The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2025-11-18 This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page at www.estes.org/videos ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written comments on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/EPPCPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting. All comments will be provided to the Commission for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. __________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK Town Hall Board Room Tuesday, November 18, 2025 1:30 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Planning Commission minutes dated September 16, 2025 PUBLIC COMMENT ACTION ITEMS 1. Recommendation on Establishment of Zoning Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Senior Planner Hornbeck DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Development Code Update 2. Future Meeting ADJOURN 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. November 12, 2025 1 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 16, 2025 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the said Town of Estes Park on September 16, 2025. Commission: Chair Charles Cooper, Vice Chair David Arterburn, Dick Mulhern, Chris Pawson, Julie Phares Attending: Commissioners Cooper, Arterburn, Mulhern, Pawson, Phares, Community Development Director Steve Careccia, Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Pawson Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm. There were approximately 15 people in the audience. INTRODUCTIONS Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. New Commissioner Julie Phares was introduced and welcomed. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Mulhern/Arterburn) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 4-0. CONSENT AGENDA 1.Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated May 20, 2025 (revised format) 2.Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated June 17, 2025 It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Mulhern) to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 3-0 with Phares abstaining. PUBLIC COMMENT: Kristine Poppitz, county resident, mentioned the Citizen Initiatives by Preserve Estes Park and inquired about obtaining an invitation for PEP to attend the Newcomers meeting on September 27. Tom Kaszynski, county resident, believes Estes Park is one of the last real mountain towns and should not be overdeveloped. ACTION ITEMS: 1.Preliminary Plat 685 Peak View Dr Senior Planner Hornbeck Planner Hornbeck reviewed the history of the proposal. The applicants request approval of a preliminary subdivision plat to create a 12-lot subdivision. Proposed lots range in size from approximately 9,000 to 18,000 square feet, with an open space tract of 30,000 square feet. Access is proposed to eleven lots from a new street that aligns with Twin Drive and ends in a cul-de-sac. The remaining lot would be accessed via the existing private driveway to the west. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Town Board to approve the preliminary plat, subject to the following findings and conditions of approval. Findings: 1.The Planning Commission is the recommending body for the preliminary plat. 2.The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is the decision-making body for the preliminary plat. Town Board approval of a final plat is also necessary to subdivide the property. draf t 3 Planning Commission – September 16, 2025 – Page 2 3.Adequate public/private facilities are currently available or will be made available by the applicant to serve the subject property. 4.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment, with no objections received. 5.The preliminary plat application complies with applicable standards set forth in the Estes Park Development Code. 6.The preliminary plat application is consistent with the conceptual plat included with the rezoning application. Conditions: 1.All outstanding staff and referral agency comments shall be addressed, including: a.The final plat shall include a landscape plan to demonstrate conformance with Development Code Section 7.4.C.2 regarding the detention pond. 2.Lots 1-2 and 7-12 shall be subject to an amended deed restriction recorded with the final subdivision plat. Planner Hornbeck answered questions raised by the Commissioners. Regarding transportation concerns, the School District avoids cul-de-sacs when possible for student pickup. However, an alternative design was not requested, and there was no indication of a desire for a bus pull-out on Peak View. Development Review Engineer Jennifer Waters addressed drainage questions, noting that the detention pond location is positioned at the lowest elevation on the property. When asked about the water easement on the west side of Lot 5, Applicant Frank Theis explained that a water main can and often does run under driveways. Engineer Waters responded to questions about the proposed drainage system, explaining that an open channel, beginning at Longs Drive, will handle drainage from lots 1-3 in Coyote Run, 1st Filing. For the area in Coyote Run 2nd Filing, the same open channel will convey runoff, with the exception of lots 11 and 12, which could drain into a future curb and gutter system. The development requires 6,000 square feet for a water retention pond designed to accommodate a 100-year flood event, based on impervious area and grading calculations. The landscape plan will show plantings for the retention basin and will undergo review by Community Development. Public Works has expressed a preference for an underground pipe in the existing ditch and will coordinate with the applicant as final design plans progress. Additional development details were discussed, including that ADU use is approved for lots 6-12 as they are large enough to accommodate such units. The Final Plat will require a landscaping plan, primarily focused on the detention pond area. All existing overhead power lines will be moved underground, along with all other electrical infrastructure. Public Works denied the waiver request for curb and gutter requirements along Peak View Drive. With the rezoning of the subject property, a critical deadline was established requiring the deed restrictions to be completed by September 25. Cristy Jacobs, town resident, expressed concerns about the location of both the water detention facility and sewer infrastructure. Kristine Poppitz, county resident, questioned the square footage calculations for open space, noting that the current calculations allow for parcels less than a quarter acre, which she argued does not provide a community benefit. She also inquired about the trail being moved off of Peak View due to safety concerns and emphasized that no action should be taken until the deed restrictions are in place. Laura Rustin, town resident, agreed with the request that deed restrictions should be finalized before any approval is granted and questioned the developer hiring the engineer for the project. Jon Thornsbury, town resident, raised draf t 4 Planning Commission – September 16, 2025 – Page 3 safety concerns about Peak View being a busy road that is not suitable for school bus stops, and inquired about the expected timeline for the development. Joan Hooper, a county resident, cautioned about using the correct terminology when distinguishing between workforce housing and attainable housing, citing confusion that occurred with the Prospector Development. Commissioner Arterburn asked Attorney Kramer to confirm that the Town Board approved an 80% deed restriction for 80% AMI income for the Coyote Run project. Attorney Kramer confirmed this and stated he has no concerns about not having the deed restriction in place yet. It was moved and seconded (Mulhern/Arterburn) to forward to the Town Board a recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, according to findings and conditions recommended by Staff. The motion passed 4-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. September 20 will be the second open house for the Development Code update. Planning Commission members are encouraged to attend. 2. The Commission discussed the value and implementation of site visits for development applications. Mulhern expressed appreciation for the site visit opportunity and emphasized the importance of ensuring the public has the chance to know about and attend these visits. Arterburn agreed that the site visit option is beneficial but noted that not all development submittals necessarily require one. Phares found the site visit to be helpful and informative, supporting the continued use of this practice for appropriate applications. 3. The date of the next joint study session has been set for Tuesday, September 30, from 4:00 to 5:30 pm. Anexation policy and the Development Code process will be discussed. With no further business, Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 2:30 pm. _________________________________ Chuck Cooper, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary draf t 5 6 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. Memo To: Chair Cooper & Planning Commissioners Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Date: November 18, 2025 Subject: Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Annexation – Establishment of Zoning Type: Public Hearing, Land Use Objective: Make a recommendation to Town Board regarding the establishment of zoning with the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Annexation. Present Situation: The annexation process is governed by the Municipal Annexation Act, codified at C.R.S. 31-12-101, et seq., and the Colorado Constitution which require the following steps in the annexation process: 1.Substantial Compliance –Town Board must determine if the annexation petition is in the prescribed form and contained the necessary statutory criteria. This procedural step occurred May 13, 2025, and Town Board approved petition’s form and content. 2.Eligibility Resolution – Town Board must determine if the annexation is eligible for annexation under the Act and Colorado Constitution. The primary criteria for eligibility is that at least one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Approximately one-fourth of the perimeter is contiguous with the Town. As such, Town Board found the area eligible for annexation on June 24, 2025. 3.Annexation and Zoning – Once an annexation petition has been found to be both substantially compliant and eligible for annexation, annexation and establishment of zoning can occur, at the discretion of Town Board. Substantial Compliance 7 and Eligibility determine whether the parcel can be annexed; this final step determines whether a parcel will be annexed. This step has not been scheduled yet and will occur following Planning Commission’s recommendation on zoning. Town Board review and evaluation of an annexation is discretionary. This means the Board may approve or deny an annexation request as they see fit, based on the circumstances and conditions presented to them, and they are not acting as ‘judges’ as they would in a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Board also has the authority to approve an annexation with additional conditions and requirements that exceed standard Town- established requirements, typically through approval of an annexation agreement with the property owner. Proposal: The applicant, East Avenue Development, LLC, requests annexation of a 40-acre property and establishment of ‘A’ Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning. The subject property is a largely undeveloped tract of land southwest of the historic Elkhorn Lodge under the same ownership as the lodge property. The property features Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 8 considerable topography, areas of dense forests, and open shrubland. The concept plan (Attachment #2) provided with the application depicts the applicant’s vision for the property, including a public road through the site, two 110-room hotels, and 55-65 treehouse cabins. A Development Plan will be required to allow such development but is not under consideration at this time. An annexation agreement will be considered in tandem with the annexation request and one component of the agreement recommended by staff is that all future development be consistent with the concept plan. Topography Most of the property features slopes in the range of 20 to 30 percent. A ridge running southeast across the site is part of an identified ridgeline protection area, and the concept plan depicts a hotel, parking, and road within the protected area. Therefore, development on the site will be subject to the ridgeline protection standards in the Development Code, reviewed at the time of any Development Plan application. It should Figure 2 - Topographic Map 9 be noted that the standards do not prohibit development on ridgelines but seek to preserve scenic views by minimizing the visible intrusion of buildings and structures above designated ridgelines or above existing ridge-top trees. The applicant has provided diagrams to depict potential building siting in relation to the existing terrain. Additional photographic simulations documenting compliance with ridgeline protection standards will be required by the Development Code with any future Development Plan application. Since the full extent of impacts to viewsheds are unknown at this time, additional documentation or study may be appropriate with the annexation application. Alternatively, the annexation agreement could place restrictions on development within the ridgeline protection area, such as prohibiting buildings over one story in height or prohibiting all buildings. Figure 3 - Ridgeline Protection Diagram 1 10 Given the slopes on the site, Development Code limitations on grading and site disturbance will be relevant to future development, including limitations on changes to the natural grade, generally a maximum of 10 feet, and maximum retaining wall heights, generally six feet. Figure 4 - Ridgeline Protection Diagram 2 Hazards The site is located within two mapped hazard areas: wildfire and geologic (steep slopes). As such, a wildfire hazard mitigation plan and geologic hazard mitigation plan in accordance with Development Code Section 7.7 will be required. Wildlife The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department (CPW) has reviewed the proposal and recommends best practices to minimize wildlife impacts. Staff recommends adherence to the CPW comments (Attachment #8) be a condition of approval. CPW recommends the development include large open areas on the property that provide movement 11 corridors for wildlife to safely pass. To implement this recommendation, staff recommends a condition of approval that a minimum 80-foot-wide buffer be provided along the perimeter of the site, to generally remain in a natural state, free of any buildings or parking lots, with allowances for roads and trails depicted on the concept plan. Figure 5 - Concept Plan The site is within a mapped important wildlife habitat area as a high use area for deer per the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, Development Code Section 7.8 on wildlife habitat protection will apply to any development, including limitations on fencing, lighting, and non-native landscaping. Section 7.8 would require a wildlife conservation plan if the site contains endangered or threatened species, big horn sheep (or habitat), or riparian areas. Pursuant to currently available sources (1996 Comprehensive Plan, 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife maps) none of those items appear to apply to this site, so a wildlife conservation plan would not be required with a Development Plan. However, given the size of the parcel, its 12 undeveloped nature, and proximity to Rocky Mountain National Park, staff recommends a condition of approval that further analysis on impacts to wildlife is undertaken by a qualified expert, to ensure best practices are followed with development of the site. While CPW has provided recommendations, their comments tend to be general best practices, and a more site-specific analysis is recommended by staff. Land Use The surrounding area includes a residential neighborhood to the north with homes on lots ranging from 1/3 of an acre to one acre in size. Large lot (8-10 acre) single family homes are located to the east. These lots are subject to conservation easements held by the Estes Valley Land Trust that limit development. Properties to the south are industrial and commercial in nature. Properties to the west include single family homes on lots ranging from one to 10 acres in size. The University of Northern Colorado’s Old Man Mountain Retreat Center is located on the 80-acre parcel northwest of the subject property. The UNC property abuts and provides informal trail access to Rocky Mountain National Park. Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Designation Use Subject Parcel Low-Density Accommodations Estes Valley Rural Estate (RE) Undeveloped North Suburban Estate/ Low- Density Accommodations Estate (E) Single-Family Residential South Industrial Mix Estes Valley Restricted Industrial Industrial East Mountains & Foothills Estes Valley Rural Estate (RE-1) Single-Family Residential West Mountains & Foothills/ Mixed Use Centers & Estes Valley Commercial Residential/Industrial The property’s current zoning within Larimer County is Estes Valley Rural Estate (EV RE). Such zoning permits low-density single-family residential development, with a maximum density of 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Surrounding properties have a variety of residential and industrial zoning as shown in Table 1. 13 The Future Land Use Map in the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for land use policies and decisions that direct growth according to character and intensity of use. The Future Land Use Map designates the property as Low-Density Accommodations, which is “intended for uses such as rustic lodges, resorts, and cabins that are developed in rural areas at a lower density and intensity than urban hotel or motel-style lodging.” The proposed tree house cabins appear consistent with this vision; however, the proposed hotels appear more intense than what is envisioned by the Low- Density Accommodations category. The zoning which most closely corresponds with the Low-Density Accommodations Future Land Use category is ‘A-1’ Accommodations/Low-Intensity district. Such zoning allows “small hotels” (up to 8 guest rooms) and “resort lodges/cabins” (up to 20 guest rooms). The ‘A-1’ district also includes a maximum density of one guest room per 10,890 square feet of land area, with reductions where average slope exceeds 12%. Larimer County Property Figure 3 - Zoning Map 14 With the annexation application, the applicant has requested ‘A’ Accommodations/ Highway Corridor zoning, which the Development Code states “applies primarily in highway-oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higher-intensity accommodations such as multi-story hotels and motels.” Unlike the ‘A-1’ zone, the ‘A’ zone district does not limit hotels to eight guest rooms or fewer or limit resort lodges/cabins to 20 or fewer guest rooms. The ‘A’ zone has an overall maximum density of one guest room per 1,800 square feet in land area with reductions required for sites with slopes in excess of 12%. Staff has calculated approximate maximum allowable development densities allowed under different zoning scenarios in the table below. ‘A-1’ zoning would permit approximately 88 accommodations units, while ‘A’ zoning would permit approximately 530 units. The applicant proposes a maximum of 290 units, near the midpoint between the maximum density allowed under the two different zone districts. Staff recommends a condition of approval that a cap of 290 accommodation units and 25 employee housing units shall Low-Density Figure 4 - Future Land Use Map 15 run with the land. These calculations all assume units have “limited kitchens” only, as units with “full kitchens” require more land areas per unit. Table 2: Possible Range of Development Density Zoning Zoning Primary Units 12-14 residential units 88 units 530 units 290 units Accessory Units accessory dwelling employee employee housing units The Comprehensive Plan states the Low-Density Accommodations category “supports low-density or clustered development on large lots that prioritizes preservation of surrounding natural landscapes and viewsheds.” Approximately 50% of the 40-acre site is depicted as developed, while the remaining 20 acres would allow for preservation of surrounding natural landscape. The annexation agreement will include a requirement that future development of the site be consistent with the concept plan. Additional measures such as designated open space or conservation easements are not proposed, but could be a requirement within the annexation agreement. Regarding preservation of viewsheds mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan, the concept plan depicts development within a ridgeline protection area. As outlined above, the full extent of impacts to viewsheds is unknown at this time. As such, additional documentation or study may be warranted prior to annexation. Alternatively, the annexation agreement could place restrictions on development within the ridgeline protection area, such as prohibiting buildings over one story in height or prohibiting all buildings. Utilities & Services The Town provides domestic water service to the site. A 12-inch water main currently crosses the site. The Water Division has indicated adequate water volume and pressure exist to serve the site, and potential future development, and no line extensions are anticipated. Public comment has indicated concern the development would negatively impact already low water pressure near Range View Road. The Water Division has 16 indicated the proposed development should not impact water pressure to that area as it is served by separate water mains. Electric service is provided by the Town, and the Power & Communications Department has indicated there are no major concerns with serving the property. Sanitary sewer does not currently extend to the site but eight-inch sewer mains exist to the south in Elm Road and to the north in both Old Ranger Drive and on the historic Elkhorn Lodge property. Estes Park Sanitation District (EPSD) currently serves the historic property, while the subject property falls within the Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD). The applicant has discussed with the sewer districts the possibility of connecting to EPSD rather than UTSD. Regardless, the applicant will be obligated to extend the necessary sewer infrastructure to serve the property. Estes Valley Fire Protection District has indicated they are able to serve the property. A minimum of two points of access will be required to the site, as will fire sprinklers in all buildings. Wildfire mitigation will also be required with development as demonstrated through a wildfire mitigation plan. As with all new development, the Fire District would charge an impact fee with building permits which helps offset the additional burden growth places on the District. The Fire District is also supportive of having a connection between Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue. The Police Department also indicated they are able to serve the property but cautioned that, in general, more development in Town will eventually create a demand for additional officers. The Police Department is supportive of having a connection between Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue. Site Access A traffic study was prepared by the applicant’s traffic engineer and reviewed by CDOT and Public Works. The study analyzes potential impacts of development to the intersections of Elkhorn Avenue/Filbey Court, Elkhorn Avenue/Old Ranger Drive, Moraine Avenue/Elm Road, and Elkhorn Avenue/Moraine Avenue. The study concludes that all studied intersections, with the exception of Moraine Avenue and Elm Road, 17 would operate generally consistent with background conditions, see minor increases in delays due to the development, and do not warrant improvements. The study finds that improvements are warranted at the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Elm Road. As such, the developer will be required to mitigate the traffic impacts for non-compliant operations at the intersection in accordance with Town and CDOT standards. It is anticipated either a traffic signal with an eastbound left turn lane on Moraine Avenue or a roundabout will be required; however, CDOT has requested additional analysis by the applicant. Given the increased safety and traffic flow but higher costs of a roundabout, Town staff would support partial reimbursement of construction costs with new sales tax revenue generated by the development. The concept plan depicts a public road connection from Elm Road through the site to Old Ranger Drive near its intersection with West Elkhorn Avenue as well as a private road connection for hotel visitors through the historic Elkhorn Lodge property. The northernmost portion of this route is shown crossing a parcel of land owned by the Town. The Town has no plans for this parcel and staff is supportive of conveying right- of-way to allow this connection. The public road connection through the site is the result of significant dialogue between Town staff and the applicant on the appropriate access to the site. Staff views a public street connection between Moraine Avenue and West Elkhorn as critical both for the safety of the project, and for emergency response and evacuation serving the wider community during future emergency events. Further, providing access to both Elm Road and Elkhorn Avenue will help disperse the traffic impacts of the development, rather than concentrating at a single point. The proposed public street connection is consistent with the Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan, adopted in 2025, which depicts a connection from Elm Road to Old Ranger Drive. A public street connection between Moraine Ave (US 36) and Wonderview Drive (US 34) has long been a concept in the vicinity of the subject parcel. As the 1996 Comprehensive Plan states: “A US 36 to US 34 bypass connection, west of downtown in the vicinity of the former landfill, has been proposed in the past to allow local traffic, as well as traffic entering and exiting RMNP, to bypass the downtown area.” The 2003 Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study recommended construction of 18 a western bypass and provided high level analysis of five alternatives for the route. Two of the alternatives traverse the subject property, while a third skirts the eastern boundary. In 2012, a transportation visioning committee of Estes Valley residents produced a report entitled Roadmap to the Future, which concluded the western bypass unfeasible during the next 20 years due to high expense and difficulty of proposed routes to meet design criteria. The Multimodal Transportation Plan appears to recognize the considerable challenges inevitable in constructing the conceptual bypass and identifies a reduced scope, with a less-intensive connection from Elm Road to Old Ranger Drive shown. The proposed road is not intended to be a bypass and will be built as a minor collector roadway. In addition to vehicular access, bicycle and pedestrian connections will also be required, in accordance with the Town’s Complete Streets Policy, Development Code standards, and the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. Exact alignment of these facilities has not yet been determined. Numerous informal recreational trails crisscross the property, including a route to Deer Mountain in Rocky Mountain National Park. The Estes Valley Master Trails Plan identified that these trails “should be formalized and maintained to further connect the Town and RMNP.” As an identified natural surface trail, the Trails Plan recommends a 12”-48” width rugged surface with gentle grades. The subject parcel is not immediately adjacent to the National Park, and a formalized connection to the Park would require involvement of other property owners. Additionally, the National Park Service (NPS) has expressed opposition to a formalized trail connection to the Park in this area. They indicate trails in the area are not maintained by the Park and their use leads to management challenges, including law enforcement and introduction of exotic plants. They have requested the annexation agreement specifically forbid a formal trail connection to the Park via Old Man Mountain, although the subject parcel and Park do not share a common property boundary. The Estes Valley Trails Committee, an advisory body to the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Board of Directors provided comments regarding implementation of the Trails Plan on this property and providing historical background on trails in the area. 19 The Committee forwarded a recommendation (Attachment #7) that the Town require a public trail easement through the subject property to facilitate public access from Elkhorn Avenue to the northwest corner of the subject property. To implement the Trails Plan staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant make the trail improvements depicted in the Trails Plan with exact alignment to be determined at the time of a Development Plan. To discourage access to the Park, as desired by the NPS, and trespassing onto adjacent properties, potential alignments should be further studied but may include a trail which terminates short of the subject property boundary prior to crossing onto adjacent properties, a loop on the subject property, or a trail which terminates at Old Ranger Drive. Signage can be placed to discourage access to the Park or other private properties, as appropriate. Trail easements should be dedicated to facilitate public access. Review Criteria Aside from meeting statutory requirements for annexation, there are no direct standards or guidance in the Development Code or Comprehensive Plan for either annexation or establishment of zoning. Therefore, Town Board review and evaluation of an annexation is discretionary, meaning the Board may approve or deny an annexation request as they see fit. The rezoning standards for review in Section 3.3 of the Development Code, listed below, can provide some guidance to consider in establishment of zoning: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Staff Comment: The area surrounding the subject property has seen little change in recent years, other than the now paused restoration and expansion of the Elkhorn Lodge. Annexation itself may be considered a change in conditions. 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; and Staff Comment: The concept plan’s compatibility and consistency with the policies and intent of the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan have 20 been addressed above and additional analysis on relevant Comprehensive Plan goals is provided below. Staff recommends a number of conditions to make the concept plan more compatible and consistent with development patterns in the Estes Valley. 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. Staff Comment: Town and other relevant service providers have reviewed the application and have indicated an ability to serve the conceptual development. The Comprehensive Plan provides little direct guidance on annexation. However, it’s goals and policies can be used in considering annexation and establishment of zoning. Relevant goals for each area are listed (or summarized) below, followed by staff comment: 1. Natural Environment • Maintain scenic character and viewsheds • Ensure open space preservation while allowing contextual development • Protect wildlife and enhance biodiversity and ecosystems • Consider and mitigate wildfire risk Staff comment: Approximately 50% of the site is depicted as undeveloped on the concept plan. Conservation easements or open space dedication are not currently envisioned, but could be required with annexation. Staff recommends CPW recommends be followed and a wildlife conservation plan be prepared prior to development as a condition of approval. Please refer to earlier discussion on viewsheds. A wildfire mitigation plan will be required with the Development Plan. 2. Built Environment • Strategically direct growth toward areas of existing infrastructure • Ensure development is in harmony with its setting 21 • Encourage a balanced mix of uses that meets the diverse needs of residents, businesses, and visitors • Coordinate and integrate land use and transportation objectives • Promote job-generating commercial land uses to support existing and future businesses Staff comment: Utility infrastructure exists on the site or nearby. Extensions of infrastructure and roads will be the responsibility of the applicant. The development would help facilitate road and trail projects identified in adopted plans, which benefit residents though improved connectivity and enhanced emergency response and evacuation options. To help maintain harmony with the setting, staff recommends an 80-foot-wide buffer around the property perimeter, further wildlife study, and adherence to dark sky best practices. Further ridgeline protection standards review will occur with application for Development Plan approval or could be requested by Town Board with annexation. 