rate Study Scope Development
Next Steps
26
Questions and Discussion
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Carlie Speedlin, Housing and Childcare Manager
Scott Moulton, Executive Director of Estes Park Housing Authority
Department: Town Administration
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Housing Definitions and Density Bonuses in the Code
Purpose of Study Session Item:
The purpose of this Study Session is to seek the Town Board’s direction regarding
potential updates to the housing definitions in Section 11.4 of the Development Code.
This is aligned with two items in the 2026 Strategic Plan:
• Consider an update to Section 11.4 of the Development Code, including
reconsideration of appropriate definitions and density bonus amounts.
• Consider updating Town policies defining workforce or attainable housing for the
purposes of Town funding.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff seeks Town Board feedback regarding potential updates to housing definitions and
density bonus provisions within Section 11.4 of the current Development Code. In
addition to the Strategic Plan items listed above, this is also a component of the ongoing
comprehensive Development Code update process. Specifically, staff requests
feedback related to affordability targets, zoning applicability, development feasibility,
and appropriate incentive structures to support workforce and attainable housing
development.
Key Questions:
1. What level of density is acceptable to incentivize development at lower AMI
levels (particularly below 60% AMI)?
2. Should density bonuses be expanded to additional zoning districts, including A
(Accommodations)-zoned areas?
3. What level of development incentive (in the form of a density bonus) is
appropriate to improve project feasibility given current land, infrastructure, and
construction costs?
4. Should density bonuses be paired with additional incentives or flexible
development standards (such as setbacks and parking) to support deeper
affordability? Should this be applicable only to certain zoning districts?
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park has utilized density bonuses as a tool to support attainable and
workforce housing since the early 2000s. Early versions of the program saw limited
success. Between 2013 and 2017, no housing units were developed utilizing the density
bonus framework, possibly due to insufficient levels at the time.
In response, the Town increased the maximum allowable density bonus to 200% of
base density and expanded the definition of attainable housing to include households
earning up to 150% of the Larimer County Area Median Income (“AMI”), reflecting the
realities of a high-cost, resort-based economy. Height bonuses were also introduced as
part of the program. While these changes expanded development incentives, Estes
Park continues to maintain relatively low underlying residential densities compared to
many Colorado communities and mountain resort towns. Today, comparable Colorado
mountain towns to Estes Park, with density bonus programs for workforce housing,
average 28 units per acre in multifamily zoned areas, compared to 8 units per acre in
Estes Park (median is 20 acres per acre).
In November 2017, the Town Board amended the code to restrict density bonus
eligibility to RM (Multi-Family Residential) zoning districts only, removing applicability
from most residential zones. This decision reflected concerns about neighborhood
compatibility, growth, and the tool's effectiveness.
Since 2017, the density bonus program has contributed to the development of
approximately 188 workforce or attainable housing units in the Estes Valley, including
projects such as Peak View Apartments, Prospector Apartments, Wildfire
Neighborhood, and Grand Estates.
The development of Prospector Apartments was also influenced by the property’s
location within a federally designated Opportunity Zone census tract. Opportunity Zone
designation was a significant factor in attracting private investment to this project. The
State of Colorado is currently updating Opportunity Zone designations for the next ten-
year period, and no Estes Park census tracts are currently anticipated to qualify. This
may reduce the Town’s ability to attract similar private-sector affordable housing
developments in the future.
Despite prior code amendments, while much progress has been made with the advent
of 6E, the current framework has not resulted in housing at the scale or affordability
levels necessary to meet local workforce demand. Utilization of the density bonus
program remains limited, likely due to several factors, including:
• Limited relationship between affordability levels and development incentives
• Uncertainty in the development review process
• High land, infrastructure, and construction costs
• Limited availability of developable RM-zoned land
• The need to rezone properties to pursue attainable housing projects
Few remaining vacant RM-zoned parcels in Estes Park are realistically available for
workforce housing development. The limited supply of RM-zoned land may constrain
future attainable housing opportunities unless additional zoning districts are considered.
Public outreach completed as part of the Development Code update process has
included significant feedback related to housing. While community sentiment has
generally been opposed to substantial building height increases, outreach efforts
indicated broader support for “missing middle” housing types and strategies that
increase attainable housing opportunities while maintaining compatibility with the
neighborhood character.
