Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2025-12-16This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page at www.estes.org/videos ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written comments on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/EPPCPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting. All comments will be provided to the Commission for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. __________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK Town Hall Board Room Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:30 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA 1.Planning Commission minutes dated November 18, 2025 PUBLIC COMMENT ACTION ITEMS 1. Rezone 179 Stanley Circle Dr Senior Planner Hornbeck 2.Recommendation on Establishment of Zoning 775 Riverside Dr Planner II Washam DISCUSSION ITEMS 1.Development Code Update 2.Future Meeting ADJOURN The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. December 10, 2025 1 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 18, 2025 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the said Town of Estes Park on November 18, 2025. Commission: Chair Charles Cooper, Vice Chair David Arterburn, Dick Mulhern, Chris Pawson, Julie Phares Attending: Commissioners Cooper, Arterburn, Mulhern, Pawson, Community Development Director Steve Careccia, Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Phares Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm. There were approximately 25 people in the audience. INTRODUCTIONS Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Mulhern) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 4-0. CONSENT AGENDA 1.Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 16, 2025 It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Mulhern) to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 3-0 with Pawson abstaining. ACTION ITEMS: 1.Establishment of Zoning Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Senior Planner Hornbeck Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report and the required steps in the annexation process. The applicant, East Avenue Development, LLC, requests annexation of a 40- acre property and establishment of 'A' Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning. The property's current zoning within Larimer County is Estes Valley Rural Estate (EV RE). Such zoning permits low-density single-family residential development, with a maximum density of 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Surrounding properties have a variety of residential and industrial zoning. Staff asked the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the Town Board on whether the requested 'A' Accommodations/Highway Corridor zone district is appropriate. If deemed appropriate, then staff recommended the conditions provided below be included with the recommendation: 1.Future development of the site shall generally be consistent with the concept plan attached hereto. 2.A maximum of 290 accommodation units and 25 employee housing/dormitory units shall be allowed. 3.A minimum of 10 employee housing or dormitory units shall be provided on-site. 4.Improvements to Elm Road from the end of the paved roadway to the property boundary shall be constructed in accordance with Town and/or Larimer County standards. draf t 3 Planning Commission – November 18, 2025 – Page 2 5. The proposed main road internal to the project (and extending offsite to both West Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue) shall be platted as a public street and designed and constructed to minor collector street standards. 6. The owner shall design and install warranted improvements to the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Elm Road in accordance with CDOT and Town standards. 7. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure safe pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to and through the property shall be designed, located, and constructed in accordance with Town of Estes Park standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall extend offsite to West Elkhorn Avenue within the right-of-way or within a pedestrian easement dedicated to the public. 8. The owner shall make trail improvements and dedicate trail easements in accordance with the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. Exact alignment of trails shall be determined at the time of a Development Plan in a manner approved by the Town that discourages access to Rocky Mountain National Park or other private properties. Signage shall be placed to discourage access to the Park or other private properties, as appropriate. 9. The owner shall apply the best management practices identified in the Colorado Parks and Wildlife letter dated March 11, 2025. 10. Owner shall provide a Wildlife Conservation Plan concurrently with the Development Plan application in accordance with the requirements of Development Code Section 7.8. Such Plan found to be adequate by the Decision-Making Body shall become binding upon the property. 11. A minimum 80-foot-wide buffer/wildlife movement corridor shall be provided along the perimeter of the site and shall generally remain natural, free of any buildings or parking lots. Roads and trails as depicted on the concept plan or otherwise approved by the Town shall be allowed. Other limited improvements may be approved by the Town if it can be demonstrated that the overall purpose and function of the buffer are maintained. 12. Lighting shall follow Dark Sky best practices, including regulations on shielding, height, color, brightness, and time of operation. 13. Building architecture and design shall be consistent with Historic Elkhorn Lodge and Elkhorn Suites, including similar materials, colors, and a common design aesthetic. DISCUSSION: Vice Chair Arterburn asked several questions, which the applicant and staff subsequently answered. Utilities would be provided at the developer's expense. The property lies within two sanitation districts, with a preference for connecting to the southern district. It was confirmed that both the main road and Elm Road would be paved. Other items discussed draf t 4 Planning Commission – November 18, 2025 – Page 3 included whether the site's steep roads had been evaluated, whether the minor road supports the Town's multimodal transportation plan, how traffic would be managed on a public road, and how the proposal aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's lower-intensity A-1 designation. Arterburn also asked—and received confirmation—that the five-month construction window recommended by Colorado Parks and Wildlife would be followed where feasible. Chair Cooper shared his concerns about the traffic study and the increased traffic of a new connection between West Elkhorn and Moraine, which appears to be a collector street. He also confirmed that the request was for a maximum of 280 units, plus an additional 10 employee units. Commissioner Mulhern asked about the variance requests, with the maximum grade limit of 8% but requesting 12%. Trevor Wittwer, Town Engineer, responded that to get the lower-grade, curvature of the road would be needed. Answering Mulhern's question, Hornbeck stated that approximately 20 acres will be left untouched, and the developed area is approximately 50%. Commissioner Pawson asked for confirmation that the March 11, 2025, letter from Colorado Parks and Wildlife regarding a meeting with the developer was carried out. Justin Mabey, owner/representative of East Avenue Development, spoke about the development plan, noting that they have been working on this project for 4 to 5 years and are preserving more of the site than initially anticipated. The first phase of the Elkhorn Lodge project is expected to begin vertical construction in the spring, with hopes of opening by 2027. Their overall vision is to create a multigenerational destination where families can return year after year, honoring the property's history while looking toward the future, all while minimizing roads and reducing environmental impacts. Jon Romero, consultant for the project, reviewed the four key areas involved in the annexation and rezoning process, emphasizing ongoing engagement with both the community and Town staff. He explained that annexation is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and clarified the difference between A and A-1 zoning, noting that the proposal includes approximately 290 units—well below the maximum allowed under A zoning. He also addressed questions about the road being public, stating that the Town is requiring public access, and explained how the design addresses site slopes, including compliance with Fire Department approvals. A 12% grade was incorporated in response to Town feedback. The developer is open to improvements on the road, but these will have to be negotiated with CDOT. View corridors from multiple directions were shown, along with a review of the three criteria required for project approval. East Ave has also purchased a hotel in Town to provide employee housing and plans to offer transportation to the site for workers. The project will be completed in phases rather than all at once. A PUD overlay may be considered to help meet the 13 required conditions. Communication with the County has not yet occurred, and the applicant stated they will not begin those discussions unless this plan, both the annexation and rezoning, is not approved, as they prefer to remain under the Town's jurisdiction. PUBLIC COMMENT: Town and County residents speaking against the requested establishment of zoning: Mary Lamy, Bill Brown, Gerald McDorman, Joan Hooper, Rich Morrison, Helen Morrison, Jim Fisherkeller, Gina Stein, Kristine Poppitz, Peter Arcidiacano, Tom Kazynsky, Katlyn Reeves, Brad Nielsen Concerns raised by the public included traffic impacts, effects on wildlife, light pollution, and the creation of "ribbons of roads" throughout the site. Others mentioned issues draf t 5 Planning Commission – November 18, 2025 – Page 4 related to multi-use trails, potential spot zoning, and the zoning designation of Parcel #2. Additional concerns focused on the safety of the proposed road grading, the project's overall purpose, the creation of low-paying jobs, and the belief that revenue generated would not stay in Estes Park. Several commenters stated that the appropriate zoning should remain low-density residential. Questions were also raised about the developer's track record from Phase I, the increased fire risk, the potential for permanent changes to the area's character, and the lack of clear community support. Chair Cooper asked if the owner plans to rezone the additional 3 acres to place the existing cabins. Planner Hornbeck stated that it was not tied to this application, although the applicant has expressed a desire to do that. Neighbors of the project living on Rock Ridge Road indicated that the Conservation easement of adjacent properties on Rock Ridge includes one 9-acre lot that is not included, but 100 acres are. Pawson noted that skipping over a zone is not good practice. He reiterated the need for a wildlife study, stated that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and expressed concerns about ridgeline protection. Mulhern stated that the developers have produced good plans for this property, and perhaps two 100-room hotels might have less impact than the possibility of 80+ residential units that could be developed under the current zoning. He also noted that many properties have been removed from the rental pool due to the Estes Park Housing Authority's purchases, and this would aid in replacing them. Arterburn's concerns were that this is not a balanced effort, given what surrounds it, and the road is a problem. It was moved and seconded (Arturburn/Pawson) to forward to the Town Board a recommendation not to approve the requested 'A' Accommodations/Highway Corridor zone district should the property be annexed. The motion passed 3-1, with Mulhern voting no. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Director Careccia discussed the Development Code update. No code writing has taken place yet. Community Engagement has been good, and reports will be available soon. There are two items on the agenda for the December 16 meeting. With no further business, Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 3:05 pm. _________________________________ Chuck Cooper, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary draf t 6 7 The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org. Memo To: Chair Cooper & Planning Commissioners Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Date: December 16, 2025 Subject: Rezoning 179 Stanley Circle Drive from E (Estate) to RM (Residential Multifamily), Town of Estes Park/Owner, Estes Park Housing Authority/Applicant Type: Quasi-Judicial, Public Hearing, Land Use Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider an application for a proposed Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) from E (Estate) to RM (Multi-Family Residential), review the application for compliance with the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), and forward a recommendation to Town Board. Present Situation: 179 Stanley Circle Drive is currently zoned E (Estate) and contains a single residence built in 1938. The Town of Estes Park purchased the property in 2001 and previously used the house for employee housing, although the house is currently vacant. At the Town Board meeting on September 9, 2025, a right-of-way vacation was approved for an adjacent portion of Stanley Circle Drive, which increased the subject property by approximately 10,584 square feet in size to its current 1-acre size. The site is located outside all mapped hazard areas (flood, fire, and geologic) and not within any mapped important wildlife habitat areas per the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use designations and zoning of surrounding properties are depicted in Figures 1 and 2. Existing surrounding uses include single family residential in the neighborhood to the west and south, accommodations to the east and north, and townhome development to the southeast. The property abuts a 95-foot-wide utility corridor owned by the Bureau of Reclamation immediately to the southeast. 8 9 Proposal: The applicant, the Estes Park Housing Authority representing the property owner, the Town of Estes Park, requests the property be rezoned from E (Estate) to RM (Multi- Family Residential) to facilitate construction of employee housing intended for Town of Estes Park employees. A conceptual site plan provided with the application depicts twelve units, surface parking, and a small storage structure. Two access points are shown off Stanley Circle Drive, including one that aligns opposite Highland Lane and one approximately 200 feet south. Advantages: The application complies with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the EPDC. In accordance with Section 3.3.D “Standards for Review” of the EPDC, all applications for rezoning shall be reviewed for compliance with the following standards and criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Staff Discussion: New Comprehensive Plan Current zoning of the property was established in 2000, which can be used as an informal benchmark for evaluating changes in conditions. Since 2000, a new comprehensive plan has been adopted with a different development pattern envisioned for the subject property. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan designated the future land use on the subject property as ‘E’ Estate, which was envisioned to allow for single-family residential development on minimum ½ acre lots. In 2022, the new comprehensive plan was adopted, changing the future land use designation to Mixed Residential Neighborhood, which envisions “mixed residential development that facilitates the coexistence of townhomes, condos, and multi-family complexes.” 10 As discussed in the Plan, the future land use map is a guide for decision-makers and serves as a framework for desired character of an area. A change in future land use designation from ‘E’ Estate to Mixed Residential Neighborhood may be viewed as fulfilling the requirement for a change in conditions to the areas affected. Neighboring Development A physical change in conditions that has occurred is the construction of the Mountain Wood Townhomes in 2019. The townhomes are located southeast of the subject parcel, separated by the Bureau of Reclamation utility corridor. That development includes seven townhomes built around an existing single-family home, with a density of approximately 14 units per acre. The density proposed with the subject development is approximately 12 units per acre. Housing Needs The challenges associated with housing in Estes Park go back decades and are well documented in the 2023 Housing Needs Assessment. However, housing has become significantly less affordable since the current zoning was established on the subject property in 2000. For example, since 2000, median sales prices of houses in Estes Park have grown from approximately $190,000 to $692,000 in 2024, a 264% increase, according to the Housing Needs Assessment and Realtor.com. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected, as outlined above. 