3. Economy • Balance needs of local residents, visitors, and protecting the natural environment. • Cultivate a strong, stable, and diverse local economy. • Welcome and accommodate visitors. Staff comment: The development would help accommodate visitors and generate new jobs, although additional lodging does not necessarily contribute to a diverse economy and tends to provide low wage jobs. Additional lodging may compete with other existing lodging in Town but would likely support other tourist serving businesses in Town. Transportation improvements would benefit local residents. 4. Housing • Ensure new housing meets the needs of the workforce and families. • Create new housing opportunities. Staff comment: Additional jobs associated with the development could further stress the local housing market. Staff recommends a minimum of ten employee housing 22 units or dormitory serving ten employees be provided on site. 6E tax funds generated by the development will support workforce and attainable housing in the Estes Valley. 5. Transportation & Infrastructure • Integrate multimodal transportation options to safely connect people and destinations • Provide and maintain an expanding, safe, and comprehensive network to support walking and bicycling as viable modes of transportation for all ages and abilities, for recreational use, and to promote community health. Staff comment: The development will facilitate the roadway connection between Moraine Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue identified in the Transportation Plan, including a paved multiuse trail. The applicant will also complete improvements to Elm & Moraine intersection to improve safety and access. Advantages: • Annexation would allow the Town to control the development of this property as it would be subject to Town requirements. • In return for annexation, the Town can require property owners to meet higher development standards or provide additional measures to mitigate development impacts. • New development would generate additional sales, lodging, and property tax revenues. • Development would facilitate infrastructure improvements that benefit the entire community, including a roadway connection between Moraine Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue, intersection improvements at Elm Road and Moraine Avenue, and trail improvements per the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. Disadvantages: • The Town will be required to provide municipal services to the property. • Potential negative impacts to quality of life, such as increased traffic, light pollution, and impacts to viewsheds. • Low paying jobs and additional stress on the housing market. 23 • Loss of wildlife habitat. Action Recommended: Staff asks the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the Town Board on whether the requested ‘A’ Accommodations/Highway Corridor zone district is appropriate. If deemed appropriate, then staff recommends the conditions provided below be included with the recommendation: 1. Future development of the site shall be generally consistent with the concept plan as attached hereto. 2. A maximum of 290 accommodation units and 25 employee housing/dormitory units shall be allowed. 3. A minimum of 10 employee housing or dormitory units shall be provided on-site. 4. Improvements to Elm Road from the end of the paved roadway to the property boundary shall be constructed in accordance with Town and/or Larimer County standards. 5. The proposed main road internal to the project (and extending offsite to both West Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue) shall be platted as a public street and designed and constructed to minor collector street standards. 6. The owner shall design and install warranted improvements to the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Elm Road in accordance with CDOT and Town standards. 7. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure safe pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to and through the property shall be designed, located, and constructed in accordance with Town of Estes Park standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall extend offsite to West Elkhorn Avenue within right-of-way or within a pedestrian easement dedicated to the public. 8. The owner shall make trail improvements and dedicate trail easements in accordance with the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. Exact alignment of trails shall be determined at the time of a Development Plan in a manner approved by the Town that discourages access to Rocky Mountain National Park or other private properties. Signage shall be placed to discourage access to the Park or other private properties, as appropriate. 24 9. The owner shall apply best management practices identified by Colorado Parks and Wildlife letter dated March 11, 2025. 10. Owner shall provide a Wildlife Conservation Plan concurrently with Development Plan application in accordance with the requirements of Development Code Section 7.8. Such Plan found to be adequate by the Decision-Making Body shall become binding upon the property. 11. A minimum 80-foot-wide buffer/ wildlife movement corridor shall be provided along the perimeter of the site and shall generally remain natural and free of any buildings or parking lots. Roads and trails as depicted on the concept plan or otherwise approved by the Town shall be allowed. Other limited improvements, may be approved by the Town if it can be demonstrated that the overall purpose and function of the buffer are maintained. 12. Lighting shall follow dark sky best practices, to include regulations on shielding, height, color, brightness, and time of operation. 13. Building architecture and design shall be consistent with Historic Elkhorn Lodge and Elkhorn Suites, including similar materials, colors, and a common design aesthetic. Finance/Resource Impact: The proposed development would generate additional sales, lodging, and property tax revenue. It is anticipated with this proposal, as with any new development in Town, that the cost to extend or improve infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) would be borne by the developer and not the Town. Ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure would become the responsibility of the Town, as would the provision of other services. Level of Public Interest: There is a high level of public interest in this project. Public comments are posted to estes.org/currentapplications. As of this writing, letters from approximately 35 individuals or groups have been received. One letter expressed support for the project. The letter from the Trails Committee was neutral on the project but requested a public trail easement be dedicated. All other letters expressed opposition to the project. A summary of common themes in those comments is provided below: 25 • Inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan and Statutory Annexation Requirements: o The Plan designates the site for Low-Density Accommodations (rustic lodges, cabins), not high-intensity hotels. o The proposal is inconsistent with themes in the Plan, such as protection of views and dark-skies, environmental protection, etc. o Arguments the proposal does not meet statutory requirements for annexation. • Environmental Impacts o Wildlife impacts: Development will destroy and/or fragment habitat and impact movement corridors used by wildlife. o Deforestation and erosion: Tree removal for development and defensible wildfire zones could destabilize slopes. o Stormwater and groundwater issues: Added impervious surfaces could worsen flooding. o Increased wildfire risk: Added activity in high-risk wildfire zone raises safety concerns. • Community Impacts o Light and noise pollution: Hotels and parking lighting would impact dark skies and disturb nearby neighborhoods. o Traffic and infrastructure: Concern over additional traffic, especially through residential areas, and concern the Town would bare costs of new infrastructure. o Community character: Development could lead to loss of characteristics that make Estes Park unique, such as wildlife, scenic views, etc. o Trespassing: development may encourage trespassing on surrounding properties. • Economic and Social o Concern the development would add low-wage hospitality jobs rather than workforce housing. 26 o Question if there’s need for additional accommodations and concern the development would compete with smaller local accommodations. o Concern profits would leave the community to out-of-state ownership while employees would not be able to afford to live in Estes Park. o No clear plan for worker housing or public benefits. Sample Motion: 1. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to approve the requested ‘A’ Accommodations/Highway Corridor zone district, should the property be annexed, subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff. 2. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation not to approve the requested ‘A’ Accommodations/Highway Corridor zone district, should the property be annexed. Attachments: 1. Statement of Intent 2. Annexation Map 3. Concept Plan 4. Ridgeline Protection Diagrams 5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 6. Traffic Study (linked here due to size) 7. Trails Committee Letter 8. CPW Letter 27 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 200 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 • GallowayUS.com Paul Hornbeck, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3720 Dear Mr. Hornbeck, We are pleased to submit this Annexation and Establishment of Zone/Rezone Application for the development of a 43-acre parcel of mountainous terrain adjacent to the Historic Elkhorn Lodge in Estes Valley. This secluded, timbered property, accessible via Elm Road to the southwest and Old Ranger Drive to the north, is an ideal setting for a year-round resort campus that embodies the rustic charm and historic appeal of the area. Inspired by the rich heritage of the Historic Elkhorn Lodge, this development is intended as an extension of the character and legacy established through the Historic Elkhorn Lodge, cabins and Hilton Homewood Suites. Project Description: Our vision includes two upscale hotels that complement the historical aesthetic, providing luxury accommodations in harmony with the natural environment. The project will feature treehouse units, carefully designed to minimize impact on the existing landscape and allow guests an immersive, elevated experience of the surrounding forest. Additionally, we will relocate and restore 8-10 historic cabins from the Elkhorn Lodge property, preserving these structures as unique accommodations within the resort. The development direction is focused around emphasis of the natural site character and charm. Subsequent planning efforts and final density will be subject to final site plan efforts that address proper access, grading and infrastructure needs. The current development is looking at a maximum density of 7du/ac or 290 units. This density will allow for a pragmatic approach to the site characteristics and preservation of the character as much as possible. This density equates to an 28 Annexation & Establishment of Zone/Rezone Statement of Intent Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 | Estes Park, CO September 29, 2025 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 2 of 4 approximate 6,000sf per unit allowance. The Town zoning code identifies (2) accommodation use districts with the Comprehensive Plan addressing this more holistically with some direction on application of the use. The current proposal is approximately 3du/ac higher then the A-1 Accommodation/Low Intensity and 17du/ac lower the A-Accommodations district. Due to the current zoning code allowances with districts a standard Accommodation district will be sought with the potential for a PUD overlay that further focuses the development context and can add zoning compliance not necessarily seen the Accommodations zoning alongside with a density cap of 7du/ac or 6,000sf per unit. To support guest needs while preserving the site’s natural feel, the development will include designated parking areas, utility connections based on the existing waterline, and dual sewer access from both Elm Road and the Elkhorn Lodge site. Walking paths will meander through the property, encouraging guests to explore and connect with the Estes Valley’s beautiful and serene natural surroundings. Ridgeline protection exhibits in addition are provided to show the potential mitigation and compliance with town code. At this time conceptual site plans and exhibits are reference purposes only and future site development efforts will further enhance and address the proper site integration and code compliance needs. Additionally, PUD efforts are being evaluated with Town Staff to potentially add additional site context and development guidelines that further and enhance the natural site character. Access to the site is to be provided via public road. Following conversations with the Town design alternatives to meet the needs of a public access were discussed and due to site constraints the noted access will need have the following waivers. Estes Park Development Code Appendix D Section II.B.1.a: Right-of-Way and Surfacing Width • Collector Street Right-of-Way Width: 50 feet with 2 Curbs, 60 feet Other o Requested Waiver: 32 feet o Justification: Per conversations with Town Staff and due to steep vertical grades and site constraints, bike lanes and pedestrian travel will be provided through a separate trail outside of the road right-of-way. Town Staff agreed to a cross section of two 12’ wide travel lanes (24’ edge of travel lane to edge of travel lane). To help address drainage design and to avoid channelization of historically unchannelized flows, a waiver will also be requested to provide a shoulder on the low side of the road. Two 24’ travel lanes and two 4’ shoulders equals 32’ of total right-of-way width. 1. Estes Park Development Code Appendix D Section II.F: Street Intersections • Minimum Centerline Offset: 150 feet o Requested Waiver: 100 feet o Justification: Due to steep vertical grades and site constraints, an allowance for this requirement more closely aligns with the Town’s Grading and Site Disturbance Standards and the proposed design more closely matching the existing site features. Additionally, this requirement is typically correlated to design speeds on the road. The waiver is being requested for areas of the site where a lower speed is desired and is consistent with the site design and layout programming (parking, hotel entrances, check-in areas, and higher pedestrian traffic). Estes Park Development Code Appendix D Section II.G.1: Vertical Alignment • Maximum Grade Limit for Collector Street: 8% o Requested Waiver: 12% Maximum Grade Limit o Justification: Due to steep vertical grades and site constraints, an allowance for 12% maximum grade more closely aligns with the Town’s Grading and Site Disturbance Standards and the proposed design more closely matching the existing site features. 29 Annexation & Establishment of Zone/Rezone Statement of Intent Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 | Estes Park, CO September 29, 2025 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 3 of 4 Per coordination with the Fire Protection District, 12% is allowed for service to be provided. Town Staff agreed to the 12% maximum grade limit as well as a 4% maximum cross slope in the road cross section. Estes Park Development Code Appendix D Section II.H.1: Horizontal Alignment • Minium Radii of Curvature on the Centerline for Collector Street: 200 feet o Requested Waiver: 100 feet o Justification: Due to steep vertical grades and site constraints, an allowance for this requirement more closely aligns with the Town’s Grading and Site Disturbance Standards and the proposed design more closely matching the existing site features. Additionally, this requirement is typically correlated to design speeds on the road. The waiver is being requested for areas of the site where a lower speed is desired and is consistent with the site design and layout programming (parking, hotel entrances, check-in areas, and higher pedestrian traffic). Estes Park Development Code Appendix D Section II.I: Curb and Gutter • Curb and Gutter Required Locations: Both sides of the street o Requested Waiver: Curb and gutter on high side of the street and shoulder on the low side of the street in certain locations o Justification: Within certain areas of the site, channelizing drainage flows in curb and gutter in the proposed road would change both the character (sheet flow versus channelized flow) and outfall location of the proposed flows when compared to historical drainage patterns. To minimize impact to the surrounding site and historic drainage patterns, a waiver is requested to allow for shoulder to be installed on the low side of the road cross section when such waiver would create a drainage pattern more closely aligning with historic patterns. Collaborative Approach to Planning and Development: Our team is committed to working in close partnership with the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, and local stakeholders throughout the planning and approval process. Key components of this approach include: 1. Annexation and Zoning: o We are seeking to annex the 40-acre property into the Town of Estes Park to ensure streamlined municipal service access and integration with the broader community vision. o The preferred zoning approach is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to create a cohesive development and unified land use approach and is to be further evaluated with the future zoning efforts to potentially add depth to the base zoning designation., A base zone designation of A-Accommodation is intended to accommodate the unique layout and operational needs of this site and is in alignment with the Town Comprehensive Plan. The Accommodation zoning would suggest a lower density requirement the standard zoning allowances and a slighter higher density the Low Density Accommodation zoning as noted above. 2. Utility Coordination and Infrastructure: o To support development, we are coordinating with local agencies to finalize utility access. Sewer service will be accessible from both Upper Thompson and Estes Park Sanitation Districts, with an 8-inch sewer line already stubbed into the Elkhorn Lodge property. This line has adequate capacity to support the additional units planned for this site. 30 Annexation & Establishment of Zone/Rezone Statement of Intent Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 | Estes Park, CO September 29, 2025 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 4 of 4 The resort’s design and character will reflect the historic charm of the Elkhorn Lodge and the new Hilton Homewood Suites, establishing a cohesive, extended campus that honors the Estes Valley’s unique heritage. We look forward to moving forward in partnership with the Town, County, and local stakeholders to realize this vision. Sincerely, Jon Romero, PLA Landscape Architecture/Planning Team Manager 31 This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"ELKHORN LODGE PHASE 2 09.15.2025 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 500'200'100'0'ESTES PARK, CO H: \ E \ E a s t A v e n u e D e v e l o p m e n t , L L C \ C O , E s t e s P a r k - E A D 0 0 0 0 0 1 - E l k h o r n L o d g e P h a s e 2 \ 0 P L A \ 1 - C o n c e p t \ U P D A T E D _ E A D 0 0 1 _ E l k h o r n L o d g e P h 2 _ C o n c e p t 4 . d w g - K a r t i k a R a c h m a w a t i - 9 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 09.29.2025 P P P P P P GUEST TREEHOUSES EXISTING LODGE HOTEL HOTEL MAIN LOT PROPOSED MAIN ROAD PROPERTY BOUNDARY LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED TRAIL PROTECTED RIDGELINE VIEW BLUE LINE RIDGE EXISTING ROAD ACCESS ACCESS PH1 ROAD CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC CABINS RELOCATED FROM LODGE PH1 20' BUFFER TOWN CODE SECTION 7.5 STANDARD FOR ACCOMMODATIONS USE TO RESIDENTIAL FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION 32 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STAMP H: \ E \ E a s t A v e n u e D e v e l o p m e n t , L L C \ C O , E s t e s P a r k - E A D 0 0 0 0 0 1 - E l k h o r n L o d g e P h a s e 2 \ 0 S V Y \ 1 - C A D \ A n n e x a t i o n \ E A D 0 1 - A n n e x a t i o n . d w g - Re a d e R o s e l l e s - 11 / 2 6 / 2 0 2 4 Init.#Issue / DescriptionDate ------ THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF GALLOWAY, AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GALLOWAY. COPYRIGHTS AND INFRINGEMENTS WILL BE ENFORCED AND PROSECUTED. COPYRIGHT 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 200 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 GallowayUS.com Date: Drawn By: Project No: Checked By: ELKHORN LODGE PHASE 2 ANNEXATION BEING THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO EL K H O R N L O D G E P H A S E 2 AN N E X A T I O N BE I N G T H E S O U T H W E S T Q U A R T E R O F T H E N O R T H E A S T QU A R T E R O F S E C T I O N 2 6 , T O W N S H I P 5 N O R T H , R A N G E 7 3 WE S T O F T H E 6 T H P . M . , C O U N T Y O F L A R I M E R , S T A T E O F C O L O R A D O ” SHEET 1 OF 1 1 11/20/2024 RCR JSP EAD000001.10 SCALE: 1"=100' 0 50 10020 33 This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"ELKHORN LODGE PHASE 2 09.15.2025 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 500'200'100'0'ESTES PARK, CO H: \ E \ E a s t A v e n u e D e v e l o p m e n t , L L C \ C O , E s t e s P a r k - E A D 0 0 0 0 0 1 - E l k h o r n L o d g e P h a s e 2 \ 0 P L A \ 1 - C o n c e p t \ U P D A T E D _ E A D 0 0 1 _ E l k h o r n L o d g e P h 2 _ C o n c e p t 4 . d w g - K a r t i k a R a c h m a w a t i - 9 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 09.29.2025 P P P P P P GUEST TREEHOUSES EXISTING LODGE HOTEL HOTEL MAIN LOT PROPOSED MAIN ROAD PROPERTY BOUNDARY LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED TRAIL PROTECTED RIDGELINE VIEW BLUE LINE RIDGE EXISTING ROAD ACCESS ACCESS PH1 ROAD CONSTRUCTION HISTORIC CABINS RELOCATED FROM LODGE PH1 20' BUFFER TOWN CODE SECTION 7.5 STANDARD FOR ACCOMMODATIONS USE TO RESIDENTIAL FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION 34 This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"ELKHORN LODGE PHASE 2 09.15.2025 RIDGELINE PROTECTION VIEW DIAGRAM 500'200'100'0'ESTES PARK, CO 10.09.2025 P HOTEL HOTEL PARKING L I N E O F V I S I B I L I T Y HIGH POINT MAIN ROAD TRAIL BUILDING SITED BEHIND NATURAL FEATURES ON RIDGELINE BUILDING LOW MASSING AND TERRACED PROFILE BLENDS INTO RIDGELNE WITH MINIMAL VISIBILITY IMPACT NOTES: THIS IS NOT AN INDICATION OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. IT IS A ROUGH REPRESENTATION OF VIEW CORRIDOR PROTECTION KEY MAP 35 This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"ELKHORN LODGE PHASE 2 09.15.2025 RIDGELINE PROTECTION VIEW DIAGRAM 500'200'100'0'ESTES PARK, CO 10.09.2025 P RIDGELINE PROTECTION VIEW BUILDING SITED BEHIND NATURAL FEATURES ON RIDGELINE BUILDING LOW MASSING AND TERRACED PROFILE BLENDS INTO RIDGELNE WITH MINIMAL VISIBILITY IMPACT NOTES: THIS IS NOT AN INDICATION OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. IT IS A ROUGH REPRESENTATION OF VIEW CORRIDOR PROTECTION KEY MAP 36 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 200 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 GallowayUS.com Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Annexation Neighborhood Meeting Notes Summary_Final.docx Page 1 of 2 12/19/24 - Neighborhood Meeting Summary / Notes Applicant / Developer: East Avenue Development Justin Mabey & Matt Lowder 1001 Cypress Creek Rd. Suite 203 Cedar Park, TX 78613 Phone: (801) 602-0417 matt@eastavenue.com Galloway Consultant Team in Attendance: Brian Horan (Traffic) Brynhildr Halsten (Planning) Daniela Gonzalez (Traffic) Jon Romero (Landscape Architecture / Planning) Community Feeback: 1. Traffic a. Circulation & Safety (Pedestrian, Bicycle and Vehicle) b. Access i. Private through property ii. Options to restrict/manage access to Old Man Mountain Ln and Elm St iii. Construction Traffic iv. Trespassing on adjacent private properties (Pedestrian & Equestrian) v. Connections to Trail network to Rocky Mountain National Park vi. Emergency vehicle restricted access points in quantity and location c. Improvements to existing roadway network d. Parking (Location and amount) 2. Lighting a. Impacts of new development, particularly parking b. Current Town requirements are not modern in approach to “dark sky” 3. Wildlife a. Current migration patterns and areas of concentration b. Limit impacts on existing Wildlife patterns 4. Grading a. Steep slopes on portions of the site 5. Views a. Building height and grades on site are a concern 6. Water a. Does the Town have water to supply this kind of development? 7. Buildings a. Architecture b. Location to minimize impact on adjacent properties c. Height 37 Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Neighborhood Meeting Summary | Estes Park, CO December 23, 2024 Galloway & Company, Inc.Page 2 of 2 d. Quantity e. Unit Count / Density 8. Land Use a. Impacts of rezoning into Town i. Currently a residential zone in County. If it was developed under current County zoning (1 DU/2.5 acres) could potentially have 17 homes and each could construct an ADU. Could have more impact on the site than “pocket” development of Accommodations. 9. Timing a. When would Phase 2 efforts happen? i. Ways to stay involved and up to date b. Delays in Phase 1 effort 38 39 40 41 PUBLIC WORKS Page 1 | Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 – Annexation & Rezoning PUBLIC WORKS Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Annexation Application – Round 2 Public Works Comments October 27, 2025 SUMMARY The following documents are included in the revised submittal from Galloway for proposed annexation and rezoning of a parcel in unincorporated Larimer County for Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2:  Statement of Intent (n.d.)  Comment Response Letter (9/29/25)  Ridgeline Protection View Diagram (9/29/25)  Conceptual Site Plan (9/29/25)  Traffic Impact Study (9/26/25) In addition, an Agreement in Furtherance of Annexation (draft version with edits by Town staff) was provided for Public Works review and editing. Round 1 review comments by Public Works (3/3/25) were based on a Statement of Intent (1/30/25) and a Traffic Impact Study (1/10/25). Project Description: With approval of annexation into the Town of Estes Park jurisdiction, the developer would construct hotels, guest treehouses, salvaged cabins, and parking lots on a 43-acre site. Phase 2 would be an extension of the character and legacy of Phase 1, the historic Elkhorn Lodge property under redevelopment since 2020. A road (approximately 350 feet) would connect the Phases. Public Works Review Criteria:  Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), including but not limited to: o Chapter 7 – General development Standards o Appendix B. Submittal Requirements o Appendix D. Street Design and Construction Standards  Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS, 2021)  Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards (2005; updated 2023)  Estes Valley Master Trails Plan (2016) and Addendum #1 (2022)  Mile High Flood District (MHFD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (Volumes 1-3) Public Works finds that the annexation and rezoning submittal is sufficient for Town Board consideration. The draft Annexation Agreement includes edits by Public Works that reflect requirements described herein. The timing for submittal of TIS revisions shall be determined through coordination with Public Works. 42 PUBLIC WORKS Page 2 | Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 – Annexation & Rezoning PUBLIC WORKS ANALYSIS Statement of Intent (SOI) and Conceptual Site Plan It is acknowledged that access to the site will be provided via public road. With respect to the five waivers presented in the SOI, Appendix D. Street Design and Construction Standards applies to all subdivisions and development. The Larimer County Road Standards (Urban Area Street Standards, or LCUASS) is also incorporated herein (Appendix D. I. General). I. D. Modifications and Waivers. The Town Engineer, or designee, shall have authority to grant modifications and/or waive standards set forth in this Appendix in conjunction with a site-specific development plan. Modifications and/or waivers shall be presented in writing with the application submittal. Approval of requested modification and/or waivers shall require that the Engineer finds approval of such modifications and/or waiver: 1. Advances the goals and purposed of this Code; and 2. Either results in less visual impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in developing a site, or results in the use of superior engineering standards than those required by this Code.  Requests for waivers will be considered as part of site civil design review in the Development Plan process. The Town Engineer may consider and approve variances to geometric design criteria as warranted by professional judgment.  Generally, the expectation is for curb & gutter on both sides of public streets with sidewalk or trail on one side. Locations of trails and sidewalks may be determined as part of the Development Plan review.  The proposed main road internal to the project (and extending offsite to both W Elkhorn Ave and Moraine Ave) shall be platted as a public street and designed and constructed to Minor Collector street standards as set forth in LCUASS Table 7-2 prior to the issuance of any building permits within this property.  As a Minor Collector, the public street shall include at least 50 feet of ROW per II. B. 1. a. (Table D-1). Curb and gutter is required on both sides of the street within at least 27 feet of ROW. A multi-trail in the ROW shall be 10 feet wide to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.  Connection to Elm Rd in the southwest corner of the parcel shall be platted as a ROW and built to public street standards. Coordination with Larimer County is required.  Connection to Old Ranger Dr in the northeast corner of the property shall be platted as a ROW and built to public street standards. Phasing and construction of this road will be resolved with review of the Development Plan and an Improvement Agreement.  At least one connector (with curb, gutter, and sidewalk ) to the existing Estes Park network (leading to Old Ranger Dr or through Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1) is required. Traffic Impact Study (TIS)  Review comments by Kellar Engineering (KE), Public Works traffic engineering consultant, are attached. o The applicant shall resolve traffic mitigation needed at the Moraine Ave/Elm Rd intersection through ongoing discussion with the Town. 43 PUBLIC WORKS Page 3 | Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 – Annexation & Rezoning PUBLIC WORKS o Sight distance analysis at the study intersections were requested in KE review comments (3/3/25) for the original TIS (1/10/25). These analyses are still pending.  The intersection of Elm Road and Moraine Ave currently has a failing LOS for southbound left turns. The conclusion is that the intersection is currently failing and a dedicated left turn lane on EB Moraine Ave at Elm Rd is required.  TIS (page 44) indicates Warrant #8 is met for the intersection of Elm Road and Moraine Ave. The developer is required to design and install a traffic signal (or roundabout) and an eastbound left turn lane on Moraine Ave at the intersection of Elm Road prior to the issuance of any building permits within this property.  Since the applicant is required to mitigate the traffic impacts for non-compliant operations at the intersection of Moraine Ave & Elm Rd, the Town welcomes discussion to resolve options which include a traffic signal or a roundabout. For a minimum requirement to build or spend the cost of a signal, the developer may be eligible for reimbursement of new sales tax revenue generated by the new land use for a period not to exceed ten years as set forth in an Improvement Agreement between the Town and the Developer. Based on site traffic volumes increasing, cost share of a future roundabout at a pro-rata share of 36% of the estimated cost may be discussed.  The findings of the Transportation Impact Study should be provided in summary format, including the identification of any areas of significant impacts and recommended improvements/mitigation measures to achieve the LOS standards for all modes. If variance requests or Alternative Mitigation Strategies are being utilized, those shall be detailed in the report (LCUASS 4.7.1 Recommended Improvements).  TIS does not include the required Adequacy Statement per LCUASS 4.7.2 Adequacy Statement in Loveland (GMA and City Limits). The TIS shall include a clear statement clarifying whether or not the transportation facilities will be adequate and available to serve the proposed development within one year of full build out of the project.  