HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Technical Review Committee 2025-11-04TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT
Tuesday, November 4, 2025
1:30 p.m.
Town Hall Board Room
Estes Park, CO 80517
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER.
1.Introductions of TRC members, staff
AGENDA APPROVAL
MINUTES from 6/17/25 ARC Acknowledgment only
ACTION ITEM:
1.Lot 2A Subdivision Plat, Freelan Heights Subdivision Planner Hornbeck
Order of Procedure for Hearing:
Staff presentation
Applicant team presentation
Public Comment
Committee discussion; motion and second; roll-call vote
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 4, 2025
1
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 17, 2025
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Architectural Review Committee of
the Stanley Hotel Historic District, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting
was held virtually via Google Meet on June 17, 2025.
Committee: Joe Calvin, Architect; Steve Lane, Architect
Also Attending: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner; Don Darling, Applicant; Brad
O'Neil, Applicant; Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary.
The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved to approve the agenda and minutes from June 9, 2025, by Architects
Calvin and Lane.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Senior Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report. The applicant desires to construct a
single-family house on envelope "F" of the Overlook Condominiums subdivision plat. This
will be a model home, and the applicant anticipates that additional homes will utilize the
same general floor plan, design, and materials.
Applicant O'Neil presented the revisions made since the last meeting. The turret design
has been modified to feature eight paired window openings. Changes were also made
to the deck structure, including adjustments to the height relationship between the deck
and stone elements, the addition of stone columns as deck supports, and a color
change to the deck seal to create a coordinated appearance. The trellis has been
redesigned as powder-coated metal with a rounded shape to address fire safety
concerns. Additionally, the chimney cap will have a non-reflective finish rather than a
shiny appearance.
Applicant Darling addressed future modifications for the remaining houses in the
development. He explained that the other houses may incorporate slightly different color
variations and exterior façade treatments while maintaining overall design consistency.
Darling inquired whether another meeting would be required to review these subtle
modifications, noting that they do not have specific details about the other homes
available for presentation at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Architect Lane was happy with the changes, stating that they definitely improved the
building design. Architect Calvin agreed.
Motion: It was moved to issue a finding that the new (current) design complies with the
relevant guidelines contained in the Master Plan.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
draf
t
2
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: Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee (TRC)
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Department: Community Development
Date: November 4, 2025
Subject: Review of New Development Associated with the Freelan Heights
Subdivision
Objective:
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) will review the proposed subdivision for
compliance with the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and
Design Guidelines and other relevant standards.
Present Situation:
The Stanley Historic District is governed by the Stanley Historic District Master Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines (Master Plan), as well as portions of the
Municipal Code and Development Code, and development agreements for each parcel
within the district. According to the development agreement for the subject parcel, all
subdivisions require the applicant to go through the Town’s subdivision process
contained in the Development Code. This means the subdivision will be subject to
review and approval by Town Board. However, the Master Plan also states “new
development” in the district is subject to the standards and process outlined in the
Master Plan. The improvements associated with the subdivision qualify as “new
development” so they remain subject the Master Plan and TRC review.
3
The Master Plan requires TRC to review all new development first as a Preliminary
Package, followed by a Final Package. This is in addition to review by the Architectural
Review Committee (ARC). The ARC reviewed and approved model home plans for the
proposed subdivision in June, 2025, finding them compliant with relevant design
standards. This completes the necessary ARC review, provided future construction is in
general conformance with those plans.
Part III of the Master Plan includes general design guidelines applicable to the entire
district and specific development standards and special considerations for each
individual parcel. The Master Plan states: The specific guidelines and standards which
are incorporated into Part III of this document shall be used in the review process to
direct the character of design for all development within the Stanley Historic District.
Proposal:
The applicant, Mr. Brad O’Neil, manager of Stanley Lot 2A LLC, has submitted a
Preliminary Package application for the Freelan Heights Subdivision. The subject
property is Lot 2A of the Stanley Historic District Subdivision. The site is currently
platted with six duplex envelopes, meaning a maximum of 12 units could be built. This
proposal would replace the six duplex building envelopes and 12 units with 10 detached
townhome lots. A detached townhome has the same appearance as a single-family
home, but provides additional certainty on building locations on each lot through a
platted building envelope.
The Master Plan, accessible here, contains standards on site planning, building
location, building design and landscaping. Listed below are all applicable standards
from the Master Plan, followed by staff analysis. Staff finds that the proposal largely
complies with applicable standards, with limited inconstancies. Areas staff finds
inconsistent with the Maste Plan are the building setbacks proposed on Lot 1 and Lot 6.
TRC has the ability to grant a variance to these setback requirements.
General Design Guidelines
A. Site Planning
1. Buildings shall be sited in a manner that preserves existing land forms.
4
Natural land forms are important in creating the appeal and the special character of the
Stanley Historic District. The objective is to fit buildings to their sites in a way that leaves
natural massing and features of the landscape intact. The most visually dominant and
distinctive natural characteristics of the parcels should be left in their natural condition.
Scale buildings so that they do not dominate the site.
Staff Comment: The rock formations on the western portion of the site are the most
visually dominant and distinctive natural characteristics and will be left in their natural
condition. Outside of this area, the majority of the site has slopes between 14 and 20
percent. New construction on slopes in this range necessitates some disruption to
existing landforms; however, the grading plan shows grading focused around individual
building footprints, rather than creating large, flat building sites with extensive overlot
grading. This is consistent with the objective of siting buildings in a manner that fits
them to their sites and leaves as much natural landscape intact as possible.
2. New construction should be compatible with existing adjacent residential buildings
and uses.
When planning new construction, analyze the setting for the new building. Look at the
siting and mass of other buildings in the residential neighborhood. Notice the setbacks,
heights, parking arrangements and building shapes. Observe the building forms and
materials of surrounding buildings. Be aware of the elements that are repeated nearby,
such as certain roof pitches, window shapes and porch and entrance orientations. New
construction should blend with the residential neighborhood without copying other
buildings.
Staff Comment: The site is located between single-family homes to the north and the
Overlook Condominiums to the south. The proposed muted earth tone colors, cedar
wood siding, natural stone, timber framing, and roof pitches are all similar and
compatible with surrounding buildings. The proposed building orientation leaves view
windows southwest towards Longs Peak.
3. Grading.
5
Overlot grading for the sole purpose of creating flat building pads is prohibited within the
Stanley Historic District. Foundations that step up or down with the natural slope of the
site can greatly reduce site disturbances. Extensive grading to create large flat lawn
areas is prohibited unless appropriate to grades at building site.
Staff Comment: Proposed homes use walkout basements to work with the existing
topography. Extensive grading to create flat lawns is not proposed.
4. Drainage.
Culverts and flow dissipaters are to be constructed in a manner that reflects the natural
character of streams in the Rocky Mountain region. River rock and cobbles are
required. Use of angular rip-rap and exposed concrete is prohibited. Minor
drainageways that are created to collect and convey storm water shall be constructed of
materials and revegetated so as to appear natural.
Staff Comment: Details on materials used in drainageways does not appear to be
provided in the Preliminary Package. But, pursuant to a staff recommended condition of
approval, this is a detail that will be included with the Final Package for staff and TRC
review to ensure compliance with the guideline.
5. Buildings shall be sited in a manner that preserves significant vegetation.
New construction and landscaping shall respect and be compatible with natural
vegetative patterns. Consult the Landscape Section for additional discussion.
Staff Comment: The Development Code defines significant trees as deciduous trees
four-inch diameter at breast height or larger and as conifers eight-inch at breast height
or larger. It appears approximately 20 significant trees will be removed due to new
construction and approximately 25 new trees are proposed. Buildings do appear sited in
a manner to minimize loss of trees. For example, buildings on lots one and two are
clustered towards the common lot line.
6. Buildings should be sited in a manner that preserves significant views.
The primary concerns relate to maintaining views to the site. Projects should be
designed so they complement rather than dominate the natural landscape. Views
6
should also be considered in the preparation of a landscape plan, particularly where
plant material will be considerably larger at maturity.
Staff Comment: The most significant views of the historic district are those from the
south towards the Hotel. Those views will not be impacted. Views from the homes north
of the subject parcel will be impacted but not to an unexpected extent given
development is permitted on the subject property; and given the proposed building
orientation leaves view windows southwest towards Longs Peak.
7. Site design should not change natural drainage patterns.
Site grading should be sensitive to existing land forms and topography in the area so
that the natural setting may be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Every effort
shall be to minimize the limits of construction on the site and all stock piling of materials
and equipment storage shall occur within those limits. Abrupt grade changes on
property lines are not permitted. Grade changes within tree driplines should be avoided.
When modifications are necessary, surface drainage systems such as swales and
detention basins are preferable to underground systems. Drainage designs should
avoid the concentration of runoff and acceleration of the rate of runoff. Site design
should be executed in a way which will avoid drainage impacts such as erosion and
road damage both on-site as well as downstream. Slopes steeper than 3-to-1 shall be
stabilized using natural materials and revegetated. Cuts and fills should have good
surface drainage and must be revegetated and terraced or controlled by retaining walls
to protect against erosion and sedimentation. Silt fencing shall be established in a
continuous barrier on all downslope boundaries of the development site prior to
earthmoving activity. Additional silt barriers and silt settlement areas shall be
established along drainage courses as necessary to prevent erosion and the flow of
transported sediments beyond site construction areas. These erosion/ siltation control
facilities shall be maintained throughout construction activity until disturbed areas are
successfully revegetated.
Staff Comment: Minimal changes to natural drainage patterns are proposed.
8. Clustering of buildings and parking is encouraged
7
Efficiencies in design result from building clustering when it applies to appropriate
building types and land uses. Service needs can be combined in a central location.
Access roads and utility services to scattered areas within a site can be reduced and
disruption of the natural land forms and vegetation can be minimized through clustering.
Building clustering may result in a visually more cohesive design solution. Clustering
may also provide more usable open space.
Staff Comment: Buildings and parking lots appear clustered to the maximum extent
feasible for detached homes.
B. Building Placement
1. Buildings should respect existing landforms.
Buildings should be located so that earthwork can be minimized. Emphasis should be
placed on building locations that fit existing contours rather than those that require a
building solution that would dominate the site.
Staff Comment: As mentioned above, the plans show grading focused around individual
building footprints, rather than creating large, flat building sites with extensive overlot
grading. This is consistent with the objective of minimizing earthwork and placing
buildings to fit within existing contours.
2. The alignment of roads and driveways should follow the contours of the site.
By meandering roads to follow land forms, it is possible to minimize cuts and fills,
preserve natural drainage patterns, and produce roads that are easily negotiated.
Efforts should be made to construct roads parallel to contours. When roadways or
drives must be located on cross slopes, they are preferred to be cut into the slope rather
than placed in a location creating a fill condition.
Staff Comment: Roads and driveways will require modest cut and fill. Finished grades
appear to generally be within a few feet of existing grades.
3. Site design should consider solar access.
Building placement and planting materials should accommodate passive solar designs.
Maintaining solar access to adjoining building sites, roadways, and parking shall be
considered during the review process.
8
Staff Comment: There do not appear to be negative impacts to solar access for
adjacent properties. All lots appear to have the opportunity to accommodate passive
solar design.
4. Site design must consider the placement and screening of service areas and auxiliary
structures.
Utility meters and service functions should not be visible on the primary facades of
buildings or in front yard areas. Minimize the visual impact of trash storage and pickup
areas. Screen trash and service areas with landscaping, berming or fencing. Consider
snow accumulation in planning access to trash receptacles and service areas. Auxiliary
structures should be architecturally compatible with the rest of the site development.
Staff Comment: No new service areas are proposed. Information of individual utility
meter placement shall be reviewed with building permit applications.
5. Site design around intersections must provide a clear view of intersecting streets.
In order to allow drivers a safe visibility at intersections, no obstruction in excess of two
feet high may be placed within a triangular area formed by the streets at property line
and a line connecting them at points 25' from the intersection of the street lines. Trees
pruned high enough to permit driver visibility may be permitted.
Staff Comment: As reflected in a recommended condition of approval, staff requests the
applicant demonstrate conformance on the landscape plan provided with the Final
Package by showing sight distance where the proposed driveways intersect with
Overlook Cout
6. Site design should facilitate pedestrian circulation.
Care should be taken to provide pedestrian circulation that is separate from and does
not conflict with vehicular circulation. A master pedestrian circulation plan for each
parcel shall be developed by the developer at the time of initial development review
process.
9
Staff Comment: A sidewalk currently exists along Overlook Court, terminating at the cul-
de-sac. The low volume of traffic does not warrant new sidewalks on the shared
driveways.
7. Building Setbacks.
The Technical Review Committee may adjust interior line setbacks based upon
innovative site design, site planning, and access. Each parcel has perimeter setbacks
which shall be maintained.
Staff Comment: The applicant requests variances to two required setbacks. A 10-foot
setback from the south property line on Lot 1 is requested, rather than the required 15
feet. The lot to the south has no development in this vicinity (the nearest building is
approximately 200 feet south) and contains a drainage easement, prohibiting future
development. Staff recommends the TRC approve a variance to allow the requested 10
foot setback as a design solution advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of
the Master Plan.