2. The Development Plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Staff Discussion: Staff has waived the requirement for a Development Plan with the rezoning in accordance with Section 3.3.B.1 of the Estes Park Development Code in-lieu of a conceptual site plan. The conceptual plan has been reviewed by Town staff and other service and utility providers. Preliminary access points, building placement, 11 internal circulation, and fire access have been reviewed, with no major issues identified. While the Development Plan requirement has been waived, the conceptual site plan is reviewed below for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has identified relevant goals from the Plan, which are listed (or summarized) below, followed by staff comment: 1. Natural Environment • Maintain scenic character and viewsheds • Ensure open space preservation while allowing contextual development • Protect wildlife and enhance biodiversity and ecosystems • Consider and mitigate wildfire risk Staff comment: Scenic character can be protected through Development Code standards, such as open space requirements (15% of gross land area), landscaping requirements, and outdoor lighting standards. The conceptual site plan fits the context of the Stanley Avenue corridor, which includes, townhomes, single-family homes, accommodations uses, and other businesses. The site is not located within a high fire hazard area or important wildlife area per adopted maps. 2. Built Environment • Strategically direct growth toward areas of existing infrastructure • Ensure development is in harmony with its setting • Encourage a balanced mix of uses that meets the diverse needs of residents, businesses, and visitors • Coordinate and integrate land use and transportation objectives • Promote job-generating commercial land uses to support existing and future businesses Staff comment: The Future Land Use Map is a tool to strategically direct growth towards areas of existing infrastructure. Rezoning the property in accordance with the Map’s designation of Mixed Residential Neighborhood is way of implementing this goal. The site is well served by existing municipal-level infrastructure, including 12 water, sewer, and electric utilities. The site allows for efficient delivery of public services, such as road maintenance and public safety services already provided in the area. 3. Housing • Ensure new housing meets the needs of the workforce and families. • Create new housing opportunities. Staff comment: The proposed rezoning will create new housing opportunities by allowing development of twelve units that will be deed restricted for workforce housing. The conceptual site plan appears to be compatible and consistent with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Existing growth and development patterns in the surrounding area include a mix of uses. To the west is a single-family neighborhood and the Stanley Avenue corridor includes townhomes, single-family homes, accommodations uses, and other businesses. The Development Code defines compatible as: Compatible or Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. The height, scale, mass and bulk of structures will be in character with the existing area by following the RM zone district development code standards, such as the 30-foot maximum building height and setbacks of 15 feet from front and rear lot lines and ten feet from side lot lines. Similarly, landscaping, lighting, noise, and architecture of new development is expected to be compatible and consistent with the existing area. 13 Vehicular traffic will be in character with existing conditions in the area. The traffic analysis provided with the application and reviewed by Public Works concludes the impact on nearby intersections will not be significant, with an estimated five morning peak hour trips and seven afternoon peak hour trips generated. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, as well as existing growth and development patterns nearby and in the Estes Valley. Disadvantages: A potential disadvantage uncertainty whether or not Ballot Question 300 applies to this application. The ballot question was approved by voters on November 4, 2025, and certified by the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder on November 21, 2025. The ballot question stated: Shall an ordinance be adopted which states that all applications, motions or requests for rezonings and/or all planned unit developments (PUDs) will not be approved without written approval by the record owner(s) of the subject property/properties and two-thirds (2/3) of the record owner(s) of all properties five hundred feet (500 feet) or less from the outermost boundaries of the subject property/properties? The subject application was received prior to the November vote, in January, 2025. The ballot question does not state whether or not it applies to applications already received and under review. The applicant has not submitted written approval of the application by neighboring property owners in accordance with the above ballot language. The Estes Park Housing Authority, in its role as the applicant, contends the ballot question is not applicable to this application due to the application being submitted prior to the passing of the ballot question. Action Recommended: Staff finds the application meets the Standards for Review in Development Code Section 3.3.D. However, staff has no recommendation at this time as to whether Ballot Question 300 applies to this application; and therefore, is unable to offer a 14 recommendation of approval or dis proval of the application. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Town Board as it sees fit, including a recommendation on the application with or without an interpretation of the applicability of Ballot Question 300. Planning staff will forward to Town Board the Commission’s overall recommendation on the application, including the substance of the application under the review criteria of the Development Code, as well as any recommendation the Commission may have on the applicability of the ballot question. Ultimately, the Board of Trustees will take the Commission’s recommendations into consideration in taking action on the application. Finance/Resource Impact: The rezoning itself will have no finance or resource impact. Future development would require Town services beyond what are currently provided. Costs incurred by the Town for construction and operation of employee housing is outside the scope of this application. Level of Public Interest: Public interest appears moderate. A neighborhood and community meeting regarding the rezoning project was held on November 14, 2024, with approximately 20 attendees. A summary of the meeting is enclosed. In accordance with the notice requirements in the EPDC, notice of this hearing was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, on November 28, 2025. Notice was mailed to all required adjacent property owners on November 26, 2025. A sign was posted on the property by the applicant. Two public comments in oppos ition to the rezoning have been received. Any additional public comments received on the application will be posted at estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motion: 1. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval of the rezoning application. 15 3. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to deny the rezoning application, finding that … [state reasons for denial]. Attachments: 1. Statement of Intent 2. Concept Plan 3. Traffic Analysis 16 1 Statement of Intent Date: 12/5/25 Address: 179 Stanley Circle Drive Estes Park CO 80517 Parcel: 2530213920 Purpose: Rezone & Subdivision Pursuant to the requirement of the rezoning application to provide a written statement of how the proposed amendment meets the standards for review of zoning requests, as set forth in section 3.3 of the development code (see below), we are providing justification for our request. Additionally, we have provided a checklist to show the required items listed in Appendix B of the development code. “Section 3.3.D - Code Amendments Standards for Review: All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Project Information The subject property is located at 179 Stanley Circle Dr. with approximately 1.4 acres of land area after factoring in the anticipated vacation of ROW. The parcel is previously developed with one single family home. The property is zoned E (Estate, 1/2 acre minimum) per the Estes Park Zoning District Maps. The proposed project is for the re- zoning of the property from E to RM (Multi-Family: 3-8 du/acre minimum). The project will create 15 lots at approximately 0.25 acres each per townhome. Please refer to Image 1. Estes Park Zoning Map - 179 Stanley Circle Dr. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; The proposed development fits within the change of conditions in the area affected, both on a local micro level as well as a macro level. From a local level, there have been a 17 2 number of new developments in this area, including an extremely similar Townhome development directly to the southeast of this development. There is approx. a 90’ gap between this subject parcel and this referenced parcel that was recently developed into a 3 story townhome project, made up of 3 different buildings. The Holiday Inn across of Stanley Ave has also undergone a number of flag changes over the last few years, and it is now back to operating as a Holiday Inn and has the Estes Park Conference Center next door. Further development up US 7 of the Prospector Apartments by a private entity has further changed this corridor. Some of the information & data below is taken from the Estes Park Housing Brief in conjunction with the Estes Park Development Code update. The Town of Estes Park has engaged the Estes Park Housing Authority to develop employee focused housing because the Town of Estes Park has had difficulty hiring and retaining workers due to the lack of supply of housing options within the community. This has not always been the case and is a drastic change of conditions. There has been a significant shift in age in the Estes Valley over the past 10 years. We have lost almost a third of our children and 10% of working age adults, while retirees have almost doubled. About a third of workers now commute into Estes Park from outside of the Valley. The number of children in town under the age of 18 has reduced from 946 in 2010 to 641 in 2023 based on the most recent data. There is a parallel loss in businesses and services for residents (e.g. TruValue Hardware, the Nursing Home, Obstetric services at the Hospital). In 2025 the median single family home for sale had 3 bedrooms and cost $767,500 (range $310,000 -$899,800). The median attached home (townhouse, condo) had 2 bedrooms and cost $530,500 (range $419,000 - $2,550,000). Both of these data points reflect a drastic increase in purchase price over the past 10 years Estes Park needs to house workers, their families, visitors and retirees. Visitors and most, but certainly not all, retirees are well-served, but workers, their families and seasonal workers compete for an inadequate pool of housing. There are few units available for rent or ownership, and most available housing is beyond the financial reach of most workers. 2a. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan 18 3 The Comprehensive Plan provided us with the foundation & roadmap to pursue and justify this rezoning application. This parcel is designated as “Mixed Residential Neighborhood” in the comprehensive plan. The intent of this land use is as follows: “The Mixed Residential Neighborhood category accommodates high density mixed residential development that facilitates the coexistence of townhomes, condos, and multi- family complexes. It is characterized by an interconnected street network, available water and wastewater, and walkable neighborhoods that connect to commercial nodes and other neighborhoods . Mixed residential neighborhoods may include limited neighborhood- serving civic, cultural, and commercial uses. Appropriate Land Uses and Development Types » Condominium developments » Townhomes » Multi-family complexes » Limited neighborhood-serving civic, cultural, commercial uses” Our plan is to develop 12 townhome units on this property. This parcel is nearby existing infrastructure with existing water and sewer lines located in Stanley Circle Drive. For access, this property provides easy access to 2 major roadways as it is 1 block off State Highway 7 and 2 blocks from US 36. We will not need to extend any roadways nor public utilities to access this site. We plan to put curb & gutter on Stanley Circle Drive & ensure that the sidewalk to the east of the parcel remains connected for walkability and multi- modal transportation. The Mixed Residential Neighborhood also outlines the Built Form: New structures and redevelopment in this category consist of larger-scale residential buildings on a variety of lot sizes served by public water and wastewater . Density bonuses incentivize attainable workforce housing . Shallow setbacks allow for maximized use of the lot . Parking and garages should be located at the side, rear, or below structures . » Building Height: 3 - 4 stories » Block Length: 250 ft. » Primary Road Setback: 10 - 20ft . » Transportation System: This category accommodates all modes: automobile, bicycle, pedestrians, and transit . Residential streets in Mixed Residential 19 4 Neighborhoods are interconnected with double-loaded sidewalks and/ or shared- use paths for safe bicycling and walking . The plan closely aligns with these requirements, and the intent of the Town, who owns the land, is to develop it to use for employee housing. The property is served by public water & wastewater, and we plan to utilize the density bonus for workforce housing as our anticipated density is just over 9 units per acre, whereas the maximum density in multifamily residential is 8. This falls significantly short of the maximum 16 units per acre allowed utilizing the bonus density allowance in the code. In addition to reviewing the comprehensive plan and the development requirements for RM zoning, we held a neighborhood meeting to ensure that we received feedback that we could incorporate into our design from the neighbors. We presented 3 options, 2 of which were 3 story townhomes that contained garage parking. After hearing concerns of blocked sightlines, and that many tenants may use the garages as storage and park on the street, we elected to go with a 2-story option with surface parking. We are creating an attractive courtyard area between the buildings which should help encourage a community feel and connectivity with neighbors. The realignment of Stanley Circle Drive and Stanley Circle Drive intersection will allow additional greenspace and sightlines on the north side of the parcel. The plan includes bike racks and direct access to the sidewalk off of Stanley Ave. Townhall is a 0.8 mile walk which should encourage walking or biking to work. 2b. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley The development closely aligns with existing growth and development patterns, and creates an infill development that can utilize existing infrastructure. Directly to the east is the Holiday Inn Estes Park and the Estes Park Conference Center. This parcel has A zoning. To the southeast, there is Commercial Heavy which includes a self storage facility. Directly to the south is Multifamily and contains 2 & 3 story Townhomes, which will have many similarities with our development. This property was recently built which demonstrates consistency with recent development patterns in the neighborhood. To the West and southwest there is a neighborhood with Estate Zoning. This development will serve as a transition in density from high intensive uses like a conference center and a storage facility, to lower intense uses like Estate zoning. It also matches the zoning to the south and will be a similar end product. The development plan which shows the intended use of this property is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. 20 5 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Zoning District Standards: The proposed re-zoning will permit “high density mixed residential development that facilitates the coexistence of townhomes, condos, and multi-family complexes. It is characterized by an interconnected street network, available water and wastewater, and walkable neighborhoods that connect to commercial nodes and other neighborhoods.” This fits the description of the proposed development Grading/Slope Protection Standards: The average slope of the project area is anticipated to be approx 4.5%. Grading and Slope protection standards will be followed in any future development. Transportation/Parking: The proposed re-zoning and potential future development does not reach the limit of 50 peak hour trips requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis for the project. There are a total of 24 planned parking spaces, including (2) ADA compliant spaces. Access is readily available off of an existing public road. Utilities/Adequate Public Facilities: The subject property is in an area to be serviced by the following utilities: Electric- Town of Estes Park Water- Town of Estes Park Sewer- Connect to existing utility: Town of Estes Park Natural Gas- Xcel Energy Communications/Broadband- Trailblazer Broadband Proposed Utilities for future development are currently available on the property, with service providers readily able to install and connect to the above utilities. Storm Drainage- Future development would consider existing natural drainage ways and water storage areas, with a greater concentration on the north side of the parcel Mapped Hazard Areas: 21 6 The subject property is not within any mapped hazard areas for fire, flood and geologic hazard. CHAPTER 7. - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 7.1 - SLOPE PROTECTION STANDARDS This project complies with the criteria set forth in this section in the code. It is anticipated to have a density of just over 9 units per acre, whereas the maximum density in multifamily residential is 8. This falls significantly short of the maximum 16 units per acre allowed utilizing the bonus density allowance in the code. There are portions of the site in which the existing grades exceed 30% and will require review by staff. Other areas of compliance with this section of the code include limiting area of disturbance to the maximum extent possible, shared driveways with compliant slopes are provided to access all of the lots, and slope stability shall not be worsened with the development of this site. 7.2 - GRADING AND SITE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS This project is anticipated to abide by grading standards set forth in the development code. The limits of disturbance have been determined in order to provide the least impact to areas surrounding the site. 7.3 - TREE AND VEGETATION PROTECTION The development is preserving as many trees as feasibly possible, including 2 large mature tree that front Stanley Circle Drive. These two trees are very close together. Adjustments have been made to the plans & access road to preserve as many existing trees as possible, while accounting for setback restrictions related to the ROW, utility easements, and parking lot alignment to name a few. 7.4 - PUBLIC TRAILS AND PRIVATE OPEN AREA This project will exceed the minimum requirements of 0.0094 acres per unit for open space on the site. There will be substantial open space on the northern end of the site, 22 7 7.5 - LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS We have coordinated a landscape buffer on the south side other parcel with Estes Park Sanitation District who has a sanitation line that runs along the property border that is not in an easement. The development will provide the requested 20’ utility easement which will be offset 12’ to the north & 8’ to the south which was approved at the Sanitation District board meeting in August 2025. We have structured the landscaping buffer on the south side by staying out of this easement & utilizing peninsulas’ in the parking lot that can support trees for this buffer. Buffers on the east side, which abuts land owned by the Federal Gov’t is also satisfied. 7.6 - WETLANDS AND STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION There are no wetlands on site. 7.7 - GEOLOGIC AND WILDFIRE HAZARD AREAS The subject parcel does not fall within a designated Wildfire Hazard area. The subject parcel does not fall within a geologic Hazard Area. 7.8 - WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION The project is subject to, and committed to complying with the wildlife habitat protection that is outlined in this section of the code. Upon reviewing the Estes Valley Comp plan map, this subject parcel falls outside of “High use ungulate habitat” for Big Horn Sheep, Deer, & Elk. Based upon the research of the development team, it does not fall within any Colorado Division of Wildlife Habitat maps. 7.9 - EXTERIOR LIGHTING Exterior lighting for the project will be limited to wall mounted sconces entry light fixtures with full cutoff and Dark-Sky compliant. 