The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2026-01-20NOTE: The Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page at www.estes.org/videos ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written comments on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/EPPCPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting. All comments will be provided to the Commission for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. __________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Avenue Tuesday, January 20, 2026 1:30 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA 1.Planning Commission minutes dated December 16, 2025 PUBLIC COMMENT ACTION ITEMS 1.Rezoning Request from Residential Multi-Family (RM) to Accommodations (A1) 440 Valley Road Planner II Washam 2.Preliminary Subdivision Plat to develop a 10-lot residential subdivision 293 Overlook Ct Senior Planner Hornbeck DISCUSSION ITEMS 1.Development Code Update 2.Future Meetings 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. January 13, 2026 111 222 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 16, 2025 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the said Town of Estes Park on 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, Planner II Kara Washam, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Phares Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm. There were approximately 10 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 November 18, 2025 It was moved and seconded (Mulhern/Arterburn) to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 4-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: none Commissioner Mulhern requested a discussion of Ballot Question 300, which passed in the November election. He noted that the application was submitted before the vote, creating uncertainty about the appropriate process. Town Attorney Kramer clarified that the application is properly before the Commission and that Ballot Issue 300 is addressed in the staff report, which should be discussed during the action item's discussion section. Kramer added that the Development Code does not provide a mechanism to postpone an item indefinitely. He emphasized that only limited resolution can be achieved at this stage, as the Planning Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the Town Board. Commissioner Mulhern requested that the applicants obtain the neighbor's approval at this stage, as required under the new ballot measure. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Rezone 179 Stanley Circle Dr Senior Planner Hornbeck Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report. The applicant, the Estes Park Housing Authority, representing the property owner, the Town of Estes Park, requests that the property be rezoned from E (Estate) to RM (Multi-Family Residential) to facilitate the 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 on Stanley Circle Drive, draf t 333 Planning Commission – December 16, 2025 – Page 2 including one that aligns with Highland Lane and another approximately 200 feet south. Staff finds the application meets the Standards for Review in Development Code Section 3.3.D. However, staff has no recommendation at this time on whether Ballot Question 300 applies to this application and therefore is unable to recommend approval or disapproval of the application. DISCUSSION: Steve Lane, the applicant’s consultant from Basis Architecture, provided a project overview. The Concept Site Plan incorporated mindful elements in response to feedback from the neighborhood meeting. Pete Levine, Director of Housing Development at Estes Park Housing Authority, expanded on the materials presented by Planner Hornbeck, emphasizing the proposal's alignment with rezoning criteria. He concluded by noting that the site presents an ideal opportunity to expand the community's supply of attainable and affordable housing. Chair Cooper asked Attorney Kramer whether this constitutes spot zoning. Kramer responded that it does not, as the review criteria have been satisfied. He confirmed that the signature issue on the application has been resolved and noted that the concept plan proposes 12 units. When asked if the Mountain Wood Townhomes were rezoned from E (Estate) to RM (Residential Medium), Kramer confirmed this occurred in 2017. Commissioner Mulhern raised concerns about potential traffic impacts related to the proximity to the southern lot at the Trailborn hotel site. Planner Hornbeck stated that Public Works found no adverse effects on the intersection, based on the traffic study. Additional clarifications by Planner Hornbeck included that the proposal designates the area as Mixed Residential rather than Neighborhood Village, and that the existing building does not have historical status. Commissioner Arterburn noted that this represents an appropriate transitional zone. When asked about deed restrictions, Scott Moulton clarified that the project is being submitted as employee housing for town staff, though property management arrangements have not yet been determined. Commissioner Pawson confirmed that the lot size is one acre. A revision to the concept plan lowered the unit count from 15 to 12, which Steve Lane verified. Chair Cooper noted that the plan included 24 parking spaces, building height, and landscaping requirements. Commissioner Mulhern asked about potential parking concerns. Lane explained that most of these detailed questions will