A 25-foot setback from the north property line on Lot 6 is requested rather than the
required 50-foot setback. The variance would allow the building site to be shifted north,
avoiding steeper parts of the site. The property to the northwest is zoned ‘A’
(Accommodations) and currently the closest buildings are approximately 250 feet north.
The property to the northeast is zoned ‘RM’ (Residential Multifamily) and has two
existing townhomes approximately 130 feet to the northeast. Staff recommends the
TRC approve a variance to allow the requested 25 foot setback as a design solution
advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan.
C. Building Design
1. New buildings designed to imitate historic styles of the Stanley Hotel will not be
approved.
The Town considers that the integrity of the Stanley Hotel historic structures will be
compromised by the introduction of new buildings that appear to be older than they
really are and, therefore, will not approve historic imitations. The following architectural
styles and motifs are prohibited in Stanley Historic District Ordinance:
10
• A-frame structures,
• Geodesic dome structures,
• Mediterranean motifs,
• Tudor or mock tudor,
• Swiss chalets,
• Highly ornate Victorian,
• Rustic frontier,
• Colonial, and
• Other historical or period design motifs that have a strong connection or
• association with other regions or which have no historical connection with Estes
Park.
Staff Comment: Building design does not imitate historic styles of the Stanley Hotel
2. Building designs should attempt to minimize the apparent scale of buildings.
Buildings can be made to seem larger or smaller depending on the proportional
relationship of the building elements that comprise the building front. Doors, windows,
roof shapes, siding, lighting and signs should all be considered carefully in order to
create an appropriate scale of development.
Staff Comment: The applicant modified the original model home building design based
on ARC feedback to ensure apparent scale is minimized, particularly on the rear, three
story facades. The ARC provided direction to minimize the apparent building scale,
which the applicant has incorporated, resulting in more stone across the lower level, use
of stone piers for the deck, and greater spacing between windows.
3. Rooflines of buildings should be designed to be compatible with surrounding building
forms.
Clashes in styles and materials should be avoided. The objective in determining roof
shape is to establish a visual order to building clusters. The following roof forms are
prohibited in Stanley Historic District:
• Mansard or fake mansard,
• Gambrel,
11
• Curvilinear,
• Domed,
• Geodesic domes,
• Conical, and
• A-frames.
Staff Comment: Rooflines are compatible with surrounding building forms.
4. Roof surfacing materials should be selected to help new buildings blend with their
surroundings.
The use of similar building materials throughout areas that are seen together provides a
very strong link that unifies the varying architectural features of the buildings. Preferred
materials are cedar shingles, resawn shakes (to give a less rustic appearance than
heavy shakes), standing seam metal roofs in colors that approximate the color of
weathered cedar shingles and composition shingles. The following roofing materials are
prohibited:
• Untreated aluminum or metal,
• Reflective materials,
• Brightly colored roofing materials such as bright red, blue, yellow, or similar
colors that are highly visible,
• Red tile roofs, (tile roofs may be allowed in shades of grays and browns that
approximate the color of weathered cedar shingles),
• Roof color should approximate the color of weathered shingles; however, colors
which blend with the background natural materials, such as forest green, are
acceptable.
Staff Comment: The new shingle roofs are gray in color, similar to surrounding
buildings.
6. Allowable Building Height.
Care must be exercised in siting structures and orienting roofs so that allowable height
of 30 feet as regulated by the Stanley Historic District Ordinance is not exceeded.
"Building height" is defined by ordinance as the vertical distance from the average of the
finished ground level at the center of all walls of a building to the highest point of the
roof surface, exclusive of chimneys, ventilators, pipes and similar apparatus.
12
Staff Comment: The model home building plans met this requirement; however, due to
height being measured from average grade, each building permit application will need
to demonstrate conformance.
7. Facade lengths must be varied.
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that buildings do not become
overpowering. A change in the planes of walls, changing the direction or providing some
variety in the roof form gives diversity and visual interest. Structures must exhibit a
prominent shift in the facade of the structure so that no building façade appears
unbroken. Each shift shall be in the form of either a change in building façade alignment
or a change in roofline height, or a combined change in facade and roofline.
Staff Comment: Varying rooflines, decks, wall bump outs, and changes in materials are
used such that buildings do not appear overpowering.
8. Building should be constructed of natural wall materials.
The use of natural materials such as redwood and cedar, and accent stone is
encouraged. Wall materials should convey a sense of human scale and warmth. Stones
should be laid in a manner that conveys the appearance of a structural element rather
than as a veneer facing another material. They should not convey an overly urban or
industrial character. The following wall materials are prohibited:
• Thick shake shingles,
• Ceramic tile,
• Slump block,
• Weeping mortar,
• Plastic or vinyl siding,
• Used brick,
• Synthetic stone products,
• Precast stone or concrete imbedded with stone fragments,
• Lava rock,
• Clinkers,
• Asphalt siding,
13
• Exposed concrete block (architectural or split-face block may be acceptable),
Plywood siding, and
• Aluminum siding.
Staff Comment: The buildings will use natural materials, including cedar siding, natural
stone, and timber framing.
9. Exterior wall colors should harmonize with the site and surrounding buildings.
On exterior walls the predominant tone should tend toward warm earthy hues, whether
in the natural patina or weathered color of the wall surface itself or the color of the paint,
stain or other coating. White walls are not permitted. Accent colors on the wall surfaces
can enliven buildings; however, their location should be confined to entries and
gathering points which do not disrupt the overall harmony of the area. Body trim and
accent colors as per Historic Code. In most cases, only one or two accent colors should
be used in addition to the base color. Doors may be painted a bright accent color or
they may be left natural wood finish. Harshly contrasting color combinations should be
avoided. Brilliant, luminescent, or day-glow colors will not be approved. The colors
found in the landscape around Estes Park, the dark green of forests, the gray-brown of
mountains, and the tan of grasses all relate well to wood and stone masonry. Colors
indigenous or associated with other parts of the country should be avoided, such as
colonial and tropical paint schemes.
Staff Comment: Predominant colors are earth tones.
11. Exterior lighting systems should be chosen with care so that glare is not created and
light is not cast on neighboring properties.
The objective is to provide subdued night lighting illuminating only what needs to be lit
to promote safe and pleasant use. Lighting with a number of low intensity sources close
to the area requiring illumination will in nearly all cases be more effective than lighting
with a remote single source. Generally, exterior lighting should direct light downward
and the light sources should not be visible from neighboring property.
Staff Comment: Building permit review will ensure use of appropriate light fixtures.
D. Landscaping
14
1. Landscape plan.
Off-site views of building masses shall be substantially softened with plantings of large
coniferous trees carefully located to create a natural appearance which blends with
existing vegetative patterns. The landscape plan should reflect the landscape character
of an area. On those sites where the existing vegetation is considered a significant
attribute of the site, the siting and design of buildings shall retain the existing significant
vegetation wherever possible.
The landscaping should reflect the native vegetation patterns and plant materials.
Outward orienting portions of the landscape shall be planted with the same species of
plants which are found on the adjacent undisturbed areas. New plantings should blend
in with the existing landscape so that several years hence all traces of the site
disturbance will have disappeared. Proper landscaping transition to adjacent properties
and natural areas should be provided without strong demarcation. All disturbed areas
must be revegetated. Landscaped areas should be planned as an integral part of the
project and not simply located in left-over space on the site. Landscaping should
complement the architecture of adjacent buildings and not hide it.
Staff Comment: The landscape plan depicts aspen and spruce trees, located to soften
views of buildings. Specific species and plant sizes will need to be provided with the
Final Package.
2. The design of fences and walls should harmonize with the site and the buildings.
Walls and fencing can only be used to provide privacy or service area screening.
Screening should not dominate the buildings or the landscape. Planting may be
integrated with screening schemes in order to soften the visual impact. The tops of
screens should generally be maintained horizontal. If the ground slopes, the screen
should be stepped. Fencing may be allowed around private areas provided it is attached
to the building, does not adversely impact elk or deer migration patterns, and does not
adversely impact common open areas. Fencing materials should be compatible with the
materials and color of the surrounding or the prevailing building materials and color in
adjacent developments. Unacceptable fencing materials include chainlink, plywood,
chain and bollard, and slump block.
15
Staff Comment: No fencing is proposed. Staff recommends a condition of approval that
the applicant shall establish covenants, conditions, and restrictions prohibiting fencing.
3. Retaining walls should be compatible in form, scale, and materials with the
architectural details and materials of nearby buildings.
Retaining walls may not be faced with any material disallowed for buildings. Rock facing
on walls should be applied in a manner that makes the rock appear as a structural
element rather than a veneer. Specially formed architectural block or stone are
encouraged wall materials. Retaining walls over 24 inches high may require railings or
planting buffers for safety. Low retaining walls may be used for seating if capped with a
surface of at least 12 to 16 inches wide. Retaining walls must be designed to minimize
their impact on the site. Retaining walls over 5' tall are discouraged. In situations where
a series of walls occur, landscape material shall be planted within benched terraces to
soften the appearance of the walls. Architectural block or stone construction material is
encouraged. Exposed poured-in-place concrete retaining walls are not acceptable.
Staff Comment: Potential retaining walls are shown on Lots 2, 4, 6, and 9. Heights
generally appear limited to five feet or less. Staff recommends a condition of approval
that the Final Package include additional details to confirm compliance with this
guideline.
4. Site furnishings and paving materials should be selected to complement the
architectural style of the building and the paving and site furnishings of surrounding
properties.
Staff Comment: No site furnishings are proposed. Asphalt drives will match existing the
street.
5. Consider site conditions, drought tolerance, and hardiness when selecting plant
species.
Soil conditions, exposure, wind, temperatures, and other factors vary. These factors
should be considered in the choice of plant materials. Soils tests to determine soil
amendment mixes shall be required. Plant species selected should be compatible with
the activity of the particular area.
16
Drought tolerant plant species shall be used wherever possible to reduce water
demand. Only plant materials acclimated to the Historic District environment shall be
used. Select plant material to be tolerant of browsing by elk and deer.
Staff comment: The landscape plan depicts aspen and spruce trees. Specific species
will need to be provided with the Final Package.
6. Native vegetation shall be encouraged. The use of blue grass turf is not allowed
except in Parcel 1 and 4 (retail use).
Staff Comment: The landscape plan depicts aspen and spruce trees. Specific species
will need to be provided with the Final Package.
7. Significant existing vegetation is an attribute to any site and the vegetation should be
protected and retained.
Areas that are not disturbed do not have to be revegetated and projects which retain
existing vegetation are much more desirable to prospective buyers. In addition, the
more areas left undisturbed as a result of construction, the less erosion problems will be
produced from the site.
Site disturbance shall be minimized in the layout, grading, and drainage design of all
development sites, drives, and parking areas. This goal of minimizing site disturbance
has been established in order to minimize the impacts of erosion, siltation, and removal
of existing vegetation. The removal of significant, mature trees should be avoided. In the
event of removal of existing mature trees, a tree replacement plan shall be submitted to
the technical review committee. To achieve these goals, site disturbance limits shall be
established based on approval site grading plans and fenced, prior to any earthmoving
or site preparation activity.
Site preparation activity will require fencing constructed of 2" x 4" lumber with horizontal
rails set at a maximum 30" height above grade. This fencing is required to
accommodate elk and deer, minimizing disturbance to the seasonal passage of wildlife
through the site.
Builders and developers should avoid the following hazardous situations, all of which
can kill trees:
17
• Placing backfill into protected areas or on top of roots of trees to be saved.
• Felling trees into protected areas.
• Driving construction equipment into or through protected areas.
• Bumping into trees with construction equipment and/ or driving over the top of
• their roots.
• Stacking or storing supplies in protected areas.
• Changing site grades which cause drainage to flow into, or to collect in,
• protected areas.
• Trenching underground utilities through root zones.
Staff Comment: As mentioned earlier, it appears approximately 20 significant trees will
be removed due to new construction and approximately 25 new trees are proposed.
Buildings do appear sited in a manner to minimize loss of trees. For example, buildings
on lots one and two are clustered towards the common lot line. Staff requests final
construction plans include limits of disturbance and tree protection standards.
8. All trees to be removed shall be removed in a manner that will not damage the
remaining trees.
Any trees that are to remain that are damaged during the clearing operation must be
repaired in an approved manner or by a tree expert as soon as final clearing has been
completed. After construction is completed, temporary barriers, surplus materials, and
all trash, debris and rubbish shall be removed from the site. All backfill shall be clear of
building material, stone, and rubbish.
Retained existing trees (more mature trees, especially) will undergo "post operative
shock" caused by the construction activity. All possible safeguards should be taken to
minimize these effects and to provide optimum growth conditions. Foliage feeding and
liquid fertilizer root feeding may be appropriate. Branch and foliage thinning may be
desirable also.
Staff Comment: Construction plans will need to include plans for tree protection.
9. There shall be construction limits set for every project.
18
Any vegetation which is removed without specific approval beyond those established
limits of disturbance must be replaced with large specimen plant materials of similar
species.
Staff Comment: Construction plans will need to include limits of disturbance.
10. Generally the seasons for planting in Estes Park are from April to September.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s contractors shall understand appropriate planting times.
Should any plants not survive, they will need to be replanted.
11. Landscape Maintenance Requirements.
All planting areas except native seeded areas shall be irrigated until landscape material
is established.
Staff Comment: Irrigation is proposed.