Demand for workforce housing continues to exceed supply across all AMI levels. While
the Town and EPHA have implemented additional housing tools through 6E Lodging
Tax revenues and linkage fees, significant gaps remain, particularly for lower-income
households. Approximately 75% of income-restricted units managed by Estes Park
Housing Authority are occupied by members of the workforce.
Proposal:
That the Town Board consider the current housing definitions and density bonuses in
Section 11.4 of the Development Code, consistent with the adopted 2026 Strategic Plan
with an eye toward addressing ongoing housing challenges and better align incentives
with current market conditions, workforce needs, and development feasibility.
Any future proposed amendments would be developed collaboratively between the
Town, Estes Park Housing Authority, and Design Workshop to ensure consistency with
the broader Development Code rewrite currently underway. Staff seeks guidance on the
following points to inform potential updates to the Code:
1. AMI-Scaled Density Bonus Structure
The current Development Code establishes density bonuses tied to attainable
housing requirements but does not create a clear relationship between deeper
affordability levels and increased development incentives.
The Town Board may want to consider a more predictable, AMI-scaled density
bonus structure in which projects providing greater numbers of deed-restricted
units at lower AMI levels would be eligible for higher density bonuses. Under this
framework, projects serving households below 60% AMI could qualify for greater
incentives than projects serving higher-income households.
For example, a one-acre RM-zoned property with a base density of 8 units per
acre could achieve up to 16 units using the current density bonus. However, the
Town Board could consider increasing the number of units permitted under the
condition that deeper affordability thresholds are met.
This framework intends to establish a clearer relationship between affordability
and development incentives while improving project feasibility and supporting
deeper levels of affordability.
2. Expanded Applicability Across Zoning Districts
The current code limits density bonus eligibility to RM zoning districts only.
The Town Board may want to consider evaluating whether eligibility should be
expanded to additional zoning districts, including A-Accommodation zoned
properties, planned unit developments (PUDs), mixed-use districts, and selected
commercial areas where workforce housing may be appropriate.
Given the limited availability of vacant RM-zoned land remaining in Estes Park,
expanding applicability beyond RM zoning may improve the Town’s ability to
support future workforce housing development opportunities while reducing the
need for rezoning requests. Any expanded applicability would continue to include
compatibility standards and design requirements to ensure integration with
surrounding neighborhoods and development patterns.
3. Feasibility and Market Alignment
Density bonuses alone may not fully address current funding gaps for attainable
housing development. However, the framework could be updated to better align
with current market conditions and development realities.
Potential strategies for consideration include:
• Providing greater certainty earlier in the development review process
• Increasing unit yield to offset higher development costs
• Aligning incentives more directly with financial feasibility
• Exploring flexibility in site design standards while maintaining neighborhood
compatibility
• Pairing density bonuses with additional housing tools or incentives where
appropriate
The overall goal of these potential updates is to create a more effective,
predictable, and financially viable framework for workforce and attainable
housing development in Estes Park.
Advantages:
• Higher utilization of bonus density program
• More affordable workforce housing
Disadvantages:
• Increased density may impact neighborhood character
Finance/Resource Impact:
None, at this time.
Level of Public Interest:
High.
Attachments:
1. Presentation Slides
Housing Definitions & Density Bonuses in the Code
Town Board Study Session
July 14, 2026
CARLIE SPEEDLIN
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE MANAGER
Attachment 1
Purpose
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Consider updates to the housing definitions in
Section 11.4 of the Development Code, in
alignment with two 2026 Strategic Plan objectives:
-Consider an update to Section 11.4 of the Development
Code, including reconsideration of appropriate
definitions and density bonus amounts
-Consider updating Town policies defining workforce or
attainable housing for the purpose of Town funding
Direction Requested
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Staff requests feedback related to affordability
targets, zoning applicability, development
feasibility, and appropriate incentive structures to
support workforce and attainable housing
development.
These discussions provide a framework for
housing definitions that will exist with the
Development Code and Housing Policy for the
Town.
Key Questions:
What level of density is acceptable to incentivize development at
lower AMI levels (particularly below 60% AMI)?
Should density bonuses be expanded to additional zoning districts,
including A-(Accommodations)- zoned areas?
What level of development incentive (in the form of a density bonus)
is appropriate to improve project feasibility, given current land,
infrastructure, and construction costs?
Should density bonuses be paired with additional incentives or
flexible development standards (such as setbacks or parking) to
support deeper affordability? Should this be applicable only to certain
zoning districts?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Present Situation
The Town of Estes Park has utilized density
bonuses since the early 2000s.