be addressed during the Development Plan review stage. PUBLIC COMMENT: Richard Ralph, town resident, objected to a lack of change in conditions, confusion about the definition of workforce housing, changes to documents posted on the website, inadequate or inaccurate intent, and inconsistency with the rest of the neighborhood. Kristine Poppitz, county resident, opposed the request and asked for further investigation regarding Ballot Issue 300. Gina Stine, county resident, stated that this sets a poor precedent due to the lack of a development plan and should follow the rules stated in Ballot Issue 300. BOARD DISCUSSION: draf t 444 Planning Commission – December 16, 2025 – Page 3 Attorney Kramer confirmed Commissioner Pawson's question that while RM zoning typically allows eight units, Chapter 11 density bonus in the Development Code could apply if all requirements are met. Commissioner Arterburn asked when deed restrictions would be applied. Kramer responded that this would occur later in the process. Commissioner Mulhern suggested adding language to the motion regarding Section 300. Kramer answered that this is definitely an option, as the Commission sees fit. Other commissioners discussed that the Town Board will ultimately need to make the final decision, and that the Planning Commission should approve or disapprove based solely on the criteria before them. Commissioner Pawson asked Attorney Kramer about the appropriate mechanism for implementing deed restrictions or covenants that would be suitable for this project. Kramer answered that that will come in a future stage of this development. It was moved and seconded (Mulhern/Arterburn) to forward to the Town Board a recommendation of approval of the rezoning application if it is determined that the application is or is not subject to Ballot issue 300. The motion passed 4-0. A five-minute break was taken at 2:30 2. Establishment of Zoning 775 Riverside Dr Planner II Washam Planner Washam reviewed the staff report. 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. 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 recommended the conditions provided below be included with the recommendation: 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 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. The 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, including regulations on shielding, height, color, brightness, and time of operation. 6. The development plan application shall include an updated wetland report that specifically addresses any potential impacts of the proposed development that may encroach into the wetland setback. Encroachment into the setbacks is a minor modification subject to approval by the Estes Park Planning Commission. draf t 555 Planning Commission – December 16, 2025 – Page 4 DISCUSSION: Scott Moulton, Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority, explained that Condition #2 offers two options: attainability and workforce restrictions. Moulton stated that he did not agree with this wording and that the choice between them would be made during the next application stage, based on community needs. Commissioner Mulhern confirmed that future modifications would need to align with the Development Plan. Commissioner Arterburn noted that the density bonus is not being used in this proposal. The presence of wetlands limits the number of housing units that can be built and any encroachment would primarily affect the setback areas rather than the wetlands themselves, per Planner Washam. All movement of dirt would be a part of the wetland report. Pete Levine, Director of Housing Development at Estes Park Housing Authority, elaborated on the setback request, explaining that it's impossible to build on this site without encroaching on the 50-foot wetland buffer. However, the design minimizes this encroachment as much as possible. Commissioner Pawson asked whether units could be sold at market rate. Levine confirmed yes, though the Town Board can impose deed restrictions through an Annexation Agreement. Levine added that this project will be a lower priority compared to other ongoing Estes Park Housing Authority projects. PUBLIC COMMENT: none BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner Mulhern expressed concern about how to accommodate the intent of voters who approved Ballot Issue 300. Commissioner Pawson stated concerns about wetland encroachment and questioned whether an increase in housing "stock" is necessary at this time. Director Moulton requested confirmation that the recommendation included all six conditions, again noting his disagreement with condition number two. 1. It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Cooper) to forward to the Town Board a recommendation to approve the establishment of the requested 'RM' Multi-Family Residential zone district, should the property be annexed, subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff and if it is determined that the application is or is not subject to Ballot issue 300. The motion passed 3-1 with Pawson voting no. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Director Careccia provided updates on the Development Code revision process. He noted upcoming Town Board Study Sessions: on January 13, the Watershed Coalition will present on wildlife protection; on January 27, there will be two sessions covering public outreach efforts on the Development Code and the wildfire resiliency code update. The Planning Commission's January 20 meeting will include one item at present—a rezone request. draf t 666 Planning Commission – December 16, 2025 – Page 5 Director Careccia thanked the Commission members for their volunteer service to the Town of Estes Park. With no further business, Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 3:07 pm. _________________________________ Chuck Cooper, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary draf t 777 888 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: January 20, 2026 Subject: 440 Valley Road Rezone Type: Public Hearing, Land Use Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider an application for a proposed Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low-Intensity), review the application for compliance with the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), and make a recommendation to Town Board. Background and Present Situation: The subject property is zoned RM (Multi-Family Residential) and contains two structures, a detached single-family home used residentially by one of the property owners and a small, three-unit lodge used as accommodations. The Statement of Intent (Attachment 2) provided by the applicants outlines a lengthy history of zoning classifications on the property. The applicants’ primary justification for the shift to A-1 (Accommodations, Low-Intensity) zoning is regulatory alignment. Under the current RM (Multi-Family Residential) zoning, the units are classified as a "triplex" or "independent dwelling units," which has resulted in the requirement for three separate Vacation Home Licenses (VHL) and three corresponding workforce housing linkage fees. The applicants contend that the A-1 (Accommodations, Low-Intensity) classification more accurately reflects their "small lodge" business model and would allow them to consolidate their regulatory requirements into a single accommodation license, with no associated linkage fees. Proposal: 999 The applicants request to rezone the subject property from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low-Intensity) for the purpose of reclassification of the existing three-unit accommodations structure from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge.” In order to be reclassified, the property must be zoned to a district that allows such use, as “Resort Lodge” is not permitted in the property’s current RM (Multi-Family Residential) zoning. No future development is proposed with this application. Existing Site Land Use and Density The subject property is currently developed as a detached single-family residence and a three-unit lodge used as accommodations. If the property is rezoned from RM “Multi- Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity), the minimum land area for development is 10,890 square feet per unit, or four (4) units per acre. For purposes of density calculation, The Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) does not distinguish between residential or accommodations uses, as both are permitted in the A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) zoning district. The subject property is 0.80-acres, 101010 which if redeveloped, could support up to three units. “Chapter 6. Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots” of the EPDC is applicable to uses, structures, and lots that were legally existing prior to the effective date of the code, February 1, 2000. Approval of the rezoning, and subsequent reclassification from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge,” would not create a nonconforming use. However, there is concern that rezoning the lot would result in a nonconforming lot. § 6.8.B. of the EPDC states: In all nonresidential zoning districts, a lot that is nonconforming as to area or dimension as of the effective date of this Code may be occupied by any use permitted by right in the zoning district, provided that a by-right accommodations use shall not be developed on a lot with an area less than: 1. Forty thousand (40,000) square feet in the A zoning district, or 2. Fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in the A-1 zoning district. Staff interprets this to mean that accommodation uses that are permitted by right in the A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) zoning district may continue, as the existing lot is greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. However, if the lot is redeveloped, future development would be subject to the base density calculation of 10,890 square feet minimum lot area per acre, or up to three (3) units for the 0.8-acre property. Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Future Land Use Zoning Current Use Subject Parcel Suburban Estate RM (Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential and Short-Term Rentals North Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential South Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) Accommodations (Resort) East Public/Semi-Public A (Accommodations) Religious Institution West Public/Semi-Public A (Accommodations Religious Institution 111111 Estes Park Zoning Map Estes Forward Future Land Use Map 121212 The Future Land Use Map in the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for land use policies and decisions that direct growth according to character and intensity of use. The Future Land Use Map designates the property as “Suburban Estate” (Attachment 3), which is intended for low to medium density single family