Parcel 2 Development Standards
Minimum Lot Area Single Family Detached: 6,000 s.f.
Staff Comment: Minimum lot size proposed is 6,474; however, this standard is not
applicable since the development will be considered a detached townhome project in
accordance with the Development Code definition, which allows individual townhome
lots to be constructed on smaller lot sizes subject to approval from the decision-making
body.
Maximum Building Height: 30 ft.
Staff Comment: The model building plans met this requirement. Due to height being
measured from the average grade, each building permit application will need to provide
this calculation to confirm compliance.
Off-street Parking:
Two covered spaces per unit, enclosed by building structure.
Staff Comment: A two-car garage is proposed with each unit, plus driveways which can
accommodate guest parking.
Minimum Open Space: 30%
19
In subdivided single family detached development, 30% designated open space shall be
provided exclusive of lotted area.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a detached townhome project, which does not
require any designated open space. However, open areas are provided on the
individual lots, which will remain open due to lack of fencing.
Parcel 2 Development Standards – Special Conditions
1. A minimum buffer setback of 50' shall be established along the north property
line of Parcel 2.
Staff Comment: As discussed previously, at variance to allow a 25-foot setback is
requested.
2. Residential usage: Only single family detached or duplex are allowed along the
north property line.
Staff Comment: Detached townhomes proposed, which have the same
appearance as single-family homes, but provide additional certainty on building
locations on each lot through a platted building envelope.
3. Accommodations usage: A maximum of nine (9) building footprints, not to exceed
3,600 s.f. of gross floor area each, shall be allowed along the north properly line
(with 50' setback). These may be constructed as one (1) or two (2) for sale units
or a maximum of two or four accommodations units. One enclosed parking space
per each accommodation unit.
Staff Comment: There will not be more than nine accommodation building
footprints along the north property line.
4. Residential development: A 25' minimum building setback is required at the east
parcel boundary adjacent to Parcel 3.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
5. Accommodations development: Building setback along the east property line is
50 feet.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
20
6. If accommodations are developed at the north edge of the parcel, the balance of
the property shall be developed for accommodations with no single building
footprint to exceed 120 feet in length.
Staff Comment: The longest building façade length is approximately 65 feet.
7. Prior to development on Parcel 2, a private street system built to Town of Estes
Park Public Street Standards must be constructed by the developer and shall
connect Parcel 2 with a public street. Street location must meet Technical
Review Committee approval.
Staff Comment: Overlook Court provides access to Steamer Parkway. There are
two separate private drives proposed to access units in the development, one
shared by lots one and two and one shared by all other lots. These drives must
be placed in a platted outlot and be maintained by a homeowners association in
accordance with Development Code Section 10.5.H.7.b and to ensure access to
a public road, in accordance with Appendix D, subsection III.A.
8. Parking for accommodations shall be clustered with no extensive surface areas.
Staff Comment: Each unit has individual parking.
9. Mixed residential/accommodation shall be as follows:
a. Residential shall occur on the north portion of the parcel
b. The total number of mixed residential/accommodations units shall not
exceed 92 units. Each residential unit constructed shall reduced the
number of remaining accommodations units allowed by two units. Each
two accommodation units constructed shall reduce the number of
remaining residential units by one unit.
c. Each residential unit constructed shall reduce the allowable square
footage for accommodations by 1,250 square feet.
Staff Comment: The Master Plan establishes a maximum number of units
allowed on Parcel 2. Parcel two was subsequently subdivided into Lots
2A, the subject property, and Lot 2B, the previously built development to
the east. The Master Plan envisioned three development scenarios for
Parcel 2, including all residential, with a cap of 46 units, all
21
accommodations, with a cap of 92 units, or a mix of residential and
accommodations. The maximum allowed units under the mixed
development scenario is 92, with maximums on each type of unit and
applies here. For each residential unit built, the 92 permitted
accommodation units decreases by two units. For every two
accommodations units built, the 46 permitted residential units decreases
by one.
Lot 2B has 30 accommodations units and Lot 2A is proposed to
have 5 accommodations units. The 35 total accommodations units
reduces the 46 allowed residential units to 28. The total 15 residential
units complies.
Lot 2B has 10 residential units and Lot 2A is proposed to have 5
residential units. The 15 total residential units reduces the 92 allowed
accommodations units to 62. The 35 accommodations units complies.
There is also a cap on the total square footage of accommodations
units set at 75,000. TRC approved a variance on July 12, 2022 to allow a
maximum accommodations square footage of 76,776. That maximum is
reduced by 1,250 square feet per residential unit. The 15 residential units
reduce the allowed square footage to 58,026. Existing (39,422 s.f.) and
proposed (17,865 s.f.) accommodations square footage is 57,287, under
the allowed maximum. To ensure the allowed maximum is not exceeded,
staff requests the plat document which lots are accommodations units and
which are limited to residential use only.
Site Specific Guidelines for Parcel 2
1. Garage/driveway orientation.
Drive/ garage location and orientation should be well integrated with site terrain and
residential architecture to enhance neighborhood curb appeal and reduce impacts to the
site and neighboring development.
22
'Walkout' siting is best suited for home sites where the terrain slopes downward from
the driveway to the rear of the site. Garages are located at the upper level of the home
to avoid site disturbance and costly excavation.
'Garage Under' siting is preferred for homesites with sloping terrain that rises up from
the driveway elevation. Garages are located at the lower level of the home avoiding
steeply sloped driveways.
By providing additional garage setback from the front facade of the house, garage and
parking areas are less visible on more narrow homesites.
To reduce the impacts of paved surfaces (impervious cover), driveways should taper
beyond the immediate garage/parking area.
Staff Comment: Driveways and garages are located to minimize impacts to the site.
Their locations will not necessitate significant additional site disturbance or excavation
beyond what is necessary for construction of the buildings generally. There will be
minimal visibility of garage doors from Overlook Court.
Advantages:
The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Master Plan.
Disadvantages:
The application is inconstant in two cases with Master Plan setback standards. In
particular, the north setback on Lot 6 and south setback on Lot 1 do not comply with
Master Plan minimums. However, staff recommends TRC approve variances to these
standards as design solutions advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the
Master Plan and with existing development on the property.
Level of Public Interest:
Public interest in this proposal appears moderate. As of this writing, no formal public
comments have been received; however, staff has received two inquires on the project.
Any comments received will be posted at estes.org/currentapplications.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends TRC approve the Preliminary Package, including the following
variances and conditions of approval:
23
Variances to Allow:
1. North setback of 25 feet on Lot 6.
2. South setback of 10 on Lot 1
Approval shall be conditioned upon submittal, review, and approval of the items
below in accordance with the Master Plan, or Development Code as applicable:
1. Details on materials used in and around drainage facilities shall be provided with
the Final Package to demonstrate river rock and cobbles are used rather than
angular rip-rap or exposed concrete.
2. Limits of disturbance and tree protection standards shall be shown on
construction plans.
3. Specific species and plant sizes shall be provided with the Final Package.
4. Additional details regarding retaining wall material and height shall be provided
with the Final Package.
5. Sight distance shall be shown on the Final Package landscape plan where
driveways intersect with Overlook Court.
6. The Final Package and subdivision plat shall depict shared driveways within
outlot(s) to be maintained by a homeowners association.
7. Each building permit application shall provide building height calculations, details
on exterior light fixtures, and utility meter placement.
8. Within the CC&Rs for the subdivision, the applicant shall place a prohibition on
the installation or construction of fencing and screen walls over 40 inches in
height.
9. The Final Plat shall designate which lots permit accommodations use and which
are restricted to residential use.
Sample Motion:
1. I move to approve TRC Resolution 25-02.
2. I move to deny approval of the Preliminary Package for the Freelan Heights
Subdivision, finding that the application does not comply with the Master Plan.
Attachments:
24
1. Resolution
2. Statement of Intent
3. Concept Site Plan
4. Preliminary Plat
5. Architectural Design
6. Landscape Plan
7. Photo Survey
8. Allowed Unit Calculations
9. Drainage Report (linked here due to size)
25
TRC RESOLUTION
02-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STANLEY HISTORIC
DISTRICT MASTER PLAN APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE PRELIMINARY PACKAGE
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE FREELAN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Package of the project referenced in the title of this resolution
meets the requirements of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan for a preliminary package;
WHEREAS, while adequate for a Preliminary Package, the materials include insufficient
detail for the Technical Review Committee (TRC) to determine whether the plans meet the Final
Package requirements of the Master Plan and the applicable development agreement with regard
to the conditions listed below and;
WHEREAS, a Final Package in conformance with the Stanley Historic District Master Plan
shall be submitted for TRC review and decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
New development associated with the Freelan Heights Subdivision project Preliminary
Package meets the standards and requirements in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan and
Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44, subject to the variances below:
1. TRC approves a variance to allow a setback of 25 feet from the north property line on
Lot 6 as a design solution advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the
Master Plan.
2. TRC approves a variance to allow a setback of 10 feet from the south property line on
Lot 1 as a design solution advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the
Master Plan.
New development associated with the Freelan Heights Subdivision project Preliminary
Package is approved, conditioned upon submittal, review, and approval of the following items in
accordance with the Master Plan, or Development Code as applicable:
1. Details on materials used in and around drainage facilities shall be provided with the Final
Package to demonstrate river rock and cobbles are used rather than angular rip-rap or exposed
concrete.
2. Limits of disturbance and tree protection standards shall be shown on construction plans.
3. Specific species and plant sizes shall be provided with the Final Package.
4. Additional details regarding retaining wall material and height shall be provided with the Final
Package.
5. Sight distance shall be shown on the Final Package landscape plan where driveways intersect with
Overlook Court.
6. The Final Package and subdivision plat shall depict shared driveways within outlot(s) to be
maintained by a homeowners association.
26
7. Each building permit application shall provide building height calculations, details on exterior light
fixtures, and utility meter placement.
8. Within the covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the subdivision, the applicant shall place a
prohibition on the installation or construction of fencing and screen walls over 40 inches in height.
9. The Final Plat shall designate which lots permit accommodations use and which are restricted to
residential use.
DATED this day 4th of November, 2025
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Travis Machalek
Chair, Technical Review Committee
ATTEST:
Karin Swanlund
Recording Secretary
27
October 29, 2025
Estes Park Community Development
Statement of Intent
Freelan Heights (Stanley Lot 2A)
Summary
We are proposing a for-sale 10-unit mixed residential/accommodations development on
Lot 2A within the Stanley Hotel Historic District in Estes Park. Lot 2A is a 3-acre vacant
site with A-Accommodations zoning and is the remaining development parcel within the
Overlook residential/accommodations community consisting of 40 existing units. The 6
building envelopes within Lot 2A were initially platted for single family homes but were
recently approved for 6 duplexes yielding 12 units.
We are proposing to revise the plat replacing the 6 building envelopes and surrounding
common area with a 10-lot subdivision. We will then construct and sell 10 detached
townhomes to be built within the 10 lots.. We believe this development will provide certain
benefits and advantages to the Stanley residential community including: a distinct product
type not currently offered within the Overlook neighborhood, a preferred unit type for
primary and second home buyers, buildings with smaller massing, and expanded
landscaping between the buildings.
The individual units will be two stories above grade with finished walk-out basements.
Total unit square footage is anticipated to be in the 3,200 to 3,600 sf range. Each unit will
have a 2-car garage and feature up to 5 bedroom/bath suites. Exterior amenities include
south or west facing decks on the main and upper levels and a patio on the lower level.
Except as noted in the variance request section below, the site plan, exterior building
designs and residential/accommodations unit mix will conform with the development
standards and design guidelines within the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. Exterior
siding will consist of natural materials with an appropriate mix of textures and muted
colors that will complement the existing Overlook units. High volume ceilings and
abundant natural light is planned for the interior spaces.
All units will utilize energy efficient designs and construction materials. We anticipate
providing EV charging stations within the unit garages.
Variance Request
With the goal of maximizing unit separation, we are lowering the density from the
approved 12 units to 10 units and requesting variances for the following setback
requirements:
1. 15’ south setback for Lot 1. The property directly south of Lot 1 contains a drainage
easement. Accordingly, we request a 10’ south setback for this lot.
28
2. 50’ north setback for Lot 6. It appears the Stanley Historic District Master Plan
established the 50’ setback along Lot 2A’s north property boundary as a buffer to help
protect the mountain views enjoyed by the residential properties to the north of Lot 2A.
However, the property directly north of Lot 6 is vacant, non-residential land owned by
Black Canyon Inn. Furthermore, this property has no mountain views due to the large
rock outcropping on the western portion of Lot 6. The property to the north and east
of Lot 6 is currently platted for 8 townhomes but the owners of Black Canyon Inn
recently purchased this property with the intent of rezoning it to Accommodations and
building additional hotel units on this property. Accordingly, we request a reduction of
the 50’ north setback requirement for Lot 6 to 25’, which is the setback requirement for
the eastern property boundary of Lot 2B (the Overlook development).
We believe the site plan with these two set-back variances is advantageous to, and in
conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan and the Guidelines.