7.10 - OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 23 8 The CC&R’s and building design that are part of this development will ensure that operational performance standards are met. Noise shall comply with the Larimer County & Estes Park Standards. Trash and delivery areas will be property designed for operational performance standards. The submitted lighting plan outlined in 7.9 will ensure adherence to the location, intensity, and hours of illumination 7.11 - OFF-STREET PARKING This development will contain 12 townhome dwelling units. The EPDC requires 2 parking spaces per unit, resulting in 24 parking spaces. The parking is planned to be a mix of surface parking & carport parking that also contains a storage area. This approach was in large part dictated by feedback from the neighborhood during our neighborhood meeting on 11/14/24. The neighbors had a poor experience with the parking situation with the development to the south and also expressed concerns of a 3-story building blocking their views of the valley & lake. The parking issues raised were based upon tenants utilizing their garages as storage rather than parking, and resulted in parked cars throughout the area, rather than on site. Therefore, using this feedback, the development team created a 2- story development with onsite parking to avoid the potential misuse of garage space. 7.12 - ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES Through communication with various town departments, including but not limited to sanitary sewer, water, fire, stormwater, public works, and electric, to ensure that there are adequate public facilities available to service this site. The addition of vacated ROW on the north side of the site will allow for additional drainage and retention capacity. Public works indicated that downstream calculations & existing pipelines and capacity related to drainage will be completed further in the process. 7.13 - OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS, ACTIVITIES AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT This development will follow the standards outlined above for outdoor storage areas, activities, and mechanical systems by providing appropriate screening where & when necessary 24 9 7.14 - MOBILE HOME PARK Not Applicable 7.15 - RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) PARK/CAMPGROUND Not Applicable CHAPTER 10. SUBDIVISION STANDARDS 10.4 - LOTS The proposed lot area/size, width, depth, shape and orientation are appropriate for the location of the subdivision, and for the type of development and use contemplated. The lots are designed to the Townhome standards listed in 10.H.5.7 of the EPDC. Lot areas comply with the minimum requirements of the EPDC. Building site & access are shown on the site plans. Site access has been adjusted to align with the anticipated updated terminus of Highland Lane based upon the proposed updated ROW. There are no flag, flagpole, double frontage, or reverse frontage lots proposed in this development. Side lot lines are substantial at right angles to the driveway that accesses the lot. 10.5 - SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS The Comprehensive Plan provided us with the foundation & roadmap to pursue and justify this rezoning application. This parcel is designated as “Mixed Residential Neighborhood” in the comprehensive plan. The intent of this land use is as follows: “The Mixed Residential Neighborhood category accommodates high density mixed residential development that facilitates the coexistence of townhomes, condos, and multi- family complexes. It is characterized by an interconnected street network, available water and wastewater, and walkable neighborhoods that connect to commercial nodes and other 25 10 neighborhoods . Mixed residential neighborhoods may include limited neighborhood- serving civic, cultural, and commercial uses. Appropriate Land Uses and Development Types » Condominium developments » Townhomes » Multi-family complexes » Limited neighborhood-serving civic, cultural, commercial uses” Our plan is to develop 12 townhome units on this property. This parcel is nearby existing infrastructure with existing water and sewer lines located in Stanley Circle Drive. For access, this property provides easy access to 2 major roadways as it is 1 block off of State Highway 7 and 2 blocks from US 36. We will not need to extend any roadways nor public utilities to access this site. We plan to put curb & gutter on Stanley Circle Drive & ensure that the sidewalk to the east of the parcel remains connected for walkability and multi-modal transportation. The Mixed Residential Neighborhood also outlines the Built Form: New structures and redevelopment in this category consist of larger-scale residential buildings on a variety of lot sizes served by public water and wastewater . Density bonuses incentivize attainable workforce housing . Shallow setbacks allow for maximized use of the lot . Parking and garages should be located at the side, rear, or below structures . » Building Height: 3 - 4 stories » Block Length: 250 ft. » Primary Road Setback: 10 - 20ft . » Transportation System: This category accommodates all modes: automobile, bicycle, pedestrians, and transit . Residential streets in Mixed Residential Neighborhoods are interconnected with double-loaded sidewalks and/ or shared- use paths for safe bicycling and walking . The plan closely aligns with these requirements, and the intent of the Town, who owns the land, is to develop it to use for employee housing. The property is served by public water & wastewater. Our anticipated density is just over 9 units per acre, whereas the maximum density in multifamily residential is 8. This falls significantly short of the maximum 16 units per acre allowed utilizing the bonus density allowance in the code. In 26 11 addition to reviewing the comprehensive plan and the development requirements for RM zoning, we held a neighborhood meeting to ensure that we received feedback that we could incorporate into our design from the neighbors. We presented 3 options, 2 of which were 3 story townhomes that contained garage parking. After hearing concerns of blocked sightlines, and that many tenants may use the garages as storage and park on the street, we elected to go with a 2-story option with surface parking. We are creating an attractive courtyard area between the buildings which should help encourage a community feel and connectivity with neighbors. The realignment of Stanley Circle Drive and Stanley Circle Drive intersection will allow additional greenspace and sightlines on the north side of the parcel. The plan includes bike racks and direct access to the sidewalk off of Stanley Ave. Townhall is a 0.8 mile walk which should encourage walking or biking to work. Hazard Areas The subject parcel does not fall within a designated Wildfire Hazard area. The subject parcel does not fall within a geologic Hazard Area. Off-Site Utilities and Services Through communication with various town departments, including but not limited to sanitary sewer, water, fire, stormwater, public works, and electric, to ensure that there are adequate public facilities available to service this site. Plans for Remainder Parcels There are no remainder Parcels Orientation of Land Uses The property has a single land use. The improvements are oriented in a manner that will provide the maximum convenience to the residents, protect the surrounding property values, provide adequate access by public roads and provide for the general health and welfare of the immediate area and the general community. The town intends to utilize these units as employee rental housing in the short term. The development team is planning to subdivide the property and provide individual utility services to each unit. This will allow greater flexibility to the Town of Estes in the long term, and provide a project that 27 12 is anticipated to have resiliency in value to best suit the ever changing needs of the Estes Park Community Improvements & Reserved Strips Prohibited Understood & Acknowledged B. Compliance With Zoning Requirements. 1. Compliance with Zoning Development Standards The general layout of lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities and other services within the proposed subdivision are be designed in a manner that minimizes the land disturbance, maximizes the amount of open space in the development, preserves existing trees/vegetation, avoids hazard areas, and otherwise accomplishes the purposes and intent of this Code and of the zoning district within which the subdivision is located. Please see the SOI responses to sections 7.1-7.15 for additional detail 2. Establishment of Limits of Disturbance During the Subdivision Process. The limits of disturbance are designated on the preliminary subdivision plat pursuant to the standards are requirements set forth in 7.2.D. C. Streets There are no streets proposed to be constructed with the development. We have 2 parking lots to serve the development, and these are separated as much as possible to ensure that the southern egress is as far south as possible, and the northern egress aligns with the anticipated updated terminus of Highland Drive. D. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails The development proposes a sidewalk along the frontage of Stanley Circle Drive to the west. The sidewalk and cub & gutter plan to the north & northeast is anticipated to be 28 13 determined through further conversation and coordination with Public Works and the adjustment of the intersection of Stanley Circle Drive & Stanley Circle Drive. E. Utility Standards Water Mains and Fire Hydrants The development will have sufficient water access for Fire. It is not expected that the project will be required to add a fire hydrant, however it will do so if required. Electric and Street Lighting Systems The development will install electric service and distribution systems. There are no additional street lighting anticipated Sanitary Sewer Systems This development will comply with the public facilities standards addressing sanitary sewers/sewage disposal set forth in §7.12.D of this EPDC. Each individual unit is proposed to have its own service line. These lines will feed into an existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the site. Additionally, an easement will be placed for the existing sanitary sewer line that exists on the south side of the property, but does not currently have an easement. Underground Utilities Underground utilities Telephone lines, electric lines, cable television lines and other similar telecommunications or utility services shall be placed underground and will follow the standards outlined in the Estes Park code Easements Utility easements will be dedicated as required by each respective utility. This includes adjusting the existing sanitary sewer easement to facilitate access. Stormwater Drainage Stormwater will have stormwater quality controls to ensure proper cleaning of the stormwater prior to entering the Town of Estes drainage system. Further calculations will 29 14 be completed by the developers site engineer. Coordination with the town will take place to determine if existing infrastructure can handle the flow from the site. Water Systems and Fire Safety Standards The subdivision will comply with the minimum standards and technical procedures applicable to both water systems and fire safety Private Open Areas and Trails Please see explanation at 7.4 for public trails and open space Vegetation Protection The layout of the lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities are completed in a manor that minimizes the land disturbance and preserves existing trees/vegetation, while also balancing the need to stay away from existing easements, utilities, the ROW, and setbacks on the road frontage. The project shall replace any landscaping that is damaged or dies within the first (2) growing seasons Townhome projects This development is a townhome project with townhome lots. The development team shall submit preliminary and final subdivision plans as part of this process that shall be reviewed in accordance with the applicable procedures set forth in Chapter 3 of the EPDC. A homeowners association will be established for the maintenance of common property and facilities. Townhomes are allowed in MF zoning which is what the development is applying for. Outlot(s) will be created on the property and will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The development fits the standards for minimum lot sizes and follows all setback requirements. The average lot coverage throughout the development meets the 80% threshold and the maximum attached units for each townhome building is 4. Monuments 30 15 Monuments shall be performed to the standards of the State of Colorado and will be replaced if any monument is disturbed or destroyed before the acceptance of all improvements shall be replaced. As-Built Drawings As built drawings shall be submitted upon the completion of construction but prior to the release of performance guarantees Public Improvements If public improvements are triggered, it is acknowledged that all improvements required by this Code for any subdivision must be installed or upgraded as specified, or the installation or upgrading of such improvements must be guaranteed by the subdivider or developer, as hereinafter provided. All improvements must be completely installed, upgraded or a guarantee filed with the Staff prior to the approval of the final plat. This will be done with either a surety bond, a deposit of cash, or an irrevocable letter of credit. It is further understood that time for completion of all required improvements shall be 2 years from the date of the approval of the final map or plat. However, the Boards may extend such time for completion upon request from the subdivider. Upon completion of such improvements within the required time and approval thereof by the Board, the Staff shall cause the bond, cash or letter of credit to be released within thirty (30) days of the acceptance of such improvements by the Town or County and receipt of the required as- built drawings. A warranty for all workmanship and materials for all required improvements shall be warranted by the subdivider for a period of two (2) years from the date of acceptance of the required improvement by the Town. 31 179 Stanley Circle Drive Estes Park CO 80517 BA S 1 S . c o m 97 0 . 5 8 6 . 9 1 4 0 1692 Big Thompson Ave. Suite 100 Estes Park, CO 80517 Sheet Title:Sheet Title: Concept Site Plan Town of Estes Park/EPHA Stanley Circle Townhomes A1 Sheet No: R e Z o n i n g C o n c e p t S i t e Ex h i b i t Da t e : 11 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 5 Ar c h i t e c t u r e , P . C . © BA S I S A R C H I T E C T U R E P. C. >22' +/- 33' +/- 38' +/- 201' +/- 182' (e) TREE TO BE PRESERVED PARKING ENTRY ALIGNED w/ HIGHLAND LANE DISTRICT BUFFER PLANTING (e) SEWER MAIN NEW 10' EASEMENT STORAGE STRUCTURE CARPORT ROOF ST A N L E Y A V E N U E STANLEY CIRCLE DRIVE HIGHLAND LANE STANLEY CIRCLE DRIVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 N 1 1" = 40' Concept Site Exhibit 32 A2.0 Sheet No: Sheet Title: Date: Issue: Units 1-4 SE 11/25/2025 ReZoning Set To w n o f E s t e s P a r k / E P H A 17 9 S t a n l e y C i r c l e D r i v e Es t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 St a n l e y C i r c l e T o w n h o m e s Es t e s P a r k , C o l o r a d o 8 0 5 1 7 16 9 2 B i g T h o m p s o n A v e , S u i t e 1 0 0 970.586.9140 A R C H I T E C T U R E P . C . Architecture, P.C. © BAS1S BAS1S.com DW F DW FDWF DW F UP UP UP UP BDRM #3/OFFICE 10'-5" x 10'-4" BATH 5'-10" x 5'-10" CL 4' x 2' KITCHEN 10'-8" x 9'-3" DINING 10'-8" x 8' LIVING 10'-3" x 13'-9" COATS 3' x 2' BATH 4' x 7'-9" KITCHEN 10'-8" x 9'-3" DINING 11'-8" x 8'-5" LIVING 11'-8" x 13' COATS 3' x 2' PATIO 9' x 7'-6" PATIO 7'-2" x 9' BATH 4' x 7'-9" KITCHEN 10'-8" x 9'-3" DINING 11'-8" x 8'-5" LIVING 11'-8" x 13' COATS 3' x 2' PATIO 9' x 7'-6" BATH 4' x 7'-9" KITCHEN 10'-8" x 9'-3" DINING 11'-8" x 8'-5" LIVING 11'-8" x 13' COATS 3' x 2' PATIO 9' x 7'-6" ENTRY 9' x 5' 9'-2 1/2"12'-8"12'-8"9'-2 1/2"21'-10 1/2"21'-10 1/2" 31 ' - 9 " 87'-6" BENCH FOUR BEDROOM TYPE 'B' GROUND FLR: 640SF UPPER FOOR: 640SF TOTAL: 1280 SF THREE BEDROOM GROUND FLR: 570SF UPPER FOOR: 640SF TOTAL: 1210 SF W/D W D W D W D W D BDRM #3 10'-8" x 12'-5" BDRM #2 10'-8" x 11'-8" BATH 9'-10" x 5' LAUNDRY 3' x 5'-2" CL 7' x 3'-5" CL 7' x 2' LIN 3'-4" x 2' BDRM #4 9'-10" x 9' UTIL 3' x 2' LIN 3' x 2' M BDRM 10'-8" x 12'-5" BDRM #2 10'-8" x 11'-8" BATH 9'-10" x 5' LAUNDRY 3' x 5'-2" CL 7' x 3'-5" CL 7' x 2' LIN 3'-4" x 2' BDRM #3 9'-10" x 9'-1" UTIL 3' x 2' LIN 3' x 2' CL 6'-4" x 2' M BDRM 10'-8" x 12'-5" BDRM #2 10'-8" x 11'-8" BDRM #3 9'-10" x 9'-1" CL 6'-4" x 2' CL 7' x 3'-5" CL 7' x 2' LIN 3'-4" x 2' LAUNDRY 3' x 5'-2" LIN 3' x 2' UTIL 3' x 2' BATH 9'-10" x 5' M BDRM 10'-8" x 12'-5" BDRM #2 10'-8" x 11'-8" BDRM #3 9'-10" x 9'-1" CL 6'-4" x 2' CL 7' x 3'-5" CL 7' x 2' LIN 3'-4" x 2' LAUNDRY 3' x 5'-2" LIN 3' x 2' UTIL 3' x 2' BATH 9'-10" x 5' 87'-6" 21'-10 1/2"21'-10 1/2"21'-10 1/2"21'-10 1/2" 31 ' - 9 " DN DN DN DN N N 1 1/8" = 1'-0" Units 1-4 Ground Floor 2 1/8" = 1'-0" Units 1-4 Upper Floor 3 Typical ext light fixture RE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR LOCATIONS 2,575SF GROSS 2,780SF GROSS UNIT MIX ALL BUILDINGS UNITS 1-4 TYPE 'B' ACCESSIBLE, 4 BDRM (1) UNIT 1,280SF EA VISITABLE GROUND FLR, 3 BDRM (3) UNITS 1,210SF EA UNITS 5-8 VISITABLE GROUND FLR, 3 BDRM (4) UNITS 1,155SF EA UNITS 9-10 VISITABLE GROUND FLR, 3 BDRM (2) UNITS 1,155SF EA UNITS 11-12 VISITABLE GROUND FLR, 3 BDRM (1) UNIT 1,210SF EA TYPE 'B' ACCESSIBLE, 4 BDRM (1) UNIT 1,280SF EA 33 A2.1 Sheet No: Sheet Title: Date: Issue: Units 5-8 NE, Carports Storage 11/25/2025 ReZoning Set To w n o f E s t e s P a r k / E P H A 17 9 S t a n l e y C i r c l e D r i v e Es t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 St a n l e y C i r c l e T o w n h o m e s Es t e s P a r k , C o l o r a d o 8 0 5 1 7 16 9 2 B i g T h o m p s o n A v e , S u i t e 1 0 0 970.586.9140 A R C H I T E C T U R E P . C . Architecture, P.C. © BAS1S BAS1S.com DW F WDW F WDW F W DW F W UPUPUP UP KITCHEN 10'-5" x 8'-6" LIVING 13' x 12' DINING 9' x 8' ENTRY 6'-10" x 5'-9" COAT 2' x 2' PATIO 7'-8" x 8' LAUNDRY 9' x 6' KITCHEN 10'-5" x 8'-6" LIVING 13' x 12' DINING 9' x 8' ENTRY 6'-10" x 5'-9" COAT 2' x 2' PATIO 7'-8" x 8' LAUNDRY 9' x 6' KITCHEN 10'-5" x 8'-6" LIVING 13' x 12' DINING 9' x 8' ENTRY 6'-10" x 5'-9" COAT 2' x 2' PATIO 7'-8" x 8' LAUNDRY 9' x 6'PWD 8'-8" x 4' P 4' x 2 ' LI N 4' x 2 ' PWD 8'-8" x 4' P 4' x 