Between 2013 and 2017, no housing units were
developed utilizing the density bonus
framework.
Since 2017, density bonuses have contributed
to the development of workforce housing but
are still falling short.
Utilization remains limited, likely
due to several factors, including:
•Limited relationship between affordability levels and development incentives
•Uncertainty in the development review process
•High land, infrastructure, and construction costs
•Limited availability of developable RM-(Multifamily Residential)-zoned land
•The need to rezone properties to pursue attainable housing projects
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Proposal Staff seeks guidance on the following points to
inform potential updates to the Code:
1.AMI-Scaled Density Bonus Structure
2.Expanded Applicability Across Zoning
Districts
3.Feasibility and Market Alignment
Policy Direction:
Is additional incentive needed?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Policy Direction:
Is additional incentive needed?
What affordability levels should we prioritize?
How much density is appropriate?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
1. AMI-Scaled Density Bonus Structure
•Create a clear affordability-to-incentive relationship
•Higher density incentives tied to lower AMI thresholds
•Projects serving households below 60% AMI qualify
for the highest density
•Improve project feasibility while incentivizing
affordable housing at lower income levels
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Density Bonus Incentive
Current Bonus
Incentive
Current
Base Density
Current Base Density
in RM-zoned area:
8 units per acre
Workforce/Attainable
Housing Density
Bonus:
16 units per acre
Projects that are deed
restricted to the workforce or
attainable housing
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Mountain Wood Townhomes
14 units per acre
8 units on 0.56 acres
Existing Density Examples
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
South Saint Vrain Apartments
12 units per acre
24 units on 1.94 acres
Existing Density Examples
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Eagle’s Landing Condominiums
17 units per acre
45 units on 2.65 acres
Existing Density Examples
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Existing Density Examples
Fall River Village
19.46 units per acre
65 units on 3.34 acres
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Density Bonus Incentive
Current Bonus
Incentive
AMI-Scaled Bonus
Incentive
Current
Base Density
Current Base Density
in RM-zoned area:
8 units per acre
Workforce/Attainable
Housing Density
Bonus:
16 units per acre
AMI-Scaled Density
Bonus:
16+ units per acre
Projects that are deed
restricted to “affordable”
workforce (60% AMI or lower)
Projects that are deed
restricted to the workforce or
attainable housing
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Maximum Base Density Zoning Comparisons
Town Zoning Density
(units/acre)
Grand Lake MDH- High Density Residential 20
Granby R-3 Multiple- Family Residential High Density 25
Fraser HDMF- High Density Multi-family Residential District 20
Salida R-3 Multiple-Family Residential High Density 18- 20.7
Gunnison HR- High Density 14- 80
Buena Vista R-3 High Density Residential 29
Nederland HDR- High Density Residential 11
Leadville R-2 Traditional Residential District 20
Estes Park RM- Multifamily Residential 8
Housing Incentives to Consider
These peer communities did not rely solely on density
bonuses. Successful affordable housing programs
typically combine additional development flexibility with
long-term affordability requirements to improve financial
feasibility while also achieving community housing
goals.
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Existing Density Example- Nederland, CO
Tungsten Village
30.5 units per acre
26 units on 0.85 acres
•20-60% AMI
•Zoned High-Density Residential with a PUD
allowing variance for density, building footprint,
parking, and setbacks in exchange for
permanent affordability.
Policy Direction:
Is additional incentive needed?
What affordability levels should we prioritize?
Where should expanded density bonuses apply?
How much density is appropriate?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
2. Expanded Applicability Across
Zoning Districts
•Consider extending eligibility to include non-residential
zoning districts appropriate for workforce housing, such
as A-Accommodations districts and select commercial
areas appropriate for workforce housing
•Reduce the need for rezoning requests
•Any expansion would still require design standards,
compatibility requirements, and integration with
surrounding neighborhoods and development patterns
Policy Direction:
Is additional incentive needed?
What affordability levels should we prioritize?
Where should expanded density bonuses apply?
How much density is appropriate?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Should density bonuses be paired with additional incentives?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
3. Feasibility and Market Alignment
Consider additional improvement strategies that reflect current
construction costs and development conditions, such as:
•Provide greater certainty earlier in the review process
•Increase allowable unit yield
•Align incentives with project financial feasibility
•Allow flexibility in site design standards
•Pair density bonuses with additional housing tools or
incentives
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Create a more effective, predictable, and financially
viable framework for workforce and attainable
housing development in Estes Park.