Respectfully,
Brad O’Neil
Estes Valley Partners
Don Darling
Darling Enterprise
29
30
31
32
33
34
Stanley Lot 2A
Model Unit Design
preliminary design subject to final refignments
Design Compliance
Floor Plans
Elevations
Perspectives
Model Unit Location
p 2
p 3
p 4-7
p 8-12
p 13
Long's Peak and Continental Divide View to the West
Prospect Mountain and Estes Park View to the South
Lake Estes View to the East
June 16, 2025
35
Compliance with Stanley Historic District Master Plan
Key Design Guidelines Proposed Design
Building Form
Development shall provide a unified high quality architectural character with a
variety of building configurations designed to fit the site and create visual
interest with varied rooflines, building footprints, and entry treatments. Roofs
have a minimum pitch of 4:12 and maximum allowable height of 30’ as
defined.
The exterior design of the house has a variety of architecturally distinctive
elements including varying wall planes on each façade, exposed heavy
timber roof framing, and a prominent turret element designed to showcase
the panoramic views from inside. All roofs have a 4:12 pitch and the
uppermost ridgeline has a maximum allowable height of 29’-2”.
Materials
Exterior materials should be in keeping with the mountain environment and
be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The use of natural
materials such as redwood and cedar, and accent stone is encouraged. Wall
materials should convey a sense of human scale and warmth. Stones should
be laid in a manner that conveys the appearance of a structural element
rather than as a veneer facing another material. They should not convey an
overly urban or industrial character.
The exterior materials align well with the mountain environment and are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The use of cedar wood siding
provides a natural texture and warm appearance. Stonework at the base of
the walls is composed of natural stone giving this material the look of a
structural element and effectively complements the wooden siding. The
combination of these materials including the heavy timber framing enhances
the house’s integration with its natural surroundings.
Colors
On exterior walls the predominant tone should tend toward warm earthy
hues, whether in the natural patina or weathered color of the wall surface
itself or the color of the paint, stain or other coating.
The wood siding features gray/brown stain on the primary walls and a darker
gray/brown stain on the accent walls. The roof shingles and the stone base
will compliment the wood siding with gray/brown tones. Trim will be dark gray.
Decks
Attached decks and patios shall be encouraged but not required for all units.
These shall be spacious, private functional outdoor living spaces carefully
sited and partially enclosed by building walls, low landscape retaining walls,
and plantings. These shall be constructed using the same stone and wood
materials and detailing used on the building exterior.
The house includes decks at each upper level and a lower-level patio that are
spacious and functional. The second level deck, featuring a pergola structure,
is partially enclosed by walls on two sides providing privacy from adjacent
houses. The careful siting of these decks, especially the second level deck
with its elevated views, enhances the house’s relationship with the site.
Miscellaneous
Careful consideration of wind protection, solar orientation, framing of
desirable views, privacy, and varied entry treatments shall be clearly
demonstrated in the building architecture and its relationship to the site and
neighborhood buildings.
The panoramic views of the continental divide to the west to Lake Estes to
the east are framed by the extensive use of glass, the 2-story turret element
and spacious second level deck. All levels at the rear elevation feature large
windows and sliding glass doors maximizing solar gain and natural light.
2
36
Up
Game
Table
Wet Bar
Mech
Storage
Bedroom Suite 5
Bedroom Suite 4
Family
Patio
Lower Level Main Level Upper Level
Long's Peak and Continental Divide
Prospect Mountain and Estes Park
Lake Estes
Views
Kitchen
Family
Dining
Master Suite
Laundry
Entry
Up
Dn
FP
FP
2-Car Garage with Storage
Deck
Dn
Open to
Below
Bedroom Suite 3
Bedroom Suite 2
Deck
Bar Fridge
Fire
Pit
Linen
FP
Floor Plans
•3,612 finished sf
•2 levels above grade with walkout lower level
•5 bedroom suites
•3 outdoor spaces with upper level heated deck
Up
Grille
Pantry
Mech
3
37
Front Elevation
A
B
H
A - Vertical cedar siding with gray/brown stain
B - Vertical cedar siding with darker gray/brown stain
C - Dry stacked stone to compliment siding with gray/brown tones
D - Dark gray trim
E - Windows and doors with dark gray frames
F - Heavy wood timber framing with redwood stain
G - Dark gray metal railings
H - Asphalt shingles to compliment siding with gray/brown tones
C
D
F
E
G
4
38
Left Elevation
29'-2" above
average finished
grade (30' max)
4'-10" average
finished grade
4:12 pitch - all roofs
0'
10'
5
39
Back Elevation
6
40
Right Elevation
7
41
8
42
9
43
10
44
11
45
12
46
Lot 2A
Model Unit
13
47
6
5
4
3
2
7 8 9 10
1
KEY
EXISTING TREE TO KEEP
PLANTED ASPEN TREE
PLANTED SPRUCE TREE
NATIVE SHRUB
1.5" ROCK BORDER
NOTES:
ALL PLANTINGS TO BE WATERED
WITH DRIP IRRIGATION .
3' ROCK BORDER AROUND PERIMETER
OF EACH UNIT (1.5" ROCK).
ALL TREES TO BE PLANTED AT LEAST
10' AWAY FROM UNIT
PLACED MOSS ROCK
ST
A
N
L
E
Y
L
O
T
Es
t
e
s
P
a
r
k
,
C
O
PARK
LANDSCAPING
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
REVISIONS
INITIAL:DATE:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
GF
CHECKED BY:
LANDSCAPE PLAN
SHEET:
1
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
REVISIONS
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
INITIAL:DATE:
DATE:
08/28/2025
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:
SHEET:
48
Stanley Lot 2A Photo Survey Views49
View 150
View 151
View 252
View 253
View 354
View 355
View 456
View 457
Stanley Allowable Residential and Accommodation Units per Stanley Historic District Master Plan (SHDMP)
9/20/2025
Lot 2B (Overlook Condos) resi and accom units Lot 2A (Freelan Heights) accom units allowed based on SF
Unit #SF Resi Accom Max accom SF per SHDMP 75,000
301 792 792 Overage approved by TRC 7/12/2022 1,776
303 864 864 Revised max accom SF 76,776
305 864 864
307 792 792 Lot 2B resi units 10
311 792 792 Lot 2A resi units 5
313 864 864 Total resi units 15
315 864 864 Accom SF reduced by each resi unit (1,250)
317 792 792 Total accom SF reduced (18,750)
321 792 792 Allowable accom SF 58,026
323 864 864
325 864 864 Lot 2B accom SF total (39,422)
327 864 864 Lot 2A accom SF allowed 18,604
329 792 792 Lot 2A accom SF per unit 3,573
341 792 792 Lot 2A accom units allowed 5
343 864 864
345 864 864 Total resi and accom units allowed per SHDMP
347 864 864 Lot 2A resi and accom units 10
349 792 792 Lot 2B resi and accom units 40
314 1,755 1,755 Total Lot 2A and 2B units 50
316 2,175 2,175 Total resi and accom units allowed 92
318 1,755 1,755
320 2,175 2,175 Total accom units allowed per SHDMP
322 1,755 1,755 Lot 2A accom units 5
324 2,175 2,175 Lot 2B accom units 30
326 1,755 1,755 Total Lot 2A and 2B accom units 35
328 2,175 2,175 Total accom units allowed(1)62
330 1,755 1,755
332 2,175 2,175 Total resi units allowed per SHDMP
334 1,755 1,755 Lot 2A resi units 5
336 2,175 2,175 Lot 2B resi units 10
402 1,755 1,755 Total Lot 2A and 2B resi units 15
404 2,175 2,175 Total resi units allowed(2)28
406 1,755 1,755
408 2,175 2,175 (1) Each resi unit reduces accom units by 2: 92-(15x2)=62
410 1,310 1,310 (2) Each 2 accom units reduce resi units by 1: 46-(35/2)=28
412 1,290 1,290
414 1,310 1,310
416 1,290 1,290
418 1,310 1,310
420 1,290 1,290
Total SF 54,216 14,794 39,422
Total units 40 10 30
58
1
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
Freelan Heights at The Stanley Townhomes
Stanley Historic District Lot 2A
Overlook Court
Estes Park, CO
Issue Date:
September 29, 2025
Prepared By:
Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc.
1043 Fish Creek Road
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
LAND SURVEYS
SUBDIVISIONS
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
IMPROVEMENT PLATS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SANITARY ENGINEERING
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING
2
I hereby certify that this preliminary report (plan) for the Preliminary Drainage Design
for Freelan Heights at The Stanley Townhomes was prepared by me (or under my direct
supervision) for the owners thereof and meets or exceeds the criteria in the Larimer
County Stormwater Design Standards.
__________________________
Frank E. Roberts
Licensed Professional Engineer #39508, State of Colorado
For Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc.
9/29/2025
3
Table of Contents
1. SCOPE ........................................................................................................................ 4
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 5
3. BASIN DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................................... 6
4. DESIGN METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................... 9
5. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 10
Attachments
x Historic and Post-Developed Drainage Basin Delineation Plans
x USDA Soils Survey Data
x Rainfall Data
x Preliminary Drainage Calculations
x Previous Drainage Reports
o “Overlook Subdivision/Stanley Hotel Drainage Analysis/Report”
by Van Horn Engineering & Surveying, Inc., signed April, 28,
2014
o “Storm-Water Management Plan Overlook Subdivision” by
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc., signed May 23, 2003
o “Final Drainage Report – Grand Heritage Hotel – Aspire Wellness
Complex at the Stanley-Phase 1 – Amended Plat of Lot 4, Stanley
Historic District” by Van Horn Engineering & Surveying, Inc.,
signed on May 19, 2015
4
1. SCOPE
This report is a drainage analysis for Freelan Heights at The Stanley Townhomes
project. The overall infrastructure for the storm water system is currently installed and
was originally designed in 2003 as part of the Overlook Condominium project and was
subsequently recommended to be upgraded after a re-analysis effort in 2014. Most of the
recommended upgrades were offsite in relation to the Freelan Heights project. This
report is intended to describe the storm water system already in place and to describe any
necessary upgrades to the system that are required due to slight differences from the
original design assumptions regarding the final development. This report is intended to
focus only on the stormwater system components that are affected by the Freelan Heights
project and is not intended to revisit other drainage items within the Overlook
Condominium or the Stanley Historic District properties, nor is it intended to provide
verification that previous upgrades as recommended in the 2014 report were implemented
offsite. Included within the report is an overall preliminary drainage analysis containing
the following:
1. Description of the drainage basins for both the project site and offsite areas as
applicable.
2. Peak runoff rates for both the historic (undeveloped) and post development
conditions.
3. Recommendations/verifications for the existing storm water drainage system and
additional features required for the proposed development.
4. Previous drainage studies for the Overlook Subdivision and/or related to
downstream detention assumptions: A. “Overlook Subdivision/Stanley Hotel
Drainage Analysis/Report” by Van Horn Engineering & Surveying, Inc., signed
April, 28, 2014, which includes provisions for development on Stanley Lot 2A as
part of a re-analysis of the original drainage report for the Overlook
Condominiums. B. “Storm-Water Management Plan Overlook Subdivision” by
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc., signed May 23, 2003, which is the
original drainage report for the Overlook Condominium development. C. “Final
5
Drainage Report – Grand Heritage Hotel – Aspire Wellness Complex at the
Stanley-Phase 1 – Amended Plat of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District” by Van Horn
Engineering & Surveying, Inc., signed on May 19, 2015, which details
downstream detention for a portion of the eastern side of this project site.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Freelan Heights at The Stanley Townhomes is a proposed 10 lot townhome
subdivision of Lot 2A, Amended Lot 2, Final Plat Lots 1 and 2, Stanley Historic District,
which is an existing 3.09 acre parcel within the Town of Estes Park, and is located in the
North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th
P.M. Applicable storm drainage manuals are the Larimer County Stormwater Design
Standards and the Mile High Flood District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
The project site currently includes mostly undeveloped terrain with a paved road
starting at the Overlook Court cul-de-sac that extends to the northwest where it intersects
a gravel fire access road that connects to the adjacent property to the northwest. From
this point the paved road curves east and will provide access to the new upper lots. The
property has a large rock outcropping at the western portion of the property which is not
part of the buildable area. The proposed use of the property will be for a total of 10
single family residential units each on a separate lot. The proposed subdivision is
bounded on the north by Black Canyon Resort property, Ridgeview Condos, and
residential homes accessed from Prospector Lane. The proposed subdivision is bounded
on the southeast by the Overlook Condos and on the southwest by the Stanley property.
The property is located in a Zone X-Un-shaded classification according to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM Maps. The slope of the existing
buildable portion of the property is generally sloping downhill from north to south at
approximate grades on the order of 10%-20%. The overall drainage basin draining
through and from the site includes this proposed subdivision area (on-site flow) plus a
small portion of the properties to the north (off-site flow). The overall drainage basin is
split into several smaller sub-basins in accordance with the most recent drainage report
for this area which is the Van Horn Engineering drainage report dated April 28, 2014.
6
Utilities including sewer, water, electric, communications, and storm water
facilities are largely in place as infrastructure mains were constructed in conjunction with
the Overlook Subdivision. Service lines will be extended to individual lots as necessary.
Driveways and access roads will be installed and extended as shown on the project plans.
3. BASIN DESCRIPTIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The most recent drainage report for this project area (by VHE, dated 4/28/2014)
will be utilized for historic, pre-development discharge rates for storm water flows.