An Access Permit shall be received from CDOT prior to the construction of roadway improvements at the intersection of Elm Rd and Moraine Ave. 44 !!"#!#$%$ &$!%#' (#)*%%$ "!'$#+%$,(&'' #)'($$#+# !*!#$)($%( *-!%$ #!$.($+#!($#"/,!''($#$'$+!%,(&' #0* ++$!!+5(##+6# #'' #'&##'+(!#7,+&(##&"$#),+###8#&8&"7,+ #!%$# !!:2 <=>?=@AB=C><<D@EAFG>BDA@HFAIDJ=JD@BKD?EAFGD?LA@?DJ=F=JHMN<DLF=LAFJ>@JOD<<N=D@L<MJ=J>?H=FG>@=@BF=LAFJEAF=DB=GOKDLKDBF=E=F=@L=?P QFD?BD@=RP;AHHDBSTUVW=IA@WFX?B=?;>FYCZ[\AF ]^>D@?B _=MBF><X<YKAF@RAJ^=X?B>N<D?KG=@BAE`A@D@^abcdefdgdhijjhkjlmjgfnahjopqhrjsrjnijjonqrsetrquudoojghhdsrnggqgmvjihjiwdxmwabcdeknyjfdueojghihdqgurefjzqhkcdexsetrquudoojghhkjcungtjnhhnukjfkjxjw{|}~rqoqhwqoqhjfhdnon€qoeodb ‚‚‚uknxnuhjxiwƒ>GOFDBD@^BA=„HF=??G…?MHHAFBAEBK=AI=F†‡VH>^=?AE[;;[ˆƒ‰ƒ[_BAX<YKAF@RAJ^=;K>?=ƒƒBK>BK>I=><F=>J…N==@?MNGDBB=JBA;MN<DLLAGG=@BPƒOAM<J<DY=BA>JJBK>BBK=BK=‰AO@ŠA>FJF=L=@B<…?H=@B><ABAEBDG=JD?LM??D@^‹>??>@JŒD=OˆK=JP‰KA?= DB=G?><A@=?H=>YEAFBK=G?=<I=?D@J=@…D@^BKD?>HH<DL>BDA@C>JJBK=D@LF=JDN<=<=BB=F?AEAHHA?DBDA@><<L<=>F<…?KAOD@^BK>BBKD?HFAHA?><OAM<JJAGMLKGAF=K>FGBK>@^AAJBABK=OD<J<DE=CBABK=BF>EEDLCBABK=ZDBDS=@?CBABK=>JŽ>L=@BHFAH=FB…AO@=F?CBABK=‰[X; ?D@EF>?BFMLBMF=CŽM?BBA@>G=?=I=F><Pƒ@…AMFF=ID=OCD@EAFGD@^…AMFF=LAGG=@J>BDA@BABK=‰AO@ŠA>FJC>?…AMO=D^KBK=X;WZC =‘SA@D@^ =ID=OZFDB=FD>CBK=>?HDF>BDA@><ZAGH;<>@CBK=HFA?>@JBK=LA@?>@JBK==@AFGAM?AHHA?DBDA@CDBD?LAGGA@?=@?=BK>BG>Y=?…AMFF=LAGG=@J>BDA@EAF…AMP‰K>@Y…AMP !"#$%%&'())*+(,-#"$.-#/0123324356789:;<2=>?9;@ ABCDE9FG913Q0R=<442437CS:CS>913@bb^UU^a]YUaggaU^]_VhWY]]WiYja]Y]fZWka]^]_alVhWT\[haZ]ccgZagWZVmnrYeZWUlaZh^_hfW]U^VmYeeabbafYja]das\ffas]bWYUsZYt\WhYZbVa^ZZv^f_W^UhabWVaW\[wfWWZwbas]VY^]\^a]wtateYVxsUVVa]YbWYlWdUgWe^WW\agbW]Vd^VhVhWYUUae^YVWf]a^UWw\^_hVga\\sja]wVZYyewVZWUgYUU^]_w^]eZWW]^bgYeVUd^\\fWUVZamVhWUWZW]^VmalVhWUsZZas]f^]_]W^_htaZhaafUnuhWs]fVh^UYeZWY_Wf^fUad^VhVhWWigWeVYja]VhYVVhWmeas\feas]Va]gZaVWej_YgZWf^eVYt\WY]fUVYt\W\^p^]_W]p^Za]bW]Vn{UfWba]UVZYVWftmVhWZWUs\VVhWUWWigWeVYja]UZWUgWeVWfnalVhWTUVWUXYZ[pY\\WmwceY]]aVea]fa]WfWpW\agWZUeab^]_^]VaasZeabbsZeabbs]^VmY]fasZe^Vm\WYfWZUnuh^UZWfseWUasZgZWe^asU]YVsZY\UsZZas]]^]fsUVZmwUVZ^gb^]^]_VhWZYg^f\mf^b^]^Uh^]_]YVsZY\ZWUasZeWUlaZVhWgZaW]fY]]WiYja]d^VhYka]^]_ehY]_Wn !!"# $%&%'()*+%,-./012.1/.3245676897/05: ;<=>?<@<.NL,M42==8=N3/O9/O7<.N:>L9<P=Q4/.R3/O9/O7<.NL,9<P=Q4/.R3/O9/O7<.N:U5/9<89O4<Q298<=<=2S8NS4T@8O814/>/Q<4<N8Q244TO/=O898@/.80N/48=/>O51V/Q99<M.<9/Q98<=5=0/.8689T<-./O80/=98244TYZ<=/0M2.Q/4O2=0[;?J>9S/\4RS<.=]]M.<V/Q92OM.<M<O/08O8=2MM.<M.829/7]=-2Q9>89OS<5401/<1@8<5O9S292=TM.<M<O249S29P<540./^58./0/O8N=298<=<-9S/O89/2O_QQ<T_QQ<66<0298<=O`_YAaP<5401//^5244T8=2MM.<M.829/7_O9S/2==/X298<=>./Z<=8=N2=0M.<V/QM.<M<O242=0./Z<=8=N./^5/O9OS<5401/0/=8/07u !"## $%&'()(*+,#-+.&/ %&#00123445637)#8#%#9:;<;=>?@<A;BCD?EAF GE=HIEJ><=?V>=RV^WPVWT;>_TC;==B=<`E;>aHb;Ae>BPB=<PEVfc>VWWAZEccEWBPBE=PEPYVc>EcEWVa=Ve>V;CVWP;PVaVJVCEcAV=P?d>>V=PCZd=aPaV;CE:PBAV;Pghi7j. %7# H;=ab?;>VaVVcCZ;]EdPPYV?Y;>;?PV>;=a=;Pd>;C]V;dPZV=PeEdCaWB<=B:B?;=PCZaBW>dcPPYVCE?;CV=JB>E=AV=PHY;>APYVC;=aW?;cVH;=aaV<>;aVPYV=;Pd>EWcV?B;CD=BW;C>V;aZEcV>;PB=<]VZE=aBPWc>;?PB?;C?;c;?BPZB=PV>AWE:B=:>;WP>d?Pd>VH>E;aWHdPBCBPBVWH;=a=P>Ead?B=<:d>PYV>aVJVCEcAV=PeEdCaE=CZB=PV=WB:ZPYVWVVfBWPB=<WP>;B=W;=a>Vad?VPYVld;CBPZ>W;CB_VDb>VWcV?P:dCCZd><VPYVTC;==B=<`E;>aPE>V?E=WBaV>AEJB=<:E>e;>aeBPYPYBWc>EnV?PDT>EPV?PB=<PYJ;CdVE:^WPVWT;>_WYEdCa>VA;B=;PEcc>BE>BPZDPBAV;=a?E=WBaV>;PBE=D !"#$%&'( )&*+ ,- ./0 /12*345667859%+*:(;<&=>?@ABCDEFGH@IGJ KILMNIO^O^_IDG^LFX?D_CLL[L`B^aF^aHIb`Jpqrkt}~ydzst€ tw{‚dƒ„…†‡dƒzˆd‰Št——’•‘ŒŽ—˜•ŽŸš‘’ŸœŸ•¡•––Œ‘Ÿ•‘ŸšŒ Ž• •—Œ¢ ‘‘Œ£ ¤•‘¥¦•‘Œ§ŽŒ¦•‘Œ•ž¨ ›š•Ž‘•Ž ¤•‘•žŸšŒ •¢“Œ’Ÿ—Œ ž¯ › š —Œ°±²–š—ŸŽŒ— Œ¡³š œ• •—ŒŸš’— ‘‘Œ ¤•‘’— ŒŽ– ‘Œ‘Ÿ ‘¢µš—Œ¢Œ¡’—’•‘¶’Ÿš •‘“µŸŒŽ–¡•‘—Œ·šŒ‘¡Œ—Ÿš Ÿ¶ž Ž¸Œœ•‘¢¶š Ÿ’—¡šŽŽŒ‘Ÿ œ •¶Œ¢š‘¢ŒŽ¡•š‘Ÿœ¦•‘’‘“«™šŒ ® ’ ¸ Œ—Ÿš¢Œ®Œ • –Œ‘Ÿ¶•š ¢¡ŽŒ ŸŒ—’“‘’¹¡ ‘Ÿ ‘¢š‘ ®•’¢ ¸ Œ’– ¡Ÿ—Ÿ•ŸŽ º¡²— žŽ ¡ŸŒŽ«šŒ¡•– ŒŸŒ¢ŸŽ º¡—Ÿš¢’Œ—²’‘žŽ —ŸŽš¡ŸšŽŒ¡•‘¡ŒŽ‘—²Œ‘®’Ž•‘–Œ‘Ÿ ’– ¡Ÿ—ŽŒ— Œ¡³š œ• •—ŒŸš’— ‘‘Œ£ ¤•‘¥¦•‘Œ§ŽŒ¦•‘ŒŽŒ·šŒ—Ÿ«ŽŒ —•‘—šŽ“ŒŸšŒ ‘‘’‘“”•––’——’•‘ŒŽ—Ÿ•¢Œ‘œŸš’—ŽŒ·šŒ—Ÿ«wxydz ‰xtwÄ‡dÅÄtƒxd wÆtŠ~yÇtÈÁv~Ã{w—Œ—¡•‘¢š¡ŸŒ¢Ÿ•¢ ŸŒ¡•‘¹Ž–Ÿš ŸŸšŒ ¢¢’¤•‘ • ¢“Œ‘ŒŽ ŸŒ¢¸œŸšŒ Ž•Ãtv{~É…t‰t…~¾w²‰~zŠtƒd wÃdzŠtwydz² ‘¢ zw~‚tÃdz‰xydzw•‘—šŽŽ•š‘¢’ ¢Ê ‘“ŒŽÊ• ¢Ì¸•Ÿš‘ ŽŽ•¶ŽŒ—’¢Œ‘¤ Ž• ¢—‘•Ÿ¢Œ—’“‘Œ¢ž•Ž¡•––ŒŽ¡’ Ž ¸ Œ«®ŒŽ¸ ——šŽ ‘¡Œ— ¸•šŸ¢’ŽŒ¡¤‘“ŸŽ º¡Œ —Œ¶šŒŽŒ ŽŒzd{tz‚dƒÃt~É…t ‘¢w«¡’– ¡Ÿ— ŽŒ ŽŒ ¢œ¶Œ ¢•¡š–Œ‘ŸŒ¢² ‘¢ŸšŒœ ŽŒzd{ÁxyŠ~É…tŸ• ‘ ¡¡ydzÑdtwÆd{Òt~z|‰t€ ~Ã¾——šŽŒŸŒ—Ÿ—š ®Œ¸ŒŒ‘ ŒŽž•Ž–Œ¢²ŸšŒ’ŽŽŒ—š Ÿ—’‘¢’¡ ŸŒŸš Ÿš “Ž ¢Œ—•Ž ¢¢ !"#$%&'' &#(#!"! !)* +#,-. !)# )/01!#)23)4#5 6 ' 7%6%8 9: ' 8,;&689 <=>? @ 8 &A 8 %'' ,.1+!H! FE#I## 69 ': K , 8 '6 8%? ? % %8 '''K9 '7'8, 99 8 'L <M>? 9 58 '59'!"R $)I)O$S '8 9 ? %988%8K 8 U? :78&' ' & 89 ,!)G##G! H 868%: W8& 87? 8 9M ?:: 8 A &B*Y!)1!#[) : &?,7 ' & 99 : 9 ,K 8'\ 8 ,6? '8? 9^8 : &_:8? 9 %8 '9 & 89 ' 8'7'1+!#E!Ba!'?& 8 :8:b 87 M%8%8 '9,? & 9 : ''7 ,9 7: ? 8& ' : ? %&'''? 79?88,H !#R1#P!)I*a) ! "#$ % & !245-663++3-2(7+ 9 ! =>1B-2CD-2(E7(D-2(7()*(+, G ! J"H: = 2@,.(122(A1B-2CD-2(E7(D-2(7()*(+, 1 11/17/25 Dear Commissioners: Thank you in advance for your consideration of the following summary points opposing the requested zoning: 1. In light of the Issue 300 which was recently passed expressing the will of the people, it would appear prudent to defer a recommendation on this zoning request until the dust settles on the forthcoming ordinance. 2. The Zoning Request is at odds with the Comprehensive Plan. In fairness, the Comprehensive Plan permits deviations “…when circumstances dictate otherwise…”. Neither the requestor nor the Planning Department has identified any compelling reasons to deviate from the future land use of this site identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Department’s recommendation lacks a rational basis for approval of the requested zoning other than an unquantified increased Town revenue. Even this rationale is dubious, at best for the following reasons: a. The projected increases in revenues and the analysis to support them is conspicuously missing from the Planning Department’s basis for recommendation. b. The analysis of projected decreases in existing accommodations revenue resulting from the addition of 290 new rental units is also missing from the Planning Department’s basis for recommendation. c. Finally, if and when the missing analysis of projected revenue impacts is presented, we must also assess the uncertainties of the project based upon the collectively observed dawdling pace of progress on Phase I. d. To the extent that revenues to the Town are actually increased at some future date, we need to recognize that this increase will come at the expense of many as stated in the overwhelming number of the objections raised in the public comments. 4. The requestor’s concept plan, fails to acknowledge that the Comprehensive Plan identifies and defines, in detail, the two, not one, Future Land Use Categories that are to be used for Accommodations. These two categories are: i. Low-Density Accommodations and ii. Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors (for Medium and High-density Accommodations) 2 While it may be unfortunate the requestor’s site is not located in an area deemed appropriate and designated for High-Density Accommodations in the Comprehensive Plan. The requester knew this information when it purchased the property. The fact that the site is not in such an area does not dictate or justify the zoning requested. In fact, it argues to just the opposite. 5. Unquantified and unsupported projected increases in revenue is essentially a guess or a wish that lacks credibility because it is not supported by rigorous analysis of the underlying business factors. If we can’t answer the question of what the revenue increases, decreases, offsetting costs, and fundamental assumptions will be, then recommending the approval of the zoning request should be unconscionable and would be a terrible disservice to the citizens of Estes Park. 6. If we have guidelines, planned future land uses, and specific areas identified for high-density accommodations, and other areas identified for low density accommodation, what good are these thoughtfully prepared documents and designations if we set them aside solely in the name of potentially increased Town revenues. 7. The requested zoning doesn’t pass the common-sense test. For these reasons, I respectfully request the zoning recommendation be deferred, or at least limited to RE or A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity. Sincerely, Kevin M. Denny 960 Old Ranger Dr. !!"#$%%&'$()*+) ,-./01.234564774589::0;4:< =>;?@>A>5MK,L79;;.;M842:420>5M<[[P\]XXZ^WU^XRUOU]_R`[TROTSWURXVOR]SUVTaXWUVWSUV[ST`OTSWUQSTabcdaWRUeaO[XNfNTS[^`[[SWU[OgW`TeaO[XNNORXXhXUW^^`RRSUVQaXUeaO[XNaO[RXPOSUX]OUX\X[WRX_WRWhXR_SUVc\XU]cX[[^WU[TR`^TSWUaO[UXVOTShXc\SPZO^TX][`RRW`U]SUVZRWZXRT\hOc`X[jOU]TaXcO^dXO[SVUS_S^OUTZWSUTW_^WU^XRU_WRPOU\RX[S]XUT[f`OTSWUXhXUPWRXTRW`gcSUVS[TaX_O^TTaOTTaXRXaO[gXXUcSTTcXTWUWO^TShST\OTTaX[STX_WRTaXZiWQUW_b[TX[eORd^WUTSU`X[TWcW[XZWTXUTSOcRXhXU`XQaScXTaXZRWZXRT\[ST[`U]XR^WU[TR`^WUTSU`XQWRdSUVQSTa]XhXcWZXR[QaWaOhXRXZXOTX]c\ZRWhS]X]XY^`[X[QSTaW`T]XcShXRSUVPZc\`UO^^XZTOgcXf]XcO\[jN^OUWUc\O[[`PXTaOTjS_TaXZRWnX^TS[XhXR^WPZcXTX]jSTQSccTOdXOTcXO[TTaRXXPWRXc]eaO[XNNPWhX_WRQOR]gX_WRXeaO[XNS[OTcXO[Tpqr^WPZcXTXfs]]STSWUOcc\jRX[S]XUT[]X[XSUZcO^X[aW`c]TaXg`Sc]XRWR^WUTRO^TWRXU^W`UTXR_SUOU^SOc]S__S^`cTSX[WRgOUdR`ZT^\fROU[QXR[RXVOR]SUVTaX_WccWQSUVu €‚ƒz„‚…z†}|}ƒ{„z€‚}…}†‡yˆ‰zŠ‹€ˆŽ‚„‚€ ƒzˆ‰ |z‰‚…{„ˆz€}z…‰ |z€yz{|}~z€‚‰}ƒ{„z€z ‹„ˆ…‰y} „ €yz z“z„}{z|}|}…€|ˆ€}|‰†ˆ‚„€}† „†‚„„€yz‚|}Ž„‚”ˆ€‚}…‰‹XRhX[TROU[ZORXU^\jO^^W`UTOgScST\jOU]ORXOcS[TS^ZcOUTWRX[WchXTaXWUVWSUVS[[`X[QSTaTaS[]RX[[TaX[X^WU^XRU[]SRX^Tc\OU]ZRWhS]XTaXZ`gcS^QSTa]XTOScX]SU_WRPOTSWUOU]OZOTa_WRQWZZW[STSWUTWTaXZRWZW[X]OUUXYOTSWUfs[ORX[S]XUTW_–c]—OU—W`UTOSU˜OUXjNaOhX[XhXRXPOSUX]`UO]]RX[[X][SU^XTaX[TORTW_ZaO[XWUXOU]ORXWUc\gX^WPSUVPWRXZRX[[SUVO[TaXRXaO[gXXUOcO^dW_TROU[ZORXU^\TaRW`VaW`TTaS[ZRW^X[[fl`RSUVZaO[XWUXjQXQXRXO[•OUVXRlRShXj\XTORWO]QO[g`ScTTaOTOccWQ[_WRgWTaRSVaTšaOU]OU]cX_TšaOU]T`RU[WUTW–cRTaS[QO[_SRX^W]X[f›WQjQSTaZaO[XTQWjQXORXTWc]TaOTO_XU^XQSccgXZcO^X]TWOccWQWUcaXRWO]œg`TUWQTaOTZcOUS[gXSUVRX^WU[S]XRX]fNTS[]S__S^`cTTWgXcSXhXOU\TaSUVQXORXTWc]QSTaW`T^cXOR^WPP`US^OTSWUf__`U]SUVS[O[XRSW`[^WU^XRUfkXaOhXQSTUX[[X]P`cTSZcX^WUTRO^TWR[gXSUVXPZcW\X]]`XTSUVfžWQ^OUQXTR`[TTaOTTaS[QSccUWTaOZZXUOVOSUQaXUSTaO[gXXUOUWUVWSUVZRWgcXPŸ™TWbcdaWRUb[TOTX[aO[gXXUOUX\X[WRXjOU]ST^W`c]gXOTcXO[TTQWPWRX\XOR[gX_WRXSPZRWUXVcX^TaO[]SRX^Tc\O__X^TX]ZRWZXRT\hOc`X[SUTaXORXOfRRXUTSU_RO[TR`^T`RXjX[ZX^SOcc\TaXRWO][jS[SU]SRX^WU]STSWUf˜O[T\XORjTaXTWQURXZcO^X]TaXW`UTOSU˜OUXjg`TTaXQOTXRcSUX[QXRXOc[WUWTX]TWgX^WRRW]X]OU]SUUXX]W_RXZcO^XPXUTfRSUTaXg`]VXTfžWQ^OUQXgXcSXhXTaOTOUUXYOTSWUQSccUWT_`RTaXR]XVRO]XW`RQOTXRcSUX[jUXUT[Ÿ][RXPOSUZOT^aX]OU]`URXZOSRX]jQaS^a^WUTSU`X[TWSPZO^TTaXt`OcST\W_cS_XSUW`R^WPP`UUXYOTSWUQScc[WPXaWQSPZRWhXTaX[X^WU]STSWU[jg`TTaXcO^dW_O^TSWUTW]OTXPOdX[ST]S__S^ !"#$%%&'$()*+,-)./0123455670849:;<0= ><2?@<AN7118;3LP9L11LNMOR0411LP98M1QL8N421<13LIOR94;S<00L21MT<N13LUL8N427<213LOK7N8PL<TV<<99<Y4274213LKOR94;;<00L21M?8MZ[0O28R9L1<811L2P13L3L8N42742KLNM<2:Y41313LNLV<2427NL\OLM1KN<K<MLM8GDT<<1Y4PLN<8P8113LALNQR<11<0<T0QPN4ALY8QY413834;9LM8P8Q?Z80421<189<KK<M414<21<134MKN<K<MLPNLV<2427:9QOMLPRQ13L]NLM4PL2;LM<2134MK8N1<T^90_<8P:J3LK982M8NLNL\OLM14271<08`L134M808L1<><N842LbAL2OL:<T13LN<8P4M7NL81LN138213LBDcKN<K<MLP82P4M;9<MLN1<BCc:1414M;ONNL219QNLM4PL21489D:F8;NLM:J3L<Y2LN;82RO49PBe082M4<2M82P08`L13L4N42ALM10L28MV<2LPY3L213LQR<O73141:J34M4M13L134NP811L0K142]EQL8NM1<NLWV<2L134MKN<KLN1QTN<04<00<P814<2M:N4;899QY8MOMLPRQ^9`3<N2f<P7L1<3<M13<NMLR8;`N4PLM:Z14M808a<Ng49P94TL>47N814<2_<O1L82Pi47J3<0KM<2_4ALN8MYL998M824089M047N81427TN<0_<;`Q><O21842@814<289I8N`[MjLLN8MPOL1<41MO2WPLAL9<KLP281ONL:U8M8g49P94TL40K8;1NLK<N1RLL2;<0K9L1LP<213LKN<aL;11<Y413808a<NN<8P;O1142713N<O7313L4N047N814<2N<O1Lk<<2134MKN<K<MLPNLV<2427:1LPRQ_LRL;;8l9<Y8;`4<Y2LN<TD5E^90_P:ortuvwonopuxvyz{ December 16, 2024 Dear Mr. Hornbeck, AICP, Subject: Opposion to the Proposed PUD Development at Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 and Annexaon I am wring to express my concerns and opposion to the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) designaon at Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 and Annexaon. Aer reviewing the project details and its implicaons, I believe this development is incongruent with the current zoning regulaons and the established character of the area. Below, I outline my reasons in detail: 1. Conﬂict with Current Zoning Designaons: The proposed PUD does not align with the exisng zoning designaon of Larimer County ’s Rural Estate 2.5 acre. The current zoning regulaons are designed for low-density housing, open spaces, and community aesthecs. Introducing a PUD in this area would undermine these objecves and disrupt the zoning ’s intended purpose. As you are aware, the County reached its designaon for the parcel aer an extensive land use process, resulng in a Comprehensive Plan that designates uses congruent with the area. Addionally, areas concurrently in the city and adjacent to the proposed development have a lower density (Estate ½ acre) than the proposed PUD. 2. Impact on Community Character: The area to the west of the proposed development has a well-established character deﬁned by single-family homes, vast natural expanses, ulized by migrang deer and elk, and a low populaon density. The approximately 100 acres to the East of this Proposed 40 acre PUD are single family estates that are in a long term Conservaon Easement that stretches from Elkhorn Ave to Moraine Ave to Davis Hill. A PUD, which allows for mixed-use or higher-density development, would introduce incompable uses and densies that detract from the area’s exisng character and appeal. 3. Traﬃc and Infrastructure Concerns: The increased density associated with the proposed PUD would place signiﬁcant strain on the exisng infrastructure, including roads, ulies, and public services. Elm Rd as well as its intersecon at Moraine Ave is not equipped to handle an addional 200 plus trips a day for users of the PUD plus the addional traﬃc that may be generated by locals and tourists wishing to take a shortcut through the proposed PUD property. Elm Road on the west side of the Property is an unpaved dirt road, the lower half of which passes through Larimer County Property and is not maintained or plowed by them due to the degree of slope and the single vehicle width of the road. 4. Inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan Goals: The city ’s comprehensive plan outlines speciﬁc goals and policies aimed at guiding development in a manner consistent with long-term community needs. The proposed PUD appears to deviate from these goals by priorizing high-density development in an area designated for low-density residenal use. 5. Environmental Impacts: The proposed development raises concerns regarding potenal environmental degradaon, including loss of green space and animal habitat, and increased stormwater runoﬀ into Fall River and the Big Thompson River; these impacts further emphasize the incompability of this PUD with the current zoning and the community’s environmental priories. 6. Precedent for Future Development: Approving this PUD could set a troubling precedent, encouraging similar proposals that erode the integrity of current zoning regulaons that have been established by a joint review by Larimer County and Estes Park. This could lead to a gradual shi away from the planning principles that have maintained the area’s quality and character. I respecully urge the Planning Department to consider these points and to deny the proposed PUD development as well as the Annexaon to the Town of Estes Park in order to circumvent the exisng Larimer County Zoning. Maintaining adherence to the current zoning regulaons is essenal to preserving the character, safety, and sustainability of our community. Thank you for your aenon to this maer. I am happy to provide further informaon or parcipate in any public hearings virtually related to this proposal. Sincerely, Rebecca Glowacki Owner of 290 Elm Rd. Estes Park, CO, 80517 CC: HS Estes Park, LLC Brynhildr Halsten, Galloway & Company Mary Lamy 336 Rock Ridge Rd. Isabel Lamy Lee 334 Rock Ridge Rd. Christopher Anstey 338 Rock Ridge Rd. November 15, 2025 Estes Park Planning Commission Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 application I am vehemently opposed to the proposed rezoning and annexation being sought by the developers of Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2. It is an egregious overreach and an aﬀront to the surrounding neighborhood that can be characterized by rural mountain development. Those homes have large lots, some as large as 14 acres. Many have Conservation Easements on them. The resulting low density development can accommodate wildlife corridors, intact environments and low light pollution. The zoning being sought would allow for lodging for 400 to 500 people, plus staﬀ, plus deliveries, plus maintaining vehicles. There is no possible way to mitigate the light pollution from such a dense development. Screening between the hotels, parking lots and homes that are close would be impossible in our arid, mountain environment. To understand the eﬀect of light on both humans and animals please refer to the Rocky Mountain Conservancy’s Autumn newsletter, P. 8. The essay is entitled MORE THAN A VIEW: WHY PRESERVING NIGHT SKIES MATTERS FOR WILDLIFE- AND YOU. It should be a must-read for the Planning Commission and The Town Board. Both the ﬁre hazard and the resulting traﬃc from the proposed dense development would be staggering to eﬀectively control and manage. Estes Park can kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Estes has enviable assets such as the mountain backdrop, the night skies and it goes without saying, Rocky Mountain National Park. Do not be tempted to discard these assets in favor of development that is out of place and in no way in keeping with the character of Estes Park’s assets that cannot be duplicated by any other city. Respectfully submitted, Mary Lamy Isabel Lamy Lee Christopher Anstey !"#$%&'()&*+",#-! .//012334526&&7".%89:;;<=>?@;?@ABC@D?E:B@FBGHI JB@KLBMNGH>\:>BF>G?MX@=<H[?:;F>B[Iia^jf^`kdlmn^op_eeqersdjjqmm^^t`_kdv`km`derduudkqmqdemdmn^u`dudk^iwphnd`exdir^on_k^yyi^z^pduj^embmdkm_`mf~gdjj^eiqer~dv_ei~dv`u`^i^g^kkd`kld`idqer_e_j_qer€dfqef_p_egqerz_mqdedle_mv`^qe_}_~mn_mn_kj_i^wkm^ko_`hde^dlmn^jdkmveq v^_eif^_vmqlvpm_kf^^e^e€d~qerwkm^ko_`h_eimn^kv``dveiqer_`^_ld`dz^`ƒ„„~^_`k|_ei}^_`^ed}^jf^`k}ndpdz^mnqkmd}eb†^l^^pfp^kk^imdf^u_`mdlmn^gdjjveqm~_ei_`^_p}_~k_ef_p_eg^kdj_e~gdelpqgmqere^^ik_ei}_emkb`du^`m~pq^kdemn^}^kmkqi^dlˆdghˆqir^ˆd_i_eifd`i^`kmn^kdvmn^eidlmn^u`d€^g`g^pevjf^`qkŒ Ž Š„„„ bym‘’“‘”•”–—˜‘™š”‘›œ“•—œ“—š›œ’‘™—–“•š””•—˜–›˜›’™›”›£’”—’¤š–¥¦§›¨•šž—¢——œš¢Ÿ—”›šž›‘™•‘©•™—œ’‘”ª™—ž—Ÿ›˜ —œ”‘œš–‘”‘ššŸš•›–œ«›™©—¦¬•‘’•š’¢›–œ—”•—”–¨——’’—œš—›¡”•‘’¢—š¨”‘¡¨Ÿ”›“œš’“—¥œ›“‘”šœ™›’›¦®—¡——Ÿ”•‘’™—ž—Ÿ›˜ —œ”š›¨Ÿ™’—”‘œ ›”‘›œœ—©š”‘ž—‘ ˜šš”’“•‘š•š›¨Ÿ™©–š› ¡›–”‘œ©¦e^r_mqz^gdekqi^`_mqdekdlmn^u`dudk^inqrn‹i^ekqm~i^z^pduj^emtqk^nqkmd`qg_pi^ekqm~|deqer_ei_ee^…_mqdekm_ei_`ikbeqgqu_pqel`_km`vgmv`^bd`^m`_llqggder^kmqdebedqk^_eipqrnmudppvmqdebjud`m_em}qpipql^n_fqm_m_eig`^_m^^ezq`dej^em_pqju_gmblq`^`qkh_eik_l^m~bhe_mv`_p_ei}qmndvmmn^e^r_mqz^kdlnqrn‹i^ekqm~i^z^pduj^emkb°n_eh~dvld`~dv`gde#@ÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊË¾ÄÌ¸ÍÈÎ¼Ê½¾¼ÏÈÐÄÑÀ½ÒÒºÌÒßãßÀÏÂÀÏí¼ÊÏîÀ¾Ë¼ÏÇ¼Æïì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aVVBeP<P7C<dd<V:P:<=P<\<P?P?Ud8<d<VU;7==U_7P:<=<fP?UgNh798Ud789UCC<97nolpqrslmtquvwxswytzoH7=;P?U?:A?h;U=V:Pe;UJUC<dBU=PdC7==U;f<8P?7PV8:V:=APc<MNNh8<<B?<PUCV7=;aN{P8UU?<GVUV|}gaNP<P7CG=:PV~H:VfG=;7BU=P7CC879PU8HU_:VP:=A:=f87VP8G9PG8UH7=;U=J:8<=BU=P7CJ7CGUVDeY87JU=VH7C<=AB7=e=U:A?\<8V<=C<cU8€UU8 :;AUHdC79U;P?U:8d8<dU8P:UV:VPUV‚7CCUeƒ7=;T8GVP}W‚ƒT~P<d8<PU9PP?:VC<97P:<=f<8fGPG8UAU=U87P:<=Vf8<BP?U<=Ud8<d<VU;D€UU8 :;AU„7=;P?UC<97P:<=d8<d<VU;:V7\U7GP:fGC<dU=A7=;=7PG87C„=<P\C:A?PU;c:P?;UJUC<dBU=PDd<8P7=PP<P?U=7PG87C\U7GPeP<P?U9:Pe7V<P?U8A8UU=Vd79UVVG9?7V…=<CCh†:CC<U=Fd79UDT?UVUPc<C7PPU8C<97P:<=VcU8Ud8<PU9PU;f8<BV:B:C78Vd87cC:=A;UJUC8Ud8UVU=PUVVU=P:7CVd79UVP?7P8UfCU9PP?U=7PG87C\U7GPeHA8UU=CG=AVf<8c?:9?f<8d879P:9:=AVB78P;UJUC<dBU=PH7=;P?:VWCX?<8=dC7=;<UVf:P:=c:P?P?UP<c=VU=PVP?UX:=;<fVd87cC7=;?:A?hP87ff:9;UJUC<dBU=PP?7P:VP?U<dd<V:PU<fWVPU79P:JUP<c=DGU9<BBG=:Pe:=Y<C<87;<„8U=<c=U;f<8:PV799UVVP<=7PG8UH9CU787:8Hc:;U<dA9<BB:VV:<=7=;P?UP<c=P<XUUd€UU8 :;AUA8UU=‰=AY<BB:VV:<=9<=V:;U8P?Uf<CC<c:=A98:P:97C:VVGUV;G8:=A:PV8UJ:Uc<fP?U7==UP:<=Q%Ž $Ž ! ‘ _7P:<=7=;VG\VUˆGU=P8U’<=:=A:V7V:A=:f:97=P;UJ:7P:<=f8<BP?UUVP7\C:V?U;9?=A<fP?UVG88<G=;:=A78U7DT?U9G88U=P’<=:=Af<8P?:VC7=;Ped:97CCe7CC<cVf<8“” ‡Vd8<d<V7CVUUXVP<dC79UgaNG=:PV<=gN798UVH8UVGCP:=A:=7;U=V:Pe<fŠŠ5•“– ! "#$% &'()* +, -% ./0#%;6<= >:?@32<1AB56CC DDEFGH1I , -J LMN#%PSRS6<RS65B<7T2BPPSRU3<V65=S3< &Y Y 65=2QR=S3<B<7><9S23<;6<=B:C;4BR= - X XX X S5?B<7`BP6=a( -b# c "b#c& WdM Y _6R327U3<R62<5 X , -e,- !.fJ -J YJ X X !"#$%&'$()%) !"#$%&'(($) *+,-../0-1'*232"')45675895:;<=>?@AB;7C958BD EF>GH8<I:A;>YR=BW=:?8ZN6=[C;>>7>A\8BB7??78>?7N78>N8N6=]CX68:>^8YA=[6;?=__Y=<=C8TB=>N9??=>NN8a8FWa8TT8>=>N?8ZN6=Y=<=C8TB=>N_6;<=C7NNC=N8;YY9S6=C=NN=:Z:8B\6;:C=?\6;B:=??7>Ad6;N;:=;C?8Ba<7=d?9]?N=?[;:X7??8TC=;?;>Nd7N67N?Z==C7>A8ZA:==>?T;5=?;>Y8T9_NC;5X?N6=6F?NC=WF?NC=8Z67A6Y=>?7NaY=<=C8TB=>N?G;>Y5=:N;7>CaY8=?>8N>==Y8>=8>N6=?N6;N7Za8F;CC8dN67?67A6Y=>?7NaY=<=C8TB=>NN8T:85==Y;>Y7Z7N7??F55=??ZFCa8Fd7CCN6=>Z7>Y:?58>?N:F5N7>A67A6Y=>?7NaY=<=C8TB=>N?7>B;>aTC;5=?;C8>AN6=Z:7>A=?8ZN6=[;:X9S6;Nd8\:;<=>?9fF:T:8T=:NaC7=?8>N6=d=?N?7Y=8Z`85X`7YA=`8;Y;>YW8:Y=:?N6=?8FN6=>Y8ZN6=aC7>=9fF:T;:5=C>FBW=:7?hMKJPLLLMi9Ra7BB=Y7;N=Z;B7Ca;>Y_;:=7>?N:8>A8TT8?7N78>N88F:8N6=:5C8?=:=C;N7<=?d7N6T:8T=:Na8>N6=d=?N?7Y=8ZN6=`85X`7YA=`8;Y9_6;<==>c8a=Y7N6BaB8N6=:;>Y6=:Z;N6=:A87>AW;5Xd=CC8<=:ILLa=;:?9j6=>_d;?a8F>ABaZ;B7Cad8FCY>?Gd7N6N6=]CX68:>T:8T=:NaN6=>W=7>A;T;:N8ZN6=A:==>8T=>;NB8?T6=:=9d=CCZ8:N6=57Nag?B;>;A=B=>NN86;<=X=TNN6=A:==>8T=>?T;5=?TCF?:=C;b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`>^>?;I=KOM;>Ma;]aM@_><=;>;M?I><MR>?;]JIa>`HR>=Hb>@^JHL>M@cBd?MLb?><<K[=I<I??>R>?<IfJ>M@L>@H=\?>I<_><=?M]>_PH@_=`>?>I<M@J]HaI@I=>H;M\@=Ma@H=\?HJf>H\=]`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ade\TUVcffcX^Y^c]YcYgTfVcfcXThW\[gcV]ich_TZgUXT``hTjT\cfamnopqce[q^h_TqcUhrbg^egX^YXUhsUeT]YYcYgTfVcfcXThhTjT\cfawTV\U^]rU\c]_cYgTV]T^_gwcVXc]\cbTVSTTVq^h_Trf\UeThYgT^VfVcfT]Yb^YgYgTWXYTXxU\\TdiU]hyVzXY{Wxiy|YcfVcYTeYYg^X\ceUY^c]mcV_gYVUmm^ef\U]XXzegUXYgTc]TfVcfcXThkSTTVq^h_T}U]hYgT\ceUYmcfT]_VTT]XfUeT^]WXYTXZUV[YgUYXgcz\hVTaU^]cfT]U]h]UYzVUcVYU]YYcYgT]UYzVU\wTUzYdYcYgTe^YdUXcYgTV_VTT]XfUeTXXzegUXVa^YZUV[€fT] fUeTkygTXTYbc\UYYTV\ceUY^c]XbTVTfVcYTeYThmVcadTUVXU_crU]h]cbVTfVTXT]YTXXT]Y^U\XfUeTXYgUYVTm\TeYYgT]UYzVU\XZUV[^XVT]cb]Thk`TjT]Xz__TXYYgUYYgTYcb]cmWXYTXZUV[bcV[bThX^YTYcfVTXTVjT^YUXU]UYzVU\bc]hTVU]hU]TƒYT]X^c]cmqtuZ}TVa^YZUV[kmcVfVUeY^e^]_XaUVYhTjT\cfaT]YrU]hYg^XW\[gcV]f\U]hcTXm^Y^]b^YgfaT]Yf\U]rYgTYcb]Xgcz\hec]eT]YVUYTc]\dfTVa^YY^]_]Tbg^_ghT]^XY^]_gczX^]_U]hec]XYVzeY^c]kygTfVcfcXThf\U]VTfVTXT]YXYgT[^]T]YYgUY^XYgTcffcX^YTcmWXYTXZUV[„XVTfzYUY^c]UXUz]^†zTU]hUYYWXYTXZUV[„XacXYjU\zUw\TUXXTYXUXUecaaz]^YdkTUVT]cYszXYU]fT]\U]hmcVYgTXU[Tcm_VTThkˆ\Ygcz_gYczV^Xa^XYgTwVTUhU]hwzYfaT]Y[^\\YgT_ccXTYgUY\UdXYgT_c\hT]T__kZ\TUXTXzffcVYUXaUVYVU\UXXTYXYgUYaU[TWXYTXZUV[XfTe^U\kzTecaaz]^Yd^]vc\cVUhc}VT]cb]ThmcV^YXUeeTXXYc]UYzVTre\TUVU\cVTYgTf\U]]^]_ecaa^XX^c]U]hYgTYcb]Yc[TTfSTTVq^h_T_VTT]] !"#!$% &'!()**+,(' ,, &-./0012/3&&+456!(789:;;<=>?@AB9CDCE@F GB?HI:8:;US7TAB99<9U>C=?C=D:;UFUY:ZZ<==<:9HY[BZ\C;AB<9Y;B8C9=Y@AA<9B9]BZ<A^[B8C\CC9_:Z<9U?:W=?C=XB;`]:;:8C;:9C[@9E;CE^CBB9E<98<?C];<C9E=];:ZB;:@9E?[C_:@9?;^B9E?[Cb:;AE?:c:<9@=<9CdTC;<C9_<9U?[<=TCB_C]@ATA:8CB9E[:AEECB;DeC=TC9??<ZCB9EZ:9C^?:ZB`C=@;CbC[B8C\B_`_:ZZ<??CEU;CC9=TB=C;8B?<:9WB=CZC9??[B?IB?@;Cb:@AEBAbB^=\C?[Cb<99C;DBZBc:;;:BEbC;C?:\C\@<A?=:ZC]Cb]CC?];:Z:@;[:ZCB9ET;:TC;?^?[<=b:@AEEC=?;:^?[C8:W=?C=DC]:;C8C;B9EbCb:@AE_:9=<EC;9C8C;_:Z<9U\B_`D9:?\;<9U?[C<;_[<AE;C9B9E];<C9E=?:W=?C=D9:]?[CB;CBb:@AE\C]:;C8C;EC=?;:^CEDgCBE<9U<9?[<=E<;C_?<:9<98<?C=T;C8@=CA^?[Cb;:9U`<9]:;W=?C=XB;`DbC?CAATC:TACbCZCC?B\:@?W=?C=XB;`bCCZT[B=<iC?[C8C;^?[<9U=b[<_[?[<=T;:cC_?T@?=B??[CC9U<9CC;:9?[Cj<UR[:ZT=:9bB?C;T;:cC_??:\;<9UbB?C;B9EZ:<=?@;C?:?[CWB=?=<EC:]=?C=XB;`bB=C8C9B\AC?:Cd<=?<9ECTC9EC9?A^B=B?:b9DgCbB=BA:8C;:]9B?@;Cb[:\BAB9_C?bB=\C=?]:;[@ZB9\C<9U=DW=?C=XB;`9CCE=?:T;:?C_?9B?@;CB9EU;CC9=TB_C=B9E?[C_BAZC8C;^Cd<=?C9_C:]W=?C=XB;`b<AAE<=BTTCB;D:;b[B?b:@AE\CA:=?Df@;IB?<:9BAXB;`=B;CBA;CBE^@9EC;?[;CB?Da]?[C]BZ<A<C=b[:A:8CB9E;:=?Z<==<9U<9?[<=b:;AElBECCT_:99C_?<:9b<?[9B?@;ClB;C]:;_CE?:ACB8Cl?[C;<TTACC]]C_?b<A<C=H:]_A<Z\C;=H[<`C;=H]<=[C;ZC9B9Eb:ZC9H_BZTC;=H8:A@9?CC;=HC?_b<AA9:?bB9??:;C?@;9<]?[CU:BADa9?CAA<UC9?EC8CA:TZC9?]:_@=C=:]_:9_C9?;B?<9U?:bB;E=?[CBA;CBE^\@<A?_C9?C;=:]A<8<=<:9:@?bB;E=ZCB9=Z:;C_B;?;B]]<_Z:;CT:AA@?<:9Z:;C9:<=CB9E?[C<ZTB_?:9B9<ZBAB9E[@_?=DC;?[B9?[@=T;:T:=CEEC8CA:TZC9?DR[C]@?@;C<=9:?Z:9C^Z:9C^Z:9C^DR[C]@?@;C<=n@BA<?^:_`C?=:]=B9<?^_BAZB9E_ACB9B<;?[C_:@9?;^[B=AC]?DC]:;_CE?:=B^U::E\^C?:?[<=TAB_CDa_B99:?=?;C==[:b8C;^Z@_[?[<=T;:T:=CEA@d@;^[:?CAB_C:]Z<9EH\@??[C8C;^;CZB<9=:@;]BZ<A^_[:=C?[<=B;CB?:ZB`C:@;[:ZC=B9EUB?[C;<9UTAB;C<=?[C;CBAA@d@;^DV:9o?EC=?;:^<?D\C;AB<9HX[DVD !"## $%&'()(*+,#-+.&/ %&#00123445637&8&#,9+#:;<=>?@ABC=DEF;?CG H=IJK?LYB<=C^WYE=DVJ=V_C[`=CDE[<=X?aVW_I<WYWXD_WV;W=V_I<W=;;?CU=V[DVBE=V_=IbQcd?;eYD_B<WCWVIE[?UU?XWgEe<?YVhXUY?U?X=EI?_WLWE?UI<WE=V_^?Y_WYDVB?iYUY?UWYI[DVI?<DB<_WVXDI[YW=X?VXFID?V?`<DB<k_WVXDI[E?_BDVBJU=YeDVB=V_Y?=_XDVI<DX=YW=a?iE_WV_=VBWYE?;=EaDE_ED`WFgXIWXl=W;DWXJC=V[?`a<D;<YWE[?VI<WiV_WLWE?UW_E=V_`?YI<WDY<=^DI=IFmVC[@N[W=YXXUWVI=I?iYUIWXJ^W=YXJC?iVI=DVED?VXJ^=E_W=BEWX=V_C=V[C?YWXUW;DWXI<=I;=EEd?;edD_BWI<WDY<?CWFID?V=V_I<WXi^XWniWVI<iC=V=;IDLDI[a?iE__WXIY?[I<WW;?X[XIWC`?YC=V[?`gXIWXl=YehXV=?=_W;EDVWDV^D?_DLWYXDI[Fi;ID?V?`I<WV=IiY=EW;?X[XIWCDX=BY=LW;?V;WYVFT<WiV_WLWE?UW_E=V_DVgXIWXl=YeDXV?I?VX=;Yi;D=EY?EWDVC=DVI=DVDVBW;?E?BD;=E^=E=V;WFT<WDVIY?_i;ID?V?`<DB<k_WVXDI[<?iXDVBa?iE_Y?XD?VJ=V_I<WE?XX?`V=IDLWLWBWI=ID?VJa<D;<=YWLDI=E`?YXiXI=DVDVBI<WE?;=EWVLDY?VCWVIFio?`<iC=VXI<=I=;;?CU=VDWXXi;<_WLWE?UCWVIXa?iE_DVWLDI=^E[^YDVBV?DXW=V_EDB<IU?EEiID?Xl=YeDXeV?aV`?Ya<D;<^WVW`DIX^?I<I<WE?;=E`E?Y==V_`=iV==XaWEE=XI<W<iC=VU?UiE=ID?VII<Wni=EDI[?`ED`W`?Y;iYYWVIYWXD_WVIX^iI=EX?_DXIiY^V?;IiYV=EaDE_ED`W=V_=EIWYV=IiY=E^W<=LD?EW=_I?C?YWEDIIWY=V_a=XIWJ`iYI<WY_WBY=_DVBI<WWVLDY?VCWVIFT<WX;WVD;^W=iI[?`gXIWXl=YI<Wa?YE_Ja?iE_^W;?CUY?CDXW_^[I<WUYWXWV;W?`EDIIWY=V_U?EEiID?VF_XDV=V_=Y?iV_gXIWXl=Ye=YWV?I_WXDBVW_I?<=V_EWI<WL?EiCW?`IY=``D;I<=I<DB<k_WVXDI[E??VBWXID?VJE?VBWYIY=LWEIDCWXJ=V_=<DB<WYYDXe?`=;;D_WVIXJ?VY?=_XI<=I=YW=EYW=_[^iY_WVW_<[W=YF[?iI?YW;?VXD_WYI<WUY?U?X=E`?Y<DB<k_WVXDI[<?iXDVB_WLWE?UCWVIXDVgXIWXl=YeFT<WU?IWVI<WV=IiY=EW;?X[XIWCJ=V_I<W;?CCiVDI[`=Y?iIaWDB<=V[UWY;WDLW_^WVW`DIXFmXIY?VBE[=_L?;=V=IiY=EWVLDY?VCWVI=V_I<WiVDniW;<=Y=;IWY?`gXIWXl=Ye=V_I<WB=IWa=[?`I<WY?;eDWXF !"#$%# %#&'()# *'#+ %,,-./0012/3)4'$3)4+5'4 67789:;<=>9?@???AB:9?>C7D:E F9GHIDJ=B ``a`bdgh_WXYfiif[a\af`\f\jWiYfif[WkZ_^jfY`lfkbW]jX[WcckWmW_fidpqrstfh^takbWtfXkuejahj[a\[XkvXhW`\\f\jWiYfif[WkkWmW_fidzWY_Xa`uX_f`bf\jWY`WabjzfY[f`_feWYVWWYtakbWui_XhWk\jWaYiYfiW`\ea\j\jWZ[\W[{X__WglX`k|Y}[\~Z{l|\fiYf\Wh\VWWYtakbWpfYpbj\YXppahi_X`[[}hjX[\jWf`Wi_X``WknVWWYtakbW€X`k\jW_fhX\af`pfiW`bYWW`[iXhWa`Z[\W[]XY^\jX\[jf}_kYWdXa`fiW`X`k`X\}YXX`k_abj\if__}\af`nfY\X`\\f\jW`X\}YX_zWX}\g\f\jWha\gX[f\jWYbYWW`[iXhW[[}hjX[Yda\]XY^ƒiW`„iXhWn|jW[W\ef_X\\WY_fhX\af`[eWYWiYf\Wh\WkpYfdgWXY[XbfuX`k`feXYWW[[W`\aX_[iXhW[\jX\YWiYW[W`\\jW`X\}YX_zW[]XY^a[YW`fe`Wka`\WY`X\af`X__gncWmW`[}bbW[\\jX\\jW\fe`fpZ[\W\jWiYfif[Wk[a\W\fiYW[WYmWa\X[X`X\}YX_ef`kWYX`kX`W†\W`[afe[X`k…WYda\]XY^n[XYW[iWh\WkYWi}\X\af`pfYiYXh\aha`b[dXY\kWmW_fidW`\uX`k\ja[Z_^af`nˆ`kWYXea[WkWmW_fidW`\i_X`u\jW\fe`[jf}_khf`hW`\YX\W`WeW†a[\a`bpff\iYa`\fpjf}[a`bX`khf`[\Y}h\af`n|jWiYfif[Wki_X`YWiX`kjabjo\YXppahkWmW_fidW`\\jX\a[\jWfiif[a\WfpZ[\W[]XY^‡[YWi}\XZ[\W[]XY^‡[df[\mX_}Xz_WX[[W\[X[Xhfdd}`a\gn‚WXYW`f\v}[\X`iW`_X`kpfY\jW[X^WfpbYWWkn|f}Ya[da[\jWzYWXkX`kz}\\WYfp\jWW`\^a__\jWbff[W\jX\_Xg[\jWbf_kW`Wbbn]_WX[W[}iifY\X[dXY\kWm[[W\[[}hjX[VWWYtakbW\jX\dX^WZ[\W[]XY^[iWhaX_n}Whfdd}`a\ga`yf_fYXkf€YW`fe`WkpfYa\[XhhW[[\f`X\}YWuh_WXYX_fYW\jWi_X``a`bhfdda[[af`X`k\jW\fe`\f^WWiVWWYtakbWbYWW`` !"#$%&'''(")'*'+,-#'.#/0012344563,#"/789:;<=>?@ABCDEFG>=HHIJHKL MNOPQHRN?<O]=K@AVHabcbJJHKKHd>VOHA]efO?=g>G^HNNOdHNhHAOA?iO]VNOJVaHN_<j=HNA\=>]@kk>AA@l>VOHAN]P\\HNVmAOVGVH>ddN@]]V=@\NH\H]@dnHAOA?aHNV=@SE>JN@]Ha_<j=HNAY=>]@kkP>aa@JVOHA>V@<GjAH]\>NJ@<XkVa@@<]gO<d>AdN@KHV@IkVO]OAV=@VN>A]OVOHAnHA@`@Vg@@ArZQYPs<dZ>AZHmAV>OA>d@dAHNV=]<H\@?OR@]g>GVH>AH\@AK@>dHgHAVH\Hai@@NrOd?@IkVO]=@>RO<Gm]@d`GHmNgO<d]>JHNNOdHNJHAA@JVOA?i@@NZHmAV>OAVHdHgAVHgAI64vy3v4€v4v|~3 wz24z23‚ƒƒx36w3345wz}xyu3„5~~3…†yu3v‡zv‡€v3ˆ wz2‰ˆ…‚Šˆu3w3vy3y3w4yu3„5~~3… }4y|3~zˆyu3Ž4y34 5w 4v6{}~~†z ‹ wz2yu3‘y5~3…5x•5 3–z5x5xyu3ˆ34y3xz –v€3w4vx3—wv€3˜z22vyy3xyz{w343w€v6yu3‡u5w5‡y3wz yuv4{5wyz —33w–vx63˜tu33v6u|zw4yzyu335yz‡z43w€5yvz354323y4˜tu3•5xtw}4yv436zyv5yv6ˆvyu™š›œyu3zˆ3wz š~x23yyu5yˆz}~x{w343w€3yuv4v‡zv‡~5x25w 54{}|~v‡~…5‡‡344v|~3š{3‘{5‡3˜5w‡3~ ¡yv4‡}ww3y~…Ÿz3xŽ„–}w5~Ž4y5y3¢5~5x}43‡z4v4y3yˆvyuvy4w}w5~‡u5w5‡y3zx5yvz4¥‰v6uˆ5…›zwwvxzwv4v5{{wz{wv5y3 zwyu3 z~~zˆv6w354z4˜—3€3~z{23y›zx3¢¤¤‡‡z22zx5yvz4¥‰v6uˆ5…›zwwvxzw¦zv65{{~v34v§uv6uˆ5…†z yu3Ž4y34„5~~3…¨˜tu3™{{3wŠƒv43vyu3wuv6uˆ5…†zwv3y3xzw5‡z223w‡v5~5w35˜¤u3…z}ˆ5~ yu3{wz{3wy…˜™43“5{z yu3›z2{w3u34v€3 ~5{wz{z434¤†1•zˆ—34vy…¤‡‡z22zx5yvz4 zwy€3~z{23y›zx3yuv4Ÿzv6v4vy3x3x zw§~zˆ†vy34vy…5x425~~†4‡5~3w34vx3yv5~}4zw3z€3w¢§š3ˆ}434¢v‡~}xv63ˆ5‡‡z22zx5yvz4¢4u5~~|3x3€3~z{3x‡z4v4y3yv4‡5~3¢w34vx3yv5~‡u5w5‡y3wz yuv4xv4ywv‡y˜¨¡zyu3wˆzwx4¢yu3›z2{w3u34v€3 ~534vy…uv6ux34vy…uzy3~4˜v€3 ~5«z5~¬Ž‚˜©v4yz§{wz€vx35{{wz{wv5y3yw54vyvz|3yˆ33€5w…v6vy34vy…z }v2vŸ3v2{5‡y4|3yˆ335x 5‡3yx3€3~z{23y4˜¨tu3‡}ww3yŸzv6z Ž4y34„5~~3…–}vyvz|3yˆ33yu3ˆv~x}x3€3~z{3x~5x4yzyu3ˆ34yœ–“š ¢š~x“5“z}y5vž¢yu3354y¢yu3w34vx3yv5~3v6u|zwuzzxyzyu3zwyu5xyu3vx}4ywv5~5w35yzyu34z}yu˜¤tyuv45{{wz{wv5y3yw54vyvz˜¤¤‡‡z22zx5yvz4Ÿzv6ˆz}~xzy˜454ywz64y5y323yyu5y€zy3w45w3~33w…z ‡u5634vŸzv6¢34{3‡v5~~…ˆu3yu3…yu‡y3w˜¡yv4}‡~35wuzˆ¬5~~zy¡44}3‚ƒƒ~365~~…5{{~v34yzyuv4Ž4y5|~v4u23yz ¦zv6 z{v{3~v3˜‰zˆ3€3w¢25…z yu33v6u|zw4z yu3™{{3wŠƒz{{z43yu3w3£}34y3x‡u5yu3ˆv~~z yu3€zy3w4¢yu343yv3yz ¬5~~zy¡44}3‚ƒƒyzx3…yu3w3£}34y3xŸzv65xŽŸzv6yu5yv43£}v€5~3yyzyu33v4yv6Ÿzv6˜25…zy|3vz}w—3€3~z{23y›zx3¢vyv45xz2v5yyu323v•5x™43 ~5v65wy5yu3w3ˆu3w3ˆ3u5€3€3w…~v2vy3x~5x¢5x5{{wz€v6z3}43{w3‡~}x345zyu3w˜z €v4vyzw5‡‡z22zx5yvz4‹z}w5}5~vŸ3xz‡‡}{5‡…w5y345w3ˆ3~~4z}yuz Šƒ¯˜„Žu54w3‡3y~…4y5y3xyu5y~z4v64z23©ƒƒ€v4vyzw5‡‡z22zx5yvz4}vy4yzŽ ‰¤uz}4vtzˆy5w3€3}34˜šyu3zyu3wu5x¢z}w‡z22}vy…u545x34{3w5y333x zwˆzw }v~xv6uv6u†3x5‡‡z22zx5yvz4z5{5w‡3~‡}ww3y~…Ÿz3xw34vx3yv5~ˆz}~x|3vy4¬ !"## $%&'()(*+,#-+.&/ %&#0012344563(#* $)+789:;8<=>?@@ABC9;?DEFCG HI;JKF:IBPP<9P>F\8=U>P<=]=IC;PI=[\=VP^IFC_?`<FIUaF8B=PFb\;?8<;B<8=UV;P>?F8B;UB9U8]9I`;UB;=<;U8cFE`c;8B=cF98DX<9:=]=IVFU9??>V]=UP9?FPF^P;C=9PC>BFF8^I;=U8YVI=V;8=UE=F^LdU=9IP<=9I=9_?`<FIU;VI=[\=VP;UB]=IC;PV^FIDW;:=UP<9PX`UFZP<=?9U8Z=??JX^==?P<9P;^>F\B;PZ;??BI=9P?>8=PI9EP^IFCP<=U9P\I9?b=9\P>F^P<=?9U8VE9]=JC9`;UB_VP=VR9I`9?=VV8=V;I9b?=^_VP=VR9I`V<F\?8b=]I=V=I:=89VC\E<9V]FVV;b?=DI=9V=8PI9^^;EP<9Pb\;?8;UB<;B<8=UV;P>?F8B;UB9U8]9I`;UB;UP<;V9I=9ZF\?8bI;UBJZ;??C9`=9PFP<=;U^?\gF^PF\I;VPVJ=:=UCFI=<9I8PFU9:;B9P=9U8:;V;PDh;V;P;UB_VP=VR9I`;V9<;B<?;B<PF^C>;V;PFIVi;PZF\?8b=9V<9C=PFC9`=9PFZUP<9P;VVFBFIB=F\V9U8]=9E=^\??=VV8=V;I9b?=F^9X<F]=>F\V==P<=b;BB=I];EP\I=9U88=U>P<=]=IC;PI=[\=VPVF_VP=VR9I`9U8P<=V\IIF\U8;UB;UFU=F^P<=b=VP]?9E=V;UP<=EF\UPI>PF:;V;P9U8P9`=;UP<=b=9\P>F^U9P\I=DX`UFZP<=^\??P;C=E;9P=>F\IEFCC;PC=UPPFC9;UP9;U;UBZ<9PC9`=V_VP=VVFBI=9P;UP<=^;IVP]?9E=D !"## $%&'()(*+,#-+.&/ %&#00123445637#"89:;<=>?>@@>ABCCCDE:;FG=?>:H IAFJK>LAEU\>]P>^U@\P_U[UA:FPP>`]FG^_FE_^U@VFP\G>^EF@E;@^[;AaF@Eb>AP_UUGa_>A@G>^EUU<[;@VF>@V[>FGP_U@;P]A;G`U;]P\>bP_UG;@^V?;[U;@^F@?AU;VUPA;bbF?P>P_U;GAU;^\VPA;F@U^F@bA;VPA]?P]AAVP>P_U[;AaFV]@V]VP;F@;`GU;@^\>]AFVaA]F@F@EP_UV>GFP]^U;@^ZFG^UA@UVV[;AaLFVFP>AVEUPP[U@P:;@\V]::UAVb>AP_UG;VPMC\U;AV;PNfgA>?aAF^EUA>;^;@^P_FV^ULUG>[:U@PVP;@^VP>^P_UAU:>PU@UVV>bP_FVh>?a\S>]@P;F@AUPAU;P=T_;@a\>]b>A\>]A?>@VF^UA;PF>@= !"## $%&'()(*+,#-+.&/ %&#0012344563/+)7+89:9;<:9=>?@ABC<D:9EFG<H IJ:KLGM?JCJY>P==>KFP\Y99;J=]Y=>PP^DPP^=UJGUG>=XU=J<:P\GJ^:C^_X=V>:P;X=M=9GU<=VPG\`9a^GJVbGXC=R^D>=ZZ;9GXC:VC:VP^=DJ=Dc=^:VX<;\D<:9;e>J=>:X=VF=GVfGFaf:XC=fX[GY9XU=J<DV=VP9;D9P=JP^=^Dc:PDPKDVXX:<:V:>^P^=>F=V:F=VM:JGV<=VPP^DPcGP^J=>:X=VP>DVXM:>:PGJ>F^=J:>^EUG>=XX=M=9GU<=VP[GY9XcJ:VC:VFJ=D>=XPJD\\:FPGDPG[VDVXLDP:GVD9RDJaP^DPDJ=D9J=DX;>PJ=F=VP>YJC=:VM:>:PGJ>EgXX:VC<GJ=9GXC:VCFDUDF:P;[:99GV9;[GJ>=VFGVC=>P:GVDVX>D\=P;FGVF>EZ>PJGVC9;YJC=P^=cGDJXPGX=V;P^:>U=J<:PDVXPGUJGP=FPP^=VDPYJD9DVXFG<<YV:P;J=>GYJF=>FGV>:X=JDP:GVE Joan Hoper 1270 Range View Rd 11/14/25 Comment on Establishment of A- Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District for Elkhorn phase II annexation. Dear Commissioners, Thank you for this opportunity to address the proposed zoning for the 40 acres of Elkhorn Phase II, affectionately known as the “Upper 40”. The character of this parcel: It feels wild and remote. It is in the transition zone between RMNP, Old Man Mountain and the Town. Its steep, densely wooded north slope gives way to an open meadow on top of Deer Ridge. It is heavily used by our wildlife, both as winter habitat and as a corridor connecting Deer Mountain to downtown. This ridgetop building site is visible from some 300 degrees around the Valley-the iconic view from Hwy 34 where it drops into Town; from Hwy 36 where it enters the Valley just below the Estes Park sign pull-off; from the Stanley and the Wonderview bypass; from Mary’s Lake Road and the west end of Riverside Drive. The community is committed to preserving the character of this part of Deer Ridge. The neighbors to the east have put hundreds of acres into conservation easements. The Land Trust is negotiating with UNC (the owner of Old Man Mountain) for a conservation easement that would preserve this iconic landmark as publicly accessible Open Space. The zoning of this parcel: It is currently zoned EV Rural Estate, a land use consistent with its rural character. The requested zoning of A-Accommodations/Highway Corridor is inappropriate for the following reasons. 