Goal
Key Questions:
What level of density is acceptable to incentivize development at
lower AMI levels (particularly below 60% AMI)?
Should density bonuses be expanded to additional zoning districts,
including A-(Accommodations)- zoned areas?
What level of development incentive (in the form of a density bonus)
is appropriate to improve project feasibility, given current land,
infrastructure, and construction costs?
Should density bonuses be paired with additional incentives or
flexible development standards (such as setbacks or parking) to
support deeper affordability? Should this be applicable only to certain
zoning districts?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Direction Requested
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Staff requests feedback related to affordability
targets, zoning applicability, development
feasibility, and appropriate incentive structures to
support workforce and attainable housing
development.
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Who are we trying to serve?
What do we mean by workforce housing?
Which AMI levels should receive the greatest
support?
Housing Definitions
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Existing Density Example- Gunnison, CO
Sawtooth Townhomes and
Apartments
25 units per acre
50 units on ~2 acres
80-120% AMI
Infill project
West Thorn*
18-20 units per acre
450-500 units on 25 acres
80-120% AMI
*Approved preliminary plat and PUD
submittal
8 units per acre
48 units on 5.5 acres
Falcon Ridge
2 units per acre
44 units on 20 acres
Talons Pointe
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
AMI-Scaled Density Bonuses
Affordability Level Potential Density Bonus Units per Acres
100% AMI Standard Bonus
80% AMI Increased Bonus
60% AMI Highest Bonus
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Study Session 7-14-26 topic: Housing and density bonuses.
1 message
Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 3:17 PM
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Carlie Bangs <cbangs@estes.org>
FOR THE TRUSTEES:
Revising the code to allow higher density for affordable or attainable housing is premature, but should be done as part of
the comprehensive rewrite of the Development Code. Doing so will allow consideration of the proposals by both the Town
Board and the public in the context of the changing definitions and text of the new Code and will avoid inconsistencies.
For example some of this may be addressed in defining "Mixed use corridors," and "Suburban Estate" and other zoning
districts described in the aspirational Comp Plan, which have not yet been established,
Furthermore, expanding high density into A-1 could have a significant impact near residential areas. F or example, the
Hwy 66 and Fall River corridors could greatly change the character with higher density. PUD districts , which were
approved in areas beyond those shown in the new Comp Plan, also may have effects on residential characteristics.
If the Board directs Staff development of any Code action to be taken outside of the complete rewrite (which will have its
own citizen review process), it would appear to be inappropriate decision-making without adequate citizen input. Such a
code change will likely reduce subsequent decisions to a simple up/down vote rather than a broader consideration of
alternatives. A perfect example of this was the Elkhorn II Lodge zoning. Opposition was 99%, but the alternative of A-1,
which was acceptable to many, was not formally presented as an option. The high density A zoning that was ultimately
granted was presented for an up or down vote as if it was the only option.
In short, while the need for Housing is always pitched as an emergency, this puts the cart before the horse. The zoning
districts and Comp Plan need to be reviewed as a whole with the EPDC revisions.
Board of Directors,
Estes Valley Residents Association
Public Comment Received 2026-07-13
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
Department: Community Development
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Draft Code Amendment to Requirements for Neighborhood Meetings
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Provide the Town Board with an overview of the neighborhood meeting process as
established in the Estes Park Development Code and present draft neighborhood
meeting language.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Town Board direction is sought on the attached draft neighborhood meeting language.
Present Situation:
For development applications that require a public hearing before the Town Board, the
Development Code, Section 3.2.B (Step 2: Neighborhood and Community Meeting),
requires that a neighborhood and community meeting be held. A description and
overview of the current process is as follows:
● Purpose is to provide an opportunity for informal communication between a
proposed applicant for development application (applicant), surrounding property
owners, and the general public.
● Meetings are required to be held prior to the submittal of any applicable
development application.
● Meetings must be held in a location that is generally accessible to surrounding
property owners and residents.
● Meetings must be held after 5 PM on weekdays or any time on a weekend.
● The applicant is responsible for sending out notice of the meeting. Notice
includes a legal advertisement in a local newspaper, a mailing to surrounding
property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, and with a sign posted on
the subject property. Notice must occur at least 15 days prior to the meeting.
Staff confirms that notice requirements have been met.
● The meeting is moderated by the applicant.