Historic drainage basins were delineated as part of that report and a description of the
method to delineate the basins is contained in the previous report on page 13. Six
existing conditions basins were delineated in the vicinity of this property as part of the
previous report (reference Section 3 of the previous report’s appendix for the pre-
development basin map as well as this report’s attachments): basin A, basin B-1, basin
B-2, basin C-1, basin C-2, and basin C-3. As determined as part of the previous drainage
report, existing conditions basin delineations, hydrologic properties for each basin (area
and runoff coefficients), historic release rates, and historic release locations are all shown
on the pre-development conditions detention sizing drainage basins exhibit. This pre-
development drainage basin plan was also re-created specific to this project area and is
attached to the report. Basin identifiers and characteristics were maintained to match the
2014 drainage report. The basins specific to this project area include four of the six
basins delineated in the previous report. Basins A, B-1, B-2, and C-3 have area within
the project site.
Basin A is at the southwest corner of the site and consists of 0.10 acres with
coverage consisting of a steep rock outcropping at the north end and mixed open meadow
area with juniper and ponderosa pine trees at the south end of the basin. This area
currently free drains offsite in the southern direction.
Basin B-1 is located to the northwest and adjacent to Basin A at the southwest
portion of the project site. Basin B-1 is similar to Basin A in ground cover
characteristics, a rock outcropping to the north and mixed open meadow area with juniper
7
and ponderosa pine trees at the south end of the basin. Basin B-1 is 0.35 acres in size and
free drains offsite to the south.
Basin B-2 is the largest of the four basins on the property with a size of 2.76 acres
including some offsite tributary area from neighboring properties to the north and
northwest. The ground cover for Basin B-2 consists of the large rock outcropping at the
northwest portion of the basin, existing improvements, including the gravel access road
and portions of three buildings on the property to the north, and the Outlook Court cul-
de-sac. The remainder of Basin B-2 is undeveloped mixed open meadow area with
juniper and ponderosa pine trees, the existing grade slopes to the south. Stormwater
runoff from Basin B-2 currently drains to an existing stormwater detention pond which is
located partially on the south end of the property. A portion of the existing detention
pond is located on the property to the south within a drainage easement. There is a
natural high point at the east end of the Overlook Court cul-de-sac which also splits
drainage basin B-2 and C-3. Drainage to the west of this high point naturally drains
southwest and remains in basin B-2. This includes street drainage from the Overlook
Court cul-de-sac which is currently collected in a curb inlet type R drain basin which
discharges via an existing 12” diameter ADS pipe slightly downslope and to the
southwest of the type R. Stormwater discharge from the existing 12” diameter pipe is
conveyed through a ditch the remainder of the way to the existing detention pond
described above.
Basin C-3 overlaps the eastern portion of the site with an overlap area equal to
0.76 acres and this area is east of the natural high point described above. Basin C-3 has a
total area of 10.73 acres according to the 2014 drainage report. The portion of the site
located within basin C-3 is open meadow area and slopes to the south in the direction of
Overlook Court. Stormwater from this drainage basin currently sheet drains to the south
and southeast over the curb and into the roadside gutter along Overlook Court which
slopes to the east and eventually south to an existing detention basin located at the
southeast corner of the Overlook Condominium property.
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
The same four drainage basins are outlined for this project’s developed conditions
as were described for the pre-developed conditions, basins A, B-1, B-2, and C-3.
8
Basin A will remain as-is with no development within the basin. This basin will
continue to free discharge to the south off property. Consideration for this free discharge
will be accounted for in the overall site detention calculations. This basin has a natural
percent impervious value equal to 51% due to the overlap with the large rock formation
to the west.
Basin B-1 will contain some permanent developed features planned for this
project. A portion of two houses and a small portion of driveway are planned to be
constructed within basin B-1. The resulting impervious coverage is on the order of 63%
for the proposed conditions within basin B-1 which also takes into account the large rock
formation to the west. This basin will continue to free discharge to the south off
property. Consideration for this free discharge will be accounted for in the overall site
detention calculations.
Basin B-2 will contain a lot of the developed features that are planned for this
project. Proposed developed coverage will include homes, paved access roads, and pave
driveways. The resulting impervious coverage has been calculated to be 48%. This basin
is planned to discharge directly to the existing detention basin as it does now. The
resulting developed discharge rate vs. the historic discharge rate will be discussed later in
this report. As part of the final drainage report, the existing type R and existing 12”
diameter discharge pipe will be checked for adequate capacity in conjunction with any
anticipated increased inflow.
Management of stormwater generated from the overlapping area of Basin C-3
with the property is proposed to continue to function as it currently does, which entails
sheet flow across the new lots with drainage over the back of the existing curb and into
the existing road side gutter along Overlook Court. The calculated developed impervious
coverage for this basin as a result of the planned improvements is equal to 28%. For on-
site detention facility calculations for the Aspire Wellness Complex for which basin C-3
is tributary to, the assumed impervious coverage was 40% for the upstream offsite
drainage basin (OS4) which includes this area of drainage basin C-3. This calculation
was part of the 2015 drainage report prepared by VHE and is for detention sizing for a
project downstream of the Overlook Condos. In addition, developed conditions
stormwater runoff from this project’s overlap with basin C-3 was accounted for in the
9
detention sizing of the detention basin located at the southeast corner of the Overlook
Condominiums and this was presented in the 2014 drainage report prepared by VHE.
The impervious coverage for basin C-3 in the 2014 drainage report was assumed to be
51% for detention sizing.
4. DESIGN METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
The most important aspect of this drainage analysis is to re-calculate the
stormwater discharges from each basin taking into account this project’s proposed
improvements for comparison to the assumptions that were made previously regarding
developed conditions for this property as part of the previous drainage studies. The 2014
drainage study utilized a weighted runoff coefficient calculation (“c” value) based on
typical “c” values representative of different ground cover and the rational method to
calculate peak runoff for each drainage basin. This method was also utilized to calculate
new peak runoff for the proposed conditions for each drainage basin. In addition, peak
discharges were calculated using the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM)
methodology for peak runoff. This method is based on “c” value equations which take
into account the NRCS soil group (Type D for this project site), storm return period, and
percent imperviousness. Discharge is further calculated with the rational method after
taking into account the total time of concentration for runoff within the basin. Peak
discharges from both of these “c” value calculation methods were compared and the most
conservative (largest) value utilized for detention requirement calculations.
As previously mentioned, in conjunction with the final drainage report, the
existing type R inlet and existing 12” diameter discharge pipe located at the southwest
corner of the Overlook Court cul-de-sac will be checked for adequate capacity in
conjunction with any anticipated increased inflow. The Manning’s equation will be
utilized for calculation of flow in pipes with an appropriate surface roughness (N value)
and pipe slope. Drainage swale capacities as applicable will be calculated by Manning’s
equation for open channel flow. Curb and inlet capacities will be verified as appropriate.
Storm water detention is currently in place which was sized in the 2014 drainage
report and took into consideration future development on this property. As described
previously, verification of the implications of the actual proposed improvements vs. the
10
assumptions that were made for future improvements are important to ensure historic
(pre-development) discharge rates are maintained. Historic discharge rates were
calculated previously in the 2014 drainage report for the Overlook Condominium project
based on pre-development conditions for that project. Those are the historic discharge
rates that will be maintained. Drainage will be detained and released at a rate that
compensates for the small areas that will free flow offsite (basins A and B-1) in the
developed condition to maintain historic release rates at specific conveyance features (the
outlets of the existing detention ponds) and as an overall site.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
Calculations completed as part of the 2014 drainage study indicate the historic
existing conditions total runoff generated from the western portion of the site in the minor
(10 year) and major (100 year) storm event is 4.59 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 9.45
cfs respectively which includes basins A, B-1, and B-2. These values represent the sum
of historic drainage basins A, B-1, and B-2. Calculations as part of this drainage report
indicate the proposed conditions total storm water runoff generated from the western
portion of the site in the minor and major storm event is 7.12 cfs and 15.29 cfs
respectively. These values represent the sum of proposed drainage basins A, B-1, and B-
2 but these values are not the discharge rates from the site as detention is in place to slow
release rates to historic values (9.45 cfs for the major storm event). When considering
the free release of developed drainage basins A & B-1 the allowable release rate for the
detention pond is 6.88 cfs for the major storm event to achieve the historic discharge for
the western portion of the overall site overall site (basins A, B-1, and B-2). The detention
pond infill rate is 12.72 cfs generated from developed drainage basin B-2. These infill
and outlet rates indicate a need for 4 cubic feet of storage volume. The pond indicated on
the preliminary plans provides approximately 4,157 cubic feet of storage volume. The
2014 drainage report indicated a required storage volume of 4,033 cubic feet. The actual
as-built detention pond capacity will be verified and the pond will be enlarged as part of
this project as found necessary after the as-built survey. There is room to expand the
pond in footprint and vertical elevation if found necessary.
11
Regarding the eastern portion of the property located in drainage base C-3, and
outlined previously in this report, it has been concluded based on verification of this
project’s proposed 28% developed impervious cover that adequate downstream
conveyance and detention has been accounted for both as part of the 2014 drainage report
which re-analyzed the Overlook Condo project storm water plan (including the Freelan
Heights property) and the 2015 drainage report which sized detention for the downstream
Aspire Wellness Center while taking into account developed upstream conditions within
offsite drainage basin OS4 (includes basin C-3). 40% and 51% impervious coverage was
assumed for drainage basin C-3 in the 2014 and 2015 drainage reports, respectively,
which are both less than the proposed 28% coverage on the portion of the Freelan
Heights project within drainage basin C-3.
As mentioned previously, other storm existing water facilities that will be verified
as part of the final drainage report include the type R inlet and the associated 12”
diameter discharge pipe, as well as curb and gutter as appropriate. Additional detention
pond features will include the controlled discharge outlet structure and water quality
features (pond bottom filter media).
This report uses theoretical hydrologic rainfall information for statistical rainfall
events in this area. Storm events and all “acts of God” can be unpredictable. All on-site
conveyance measures have been included to guard against damage from a statistical “100
year” event. Ongoing maintenance and inspection of the installed features will be critical
in order to keep the system working properly.
Furthermore this drainage analysis utilized industry accepted formulas and
methods to estimate peak runoff values for the historic (undeveloped) and developed
conditions. Peak discharge exiting the property is limited to historic values and at
historic locations. Downstream conveyance of historic stormwater flows is assumed to
be in place as it is the responsibility of each landowner to allow for historic
(undeveloped) flow through their property generated from properties upstream at the
historic flow path and their responsibility to make appropriate accommodations for this
flow if historic flow paths are altered by them on their property.