1. According to our Development Code, A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning applies in “highway-oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley”. The Upper 40 is neither highway-oriented nor a commercial area. Any doubts on this will be cleared up when you walk the property. 2. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan proposes A-1 Low Density Accommodations for this parcel. According to our Development Code this zoning is intended for “low-intensity and small-scale residential uses, low-intensity accommodations”. Moreover, “New uses, including new accommodations, shall be developed consistent in intensity, bulk and design with the low-scale, residential character of this district.” In other words, the Comprehensive Plan never envisioned this parcel for high intensity high density hotels. 3. The Comprehensive Plan Goal BE3.2 is to “provide appropriate transition between varying intensity of uses and scales of development to minimize impacts between adjacent developments.” The current zoning of Estes Valley Rural Estate provides an appropriate transition between the wild undeveloped lands to the west (RMNP, Old Man Mountain), the rural estate neighborhood to the east, the residential neighborhood to the north and the industrial area to the south. A TOEP Rural Estate zoning would retain this appropriate transition. A Accommodations zoning would not. 4. Ballot Issue 300 is a strong statement that voters are leery of changes in zoning, especially when they threaten neighborhood character. It is unclear how Ballot Issue 300 legally applies to this Establishment of Zoning for an annexation that is already in the pipeline. However, many of the neighbors of the Upper 40 oppose the requested change in zoning. It would be respecting the will of the voters, the sentient of Ballot Issue 300 to deny the requested zoning and instead recommend TOEP RE zoning that is equivalent to the existing zoning. 5. While “Best Use” may not be in our Development Code, it is a dominant theme in Land Use Planning and in Smart Growth. It is especially important here where we have very limited land, and approving one use precludes another. We may already have an over-supply of visitor accommodations; our annualized occupancy rates are well south of 40%. VEP CFO and acting COE Mike Zumbagh has recently stated that losing some 200 visitor accommodations units to EPHA housing is expected to have little impact on Town tax revenues. On the other hand, our community has a desperate need for workforce housing. It is hard to argue that building high-end accommodations on a parcel currently zoned residential would be its Best Use. I will close by saying that requested zoning goes against the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, the desires of the neighbors, the will of the voters and the needs of the community. The only reason to approve the requested zoning is to facilitate a high- density high-impact development that is of doubtful value to the community and that would bring irreversible harm to many stakeholders. Please deny this request for A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning. Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Opposition to Proposed Annexation and High-Density Development at Elkhorn Lodge Phase II 1 message James Arcidiacono <James.Arcidiacono@alliant.com>Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 4:34 PM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Cc: James Arcidiacono <jamesarcidiacono001@gmail.com> Dear Members of the Estes Park Planning Commission, I am sending this email to express my opposition to the proposed annexation of the 40-acre parcel located behind my residence at 543 Rock Ridge Road and the high-density development planned for this 40-acre site. I want to ask that the planning commission consider the following issues during its review of the annexation and development application: Impact of the increase in noise pollution and light pollution Impact of increase in traffic congestion Impact of wildlife habitat destruction and disruption of the natural ecosystem Impact the project will have in forcing a change in historic wildlife game trails and migration patterns Impact on increase in fire risk and safety Impact on the quality of life and rights of adjacent property owners Based upon these facts I ask that the Estes Park Planning Commission DENY the applicants request in all of its iterations. Thank you for your consideration, James Arcidiacono 543 Rock Ridge Road, Estes Park This email and its attachments are for the exclusive use of the intended recipients, and may contain proprietary information and trade secrets of Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries. This email may also contain information that is conﬁdential, or otherwise protected from disclosure by contract or law. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, or distribution of this email and its attachments is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, let us know by reply email and then destroy all electronic and physical copies of this message and attachments. Nothing in this email or its attachments is intended to be legal, ﬁnancial, or tax advice, and recipients are advised to consult with their appropriate advisors regarding any legal, ﬁnancial, or tax implications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bV4:N:G9 11/13/25 Dear Members of the Town Board, On behalf of the Estes Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, I am writing to express support for the proposed Elkhorn II annexation project currently under consideration. We believe this initiative represents a strategic opportunity for economic growth and fiscal sustainability for our community. The proposed annexation would significantly expand the town’s commercial and residential tax base. By bringing this new project within the town limits, the town stands to benefit from increased tax revenues that can be reinvested into critical infrastructure, public services, and community development efforts. As the voice of local business, the Chamber recognizes the importance of maintaining a vibrant, well-funded town environment that supports both current and future business operations. Increased tax receipts from annexation can help ensure that the town remains competitive in attracting new businesses, retaining existing ones, and offering a high quality of life to residents and employees alike. We encourage the Town Board to move forward with this project. Thank you for your leadership and for considering our position on this important matter. Sincerely, Colleen DePasquale President – Estes Chamber of Commerce Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Elkhorn Phase II 1 message Bill Brown <billbrown220@outlook.com>Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 4:09 PM To: Planning Division <planning@estes.org> November 12, 2025 To: Planning Commissioners My name is Bill Brown. I reside at 340 Elm Road, a ﬁfty year resident of property above the proposed phase II development. I strongly object to the rezoning of the Elkhorn Phase II Project. “A” Accommodation zoning is inappropriate for this parcel. Parcel is not a ”highway-oriented commercial area.” The Comprehensive Plan proposed low-density, residential use. The high-intensity, high density accommodations now under consideration were not a part of the original Comprehensive Plan for this parcel. The parcel is adjacent to wild, rural and undeveloped lands. The proposed hotels, cabins, and tree houses would generate traﬃc, noise and light pollution that will totally change the character of the neighborhood and community of the adjacent properties. Mixed zoning or island zoning are not recommended in The Comprehensive Zoning Plan of 2022. This proposal would have both. The Protected Ridgeline View is not being protected by excavating and building hotel, and parking lots on the Protected Ridge Line The 100 foot buﬀer around the entire 40 acres, Protected Ridge Line, through street (bypass), multi-use trail paralleling the through street, side-streets, side walks, parking areas for tree-houses, detention ponds and the 290 units proposed. Because of the mountainous terrain of the property, this should be prorated. Is there enough room for all the above on this acreage? I understand property rights are valuable, does this zoning issue for this development enhance the three neighborhoods , the community, the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Rocky Mountain National Park. I believe there are more appropriate community alternative uses. Sincerely, Bill Brown Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Elkhorn Phase 2 Rezoning 1 message Harry Kent <harry@viaferrataworks.com>Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:04 AM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> November 11, 2025 To: Estes Park Planning Commission From: Harry Kent 170 Elm Road Estes Park, CO 80517 I wish to be on record that I am opposed to the rezoning request for the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II project for the following reasons: 1. The request for this rezoning does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town on April 1, 2020. Correct interpretation of the plan does exactly what it should: Prevent large development by: a. “Protecting wild spaces, scenic vistas, ridgelines, dark skies.” b. "Limit development in areas of critical natural habitat" c. “Protecting the valley’s distinctive character and prevent development sprawl.” I don’t see how this request in any way could be approved given the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. I strongly urge the planning commission adhere to and follow these guidelines. 2. The quality of life and the rights of adjacent property owners will be negatively impacted by this development. Speciﬁcally: a. Impact of increased vehicular traﬃc b. Impact of wildlife and migration patterns 3. The 43-acre parcel is very close and connected to the historical and sacred Old Man Mountain rock, as well as Rocky Mountain National Park. Respectfully, Harry Kent Harry Kent www.viaferrataworks.com The Alpine Jewel LLC Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Elkhorn Lodge Phase II (re-zoning meeting set for 11/18/25) 1 message Catey Hurley <catey1962@gmail.com>Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:33 PM To: planning@estes.org My name is Catharine Hurley-Bartolucci and my family owns property directly to the east of the proposed development above. I strenuously OBJECT to any re-zoning of the proposed property to "A accommodations," or highway-oriented/commercial use. The area in question is and has been for MANY decades residential property and open space; it is not, and never was, intended to be developed for highway or commercial use. The existing homes/neighborhoods surrounding the parcel in question were planned and developed for low density residential development. The proposed two 110-room hotels, 55-plus treehouses, 8-10 cabins and attendant parking lots are the complete opposite of what this property was originally developed and zoned for; it would completely disrupt the wildlife, rural estate and residential areas that exist now and have existed for decades. The original Elkhorn Lodge is already the site of a huge new hotel, with all the attendant light, traffic and noise pollution that will come with it. Putting 2 more hotels, tree houses and cabins literally on top of that is nothing short of absurd; the level of long-term disruption this development would cause to current and longtime residents, to wildlife, and to the Town as a whole cannot be overstated. Please do not re-zone the property in question; Elkhorn Lodge Phase II would destroy the way of life that makes Estes Park home for its residents and the treasure it is for its visitors. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Catharine Hurley-Bartolucci 444 Rock Ridge Road Estes Park, CO. 80517 Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> objection to Elkhorn Phase II 1 message Mary Dunn <mary.dunn@slu.edu>Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 12:30 PM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> I am writing to express my strong objection to the rezoning requested by the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II project. My objections are as follows: "A" zoning is inappropriate for this parcel as the parcel is not a "highway-oriented commercial area" of the Estes Valley. The high-intensity, high-density accommodations now under consideration were not a part of the original Comprehensive Plan for this parcel. The Comprehensive Plan proposed low-density, residential use. The parcel is adjacent to wild, rural, and undeveloped lands. The proposed hotels, cabins, and tree houses would generate traffic, noise, and light pollution that will totally change the character of the adjacent land to the great detriment of property owners nearby. Mary Dunn 444 Rock Ridge Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Elkhorn phase II 2 messages Bill Brown <billbrown220@outlook.com>Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 3:19 PM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Please see attached documents and submit as public comments bill brown elm road. Sent from my iPhone !"# $$% &"'()**#('(+,-../0-1(#'2%34"56#789:;<=>?@8A?B CADEC;FGHEHIHST;RR:UV>UV@APSBEC;PWUXUD;87?8UD;8:UV>UV@APSBEYZZPA[D:UV>UV@APSY7ZZPA[D:UV>UV@APSUR>AD:UV>UV@APSBEY?WSUR:UV>UV@APSY7?WSUR:UV>UV@APSBEY_P;D^R;D8;V>UP:UV>UV@APSYP:UV>UV@APSBEY8FA`DSR`Da:UV>UV@APSY78FA`DSR`Da:UV>UV@APSBEbR;DDWDScWdWVWAD7<R;DDWDS:opvwogxyz{{ylfw|}tfww~w€{ zy~…pwzp†t‡ipgwˆp|{}ify{‰‰Šww{‹f…pwq‹ g{yyŒryzgpwp py~…pwzpzi{ gp py{|†t‡ipgwˆp|{}ify{‰‰Šww{‹f…Ž{tpv g{‘~{v~weg ’{‘~we €{wwr“yhpŒ g{i{wy~‘{„ py~…pwˆ{”{gfw|•–—–˜~”{|zpzi{opvw¢t{g‡pwŠ g~t£lkmknlfw|yifg{|v~zizi{efrpglopvwottryx pgzi~y py~…pw ‰yifg{eg €{wwr“yhpwh{gwyfw|yzfw|¥gŒtrff~wyttzi{g{fypwyi{pxzt~w{| w{‹f…pwfw|yxŽy{¦x{wz|{‘{tp Œ{wzvpxt|if‘{ gp pxw|trw{f…‘{~Œ w‘~gpwŒ{wz ¢pwh{gwy~whtx|{zi{|~ygx …pwp v~t|t~ {ifŽ~zfzyl~whg{fy{|vfz{gŒfwf{Œ{wzlfw|zi{tpyyp zi{ {fh{lhifgfhz{glfw|gxgft {{tp zi{ {vp zi{Œfwr~yyx{ygf~y{|~weg €{wwr“yhpŒ g{i{wy~‘{p py~…pwt{”šž˜Ÿš ©xgzi{gŒpg{lzi~y|{‘{tp Œ{wzvpxt|t~‡{trt{f|zpfy~w~¥hfwz|{htzipŒ{pvw{gylyfhg~¥h~wzi{tpw¤z{gŒv{tt¤Ž{~wp pxghpŒŒxw~zr pgyi~ft gp¥z zphfg{ xttrhpwy~|{geg €{wwr“yt{”{gfw|hpwh{gwylfw|zpg{hpw~ª{zi{|{ŒŒxw~zrŒ{ŒŽ{gy fg{y{{~wfzgpxŽt~w f”{gwvi{g{|{‘{tp {gy§fw|ypŒ{…Œ{y{‘{wzi{o~wz{wzfw| g~wh~ t{ytf~|pxz~wzi{¢pŒ g{i{wy~‘{}tfwfw|€{‘{tp Œ{wz¢x{ 1 Estes Park Elkhorn Phase 2: Statement of Concerns Regarding Annexation, Rezoning and PUD 4/07/25 Because the three actions requested are so intertwined the following presents the objections and issues associated with all three of the requested actions, Annexation, Zoning/Re-zoning and PUD establishment. Arguments Against Annexation 1. The Application for Annexation is Erroneous. The Estes Park Planning Department Application is in error. Specifically, the Proposed Zoning is PUD. While a PUD overlay may be the ultimate goal, PUD is not a legitimate Zoning District Category. Additionally, the application mentions the 3-acre parcel which is not subject to annexation. Any rezoning of this parcel should be the subject of a separate rezoning application Therefore, the Application is erroneous and should be rejected. 2. The subject property is ineligible for Annexation since it is not “urbanized”. Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-104 Eligibility for Annexation states “(1) No unincorporated area may be annexed to a municipality unless… the governing body, at a hearing as provided in section 31-12-109, finds and determines … (b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality.” Section 31-12-103 defines Urban to include 2 “construction on land of improvements” or “vacant ground which has been or is being prepared for urban development by such steps as subdivision into lots or plots and blocks, installation of water and sewer lines, construction of access streets” By this definition, the property is neither “urban [n]or urbanized in the near future”. It is not subdivided. It has neither water nor sewer lines, beyond a couple of fire hydrants. It has no access to streets. While such improvements are contemplated, they are not currently underway. Finally, urbanization will only go forward if the zoning and PUD overlay requests are approved. Given the considerable concerns with this development proposal, as detailed below, there is considerable doubt that the zoning and PUD overlay requests will be approved. Approval of the Annexation only makes sense for the developer if the Zoning and PUD are approved at the same time. 3. The subject property does not meet the Annexation Principles outlined in the Comp Plan. The Town has not developed a specific annexation policy, so the general principles set forward in the Comp Plan must guide any annexation decision. The Annexation and Future Town Service Areas subsection of Section 3 of the Comp Plan calls for there to be a strong: “…connection between more urban land use and eventual annexation”, where “annexation by the Town [would] prioritiz[e]ing growth areas and limit[ing] development in areas of critical natural habitat and resources”. To achieve this the Town should identify: “Future Service Areas…where higher intensity and density is acceptable over the next 20 years”, with the expectation that when specific “development criteria are met, the Town would annex areas within the Future Service Area.” The annexation proposal is at odds with these principles. The subject property is NOT designated as nor suitable for “higher intensity and 3 density”. Instead, this annexation would facilitate the contravened “development in an area of critical natural habitat”, an undeveloped parcel to where NO “development criteria are met”. Because this annexation proposal is at odds with the annexation principles in the Comp Plan, this request for Annexation should be denied. 4. Annexation for the purpose of development disenfranchises adjacent property owners in unincorporated Larimer County. Annexation of this parcel violates property rights of adjacent property owners. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by unincorporated Larimer County, whose rules protect the quality of life and property values of adjacent landowners. Once the parcel is annexed, those adjacent landowners lose their voice in the development process. They have no voice in the Development Code. They cannot sit on the Planning Commission. They cannot vote for Town Trustees or Ordinances. They derive no benefit that may accrue to the Town from this development, yet they pay the price of noise, traffic, light pollution and degradation of their neighborhood, WHERE THEY LIVE. 5. Annexation to avoid Larimer County Zoning and Development rules sets a dangerous precedent. a. The motivation driving this annexation request is clearly to avoid existing Larimer County zoning and development rules. It is an attempt to develop this parcel under the rules and processes of the Town, which are more flexible and are thus more open to manipulation by outside interests. There is no legitimate reason to seek annexation other than to avoid the existing zoning. b. The only rationale for seeking annexation that is provided by the developer is, “To support development, we are coordinating with local agencies to finalize utility access. Sewer service will be accessible from both Upper Thompson and Estes Park Sanitation Districts…”. This is nothing but a Red Herring because the Upper Thompson sewer lines already run up Elm Road, very near, if not to, the subject property line and much closer to the proposed construction sites. It would be far cheaper to tie into the existing Upper Thompson Sanitation District lines than to extend the sewer line from Phase 1 to the proposed construction sites. 4 c. Approval of this annexation request, despite its many conflicts with the letter and spirit of the Plan, would set a dangerous precedent. It would encourage developers to routinely use annexation, zoning and PUD overlay requests to permit projects that are contrary to the Estes Park Development Code and Comp Plan, projects that are not in the best interests of the community. Arguments Against Proposed Zoning/Re-zoning and PUD 1. Proposed Re-zoning and PUD overlay for development of high-intensity visitor accommodations is Contrary to the Vision of the Comp Plan. The Vision of the Comp Plan: “Our community works together as responsible stewards of our irreplaceable mountain surroundings to support residents and welcome visitors by preserving and enhancing our quality of life, sense of community, economic vitality, and health of the natural environment.” This project is NOT “responsible stewards[hip] of our irreplaceable mountain surroundings”. Instead, it irresponsible high-intensity development of an irreplaceable wild mountain ridgetop, a finger of wildland that connects RMNP to downtown Estes Park, a buffer zone and wildlife corridor. It does NOT support residents or adjoining communities. Rather than “preserving and enhancing”, the intensive development would degrade residents’ “quality of life, sense of community …and health of the natural environment.” Details are presented in ensuing sections. 2. Proposed Zoning/re-zoning and PUD overlay for development of high density and high-intensity accommodations is Contrary to the Future Land Use of the subject property in the Comp Plan. a. The Comp Plan identifies two Future Land Use Categories that might be used for Accommodations. Those 2 categories are: i. Low-density Accommodations and ii. Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors. 5 These categories are separate and distinct and are not confused or conflicted with one another. The town staff is on record as recognizing that the 40-Acre parcel is identified in the COMP Plan for future “LOW-DENSITY ACCOMMODATIONS and goes on to define this category: “The Low-Density Accommodations category is intended for uses such as rustic lodges, resorts, and cabins that are developed in rural areas at a lower density and intensity than urban hotel or motel-style lodging.” The contemplated development proposes 220 units in two three- story “luxury” hotels surrounded by 3 acres of paved parking. This is multi-story, high-density, high-intensity, urban or motel-style lodging rather than rustic or rural lodges or cabins. As such it is incompatible with the Low-Density Accommodations proposed for Future Use of this parcel in the Comp Plan. b. The Comp Plan also specifies that: “Future Land Use categories, map, and related land use policies which are intended to protect the Valley’s distinctive character and prevent development sprawl that requires extensive infrastructure investments, long-term maintenance, and impacts the area’s natural character. The map categorizes areas outside of Estes Park town limits to guide appropriate development patterns, respect private property rights, and preserve the open and rural character that County residents value.” Rather than preventing development sprawl, this proposal implements development sprawl. It takes an undeveloped parcel, which is part of a larger swath of undeveloped land and fills it with high-intensity development. Rather than preserving the distinctive and natural character of Deer Ridge, this proposal would pave over the meadow at the top of the ridge. It would replace the current residents - deer, elk, bear and big cats - with two large hotels, chattering tourists and hundreds of cars. It would replace the dusk- to-dawn darkness and night skies with a myriad of lights from the 6 hotels and surrounding parking. The hundreds of cars and visitors coming and going and chattering on the premises would replace the fresh air and peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhoods with noise pollution and auto exhaust. This is the polar opposite of protecting the area’s distinctive natural character. c. The Future Land Use Map categorizes areas outside of Town limits to “respect private property rights, and preserve the open and rural character that County residents value”. The proposed high-intensity development would do the exact opposite. Annexation would disenfranchise adjacent private property owners. Rezoning would compromise their private property rights. Building two large hotels would destroy the current open and rural character that neighboring County residents value. 3. Proposed Zoning Change and PUD overlay for development of high- intensity visitor accommodations is Contrary to the Guiding Principles and Goals of the Comp Plan a. The first Guiding Principle of the Comp Plan is “Responsible access to and protection of wild spaces, scenic vistas, outdoor recreation, and Rocky Mountain National Park.”. This principle is supported by Goal NE1: “Maintain Estes Valley’s scenic character and viewsheds into and within the Valley…”, with recommended actions “Maintain Ridgeline Protection Zones” and “Protection of dark skies”. It is also supported by Goal BE1.2 “ensure that new development minimizes the impacts to visual quality within the Valley, including viewsheds of the mountains and protection of dark skies. “ This project is NOT “protection of wild spaces”. Instead, it would destroy one of our few remaining precious wild spaces. It is NOT “protection of … scenic vistas” and it does NOT “Maintain Ridgeline Protection Zones”. Two large hotels on top of Deer Ridge, in a Ridgeline Protection Zone, would destroy this unspoiled scenic vista, which is visible from many points in the Estes Valley. Finally, it is NOT “Protection of dark skies”. The proposed three acres of parking lots at OSHA lighting standard would shine 130,680 foot- candles or ~1.3M lux onto the top of a ridge that is visible from much of the Estes Valley. With the expected 5% of that reflected, this would project ~ 65,340 lux into our night skies. 7 b. The 3rd Guiding Principle is “Balanced and managed growth that enhances quality of life, preserves local character, conserves natural resources and wildlife habitat.” This Principle is supported by Goal NE3.2: “conservation and protection of connected wildlife habitats and movement corridors.” It is also supported by Goal BE3.1 “The Town protects existing native wildlife habitat and vegetation communities by …limiting fragmentation”. And by Goal BE3.2 “appropriate transition between varying intensity of uses and scales of development to minimize impacts between adjacent developments.” This project is not “managed growth that enhances quality of life [and] preserves wildlife habitat.” Instead, it is growth that degrades residents’ quality of life (see below). It is outside of the Responsible Development Areas defined in the Estes Valley Open Space Plan; by inference development here would be irresponsible. Instead of meeting Goal BE3.2, it generates discordant transition between the low-density residential neighborhoods and wildlands that surround it on three sides and this high-intensity hotel zone. Moreover, it violates Goal NE3.2 with growth that paves over heavily used winter wildlife habitat for our deer and elk, as well as disrupts a wildlife movement corridor that is identified in the 2008 Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Development Code and fragments existing wildlife habitat. c. The 5th Guiding Principle is “Year-round, diversified economy” supported by Goal E1.1 “The Town supports diverse economic development”, Goal E2.1 “The Town …cultivates an environment to foster .. small business growth” and Goal E2.2 “The Town supports … living wage jobs” This project does nothing to diversify the economy, to bring in visitors during the slow season, to foster small business growth nor to bring living wage jobs. According to the 2024 Comprehensive Lodging Assessment, the Estes Valley already has some 33,000 pillows for visitors and an average occupancy rate of 21.9% (2020). More hotel rooms/visitor lodging will not diversify Estes Park’s economy. The proposed hotels, run by a large international chain, will compete with existing lodging run by local small businesses. Most of the jobs will be low-wage hospitality (housekeeping, food service, etc.) which pay far below the local living wage of ~$30/hr. 8 d. The 6th Guiding Principle is “Housing opportunities sufficient to support a multigenerational, year-round community.” This project is in opposition to this principle. According to the 2023 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan, the Estes Valley is in need of some 2500 additional residential housing units. This site is currently zoned for one primary dwelling for every 2.5 acres. This would permit roughly 17 primary dwellings with the potential for 17 more ADUs. Instead of using the site as currently zoned to provide residential housing, the proposed project withdraws it from the pool of potential housing and instead uses it for visitor accommodations. 4. The contemplated PUD violates Section 9.3 PUD Standards of the Estes Park Development Code. Section 9.3.A.i. of the Estes Park Development Code defines standards for PUDs for the purpose of accommodations such that: “Accommodations use shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan…” The contemplated PUD is for the purpose of accommodation, but is NOT “be consistent with the Comp Plan” as is clearly documented in preceding sections 1-3. Thus, it does not meet the standard for PUDs for the purpose of accommodation in the Estes Park Development Code. The request for PUD should be denied. 5. The Contemplated PUD is Contrary to every Purpose of PUDs stated in the Estes Park Development Code. a. The contemplated PUD fails to fulfill any of the stated purposes of PUDs. Section 9.1 of the Estes Park Development Code states the purpose of PUDs as follows: “In order that the public health, safety and general welfare may be furthered in an era of increasing urbanization, commercial and industrial development, and growing demand for housing of all types and design, this Chapter applies the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972 and is designed to encourage planned 9 unit developments (PUDs) in Estes Park for the following purposes: (Ord. 17-24, §1(Exh. A)) A. To encourage innovations in residential and commercial development and renewal so that the growing demands of the population may be met by greater variety in type, design and layout of buildings and by the conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to such buildings; B. To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services and to reflect changes in the technology of land development so that resulting economies may inure to the benefit of those who need homes; C. To provide a process that can relate the type, design and layout of residential and commercial development to the particular site, thereby encouraging the preservation of the site's natural characteristics, and to encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the purposes of this Chapter; D. To provide for well-located, commercial sites and well-designed residential developments while minimizing the impact on roads, streets and other transportation facilities; E. To conserve the value of the land; and F. To provide for the development of planned mixed-use commercial and residential developments and promote developments with a mix of commercial and residential uses, including but not limited to attainable, workforce, and employee housing, that provide services and employment opportunities in close proximity to residents of the district. (Ord. 17-24, §1(Exh. A))” The proposed development meets none of these purposes. The proposed “treehouse” units may be innovative, but they are NOT to meet “the growing demands of the population”. It does NOT encourage efficiencies whose “economies… benefit those who need homes.” It does NOT “preserve the site’s natural characteristics.” It does NOT “minimize the impact on roads, streets and other transportation.” Its effect on land value is, at best, speculative. It is 10 NOT a mixed-use development NOR includes “attainable, workforce, and employee housing”. Since the proposed project fulfills none of the purposes for PUD overlay, the application for a PUD should be denied b. Section 3.4, Subsection D, Item Number 1 under the PUD Standards of Review states: “PUD shall be consistent with and implement the planning goals, policies and objectives as contained in this Code and in the Comprehensive Plan;” Everything about the proposed project, by its very nature, is clearly at odds with the planning goals, policies, and objectives of the Comp Plan. 6. The Proposed Re-zoning to either Commercial Outlying or Accommodations would be in violation of the Estes Park Development Code. a. One of the requested re-zoning options for the development of this site is from EVRE to “CO”. The full and correct name of such a zoning district as identified in the Estes Park Development Code is CO Outlying Commercial Zoning District. The CO Outlying Commercial Zoning District is also defined in the Estes Park Development Code and it prescribes that: “This zoning district is established to encourage the development of a wide variety of commercial and retail uses along the major corridor entryways into the Valley and the Town of Estes Park [emphasis added]. This zoning district is established to implement the "Commercial" and "Commercial-Recreation" future land use categories recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. This district should accommodate the majority of the larger, freestanding commercial and retail buildings to meet future demand in the community.” Since the proposed development is unambiguously NOT “…along the major corridor entryways into the Valley and the Town of Estes Park”, re-zoning it as such would violate the Estes Park Development 11 Code. Therefore, any application for rezoning to designate the development site as CO Outlying Commercial Zoning District must be denied. b. The second requested re-zoning option is from EVRE to “A”. The full and correct name of such a zoning district as identified in the Estes Park Development Code is Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District. The Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District is defined in the Estes Park Development Code and it prescribes that: “This district implements the "A-Accommodations" land use category set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. It applies primarily in highway- oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley [emphasis added]” The loose language in the development code, specifically “primarily limited”, was included to accommodate existing A Accommodations businesses when the code was first implemented. While it gives the Planning Commission some latitude, it does not suggest that A Accommodations designations are ever appropriate for undeveloped sites, embedded in low-density residential neighborhoods, that are not highway-oriented. Since the proposed development is NOT “…in highway-oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley”, re-zoning it as such would be contrary to the Estes Park Development Code. Therefore, any application for rezoning to designate the development site as A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District should be denied. 