2 ' LI N 4' x 2 ' PWD 8'-8" x 4' P 4' x 2 ' LI N 4' x 2 ' KITCHEN 10'-5" x 8'-6" LIVING 13' x 12' DINING 9' x 8' ENTRY 6'-10" x 5'-9" COAT 2' x 2' PATIO 7'-8" x 8' LAUNDRY 9' x 6'PWD 8'-8" x 4' P 4' x 2 ' LI N 4' x 2 ' 29'-9 1/2"29'-9 1/2"29'-9 1/2"29'-9 1/2" 119'-2" 21 ' - 9 " 14'-0"8'-0"21'-9 1/2"8'-0"15'-7"8'-0"21'-9 1/2"8'-0"14'-0" ELEC WH ELEC WH ELEC WH THREE BEDROOM GROUND FLR: 560SF UPPER FLOOR: 595SF TOTAL: 1155SF ELEC WH DDD D UPUPUP BDRM #3 11' x 10'-4" BDRM #2 11' x 10' M BDRM 11'-5" x 10' BATH 8' x 6'-11" CL 3'-2" x 5'-10" CL 2' x 5'-5" CL 2' x 6'-10" LIN 2'-2" x 1'-6"BDRM #3 11' x 10'-4" BDRM #2 11' x 10' M BDRM 11'-5" x 10' BATH 8' x 6'-11" CL 3'-2" x 5'-10" CL 2' x 5'-5" CL 2' x 6'-10" LIN 2'-2" x 1'-6"BDRM #3 11' x 10'-4" BDRM #2 11' x 10' M BDRM 11'-5" x 10' BATH 8' x 6'-11" CL 3'-2" x 5'-10" CL 2' x 5'-5" CL 2' x 6'-10" LIN 2'-2" x 1'-6"BDRM #3 11' x 10'-4" BDRM #2 11' x 10' M BDRM 11'-5" x 10' BATH 8' x 6'-11" CL 3'-2" x 5'-10" CL 2' x 5'-5" CL 2' x 6'-10" LIN 2'-2" x 1'-6" 21 ' - 9 " 119'-2" 29'-9 1/2"29'-9 1/2"29'-9 1/2"29'-9 1/2" DN DN 37'-6"17'-0"37'-6" 18 ' - 0 " STORAGE (8 FENCE CAGES) (4) PARKING SPACES(4) PARKING SPACES 18 ' - 0 " 6' - 6 " 24 ' - 6 " 38'-0" 9'-6" 9'-6"9'-6"9'-6" STORAGESTORAGE STORAGE STORAGE (4) PARKING SPACES DARK SKY EXT. LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING, TYP. 12 2 FIBER CEMENT CORNERBOARDS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING, TYP. FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING, TYP. 12 2 FIBER CEMENT CORNER BOARDS, TYP. FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING, TYP. N N N N 1 1/8" = 1'-0" Units 5-8 Ground Floor 2 1/8" = 1'-0" Units 5-8 Upper Floor 3 1/8" = 1'-0" South Carport/Storage 4 1/8" = 1'-0" North Carport/Storage 5 1/8" = 1'-0" North Elev.6 1/8" = 1'-0" East Elev 7 1/8" = 1'-0" South Elev.8 1/8" = 1'-0" East Elev 2,465SF GROSS 2,645SF GROSS 34 A2.2 Sheet No: Sheet Title: Date: Issue: Units 9-12 West, Trash Enclosure 11/25/2025 ReZoning Set To w n o f E s t e s P a r k / E P H A 17 9 S t a n l e y C i r c l e D r i v e Es t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 St a n l e y C i r c l e T o w n h o m e s Es t e s P a r k , C o l o r a d o 8 0 5 1 7 16 9 2 B i g T h o m p s o n A v e , S u i t e 1 0 0 970.586.9140 A R C H I T E C T U R E P . C . Architecture, P.C. © BAS1S BAS1S.com DW F W DW F W UP UP DINING 9' x 8' PATIO 7'-8" x 8' COAT 2' x 2' LAUNDRY 9' x 6'KITCHEN 10'-5" x 8'-6" LIVING 13' x 12'ENTRY 6'-9" x 5'-9" PWD 8'-8" x 4' P 4' x 2 ' LI N 4' x 2 ' DINING 9' x 8' COAT 2' x 2' LAUNDRY 9' x 6'KITCHEN 10'-5" x 8'-6" LIVING 13' x 12'ENTRY 6'-9" x 5'-9" PWD 8'-8" x 4' P 4' x 2 ' LI N 4' x 2 ' PATIO 7'-8" x 8' 59'-7" 29'-9 1/2"29'-9 1/2" 21 ' - 9 " ELEC WH ELEC WH THREE BEDROOM GROUND FLR: 560SF UPPER FOOR: 595SF TOTAL: 1155 SF D D BDRM #3 11' x 10'-4" BDRM #2 11' x 10' M BDRM 11'-5" x 10' BATH 8' x 6'-11" CL 3'-2" x 5'-10" CL 2' x 5'-5" CL 2' x 6'-10" LIN 2'-2" x 1'-6" BDRM #3 11' x 10'-4" BDRM #2 11' x 10' M BDRM 11'-5" x 10' BATH 8' x 6'-11" CL 3'-2" x 5'-10" CL 2' x 5'-5" CL 2' x 6'-10" LIN 2'-2" x 1'-6" 21 ' - 9 " 59'-7" 29'-9 1/2"29'-9 1/2" UP DW F DW F UP BDRM #3/OFFICE 10'-5" x 10'-4" BATH 5'-10" x 5'-10" CL 4' x 2' KITCHEN 10'-8" x 9'-3" DINING 10'-8" x 8' LIVING 10'-3" x 13'-9" COATS 3' x 2' BATH 4' x 7'-9" KITCHEN 10'-8" x 9'-3" DINING 11'-8" x 8'-5" LIVING 11'-8" x 13' PANTRY 3' x 2' PATIO 9' x 7'-6" PATIO 7'-2" x 9' COATS 3' x 2' ENTRY 7'-10" x 7'-3" 12'-8"9'-2 1/2"21'-10 1/2" 31 ' - 9 " 43'-9" 7' - 8 " 24 ' - 1 " BENCH FOUR BEDROOM TYPE 'B' GROUND FLR: 640SF UPPER FOOR: 640SF TOTAL: 1280 SF THREE BEDROOM GROUND FLR: 570SF UPPER FOOR: 640SF TOTAL: 1210 SF W/D W D W D M BDRM 10'-8" x 12'-5" BDRM #2 10'-8" x 11'-8" BATH 9'-10" x 5' LAUNDRY 3' x 5'-2" CL 7' x 3'-5" CL 7' x 2' LIN 3'-4" x 2' BDRM #3 9'-10" x 9'-1" UTIL 3' x 2' LIN 3' x 2' CL 6'-4" x 2' BDRM #3 10'-8" x 12'-5" BDRM #2 10'-8" x 11'-8" BATH 9'-10" x 5' CL 7' x 2' LIN 3'-4" x 2' CL 7' x 3'-5" LAUNDRY 3' x 5'-2" UTIL 3' x 2' LIN 3' x 2' BDRM #4 9'-10" x 9' 43'-9" 21'-10 1/2"21'-10 1/2" 31 ' - 9 " DN DN 11'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 5'-6" 5'-6" TRASH/ RECYCLING 8' - 0 " STEEL DOORS PAINTED FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING DARK SKY LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP 12 2 9' - 0 " FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING N N N 1 1/8" = 1'-0" Units 9&10 Ground Floor 2 1/8" = 1'-0" Units 9&10 Upper Floor 3 1/8" = 1'-0" Units 11&12 Ground Floor 4 1/8" = 1'-0" Units 11&12 Upper Floor 5 1/8" = 1'-0" Trash Enclosure 6 1/8" = 1'-0" Trash Front Elev. 7 1/8" = 1'-0" Trash Side Elev. 1,230SF GROSS 1,295SF GROSS 1,320SF GROSS 1,390SF GROSS 35 A3.0 Sheet No: Sheet Title: Date: Issue: Units 1-4 Elevations 11/25/2025 ReZoning Set To w n o f E s t e s P a r k / E P H A 17 9 S t a n l e y C i r c l e D r i v e Es t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 St a n l e y C i r c l e T o w n h o m e s Es t e s P a r k , C o l o r a d o 8 0 5 1 7 16 9 2 B i g T h o m p s o n A v e , S u i t e 1 0 0 970.586.9140 A R C H I T E C T U R E P . C . Architecture, P.C. © BAS1S BAS1S.com 12 10 12 4 12 10 12 10 12 10 12 426 ' - 4 " Bl d g H t . 6' - 6 " TY P . LINE OF APX. EXIST GRADE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT BOARD + BATTEN PROPOSED GRADE DARK SKY LIGHT FIXTURE AT ENTRY TYP Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" Ground Floor EL: 103'-0" Second Floor EL: 113'-1 3/4" Avg Highest Roof EL: 126'-4" Avg Grade EL: 100'-0" 12 8 12 4 12 8 LINE OF APX. EXIST GRADE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT BOARD + BATTEN RECESSED CAN LIGHTING IN ALCOVES, TYP APX. PROP. GRADE Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" 6' - 6 " APPROX. EXIST. GRADE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP DARK SKY LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP ENTRY ROOFS BEYOND Ground Floor EL: 103'-0" Second Floor EL: 113'-1 3/4" 12 4 FIBER CEMENT B&B SIDING FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT TRIM BANDS, TYP. Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" 1 1/8" = 1'-0" West Elevation 4 1/8" = 1'-0" East Elevation 2 1/8" = 1'-0" South Elevation3 1/8" = 1'-0" North Elevation 36 A3.1 Sheet No: Sheet Title: Date: Issue: Units 5-8 Elevations 11/25/2025 ReZoning Set To w n o f E s t e s P a r k / E P H A 17 9 S t a n l e y C i r c l e D r i v e Es t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 St a n l e y C i r c l e T o w n h o m e s Es t e s P a r k , C o l o r a d o 8 0 5 1 7 16 9 2 B i g T h o m p s o n A v e , S u i t e 1 0 0 970.586.9140 A R C H I T E C T U R E P . C . Architecture, P.C. © BAS1S BAS1S.com 12 8 12 8 6" FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDINGFIBER CEMENT BOARD + BATTEN PROPOSED GRADE DARK SKY LIGHT FIXTURE AT ENTRY TYP RECESSED CAN LIGHT FIXTURE AT ALCOVES TYP Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" Ground Floor EL: 103'-0" Second Floor EL: 113'-1 3/4" 12 8 12 8 12 8 12 8 26 ' - 4 " Bl d g . H t . LINE OF EXIST GRADE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT BOARD + BATTENFIBER CEMENT BLANK PANEL PROPOSED GRADE Ground Floor EL: 103'-0" Second Floor EL: 113'-1 3/4" Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" Avg Highest Roof EL: 126'-4" Avg Grade EL: 100'-0" 12 4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING PROPOSED GRADE EXIST GRADE Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" 12 4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING PROPOSED GRADE EXIST GRADE 1 1/8" = 1'-0" West Elevation 4 1/8" = 1'-0" East Elevation 3 1/8" = 1'-0" North Elevation 2 1/8" = 1'-0" South Elevation 37 A3.2 Sheet No: Sheet Title: Date: Issue: Units 9-12 Elevations 11/25/2025 ReZoning Set To w n o f E s t e s P a r k / E P H A 17 9 S t a n l e y C i r c l e D r i v e Es t e s P a r k , C O 8 0 5 1 7 St a n l e y C i r c l e T o w n h o m e s Es t e s P a r k , C o l o r a d o 8 0 5 1 7 16 9 2 B i g T h o m p s o n A v e , S u i t e 1 0 0 970.586.9140 A R C H I T E C T U R E P . C . Architecture, P.C. © BAS1S BAS1S.com 12 812 8 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING BOARD + BATTENFIBER CEMENT BLANK PANEL LINE OF APX. EXIST. GRADE APX. PROP. GRADE Ground Floor EL: 101'-0" Second Floor EL: 111'-2 3/4" 12 8 12 8 24 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " Bl d g . H t . LINE OF APX. EXIST GRADE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT BOARD + BATTEN PROPOSED GRADE DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE AT ENTRIES, TYP EXTERIOR RECESSED CAN LIGHT FIXTURE AT ALCOVES, TYP Ground Floor EL: 101'-0" Second Floor EL: 111'-2 3/4" Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" Avg Highest Roof EL: 124'-5 3/4" Avg Grade EL: 99'-7" 12 4 Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" 12 4 PROPOSED GRADE APX. EXIST GRADE Ground Floor EL: 101'-0" Second Floor EL: 111'-1 3/4" 12 8 12 4 12 8 12 4 26 ' - 4 1 / 4 " Bl d g . H t . LINE OF APX. FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT BOARD + BATTEN RECESSED CAN LIGHTING IN ALCOVES, TYP FIBER CEMENT TRIM BAND Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" Avg. Highest Roof EL: 126'-4 1/4" Avg. Grade EL: 100'-0" Ground Floor EL: 102'-0" Second Floor EL: 112'-1 3/4" LINE OF APX. EXIST GRADE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING Ground Floor EL: 102'-0" Second Floor EL: 112'-1 3/4" 12 8 12 4 12 8 LINE OF APX. EXIST GRADE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDINGFIBER CEMENT BOARD + BATTEN APX. PROP. GRADE LINE OF APX. EXIST GRADE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING APX. PROP. GRADE FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTEN SIDING Ground Floor EL: 100'-0" Second Floor EL: 110'-1 3/4" 3 1/8" = 1'-0" West Elevation 1 1/8" = 1'-0" East Elevation 4 1/8" = 1'-0" North Elevation 2 1/8" = 1'-0" South Elevation 5 1/8" = 1'-0" East Elevation6 1/8" = 1'-0" South Elevation 7 1/8" = 1'-0" West Elevation8 1/8" = 1'-0" North Elevation 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Raymond & Luzia Sahm 700 Highland Ln, Estes Park, Co For Against Neutral 179 Stanley Circle Dr Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. We are requesting you NOT to push rezoning from E-1 to RM for 179 Stanley Circle Drive. Building high density townhomes in a single family area will forever ruin the character of this neighborhood. We are asking you to make the decent decision and NOT recommend rezoning the property at 179 Stanley Circle Drive. The town people have spoken and the spirit of Ballot Issue 300 is very much at play here. We ask you to look deep into yourselves and follow the spirit of Ballot Issues 300 and be of high moral character and respect the community by NOT making a rezoning recommendation until Ballot Issue 300 can be applied. Thank you for taking the time to consider this. 46 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. John J. Antel 585b Audubon, Estes Park 80517 For Against Neutral 179 Stanley Circle Dr Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. To: Estes Park Planning Commission Members Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rezone of 179 Stanley Circle Drive I want file an objection to the application of “spot zoning” in general. I live in the Crags Subdivision near the Lodge. My neighbors and I are of course very concerned about the future of the Lodge property. The Lodge building is a historical building and thus protected by law. The surrounding property is our concern. Could “spot zoning” be used to build a midrise hotel or parking structure? I hope not. Would this permit establish a precedent that would compromise our zoning laws and private property rights? I encourage you to vote no and press for limitations or prohibition of arbitrary spot zoning. John J. Antel 585b Audubon Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Kristine L. Poppitz 650 Devon Dr For Against Neutral 179 Stanley Circle Dr Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Dear Planning Commissioners, I am opposed to this re-zoning request. Some Citizens have seen and heard many iterations and have heard numerous options for this property. I think that it is very important for an Applicant to have a firm plan prior to a re-zoning request for full transparency for all. Re-zoning just to re-zone makes no sense. Please do not recommend this application. Thank you, KLP Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Richard Ralph For Against Neutral 179 Stanley Circle Dr Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. Objection Letter to Estes Park Planning Commission.docx 18.36KB 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. A dense collection of townhomes with their rears facing the street, in a uniformly zoned E neighborhood is not inconsistent use of the property. The proposed rezoning constitutes “spot zoning” – creating an isolated, inconsistent land use. This amendment is not necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. The application is not complete. The Statement of Intent prevents an adequate review by the Planning Commission. I consequently demand that the Planning Commission does NOT RECOMMEND the application. 12/12/25 – Richard Ralph To: Estes Park Planning Commission Members Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rezone of 179 Stanely Circle Drive This letter is provided according to my right to provide public comments on matters before the Estes Park Planning Commission. I object to proposed rezoning of the subject property and request that you NOT RECOMMEND this change. The proposed purpose of the property is not consistent with the rest of the lots along Stanley Circle Drive that are zoned E with single family homes facing the street. The subject lot is separated from the Holiday Inn by a parking lot, Stanley Avenue, and right of way. Rezoning and using it as employee housing would not address workforce housing, would diminish property values in the neighborhood. Statement of Intent dated 12/5/25 pages 1 and 2 discuss the applicant’s basis for meeting the first standard of review, “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected.” The first local level change is described as a recently completed townhome development (zoned RM). The subject lot is separated from the RM development to its south by ninety feet of open land that contains widely spaced electricity transmission towers and underground water conduits. The subject lot is contiguous to the existing Stanley Circle Drive neighborhood, and the neighborhood should not have a dense housing development or commercial uses permitted in RM zoned lots imposed on it as “spot zoning.” The second local level change is described as a change in ownership of the present Holiday Inn. The last deed registered with that property is dated November 11, 2016. This is not a valid local level change. A third local level change is described as apartment built 1.2 miles away along State Highway 7. The applicant wishes us to believe that building apartments over a mile away is basis for rezoning. Additionally, the applicant states on page two “The Town of Estes Park had difficulty hiring and retaining workers due to the lack of supply of housing options. The development code Appendix A, Estes Valley Zoning Districts Map depicts many options in districts zoned RM, R, and E. The options are broad and have existed for well over ten years. Lack of options is not a change in conditions. The applicant states “About a third of workers now commute into Estes Park from outside of the Valley.” No historical information is provided to substantiate this is a change in conditions. Furthermore, the applicant suggests that it’s unreasonable for workers to commute from outside the Estes Valley. It is approximately a four-mile car ride (not crow flight) from the town hall to almost all areas included in the Estes Valley Development Code Boundary Map. The four mile travel distance includes beyond Ptarmigan Trail to the northeast, Aspen Winds to the northwest, and past Mary’s Lake to the southwest. The fraction of workers commuting from outside the Estes Valley is not a reasonable measure of change in conditions. The applicant asserts that there is a correlation between decline is child population or perhaps a ten percent decline in working age adults and loss of three businesses, Tru-Value Hardware, Estes Park Health’s “nursing home”, and Estes Park Health’s Obstetric Services. The town still has two hardware stores. The closing of the Tru-Value store had other factors including the owner’s retirement that affected this. The closure of the “nursing home” and Obstetric Services was also a multi-dimensional decision and the applicant does not provide a basis for a correlation other that time frame. Recent business expansions include The Stanley Hotel properties, Good Samaritan Society – Estes Park Village, and the UC Health Estes Park Urgent care facility. It is apparent that recently businesses can adapt to changing local business needs and the expansions don’t seem to be correlated to the decline in children and 10% of working age adults. This amendment is not necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Therefore, the Planning Comision should NOT RECOMMEND this proposal on this basis alone. Statement of Intent dated 12/5/25 page 11 states “The town intends to utilize these units s employee rental housing in the short term. The development team is planning to subdivide the property and provide individual utility services to each unit.” The Statement of Intent does not commit to Workforce Housing/Attainable Housing as defined in the development code yet uses related bonuses as acceptance criteria. The Planning Commission should NOT RECOMMEND this proposal on this basis alone. Furthermore, the referenced subdivision is likely contingent on other work that may or may not happen. Unless subdivision is clearly committed for this development it should not affect this rezoning decision. Statement of Intent dated 12/5/25 page 1, Project Information” states “The project will create 15 lots at approximately 0.25 acres each per townhome.” However, elsewhere (pages 3, 8 and 10) the document states 12 townhome dwelling units. The Sketch Plan, “Town of Estes Park/EPHA Stanley Circle Townhomes” Sheet A2 dated 9/24/2025 depicts 13 townhomes. Other analyses apparently are based on 12 townhomes. Without a clear statement of the number of dwelling units, the Planning Commission cannot make a judgement of adequacy of the proposed use of the property. The Planning Commission should NOT RECOMMEND this proposal on this basis. A conversation with the responsible planner concluded that the documents posted to the town website are applicable to this review. The Application dated 1/22/2025 is not signed by the Owner and therefore does not meet submittal requirements of the Development Code Appendix B Section V.A.1. The Planning Commission should NOT RECOMMEND this proposal on this basis alone. A dense collection of townhomes with their rears facing the street, in a uniformly zoned E neighborhood is not inconsistent use of the property. The proposed rezoning constitutes “spot zoning” – creating an isolated, inconsistent land use. This amendment is not necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. The application is not complete. The Statement of Intent prevents an accurate review by the Planning Commission. I consequently demand that the Planning Commission does NOT RECOMMEND the application. Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Nancy Curry 581 Audubon St For Against Neutral 179 Stanley Circle Dr Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. A conversation with the responsible planner concluded that the documents posted to the town website are applicable to this review. The Application dated 1/22/2025 is not signed by the Owner and therefore does not meet submittal requirements of the Development Code Appendix B Section V.A.1. The Planning Commission should NOT RECOMMEND this proposal on this basis alone. A dense collection of townhomes with their rears facing the street, in a uniformly zoned E neighborhood is not consistent use of the property. The proposed rezoning constitutes “spot zoning” – creating an isolated, inconsistent land use. The application is not complete. The Statement of Intent prevents an accurate review by the Planning Commission. I consequently demand that the Planning Commission do NOT RECOMMEND the application. Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Diane Ernst 147A Stanley Circle Drive For Against Neutral 179 Stanley Circle Dr Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. I am against the rezone of 179 Stanley Circle Drive, from residential to multifamily zoning. This lot is located in a residentially zoned neighborhood. This is a rezone action only and we should not be distracted by any tentative development plans put forth. A multifamily rezone would allow 3 story apartments to be built on this property with a situation similar to Lexington Lane. Once the property is rezoned to multifamily, anything could be built on this lot that abides by multifamily zoning and workforce housing allowances. Once the property is rezoned, the neighbors would have no voice as to what is built on that lot. Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Mark H Adams 581 Audubon St. For Against Neutral 179 Stanley Circle Dr Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 1. Objection Letter to EP Planning Commission - Adams.pdf 80.66KB 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Vote NO to any Rezoning of Residential areas in Estes Park. To: Estes Park Planning Commission Members Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rezone of 179 Stanely Circle Drive This letter is provided according to my right to provide public comments on matters before the Estes Park Planning Commission. I object to proposed rezoning of the subject property and request that you NOT RECOMMEND this change. The proposed purpose of the property is not consistent with the rest of the lots along Stanley Circle Drive that are zoned E with single family homes facing the street. The subject lot is separated from the Holiday Inn by a parking lot, Stanley Avenue, and right of way. The subject lot is separated from the RM development to its south by ninety feet of open land that contains widely spaced electricity transmission towers and underground water conduits. The subject lot is a part of the existing neighborhood and the neighborhood should not have a dense housing development or commercial uses permitted in RM zoned lots imposed on it as “spot zoning.” Rezoning and using it as employee housing would not address workforce housing, would diminish property values in the neighborhood. Statement of Intent dated 12/5/25 page 11 states “The town intends to utilize these units s employee rental housing in the short term. The development team is planning to subdivide the property and provide individual utility services to each unit.” The Statement of Intent does not commit to Workforce Housing/Attainable Housing as defined in the development code yet uses related bonuses as acceptance criteria. The Planning Commission should NOT RECOMMEND this proposal on this basis alone. Furthermore, the referenced subdivision is likely contingent on other work that may or may not happen. Unless subdivision is clearly committed for this development it should not affect this rezoning decision. Statement of Intent dated 12/5/25 page 1, Project Information” states “The project will create 15 lots at approximately 0.25 acres each per townhome.” However, elsewhere (pages 3, 8 and 10) the document states 12 townhome dwelling units. The Sketch Plan, “Town of Estes Park/EPHA Stanley Circle Townhomes” Sheet A2 dated 9/24/2025 depicts 13 townhomes. Other analyses apparently are based on 12 townhomes. Without a clear statement of the number of dwelling units, the Planning Commission cannot make a judgement of adequacy of the proposed use of the property. The Planning Commission should NOT RECOMMEND this proposal on this basis. A conversation with the responsible planner concluded that the documents posted to the town website are applicable to this review. The Application dated 1/22/2025 is not signed by the Owner and therefore does not meet submittal requirements of the Development Code Appendix B Section V.A.1. The Planning Commission should NOT RECOMMEND this proposal on this basis alone. A dense collection of townhomes with their rears facing the street, in a uniformly zoned E neighborhood is not consistent use of the property. The proposed rezoning constitutes “spot zoning” – creating an isolated, inconsistent land use. The application is not complete. The Statement of Intent prevents an accurate review by the Planning Commission. I consequently demand that the Planning Commission do NOT RECOMMEND the application. Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. John J. Antel 585b Audubon, Estes Park 80517 For Against Neutral 179 Stanley Circle Dr Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. To: Estes Park Planning Commission Members Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rezone of 179 Stanley Circle Drive I want file an objection to the application of “spot zoning” in general. I live in the Crags Subdivision near the Lodge. My neighbors and I are of course very concerned about the future of the Lodge property. The Lodge building is a historical building and thus protected by law. The surrounding property is our concern. Could “spot zoning” be used to build a midrise hotel or parking structure? I hope not. Would this permit establish a precedent that would compromise our zoning laws and private property rights? I encourage you to vote no and press for limitations or prohibition of arbitrary spot zoning. John J. Antel 585b Audubon Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Raymond & Luzia Sahm 700 Highland Ln, Estes Park, Co For Against Neutral 179 Stanley Circle Dr Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. We are requesting you NOT to push rezoning from E-1 to RM for 179 Stanley Circle Drive. Building high density townhomes in a single family area will forever ruin the character of this neighborhood. We are asking you to make the decent decision and NOT recommend rezoning the property at 179 Stanley Circle Drive. The town people have spoken and the spirit of Ballot Issue 300 is very much at play here. We ask you to look deep into yourselves and follow the spirit of Ballot Issues 300 and be of high moral character and respect the community by NOT making a rezoning recommendation until Ballot Issue 300 can be applied. Thank you for taking the time to consider this. Community Development Planning Commission December 16, 2025 Rezoning Request 179 Stanley Circle Drive Town of Estes Park/Owner, Estes Park Housing Authority/Applicant Presented by Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Conceptual Site Plan Conceptual Site Plan N Conceptual Building Elevations Advantages The application complies with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the EPDC. In accordance with Section 3.3.D “Standards for Review” of the EPDC, all applications for rezoning shall be reviewed for compliance with the following standards and criteria: 1.The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. 2.The Development Plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. 3.The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Change in Conditions 1.New Comp Plan •Future Land Use designation changed from Estate to Neighborhood Village 2.Neighboring Development •Mountain Woods Townhomes built in 2019 3.Housing Needs •2023 Housing Needs Assessment •Median sales price $190K in 2000 to 692K in 2024 Compatibility and Consistency with Comprehensive Plan 1. Natural Environment •Maintain scenic character and viewsheds •Ensure open space preservation while allowing contextual development •Protect wildlife and enhance biodiversity and ecosystems •Consider and mitigate wildfire risk Compatibility and Consistency with Comprehensive Plan 2. Built Environment •Strategically direct growth toward areas of existing infrastructure •Ensure development is in harmony with its setting •Encourage a balanced mix of uses that meets the diverse needs of residents, businesses, and visitors •Coordinate and integrate land use and transportation objectives •Promote job-generating commercial land uses to support existing and future businesses Compatibility and Consistency with Comprehensive Plan 3. Housing •Ensure new housing meets the needs of the workforce and families. •Create new housing opportunities. Compatibility and Consistency with Existing Growth & Development Patterns Per Development Code: Compatible or Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. Compatibility and Consistency with Existing Growth and Development Patterns The height, scale, mass and bulk of structures will be in character with the existing area by following the RM zone district development code standards: Landscaping, lighting, noise, and architecture of new development is expected to be compatible and consistent with the existing area. Vehicular traffic will be in character with existing conditions in the neighborhood. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, as well as existing growth and development patterns nearby and in the Estes Valley. Ability to Serve 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Finding: No comments from service or utility providers expressed opposition to the rezoning or an inability to provide adequate services and facilities. Disadvantages Ballot Question 300: Shall an ordinance be adopted which states that all applications, motions or requests for rezonings and/or all planned unit developments (PUDs) will not be approved without written approval by the record owner(s) of the subject property/properties and two-thirds (2/3) of the record owner(s) of all properties five hundred feet (500 feet) or less from the outermost boundaries of the subject property/properties? Action Recommended Staff finds the application meets the Standards for Review in Development Code Section 3.3.D. However, staff has no recommendation at this time as to whether Ballot Question 300 applies to this application; and therefore, is unable to offer a recommendation of approval or disproval of the application. Finance/Resource Impact The rezoning itself will have no finance or resource impact. Future development would require Town services beyond what are currently provided. Costs incurred by the Town for construction and operation of employee housing is outside the scope of this application. Public Interest/Notice In accordance with the notice requirements in the Code: •Newspaper notice published November 28, 2025 •Mailed notice sent November 26, 2025. •A sign was posted on the property by the applicant. Sample Motion 1.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval of the rezoning application. 2.I move to continue the application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to deny the rezoning application, finding that … [state reasons for denial]. 47 The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org. Memo To: Chair Cooper & Planning Commissioners Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Kara Washam, Planner II Date: December 16, 2025 Subject: Riverside Drive Townhomes Annexation – Establishment of Zoning Type: Public Hearing, Land Use Objective: Make a recommendation to Town Board regarding the establishment of zoning with the Riverside Drive Townhomes Annexation. Present Situation: The annexation process is governed by the Municipal Annexation Act (“Act”), which is codified at C.R.S. 31.12-101, et seq. and requires the following steps in the annexation process: 1. Substantial Compliance –Town Board must determine if the annexation petition is in the prescribed form and contained the necessary statutory criteria. This procedural step occurred September 23, 2025, and Town Board approved petition’s form and content. 2. Eligibility Resolution – After four consecutive weeks of public notice in a newspaper of general circulation, Town Board must determine if the annexation is eligible for annexation under the Act and Colorado Constitution. The primary criteria for eligibility is that at least one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Approximately three-fifths of the perimeter is contiguous with the Town. Town Board found the area eligible for annexation on October 28, 2025. 3. Annexation and Establishment of Zoning – Early 2026 (tentative). Once an annexation petition has been found to be both substantially compliant and eligible 48 for annexation, Town Board may proceed with the annexation and zoning proceedings. There are no special notice requirements or deadlines for these ordinances. Substantial Compliance and Eligibility determine whether the parcel can be annexed; this final step determines whether a parcel will be annexed. This step has not been scheduled yet and will occur following Planning Commission’s recommendation on zoning. The Town Board of Trustees has the authority to approve or deny an annexation request at its discretion, basing the decision on the specific facts and conditions of the proposal. The Board's role in reviewing and evaluating these requests is not restricted to a quasi-judicial function. Additionally, the Board is authorized to impose requirements and conditions—often formalized in an annexation agreement with the property owner— that can exceed the Town's standard regulations. Proposal: The applicant, Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA), requests annexation of a 2.621- acre property and establishment of ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential zoning. The property is located toward the southwest side of Estes Park, just east of Manor RV Park and adjacent to Tiny Town Cabins, Trout Haven, and WorldMark. The conceptual site plan (Attachment 4) provided with the application depicts the applicant’s vision for the property. EPHA plans to develop fourteen (14) for-sale townhomes that will be attainable, pursuant to the guidelines in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) and sold to members of the Estes Valley workforce. The Riverside Drive Townhomes annexation request and concept plan propose an infill development that aligns with Estes Park's existing growth and development patterns. This project is ideally situated to utilize and improve upon the Town's current infrastructure. Note that while separate Development Plan and Subdivision Plan applications will be required for the project to move forward, these applications are not under review with the annexation and establishment of zoning requests. These details are provided as conceptual exhibits only. 49 Conceptual Site Plan Hazards and Site Conditions The proposed development for this site has been heavily influenced by two significant constraints: existing wetlands and the site's slope. These considerations led EPHA to develop a design that incorporates townhomes primarily into the slope off the southwest portion of Riverside Drive. The design shown in the concept plan aims to maximize the developable area with respect to the wetland setback, right-of-way, and building setbacks. In addition, the interior drive has been adjusted to preserve as many trees as possible. A key aspect of the site design involves avoiding the wetland area, which is located in the flat, bottom portion of the site. A site visit, conducted on June 12, 2023, by Ms. Darcy A. Tiglas, identified and confirmed three potential wetland locations. The analysis, which determined the delineation of these wetlands, involved evaluating the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of each suspected area. All three sample sites were confirmed as wetlands, as summarized in the Wetland Delineation Report (Attachment 5): The low-lying portion of the property at 775 Riverside Drive supports wetlands that are likely an old oxbow or back-channel area related to the Big Thompson River which is only feet away from the north open water pond. As the terrain rises 50 in elevation, upland vegetation dominated by open ponderosa pine forest and pockets of chokecherry with a smooth brome understory occur. Additionally, two dwellings with outbuildings occur at the highest elevation of the property adjacent to Riverside Drive to the east and south. The development will not impact these wetlands, and the design team has prioritized maintaining a maximum distance from the wetland boundary. EPHA plans to demolish the current single-family dwelling and associated outbuilding. The new structures will be situated further from the wetland setback than the existing conditions, resulting in an overall improvement to the site. However, it is expected that the applicant will request a minor modification to allow some encroachment into the wetland setback. This request will be submitted and reviewed with the anticipated development plan application. The Estes Park Planning Commission will be the decision-making body for the minor modification request and development plan. Land Use The surrounding area includes single-family residential properties to the east and south, mostly located in unincorporated Larimer County. The property to the north is WorldMark Estes Park, a resort within Town limits. To the west of the subject property is Manor RV Park, located in unincorporated Larimer County. The property’s current zoning within Larimer County is ‘EV A’ Estes Valley Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District (Attachment 6). This district “allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higher-intensity accommodations such as multi-story hotels and motels.” A variety of tourism-related accessory uses to a principal accommodations use may also be permitted. The surrounding properties have low-density residential and accommodation zoning, as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Future Land Use Zoning Current Use Subject Mixed Use Centers and Estes Valley Single-Family Residential North Mixed Use Centers and Commercial Outlying (CO) Accommodations (Resort) South Mountains and Foothills Estes Valley Rural Estate (EV RE) Single-Family Residential 51 East Suburban Estate/ Mountains and Foothills Estate (E1) Estes Valley Rural Estate Single-Family Residential West Mixed Residential Neighborhood Estes Valley Accommodations (EV A) Accommodations (RV Park) Larimer County Zoning (Estes Valley) Estes Forward Future Land Use Map 52 The Future Land Use Map in the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for land use policies and decisions that direct growth according to character and intensity of use. The Future Land Use Map (Attachment 7) designates the property as “Mixed Use Centers and Corridors,” which is intended for “medium to higher-density vertical mixed residential and commercial use developments located on or near major thoroughfares.” Although this designation encourages mixed-use development, it is important to note that the current Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) does not have a zoning district that permits mixed commercial and residential uses. However, the proposed townhome development is consistent with the Built Form vision for “Mixed Use Centers and Corridors.” Zoning Request The applicant’s request for annexation includes a request for establishment of zoning to ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential, which the EPDC states “is established to provide opportunities for multi-family residential development.” This zoning district permits a maximum density of 8 units per acre. At 2.621-acres, the maximum possible density for the subject property, if zoned ‘RM,’ is 21 units. The applicant’s proposal for up to 14 units is well below this number. Development potential greater than this number is infeasible due to the aforementioned site constraints. The applicant has indicated an openness to 'A' Accommodations zoning if the Estes Park Planning Commission recommends it. This zoning designation permits multi-family housing development and utilizes the same density calculations as 'RM' zoning. A crucial distinction, however, is that 'A' zoning could permit various other uses on the property, which may not align with the surrounding area or the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Utilities & Services The Town provides domestic water service near the site. The Water Division has indicated that an 8-inch ductile iron water main exists, adjacent to the property on the north. However, main line extension is likely necessary further south. If the proposed townhome units are to be sold individually, each unit will need a separate water meter. 