HISTORIC AND POST-
DEVELOPED DRAINAGE BASIN
DELINEATION PLANS
0.58
0.72
0.57
0.72
0.47
0.58
USDA SOILS SURVEY DATA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Estes Park Area, Colorado,
Parts of Boulder and
Larimer Counties
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
September 26, 2025
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................8
Soil Map................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12
Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12
Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties..............14
32—Rock outcrop-Cathedral complex, 20 to 100 percent slopes...............14
50—Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes.............................15
References............................................................................................................18
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
44
7
0
5
2
0
44
7
0
5
4
0
44
7
0
5
6
0
44
7
0
5
8
0
44
7
0
6
0
0
44
7
0
6
2
0
44
7
0
6
4
0
44
7
0
5
0
0
44
7
0
5
2
0
44
7
0
5
4
0
44
7
0
5
6
0
44
7
0
5
8
0
44
7
0
6
0
0
44
7
0
6
2
0
44
7
0
6
4
0
455770 455790 455810 455830 455850 455870 455890 455910 455930 455950 455970 455990
455770 455790 455810 455830 455850 455870 455890 455910 455930 455950 455970
40° 23' 6'' N
10
5
°
3
1
'
1
6
'
'
W
40° 23' 6'' N
10
5
°
3
1
'
6
'
'
W
40° 23' 2'' N
10
5
°
3
1
'
1
6
'
'
W
40° 23' 2'' N
10
5
°
3
1
'
6
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 15 30 60 90
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,040 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder
and Larimer Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 10, Aug 29, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 2, 2021—Aug 25,
2021
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
32 Rock outcrop-Cathedral
complex, 20 to 100 percent
slopes
1.4 42.6%
50 Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to
15 percent slopes
1.9 57.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 3.3 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
Estes Park Area, Colorado, Parts of Boulder and Larimer Counties
32—Rock outcrop-Cathedral complex, 20 to 100 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jzyq
Elevation: 7,600 to 9,100 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 18 to 22 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 42 to 44 degrees F
Frost-free period: 75 to 100 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Rock outcrop:45 percent
Cathedral and similar soils:40 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rock Outcrop
Setting
Landform:Mountain slopes
Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainflank, free face
Down-slope shape:Convex
Across-slope shape:Convex
Parent material:Granite and/or gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
R - 0 to 60 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope:20 to 100 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:0 inches to lithic bedrock
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.01 in/hr)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Cathedral
Setting
Landform:Mountain slopes
Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainflank
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Convex, linear
Parent material:Gravelly slope alluvium and/or colluvium derived from granite,
gneiss, and/or schist
Typical profile
A - 0 to 9 inches: very gravelly sandy loam
Bw - 9 to 15 inches: extremely gravelly sandy loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
R - 15 to 25 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope:20 to 80 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock
Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 0.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: F048AY439UT - Mountain Shallow Loam (Ponderosa pine)
Other vegetative classification: Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/
PUTR2) (C1120)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Chasmfalls
Percent of map unit:10 percent
Landform:Mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainbase
Ecological site:R048AY255CO - Pine Grasslands
Other vegetative classification:Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/
PUTR2) (C1120)
Hydric soil rating: No
Legault
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainflank
Other vegetative classification:Lodgepole pine/kinnikinnick (PICO/ARUV) (C0901)
Hydric soil rating: No
50—Cathedral-Ratake complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2lsst
Elevation: 7,500 to 8,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 41 to 44 degrees F
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
Frost-free period: 95 to 105 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Cathedral and similar soils:45 percent
Ratake and similar soils:40 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Cathedral
Setting
Landform:Hills
Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope
Down-slope shape:Convex
Across-slope shape:Convex, linear
Parent material:Slope alluvium derived from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 3 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Bw1 - 3 to 10 inches: very gravelly coarse sandy loam
Bw2 - 10 to 18 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sandy loam
R - 18 to 28 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope:5 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:9 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.01 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: F048AY439UT - Mountain Shallow Loam (Ponderosa pine)
Other vegetative classification: Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/
PUTR2) (C1120)
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Ratake
Setting
Landform:Hills
Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope
Down-slope shape:Convex
Across-slope shape:Convex, linear
Parent material:Slope alluvium derived from granite and gneiss over residuum
weathered from granite and gneiss
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Bw - 7 to 15 inches: very gravelly sandy loam
Cr - 15 to 24 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope:5 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:9 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: F048AY439UT - Mountain Shallow Loam (Ponderosa pine)
Other vegetative classification: Ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush (PIPO/
PUTR2) (C1120)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Rock outcrop
Percent of map unit:10 percent
Landform:Rock pediments
Down-slope shape:Convex
Across-slope shape:Convex
Hydric soil rating: Unranked
Chasmfalls
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Pediments
Ecological site:R048AY222CO - Loamy Park
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
18
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
19
RAINFALL DATA
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2
Location name: Estes Park, Colorado, USA*
Latitude: 40.3847°, Longitude: -105.5195°
Elevation: 7716 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale
Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
AMS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in
inches)1
Duration Annual exceedance probability (1/years)
1/2 1/5 1/10 1/25 1/50 1/100 1/200 1/500 1/1000
5-min 0.212
(0.163‑0.276)
0.285
(0.218‑0.372)
0.362
(0.277‑0.476)
0.494
(0.378‑0.714)
0.617
(0.455‑0.895)
0.758
(0.540‑1.13)
0.918
(0.628‑1.41)
1.16
(0.762‑1.84)
1.36
(0.864‑2.16)
10-min 0.310
(0.239‑0.403)
0.417
(0.320‑0.545)
0.531
(0.405‑0.697)
0.724
(0.554‑1.05)
0.903
(0.667‑1.31)
1.11
(0.790‑1.65)
1.34
(0.920‑2.07)
1.70
(1.12‑2.69)
2.00
(1.26‑3.16)
15-min 0.378
(0.291‑0.492)
0.509
(0.390‑0.664)
0.647
(0.494‑0.850)
0.883
(0.676‑1.28)
1.10
(0.813‑1.60)
1.35
(0.964‑2.02)
1.64
(1.12‑2.52)
2.07
(1.36‑3.28)
2.44
(1.54‑3.85)
30-min 0.476
(0.367‑0.620)
0.639
(0.490‑0.835)
0.814
(0.621‑1.07)
1.11
(0.854‑1.61)
1.39
(1.03‑2.02)
1.72
(1.22‑2.56)
2.08
(1.43‑3.21)
2.64
(1.74‑4.18)
3.11
(1.97‑4.91)
60-min 0.596
(0.459‑0.775)
0.767
(0.589‑1.00)
0.969
(0.740‑1.27)
1.33
(1.03‑1.95)
1.68
(1.25‑2.45)
2.09
(1.49‑3.13)
2.56
(1.76‑3.95)
3.28
(2.16‑5.20)
3.90
(2.47‑6.15)
2-hr 0.715
(0.557‑0.920)
0.895
(0.695‑1.16)
1.12
(0.868‑1.46)
1.55
(1.22‑2.25)
1.97
(1.48‑2.85)
2.46
(1.78‑3.66)
3.04
(2.11‑4.65)
3.92
(2.61‑6.17)
4.68
(2.99‑7.32)
3-hr 0.811
(0.636‑1.04)
0.986
(0.771‑1.27)
1.23
(0.954‑1.58)
1.69
(1.34‑2.45)
2.15
(1.63‑3.11)
2.70
(1.97‑4.00)
3.34
(2.34‑5.10)
4.34
(2.92‑6.80)
5.20
(3.35‑8.09)
6-hr 1.00
(0.796‑1.27)
1.20
(0.948‑1.52)
1.47
(1.16‑1.88)
2.00
(1.60‑2.86)
2.52
(1.94‑3.60)
3.15
(2.32‑4.61)
3.88
(2.75‑5.86)
5.02
(3.41‑7.79)
6.01
(3.91‑9.24)
12-hr 1.23
(0.987‑1.53)
1.50
(1.20‑1.88)
1.83
(1.46‑2.31)
2.42
(1.94‑3.38)
2.99
(2.31‑4.19)
3.67
(2.73‑5.27)
4.45
(3.17‑6.60)
5.64
(3.86‑8.61)
6.66
(4.38‑10.1)
24-hr 1.48
(1.21‑1.83)
1.87
(1.52‑2.32)
2.28
(1.84‑2.84)
2.96
(2.37‑4.02)
3.58
(2.78‑4.90)
4.29
(3.21‑6.05)
5.10
(3.66‑7.44)
6.32
(4.35‑9.50)
7.34
(4.88‑11.1)
2-day 1.75
(1.44‑2.14)
2.28
(1.87‑2.80)
2.78
(2.27‑3.43)
3.58
(2.89‑4.76)
4.28
(3.35‑5.76)
5.07
(3.83‑7.03)
5.95
(4.31‑8.54)
7.25
(5.04‑10.7)
8.33
(5.59‑12.4)
3-day 1.91
(1.58‑2.31)
2.52
(2.08‑3.07)
3.08
(2.54‑3.78)
3.97
(3.22‑5.23)
4.74
(3.73‑6.32)
5.60
(4.25‑7.70)
6.55
(4.77‑9.33)
7.94
(5.55‑11.7)
9.10
(6.14‑13.5)
4-day 2.03
(1.70‑2.45)
2.70
(2.24‑3.27)
3.30
(2.73‑4.02)
4.24
(3.45‑5.55)
5.05
(3.99‑6.70)
5.96
(4.54‑8.14)
6.95
(5.08‑9.84)
8.40
(5.90‑12.3)
9.60
(6.51‑14.1)
7-day 2.39
(2.01‑2.85)
3.11
(2.62‑3.73)
3.76
(3.14‑4.54)
4.74
(3.88‑6.11)
5.58
(4.45‑7.30)
6.51
(5.00‑8.79)
7.52
(5.54‑10.5)
8.98
(6.36‑13.0)
10.2
(6.98‑14.9)
10-day 2.71
(2.30‑3.22)
3.46
(2.93‑4.13)
4.12
(3.47‑4.94)
5.11
(4.20‑6.52)
5.95
(4.76‑7.71)
6.86
(5.30‑9.18)
7.85
(5.81‑10.9)
9.27
(6.59‑13.3)
10.4
(7.18‑15.2)
20-day 3.62
(3.12‑4.25)
4.48
(3.84‑5.27)
5.19
(4.42‑6.15)
6.20
(5.14‑7.73)
7.03
(5.68‑8.93)
7.91
(6.16‑10.4)
8.84
(6.60‑12.1)
10.1
(7.28‑14.3)
11.2
(7.79‑16.1)
30-day 4.37
(3.79‑5.09)
5.37
(4.64‑6.28)
6.16
(5.30‑7.25)
7.26
(6.04‑8.93)
8.12
(6.60‑10.2)
9.02
(7.07‑11.7)
9.95
(7.47‑13.4)
11.2
(8.09‑15.7)
12.2
(8.56‑17.4)
45-day 5.32
(4.65‑6.16)
6.56
(5.72‑7.62)
7.51
(6.51‑8.78)
8.78
(7.33‑10.7)
9.74
(7.95‑12.1)
10.7
(8.44‑13.8)
11.7
(8.82‑15.6)
13.0
(9.42‑18.0)
14.0
(9.87‑19.9)
60-day 6.13
(5.39‑7.06)
7.62
(6.68‑8.81)
8.74
(7.61‑10.2)
10.2
(8.54‑12.3)
11.3
(9.25‑13.9)
12.4
(9.77‑15.8)
13.4
(10.2‑17.8)
14.8
(10.8‑20.4)
15.9
(11.2‑22.4)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of annual maxima series (AMS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation
frequency estimates (for a given duration and annual exceedance probability) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower
bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than
currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov
Disclaimer
+
–
100km
60mi
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE
CALCULATIONS
This method is in accoradance with the 2014 VHE drainage report for comparison purpose
Basin Land Total
Identifier Coverage "c" Area Area Weighted Notes
Type value (acres) (acres) "c"
Rock outcropping 0.90 0.06
Natural/meadow 0.30 0.04
0.10 0.66 Same "c" value as 2014 report
Rock outcropping 0.90 0.05
Building 0.90 0.11
Paved Road 0.90 0.01
Natural/meadow 0.30 0.19
0.35 0.58 "c" value from 2014 report = 0.55
Rock outcropping 0.90 0.35
Building 0.90 0.42
Paved Road 0.90 0.48
Natural/meadow 0.30 1.51
2.76 0.57 "c" value from 2014 report = 0.52
Building 0.90 0.11
Paved Road 0.90 0.07
Natural/meadow 0.30 0.48
0.67 0.47 "c" value from 2014 report = 0.45 for overall C-3 basin = 10.73 acre
Storm "c"
Basin Recurrence Value Weighted Adjusted
Identifier Interval Multiplier "c" "c" Value
2 yr 1 0.66 0.66
10 yr 1 0.66 0.66
100 yr 1.25 0.66 0.83
2 yr 1 0.58 0.58
10 yr 1 0.58 0.58
100 yr 1.25 0.58 0.72
2 yr 1 0.57 0.57
10 yr 1 0.57 0.57
100 yr 1.25 0.57 0.72
2 yr 1 0.47 0.47
10 yr 1 0.47 0.47
100 yr 1.25 0.47 0.58
C-3
B-2
C-3
(project
area)
Portion of C-3 drainage basin within Freelan Heights project area, new improvements account
for 28% impervious coverage < 40% assumption in SWC Phase 1 drainage report for
downstream detention on Amended Lot 4 SHD
B-2
Updated weighted "c" value for each developed drainage basin
A