7. The Contemplated Zoning Change Represents a Quantum Leap Land Use Change a. The contemplated development envisions a zoning change from the lowest residential density and lowest intensity districts to potentially one of the highest commercial density and intensity districts. Such a change in the zoning is clearly inconsistent with the stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It also represents a profound change in the subject property’s use that will detrimentally affect every adjoining landowner and forever dispel the presumption that the Comprehensive 12 Plan will guide the Town’s future development. Why do we have a plan if we are going to cast it aside for every developer who has what they consider to be a novel idea to make a buck? b. The permitted density under the current zoning is one primary dwelling for every 2.5 acres. This would permit roughly 17 primary dwellings on the subject site. The actual number would be substantially less than this because much of the site is too steep to be built upon. It is illogical to assert that such a drastic zoning change is consistent with the County and Town’s stated goal “…to provide appropriate transition between varying intensity of uses and scales of development to minimize impacts between adjacent developments”. c. The proposed high-intensity development is incompatible with the residential communities that border three sides of the subject property. The contemplated development would include 295 units which would destroy the peace and tranquility of each of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Such a development will negatively and permanently impact the quality of life of many of the adjacent residents. 8. Development of this parcel may trigger a requirement by the Town for building a Western Bypass of downtown that connects Old Ranger Road to Elm Road. A bypass road would also require intersection improvements at Elkhorn Ave/Old Ranger Road and at Elm Road/Moraine Ave., as well as upgrading the bridge across Fall River. Construction costs could not possibly be borne entirely by the developer and so the Town would be obliged to cover millions of dollars in construction costs. The construction would be extremely disruptive for several years. When construction is completed, there would be high traffic volume. Our quiet dead-end streets where children can safely play would become thoroughfares with 24-hour traffic speeding by. This would not be good for either the Town or the adjacent neighborhoods. 13 9. Other Concerns a. Increased Traffic The contemplated development will generate substantial traffic, at least 2,200 visitor trips/day as well as hundreds of trips by workers and service vehicles leading to increased congestion on West Elkhorn Ave. The proposed ridgetop development is 400 ft above Fall River, a steep climb that visitors will choose to make in cars rather than on foot. With the traffic impact of Phase 1 still months if not years away it is highly doubtful that the actual impact of Phase 2 could even be reasonable forecast at this time. Therefore, approving any project without as much as a reasonable impact assessment would be ill- advised until after Phase 1 is fully operational. b. Environmental Degradation: Noise & Air pollution The contemplated development will create/involve noise, such as delivery trucks, customer traffic, and potential for loud indoor and outdoor music which will disrupt the peace and tranquility of the adjoining residential neighborhoods, negatively impacting residents' quality of life. Additionally, over a thousand daily vehicle trips, both cars and trucks, will generate substantial emissions that will degrade air quality. c. Environmental Degradation: Light Pollution The contemplated development will lead to high-impact light pollution. The light will have outsized impact because it will be coming from almost 500 ft above town. The hotels, treehouses, cabins and parking lots will require 24-hour lighting. Night-time vehicle traffic will send headlight beams sweeping across our landscape and night skies. It will have an outsized impact on our dark skies and night-time star gazing. d. Environmental Degradation: Deforestation Wildfire is a constant threat, and 15-50 ft defensible zones around structures is part of our new reality. Most of this parcel has “High Trees” designation for potential wildfire threat. This reflects the dense 14 conifer stands on the north-facing slopes that are designated for Tree Houses in the site plan. Establishing 15 ft defensible zones around 65 tree houses would clear-cut about 3 acres, while fire-safe road access would entail removing many more trees. This deforrestation would be visible from much of the Fall River drainage, damaging the viewshed. In addition, the denuded slopes would have considerably less capacity to absorb rainfall, and would be considerably more prone to erosion and landslides. e. Environmental Degradation: Stormwater Runoff and Loss of Groundwater Construction of 5 acres of impervious area on the hilltop, and at least another acre of impervious area associated with the treehouses and access roads, will annually prevent some 6 acre-feet of groundwater replenishment. This poses a threat to many adjacent residents who depend on wells for their domestic water supply. That large amount of impervious area also increases the potential for flood runoff during extreme weather events. Some of the homes adjoining the subject property flooded during the 2013 flood event. Adding 6+ acres of impervious area will only exacerbate that flood risk. f. Environmental Impact: Destruction of Natural Habitats The contemplated development, including the deforestation, construction, impervious cover and intensive usage will impact the bear, elk, deer, mountain lions, bobcats, etc. that frequent this property. g. Updated Wildlife Study Needed The 2008 Wildlife Habitat Assessment found that this was a wildlife movement corridor. Since then, conditions have substantially changed, with much wildlife habitat lost to development. A new wildlife study is needed to determine whether this parcel now constitutes critical wildlife habitat and whether its development would cause irreparable harm to our wildlife. 15 h. Environmental Impact Study Needed. The high-intensity and high-density of the proposed development in an area of wildland raises many environmental concerns, as presented above. There is considerably uncertainty about the environmental impacts of the proposed development and how to mitigate those. Given the pre-eminence of environmental preservation to the character and economy of the Estes Valley, an Environmental Assessment/Impact Study is needed to give the Town the information it needs to accurately evaluate the proposed project and mitigation strategies. i. Domestic Water demands The proposal would add 220 upscale hotel rooms, 55-65 treehouse units and 8-10 historic cabins for a total of almost 300 units. At an estimated usage of ~250 gallons/unit/day, this would add a daily demand for 75,000 gallons. And that does not include irrigation for landscaping or the fire safety- hydrants and sprinkler systems. Our current capacity is 3-4MGD, so this is ~2% increase for our water system where demand is already approaching its total capacity. The developer bears the cost of installing their water lines and booster pumps, but the town might have to pay for the increased capacity. Note that these capacity improvements run ~$10M for an additional ~1MGD. j. Wildfire Potential The parcel is mapped as high wild-fire risk. Increased use by visitors will only increase potential for wildfire originating on the property. This increase comes from many sources associated with “non- owners” exploring and exploiting the outdoors. These risks include potential fire pits, grills, tobacco and non-tobacco smokers, and unsupervised children and adolescents roaming the area. k. Reduction of Property Values The residences directly impacted by the zoning change (e.g., homes adjacent to the contemplated development) will experience a decline 16 in their property values due to increased noise, traffic, light pollution, and reduced privacy. l. Loss of Community Character The introduction of the contemplated development, and the attendant bypass road, will forever alter the character of several very well- established neighborhoods. m. Potential for Trespassing on Residential Property The contemplated development has a substantial potential to invite patrons to trespass on private property to access Rocky Mountain National Park and Old Man Mountain. The developers do not have deeded access to either property and as such any patron of theirs will have to trespass on private property in order to access either site. n. Potential Desecration of Old Man Mountain Old Man Mountain is a striking landmark. Archeological and ethnographic evidence suggests that this was a vision quest site for the indigenous peoples. If the contemplated project were to be approved, the biggest impact could be the desecration of Old Man Mountain. We all know how exquisite this site is to behold from any number of vantage points around town. Imaging what that site would look like with a hundred or more hikers and climbing enthusiast perched on top. With the number of guest units planned and no barriers in place, one can expect to see hordes of hikers and climbers to ascend Old Man Mountain much to the detriment of this sensitive historic site. o. Cash Flow and Delays The developer has proven that they are not capable of 1) physically completing a project the size of Phase 1 (approaching its 5th year) and 2) securing sufficient funding availability to ensure project stays on track, much less reaches completion. It appears that the developer may now be seeking an international hotel chain to infuse capital into Phase 2 to support the completion of Phase 1. 17 The entire annexation, PUD, and rezoning appears to be premature as the developer hasn’t come close to finishing Phase 1. In fact, there is no emergent situation that requires any approval of the Town at this point. The simple fact that the developer already owns the property demonstrates that there are no urgent decisions that require immediate approval from the town. The property will still be there if and when the developer completes Phase 1. April 2, 2025 Re: Highly Oppose Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Annexation & Rezone. Dear Mayor Hall, Trustees, and Planning Commissioners, I Highly OPPOSE the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Annexation & Rezone. Please STOP the insanity in destroying the Unique Delicate Beauty of this E.P. Valley! The consequences of unchecked development in both the community and the environment are an extreme concern. Again, this is just corporate greed and those trying to change the feel and look of Estes Park, and for what, for more tax dollars? Have we not learned from other communities? This development would be so detrimental to the environment, wildlife, and safety of residents/community and visitors. Too many people in this little valley with very few roads to escape from will put them all at extreme risk when (not if) a wildfire starts. Once wind-driven wildfire starts, there is not much in to stopping it before the damage and lives are lost. It seems the town wants to avoid this hot topic “wildfires” and just sweeps it under the rug, hoping that it will never happen. RMNP is already at max! I read an individual comment about adding trails from this proposed project to RMNP to elevate traffic congestion. This would just allow more people into a congested park without paying and more than likely to bring in their pets. Have you ever heard the saying "Too Big to Fail”? I have already heard from many people they will stop coming and some have already stated they will not come now due to the traffic and too many people. Do we really want to destroy the unique beauty of Estes Park/Valley? I do not think so! Sincerely, Christy Jacobs Estes Park Resident Save RMNP & Preserve Estes Park To Gary Ingram, RMNP Superintendent, and the Estes Park Board of Trustees: RE: Deer Mountain Trails in rela!on to the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Annexa!on Oﬃcials: As long!me Estes Park residents and trail advocates, we would like to review some historical facts regarding the Deer Mountain Trails and the historic trails through the proposed Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Annexa!on and Development proper!es. Elkhorn Lodge signiﬁcantly predates RMNP. Built in the 1870’s, Ella James was housing up to 40 guests at the Lodge by 1880. (Estes Park Trail Gaze6e, 100 years Magazine). The trails climbing the ridge west of Elkhorn Lodge were frequented by Lodge guests and area tourists on foot and horseback o9en wishing to summit Deer Mountain. The Estes Park Woman’s Club, led by Ella James, focused on trail-building in 191 2. These historic trails s!ll exist and pass through the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II proper!es before eventually connec!ng to Deer Mountain trails in RMNP. A 1925 Estes Park Trail (now Trail Gaze6e) ar!cle chronicles Agricultural College (now CSU) students climbing Deer Mountain during their summer term. A 1930 Estes Park Trail ar!cle congratulates Ranger Jack Moomaw for comple!ng trail work on the four approaches to Deer Mountain. Both of these historic accounts validate the historic signiﬁcance of these eastern approaches to Deer Mountain and the Na!onal Park’s historic eﬀorts to maintain these trails. In addi!on, many signature Civilian Conserva!on Corps rock retaining walls s!ll hold strong along the exis!ng trails in the area within the Na!onal Park. In 2015, the Estes Valley Recrea!on and Park District (EVRPD) ini!ated the crea!on of an Estes Valley Master Trail Plan. Rocky Mountain Na!onal Park was a partner in the crea!on of the Trail Plan. As a part of the Master Trail Plan process, public and shareholder input was solicited and incorporated in the ﬁnal published document. Exis!ng and desired trails were iden!ﬁed and priori!zed in the ﬁnal document and this document has been adopted by both the Town of Estes Park and EVRPD as a guiding document. Segment 14 of the Master Trail Plan is shown in the image below from the Master Trail Plan, Future Opportuni!es map. Segment 14 consists of the exis!ng historic public trail connec!ons through private property which connect to RMNP trails on both the north and south sides of Deer Mountain. The over 100 years of public use of these demonstrates the desirability of these trail segments. In the priori!es sec!on of the Master Trail Plan, Segment 14 is iden!ﬁed as the second highest priority “Short Term Opportunity” trail (also shown below). We believe most of the Na!onal Park’s visitor impact issues are associated with concentrated visitor access points, traﬃc and parking. This historic trail provides a perfect opportunity to disperse some of the visitor access and reduce the impact of automobile traﬃc. Local residents especially beneﬁt from being able to enter the Park in this area on foot. Please require a trail easement through the Elkhorn Property. Todd M Plummer Amy L Plummer March 25, 2025 Potential annexation of the Elkhorn Lodge property Dear Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tim Cenac and Estes Park Trustees, I moved to Estes Park in 1987 to work as a Park Ranger for Rocky Mountain National Park. We bought this home in the Mountain Gate community for its sweeping view of the Continental Divide. I have spent 38 years of my life here protecting our National Park, and longing to one day just sit and stare out at my view of Longs Peak after protecting it for the majority of my career. Along with our neighbors in the Mountain Gate community, the Lewiston community and homes along the ridge above us, we would respectfully ask you to consider the height, number of floors and the impact on the ridge views of this breathtaking Continental Divide on those who have long lived here, as you consider and study the multiple impacts of the proposed Elkhorn expansion. Thank you for your courteous consideration, Barry and Joan Sweet Mountain Gate Community March 24, 2025 As an Estes Park resident and president of our HOA, I am concerned about the potential annexation of the Elkhorn Lodge property. I live on the north side of the valley directly across from the Elkhorn Lodge. We enjoy the views of the old lodge and the valley as well as the ridge line with the continental divide and Longs Peak above it. I oppose the annexation of that property by the town and the potential of the plan for the developer to build 2 hotels on that ridge line. It deﬁnitely impacts the view and site line from our condo association as well as the Lewiston Condo Association next door to our Mountain Gate condos above Performance Park. I would ask you to take our concerns into consideration. We don’t take exception to their plan—erecting 2 hotel buildings, just not on the ridge line which would be obstructive to the spectacular views for many residents along the valley that extends along the north side of town. Linda Hanick, President Mountain Gate Condo Association Estes Park, CO 970-222-1189 PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 3/25/2025 Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Kristine L. Poppitz Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Annexation Referral - Elkhorn Lodge Phase II. Public Comment: Dear Mayor and Trustees, I understand that tonight's Town Board Agenda item for the Annexation request is a report only; however, I am writing in strong opposition to the Annexation request for the proposed Elkhorn Lodge Phase II. There have been many letters of opposition, and 1 in support, of this Annexation request. While I have been previously counseled that all voices should be heard (I concur), and not to say, "ditto" to the comments of others, in the interest of all of your time, I will simply state that I trust that all of the previous letters have been read and that all future letters, as I presume there will be many, will also be read. I look forward to the meeting this evening. With thanks, KLP Full time Estes Park Resident File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 3/24/2025 Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Mary Lamy Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Annexation Referral – Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Public Comment: 2 hotels, cabins, parking and roads would result in light pollution that would impact town and the entire community; loss of wildlife corridors and environmental damage would be irreversible; Phase 1 and phase ll would rival any concentrated area of commercial accommodations anywhere in the Estes Valley. The site and encroachment on established neighborhoods make this rezoning and annexation request a travesty. Respectfully submitted, Mary Lamy File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. March 23, 2025 To: Mayor Hall, Trustees Brown, Cenac, Hazleton, Igle, Lancaster, Younlund and Town Administrator Machalek. My name is Bill Brown. I reside at 340 Elm Road and am the owner of said residence. I am writing this letter to hereby protest the proposed development known as Elkhorn Lodge Phase #2, East Avenue Development. Cypress Creek Rd., Cedar Park, Texas. Following are several concerns and problems I see with the East Avenue Development. The transparency of the proposed development has not been made clear. This development will have a negative impact on my quality of life, of my neighborhood, my community, town of Estes Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, and the state of Colorado. The town would be required to provide municipal services to the property and the neighborhood access, drainage plans/flood mitigation, and wildfire protection. 125 room hotel 125 room hotel 10 sites cabins "Campground/recreational vehicle park" 65 sites tree houses "Campground/recreational vehicle park" Wilt this upscale development increase my property tax burden? Please see the attached pages that reference the Galloway Neighborhood Meeting Summary notes submitted publicly on 12/19/24, and the Galloway Traffic Impact Study Elkhorn Lodge Phase #2 Estes Park CO 1/10/25, (TSI). I have the following questions/statements: 1. Traffic. There were several questions that were not answered with any clarity including the following: Safety Road and access trails Trespassing Emergency points Improvements to existing roadway network 2. Lighting. No answers were given to questions regarding lighting 3. Wildlife. No answers were given to questions. Is there an updated Wildlife Study? 4. Grading. No answers were given. Mountainous terrain exceeds "(15)" degrees! 5. Views. Will there be any ridgeline protection? 6. Water. Will the water and wastewater lines be extended to help the neighborhoods adjacent to the planned development? Specifically, will there exist service for emergencies? 7. Buildings. No answers were given with clarity specifically regarding the following: Quantity Unit count Density I want to have a definition of: -10 sites cabins "Campground/recreational vehicle park" - 65 sites tree houses "Campground/recreational vehicle park" 8. Land Use. What will be the impact of rezoning into the Town of Estes Park? Current county zoning would take a 40-acre parcel and consider ridgeline protection, mountainous terrain, road safety, (1 DU/2.5 acres), trail to Rocky Mountain National Park and utility corridors may come up to 13 tots. 13 residential units now, 325+ Accommodations (Low/Density Accommodations). I believe 325+ units could have more impact on this site than 13 residential homes. There is no mention of worker housing for this project. What would be a living wage for this upscale complex? Is this helping Estes Park or adding to the current housing problem? This 40- acre parcel borders on three (3) sides by single family residential zoning, and one side industrial zoning. Three sides county zoning and one side Town of Estes Park zoning. Do we want a Mixed Zoning Accommodation in the middle of a Single Family Residential and county Industrial zoning? Does this become "IslancTzoning? Would this zoning change be in compliance with the zoning plan for the future of the town of Estes Park and outlying area of Larimer County? Is this a good example of what is to come? 13 residential units now, 380 Accommodation units in March of 20257 In addition to the above, I am very concerned about the safety of Elm Road. This will add to a great deal of traffic with more cars and trucks speeding on the road. Other issues for Elm Road include the grade, drainage, maintenance, and the intersection with highway #36 (Moraine Ave). At the 12/19/24 Neighborhood Meeting representatives from Galloway stated, "Old Man Mountain Ln and Elm Road will be used for emergency only". There are other alternatives for access. Sincerely, i^/. ^\.,'^/' ..['i^^-'L Bill Brown 340 Elm Road EstesPark,CO 90517 Billbrown220@outlook.com We, the undersigned, do hereby protest the proposed development known as Elkhorn Lodge Phase II, including but not limited to the annexation, non-residential zoning and PU D classification of parcels 3526100001 and 3526105046 referred to in that proposal. PRINTED NAME ADDRESS C\~Tf, STATE, ZIP SIGNATURE TtyvvT^^T-4^^*^ /"^•u.<-'^\ \i^^-^t .^"pz^ •\'^^Ji^ (^^-A ^ ^LLc.C ^\ ^^r -\^-^\^^ ^ $n^/^_i>.?.^ c y ^7 :/, M > .' /• '/%w\Z4_^ /rf^ ^%^ /-3?" /Te/^ .Q.-,•-X^.'\j^-/<//-; I -^ I ^ -i— •^ •151- ^zcnoi^ i^^A-tOc Z0^^-/l-^^\ Id ^^ CO ^/-r ~]^J^^h^^^^_ .^^/^^/^7^7A^7zy^At< /)^^^^^- w^s^<^\^^^' -t>Ty -\li-U.t.^^•:. &M] D-^f .Co /c^St7 J^^ L(^YA./y ?9^S 1 \^c' 'uy'^-^/i, ^iio^^i^^/it)(CF . co ^n c)f .-^ ^^iVi^'n^ -,^vb?o^ p^\?s^ n L- —^^ p^_,,^. -y^^^/y ^:0^'VW L ^_. A ->^^ ~''™\ V V —V^^^LI -•^c/-^ ^^,2 ^ 7 : T ^? -p7 .^ 7 Lx ? - 7"1 ' ?^T^F, : I sanivNQis -L'-s^ n ) ^ 3 i ,5-0^,. '0^ 'j)'^ 1^0''^ ^1.'- ^ ^.S •- f- — _j-<. ^ I _____ j_•^j-^^sy '.w ^-^ yyj, 5^t ^ t}^J^c]'!^^^>^ dlZ'31VlStA113 V;n^v^0^ ^,^_ '^Jt;13-sl^3^^ •^ L<TT ->\^ \)^^ ^^^ ^Q ^G^(\ oh ^ ;/(^ ^'>o\ ^'-"^'"? 9/7^-_ ssayaav ^•'\ ^ -J \\ '^?—-\, ^ti^'l "mk! / •"', ! ( J ; -' ,^ '-)1 ^[ \'( ' ;-", ^\^ M^^~/[i _L ^"^^v. ^^j.- >^'--'l;|^'~; i^[4 "' 'v it/ ^ 3^V^G31Niad Galloway TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ELKHORN LODGE PHASE 2 Estes Park, CO PREPARED FOR: East Avenue Development, LLC. PREPARED BY: Brian Horan, PE, PTOE Daniela Gonzalez Cooper Riddell-Brosig Galloway & Company, Inc. 5500 Greenwood Plaza Blvd, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 DATE: January 10,2025 Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Estes Park, CO Executive Summary Site Location and Stydy^Area The property that comprises the application area for the proposed development is approximately 40.8 acres in size and is identified as Larimer County Parcel Number 3526100001. It is located north of Moraine Ave, west of Elkhorn Ave, south of Old Ranger Dr, and east of Elm Rd, in Estes Park, CO. It is zonecLRyrigl Estate (EV RE) and is currently vacant. The study area for the project includes intersections that could be affected by the proposed development: • Elkhorn Ave & Fllbey Ct • Moraine Ave & Elm Rd Description of Proposed Development The Applicant, East Avenue Development, seeks to develop the property with lodging/recreational uses. The preliminary concept plans specifically contemplate two hotel uses, restored historic cabins, and guest tree houses. The intent of this development is to occur as Phase 2 of the Elkhorn Lodge expansion project. Phase 1 of the Elkhorn Lodge expansion project is supported by a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by ^ ) Delich Associates dated December 2019. Itjsjbe intent that the development of Phase 2 would follQwthg completion of Phase 1. Site access for the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 development is proposed via the existing access on Elkhorn Ave through the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 access and a secondary access via Elm Rd. As requested by the Town, an additional restricted emergency only access is proposed via a connection to Old Man Mountain Lane. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Based on the results of this traffic impact study, the following may be concluded: • Under existing traffic conditions, the intersection movements within the study area currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) "D" or better during the weekday AM/PM, and Saturday ( -y) midday peak hours with the exception of the northbound approach at the Moraine Ave & Elm Rd intersection which operates at LOS "F" (v/c 0.625) during the Saturday midday peak hour. All queues remain within their respective storage lengths. • Under background future 2030 conditions, without development of the subject site, the movements for the unsignalized intersections in the study area are forecasted to operate generally consistent with existing conditions. All queues would remain within their respective storage lengths. • Under background future 2046 traffic conditions, without the development of the subject site, delays would increase slightly at study intersections due to regional traffic growth. The intersection movements are forecasted to operate at acceptable LOS "D" or better during the weekday AM/PM and Saturday midday peak hours with the following exceptions at the Moraine Ave & Elm Rd intersection: o LOS "E" (v/c 0.324) for the southbound approach in the weekday PM peak hour Galloway & Company, Inc. Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Estes Park, CO Executive Summary Site Location and Study Area The property that comprises the application area for the proposed development Is approximately 40.8 acres in size and is identified as Larimer County Parcel Number 3526100001. It is located north of Moraine Ave, west of Elkhorn Ave, south of Old Ranger Dr, and east of Elm Rd, in Estes Park, CO. It is zoned RJJT§I Estate (EV RE) and is currently vacant. The study area for the project includes intersections that could be affected by the proposed development: • Elkhorn Ave & Filbey Ct • Moraine Ave & Elm Rd Description of Proposed Development The Applicant, East Avenue Development, seeks to develop the property with lodging/recreational uses. The preliminary concept plans specifically contemplate two hotel uses, restored historic cabins, and guest tree houses. The intent of this development is to occur as Phase 2 of the Elkhorn Lodge expansion project. Phase 1 of the Elkhorn Lodge expansion project is supported by a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by ^ ) Delich Associates dated December 2019. Hjsjjtie.jntent that the deyelppment of Phase 2 wpuld.foJlQW.the completion of Phase 1. Site access for the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 development is proposed via the existing access on Elkhorn Ave through the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 access and a secondary access via Elm Rd. As requested by the Town, an additional restricted emergency only access is proposed via a connection to Old Man Mountain Lane. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Based on the results of this traffic impact study, the following may be concluded: • Under existing traffic conditions, the intersection movements within the study area currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) "D" or better during the weekday AM/PM, and Saturday midday peak hours with the exception of the northbound approach at the Moraine Ave & Elm Rd intersection which operates at LOS "F" (v/c 0.625) during the Saturday midday peak hour. All queues remain within their respective storage lengths. • Under background future 2030 conditions, without development of the subject site, the movements for the unsignalized intersections in the study area are forecasted to operate generally consistent with existing conditions. All queues would remain within their respective storage lengths. • Under background future 2046 traffic conditions, without the development of the subject site, delays would increase slightly at study intersections due to regional traffic growth. The intersection movements are forecasted to operate at acceptable LOS "D" or better during the weekday AM/PM and Saturday midday peak hours with the following exceptions at the Moraine Ave & Elm Rd intersection: o LOS "E" (v/c 0.324) for the southbound approach in the weekday PM peak hour Galloway & Company, Inc. Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Estes Park, CO o LOS "F" (v/c 0.927) for the southbound approach in the Saturday midday peak hour (consistent with existing conditions) o LOS "E" (v/c .075) for the northbound approach in the Saturday midday peak hour All queues would remain within their respective storage lengths. • The proposed site development would generate, upon completion and full occupancy, 126 new weekday AM, 151 new weekday PM, and 204 new Saturday midday peak hour vehicle trips as well as 2,208 new weekday daily trips and 2,258 new Saturday daily trips. • Under total future 2030 and 2046 traffic conditions with development of the site, the intersections within the study area would operate generally consistent with background conditions. Overall delays would experience a minor increase due to site trips. All queues would remain within their respective storage lengths. Recommendations • It is recommended that the Applicant provide access consistent with the site plan contained herein. • Due to the unique nature of the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 and Phase 2 location and proposed uses, ITE likely overestimates the forecasts of trip generation for these uses. Therefore, it is recommended that traffic counts be collected upon build out and occupancy of Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 at the Etkhorn Ave access and an updated analysis provided to identify any necessary improvements. Galloway & Company, Inc. Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Estes Park, CO I. Introduction Overview This report presents the results of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted in support of a proposed annexation application and subsequent development of lodging/recreational uses in Estes Park, CO. Currently the site is vacant. Per the requirements of the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, a Transportation Impact Study is required to support the proposed annexation and development. Site Location and Study Area The property that comprises the application area for the proposed development is approximately 40.8 acres in size and is identified as Larimer County Parcel Number 3526100001. It is located north of Moraine Ave, west of Elkhorn Ave, south of Old Ranger Dr, and east of Elm Rd in Estes Park, CO. It is zoned Rural Estate (EV RE) and is currently vacant. Site access is proposed via the existing access on Elkhorn Ave through the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 access and a secondary access via Elm Rd. As requested by the Town, an additional restricted emergency only access is proposed via a connection to Old Man Mountain Lane. The Applicant, East Avenue Development, seeks to develop the property with lodging/recreational uses. Preliminary concept plans specifically contemplate two hotel uses, historic cabins, and guest tree houses. The intent of this development is to occur as Phase 2 of the Elkhorn Lodge expansion project. Phase 1 of the Elkhorn Lodge expansion project is supported by a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Delich Associates dated December 2019. It is the intent that the development of Phase 2 would follow the completion of Phase 1. A reduction of the Applicant's proposed conceptual site plan is provided in Figure 1-2. A fult-size copy of the plan is provided in Appendix A. Tasks undertaken during this study included the following: 1. Reviewed the Applicant's proposed development plans and other background data. '5 ) 2. Conducted a field reconnaissance of existing roadway and intersection geometries, traffic controls, and speed limits. 3. Collected weekday AM/PM and Saturday midday (SAT) peak hour turning movement counts at the key intersections. 4. Analyzed existing levels of sen/ice at each of the key study intersections based on the methodologies set forth in the Highway Capacity Guidelines (HCM) 7th Edition and reports generated by Synchro as reported by Synchro version 12. 5. Forecasted background future traffic volumes based on baseline traffic counts, Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 site trips, and regional traffic growth for 2030 (build-out) and 2046 (long-range) conditions. 6. Calculated background levels of service at each of the key study intersections for the projected build- out years based on background future traffic forecasts, and the existing lane use and traffic controls. ^ Galloway & Company, Inc. Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Estes Park, CO 7. Estimated the number of weekday AM/ PM, and SAT peak hour trips that would be generated by the proposed use based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 11U1 Edition rates/equalions and methodologies. 8. Prepared weekday AM/PM, and SAT peak hour total future traffic forecasts based on background traffic forecasts plus site traffic assignments for the 2030 (build-out), as well as 2046 (long-range) conditions. 9. Calculated total future levels of service for each of the key study intersections based on projected total future traffic forecasts and existing traffic controls and intersection geometries. 10. Identified roadway improvements required to accommodate future traffic volumes, as necessary. Sources of data for this analysis included the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th edition, the Highway Capacity Guidelines HCM 7th, Synchro 12, East Avenue Development, Town of Estes Park, Colorado, Larimer County, CDOT, and the files/library of Galloway. Site Description and Access Proposed Site Access Access to the site is proposed via the existing access on Elkhorn Ave through the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 access and a secondary access via Elm Rd. As requested by the Town, an additional restricted emergency only access is proposed via a connection to Old Man Mountain Lane. Existing Zoning The subject site is currently zoned Rural Estate (EV RE) and is currently vacant. Figure 1-3 depicts the existing zoning associated with the subject property, as well as neighboring properties as shown on the Larimer County zoning map. Nearby Uses The properties surrounding the subject site are generally developed with residential uses to the north, and residential/industrial uses to the west and south. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan In accordance with the Future Land Use Map in the Town of Estes Park Comprehensive Plan, Estes Forward (the Plan), completed 2022, the subject site is planned for Accommodations. Per the Plan, "The Low-Density Accommodations category is intended for uses such as rustic lodges, resorts, and cabins that are developed in rural areas at a lower density and intensity than urban hotel or motet-style lodging. The proposed uses are in conformance with the Plan. Galloway & Company, Inc. J ^TTkr^L/v^ BteP^[ \4- Z^^i Y^ ^ /vt&r Couirct->ESTES VALLEY ZbNE DISTRICTS — EVA, ACCOMMODATIONS — EVA-1, ACCOMMODATIONS EV 0, OFFICE — EV CO, COMMERCIAL OUTLYING EV 1-1, RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL EV RE-1, RURAL ESTATE EV RE, RURAL ESTATE EV E-l, ESTATE EV E-1S, ESTATE SHORT-TERM RENTAL EV E, ESTATE EV R, RESIDENTIAL EV RM, MULTI-FAMILY ?yva- FIGURE 1-3 EXISTING ZONING ELKHORN LODGE PHASE 2 ESTES PARK, CO T\\\^ map .2/lw".s \J)R\m^ a^LWTY. Es+es l/-a-11 e/ Zcs^e C^^cfs ^p+- c(<s<s5 no"tA 5koL^ T^j-'oA o-p E'ste-5 'fsrk Z^^^^t^cts Y£S,t^5 (^Jocxld be /^'A/<£<=/1 •-'*. '. '-: •i/;'\ '.' :irt;* ' r-':- ~-t^ - ••_: ,- "y^ •; vr w^ ;;; ,',;'L1'.' ^.in ~^ 1W^NfB'^-::^ ?!?^'; •^^•-^,l^^;',:^;.? •-.<te>.-,.' • .< ^y1-^ y^^^.K?^ '» •':• • ^w-.-,.-^^. -•r<j ^.,1^: ^i\'!-'/: 16 -•'/iv\ i:y, •;., . '•••'..s ••; ^•^ .-:^j%i7.^1' -^•^^:.-s '.'^,:'.ri '^; ;\^•iS%^-A;T!2r"'-: ^ .-, :t ,f .".^ •rt.' •* ^.,1.:^^ Rlkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Estes Park, CO III. Analysis of Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes counts were conducted on Thursday December 5, 2024, from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM and Saturday midday peak hour traffic volume counts were conducted on Saturday December 7, 2024, from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM at the study intersections by IDAX Data solutions. Seasonal Factor Adjustment: A review of continuous count data provided by CDOT's OTIS, specifically station 000205 on US-34 and station 000244 on US-36, suggests that the peak seasons for traffic in the vicinity of the subject site occur June, July, and August with the peak month for traffic occurring in July. In comparing the July MDT's to the December AADT's for these two count locations using the most recent 10 years of data, a seasonal factor of 2.5 was found. This factor was applied to through movements along Elkhorn Ave and Moraine Ave of study intersections to account for the peak season. As Filbey Ct serves as access to adjacent lodging properties, it was determined that a seasonal factor would be appropriate for the turning movements at the Elkhorn Ave & Filbey Ct intersection. As the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 TIS had traffic volume counts conducted during peak season, the turning movements for this intersection were grown to match the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 TIS. Excerpts from this TIS can be found in Appendix D. As Elm Rd serves residential and industrial uses it was determined that a seasonal factor would not be applicable for the turning movements at the Moraine Ave & Elm Rd intersection. The existing volumes are summarized in Figure 3-1. Copies of traffic counts are included in Appendix E. Existing peak hour factors (PHF) were also computed by approach from the traffic counts and applied to the analysis with a minimum of 0.85 and a maximum of 0.92. Existing Levels of Service Capacity/level of service (LOS) analyses were conducted at the study intersections based on the existing lane use and traffic controls shown in Figure 2-1 and existing baseline vehicular traffic volumes shown in Figure 3-1. The capacity analysis results are presented in Appendix F and summarized in Table 3-1 and in Figure 3-2. As shown in Table 3-1 , the movements for the unsignalized intersections in the study area currently operate at acceptable LOS "D" or better during the weekday AM/PM and Saturday midday peak hours with the exception of the southbound approach at the Moraine Ave & Elm Rd intersection which operates at LOS "F" during the Saturday peak hour. LOS "F" is typical for unsignalized side street delays. In these cases, it is appropriate to further investigate operations and review the volume/capacity (v/c) ratio. The v/c ratio is less than 1.0 which suggests additional capacity is available. Existing Intersection Queues An analysis of intersection 951h-percentile queues was performed at key locations. The results of the queuing analysis, as reported by Synchro, are summarized in Table 3-2. As shown in the table, all queues are contained within their effective storage. Galloway & Company, Inc. 15 Elkhom Lodge Phase 2 Estes Park, CO IV. Analysis of Future Conditions without Site Development Methodology The future traffic forecasts, without the proposed new use, were developed for 2030 and 2046 conditions based on a composite of existing baseline traffic volumes and regional traffic growth. A 1.0% growth factor per year was applied to the through movements of existing traffic on Moraine Ave and Elkhorn Ave, consistent with CDOT's OTIS traffic projections. Reoional Growth Increases in traffic associated with regional growth were estimated at 1.0 percent per year compounded for the through movements on Moraine Ave and Elkhorn Ave up to 2030 as well as to 2046. This growth accounts for increases in traffic resulting from influences outside of the immediate study area. The resulting increases in volumes within the study area are reflected in Figure 4-1 for 2030 conditions and Figure 4-2 for 2046 conditions. Elkhorn Lodge Expansion Phase 1 Elkhorn Phase 1 is an approved but unbuilt/unoccupied development was identified for consideration within the study. The following development and development program was included in the background and total future analysis for 2030 and 2046 conditions: Elkhorn Lodge Expansion Phase 1 36 132 6,004 2,880 2,880 3,550 2,200 Room Room SF SF SF SF SF Hotel Hotel Sit-Down Restaurant Sit-Down Restaurant Retail Sit-Down Restaurant Light Industrial (Distillery) The location of the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 developments in relation to the Applicant's property is shown in Figure 4-3. Background future lane use and traffic control is consistent with existing conditions shown in Figure 2-1. The development site trips were obtained from the Elkhorn Lodge Expansion TIS for weekday AM and PM peak hours and were derived for Saturday midday peak hour per the standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual rates/equations, as published in the 11th edition. These volumes are shown in Figure 4-4. Relevant excerpts from the Elkhorn Phase 1 development TIS is included in Appendix D. It should be noted that the analysis contained herein is likely highly conservative. ITE provides a national database of forecasted trip generation for typical uses. The analysis utilized herein does not consider the '•^} synergies that would be achieved on a resort type site such as this. Future data collection should be performed and this analysis should be updated after the build out and occupancy of Elkhorn Phase 1 to analyze the specific traffic impact. Background Traffic Forecasts The existing traffic forecasts depicted in Figure 3-1, the regional growth shown in Figure 4-1 (2030) and Figure 4-2 (2046), and the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 development site trips shown in Figure 4-4 were added Galloway & Company, Inc.20 Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Estes Park, CO V. Site Analysis Overview The Applicant is proposing to develop the approximately 40.8-acre site with lodging/recreational uses. Preliminary concept plants specifically contemplate two hotel uses, historic cabins, and guest tree houses. For purposes of this study. the site is assumed complete and occupied in 2030. The following use and development programs were analyzed: Build-Out 2030: 125 Rooms Hotel 125 Rooms Hotel 10 Sites Historic Cabins "Campground/Recreational Vehicle Park" 65 Sites Tree Houses "Campground/Recreational Vehicle Park" Proposed Site Access As shown on the Applicant's conceptual plan (Figure 1-2), access to the development is being proposed via the existing access on Elkhorn Ave through the Elkhorn Lodge Phase 1 access and a secondary access via Elm Rd. As requested by the Town, an additional restricted emergency only access is proposed via a connection to Old Man Mountain Lane. Proposed lane use and traffic control is consistent with the existing lane use and traffic control shown in Figure 2-1. Trip Generation Overview Trip generation estimates for the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hours, as well as the weekday average daily traffic (ADT) and Saturday ADT, were derived from the standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual rates/equations, as published in the 11th edition. The trip generation analysis is presented in Table 5-1. Site Trips The vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed development plan are summarized in Table 5- 1. As shown in Table 5-1, the site would generate upon completion and full occupancy 126 new weekday AM, 151 new weekday PM, and 204 new Saturday midday peak hour vehicle trips. The site would generate 2,208 new weekday daily trips and 2,258 new Saturday midday daily trips. Site Trip Distributions The distribution of the anticipated trips generated by the completion of the proposed development was ' y based on an examination of existing traffic counts and local knowledge. It is the intent for the access along Elkhorn Ave to serve as the main access for the site. The following distributions were applied consistent with previous traffic studies: • To/from the west on Elkhorn Ave: 35% • To/from the east on Elkhorn Ave: 55% • To/from the west on Moraine Ave: 5% • To/from the east on Moraine Ave: 5% Site Trip Assignments The assignment of the new vehicle trips generated upon the future build-out of the development project was based on the above distribution. The trips assignments are depicted in Figure 5-1. Galloway & Company, Inc.32 ;\ TOV^N OF ESTES PARI^ PROJECT ROUTING REFERRAL FORM AGENCY REVIEWER SIGNATURE DATE Public Works Jennifer Waters 3/3/2025 D No Comments Kl Resubmittal Required Kl Comments Provided below SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 -Annexation referral for TB. Galloway's submittal documents include a Statement of Intent (1/30/25), Annexation map (parcel survey drawing, 11/20/24), and Traffic Impact Study (1/10/25). The TIS was shared with Kellar Engineering. Sean Kellar's letter (3/3/25) represents the Public Works response to the TIS. It is understood that the forthcoming TB meeting presentation and discussion should provide guidance from elected officials regarding the overall plan for development of the parcel in the Town's jurisdiction. Public Works support for the annexation is conditioned on acceptance of a revised TIS. Public Works approval of the annexation application will be based on an approved TIS and include requirements for traffic mitigation, access, and other design considerations associated with a public street on the parcel. 170 MACGREGOR AVE.P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO.80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG Community Development Department Planning Division 970-577-3721 planning@estes.org KELLAR ENGINEERING March 3, 2025 Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Traffic Impact Study Review Comments: Kellar Engineering (KE) has reviewed the submitted Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 in Estes Park, CO prepared by Galloway, dated January 10, 2025. The submitted TIS generally follows industry standard methods for traffic impact studies/traffic impact analysis. The TIS does not to appear to distribute traffic in accordance with the signed Base Assumptions Form (BAF). In the BAF, the Town approved 60% of site traffic to Elkhorn Ave and 40% to Elm Road. The TIS appears to have used 90% -10%. In recent correspondence with the Town, they do not agree with the trip distribution that was used in the TIS. Please revise the TIS accordingly. The TIS should be updated to include an accident history within the last five years at the study intersections. Crash data can be obtained from CDOT and local law enforcement. Also provide the calculated crash rate at the study intersections. Provide a sight distance analysis at the study intersections. Provide an auxiliary lane analysis evaluation of the study intersections per the CDOT State Highway Access Code (SHAC) criteria. The TIS shows a LOS F for the year 2030 Short Range Total Saturday peak hour for the SB approach for the Moraine Ave/Elm Road intersection. Provide alternatives to mitigate the failing levels of service at the intersection in the TIS. A traffic signal warrant analysis should also be provided for the year 2030 Total Traffic condition (2030 Short Range Total) at the Moraine Ave/Elm Road intersection. It is recommended that the TIS is revised to address the above comments. lof2 E STE $ Paul Hornbeck <phornbeck@estes.org> •PARK Re: Estes Park Referral - Elkhorn Lodge Ph II Annexation Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.tarimer.co.us> To: Paul Hornbeck <phornbeck@estes.org>, Jennifer Waters <jwaters@estes.org> Cc: On Call Planner <planning@larimer.org> Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 4:24 PM Paul & Jennifer - LC Engineering does not have concern with the annexation request. As you are both aware, further development of the property after annexation will trigger improvements to ELM ROAD if it is planned as one of the access roads. ELM ROAD does not meet County Road Standards and is a mix of public right-of-way and private road easements. County Engineering would like to have the opportunity to review the project as a referral agency and hope that the Town requires aTIS and Drainage Study. Thank you. Traci On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:54 AM Paul Hornbeck <phornbeck@estes.org> wrote: Good morning, The Town has received a request to annex a 40 acre parcel of land and establish A (Accomodations) zoning. The property is located approximately 1/2 mile north of Moraine Ave/ US 36 on Elm Road and southwest of the historic Elkhorn Lodge. The statement of intent indicates future applications are anticipated to include a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning overlay and Development Plan to entitle up to 300 accommodation rooms (hotels, cabins, etc.) Please review the linked submittal documents and complete Page 2 of the Referral Form with any comments or check "no comments" if applicable. Please return the Referral Form via email and ec' planning@estes.org. Comments are due February 28th. Please let me know if you anticipate any difficulty meeting this deadline. Submittal documents: https://drive.google,com/drive/folders/1cghWkl8TQr2vAy1XF_-7baeKtspFTF_0?usp=sharing Paul Hornbeck, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregorAve EstesPark,C080517 970-577-3727 LARIMERCOUNTY Traci Shambo, PE, CFM Senior Civil Engineer Engineering Department 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-5701 tshambo@larimer.org | www.larimer.org Re: Estes Park Referral - Elkhorn Lodge Ph II Annexation 1 message Young - CDOT, Allyson <allyson.young@state.co.us> Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:27 AM To: Paul Hornbeck <phornbeck@estes.org> Cc: "Bilobran - CDOT, Timothy" <timothy.bilobran@state.co.us> Hi Paul, Thanks for your patience. I took a look at the traffic study included in the submittal and CDOT's comments are as follows: 1. CDOT does not accept LOS as a means of negating the need for highway improvements. 2. The study does not reference the State Highway Access Code. Moraine Ave is a state highway and therefore the Elm Road access point is within CDOT's jurisdiction. Evaluations and the Conclusion must be revised to reflect the State Highway Access Code requirements and warrants. The study should state 1) whether or not a CDOT Access Permit is required and 2) the specific highway improvements that are warranted based on the long range, total volumes in phase 1 and 2 (Figure 6-2). 3. Was a signal warrant analysis completed? I did not see one included, but please let me know if I missed it. Thank you, Ally March 22, 2025 The Board of the Estes Valley Residents' Association opposes approval of the proposed annexation and/or the rezoning of the Elkhorn Lodge II parcel until such time as the proposed development plans are adequately completed.The current information provided by the owner inadequately addresses traffic plans and impact, including consideration of a through route from Elkhorn to Moraine, ridgeline protections, environmental and other impacts of the proposed density and use, and to annex and rezone without consideration of these factors would be premature. Board of Estes Valley Residents' Association March 23, 2025 To the Mayor and Trustees of Estes Park, As a 50-year resident of the Estes Park valley, I vehemently oppose the Elkhorn phase 2 development. I have observed the unrelenting destruction of the wildlife habitat and the serenity of this once idyllic mountain community over those years. It is truly heart breaking. Although I understand that development is going to happen because of the pressures of population growth and outdoor recreation, I feel this project is a bridge too far. There are options that better serve those of us who live here. We do not need such an invasive project for the many reasons that others who oppose this have already eloquently noted and expressed. Please do not approve the annexation, zoning changes and PUD. Sincerely, Aaron Walters 1270 Range View Road Estes Park, Colorado To Estes Park Board of Trustees As a local business owner and resident of Estes Park for the past 10 years, I wholeheartedly support Expedition Lodge's plans to annex and develop the 40-acre property adjacent to the Historic Elkhorn Lodge. Throughout my decade living here, Elkhorn has remained an empty relic, a shadow of its former self, devolving into nothing more than a parking lot for parade floats, and I am grateful that Expedition Lodge is stepping up to breathe new life into this significant piece of our history. I want to emphasize that Expedition Lodge represents the finest example of responsible outside investment I've witnessed in Estes Park. Their leadership team has made extraordinary efforts to engage with local business owners, actively seeking out our feedback and regularly communicating with us to understand community concerns and provide partnership opportunities. As someone who has historically been skeptical of outside capital investments, I am impressed and encouraged by their genuine dedication to doing things right and supporting the local community. Furthermore, Expedition Lodge's responsiveness to my personal concerns about the development is commendable. Not only did their upper management actively listen, but they also followed up by implementing tangible actions based on my feedback, specifically giving me details on preserving the original cabins and steps they are taking to keep the original elk mounts intact. This type of genuine community partnership is exactly what Estes Park needs as outside capital inevitably comes into our town. I fully support Expedition Lodge's vision for the annexation and development of this property and strongly urge our Town Board to do the same. Sincerely, Kevin Benes Running Wild Events Founder Kevin@Runningwildevents.com March 22, 2025 Dear Mayor Hall: Trustees Brown, Cenac, Hazleton, Igle, Lancaster, Younglund. I am submitting this email as a response to the proposed Elkhorn Phase II annexation. As a current property owner of 270 Elm Road in Estes Park, I'm firmly against this proposed annexation. I'll take a slightly different approach to my stance against the annexation. Growing up in Central Kansas, my aunt and uncle discovered the property in the last 60's while looking for a place in Colorado. They thought it had the best view of Longs Peak. After their purchase, they along with my family built a cabin on the property. As a youngster, I spend many of summers, the 70's into the early 80's, in Estes Park, walking to Tiny Town to play mini-golf, taking day trips through RMNP and enjoing the calmness of the Estes Valley. Throughout the years, the property has transferred amongst family members. With the death of my mother in 2021, the property was purchased from the family trust by my brother and me. I was fortunate enough to move to Estes Park in 2014, gain employment at the YMCA of the Rockies until COVID and decisions made by the administration of the Y, drove me back to Kansas. The main point of this is that a family friend pointed out to me that while Estes Park is bustling during the peak season, the property and surrounding properties are still a place that is quiet, void of a lot of traffic, abundant wildlife passes through and beds down for the evening Our water well has been steady since we made improvements to the well. This area would be greatly affected by the annexation and take away the beauty and calmness that I have grown to appreciate over the years. Thank you for your time. Mike Hesher 450 West 5th Hoisington, Kansas Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> I oppose annexation of the Elkhorn Lodge 1 message Keith .L. <keith.lober@gmail.com>Sun, Mar 23, 2025 at 10:02 AM To: townclerk@estes.org Cc: planning@estes.org March 23, 2025 Dear Mayor Hall, Trustee Board, Cenac, Hazelton, Igle, Lancaster, and Younglund, I strongly oppose the proposed annexation for the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Development. I have several significant concerns that include but are not limited to resident quality of life, Wildlife impacts, Traffic, Fire hazard, Utility infrastructure and the enormous scale deemed inappropriate to the well being of Estes Park residents. Sincerely, Keith Lober 1230 middle Broadview Rd. Keith Lober IronAscent Solutions LLC (C) 530-721-2958 Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Elkhorn Lodge Phase II 1 message Susan Kaszynski <SBR52@yahoo.com>Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 1:39 PM To: ghall@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, bbrown@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, migel@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, planning@estes.org Mayor, Trustees, and Planning Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II. Is this really what we want the future of Estes Park to look like? This development will totally change the landscape and degrade the existing natural environment. Putting the largest hotel development in the middle of a natural area does not seem very logical. Is the tax revenue generated becoming the primary motivation for allowing this type of development, or do we want to consider the future of what we envision growth and development to look like in Estes Park. If you talk to visitors you realize we seem to be slowing loosing the charm that draws people to Estes Park. I am also very concerned about this development from an environmental and a fire standpoint. With the topography, the number of people coming and going, and the constrained access, this would be a disaster waiting to happen. Many visitors that come from areas that do not have a high risk of fire are not aware of how their actions can quickly and adversely affect the area. One discarded cigarette could be all it takes, and with the number of people that will be coming and going it is a very real possibility. In the summer the town and the park are at maximum capacity, and having this many more people will negatively effect the experience of visitors. We would also be creating our own problems with the need for more workforce housing. The adjacent zoning is 1/2 acre lots. How will this massive development affect all nearby landowners? There is nothing positive that will come out of this for them. Again, I ask you is the appropriate place for this type of development, that will totally change and scar the area forever. Hopefully, the dollar signs will not cloud the reality. Thank you for listening to a citizen’s opinion, Sincerely, Susan Kaszynski Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Annexation of Elkhorn Lodge property 1 message Carly Lober <clober@sbcglobal.net>Sun, Mar 23, 2025 at 4:27 PM To: townclerk@estes.org Cc: planning@estes.org Dear Mayor Hall, Trustees Board - Cenac,Hazelton, Igle, Lancaster and Younglund I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed annexation for the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II ! The enormous scale of this possible development is inappropriate for the size of Estes Park and the quality of life for it’s residents. There are so many negative aspects to this possible development; traffic , no Housing for employees, impact on wildlife, the adjoining residential neighborhoods, fire hazards and possible fire evacuations, cost of roads, and utilities. Please do not vote to annex this property to the Town of Estes Park . Thank you, Carly Lober 1230 Middle Broadview Rd Estes Park Sent from my iPhone March 21, 2025 I am opposed to the town annexing the property for development of Phase two of the Elkhorn Lodge remodel and expansion project for the following reasons: 1. The remodel and construction at the Original Elkhorn Lodge is not yet complete and that should be proven economically healthy for the Lodging business first. Its common knowledge that the current Lodging in town has never come to full capacity during peak season, and the revenues have increased from higher taxes on Lodging but the actual occupancy has decreased in trend for the existing establishments......So what existing hotel will go first with the added rooms in competition. 2. The draw for more people has not significantly increased to warrant yet another new hotel above the existing Elkhorn Lodge thats not open. So why should the town annex the county property to accommodate another hotel? What's in it for the community? How will it improve the quality of life? reduce the burden of taxes on the community - Jobs? Certainly it does not match the Code allowed development of exisiting single family dwellings. 3. From the sounds of it there is a road over the top in the offering.... I don't think the cost and convenience of this road warrant the negative impact on the community in up keep cross traffic in a light industrial area along side the residential area adjacent to the transfer station. 4. Lastly the greatest cause of demize to the wild life that live in the area is Loss Of Habitat... The proposed area holds a proportionate number of Elk and Deer that migrate through given the chance. They are a major resource that draw tourists that cost the town nothing in upkeep, revenue and management. 