53 Electric service is provided by the Town, and the Power & Communications Department has indicated there are no major concerns with serving the property. Sanitary sewer access extends to the site with an existing 15-foot dedicated Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) easement. However, should new development occur, UTSD requires the easement to be upgraded to 20-foot. In addition, access to the sewer main and manholes must be maintained and remain readily accessible. Townhome development will require private service laterals for each individual unit. Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD) has indicated they have the capacity to serve the property. EVFPD has plans to add an additional fire hydrant near the property and claims that water access should not be an issue. The forthcoming development plan will show driveway design with a turn-around, considering slopes and take-off angles. Aerial access can be achieved from Riverside Dr. Site Access A traffic memo was provided to Public Works for review; the traffic and intersection geometry analysis were found acceptable and the conclusion being that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is not required. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) confirms that traffic is not projected to increase up to 20%, therefore negating the need for an access permit. To implement the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant dedicate a trail easement to access the Big Thompson River from Riverside Drive across the subject parcel. Exact location and width of the trail shall be determined in conjunction with a Development Plan review. Review Criteria Aside from meeting statutory requirements for annexation, there are no direct standards or guidance in the Development Code or Comprehensive Plan for either annexation or establishment of zoning. Therefore, Town Board review and evaluation of an annexation is discretionary, meaning the Board may approve or deny an annexation request as they deem appropriate. The rezoning standards for review in Section 3.3 of the Development Code, listed below, can provide some guidance to consider in establishment of zoning: 54 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Staff Comment: Although the area surrounding the subject property has seen little change in recent years, annexation itself may be considered a change in conditions. The adoption of the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan changed the future land use designation to Mixed Use Centers & Corridors. Notably, a change of conditions is the addition of residential as an appropriate future land use. 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and Staff Comment: The concept plan’s compatibility and consistency with the policies and intent of the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan have been addressed above and additional analysis on relevant Comprehensive Plan goals is provided below. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Comment: Town and other relevant service providers have reviewed the application and have indicated an ability to serve the conceptual development. Although the Comprehensive Plan offers minimal direct guidance on annexation, its goals and policies are valuable for considering annexation and establishing zoning. Below is a summary of relevant goals, followed by staff comments: 1. Built Environment  Strategically direct growth toward areas of existing infrastructure.  Coordinate and integrate land use and transportation objectives.  Require that development preserve water quality, ecological systems, and natural features through sensitive site design and minimal disturbance. Staff comment: Utility infrastructure exists on the site or nearby. Extensions of infrastructure will be the responsibility of the applicant. The development would help 55 facilitate trail projects identified in adopted plans, which benefit residents though improved connectivity. The proposed plan's site design aligns with the Town's recommendation to "Limit areas of disturbance for new development in order to protect existing native vegetations, except as required for wildfire protection." The development limits of disturbance will specifically avoid the lot's steep slope areas. A revised wetland delineation report must be submitted if the proposed development moves forward. This is required by staff to address potential impacts resulting from the minor encroachment into the wetland setback, as shown in the concept plan. 2. Housing  Ensure new housing meets the needs of the workforce and families.  Create new housing opportunities. Staff comment: The applicant, EPHA, is proposing the development of 14 units, called Riverside Drive Townhomes, to be sold to the local workforce. This project is vital for addressing the significant shortage of affordable and attainable housing in the Estes Valley. The current housing stock is aging, and most new inventory is exclusively for rent. By creating these townhomes, EPHA will introduce much-needed diversity into the housing options available to the workforce. However, the property owner is not obligated to develop workforce housing upon annexation, unless stipulated to do so in an annexation agreement, and could provide market rate housing in accordance with ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential zoning. Advantages:  Annexation would allow the Town to control the development of this property as it would be subject to Town requirements.  In return for annexation, the Town can require property owners to meet higher development standards or provide additional measures to mitigate development impacts.  The proposed development would increase the inventory of housing stock for the Estes Valley. 56 Disadvantages:  The Town will be required to provide municipal services to the property. Though, all service providers have indicated an ability to serve the property. Action Recommended: Staff asks the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the Town Board on whether the requested ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential zone district is appropriate. If deemed appropriate, then staff recommends the conditions provided below be included with the recommendation: 1. Future development of the site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan (Attachment 4). 2. Future development of the site shall require a deed restriction for all units to be “attainable” and restricted to the “workforce,” pursuant to the definitions and provisions outlined in Sections 11.4.C. and 11.4.E. of the Estes Park Development Code. 3. Architectural design shall be compatible with the surrounding area. 4. The owner shall dedicate a trail easement to access the Big Thompson River from Riverside Drive across the subject parcel and in accordance with the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. Exact location and width of the trail shall be determined in conjunction with a Development Plan review and in a manner approved by the Town. 5. Lighting shall follow dark sky best practices, to include regulations on shielding, height, color, brightness, and time of operation. 6. The development plan application shall include an updated wetland report, specifically addressing any potential impacts for proposed development that may encroach into the wetlands setback. Encroachment into the setbacks is a minor modification subject to approval by the Estes Park Planning Commission. Finance/Resource Impact: It is anticipated with this proposal, as with any new development in Town, that the cost to extend or improve infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) would be borne by the property 57 owner and not the Town. Ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure would become the responsibility of the Town, as would the provision of other services. Level of Public Interest: Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements.  Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on December 1, 2025  Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on November 28, 2025.  Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. Public interest in this annexation is expected to be medium. At the time of this writing, one letter of public comment was received. Support for workforce housing was expressed in the comment. However, concern was expressed regarding effects on wildlife habitat and the potential for groundwater flooding from an intermittent spring. Opposition was expressed for development encroaching into the wetland setback. Public comments are posted to https://estespark.colorado.gov/currentapplications. Sample Motion: 1. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to approve establishment of the requested ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential zone district, should the property be annexed, subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff. 2. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to deny establishment of the requested ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential zone district, should the property be annexed, finding that … [state reasons for recommendation of denial]. Attachments: 1. Statement of Intent 2. Annexation Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Conceptual Site Plan 5. Wetland Delineation Report (June 2023) 6. Larimer County Zoning Map (Estes Valley) 7. Future Land Use Map (Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan) 8. Estes Park Zoning Map 58 Statement of Intent Date: 6/2/25 Address: 775 Riverside Drive, Estes Park CO Parcel: 3535105907 Purpose: Annexation & Application of Zoning “Section 3.3.D - Code Amendments Standards for Review: All applications for text or OfficialZoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with therelevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, iscompatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and withexisting growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provideadequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Project Information The Estes Park Housing Authority are planning to develop 14 for Sale Townhomes that will beattainable per the guidelines of the Estes Park Code, and sold to members of the Estes ParkWorkforce. The bottom of the site, which is flat, contains wetlands which the development is notimpacting, and the design team is attempting to stay as far away from the boundary as possible.This, along with adjusting the drive to save as many trees as possible, are cornerstones of thesite design. This has led EPHA to create a design that builds the townhomes primarily into theslope off the SW portion of Riverside Drive. EPHA plans to demolish the existing SFD structure& associate shack and replace those with a duplex with 3 units each. This new structure will befurther away from the wetland setback and will improve upon the existing conditions. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; This parcel is in the process of becoming annexed into the Town of Estes Park. Due to theexpiration of the intragovernmental agreement between Larimer County and Estes Park, thecounty zoning is not directly transferrable to the Town of Estes Park. Therefore, an applicationof zoning is required. After discussing the intent of the project with community development, itwas determined that Residential Multifamily is the appropriate zoning for this parcel. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, iscompatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan 59 The Comprehensive Plan provided us with the foundation & roadmap to pursue and justify thisannexation and assignment of zoning application. This parcel is designated as “Mixed UseCenters & Corridors” in the comprehensive plan. The intent of this land use is as follows: “The Mixed-use Centers and Corridors category contains medium to higher-density vertical mixed residential and commercial use developments located on or near majorthoroughfares. This category is characterized by an interconnected road network, availablewater and wastewater, and a walkable environment and a greater emphasis on design of upperstories for compatibility” Built Form New and redeveloped sites in Mixed-use Centers and Corridors should reflect a variety ofbuilding types on large lots. Development in this category should strive to increase businessdensity, adding residential units where appropriate, and expanding multi-modal connectivity » Building Height: 1 - 5 stories » Block Length: 250 – 650 ft. » Primary Road Setback: 10 - 150 ft” This development fits the mixed-use centers & corridors category as it provides higher-densityvertical mixed use residential development on or near major thoroughfares. As part of thisdevelopment, there is an existing water line located to the north along Riverside Drive that theproject will plan to extend along the ROW in Riverside drive for the length of the property,expanding the Towns water distribution network. Additionally, a sanitary sewer line exists onthe lower portion of this site to allow easy access. The walkable environment will be enhancedas the project will construct a sidewalk along Riverside Drive that will connect with the existingsidewalk to the north. This site has specific constraints which significantly impacts the ability for commercialdevelopment on the site. These 2 constraints are the wetlands and the slope on the site. Thisproposed development comes close to maximizing the developable area on the site, given thewetlands, the ROW, and the setbacks that are associated with each. Parking for a commercialuse is another prohibiting factor. These factors combine to result in making a commercial usedifficult to execute, and it makes a mixed use development virtually impossible. The building height is anticipated to be 3 stories for the fourplex buildings, although, due to theslope on the site, these will appear to be 1-1.5 story buildings from Riverside Drive. The duplexthat we plan to build to replace the existing Single Family building will be smaller at 2 stories.The property line is approx. 650 ft. and the setback will be greater than 10’. This creates a useand design that fits well within the Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors. 60 The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatibleand consistent with existing growth & development patterns in the Estes Valley The proposed annexation and development plan at 775 Riverside Drive closely aligns withexisting growth and development patterns, and creates an infill development that can utilize andexpand upon the existing Town infrastructure. Below is an image of the town zoning map, with the subject parcel indicated with an X. Townland surrounds this parcel on multiple sides. To the northeast, there is a PUD located in acommercial overlay directly with Worldmark Estes Park, a hospitality use. To the northwest,there is another commercial overlay district with Tiny Town, another hospitality use. Across thest to the east, there is E-1 zoning. The other directions are on county land which includes anRV park to the west. The addition of housing along this road will better align this corridor to the“Mixed-Use Corridor” designation in the Comprehensive plan by adding housing as a use, whichis a separate use from the two adjacent properties along Riverside Drive. Adding residentialbetween accommodation use, makes this corridor mixed-use. 61 The subject property is in an area that is a logical next step in the annexation of land that abutsexisting town boundaries. Examining the Future Land use map, it shows that town zoning isanticipated to be applied along Riverside Drive to the intersection of Mary’s Lake Road. Forutilities, there is an existing water line at the property boundary to the north which the projectplans to extend. The town has existing water systems in Mary’s Lake Road to the west, so thiswill be a step towards completing that loop. Sanitary sewer exists on site. For access, Riverside Drive is an important road for the town of Estes Park as it is anemergency road and provides a generally parallel access point to US Route 36 to the north,which can be backed up at times. C.R.S. 31-12-104 Eligibility for Annexation: Contiguity o At least one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguouswith the annexing municipality: o Contiguity is not affected by the existence of streets, alleys, ROW, public lands(except county-owned open space), or water bodies. “Skipping Rule” allows theannexing municipality to ignore, for purposes of contiguity, intervening lands. The subject property meets the ⅙minimum of the perimeter of the area proposed to beannexed into the town. The total perimeter of the property is approx 1,535 ft. The perimeter ofthe property that is contiguous to the Town of Estes Park is approx 50 ft. This comes out toapprox 35% coverage, or slightly above 1/3rd of the property boundary. This is just over doublethe minimum requirement. 