B-1
No development coverage this basinA
B-1
Project Title:
Channel ID:UNDEVELOPED DRAINAGE BASIN DISCHARGE
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 2 years
Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =B-1 B-2 C-3
rea (Acres) = 0.100 0.320 2.560 0.670
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.66 0.41 0.41 0.34
Time of Concentration
Overland Flow Slope (%) = 83.0000 41.0000
(overland flow length <500 ft)Length (ft) =84 215
Flow Velocity (fps) =15.00 5.50
Flow Time (min.) =0.09 0.65
Reach 1 Slope (%) = 35 18 11 12.5
Length (ft) = 274 153 423 200
Flow Velocity (fps) = 1.08 0.41 0.59 0.38
Flow Time (min.) = 4.21 6.15 12.03 8.73
Reach 2 Slope (%) =4
Length (ft) =130
Flow Velocity (fps) =0.15
Flow Time (min.) =14.84
Times Compu e c m n =4.21 6.24 12.68 23.58
User-Entered Tc (min)= 5.00
Peak Runoff Prediction (from IDF Curve for Estes Park)
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, (in/hr) I =2.83 2.70 2.00 1.90
Computed Tc Peak Flowrate, (cfs) Qp = 0.19 0.35 2.10 0.43
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
Freelan Heights
Project Title:
Channel ID:UNDEVELOPED DRAINAGE BASIN DISCHARGE
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years
Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =B-1 B-2 C-3
rea (Acres) = 0.100 0.320 2.560 0.670
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.66 0.41 0.41 0.34
Time of Concentration
Overland Flow Slope (%) = 83.0000 41.0000
(overland flow length <500 ft)Length (ft) =84 215
Flow Velocity (fps) =15.00 5.50
Flow Time (min.) =0.09 0.65
Reach 1 Slope (%) = 35 18 11 12.5
Length (ft) = 274 153 431 200
Flow Velocity (fps) = 1.08 0.41 0.59 0.38
Flow Time (min.) = 4.21 6.15 12.14 8.73
Reach 2 Slope (%) =4
Length (ft) =130
Flow Velocity (fps) =0.15
Flow Time (min.) =14.84
Times Compu e c m n =4.21 6.24 12.79 23.58
User-Entered Tc (min)= 5.00
Peak Runoff Prediction (from IDF Curve for Estes Park)
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, (in/hr) I =4.83 4.60 3.50 3.30
Computed Tc Peak Flowrate, (cfs) Qp = 0.32 0.60 3.67 0.75
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
Freelan Heights
Project Title:
Channel ID:UNDEVELOPED DRAINAGE BASIN DISCHARGE
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years
Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =B-1 B-2 C-3
rea (Acres) = 0.100 0.320 2.560 0.670
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.83 0.51 0.51 0.43
Time of Concentration
Overland Flow Slope (%) = 83.0000 41.0000
(overland flow length <500 ft)Length (ft) =84 215
Flow Velocity (fps) =15.00 5.50
Flow Time (min.) =0.09 0.65
Reach 1 Slope (%) = 35 18 11 12.5
Length (ft) = 274 153 431 200
Flow Velocity (fps) = 1.77 0.48 0.69 0.43
Flow Time (min.) = 2.59 5.26 10.38 7.70
Reach 2 Slope (%) =4
Length (ft) =130
Flow Velocity (fps) =0.15
Flow Time (min.) =14.84
Times Compu e c m n =2.59 5.35 11.03 22.54
User-Entered Tc (min)= 5.00
Peak Runoff Prediction (from IDF Curve for Estes Park)
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, (in/hr) I =7.67 7.60 5.80 5.50
Computed Tc Peak Flowrate, (cfs) Qp = 0.64 1.24 7.57 1.58
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
Freelan Heights
Project Title:
Channel ID:DEVELOPED DRAINAGE BASIN DISCHARGE
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 2 years
Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =B-1 B-2 C-3
rea (Acres) = 0.100 0.350 2.760 0.670
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.66 0.58 0.57 0.47
Time of Concentration
Overland Flow Slope (%) = 83.0000 41.0000
(overland flow length <500 ft)Length (ft) =84 215
Flow Velocity (fps) =15.00 5.50
Flow Time (min.) =0.09 0.65
Reach 1 Slope (%) = 35 18 11 12.5
Length (ft) = 274 153 431 200
Flow Velocity (fps) = 1.08 0.55 0.77 0.46
Flow Time (min.) = 4.21 4.63 9.33 7.24
Reach 2 Slope (%) =4
Length (ft) =130
Flow Velocity (fps) =0.15
Flow Time (min.) =14.84
Times Compu e c m n =4.21 4.73 9.98 22.08
User-Entered Tc (min)= 5.00 5.00
Peak Runoff Prediction (from IDF Curve for Estes Park)
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, (in/hr) I =2.83 2.83 2.20 1.90
Computed Tc Peak Flowrate, (cfs) Qp = 0.19 0.57 3.46 0.60
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
Freelan Heights
Project Title:
Channel ID:DEVELOPED DRAINAGE BASIN DISCHARGE
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years
Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =B-1 B-2 C-3
rea (Acres) = 0.100 0.350 2.760 0.670
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.66 0.58 0.57 0.47
Time of Concentration
Overland Flow Slope (%) = 83.0000 41.0000
(overland flow length <500 ft)Length (ft) =84 215
Flow Velocity (fps) =15.00 5.50
Flow Time (min.) =0.09 0.65
Reach 1 Slope (%) = 35 18 11 12.5
Length (ft) = 274 153 431 200
Flow Velocity (fps) = 1.08 0.55 0.77 0.46
Flow Time (min.) = 4.21 4.63 9.33 7.24
Reach 2 Slope (%) =4
Length (ft) =130
Flow Velocity (fps) =0.15
Flow Time (min.) =14.84
Times Compu e c m n =4.21 4.73 9.98 22.08
User-Entered Tc (min)= 5.00 5.00
Peak Runoff Prediction (from IDF Curve for Estes Park)
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, (in/hr) I =4.83 4.83 3.70 3.30
Computed Tc Peak Flowrate, (cfs) Qp = 0.32 0.98 5.82 1.04
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
Freelan Heights
Project Title:
Channel ID:DEVELOPED DRAINAGE BASIN DISCHARGE
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years
Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =B-1 B-2 C-3
rea (Acres) = 0.100 0.350 2.760 0.670
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.83 0.72 0.72 0.58
Time of Concentration
Overland Flow Slope (%) = 83.0000 41.0000
(overland flow length <500 ft)Length (ft) =84 215
Flow Velocity (fps) =15.00 5.50
Flow Time (min.) =0.09 0.65
Reach 1 Slope (%) = 35 18 11 12.5
Length (ft) = 274 153 431 200
Flow Velocity (fps) = 1.77 0.75 1.07 0.56
Flow Time (min.) = 2.59 3.39 6.69 5.98
Reach 2 Slope (%) =4
Length (ft) =130
Flow Velocity (fps) =0.15
Flow Time (min.) =14.84
Times Compu e c m n =2.59 3.48 7.34 20.82
User-Entered Tc (min)= 5.00 5.00
Peak Runoff Prediction (from IDF Curve for Estes Park)
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, (in/hr) I =7.67 7.67 6.40 5.50
Computed Tc Peak Flowrate, (cfs) Qp = 0.64 1.93 12.72 2.14
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
Freelan Heights
Designer:
Company:2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr
Date:1-hour rainfall depth, P1 (in) =0.60 0.77 0.97 1.33 1.68 2.09 3.28
Project:a b c
Location:Rainfall Intensity Equation Coefficients =28.50 10.00 0.786
2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr
Overland
Flow Length
Li (ft)
U/S Elevation
(ft)
(Optional)
D/S Elevation
(ft)
(Optional)
Overland
Flow Slope
Si (ft/ft)
Overland
Flow Time
ti (min)
Channelized
Flow Length
Lt (ft)
U/S Elevation
(ft)
(Optional)
D/S Elevation
(ft)
(Optional)
Channelized
Flow Slope
St (ft/ft)
NRCS
Conveyance
Factor K
Channelized
Flow Velocity
Vt (ft/sec)
Channelized
Flow Time
tt (min)
Computed
tc (min)
Regional
tc (min)
Selected
tc (min)2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr
0.39 0.45 0.51 0.60 0.64 0.69 0.75 6.00 6.00 6.00 1.92 2.48 3.13 4.29 5.42 6.74 10.57 0.08 0.11 0.16 0.26 0.35 0.47 0.80
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.79 4.50 4.50 5.00 2.02 2.61 3.29 4.51 5.70 7.09 11.13 0.35 0.50 0.69 1.06 1.40 1.84 3.06
0.37 0.43 0.48 0.59 0.63 0.68 0.74 5.24 7.40 7.40 1.80 2.32 2.93 4.01 5.07 6.31 9.90 1.82 2.73 3.92 6.51 8.82 11.84 20.20
0.20 0.26 0.34 0.48 0.53 0.60 0.68 9.28 9.83 9.83 1.63 2.10 2.64 3.62 4.58 5.69 8.93 0.22 0.37 0.60 1.15 1.63 2.28 4.05
0.01 0.05 0.15 0.33 0.40 0.49 0.59 11.64 11.64 11.64 1.52 1.96 2.47 3.38 4.27 5.32 8.34 0.01 0.07 0.24 0.75 1.15 1.75 3.32
63.0
0.350274.00
Rainfall Intensity, I (in/hr)
1.00 0.00 17.33100.0100.00
Peak Flow, Q (cfs)
Calculation of Peak Runoff using Rational Method
Overland (Initial) Flow Time Channelized (Travel) Flow Time Time of ConcentrationRunoff Coefficient, C
Subcatchment Name Area
(ac)
NRCS
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Percent
Imperviousness
Basin A (No developed area) 0.10 D 51.0
Select UDFCD location for NOAA Atlas 14 Rainfall Depths from the pulldown list OR enter your own depths obtained from the NOAA website (click this link)
Cells of this color are for required user-input
Cells of this color are for optional override values
Cells of this color are for calculated results based on overrides
FER
Van Horn Engineering
9/26/2025
Freelan Heights
Overlook Court
Version 2.00 released May 2017
20 4.00 0.54
15.29
2.76 D 48.0 215.00 0.410 431.00 0.110 10 3.32 2.17
0.010 10 1.00 0.00D237.00 0.410 0.00
25.66
22.08
200.00 0.125 0.00 0.010 10 1.00 0.00
19.22
200.00 0.125 130.00 0.040
D
Basin B2 (Developed)
28.0D0.67Basin C3 (Developed - project site only)
2.0D0.67Basin C3 (Uneveloped - project site only)
0.35Basin B1 (Develped)
D
I 𝑖𝑛/ℎ𝑟 a ∗P
b t
t 0.395 1.1 C L
S .
t L
60K S L
60V
Computed t t t
Regional t 26 17i L
60 14i 9 S Selected t max t ,min Computed t ,Regional t
t 5 (urban)
t 10 (non-urban)
Q 𝑐𝑓𝑠 CIA
Project:
Basin ID:
Design Information (Input):Design Information (Input):
Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Ia = 48.00 percent Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Ia = 48.00 percent
Catchment Drainage Area A = 2.760 acres Catchment Drainage Area A = 2.760 acres
Predevelopment NRCS Soil Group Type = D A, B, C, or D Predevelopment NRCS Soil Group Type = D A, B, C, or D
Return Period for Detention Control T = 10 years (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100) Return Period for Detention Control T = 100 years (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100)
Time of Concentration of Watershed Tc = 7 minutes Time of Concentration of Watershed Tc = 7 minutes
Allowable Unit Release Rate q = 1.19 cfs/acre Allowable Unit Release Rate q = 2.49 cfs/acre
One-hour Precipitation P1 = 0.97 inches One-hour Precipitation P1 = 2.09 inches
Design Rainfall IDF Formula i = C1* P1/(C2+Tc)^C3 Design Rainfall IDF Formula i = C1* P1/(C2+Tc)^C3
Coefficient One C1 = 28.50 Coefficient One C1 = 28.50
Coefficient Two C2 = 10 Coefficient Two C2 = 10
Coefficient Three C3 = 0.789 Coefficient Three C3 = 0.789
Determination of Average Outflow from the Basin (Calculated):Determination of Average Outflow from the Basin (Calculated):
Runoff Coefficient C = 0.72 Runoff Coefficient C = 0.72
Inflow Peak Runoff Qp-in = 5.90 cfs Inflow Peak Runoff Qp-in = 12.72 cfs
Allowable Peak Outflow Rate Qp-out =3.29 cfs Allowable Peak Outflow Rate Qp-out =6.88 cfs
Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume = 1,849 cubic feet Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = 4,157 cubic feet
Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume = 0.042 acre-ft Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = 0.095 acre-ft
5 <- Enter Rainfall Duration Incremental Increase Value Here (e.g. 5 for 5-Minutes)
Rainfall Rainfall Inflow Adjustment Average Outflow Storage Rainfall Rainfall Inflow Adjustment Average Outflow Storage
Duration Intensity Volume Factor Outflow Volume Volume Duration Intensity Volume Factor Outflow Volume Volume
minutes inches / hr acre-feet "m"cfs acre-feet acre-feet minutes inches / hr acre-feet "m"cfs acre-feet acre-feet
(input)(output) (output) (output) (output) (output) (output) (input) (output) (output) (output) (output) (output) (output)
0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000
5 3.26 0.045 1.00 3.29 0.023 0.022 5 7.03 0.096 1.00 6.88 0.047 0.049
10 2.60 0.071 0.85 2.78 0.038 0.033 10 5.60 0.153 0.85 5.81 0.080 0.073
15 2.18 0.090 0.73 2.40 0.050 0.040 15 4.70 0.193 0.73 5.02 0.104 0.089
20 1.89 0.103 0.67 2.21 0.061 0.042 20 4.07 0.223 0.67 4.63 0.127 0.095
25 1.67 0.114 0.64 2.10 0.072 0.042 25 3.60 0.247 0.64 4.39 0.151 0.095
30 1.51 0.124 0.62 2.02 0.084 0.040 30 3.24 0.266 0.62 4.23 0.175 0.091
35 1.37 0.131 0.60 1.97 0.095 0.036 35 2.96 0.283 0.60 4.12 0.199 0.085
40 1.26 0.138 0.59 1.93 0.106 0.032 40 2.72 0.298 0.59 4.03 0.222 0.076
45 1.17 0.144 0.58 1.90 0.118 0.027 45 2.52 0.311 0.58 3.97 0.246 0.065
50 1.09 0.150 0.57 1.87 0.129 0.021 50 2.36 0.322 0.57 3.91 0.270 0.053
55 1.03 0.154 0.56 1.85 0.140 0.014 55 2.21 0.333 0.56 3.87 0.293 0.040
60 0.97 0.159 0.56 1.83 0.152 0.007 60 2.09 0.343 0.56 3.84 0.317 0.026