residential development. Utilities & Services The existing development, including the single-family home and accommodation units, is currently served by Town water and power. Estes Valley Fire Protection expressed no concerns or objection to the rezone application. Upper Thompson Sanitation District expressed no opposition to the rezoning application but stated that a change of use from residential to commercial warrants reassessment and will result in a rate change. Site Access Existing access to the property is provided by Valley Road. No new access is proposed. However, Public Works has expressed concern with lack of Town right-of-way (ROW) in the vicinity of the property and has communicated this with the applicants. ROW dedication is optional and is not required with the rezoning process. Review Criteria All applications for text or Official Zoning Map Amendments shall be reviewed by the EPPC and Town Board for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. In accordance with § 3.3.D. “Standards for Review” of the EPDC, all applications for rezoning shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Staff Comment: There has been minimal development on the subject property or in the surrounding vicinity in recent years. However, there has been a change in conditions in the area since the current zoning was established in 2000. In 2011, for example, the property known as "Fall River Lodge in Estes Park," located at 900 W. Elkhorn Ave (directly across from the subject property), was rezoned from CO (Commercial Outlying) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) (Attachment 4). This rezoning request was 131313 sought to convert a small residential building into a small resort lodge, a concept similar to what the owners of 440 Valley Road are proposing. 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: Since no new development is currently proposed, staff has waived the development plan requirement per § 3.3.B.1 of the Estes Park Development Code: “All applications seeking to amend this Code to allow a change from one (1) zone district to a different zone district or seeking to amend this Code by changing the permitted uses in any zone district shall be accompanied by a development plan. This requirement may be waived by Staff if it finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or other factors associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver.” While no new development is planned, the rezoning can still be reviewed for compatibility and consistency with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. The Future Land Use map within the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan categorizes the subject property as “Suburban Estate.” This designation lists single family residential as appropriate land uses and development. This designation does not promote future development of accommodation uses. Although the development is existing, reclassification of the existing three-unit accommodations structure from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge” is inconsistent with the “Suburban Estate” land use designation. The proposed rezoning is consistent and compatible with the existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley and the surrounding area. Since the corridor primarily consists of accommodations, reclassifying the subject structure as a "Resort Lodge" would establish a compatible and consistent use within the neighborhood. Should future development occur, such development would be subject to the regulations of the Estes Park Development Code. 141414 Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning must align with the Comprehensive Plan and development patterns, despite no plans for future development. The 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use map designates the property as "Suburban Estate" (single-family residential), which conflicts with reclassifying the existing three-unit structure from "Vacation Home" to "Resort Lodge." However, the rezoning is consistent with the surrounding accommodations corridor, making the "Resort Lodge" classification a compatible neighborhood use. 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: The property is developed with existing residential and vacation home uses and is currently served by utilities. No comments in opposition to the rezoning were received and no comments indicated an inability to provide adequate services and facilities from service or utility providers. Advantages: · Approval of the rezoning request would allow the property owners to reclassify their use from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge.” · Reclassification would allow the property owners to continue with their small lodge business operation and would ensure continued beneficial use of their property. Disadvantages: · Approval of the rezoning, and subsequent reclassification from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge,” would result in a loss to the Estes Park Workforce Housing Regulatory Linkage Fund, as these fees would no longer be applicable. · A potential disadvantage of approving the rezoning application is that uncertainty remains on how the applicants and staff should interpret the requirements of Ballot Question 300. 