● Staff attendance is optional, but if attending, they do not serve as facilitators nor
become involved in any negotiations.
● The applicant is responsible for providing staff with a written summary of the
meeting, including a list of who attended the meeting, the issues discussed, and
comments by those in attendance. The summary must be included with the
submittal of the formal development application.
● Meeting attendees may submit additional summary items to the staff.
● Staff provides a neighborhood meeting overview in the Planning Commission
and Town Board staff reports.
To help provide context, staff conducted a small survey of nearby jurisdictions and their
neighborhood meeting processes. From that survey, it was found that the Town has a
very similar neighborhood meeting process compared to Larimer County, Ft. Collins,
Longmont, and Loveland. However, some noted differences include:
● Larimer County – The Director may waive the requirement to hold a
neighborhood meeting based on prior neighborhood feedback. Staff also attends
the meeting but does not facilitate the meeting nor provide project specific
information.
● Ft. Collins – Staff is responsible for scheduling, coordinating, and attending the
neighborhood meeting, and for completing the written meeting summary. The
Director also has the discretion to waive the neighborhood meeting requirement if
it is determined that the proposed development would not have a significant
neighborhood impact.
● Longmont – The Director may waive the requirement to hold a neighborhood
meeting or may require additional meetings, depending on the context of the
proposed development. The applicant is also required to specifically state in their
written meeting summary how they intend to address, or not address, comments
and questions raised at the meeting.
● Loveland - Staff is responsible for sending out the meeting notice and attending
the neighborhood meeting. The applicant is also required to specifically state in
their written meeting summary how they intend to address, or not address,
comments and questions raised at the meeting.
At a study session held on May 26, 2026, the Town Board reviewed the neighborhood
meeting process, as presented then and as provided again herein, and directed staff to
bring back draft code language for Board consideration.
Proposal:
As directed, draft neighborhood meeting language is presented for review by the Town
Board.
Advantages:
● Potential to increase neighborhood and community involvement in the
development process
Disadvantages:
● Potential to add uncertainty, cost, and/or processing time to potential
development projects
● Potential to introduce false or misleading expectations on how new development
is processed, evaluated, and decided
Finance/Resource Impact:
None at this time.
Level of Public Interest:
Public Interest is expected to be low to moderate.
Attachments:
1. Draft Neighborhood Meeting Language (Redline Version)
2. Draft Neighborhood Meeting Language (Clean Version)
Created: 2025-10-20 16:51:48 [EST]
(Supp. No. 23)
Page 1 of 3
§ 3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure
B.Step 2: Neighborhood and Community Meeting.
1.Purpose. The purpose of the neighborhood and community meeting is to educate occupants and
owners of nearby lands about the proposed development and application, receive comments, address
concerns about the development proposal, and resolve conflicts differences and outstanding issues,
where possible.
a.Favored Practice. Neighborhood and community meetings are encouraged as
opportunitiesintended for informal communication between owners and occupants of nearby
lands, applicants, and other residents who may be affected by development proposals.
b.Applicability. Except as provided otherwise in §3.2.G (Summary Table-Standard Development
Review Process by Application Type),A neighborhood and community meetings shall be
mandatory required for zoning and planning projectsdevelopment applications that require a
public hearing as specified in this Code. Except as provide otherwise in as established in §3.2.G
(Summary Table-Standard Development Review Process by Application Type), neighborhood and
community meetings shall be voluntary for zoning and planning projects that do not require a
public hearing as specified in this Code. The Director may require additional neighborhood
meetings, or waive the neighborhood meeting requirement, based on the proposed
development’s impact on surrounding properties, mix of uses, density, complexity, or likelihood
of adverse impacts.
c.Procedure. If a neighborhood and community meeting is held by the applicantrequired, it shall
generally comply with the following procedures:
(1)Time and Place. The neighborhood and community meeting shall be held at a place open to
the public that is generally accessible to neighbors that own and/or reside in the
notification area to the land subject to the application. It shall be scheduled after 5:00 p.m.
on a weekday or at any time on a weekend day.