65 0.92 0.163 0.55 1.82 0.163 0.000 65 1.98 0.351 0.55 3.81 0.341 0.011
70 0.87 0.167 0.55 1.81 0.174 -0.007 70 1.88 0.360 0.55 3.78 0.364 -0.005
75 0.83 0.170 0.55 1.80 0.186 -0.015 75 1.79 0.367 0.55 3.76 0.388 -0.021
80 0.79 0.174 0.54 1.79 0.197 -0.023 80 1.71 0.375 0.54 3.74 0.412 -0.037
85 0.76 0.177 0.54 1.78 0.208 -0.031 85 1.64 0.381 0.54 3.72 0.435 -0.054
90 0.73 0.180 0.54 1.77 0.220 -0.040 90 1.57 0.388 0.54 3.70 0.459 -0.071
95 0.70 0.183 0.54 1.76 0.231 -0.048 95 1.51 0.394 0.54 3.69 0.483 -0.089
100 0.68 0.185 0.53 1.76 0.242 -0.057 100 1.46 0.400 0.53 3.68 0.507 -0.107
105 0.65 0.188 0.53 1.75 0.254 -0.066 105 1.41 0.405 0.53 3.67 0.530 -0.125
110 0.63 0.190 0.53 1.75 0.265 -0.074 110 1.36 0.410 0.53 3.66 0.554 -0.143
115 0.61 0.193 0.53 1.74 0.276 -0.083 115 1.32 0.415 0.53 3.65 0.578 -0.162
120 0.59 0.195 0.53 1.74 0.288 -0.092 120 1.28 0.420 0.53 3.64 0.601 -0.181
125 0.58 0.197 0.53 1.74 0.299 -0.102 125 1.24 0.425 0.53 3.63 0.625 -0.200
130 0.56 0.199 0.53 1.73 0.310 -0.111 130 1.21 0.429 0.53 3.62 0.649 -0.219
135 0.54 0.201 0.53 1.73 0.322 -0.120 135 1.17 0.434 0.53 3.62 0.672 -0.239
140 0.53 0.203 0.52 1.73 0.333 -0.130 140 1.14 0.438 0.52 3.61 0.696 -0.258
145 0.52 0.205 0.52 1.72 0.344 -0.139 145 1.11 0.442 0.52 3.60 0.720 -0.278
150 0.50 0.207 0.52 1.72 0.356 -0.149 150 1.09 0.446 0.52 3.60 0.743 -0.297
155 0.49 0.209 0.52 1.72 0.367 -0.158 155 1.06 0.450 0.52 3.59 0.767 -0.317
160 0.48 0.210 0.52 1.72 0.378 -0.168 160 1.04 0.454 0.52 3.59 0.791 -0.337
165 0.47 0.212 0.52 1.71 0.389 -0.177 165 1.01 0.457 0.52 3.58 0.815 -0.357
170 0.46 0.214 0.52 1.71 0.401 -0.187 170 0.99 0.461 0.52 3.58 0.838 -0.378
175 0.45 0.215 0.52 1.71 0.412 -0.197 175 0.97 0.464 0.52 3.58 0.862 -0.398
180 0.44 0.217 0.52 1.71 0.423 -0.207 180 0.95 0.467 0.52 3.57 0.886 -0.418
185 0.43 0.218 0.52 1.71 0.435 -0.216 185 0.93 0.471 0.52 3.57 0.909 -0.439
190 0.42 0.220 0.52 1.70 0.446 -0.226 190 0.91 0.474 0.52 3.56 0.933 -0.459
195 0.41 0.221 0.52 1.70 0.457 -0.236 195 0.89 0.477 0.52 3.56 0.957 -0.480
200 0.41 0.223 0.52 1.70 0.469 -0.246 200 0.88 0.480 0.52 3.56 0.980 -0.501
205 0.40 0.224 0.52 1.70 0.480 -0.256 205 0.86 0.483 0.52 3.56 1.004 -0.521
210 0.39 0.225 0.52 1.70 0.491 -0.266 210 0.84 0.486 0.52 3.55 1.028 -0.542
215 0.39 0.227 0.52 1.70 0.503 -0.276 215 0.83 0.488 0.52 3.55 1.051 -0.563
220 0.38 0.228 0.52 1.70 0.514 -0.286 220 0.82 0.491 0.52 3.55 1.075 -0.584
225 0.37 0.229 0.52 1.70 0.525 -0.296 225 0.80 0.494 0.52 3.55 1.099 -0.605
230 0.37 0.230 0.52 1.69 0.537 -0.306 230 0.79 0.497 0.52 3.54 1.123 -0.626
235 0.36 0.232 0.51 1.69 0.548 -0.316 235 0.78 0.499 0.51 3.54 1.146 -0.647
240 0.35 0.233 0.51 1.69 0.559 -0.327 240 0.76 0.502 0.51 3.54 1.170 -0.668
245 0.35 0.234 0.51 1.69 0.571 -0.337 245 0.75 0.504 0.51 3.54 1.194 -0.689
250 0.34 0.235 0.51 1.69 0.582 -0.347 250 0.74 0.507 0.51 3.53 1.217 -0.710
255 0.34 0.236 0.51 1.69 0.593 -0.357 255 0.73 0.509 0.51 3.53 1.241 -0.732
260 0.33 0.237 0.51 1.69 0.605 -0.367 260 0.72 0.512 0.51 3.53 1.265 -0.753
265 0.33 0.239 0.51 1.69 0.616 -0.378 265 0.71 0.514 0.51 3.53 1.288 -0.774
270 0.32 0.240 0.51 1.69 0.627 -0.388 270 0.70 0.516 0.51 3.53 1.312 -0.796
275 0.32 0.241 0.51 1.69 0.639 -0.398 275 0.69 0.519 0.51 3.53 1.336 -0.817
280 0.32 0.242 0.51 1.69 0.650 -0.408 280 0.68 0.521 0.51 3.52 1.359 -0.839
285 0.31 0.243 0.51 1.68 0.661 -0.419 285 0.67 0.523 0.51 3.52 1.383 -0.860
290 0.31 0.244 0.51 1.68 0.673 -0.429 290 0.66 0.525 0.51 3.52 1.407 -0.882
295 0.30 0.245 0.51 1.68 0.684 -0.439 295 0.65 0.527 0.51 3.52 1.430 -0.903
300 0.30 0.246 0.51 1.68 0.695 -0.450 300 0.64 0.529 0.51 3.52 1.454 -0.925
Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (cubic ft.) = 1,849 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (cubic ft.) = 4,157
Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (acre-ft.) = 0.0424 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (acre-ft.) = 0.0954
DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD
Freelan Heights
Proposed Conditions Detention Pond Size Verification
Determination of MAJOR Detention Volume Using Modified FAA Method
(For catchments less than 160 acres only. For larger catchments, use hydrograph routing method)
(NOTE: for catchments larger than 90 acres, CUHP hydrograph and routing are recommended)
UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.34, Released November 2013
Determination of MINOR Detention Volume Using Modified FAA Method
Full Site Detention 7-3-2025.xls, Modified FAA 9/26/2025, 4:20 PM
Project:
Basin ID:
DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD
Freelan Heights
Proposed Conditions Detention Pond Size Verification
UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.34, Released November 2013
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Vo
l
u
m
e
(
a
c
r
e
-
f
e
e
t
)
Duration (Minutes)
Inflow and Outflow Volumes vs. Rainfall Duration
Minor Storm Inflow Volume Minor Storm Outflow Volume Minor Storm Storage Volume Major Storm Inflow Volume Major Storm Outflow Volume Major Storm Storage Volume
Full Site Detention 7-3-2025.xls, Modified FAA 9/26/2025, 4:20 PM
PREVIOUS DRAINAGE REPORTS
Photo #1 Uphill Overlook Basin Photo #2 Old utility tank near north boundary (on left)
Photo #3 Further east uphill Overlook Photo #4 Within Overlook (West Side)
Photo #5 Outfall west pond Photo #6 Northeast corner Overlook
`
Photo #7 Northeast corner Overlook Photo #8 Lack of swale center- east Overlook
Photo #9 East inlet north of parking lot Photo #10 West inlet north of parking lot
Photo #11 Inside of round inlet Photo #12 Inside of round inlet
Photo #13 Inside of round inlet Photo #14 Inside of southeast parking lot Type R catch basin
Photo #15 Round inlet before clearing Photo #16 Round inlet after some clearing
Photo #17 Inside of round inlet with grate off Photo #18 Example of downspouts buried
Photo #19 Downspouts buried Photo #20 Inside of southeast parking lot catch basin outlet pipe
Photo #21 Curb cut Overlook Lane Photo #22 Swale in downstream flow path
Photo #23 Down stream swale Photo #24 Swale conveyance to lower “12,200 CF” pond
Photo #25 Inlet to lower “12,200 CF” Pond Photo #26 Outlet of “12,200 CF” Pond
Photo #27 Outlet of “12,200 CF” Pond Photo #28 Inlet of “12,200 CF” Pond
Review of New Development Associated with the
Freelan Heights Subdivision
Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee
November 4, 2025
Review Process
Construction Plans/ Building Permits
Staff
Final Package Final Plat
TRC Town Board
Preliminary Package Preliminary Plat
ARC
TRC
Planning Commission
Town Board
Proposal
Summary of Site Planning Guidelines
1.Preserve natural landforms and
vegetation. Development should fit the
terrain, minimizing grading and
disturbance and leaving natural
features of the landscape intact.
2.Minimize grading. Avoid extensive
grading to create flat lawns or building
sites.
3.Preserve views. The primary concerns
relate to maintaining views to the site
4.Natural drainage. Use river rock and
native materials; avoid artificial or
concrete drainage solutions.
5.Clustering encouraged. Combine
buildings and parking to reduce land
disruption.
Summary of Building Placement Guidelines
1.Respect Existing Landforms
& Follow Contours. Buildings
and driveways should align
with the site’s natural slope.
2.Solar access. Placement
should allow passive solar
design and minimize shading
on others.
3.Screen utilities and services.
Conceal trash areas, meters,
and service structures.
4.Pedestrian circulation.
Design safe, separate
walkways.
5.Maintain intersection
visibility. Limit obstructions
at intersections.
Summary of Landscaping
Guidelines
1.Blend with native vegetation.
Preserve significant trees and use
drought-tolerant, wildlife-friendly
native species.
2.Fences and walls. Must complement
site architecture; no chain link or
concrete block.
3.Retaining walls. Use stone or block;
avoid exposed concrete; height over 5’
discourage, soften with plantings.
4.Irrigation and maintenance.
Landscaped areas must be maintained
and irrigated until established.
5.Protect vegetation. Fence
construction zones and replace any
removed trees.
Parcel 2 Development Standards
Minimum Lot Area Single Family Detached: 6,000 s.f.
Maximum Building Height: 30 ft.
Off-street Parking:
Two covered spaces per unit, enclosed by building
structure.
Minimum Open Space: 30%
In subdivided single family detached development, 30%
designated open space shall be provided exclusive of
lotted area.
Setbacks from Parcel Boundary
50’ north, 25’-50’ east, 10’ south, 15’ west
Summary of Building Design
Standards
1.No imitation of historic styles. Replicating the
Stanley Hotel’s historic look or foreign styles
(e.g., Tudor, Mediterranean, A-frame) is
prohibited.
2.Minimize visual scale. Vary facades lengths
and rooflines to avoid large, monotonous
walls.
3.Roof forms. Must be compatible and avoid
mansard, gambrel, domed, or A-frame
shapes.
4.Materials. Use natural elements: cedar,
stone, wood. Prohibit vinyl, plastic, synthetic,
or highly reflective finishes.
5.Colors. Earthy, natural tones only; white and
bright colors not permitted.
6.Lighting. Subdued, downward-directed
lighting to avoid glare.
Parcel 2 Special Considerations
Prior to development on
Parcel 2, a private street
system built to Town of
Estes Park Public Street
Standards must be
constructed by the
developer and shall
connect Parcel 2 with a
public street. Street
location must meet
Technical Review
Committee approval.
Parcel 2 Special Considerations
•Accommodations Development: maximum 92 units
•Residential Development: maximum 46 units
•Mixed development: 92 total units
•For each residential unit built, the 92 permitted accommodation units decreases by two
units
•For every two accommodations units built, the 46 permitted residential units decreases
by one.
•Maximum 75,000 square feet accommodations. TRC variance in 2022 to
76,776
• Reduced by 1,250 square feet per residential unit
•15 residential units reduce the allowed square footage to 58,026. Existing (39,422 s.f.)
and proposed (17,865 s.f.) accommodations square footage is 57,287,
Advantages/ Disadvantages
Advantages:
The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Master Plan.
Disadvantages:
The application is inconstant in two cases with Master Plan setback standards. In
particular, the north setback on Lot 6 and south setback on Lot 1 do not comply with
Master Plan minimums. However, staff recommends TRC approve variances to these
standards as design solutions advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the
Master Plan and with existing development on the property.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends TRC approve the Preliminary Package, including the following variances and conditions
of approval:
Variances to Allow:
1. North setback of 25 feet on Lot 6.
2. South setback of 10 on Lot 1
Conditions of Approval:
1.Details on materials used in and around drainage facilities shall be provided with the Final Package
to demonstrate river rock and cobbles are used rather than angular rip-rap or exposed concrete.
2.Limits of disturbance and tree protection standards shall be shown on construction plans.
3.Specific species and plant sizes shall be provided with the Final Package.
4.Additional details regarding retaining wall material and height shall be provided with the Final
Package.
5.Sight distance shall be shown on the Final Package landscape plan where driveways intersect with
Overlook Court.
Action Recommended (cont.)
6.The Final Package and subdivision plat shall depict shared driveways within outlot(s) to be maintained
by a homeowners association.
7.Each building permit application shall provide building height calculations, details on exterior light
fixtures, and utility meter placement.
8.Within the CC&Rs for the subdivision, the applicant shall place a prohibition on the installation or
construction of fencing and screen walls over 40 inches in height.
9.The Final Plat shall designate which lots permit accommodations use and which are restricted to
residential use.
Sample Motions
1. I move to approve TRC Resolution 25-02.
2. I move to deny approval of the Preliminary Package, finding that the application does not
comply with the Master Plan.