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: 151515 “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 submitted on November 25, 2025. The applicants have not submitted written approval of the application by neighboring property owners in accordance with the above ballot language and as requested by staff. Finance/Resource Impact: Approval of the rezoning, and subsequent reclassification from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge,” would result in an annual loss of approximately $4,500 to the Estes Park Workforce Housing Regulatory Linkage Fund, as this fee would no longer be applicable. In the event that new development is proposed in the future, the cost to extend or improve infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) would be borne by the property 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: Low. A neighborhood and community meeting regarding the rezoning and development plan was held on-site on November 24, 2025. However, there were no attendees. At the time of this writing, one letter of public comment was received (Attachment 5). Opposition was expressed, stating general concerns over “nightly rentals of private residences in the Estes Valley” and concern that re-classification may attract new development. Public comments are included. Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. ·Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on January 2, 2026. ·Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on January 2, 2026. ·Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. 161616 Recommendation: Staff finds the application meets the Standards for Review in Development Code § 3.3.D. However, as noted previously, written approval from surrounding property owners has not been provided at this time. Therefore, given the uncertainty on applying the requirements of Ballot Question 300, staff has no formal recommendation. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Town Board as it deems appropriate, including a recommendation on the application with or without an interpretation of the applicability of Ballot Question 300. Planning staff will forward the Commission’s overall recommendation on the application to the Town Board, 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's requirements. Sample Motion: 1. I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Zoning Map Amendment application, to rezone the 0.80-acre subject property addressed at 440 Valley Road from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity), in accordance with the findings of fact outlined in the staff report. 2. I move to continue the Zoning Map Amendment application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Board of Trustees of the Zoning Map Amendment application, finding that … [state reasons for recommendation of denial]. Attachments: 1. Application 2. Statement of Intent 3. 2022 Comp Plan Excerpt- Suburban Estate 4. Ordinance 20-11 5. Public Comment Letter 6. Rezoning Exhibit (Aerial Map) 171717 7. Current Estes Park Zoning 8. 2022 Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 181818 Land Use Application Project Information Lot Size______________Zoning_____________ Existing Land Use______________ Proposed Land Use__________ Is property located in the Floodplain? yes [ ] no [ ] Is property part of a Condominium Association? yes [ ] no [ ] Utility Services Water Service (Existing) [ ] Town [ ] Well Water Service (Proposed) [ ] Town [ ] Well Sanitary Sewer Service (Existing) [ ] EPSD [ ] UTSD [ ] Septic Sanitary Sewer Service (Proposed) [ ] EPSD [ ] UTSD Attachments Required: Statement of Intent, Digital Copy of Plat/Plans 191919 Revised 2020.04.23 ks Consultant/Engineer PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date Email Applicant Record Owner(s) Signatures: MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION (not required for Board of Adjustment) Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Park Town limits view the fee schedule online at www.estes.org/planningforms All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Record Owner 202020 Revised 2024-03-11 ks ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Names: I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Park Development Code is available online at: estes.org/developmentcode I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EPDC. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road, no later than ten business days prior to the public hearing. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees/Planning Commissioners/Board of Adjustment members, with proper identification, access to my property during the review of this application. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void For Board of Adjustment applications: failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. (EPDC Section 3.6.D) 212121 The rezoning of 440 Valley Rd to A1 will accurately depict the actual existing use classification, low-intensity accommodations, and specific use – small lodge low-intensity. This will allow the property to be utilized as designed and permitted in 1987 and family operated for 15 years. We the four senior owners of a small family owned and managed 1500 SF low intensity STR building with three units – B1 - a “guest-unit” studio with kitchenette (2 guest max), B2 - a studio with kitchen (2 guest max), and B3 - a 1-bedroom with kitchen (4 guest max} – request to be rezoned from RM to A1. We have for 15 years been a successful STR accommodation business with an onsite owner/property manager, as was required by the Town Clerk when we went into business in 2011. We feel that