(2)Written Notification. The applicant shall provide notification of the neighborhood and
community meeting a minimum of fifteen (15) days in advance of the meeting by placing
notice in a newspaper or display advertising of general circulation in the Estes Valley and by
mailing notice to all owners and occupants within the notification boundary500 feet of the
land subject to the application. The list of owners within the notification area of the
affected property shall be obtained by the applicant from the most recent version of the
property owners of record providedshall be provided by the Town of Estes
ParkDepartment. The notification shall state the date, time, and place of the meeting,
purpose of the meeting, description of the proposed project, and contact information for
the applicant. (Ord. 16-24, §1(Exh. A))
(3)Posted Notices of Neighborhood and Community Meetings. Required posted notice
requirementsThe property posting shall be on a standard sign with format and material as
determined established by the Planning Department. The following additional
requirements shall apply to posted notices pursuant to this Section:
a)Any posted notice shall be legible from a public street or public right-of-way in
clear weather conditions. "Legible" is defined as meeting the legibility
requirements in the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.66 (Signs).
Attachment #1
Created: 2025-10-20 16:51:48 [EST]
(Supp. No. 23)
Page 2 of 3
b) Projects abutting more than one public street or public right-of-way shall be
required to post one (1) additional sign for each abutting public street or public
right-of-way.
c) Posting of all notice(s) required by this Section shall take place no later than
fifteen (15) days prior to any given neighborhood and community meeting for
which the posting is required, and the posted signage shall remain until the
close of any such neighborhood and community meeting, including the closing
dates of any neighborhood and community meeting that may be continued or
postponed. (Ord. 16-24, §1(Exh. A))
d) Proof that the required signage was posted in accord with this Section shall be
provided to the Planning Department prior to the opening of any neighborhood
and community meeting. A date-stamped photograph of the posted notice in
context shall be deemed adequate proof for purposes of this Section.
e) Removal, obstruction, damage or destruction of a properly posted notice by
weather or other natural occurrence shall not be construed as failure to comply
with the public notice provisions of this Code. (Ord. 16-24, §1(Exh. A))
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community meeting, the applicant shall
explain the development proposal and application, inform attendees of the character and
nature of the process for review, and respond to comments and questions neighbors may
have about the application, and propose ways to resolve conflictspromote neighborhood
compatibility.
(5) Staff Attendance. Staff attendance at neighborhood meetings is optional. However, if
attending, Town staff may attend the neighborhood and community meeting for the
purpose of advisingadvise the attendees regarding applicable provisions of the
Development Code, but shall will not serve as facilitators or become involved in
negotiations at the neighborhood meeting.
(6) Written Summary of Neighborhood and Community Record of Meeting. The applicant shall
provide the Planning Department with a written summary of the neighborhood and
community meeting. The written summary shall include a list of those in attendance, a
summary of the issues related to the development proposal discussed, comments by those
in attendance about the development proposal, and any other information the applicant
deems appropriate. The written summary shall also include a detailed description of how
the applicant intends to address, or not address, the comments and questions discussed at
the neighborhood meeting. The written summary of the neighborhood and community
meeting shall be included submitted with the application materials, and staff shall make
the summary be made available to the public for inspection.
(7) Response to Summary. Any party in attendance at the neighborhood and community
meeting may submit an additional written summary indicating their understanding of the
issues related to the development proposal discussed, comments by those in attendance
about the development proposal, a response to the applicant’s written summary, and any
other information they deem appropriate. This written summary may include a response to
the applicant's written summary of the neighborhood meeting.
(8) Upon review of the written summary and any responses, the Director may require a follow -
up neighborhood meeting(s) should the submitted materials indicate outstanding issues
remain that could benefit from additional discussion.
Created: 2025-10-20 16:51:48 [EST]
(Supp. No. 23)
Page 3 of 3
Neighborhood and community meetings are optional for any other applications not requiring a
public hearing.
(Ord. 15-18 §1(Exh. A); Ord. 11-19 §1(Exh. A); Ord. 16-24, §1(Exh. A))
Created: 2025-10-20 16:51:48 [EST]
(Supp. No. 23)
Page 1 of 2
§ 3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure
B.Step 2: Neighborhood Meeting.
1.Purpose. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to educate occupants and owners of nearby
lands about the proposed development and application, receive comments, address concerns about
the development proposal, and resolve differences and outstanding issues, where possible.
a.Favored Practice. Neighborhood meetings are intended for informal communication between
owners and occupants of nearby lands, applicants , and other residents who may be affected by
development proposals.
b.Applicability. A neighborhood meeting shall be required for development applications as
established in §3.2.G (Summary Table-Standard Development Review Process by Application
Type). The Director may require additional neighborhood meetings, or waive the neighborhood
meeting requirement, based on the proposed development’s impact on surrounding properties,
mix of uses, density, complexity, or likelihood of adverse impacts.
c.Procedure. If a neighborhood meeting is required, it shall generally comply with the following
procedures:
(1)Time and Place. The neighborhood meeting shall be held at a place open to the public that
is generally accessible to neighbors that own and/or reside in the notification area to the
land subject to the application. It shall be scheduled after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday or at any
time on a weekend day.