5. The town needs to enforce the development code and consider the long term effects of their decision . There are 10 people for every letter received that feel the same way about the community. People are observant, and watching. Consider the "dark" lighting code the town adopted and go look at areas around town that have "day lights" on, and night lights that look like construction zone. I am opposed to the building of this development, and do not want the town to annex this property to benefit the construction of this hotel by this Corporation. -Thank-you- Joe Hladick 1081 Marys Lake March 20, 2025 Dear Mayor Hall, Trustee Board, Cenac, Hazelton, Igle, Lancaster, and Younglund, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed annexation. As a resident of Old Man Mountain Lane, I have several significant concerns that have remained unaddressed since the start of phase one and are only becoming more pressing as phase two moves forward. First and foremost, there has been a lack of transparency throughout this process. During phase one, we were assured there would be no access to Old Ranger Drive, yet a road was built that allows for both right-hand and left-hand turns onto Old Ranger Drive. The reason given for this was fire codes. Now, with phase two, we are told that a fence will be placed to allow only emergency vehicles to access the road—but now that plan is being reconsidered. It is difficult to believe anything we are told when the situation continues to change without clear communication. Second, the issue of funding is a serious concern. We have witnessed multiple contractors being employed due to cash flow issues and insufficient funding. How can we trust that this will not happen again when it has been an ongoing problem? For the past four years, the entrance to Elkhorn Estates has been an eyesore, and it could be at least two more years before improvements are made. This ongoing neglect has directly affected property values in the area. Furthermore, the current infrastructure, especially the roads, is in dire condition. Last year, the town replaced the 60-year-old sewer lines on Old Man Mountain Lane, but the water lines were also noted to be corroded and in need of replacement. However, this was never accounted for in the budget. How can we believe that annexation will not further degrade our water lines, necessitating expensive replacements? Additionally, the roads remain patched and unrepaired, which continues to impact the quality of life in our community. We are being asked to trust that annexation will somehow improve these conditions, but the lack of action to date makes it difficult to believe such promises. For all these reasons, I strongly oppose the annexation. The continued lack of transparency, mismanagement of funds, and deterioration of infrastructure are unacceptable, and it is clear that we need a more accountable and transparent approach to address these issues. Sincerely, Jim Fisherkeller 249 Old Man Mountain Lane March 20, 2025 Dear Mayor Hall, Trustee Board, Cenac, Hazelton, Igle, Lancaster, and Younglund, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed annexation for the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Development. There are several critical concerns that must be addressed before any decision is made. 1. Public Safety: The annexation poses serious risks to public safety. With the recent dismissal of multiple fire inspectors, concerns about fire safety are heightened. The steep slopes and large-scale properties in the proposed development will exacerbate the already significant risk of wildfires, while also reducing accessibility for emergency responders. Furthermore, this development will likely increase fire risks for current residents and result in skyrocketing property insurance costs for them. 2. Child Care and Workforce Housing Shortages: Estes Park is already grappling with severe shortages in child care and workforce housing, with long waitlists in both areas. This development will only further strain these services, making it even more difficult for local families to find adequate care for their children and housing options for workers. 3. Impact on Wildlife and Tourism: Estes Park’s economy heavily relies on wildlife tourism, particularly during the peak season. The proposed development’s proximity to Old Man Mountain and its potential impact on wildlife habitat poses a direct threat to the region’s primary tourist draw. Diminishing wildlife populations will directly harm the local economy, which depends on visitors coming to see the animals in their natural habitats. The loss of this core attraction will affect local businesses, including shops and restaurants, and diminish the unique charm of Estes Park. 4. Environmental and Economic Studies: Before proceeding with any vote, it is imperative that comprehensive environmental and economic studies be conducted. These studies should address the potential impact on wildlife, infrastructure, housing, schools, traffic, and the local economy, including the effect on existing hotels and vacation rentals. Without these studies, we are unable to fully understand the long-term consequences this development could have on our community. For these reasons, I strongly urge the denial of the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II annexation. Estes Park’s well-being, both in terms of public safety and its long-standing values, must take precedence over short-term gains for seasonal residents. Sincerely, Jim Fisherkeller 249 Old Man Mountain Lane !"# $$%&'(()*'+, -./"0 +1-"!"-,2"3456789:;6:<=>?@>?A9:BC DEFGH6:IJGIJ>:UVW6:X>:38:><X6:X>:=65FYAYU@A><FC?A9:BZ3BE655=>?@>?A9:BCGZYV>76V=>?@>?A9:BZ3YV>76V=>?@>?A9:BCGZXX:9;7=>?@>?A9:BZ?A9:BCGZ[E6\>5@97=>?@>?A9:BZ3[E6\>5@97=>?@>?A9:BCGZYUB>5=>?@>?A9:BZ3YUB>5=>?@>?A9:BCG=>?@>?A9:BZ38:67[567V6?@>:=>?@>?A9:BCGZVR9F7B5F7<=>?@>?A9:BZ3VR9F7B5F7<=>?@>?A9:BC=>?@>?A9:BZ3@Y6VE65>[=>?@>?A9:BCGZ45677U7B=>?@>?A9:BZ345677U7B=>?@>?A9:BCGZ@9;7V5>:[=@>?A9:BChij``kegljeghkmnohjbepjqfkrh_lk^^sbjtkiguceinvqcefghksbjsjlkq_eekw_djej|jecef_eqghkqk}knjs`kegsbjsjl_ncglknx~w_djeubk|jecef_eqsbjtkig_ssbj}_n_bkgkiheci_nnzghbkklks_b_gksbjikllklveqkbghkqcesb_idi_ngkb`l~{hk_eekw_djelhjvnqejgsbjikkqacghjvgghkkwskig_djegh_gghq_eqgh_gghksbjtkigacnnyk_ssbj}kqcelvylg_ed_nnzghksbjsjlkqxjb`~€eznkllkbkwsnci_egughk{jae_eqghkicd|keljxyjghghk{jae_eq jvegz~€ssbj}_njxghk_eekw_sn_ikkwgbk`ksbkllvbkje{jaelg_‚uyj_bql_eq{bvlgkklce}jn}kqcelvylkƒvkegk}_nvtkigbkf_bqnklljxcgl`kbcgveqkbghk j`sbkhkelc}krn_e_eq„k}knjs`keg jqkqklsnce}jn}kq~nljxghksbjsjlkq_eekw_dje_eqbk|jecef_bkink_bughkbkclejgzkgkejvfhqkg_cnbkf__nnjacglk}_nv_dje~{hksvyncibk}ckasbjikllacghbkf_bqgjghksbjtkigcglknxclejgcegs`kegcelgbcigij`snc_eikacghghk„k}knjs`keg jqkuyvgclcegkeqkqgjfc}kghksvynj`snc_eikl_eqsbjtkigknk`kegllvytkiggjkwgb_jbqce_bz_ssbj}_nl_eqikbg_cetvqf`kb_ssbj}_nyzghkyj_bql_eq{bvlgkkl_igcelvssjbgjxsvyncibk}ckau_nnjacefxjbbk}ckaksvynci_gn_bfkxjnnjakqyzijelcqkb_djeyzghk_ssjcegkq_eqknkigkqbksbklkeg_d}klqkqgj_nnjalvihsvyncibk}ckau_eekw_dje_eqbk|jecefi_bbzgjj`vihbclo_eqlhjvnckq~_ynkgh_gghk_ssnci_egclbknvig_eggj`_okgjjfbk_g_ece}klg`kegceqkg_cnkqsn_eecefvb_eikgh_gghksbjtkigclncoknzgjyk_ssbj}_ynkcelj`kkijej`ci_nnz}c_ynkxjb`~†k}jbqkbnzsbjikllbkƒvcbkgh_g_qqcdje_nqkg_cnbkf_bqcefikbg_ce_lskigljxghksbjtkigyksjbgjxsvyncibk}cka~gghbkkcgk`l‡ ! " # $ % & '" & " ( ) *) + ", ) )" ) ) ) " $ . $ () */ % 0 # % $ (" 1 *% 2)3 ! # ) " 4 )"*6& ! ) 7 8 9" + " " :/6" ) & ) :& ; # )# ) " )# #"1 ) " " ) ) ) 1 (" ) . ") ) 5 . # )" )) ,) $ " 1 "3! . 13 8 ) "= > ))9 )'>? "1 , ) 0 ! " # $ . March 17, 2025 HI Seems like the only time I write any letter to the trustees etc is when there is a proposal that seems so far out of line to which this town is all about. The Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 to me is one of those projects. Once again I am not sure why such a proposal would even be considered other than the revenue for the town. I don’t really see any such beneﬁt for anyone who ives in that area. Ive talked to many who live in that affected area and everyone has the same concern such as ﬁre danger, water resources, extra trafﬁc to name a few. Others are concerned about the trespassing that is currently going on and the fear that increased foot trafﬁc will just make the matter worse. I just have a feeling that “Old Man Mountain” area would never ever be the same. 2 units and then 55-65 tree houses? Just because the applicant built those places in MOAB doesn’t mean it’ll work here. People who live here still remember the mountain coaster and how that all went down and many say “here we go again” Those who plan their vacation here don’t come for the coaster of to stay in a tree house. Everyone Ive ever talked to say that the reason they come here is to experience RMNP. Please don’t turn this town into “ 6 Flags over Estes Park”. On behalf of everyone in this and surrounding areas, please say “NO” to this request. Thanks for your concern Tom Kaszynski 610 Devon Drive Estes Park March 14, 2025 Greetings, I am writing today to express my concerns with the proposed "Elkhorn Phase II" project that includes the development of two new hotels within a 40-acre parcel of land that is currently part of unincorporated Larimer county. I currently own a home in Estes Park on Range View RD which has a clear view of this plot of land. Besides the impacts that we as individuals would experience, I truly believe this project is not complementary to the spirit and values of Estes Park. I'll summarize my points in bullet format to make it easy to digest: • Estes Park already has sufficient lodging options today, many of which experience significant vacancies during the shoulder season. Adding large capacity hotels to this location seems like it would likely impact other establishments within the town and potentially result in their closures and lost revenue for the city. • There are already traffic challenges today with the intersection of Elm Rd and Moraine avenue. By adding large occupancy hotels which connect with Elm Rd, the congestion at the intersection would be unsustainable, especially in the summer months. A traffic light would be required, which I suspect is not cheap to implement and maintain. • There's already notable noise throughout the day from the industrial area on Elm Rd from traffic and back-up beepers from heavy machinery. It seems that some sites have modified their loaders and trucks to use localized reverse warning indicators, and it makes such a difference. I would like to see this be a requirement for all vehicles operating consistently within the area, but that's another matter. The noise from the area already makes it difficult to enjoy the outdoors, so I can't imagine what it would be like if there were hundreds of additional trips per day from vehicles going to and from the new hotels. • Light pollution: The industrial area is a source of significant light pollution today. Large bright (magnified when incandescents are replaced with LEDs) lights operate all night and compromise star gazing. I believe there has been some consideration for Estes Park to convert to a dark sky community. I would hope if these hotels were built, that all lighting would be dark-sky compliant. • The hotels, parking lots, and supporting structures will negatively impact the landscape in so many ways. In short, I can't think of anything positive about this proposal. I understand that someone purchased this 40 acre lot and wants to do something with it, and they should be entitled to build residential homes (minimum 2.5 acre lots) which are more complementary to the surround landscape and infrastructure, as that is what the current zoning supports. As representatives of our town, please help us in ensuring the Elkhorn Phase II proposal and city annexation plans are rejected. Thank you so much for your time! Sincerely, Joe and Freya Henry 1264 Range View Rd Estes Park, CO 80517 March 12, 2025 Dear Board of Trustees: Subject: Elkhorn Lodge Phase II While development seems to be the key to keeping a towns budget supplied I believe any development that takes away from what makes Estes Park beautiful would ultimately harm the town. Elkhorn Lodge Phase II would harm the beauty of the valley by adding buildings to a scenic ridge. Once those buildings go up the iconic view will forever be gone. While the developer claims increase in tax revenue I question the validity ;of that and think its more reasonable to assume the cannibalization of the current hotel/motels. How much of the promised revenue from Phase I has been actualized to date? Having a birds eye view of Elkhorn Phase I we have seen a significant decrease in the wildlife that 16 years ago (when we first bought our home) use to come across the ridge. The traffic that passes through James St has ebbed and flowed over the years based on what business was currently at the bottom of the hill. With Elkhorn Phase one there will no doubt be a large increase in traffic as well as light pollution and noise pollution. Elkhorn Phase II will do the same on the opposite side of the ridge. We have worked diligently to leave our home and the ground it sits on better than when we bought it. We spend hours hand picking the invasive weeds , planting native grass and flower seeds. We’ve taken the house that was built in 1905 apart board by board and updated to current code and reused as much of the original building materials as possible to keep the historic home, historic. We want to preserve Estes history and make it a place for future generations to come to and love. Elkhorn Phase one seemed to be working on preservation Scattering a few old buildings on Phase II and calling in preservation seems a stretch. In conclusion: Please make a priority of keeping the beauty and wildlife of the valley over short term monetary gains. Anna Peetz 355 James St (1972 S Holland St., Lakewood, CO 80227) March 8, 2025 To: Mayor Hall, Trustees Brown, Cenac, Hazleton, Igle, Lancaster, Younglund Re: Elkhorn Phase II annexation I wish to add my voice in opposition to the Proposed PUD Development Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 , re-zoning, and Annexation. I have been the property owner of 170 Elm Road for 37 years. My home is situated on Deer Ridge. In his letter dated March 4, 2025, David Davidson outlined very succinctly in items 1 through 9 several legal arguments of which there are many, that should determine a “Non-Starter” response from the Town of Estes Park. There is no need here to elaborate on his points. The developer states that they wish to build a “year-round resort campus that embodies the rustic charm and historic appeal of the area.” Building “two 110-room upscale hotels” in addition with 55-65 tree house units, does not, in any way “complement the historical and rustic” history of the Estes Park valley. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. The developers said as much in describing the area as “secluded.” I urge the Town to keep it that way. To propose a “resort campus” of this size suggests that the developers are only interested in proﬁt and are not acting in the best interests of Estes Park and it’s citizens. If the annexation is approved by the town, it would create a huge ﬁnancial burden by negatively impacting locally owned small businesses, as well as adjacent property owners. In addition, if Annexation, zoning/re-zoning, and PUD establishment are approved, this would establish a dangerous precedent for all future development for the town and Estes Park valley. I encourage the trustees to carefully consider every issue. Speciﬁcally: 1. The Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town on April 1, 2020. The reason the town of Estes Park spent countless hours creating the Comp Plan is to stop what is exactly being proposed by Galloway. Correct interpretation of the plan does exactly what it should: Prevent large development by: a. “Protecting wild spaces, scenic vistas, ridgelines, dark skies.” b. “Limit development in areas of critical natural habitat.” c. “Protecting the valley’s distinctive character and prevent development sprawl.” 2. Consider the quality of life and the rights of adjacent property owners who will be negatively impacted by this development. 3. Consider how close and connected to the historical and sacred Old Man Mountain rock, as well as Rocky Mountain National Park. 4. Access to the 43-acre site. There are several safety issues associated with the “Elm Road Emergency exit” particularly the existing grade. 5. Impact of increased vehicular traffic - traffic study 6. Impact on Wildlife – environmental and wildlife study I urge the town to deny the request for Annexation, re-zoning, and PUD for this property. Sincerely, Harry Kent 170 Elm Road Estes Park, CO 80517 March 9, 2025 Greetings! We are out of town right now and cannot attend Monday meeting. This is the way would like to express our dissatisfaction with proposed expansion of Historic Elkhorn lodge property. This large scale accommodation may be seen as desirable from the current owners point of view, but will permanently bring additional drain on Estes Park resources and is irreversible. Please vote NO on this project. Please keep Estes Park as is, don’t try to compete with Vail. We already have plenty of quality accommodations in town and at YMCA. Yana and Lubor Manolov 256 Steamer Ct. |T:^./7roi^ ^.•:/>''-'' March 5, 2025 To: Mayor Hall, Trustees Brown, Cenac, H azleton, Igle, Lancaster, younlufl Administrator Machalek. RECEIVED MAR 07 2025 lY:--,-^.-..- iiivif:: 31 IU I UVVI I My name is Bill Brown. I reside at 340 Elm Road and am the owner of said residence. I am writing this letter to address several concerns and problems with the East Avenue Development. Cypress Creek Rd., Cedar Park, Texas. Following are several concerns and problems I see with the East Avenue Development. The transparency of the proposed development has not been made clear. In reference to the Galloway Neighborhood Meeting Summary notes submitted publicly on 12/19/24,1 have the following questions/statements: 1. Traffic There were several questions that were not answered with any clarity including the following: Safety Road and access trails Trespassing Emergency points Improvements to existing roadway network 2. Lighting No answers were given to questions regarding lighting V3. Wildlife No answers were given to questions. Is there an updated Wildlife Study? 4. Grading No answers were given 5. Views Will there be any ridgeline protection? 6. Water Will the water and wastewater lines be extended to help the neighborhoods adjacent to the planned development? Specifically, will there exist service for emergencies? 7. Buildings No answers were given with clarity regarding the following: Quantity Unit count Density 8. Land Use What will be the impact of rezoning into the Town of Estes Park? Under the current county zoning (IDU/2.5 acres) the property could potentially have 17 homes and each could construct an ADD. This could have more impact on this site than the "Pocket" development of accommodations. Current county zoning would take the 40- acre parcel and consider numbers 1 through 7 listed above. According to Galloway's sketch plan on the map legend, there would be 2 hotels, each with 125 units. In addition, there would be 65 tree houses, and each could construct an ADD. I think 380 units could have more impact on the site then 13 homes and each could construct an ADD. There is also no mention of workforce housing for this project. What would be the living wage for this upscale complex? This 40- acre parcel borders on three (3) sides by signle family residential zoning, and one side industrial zoning. Three sides county zoning and one side Town of Estes Park zoning. Do we want a Mixed Zoning Accommodation in the middle of a Single Family Residential and county Industrial zoning? Does this become "Island" zoning? Would this zoning change be in compliance with the zoning plan for the future of the town of Estes Park and outlying area of Larimer County? Is this a good example of what is to come? 13 residential units now, 380 Accommodation units in March of 20257 In addition to the above, I am very concerned about the safety of Elm Road. This will add to a great deal of traffic with more cars and trucks speeding on the road. Other issues for Elm Road include the grade, drainage, maintenance, and the intersection with highway #36 (Moraine Ave). At the 12/19/24 Neighborhood Meeting representatives from Galloway stated "Old Man Mountain Ln and Elm Road will be used for emergency only". There are other alternatives for access. Sincerely, z^^L Bill Brown 340 Elm Road EstesPark,CO 90517 Billbrown220@outlook.com Galloway0 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 200 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300- GallowayUS.com 12/19/24 - Neighborhood Meeting Summary / Notes Applicant / Developer: East Avenue Development Justin Mabey & Matt Lowder 1001 Cypress Creek Rd. Suite 203 Cedar Park. TX 78613 Phone:(801)602-0417 matt@eastavenue.com Galloway Consultant Team in Attendance: Brian Horan (Traffic) Brynhildr Halsten (Planning) Daniela Gonzalez (Traffic) Jon Romero (Landscape Architecture / Planning) Community Feeback: 1. Traffic a. Circulation & Safety (Pedestrian, Bicycle and Vehicle) b. Access i. Private through property ii. Options to restrict/manage access to Old Man Mountain Ln and Elm St iii. Construction Traffic iv. Trespassing on adjacent private properties (Pedestrian & Equestrian) v. Connections to Trail network to Rocky Mountain National Park vi. Emergency vehicle restricted access points in quantity and location c. Improvements to existing roadway network d. Parking (Location and amount) 2. Lighting a. Impacts of new development, particularly parking b. Current Town requirements are not modern in approach to "dark sky" 3. Wildlife a. Current migration patterns and areas of concentration b. Limit impacts on existing Wildlife patterns 4. Grading a. Steep slopes on portions of the site 5. Views a. Building height and grades on site are a concern 6. Water a. Does the Town have water to supply this kind of development? 7. Buildings a. Architecture b. Location to minimize impact on adjacent properties c. Height Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Annexation Neighborhood Meeting Notes Summary_Finat.docx Page 1 of 2 Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 Neighborhood Meeting Summary | Estes Park, CO December 23, 2024 d. Quantity e. Unit Count / Density 8. Land Use a. Impacts of rezoning into Town i. Currently a residential zone in County. If it was developed under current County zoning (1 DU/2.5 acres) could potentially have 17 homes and each could construct an ADD. Could have more impact on the site than "pocket" development of Accommodations. 9. Timing a. When would Phase 2 efforts happen? i. Ways to stay involved and up to date b. Delays in Phase 1 effort Galloway & Company, Inc. pa9e 2 of 2 ^ Annexation & Establishment 9 of Zone Boundary »t^a^ Galloway ESTES PARK, CO Guest Tree Houses Max Units: 55- 65 Potential Parking Areas of focused Revegetatlon / ReforestaUon No Build Area over the Bluellne Bevatlon of 7950 SKETCH PIAN Hkhom Lodge Phase 2 This infomutkin is copyrighted by GsSonv/ & Company, Inc. Ail nghts reserved 11.11.2024 NOTES: 1. ABarcitspto^dcd&ptopertydciincatodtKCflRsrtDdmate&wianmdtQbdwrmtL Z.PlanforEiiuslraUrepurposcsonly. 3. Satbachs (BKHdina orothcmtea) to bo ostatiSltbifd^ith tbeEstabltstOTwntofZoofL 4. The faoundnriua of thtsdrowingwBra (icvdopodfrom Scaiod Snfomutton &shotAt not bftcaistruod as accu-ato. March 6, 2025 I am a home owner at 1079 Fall River Ct in Estes and support the annexation, rezoning and use of the vacant 40 acre tract for building hotels, accommodations, etc. I also support building a road that would connect Elm Rd to the Elkhorn property. This development would be a boon to the town, tourism and a year-round economy. The developer has shown flexibility in accommodating design changes and will make the Elkhorn property vibrant again. Please share my comments with those who will decide these issues. Thank you. Timothy Haight 1-515-240-4235 March 6, 2025 My husband and I moved to Estes Park 7 years ago to get away from the city. Now, these people are trying to destroy our lovely mountain town with all of its beauty and amazing wildlife. Why? Just to line your pockets! It’s disgusting!!! WE DON’T WANT TO BE AN ASPEN, VAIL OR STEAMBOAT!! It’s bad enough that we have to deal with that idiot who’s now in the White House and slowly destroying our country! Now we have to deal with this BS!!! STOP ALREADY!!! And quit putting in round-abouts!! We want our town back. And when I say we I mean the majority of town’s people. Thank you, Luanne & Tom Lathrop March 5, 2025 To: Mayor Hall, Trustees Brown, Cenac, Hazleton, Igle, Lancaster, Younglund Re: Elkhorn Phase II annexation From: Bill and Pam Schultz, 1311 Range View Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 The proposed annexation should be rejected for the following reasons: 1. Fire hydrants in our neighborhood which is near the proposed annexation don’t have enough water pressure to fight fires now. The fire hydrant tops are painted white, which means too low of water pressure to be operational to fight fires. If we have a fire sweep through, it will be another Palisades California fire disaster. We need to get the existing fire hydrants fully operational which means increase the water pressure to all existing hydrants before we start adding additional development to our city infrastructure. 2. The property is ineligible for Annexation since it is not a “urbanized”. Colorado Section 31-12-103 3. The proposal does not meet the Annexation Principles outlined in the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan. 4. Annexation for the purpose of development disenfranchises and violates property rights of adjacent property owners in unincorporated Larimer County. 5. Annexation to avoid Larimer County Zoning and Development rules sets a dangerous precedent. The rationale for annexation that is provided by the developer is, “to ensure streamlined municipal service access and integration with the broader community vision.” Yet this annexation does nothing to “ensure streamlined municipal service access”. Town water and power are already available and utilized by the adjacent residents in unincorporated Larimer County. Sewer is available from Upper Thompson Sanitation District. The UTSD sewer lines already run up Elm Road, very near the subject property line and the proposed hotel sites. From a municipal service point of view, there is no need nor advantage, either to the developer or the Town for the proposed development to be within Town limits. In addition, the proposed development is contrary to the “broader community vision” that is clearly laid out in the Comprehensive Plan’s vision, goals, strategy and Future Land Use. While the stated reasons for annexation are without merit, there is a clear motivation to use annexation to bypass Larimer County zoning and development rules. The developer seeks to develop these parcels under the PUD process, which is available in the Town but not the County. The PUD rules and requirements are flexible and subjective, are thus open to pressure and manipulation by outside interests. Approval of this annexation request, despite its many conflicts with the letter and spirit of Comp Plan, would set a dangerous precedent. It would encourage developers to routinely use annexation, zoning and PUD overlay requests to permit projects that are contrary to the Estes Park Development Code and Comp ehensive Plan, projects that are not in the best interests of the community 6. The new traffic study describes a new public access road connecting Elkhorn Ave and Elm Road. It predicts ~2500 new daily trips on top of ~2500 daily trips for Elkhorn Phase I. Map Apps will send thousands more across this downtown bypass whenever downtown is congested. This project will add MAJOR NOISE, POLLUTION, TRAFFIC to our neighborhood and make left turns in/out of Elm Road impossible. 7. 3 acres of parking lots on top of the ridge will be lit all night long and destroy the night skies. The recent night sky ordinance in Estes Park will be violated with this massive development. 8. This development will destroy the heavily used winter habitat and the corridor connecting RMNP to the large conservation easement around Rock Ridge Road. Please reject the proposed Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Annexation. An overwhelming majority of Estes Park residents are against it. Sincerely, Bill and Pam Schultz 1311 Rangeview Road Estes Park CO 80517 March 4, 2025 Dear Mayor and Trustees, I am writing you today because I am concerned with the proposed Elkhorn annexation and think it should be rejected for the following reasons: Traffic and Infrastructure • Estimated 2,250 new daily trips from Phase II, adding to 2,500 from Phase I, leading to congestion on already busy roads. • Increased traffic at the Elm Road/Moraine Ave intersection, which is already overwhelmed during peak seasons, not to mention the downtown loop. • High volume of vehicles turning into and out of the new road, leading to potential back- ups along W. Elkhorn Ave.Not to mention the contraction vehicles which will require roads to be repaired after, which will be a cost to the town. • The town will likely need to build a new traffic light or roundabout to manage the increased traffic flow. • Construction of a bypass road would disrupt neighborhoods, increase traffic through once-quiet streets, and require costly infrastructure upgrades. Environmental and Wildlife Impact • Loss of 44 acres of natural land, which is currently an important winter habitat for local wildlife and a migration corridor. • Destruction of forested areas to make way for roads, parking, and buildings, leading to habitat loss and fragmentation. • Light pollution from all-night parking lot lighting will affect the Estes Valley’s dark skies and scenic night views. • Increased risk of wildfires due to more human activity in a high-risk fire zone, with potential impacts on nearby residential areas. • Stormwater runoff and groundwater depletion due to increased pavement and construction, which could negatively impact well water availability for nearby homes. Economic and Community Impact • Hotels will likely be operated by a major chain (e.g., Marriott, Hilton), meaning profits will leave the Estes Valley rather than benefit the local economy. • Minimal tax revenue gain due to new hotels competing with existing local lodges rather than bringing in additional visitors. • Job creation will primarily be seasonal, low-wage positions, increasing pressure on the already stretched local workforce and housing supply. And since workers don’t/can’t usually live here their money also leaves Estes. • Disruption to local neighborhoods, with increased vehicle noise, loss of privacy, and tourists crossing into private property. • Potential for trespassing as visitors try to access nearby landmarks like Old Man Mountain and Rocky Mountain National Park without designated access routes. Arguments Against Annexation, Rezoning, and PUD Annexation Concerns • Fails eligibility criteria under Colorado law, as the area is not considered “urban” (developed) or “urbanizing.” The land has no existing infrastructure like water, sewer, or roads required for urban designation. • Violates Estes Park’s Comprehensive Plan, which aims to limit development in environmentally sensitive areas and prioritize responsible growth. • Annexation would strip nearby residents of their rights, as Larimer County residents will have no say in decisions made by the Town of Estes Park but will still be impacted by noise, traffic, and environmental degradation. • Sets a precedent for developers to bypass zoning restrictions by using annexation as a loophole, potentially leading to more inappropriate developments in the future. Zoning and PUD Concerns • Contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, which designates the area for low-density accommodations (such as cabins and lodges), not high-density hotels. • PUD (Planned Unit Development) rules require projects to provide community benefits, but this development does not offer workforce housing, infrastructure improvements, or other benefits to offset its impact. • Violates Ridgeline Protection Zone and Dark Skies Initiative, with high-intensity lighting and large buildings disrupting scenic views. • Major infrastructure costs for the town, including road construction, traffic management, and utilities, which could burden taxpayers. • Creates long-term environmental risks, such as deforestation, soil erosion, and disruption to wildlife movement corridors. Regulatory and Approval Process • January 31, 2025: Annexation and rezoning application submitted. • March 25, 2025: Annexation consideration by Town Trustees. • Spring-Summer 2025: Zoning/PUD considerations and negotiations. • Public opposition has stopped similar projects before, and citizen comments can influence the outcome. Conclusion • The proposed development is misaligned with Estes Park’s values of preserving natural beauty, wildlife, and community character. • The costs outweigh potential benefits, with increased traffic, environmental degradation, and minimal economic gain. I really hope you will reject this annexation. Thank you for reading my concerns and considering them heavily since it is such an important issue for this town. Thank you, Velina Davidson 1255 Range View Rd., Estes Park 817-313-7326 March 4, 2025 Mayor Hall, Trustees Brown, Cenac, Hazleton, Igle, Lancaster, Younglund, I write to you today to add my voice to the opposition of the proposed annexation by Estes Park of subject parcel and subsequent development of subject parcel. A proposal is being prepared by developers to remodel the old Elkhorn Lodge and build two additional hotels on this approximately 40 acre plot. The developer’s stated intent is not to merely build hotels but to create what they refer to has a “Stanley type experience “. This entails the building of hiking trails, horseback riding trails, and the creation of varying levels of amenities depending on varying levels of luxury accommodations. In order to create this “experience “ it will be necessary to build a road connecting Elkhorn Avenue with Elm Road. This will permit hotel traffic to use two private roads (Upper Elm Road and Range View Road) at the hotel occupant’s discretion. Although open to the public now as thoroughfares, these roads are maintained and paid for exclusively by the homeowners. We receive zero dollars from the county or Town of Estes Park for maintaining these roads. We pay for signage, plowing, and resurfacing. The amount of traffic this type of development will generate will overwhelm our ability to continue to maintain these roads in accordance with required safety standards. Also, these hotel’s drain on water and sewer infrastructure will be immense. I do not believe the Town of Estes Park has adequate infrastructure to handle this additional load. Residents living in the Range View neighborhood have already experienced significant reduction in water pressure with no explanation from town government nor any attempt to address the problem. Allowing this level of development will likely reduce our water pressure even further. More than just an inconvenience, this is a major safety hazard. All but one fire hydrant on Range View Road, Olympus Road, and Range View Court have been identified by the Estes Park Fire Department as having insufficient water pressure. No attempt has been made to rectify this. The Big Thompson Sanitation District is in the process of upgrading their facilities at great cost to unmetered homeowners. Sewer costs have risen by approximately 66% over the past 5 years. More strain on this system will be passed to local residents causing even more rate hikes. I am asking you to disapprove annexation of this parcel and to do whatever you can to limit the scope of development of this parcel. It makes no sense to allow this from a wildlife, environmental, and public safety standpoint and it places a severe financial burden on local residents. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Gerald McDorman President, Range View Water and Roads, Inc. 511 Range View Court Estes Park, CO 80517 To: Mayor Hall, Trustees Brown, Cenac, Hazleton, Igle, Lancaster, Younglund Re: Elkhorn Phase II Annexation From: David G. Davidson, 1255 Range View Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 March 4, 2025 I trust that you are well familiar with points one through five and so I want to highlight points six though nine which may be understated. The proposed Elkhorn annexation should be rejected for the following reasons: 1. The property is ineligible for annexation due to the lack of a “community of interest.” Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-104 Eligibility for Annexation states: (1) No unincorporated area may be annexed to a municipality unless the governing body, at a hearing as provided in section 31-12-109, finds and determines (b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. There is little overlap between the interests of the community and those of the developer. The interests of the Estes Park community are outlined in the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, which states: “Our community works together as responsible stewards of our irreplaceable mountain surroundings to support residents and welcome visitors by preserving and enhancing our quality of life, sense of community, economic vitality, and health of the natural environment.” The interests of the developer, however, are primarily profit-driven, focusing on building additional lodging. More lodging is unnecessary for the community’s economic vitality, as existing accommodations already meet visitor demand, and Elkhorn Phase I will soon add approximately 168 more rooms. Additional lodging would merely create competition for existing businesses without benefiting the community. Rather than demonstrating “responsible stewardship of our irreplaceable mountain surroundings,” this project represents irresponsible development of irreplaceable open space, which degrades the health of the natural environment. Furthermore, the project does not support residents. Instead of “preserving and enhancing our quality of life,” it would destroy the rural character of adjacent neighborhoods, displace wildlife, and introduce increased traffic, noise, air, and light pollution—all of which degrade the sense of community and quality of life for residents. The economic benefits of this development would leave the community, while the burdens would be borne by local residents and businesses. 2. The property is ineligible for annexation as it is not urbanized. Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-103 defines urban to include: “Construction on land of improvements” or “vacant ground which has been or is being prepared for urban development by such steps as subdivision into lots or plots and blocks, installation of water and sewer lines, construction of access streets.” By this definition, the property is neither urban nor urbanizing in the near future. • It is not subdivided. • It has no existing sewer or water lines beyond a couple of fire hydrants. • It has no access streets. • While such improvements are proposed, they are not currently underway. Urbanization will only occur if the zoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD) requests are approved. However, there is considerable doubt that these requests will be approved, as they contradict the Estes Park Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. The annexation should only be approved if zoning and PUD requests are concurrently approved—a highly uncertain outcome. 3. The proposal contradicts the Annexation Principles in the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan. The Town has not developed a specific annexation policy, so the general principles in the Comprehensive Plan must guide annexation decisions. The Annexation and Future Town Service Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan states: “A strong connection between more urban land use and eventual annexation,” where “annexation by the Town would prioritize growth areas and limit development in areas of critical natural habitat and resources.” To achieve this, the Town should identify: “Future Service Areas…where higher intensity and density is acceptable over the next 20 years,” with the expectation that when specific “development criteria are met, the Town would annex areas within the Future Service Area.” However, this annexation is at odds with these principles. • The subject property is not designated as nor suitable for “higher intensity and density.” • The annexation would facilitate development in an area of critical natural habitat, where no development criteria have been met. 4. Annexation for development purposes disenfranchises adjacent property owners in unincorporated Larimer County. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by unincorporated Larimer County, whose zoning rules protect the quality of life and property values of adjacent landowners. If annexed: • Adjacent landowners lose their voice in the development process. • They have no representation in the Estes Park Development Code, Planning Commission, or Board of Trustees. • They cannot vote on town ordinances or officials who govern annexed land use. • They derive no benefits from the Town’s development, yet they will suffer the negative impacts of increased noise, traffic, light pollution, and neighborhood degradation. 5. Annexation to bypass Larimer County zoning rules sets a dangerous precedent. The developer’s rationale for annexation is: “To ensure streamlined municipal service access and integration with the broader community vision.” However, this annexation does nothing to ensure streamlined municipal service access. • Town water and power are already available to adjacent residents in unincorporated Larimer County. • Sewer service is already available through the Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD), whose lines run up Elm Road, near the subject property and proposed hotel sites. • There is no need or advantage for the development to be within town limits from a municipal services perspective. Instead, the real motivation appears to be bypassing Larimer County’s zoning and development rules. • The developer seeks to use the PUD process, which is available in the Town but not in the County. • PUD rules are flexible and subjective, making them susceptible to pressure and manipulation by outside interests. 6. Water Service Concerns How does the Town plan to provide this development with adequate water when I and my neighbors already experience low water pressure and flow? On any given day, I can measure my water flow at just 1 gallon per minute. 7. Increased Traffic Concerns This development intends to create a connection to Elm Road. • Entering or leaving Elm Road from Moraine Avenue is already difficult. • Additional traffic from the development will only make it worse. 8. Dark Skies This development will increase light pollution. The Estes skies are already not dark with the light from Loveland, Longmont and Denver. How does adding 3 acres of parking lot lights help to keep our skies dark? 9. Impact on Wildlife This area is a known habitat and transit corridor for the wildlife in our area. What is being done to mitigate the impacts of this development on our wildlife? Conclusion Approval of this annexation request would set a precedent for developers to routinely use annexation, zoning, and PUD requests to bypass the Estes Park Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. In addition it adds to an ever increasing problem with water availability, traffic congestion, negative impacts on wildlife, and light pollution. I urge you to reject this annexation. Sincerely, David G. Davidson March 3, 2025 To: Mayor Hall, Trustees Brown, Cenac, Hazleton, Igle, Lancaster, Younglund Re: Elkhorn Phase II annexation From: Joan Hooper, 1270 Range View Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 The proposed annexation should be rejected for the following reasons. 1. 1. The property is ineligible for Annexation since there is not a “community of interest”. Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-104 Eligibility for Annexation states: “(1) No unincorporated area may be annexed to a municipality unless… the governing body, at a hearing as provided in section 31-12-109, finds and determines … (b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality.” There is little overlap between community a developer interests. The interests of the community of Estes Park are spelled out in the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan vision, goals, etc. That vision is : “Our community works together as responsible stewards of our irreplaceable mountain surroundings to support residents and welcome visitors by preserving and enhancing our quality of life, sense of community, economic vitality, and health of the natural environment.” The interests of the developer are profit through building lodging. More lodging is not needed for the community’s economic vitality, as there is already ample lodging to meet visitor demand, and Elkhorn Phase 1 will soon be adding ~168 more rooms. Additional new lodging only would compete with existing lodging businesses. Rather than “responsible stewards[hip] of our irreplaceable mountain surroundings”, the project is irresponsible development of irreplaceable open space that degrades the health of our natural environment. It does nothing to “support residents”. Rather than “preserving and enhancing our quality of life”, the development would destroy the rural character of adjacent neighborhoods. It would displace wildlife and bring traffic, noise, air and light pollution that degrades sense of community and residents’ quality of life. Profits would leave the community while the burdens would be bourne by residents and businesses. 2. The property is ineligible for Annexation since it is not a “urbanized”. Colorado Section 31-12-103 defines Urban to include: “construction on land of improvements” or “vacant ground which has been or is being prepared for urban development by such steps as subdivision into lots or plots and blocks, installation of water and sewer lines, construction of access streets” By this definition, the property is neither “urban [n]or urbanized in the near future”. It is not subdivided. It has neither sewer nor water lines, beyond a couple of fire hydrants. It has no access streets. While such improvements are contemplated, they are not currently underway. Urbanization will only go forward if the zoning and PUD requests are approved. There is considerable doubt that the zoning and PUD requests will be approved, as they are contrary to the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Annexation can only be approved if the Zoning and PUD are concurrently approved. 2. 3. The proposal does not meet the Annexation Principles outlined in the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan. The Town has not developed a specific annexation policy, so the general principles set forward in the Comprehensive Plan must guide annexation decisions. The Annexation and Future Town Service Areas subsection of Section 3 of the Comprehensive Plan calls for a strong: “…connection between more urban land use and eventual annexation”, where “annexation by the Town [would] prioritiz[e]ing growth areas and limit[ing] development in areas of critical natural habitat and resources”. To achieve this the Town should identify: “Future Service Areas…where higher intensity and density is acceptable over the next 20 years”, with the expectation that when specific “development criteria are met, the Town would annex areas within the Future Service Area.” This annexation is at odds with these principles. The subject property is NOT designated as nor suitable for “higher intensity and density”. Instead, this annexation would facilitate the contravened “development in an area of critical natural habitat”, an undeveloped parcel to where NO “development criteria are met”. 3. 4. Annexation for the purpose of development disenfranchises and violates property rights of adjacent property owners in unincorporated Larimer County. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by unincorporated Larimer County, whose rules protect the quality of life and property values of adjacent landowners. Once the parcel is annexed, those adjacent landowners lose their voice in the development process. They have no voice in the Development Code. They cannot sit on the Planning Commission. They cannot vote for Town Trustees or Ordinances. They derive no benefit that may accrue to the Town from this development, yet they pay the price of noise, traffic, light pollution and degradation of their neighborhood, WHERE THEY LIVE. 4. 5, Annexation to avoid Larimer County Zoning and Development rules sets a dangerous precedent. The rationale for annexation that is provided by the developer is, “to ensure streamlined municipal service access and integration with the broader community vision.” Yet this annexation does nothing to “ensure streamlined municipal service access”. Town water and power are already available and utilized by the adjacent residents in unincorporated Larimer County. Sewer is available from Upper Thompson Sanitation District. The UTSD sewer lines already run up Elm Road, very near the subject property line and the proposed hotel sites. From a municipal service point of view, there is no need nor advantage, either to the developer or the Town for the proposed development to be within Town limits. In addition, the proposed development is contrary to the “broader community vision” that is clearly laid out in the Comprehensive Plan’s vision, goals, strategy and Future Land Use. While the stated reasons for annexation are without merit, there is a clear motivation to use annexation to bypass Larimer County zoning and development rules. The developer seeks to develop these parcels under the PUD process, which is available in the Town but not the County. The PUD rules and requirements are flexible and subjective, are thus open to pressure and manipulation by outside interests. Approval of this annexation request, despite its many conflicts with the letter and spirit of Comp Plan, would set a dangerous precedent. It would encourage developers to routinely use annexation, zoning and PUD overlay requests to permit projects that are contrary to the Estes Park Development Code and Comp ehensive Plan, projects that are not in the best interests of the community To Estes Park Planning Department: We wish to express our strong opposition to the Elkhorn Phase 2 proposal to rezone and build 2 large hotels. As a property owners at 450 Olympus Rd East, Estes Park, Colorado, we are expressing our concerns over the proposed annexation of the Elkhorn property to build a Marriot and Hilton hotel in addition to remodeling the old Elkhorn Lodge. We understand the developers laid out their plan for this 40 acre space between Elkhorn Ave. and Elm Road. The developer’s stated intent is not to merely build hotels but to create a “Stanley type experience” in this area. This is to included horseback riding trails, walking trails, and whatever they can envision to create this so-called experience. We are extremely concerned about the environmental impact that this would have on not only on the wildlife which currently resides in this buffer zone between the town of Estes and Rocky Mountain National Park, but also on the forest land and the area watershed. Changing water ways will make the land prone to erosion impacting the delicate ecosystem. Food supplies and shelter for bears and other animals might become scarce either diminishing the ability to survive or driving them further into residential areas. In addition to the environmental impact and traffic issues this will cause a drain on our infrastructure. Many of us are already experiencing a noticeable drop in water pressure with little to no concern from the town on cause or solutions. Adding three hotels and the facilities needed to manage them would likely make our water situation much worse. Additionally, the current wastewater system does not have the capacity for the added strain. This project also requires a road be built connecting Elkhorn Avenue with Elm Road. I am unclear on where it is proposed to connect to Elm Road, but we have grave concerns as to how it will impact traffic patterns, storm water drainage and the general infrastructure costs. The workforce required to staff the proposed hotel development upon completion, would put additional strain on the already drained lower income housing resources. Additional resources would be needed for the lower income worker putting additional stress on the community's current programs and efforts to support those with lower incomes. If the environmental impact is not enough cause to decline the proposed annexation, please decline the annexation for the good of the community of Estes Park. Thank you for your consideration. Bill and Lori Hagen 450 Olympus Rd East Estes Park, CO 80517 March 2, 2025 December 16, 2024 Dear Mr. Hornbeck, AICP, Subject: Opposion to the Proposed PUD Development at Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 and Annexaon I am wring to express my concerns and opposion to the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) designaon at Elkhorn Lodge Phase 2 and Annexaon. Aer reviewing the project details and its implicaons, I believe this development is incongruent with the current zoning regulaons and the established character of the area. Below, I outline my reasons in detail: 1. Conﬂict with Current Zoning Designaons: The proposed PUD does not align with the exisng zoning designaon of Larimer County ’s Rural Estate 2.5 acre. The current zoning regulaons are designed for low-density housing, open spaces, and community aesthecs. Introducing a PUD in this area would undermine these objecves and disrupt the zoning ’s intended purpose. As you are aware, the County reached its designaon for the parcel aer an extensive land use process, resulng in a Comprehensive Plan that designates uses congruent with the area. Addionally, areas concurrently in the city and adjacent to the proposed development have a lower density (Estate ½ acre) than the proposed PUD. 2. Impact on Community Character: The area to the west of the proposed development has a well-established character deﬁned by single-family homes, vast natural expanses, ulized by migrang deer and elk, and a low populaon density. The approximately 100 acres to the East of this Proposed 40 acre PUD are single family estates that are in a long term Conservaon Easement that stretches from Elkhorn Ave to Moraine Ave to Davis Hill. A PUD, which allows for mixed-use or higher-density development, would introduce incompable uses and densies that detract from the area’s exisng character and appeal. 3. Traﬃc and Infrastructure Concerns: The increased density associated with the proposed PUD would place signiﬁcant strain on the exisng infrastructure, including roads, ulies, and public services. Elm Rd as well as its intersecon at Moraine Ave is not equipped to handle an addional 200 plus trips a day for users of the PUD plus the addional traﬃc that may be generated by locals and tourists wishing to take a shortcut through the proposed PUD property. Elm Road on the west side of the Property is an unpaved dirt road, the lower half of which passes through Larimer County Property and is not maintained or plowed by them due to the degree of slope and the single vehicle width of the road. 4. Inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan Goals: The city ’s comprehensive plan outlines speciﬁc goals and policies aimed at guiding development in a manner consistent with long-term community needs. The proposed PUD appears to deviate from these goals by priorizing high-density development in an area designated for low-density residenal use. 5. Environmental Impacts: The proposed development raises concerns regarding potenal environmental degradaon, including loss of green space and animal habitat, and increased stormwater runoﬀ into Fall River and the Big Thompson River; these impacts further emphasize the incompability of this PUD with the current zoning and the community’s environmental priories. 6. Precedent for Future Development: Approving this PUD could set a troubling precedent, encouraging similar proposals that erode the integrity of current zoning regulaons that have been established by a joint review by Larimer County and Estes Park. This could lead to a gradual shi away from the planning principles that have maintained the area’s quality and character. I respecully urge the Planning Department to consider these points and to deny the proposed PUD development as well as the Annexaon to the Town of Estes Park in order to circumvent the exisng Larimer County Zoning. Maintaining adherence to the current zoning regulaons is essenal to preserving the character, safety, and sustainability of our community. Thank you for your aenon to this maer. I am happy to provide further informaon or parcipate in any public hearings virtually related to this proposal. Sincerely, Rebecca Glowacki Owner of 290 Elm Rd. Estes Park, CO, 80517 CC: HS Estes Park, LLC Brynhildr Halsten, Galloway & Company Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Annexation Establishment of Zoning Town Board November 18, 2025 Present Situation –Process 1.Substantial Compliance Resolution (May 13, 2025) Town Board determined the content of the annexation petition substantially complied with the Municipal Annexation Act. 2.Eligibility Resolution (June 24, 2025) •Town Board determined the property is eligible for annexation 3.Annexation & Zoning Ordinance (date TBD) •Town Board may proceed to complete the annexation by adopting an Annexation Ordinance and subsequently establish zoning Vicinity Map of Subject Area W. Wonderview Ave Concept Plan W. Wonderview Ave Topographic Map Ridgeline Protection Diagram 1 Ridgeline Protection Diagram 2 Wildlife •Colorado Parks & Wildlife Comments •Best practices to minimize wildlife impacts •80’ wide buffer •To implement CPW comments regarding movement corridors •Important Wildlife Habitat Area •High use area for deer •Wildlife Conservation Plan •Staff recommended condition of approval Zoning Future Land Use Map Zoning A-1 – Accommodations/Low Intensity A Accommodations/Low Intensity Highway Corridor Purpose “…applies primarily in highway-oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higher-intensity accommodations such as multi-story hotels and motels.” “…provides for low-intensity and small-scale residential uses, low-intensity accommodations and very limited accessory uses located along highway and roadway corridors characterized by low- intensity residential and lodging uses, including resort lodges, cabins and condominium developments” Allowed Uses Small Hotels (max. 8 guest rooms) Any size Hotel, subject to density calculations Resort Lodges/Cabins (max. 20 guest rooms) Any size Resort Lodge/Cabins, subject to density calculations Density 1 unit per 10,890 s.f. land area 1 unit per 1,800 s.f. land area Possible Range of Development Density Current County Zoning A-1 Zoning A Zoning Proposed Primary Units 12-14 residential units 88 units 530 units 290 units Accessory Units Up to one accessory dwelling (ADU) unit per lot 12 units employee housing 75 units employee housing 10 employee housing units Utilities & Services •Water – 12” main exists on site. Adequate water volume and pressure to serve development •Electric - No major concerns with serving the property •Sewer – 8” mains exist north and south, property splits districts. •Fire - able to serve the property, two points of access required •Police - able to serve the property, support access between Elkhorn & Moraine Site Access •Moraine/Elm Intersection – Improvements warranted, likely signal or roundabout. •All Other Studied Intersections – Minor increases in delays, no improvements warranted •New Road – Public road connecting Elkhorn & Moraine. Critical for safety of development and community emergency response and evacuation •Multi-Use Trail – Alignment TBD. •Natural Surface Trails – Master Trails Plan envisioned formalizing existing trail connection to RMNP. NPS opposes connection to RMNP. Exact alignment TBD to balance values of NPS/Trails Plan. Review Criteria •State Statues – Annexation standards met. No standards for EOZ. •Development Code – Rezoning criteria as guidance: •Change in conditions •Compatible/consistent with Comp Plan & Estes Valley growth/development patterns. •Ability to provide adequate service Comprehensive Plan •Natural Environment •Maintain scenic character and viewsheds •Ensure open space preservation while allowing contextual development •Protect wildlife and enhance biodiversity and ecosystems •Consider and mitigate wildfire risk •Built Environment •Strategically direct growth toward areas of existing infrastructure •Ensure development is in harmony with its setting •Encourage a balanced mix of uses that meets the diverse needs of residents, businesses, and visitors •Coordinate and integrate land use and transportation objectives •Promote job-generating commercial land uses to support existing and future businesses Comprehensive Plan •Economy •Balance needs of local residents, visitors, and protecting the natural environment. •Cultivate a strong, stable, and diverse local economy. •Welcome and accommodate visitors. •Housing •Ensure new housing meets the needs of the workforce and families. •Create new housing opportunities. •Transportation & Infrastructure •Integrate multimodal transportation options to safely connect people and destinations •Provide and maintain an expanding, safe, and comprehensive network to support walking and bicycling as viable modes of transportation for all ages and abilities, for recreational use, and to promote community health. Advantages/ Disadvantages Advantages: •Annexation would allow the Town to control the development of this property as it would be subject to Town requirements. •In return for annexation, the Town can require property owners to meet higher development standards or provide additional measures to mitigate development impacts. •New development would generate additional sales, lodging, and property tax revenues. •Development would facilitate infrastructure improvements that benefit the entire community, including a roadway connection between Moraine Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue, intersection improvements at Elm Road and Moraine Avenue, and trail improvements per the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. Disadvantages: •The Town will be required to provide municipal services to the property. •Potential negative impacts to quality of life, such as increased traffic, light pollution, and impacts to viewsheds. •Low paying jobs and additional stress on the housing market. •Loss of wildlife habitat. Action Recommended Staff asks the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the Town Board on whether the requested ‘A’ Accommodations/Highway Corridor zone district is appropriate. If deemed appropriate, then staff recommends the conditions provided in the staff report, which are summarized here: 1.Future development shall be consistent with the concept plan 2.A maximum of 290 accommodation units and 25 employee housing/dormitory units 3.A minimum of 10 employee housing or dormitory units shall be provided on-site. 4.Improvements to the unpaved portion of Elm Road per Town/County standards. 5.Main road through property shall be platted as a public street and constructed to minor collector street standards. 6.Install warranted improvements Moraine Avenue and Elm Road intersection 7.Construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure safe pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to and through the property and extend offsite to West Elkhorn Avenue Action Recommended (cont) 7.Trail improvements and easements in accordance with the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. Exact alignment TBD. 8. Following Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommendations. 9. Provide/follow a Wildlife Conservation Plan 10. Provide 80-foot-wide buffer/ wildlife movement corridor shall be provided along the perimeter of the site 11. Lighting shall follow dark sky best practices 12. Building architecture and design shall be consistent with Historic Elkhorn Lodge and Elkhorn Suites Finance/Resource Impact: The proposed development would generate additional sales, lodging, and property tax revenue. It is anticipated with this proposal, as with any new development in Town, that the cost to extend or improve infrastructure would be borne by the developer and not the Town. Ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure would become the responsibility of the Town, as would the provision of other services. Level of Public Interest •Inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan and Statutory Annexation Requirements: •The Plan designates the site for Low-Density Accommodations (rustic lodges, cabins), not high- intensity hotels. •The proposal is inconsistent with themes in the Plan, such as protection of views and dark-skies, environmental protection, etc. •Arguments the proposal does not meet statutory requirements for annexation. •Environmental Impacts •Wildlife impacts: Development will destroy and/or fragment habitat and impact movement corridors used by wildlife. •Deforestation and erosion: Tree removal for development and defensible wildfire zones could destabilize slopes. •Stormwater and groundwater issues: Added impervious surfaces could worsen flooding. •Increased wildfire risk: Added activity in high-risk wildfire zone raises safety concerns. Level of Public Interest •Community Impacts •Light and noise pollution: Hotels and parking lighting would impact dark skies and disturb nearby neighborhoods. •Traffic and infrastructure: Concern over additional traffic, especially through residential areas, and concern the Town would bare costs of new infrastructure. •Community character: Development could lead to loss of characteristics that make Estes Park unique, such as wildlife, scenic views, etc. •Trespassing: development may encourage trespassing on surrounding properties. •Economic and Social •Concern the development would add low-wage hospitality jobs rather than workforce housing. •Question if there’s need for additional accommodations and concern the development would compete with smaller local accommodations. •Concern profits would leave the community to out-of-state ownership while employees would not be able to afford to live in Estes Park. •No clear plan for worker housing or public benefits. Sample Motion 1.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to approve the requested ‘A’ Accommodations/Highway Corridor zone district, should the property be annexed, subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff. 2.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation not to approve the requested ‘A’ Accommodations/Highway Corridor zone district, should the property be annexed.