62 o A community of interest exists between the territory proposed and the annexingmunicipality: This property is planned to be developed for workforce housing to help serve the needs of theEstes Park community. This creates a community of interest between the territory proposedand the annexing municipality. o The area proposed for annexation is urban or will urbanize in the near future, and isintegrated with the annexing municipality. This property is located on a key road in Riverside Drive. There is a large hospitalityestablishment directly to the Northeast, as well as hospitality establishments directly to thenorthwest and west. This development is on a key corridor of the Town of Estes Park. Per thecomprehensive plan, which includes this parcel with a ‘mixed use corridor’ on it’s future land usemap despite being county land, it is implied that this expected that this stretch of Riverside willbe annexed to complete town ownership to Mary’s Lake Road. . 63 BROOKSIDE ANNEXATION REC. NO. 20050013246 ESTES PARK 810 MORAINE AVENUE REC. NO. 20110029919 OWNER: MORAINE TROUT POND, LLC ESTES PARK 81 5 R I V E R S I D E D R I V E RE C . N O . 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 9 9 2 1 OW N E R : 8 1 5 R I V E R S I D E D R I V E L L C LA R I M E R C O U N T Y 816 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REC. NO. 20080018503 OWNER: BOYETTE WILLIAMS ET. AL. LARIMER COUNTY 806 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REC. NO. 20210088777 OWNER: ALISSA ANDERSON ET. AL. LARIMER COUNTY 800 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REC. NO. 20070071303 OWNER: PAUL ROTHERY ET. AL. LARIMER COUNTY 790 RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOT 4, SUMMERVILLA OWNER: MICHALE ALLEN ODELL ET. AL. LARIMER COUNTY 911 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE LOT 8B, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 8... OWNER: MOUNTAIN GOAT TRUST LARIMER COUNTY 903 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE LOT 1, BROWN SUBDIVISION OWNER: JOHN NELSON ET. AL. ESTES PARKKUNDTZ ADDITION #1 REC. NO. 20080033336 ESTES PARK KUNDTZ ADDITION #1 REC. NO. 20080033336 ESTES PARK KUNDTZ ADDITION #1 REC. NO. 20080033336 ESTES PARK ∆ ∆ ∆ RIVE R S I D E D R I V E RI V E R S I D E D R I V E BIG T H O M P S O N RIV E R LOT 1, TIMBER LANE SUB... 725 RIVERSIDE DRIVE OWNER: WORLDMARK THE CLUB SUM M E R V I L L A SUM M E R V I L L A RIVERSIDE ANNEXATION 114,187 SQ. FT. 2.621 ACRES 775 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REC. NO. 20230029970 OWNER: ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY LEGEND RIVERSIDE DRIVE TOWNHOMES ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK Situate in the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. County of Larimer, State of Colorado 2.621 Acres MAJESTIC SURVEYING, LLC 1111 DIAMOND VALLEY DRIVE #104, WINDSOR, CO 80550 PROJECT NO: 2025179 DATE: 6-2-2025 DRAWN BY: SIP PROJECT NAME: 775 RIVERSIDE FILE NAME: 2025179ANNEX CLIENT: EPHA CHECKED BY: SIP SCALE: 1" = 40' 1 SHEET 1 OF 1 REVISIONS:DATE: VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2000' BASIS OF BEARINGS AND LINEAL UNIT DEFINITION Assuming the North line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. monumented as shown on this drawing, as bearing North 89°19' 05" West, being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2680.30 feet and with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto. The lineal dimensions as contained herein are based upon the "U.S. Survey Foot". PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land, situate in the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of Section Thirty-five (35), Township Five North (T.5N.), Range Seventy-three West (R.73W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of said Section 35 and assuming the North line of said NE1/4 as bearing North 89°19'05” West, being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2680.30 feet, being monumented by a 1” pipe with 2.5” aluminum cap at the North Quarter corner and a 2” pipe with 2.5” aluminum cap at the Northeast corner of Section 35 and with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto; THENCE North 89°19'05” West, along said North line, a distance of 1340.15 feet to the calculated position of the East 1/16th corner; THENCE South 01°51'37” West, along the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4NE1/4) a distance of 313.31 feet to the Southwest corner of the Brookside Annexation to the Town of Estes Park as recorded February 17, 2005 at Reception No. 20050013246 of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder (LCCR) and to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along the South line of said Brookside Annexation to the Town of Estes Park the following two courses: THENCE South 78°06'15” East a distance of 51.71 feet; THENCE South 77°34'28” East a distance of 148.48 feet to the Northwest corner of the Kundtz Addition #1 to the Town of Estes Park, as recorded May 28, 2008 at Reception No. 20080033336 of the LCCR and to the beginning point of a curve, non-tangent to aforesaid course; THENCE along the West curve of said Kundtz Addition #1 to the Town of Estes Park, and along the arc of a curve concave to the Northeast a distance of 60.88 feet, having a Radius of 305.00 feet, a Delta of 11°26'14” and is subtended by a Chord that bears South 12°58'11” East a distance of 60.78 feet to a Point of Tangency (PT) and to the Northwest corner of Kundtz Addition #2 to the Town of Estes Park, as recorded May 28, 2008 at Reception No. 20080033336 of the LCCR; Thence along the West lines of said Kundtz Addition #2 to the Town of Estes Park the following four courses: THENCE South 18°41'16” East a distance of 160.92 feet to a Point of Curvature (PC); THENCE along the arc of a curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 225.30 feet, having a Radius of 160.00 feet, a Delta of 80°40'45” and is subtended by a Chord that bears South 21°39'03” West a distance of 207.14 feet to a PT; THENCE South 61°59'22” West a distance of 188.87 feet to a PC; THENCE along the arc of a curve concave to the Southeast a distance of 41.89 feet, having a Radius of 355.00 feet, a Delta of 06°45'39” and is subtended by a Chord that bears South 58°36'32” West a distance of 41.87 feet to the West line of said NE1/4NE1/4; THENCE North 01°51'37” East along a line non-tangent to the aforesaid curve, and along said West line, a distance of 557.60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said described parcel of land contains 114,187 Square Feet or 2.621 Acres, more or less (±). NOTICE According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. (13-80-105 C.R.S. 2012) CONTIGUITY TABLE TOTAL BOUNDARY: 1,435.62 L.F. CONTIGUOUS BOUNDARY: 878.02 L.F. 1/6 OF TOTAL BOUNDARY 239.26 L.F. RATIO= 1 : 1.64 TITLE COMMITMENT NOTE For all information regarding easements, rights-of-way and title of records, Majestic Surveying, LLC relied upon Title Commitment Number: 459-H0661098-084-0AA Amendment No. 4, dated January 31, 2022, as prepared by Heritage Title Company to delineate the aforesaid information. This survey does not constitute a title search by Majestic Surveying, LLC to determine ownership or easements of record. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, Steven Parks, a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, do hereby state that this Annexation Plat was prepared from an actual survey under my personal supervision, that the monumentation as indicated hereon were found or set as shown, and that the forgoing Plat is an accurate representation thereof, all this to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Steven Parks - On Behalf of Majestic Surveying, LLC Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor #38348 Feet 0 40 80 BOARD OF TRUSTEES CERTIFICATE: Approved and accepted by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado by an Ordinance adopted on this _____ day of _____________________, 20___. ________________________________________________________________ Town Clerk Mayor OWNER: Estes Park Housing Authority ________________________________________________ BY: AS: NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO) ss COUNTY OF LARIMER) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by ______________________ as ______________________this _____ day of ______________________, 20___. Witness my Hand and Official Seal. ________________________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: ________________. REDLINES 8-5-25 FLOODPLAIN NOTE The subject property is in flood zone 'X', "areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance of floodplain and zone 'X', "areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood" per FEMA flood map 08069C128F, effective December 19, 2006. EASEMENT NOTE The Town of Estes Park reserves the right to obtain a trail easement to access the Big Thompson River from Riverside Drive across the subject parcel. The location and width will be determined by separate document. 64 816 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REC. NO. 20080018503 OWNER: BOYETTE WILLIAMS ET. AL. 790 RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOT 4, SUMMERVILLA OWNER: MICHALE ALLEN ODELL ET. AL. ZONING: PUD-COMMERCIAL OUTLYING ESTES PARK ZONING: COMMERCIAL OUTLYING ESTES PARK ZO N I N G : E V A LA R I M E R C O U N T Y ZONING: EV RE LARIMER COUNTY ZONING: EV RE LARIMER COUNTY ZONING: EV RE LARIMER COUNTY ZONING: EV RE LARIMER COUNTY ZONING: EV RE LARIMER COUNTY ZONING: ESTATE ESTES PARK ∆ ∆ ∆ RIVE R S I D E D R I V E RI V E R S I D E D R I V E BIG T H O M P S O N RIV E R 810 MORAINE AVENUE REC. NO. 20110029919 OWNER: MORAINE TROUT POND, LLC 81 5 R I V E R S I D E D R I V E RE C . N O . 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 9 9 2 1 OW N E R : 8 1 5 R I V E R S I D E D R I V E L L C 806 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REC. NO. 20210088777 OWNER: ALISSA ANDERSON ET. AL. 800 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REC. NO. 20070071303 OWNER: PAUL ROTHERY ET. AL. 911 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE LOT 8B, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 8... OWNER: MOUNTAIN GOAT TRUST 903 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE LOT 1, BROWN SUBDIVISION OWNER: JOHN NELSON ET. AL. LOT 1, TIMBER LANE SUB... 725 RIVERSIDE DRIVE OWNER:WORLDMARK THE CLUB RIVERSIDE TOWNHOMES 114,187 SQ. FT. 2.621 ACRES CURRENT LARIMER COUNTY ZONING: EVA ESTES VALLEY ACCOMMODATIONS PROPOSED ESTES PARK ZONING: RM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LEGEND RIVERSIDE DRIVE TOWNHOMES ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING Situate in the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado 2.621 Acres MAJESTIC SURVEYING, LLC 1111 DIAMOND VALLEY DRIVE #104, WINDSOR, CO 80550 PROJECT NO: 2025179 DATE: 6-10-2025 DRAWN BY: SIP PROJECT NAME: 775 RIVERSIDE FILE NAME: 2025179ZONE CLIENT: EPHA CHECKED BY: SIP SCALE: 1" = 40' 1 SHEET 1 OF 1 REVISIONS:DATE: VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2000' NOTICE According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. (13-80-105 C.R.S. 2012) SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, Steven Parks, a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, do hereby state that this Zoning Map was prepared from an actual survey under my personal supervision, that the monumentation as indicated hereon were found or set as shown, and that the forgoing Plat is an accurate representation thereof, all this to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Steven Parks - On Behalf of Majestic Surveying, LLC Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor #38348 Feet 0 40 80 BASIS OF BEARINGS AND LINEAL UNIT DEFINITION Assuming the North line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. monumented as shown on this drawing, as bearing North 89°19' 05" West, being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2680.30 feet and with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto. The lineal dimensions as contained herein are based upon the "U.S. Survey Foot". PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land, situate in the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of Section Thirty-five (35), Township Five North (T.5N.), Range Seventy-three West (R.73W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of said Section 35 and assuming the North line of said NE1/4 as bearing North 89°19'05” West, being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2680.30 feet, being monumented by a 1” pipe with 2.5” aluminum cap at the North Quarter corner and a 2” pipe with 2.5” aluminum cap at the Northeast corner of Section 35 and with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto; THENCE North 89°19'05” West, along said North line, a distance of 1340.15 feet to the calculated position of the East 1/16th corner; THENCE South 01°51'37” West, along the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4NE1/4) a distance of 313.31 feet to the Southwest corner of the Brookside Annexation to the Town of Estes Park as recorded February 17, 2005 at Reception No. 20050013246 of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder (LCCR) and to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along the South line of said Brookside Annexation to the Town of Estes Park the following two courses: THENCE South 78°06'15” East a distance of 51.71 feet; THENCE South 77°34'28” East a distance of 148.48 feet to the Northwest corner of the Kundtz Addition #1 to the Town of Estes Park, as recorded May 28, 2008 at Reception No. 20080033336 of the LCCR and to the beginning point of a curve, non-tangent to aforesaid course; THENCE along the West curve of said Kundtz Addition #1 to the Town of Estes Park, and along the arc of a curve concave to the Northeast a distance of 60.88 feet, having a Radius of 305.00 feet, a Delta of 11°26'14” and is subtended by a Chord that bears South 12°58'11” East a distance of 60.78 feet to a Point of Tangency (PT) and to the Northwest corner of Kundtz Addition #2 to the Town of Estes Park, as recorded May 28, 2008 at Reception No. 20080033336 of the LCCR; Thence along the West lines of said Kundtz Addition #2 to the Town of Estes Park the following four courses: THENCE South 18°41'16” East a distance of 160.92 feet to a Point of Curvature (PC); THENCE along the arc of a curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 225.30 feet, having a Radius of 160.00 feet, a Delta of 80°40'45” and is subtended by a Chord that bears South 21°39'03” West a distance of 207.14 feet to a PT; THENCE South 61°59'22” West a distance of 188.87 feet to a PC; THENCE along the arc of a curve concave to the Southeast a distance of 41.89 feet, having a Radius of 355.00 feet, a Delta of 06°45'39” and is subtended by a Chord that bears South 58°36'32” West a distance of 41.87 feet to the West line of said NE1/4NE1/4; THENCE North 01°51'37” East along a line non-tangent to the aforesaid curve, and along said West line, a distance of 557.60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said described parcel of land contains 114,187 Square Feet or 2.621 Acres, more or less (±). TITLE COMMITMENT NOTE For all information regarding easements, rights-of-way and title of records, Majestic Surveying, LLC relied upon Title Commitment Number: 459-H0661098-084-0AA Amendment No. 4, dated January 31, 2022, as prepared by Heritage Title Company to delineate the aforesaid information. This survey does not constitute a title search by Majestic Surveying, LLC to determine ownership or easements of record. BOARD OF TRUSTEES CERTIFICATE: Approved and accepted by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado by a Resolution adopted on this _____ day of _____________________, 20___. ________________________________________________________________ Town Clerk Mayor OWNER: Estes Park Housing Authority ________________________________________________ BY: AS: NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO) ss COUNTY OF LARIMER) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by ______________________ as ______________________this _____ day of ______________________, 20___. Witness my Hand and Official Seal. ________________________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: ________________. REDLINES 8-5-25 FLOODPLAIN NOTE The subject property is in flood zone 'X', "areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance of floodplain and zone 'X', "areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood" per FEMA flood map 08069C128F, effective December 19, 2006. 65 13 . 2 0 ' 10' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" BL D G . 2 15' - 0" 10' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" EDGE OF 60' ROW 25% SETBACK ENCROACHMENT 15' SETBACK FROM ROW DIAGONAL HATCH INDICATES EXISTING BUILDABLE AREA (27,987 SQ FT) 50' WETLANDS SETBACK 25% SETBACK ENCROACHMENT PROPOSED VEHICULAR ACCESS LOCATION 150' - 0" 20' - 0"RIVERSIDE DRIVE PROPOSED VEHICULAR ACCESS & PARKING AT EXIST. DRIVE AND PARKING LOCATION CROSSHATCH INDICATES BUILDABLE AREA WITH 25% SETBACK ENCROACHMENT INTO WETLANDS AREA 1 A1.0 2 A1.0 3 A1.0 4 A1.0 5 A1.0 6 A1.0 20' - 0" BLDG. 4 (3) 3-Story Townhomes w/ 2-car Tandem Garage -15' Elev. from Riverside BLDG. 3 (3) 3-Story Townhomes w/ 2-car Tandem Garage -17.67' from Riverside BLDG. 2 (3) 3-Story Townhomes w/ 2-car Tandem Garage -20.33 from Riverside BLDG. 1 (3) 3-Story Townhomes w/ 2-car Tandem Garage -22.66 from Riverside 10% Slope 10-11% Slope 10-11% Slope 3-4% Slope 3-4% Slope 3-4% Slope 3-4% Slope 3-4% Slope EXIST. STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED 12' - 6" 25' - 0" 50' - 0" 25' - 0" EXISTING HOUSE AND DECK STRUCTURE ENCROACHMENT ON 25% WETLANDS SETBACK 3' - 9" BLDG. 6 (2) 2-Story Townhomes w/ dual attached 2- Car Garages 50' - 0" 16' - 0" 42' - 0" 20' - 0" 20' - 4 43/64" 26' - 0" 42' - 0" 26' - 0" 2' - 0" 18' - 0" 2' - 0"50' - 0" 50' - 0" 94' - 0" BLDG. 5 (1) 3-Story Townhomes w/ 1- Car Garage EXISTING BUILDABLE AREA BUILDABLE AREA WITHIN 50' WETLANDS SETBACK (25% SETBACK ENCROACHMENT, 12'-6") PROPOSED DRIVE ACCESS AREA WITHIN SETBACK ENCROACHMENT PROPOSED BUILDING AREA PROPOSED BUILDING AREA WITHIN SETBACK ENCROACHMENT EXISTING BUILDING WITHIN SETBACK ENCROACHMENT AND WITHIN WETLANDS AREA EDGE OF PROPOSED DRIVE EDGE OF EXISTING 60' RIGHT OF WAY 15' RIGHT OF WAY SETBACK 25% RIGHT OF WAY SETBACK ENCROACHMENT (3' -9") EDGE OF EXISTING WETLANDS AREA 50' WETLANDS SETBACK 25% WETLANDS SETBACK ENCROACHMENT (12' -6") PROPERTY BOUNDARY EASEMENT LINES SITE PLAN KEY TOTAL SITE AREA:126,265.99 SQ FT WETLANDS AREA:40,181.58 SQ FT EXISTING BUILDABLE AREA:27,987.50 SQ FT 25% WETLAND SETBACK EXTENSION AREA (E.A.):8,344.62 SQ FT PROPOSED BUIDLING AREA WITHIN 25% E.A.:669.30 SQ. FT.