(2)Written Notification. The applicant shall provide notification of the neighborhood meeting
a minimum of fifteen (15) days in advance of the meeting by placing notice in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Estes Valley and by mailing notice to all owners and occupants
within 500 feet of the land subject to the application. The list of owners within the
notification area shall be provided by the Department. The notification shall state the date,
time, and place of the meeting, purpose of the meeting, description of the proposed
project, and contact information for the applicant. (Ord. 16-24, §1(Exh. A))
(3)Posted Notices of Neighborhood Meetings. The property posting shall be on a standard sign
with format and material as established by the Department. The following additional
requirements apply to posted notices pursuant to this Section:
a)Any posted notice shall be legible from a public street or public right-of-way in
clear weather conditions.
b)Projects abutting more than one public street or public right-of-way shall be
required to post one (1) additional sign for each abutting public street or public
right-of-way.
c)Posting of all notice(s) required by this Section shall take place no later than
fifteen (15) days prior to any given neighborhood meeting for which the posting
is required, and the posted signage shall remain until the close of any such
neighborhood meeting, including the closing dates of any neighborhood
meeting that may be continued or postponed. (Ord. 16-24, §1(Exh. A))
d)Proof that the required signage was posted in accord with this Section shall be
provided to the Department prior to the opening of any neighborhood meeting.
A date-stamped photograph of the posted notice in context shall be deemed
adequate proof for purposes of this Section.
Attachment #2
Created: 2025-10-20 16:51:48 [EST]
(Supp. No. 23)
Page 2 of 2
e) Removal, obstruction, damage or destruction of a properly posted notice by
weather or other natural occurrence shall not be construed as failure to comply
with the public notice provisions of this Code. (Ord. 16-24, §1(Exh. A))
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood meeting, the applicant shall explain the
development proposal and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of
the process for review, respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about the
application, and propose ways to promote neighborhood compatibility.
(5) Staff Attendance. Staff attendance at neighborhood meetings is optional. However, if
attending, staff may advise the attendees regarding applicable provisions of the
Development Code, but will not serve as facilitators or become involved in negotiations at
the neighborhood meeting.
(6) Written Summary of Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant shall provide the Department
with a written summary of the neighborhood meeting. The written summary shall include a
list of those in attendance, a summary of the issues related to the development proposal
discussed, comments by those in attendance about the development proposal, and any
other information the applicant deems appropriate. The written summary shall also include
a detailed description of how the applicant intends to address, or not address, the
comments and questions discussed at the neighborhood meeting. The written summary of
the neighborhood meeting shall be submitted with the application materials, and staff shall
make the summary available to the public.
(7) Response to Summary. Any party in attendance at the neighborhood meeting may submit
an additional written summary indicating their understanding of the issues related to the
development proposal discussed, comments by those in attendance about the
development proposal, a response to the applicant’s written summary, and any other
information they deem appropriate.
(8) Upon review of the written summary and any responses, the Director may require a follow -
up neighborhood meeting(s) should the submitted materials indicate outstanding issues
remain that could benefit from additional discussion.
(Ord. 15-18 §1(Exh. A); Ord. 11-19 §1(Exh. A); Ord. 16-24, §1(Exh. A))
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Future Study Session Items
July 28, 2026
• Development Code Update 50% Draft Review
• Police Department Facility Financing
August 11, 2026
• Visit Estes Park Dark Sky Ordinance
• Administrative Regulations Enforcement Process
• Policy 102 (Town Committees) Liaison Review
• Policy 102 (Town Committees) Focus Groups Draft
August 25, 2026
• Micromobility Overview
• Downtown Plan Approach
• Annexation of Enclaves Follow Up
September 8, 2026
• Winter Event Strategy Proposal
• Seasonal Housing Issues
Items Approved - Unscheduled
• Black Canyon Treatment Plant Property
• Growth Management Areas Overview
• Structure of Potential Development Agreement with Whimsadoodle and the
Estes Park Housing Authority for Cleave Street Development
• Liquor License Process
• Parking License Plate Recognition Policy
Items for Town Board Consideration
• None