our small, low-intensity accommodation is an excellent example of what a STR was originally intended to be in Estes Park. We have had zero complaints of any kind in 15 yrs – neither noise or any type of citation from the city or a neighbor. We have had thousands of happy guests and feel fortunate to have hosted them and take pride in helping to make their dream national park vacation come true. In the last 15 years, the industry has transformed from a small presence to an overcrowded market and may be starting to slow down. In 2011 we were required to have one business license as an accommodation under one roof with an onsite manager. In 2017 (Ordinance 29- 16) the town clerk sent three registration packets to our business and this then translated to three business licenses. Then in 2023 (Ordinance 02-22) the three business licenses each incurred a work force linkage fee. Our business has been affected by these ordinances, and after meetings with the CDD and the Town clerk in 2023 we see no relief from the unfair triple business license/triple linkage fees we pay annually. The linkage fee has increased each year with the cost-of-living. We face a hardship and a competitive disadvantage to large vacation homes; as a small niche business of studio units, we are being taxed at a multi-bedroom rate. These large homes pay one work force housing fee of $1500 while our small accommodation which normally sleep 2/unit also pays $1500/unit – for a total of $4500. Financially in 2025 we will have our first loss and we have had to raise our rates >$32/night to cover just the linkage fee. We are uncertain if we can stay in business as a small 3-vacation home licensed business, in the RM zone. We request rezoning to A1 so our business, that does not fit the typical vacation home model of large independent dwelling units, does not have to incur the unfair burden of having 3 business licenses and 3 linkage fees for such a small low intensity building. Background: Our family property at 440 Valley Rd was incorrectly rezoned in the 2000 EVDC city rezone as we’ve been told occurred to many properties in Estes Park. Our parents purchased the property in 1986 as CO (single family + antique shop) and it was rezoned to E1 single family. The “corrective rezone” which occurred in 2010 from E1 to RM was also a mistake, and it should have been rezoned to A1. After my father’s death in 2008 we no longer could use the two buildings as fulltime family residences. The CDD in 2009-2010 had lost the “address file” – thus 222222 all the records for our property. The burden of proof that my parents had submitted the required plans/permits for converting an old antique shop into 3 low intensity accommodations/guest units was placed on the 3 surviving children who had always planned to complete our father’s 1987 design. Note: 19 CDD records were finally found at city Hall, 13 years later, in 2023 after 2 CORA requests were made by the owners. The first records request was made at the direction of CDD Director J Garner who profusely apologized “we just keep finding files”. Thankfully our father was an architect/chief of Planning and Engineering at Purdue University and we supplied CDD with the permit numbers and our father’s architectural plans from 1987 and 2001 (#4075, M-50-01). In the 2010 CDD corrective rezone there were delays and unnecessary confusion in a complex process for first time hopeful business owners – we were falsely accused as code violators, and informed by CDD Director Bob Joseph that we no longer owned a commercially zoned property – but only after he denied us a 2010 plumbing permit to remodel the final 3rd small 1 bedroom unit that we had worked tirelessly to get ready, so we could get a STR business license. In 2009, CDD had sent code enforcement/police unannounced on a false code violation to inspect the property a few months after our father’s death, but there was no mention of the non-conforming E1 city-wide zoning mistake nor was the error addressed when my father got a permit in 2001 – just a year after the EVDC rezone. The email records between code enforcement, the police and Larimer County substantiate that the “address file” went missing at this time. Director Joseph directed that until we correctively rezoned to RM, and purchased an additional UT sewer tap to allow for a kitchen sink/dishwasher in the 3rd unit, we could not get a plumbing permit to proceed. Note: this was the second tap for the 1500 SF building as he allowed unit B1 to be grandfathered in from 1987 as a guest unit. At the 11/16/2010 Town Board study session, Commissioner Poggenpohl stated it was quite a stretch to go from CO to E1 single family; he then questioned why the corrective rezone was not for A1 or as it was originally zoned. We then realized we had not been presented with the correct intended use for our small low intensity accommodation business. We believe that with no records at CDD in 2010, the false accusations, and having to prove we had legal permits, the true intended use for the property was misguided. We did get it “correctively rezoned” and there was no CDD fee when we agreed to a downgraded corrective rezone from the original CO to RM. However, the intended use was always for low intensity accommodations, as the submitted architectural drawings and permit in 1987 recorded. We later realized the CDD use written on the 3 Certificates of Occupancy “new attached single family dwellings” and labeling the