(8.0%) PROPOSED DRIVE ACCESS AREA WITHIN 25% E.A.:529.35 SQ. FT.(6.3%) TOTAL PROPOSE BUILDING AND PAVING AREA 1,198.65 SQ. FT.(14.3%) EXISTING BUILDING AREA WITHIN 25% E.A.: 1183 SQ FT (14.2%) EXIST. WETLANDS AREA 0 1/ 2 " 1" 2" Project Date Drawn 123 N College Ave, Suite 204 Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 223-1820 www.alm2s.com PR I N T E D FI L E L O C A T I O N : © al m 2 s 2 0 2 4 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 4 3 2 - E P H A R i v e r s i d e D r i v e T o w n h o m e s / 2 4 3 2 - R i v e r s i d e T o w n h o m e s - L i n k e d S i t e - V 1 . r v t 11 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 0 5 : 1 2 P M SITE PLAN 2432 alm2s 11/22/2024 A1.1 ES T E S P A R K H O U S I N G A U T H O R I T Y Es t e s P a r k , C O RI V E R S I D E D R I V E T O W N H O M E S No. Issue Date SCALE:N 1" = 20'-0" CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 BigThompson River SP R U C E L A K E D R AS P E N D R RIVERSIDEDR GRANDVIEW KUNDTZLN WILLOWLN EVERGREEN S T COTTONWOO D D R PO N D E R O S A D R PRIVATEDR MORAIN E A V E PROSPECTPARKDR PRIVATE D R 825 800 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1130 740 725 902 550 580 550 527 1121 549 645 831 810 1120 1025 665 750 800 815 857 875 860870 910 865 861 970 806 810 820 830 810 530 1010 11701160 685 790 975 1015 829 525 625 1030 595 589 1100 911 790 1005 907 903 1020 816 11411031 821 820 1060 This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 130 260Feet 1 in = 241 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Larimer CountyZoning (EV) Printed: 12/8/2025Created By: kwasham Legend Larimer Road Labels Streams Town Boundary Buildings Larimer Zoning <all other values> Zoning Accomodations (A) Accomodations (A1) Commercial Outlying (CO) Forestry (FO) Incorporated Restricted Industrial (I1) Estate (E) Rural Estate (RE) Residential (R) Rural Residential (R1) Rural Residential (R2) Multi-Family (RM) Open (O) 88 A A-1 CO E RM E-1 R Big ThompsonRiver SP R U C E L A K E D R RIVERSIDEDR AS P E N D R GRANDVIEW WILLOWLN KUNDTZLN EVERGREEN S T COTTONWOO D D R PO N D E R O S A D R PRIVATEDR MORAIN E A V E PROSPECTPARKDR PRIVATE D R 825 800 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1130 740 725 902 550 580 550 527 1121 549 645 810 1120 1025 665 750 800 815 857 860870 910 865 861 970 806 810 820 830 810 530 1010 11701160 685 790 975 1015 829 525 625 1030 595 589 1100 911 790 1005 907 903 1020 816 11411031 821 820 1060 This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 130 260Feet 1 in = 241 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Future Land Use Printed: 12/8/2025Created By: kwasham Legend Larimer Road Labels Streams Town Boundary Buildings Future Land Use -2022 <all other values> Future Land Use Accomodations Mixed-Use Centers and Corridors Downtown Industrial Mix Public/Semi Public Mixed Residential Neighborhood Suburban Estate Neighborhood Village Mountains and Foothills Natural Resource Conservation and Parks 89 A A-1 CO E RM E-1 R Big ThompsonRiver SP R U C E L A K E D R RIVERSIDEDR AS P E N D R GRANDVIEW WILLOWLN KUNDTZLN EVERGREEN S T COTTONWOO D D R PO N D E R O S A D R PRIVATEDR MORAIN E A V E PROSPECTPARKDR PRIVATE D R 825 800 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1130 740 725 902 550 580 550 527 1121 549 645 810 1120 1025 665 750 800 815 857 860870 910 865 861 970 806 810 820 830 810 530 1010 11701160 685 790 975 1015 829 525 625 1030 595 589 1100 911 790 1005 907 903 1020 816 11411031 821 820 1060 This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 130 260Feet 1 in = 241 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development ZoningDistricts Printed: 12/8/2025Created By: kwasham Legend Larimer Road Labels Streams Town Boundary Buildings Zoning Zoning Class Accomodations (A) Accomodations (A-1) Commercial Outlying (CO) Commercial Downtown (CD) Commercial Heavy (CH) Office (O) Restricted Industrial (I-1) Rural Estate: 2 1/2 acre min. (RE) Estate: 1 acre min. (E-1) Estate: 1/2 acre min. (E) Residential: 1/4 acre min. (R) Residential: 5000 sqft min. (R-1) Two Family: 27,000 sqft min. (R-2) Multi-Family: 3-8 du/acre (RM) 90 Community Development 1069 Moan St. Estes Park Planning Commission December 16, 2025 Riverside Drive Townhomes Annexation Establishment of Zoning Estes Park Housing Authority (Owner/Applicant) Presented by Kara Washam, Planner II Objective Make a recommendation to Town Board regarding the establishment of zoning for the Riverside Drive Townhomes Annexation. •EPPC is the recommending-body for Zoning Map Amendments •Town Board is the decision-making body for Zoning Map Amendments. Vicinity Map Annexation Map Annexation Process 1.Substantial Compliance Resolution – September 23, 2025 Town Board must determine if the annexation petition is in the prescribed form and contained the necessary statutory criteria 2.Eligibility Resolution – October 28, 2025 Town Board determines whether the subject property is eligible for annexation under the Act. Annexation Process, cont. 3.Annexation and Establishment of Zoning – Early 2026 (tentative). •Once an Annexation Petition has been found to be both substantially compliant and eligible for annexation, Town Board may proceed with the Annexation and Zoning Proceedings. •There are no special notice requirements or deadlines for these ordinances. •Substantial Compliance and Eligibility determine whether the parcel can be annexed; this final step determines whether a parcel will be annexed. Authority to Annex Town Board of Trustees has the authority to approve or deny an annexation request at its discretion, basing the decision on the specific facts and conditions of the proposal. •Role in reviewing and evaluating these requests is not restricted to a quasi-judicial function. •Authorized to impose requirements and conditions that can exceed the Town's standard regulations. •Annexation agreement Proposal EPHA requests annexation of a 2.621-acre property and establishment of ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential zoning. •EPHA plans to develop 14 for-sale townhomes •Attainable and sold to members of the Estes Valley workforce. •Separate Development Plan and Subdivision Plan applications required for the project to move forward. •Not under review with the annexation and EOZ requests. •Details are provided as conceptual exhibits only. Concept Plan Hazards and Site Conditions Development has been heavily influenced by the site's slope and existing wetlands. •EPHA developed a design that incorporates townhomes primarily into the slope off the SW portion of Riverside Drive. •The design maximizes the developable area with respect to the wetland setback, ROW, and building setbacks. •June 2023- Site visit conducted and 3 wetland locations identified. •Minor modification for encroachment request with Development Plan application. •EPPC decision-making body. Land Use Existing Land Use •Surrounding area includes single-family residential properties to the east and south. •Property to the north is WorldMark Estes Park. •West of the subject property is Manor RV Park. •Current zoning within Larimer County is ‘EV A’ Estes Valley Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District Future Land Use •“Mixed Use Centers and Corridors,” which is intended for medium to higher-density vertical mixed residential and commercial use developments located on or near major thoroughfares. Larimer County Zoning (EV) Estes Forward Future Land Use Estes Park Zoning Zoning Request ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential “Established to provide opportunities for multi-family residential development.” •Maximum density of 8 units per acre. •2.621 acres = 21 units max. Development potential greater than this number is infeasible due to site constraints. EPHA is open to 'A' Accommodations zoning if the Estes Park Planning Commission recommends it. •Permits multi-family housing development and utilizes the same density calculations as 'RM' zoning. Utilities and Services Water Service near the site is provided by the Town. If the proposed townhome units are to be sold individually, each unit will need a separate water meter. Electric Service is provided by the Town, Power & Communications has indicated there are no major concerns with serving the property. Sanitary Sewer access extends to the site. New development requires the easement to be upgraded to 20.’ Townhomes will require private service laterals for each unit. Estes Valley Fire Protection District has the capacity to serve the property and plans to add an additional fire hydrant near the property. Site Access Traffic A traffic memo was provided to Public Works for review. •Traffic and intersection geometry analysis were found acceptable, and a Traffic Impact Study is not required. Trails To implement the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant dedicate a trail easement to access the Big Thompson River from Riverside Drive across the subject property Review Criteria Aside from meeting statutory requirements for annexation, there are no direct standards or guidance in the EPDC or Comprehensive Plan for either annexation or establishment of zoning. •Town Board review and evaluation of an annexation is discretionary, meaning the Board may approve or deny an annexation request as they deem appropriate. The rezoning standards for review in Section 3.3 of the EPDC provide some guidance to consider in establishment of zoning. Review Criteria, cont. 1.The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; •Although the area surrounding the subject property has seen little change in recent years, annexation itself may be considered a change in conditions. •The adoption of the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan changed the future land use designation to Mixed Use Centers & Corridors– a change of conditions is the addition of residential as an appropriate future land use. Review Criteria, cont. 2.The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and •The concept plan is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Future Land Use Map. 3.The Town or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. •Town and other relevant service providers have reviewed the application and have indicated an ability to serve the conceptual development. Review Criteria, cont. 1.Built Environment •Strategically direct growth toward areas of existing infrastructure. •Coordinate and integrate land use and transportation objectives. •Require that development preserve water quality, ecological systems, and natural features through sensitive site design and minimal disturbance. Review Criteria, cont. 2.Housing •Ensure new housing meets the needs of the workforce and families. •Create new housing opportunities. Riverside Drive Townhomes Project helps address the significant shortage of affordable and attainable housing in the Estes Valley. •Current housing stock is aging, and most new inventory is exclusively for rent. •Adds much-needed diversity into the housing options available to the workforce. Advantages & Disadvantages Advantages: •Annexation would allow the Town to control the development of this property as it would be subject to Town requirements. •The Town can require the owner to meet higher development standards or provide additional measures to mitigate development impacts. •The proposed development would increase the inventory of housing stock for the Estes Valley. Disadvantages: •The Town will be required to provide municipal services to the property. •All service providers have indicated an ability to serve the property. Action Recommended Staff asks the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the Town Board on whether the requested ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential zone district is appropriate. If deemed appropriate, then staff recommends several conditions be included with the recommendation. Recommended Conditions 1.Future development of the site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan. 2.Future development of the site shall require a deed restriction for all units to be “attainable” and restricted to the “workforce,” pursuant to the definitions and provisions outlined in EPDC 11.4.C. and 11.4.E. 3.Architectural design shall be compatible with the surrounding area. 4.The owner shall dedicate a trail easement to access the Big Thompson River from Riverside Drive across the subject parcel and in accordance with the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. 5.Lighting shall follow dark sky best practices, to include regulations on shielding, height, color, brightness, and time of operation. 6.The development plan application shall include an updated wetland report, specifically addressing any potential impacts for proposed development that may encroach into the wetland setbacks. Public Noticing and Interest Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. •Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on December 1, 2025 •Legal notice published in the EP Trail-Gazette on November 28, 2025. •Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. Public interest in this annexation is expected to be medium. At the time of this writing, one letter of public comment was received: •Support for workforce housing was expressed in the comment. •Concern was expressed regarding effects on wildlife habitat and the potential for groundwater flooding from an intermittent spring. •Opposition was expressed for development encroaching into the wetland setback. Ballot Issue 300 “Shall an ordinance be adopted which states that all applications, motions or requests for rezonings and/or all planned unit developments (PUDs) will not be approved without written approval by the record owner(s) of the subject property/properties and two- thirds (2/3) of the record owner(s) of all properties five hundred feet (500 feet) or less from the outermost boundaries of the subject property/properties?” Sample Motions Sample Motions: 1.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to approve establishment of the requested ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential zone district, should the property be annexed, subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff. 2.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to deny establishment of the requested ‘RM’ Multi-Family Residential zone district, should the property be annexed, finding that … [state reasons for recommendation of denial]. 91 179 Stanley Circle Drive Rezoning Request –Applicant Presentation Concept Site Plan Architectural Elevations Architectural Elevations Architectural Elevations Alignment with Rezone Requirements •1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; •2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and •3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Alignment with Rezone Requirements •1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; (Micro) •New developments in area including 3 story Townhome development due south •Change of Future Land use to Mixed- Residential •Public Works plans to update the ROW at Stanley Circle Drive Intersection •Upgrades at hospital over recent years to serve a changing community Alignment with Rezone Requirements •1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; (Marco) •The Estes Valley has lost almost a third of our children and 10% of working age adults, while retirees have almost doubled •Arppox a third of workers now commute into Estes Park from outside of the Valley •The number of children in town under the age of 18 has reduced from 946 in 2010 to 641 in 2023 based on the most recent data •In 2025 the median single family home for sale had 3 bedrooms and cost $767,500 (range $310,000 -$899,800) •The median attached home (townhouse, condo) had 2 bedrooms and cost $530,500 (range $419,000 -$2,550,000). Both of these data points reflect a drastic increase in purchase price over the past 10 years There is a drastic change in conditions that has taken place in the past decade. In order to preserve the community that existswithin Estes Park, more cost-effective housing or higher wages for employees are required. *Data taken from Estes Park Housing Brief Alignment with Rezone Requirements •2a. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan •Property is in Mixed Residential Neighborhood Future Land Use Category •Townhomes matches intended land use •Development will be 2 stories tall •Well located near major roads (US7 & US 36) •Walking distance to downtown and town hall (less than 1 mile) •Installing bike racks & encouraging multi-modal transportation •Adding curb & gutter to property boundaries as required Alignment with Rezone Requirements •2b. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley The proposed development is an ideal example of transitional density from higher intensity use to the east and transitioning to low density to the west •East: Holiday Inn Estes Park and the Estes Park Conference Center (A zoning) •Southeast: Self Storage Facility (Commercial Heavy zoning) •South: 2 & 3 story townhomes (multifamily zoning) •West & Southwest: Single Family Homes (Estate Zoning) This development will serve as a transition in density from high intensive uses like a conference center and a storage facility, to lower intense uses like Estate zoning. It also matches the zoning to the south and will be a similar end product. Transitional Zoning 179 Stanley Circle Drive Massing Study Alignment with Rezone Requirements •3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Utilities/Adequate Public Facilities: •The subject property is in an area to be serviced by the following utilities: •Electric- Town of Estes Park •Water- Town of Estes Park •Sewer- Connect to existing utility: Town of Estes Park •Natural Gas- Xcel Energy •Communications/Broadband- Trailblazer Broadband •Proposed Utilities for future development are currently available on the property, with service providers readily able to install and connect to the above utilities. •Storm Drainage- Future development would consider existing natural drainage ways and water storage areas, with a greater concentration on the north side of the parcel Conclusion Increasing the supply of attainable and affordable workforce housing is essential to the long-term health of the Estes Valley. This parcel is in an ideal location for housing •Aligns with the comp plan & best practices of location selection for workforce housing •Walking distance from Downtown •Access to public transportation •Access to amenities•Infill development helps protect wildlife corridors and areas on the outskirts of town •Compatible zoning to the RM parcel to the south •Acts as transitional density from Heavy Commercial & Accommodations to the east towards estate zoning to the west