small building a “triplex ” was not accurate and nor was RM, for our intended use. No new development is planned at our property. Rezoning to A1 is more in line with the Future Land Use Map of 2022, with mixed-use properties across the street and semi-public lands on 232323 both sides of the property. Without rezoning, the property is a lone outlier in the current and future maps – as a “suburban estate” and the only such property directly on the “accommodation/business highway 34 corridor ”, and as an RM property surrounded by A, A1, and CO in the immediate highway corridor and intersections. This area will see increased traffic as the Elkhorn redevelopment and larger commercial workforce projects on Hwy 34 are completed. Our intent is for the property to retain its natural beauty and low intensity character for the enjoyment of our guests and family, and to maintain the designated wildlife corridor along the Fall River. 242424 SUBURBAN ESTATE The Suburban Estate category is intended for low to medium density single family residential development, including conservation development that may be supported by limited small-scale neighborhood commercial located at crossroads or along arterial roads within the Town� Any non-residential uses are appropriate when they demonstrate the following: »Supports a local, neighborhood need »Is appropriately located for the access and transportation requirements of the activity (e�g�, a rustic camp may be acceptable on gravel road, whereas a retail use should be located on a paved road) »Availability of adequate utilities and infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, fire protection) »Scale and intensity of the use is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood based on factors such as: • Built character • Proximity to residential areas • Proximity to sensitive environmental features or wildlife areas • Proximity to unique or highly visible viewsheds, landforms, or places of interest Appropriate Land Uses and Development Types »Single family residential subdivisions with low to medium density »Single family homes with accessory dwelling units »Single family clustered or conservation developments (in the County) »Limited neighborhood-serving commercial located at primary intersections (in the Town or key locations) Built Form The Suburban Estate Category typically consists of medium-sized single-family homes on lots that are at least a quarter-acre in size� Medium-density conservation development with smaller lots requires public water and wastewater� However much of the development in this category is served by septic where public wastewater is unavailable and larger lots can accommodate individual systems� New homes should be appropriately scaled for compatibility with existing neighborhood character� Existing suburban neighborhoods served by public utilities can accommodate moderate increases in density through the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units� »Building Height: 1 - 2�5 stories »Block Length: N/A »Primary Road Setback: 30+ ft� »Transportation System: Automobiles are the primary mode of transportation on low-volume streets that are wide enough for pedestrians to safely walk the shoulder� As much as possible, dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs are discouraged in favor of efficient, interconnected street networks. Previous (1996) Future Land Use Categories »Estate 1 Acre Min� »Estate 0�5 Acre Min� 67ESTES FORWARD | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 252525 0 0 ORDINANCE NO.20-11 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE LOT I OF THE WITT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 900 W.ELKHORN AVENUE WHEREAS,the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning a Lot 1 Witt Subdivision,located at 900 W.Elkhorn Avenue,from CO Commercial Outlying to A-i Accommodations;and WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning change be granted. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,COLORADO: Section 1:The zoning Lot 1 Witt Subdivision,located at 900 W.Elkhorn Avenue,shall be changed from CO Commercial Outlying to A-i Accommodations. Section 2:This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30)days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF PARK,COLORADO,THIS 27’DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2011. tb41in Clerk 1tEPLTt’j I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the 27 day of September,2011 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park,Colorado,on the 3O- day of c ,2011,all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. a ToVn Cerk T 262626 Rezoning 440 Valley Road from RM to A-1 This town is desperate for housing, especially smaller units like these. Any rezoning that takes land from residential use should meet a high bar for compensating public good. The property owner is requesting this rezoning to bring it into line with existing use, a use that is entirely allowed under the 2010 RM zoning. The changing condition driving this request appears to be the Town short-term rental regulations and fees. Rezoning to “A-1” would consolidate their paperwork and reduce their fees. However, this is not a reason for rezoning under our Development Code. The requested rezoning would beneﬁt the property owner, reducing their paperwork and expenses; but also reducing Town revenues. The public good in this is not obvious. It would also have a broader consequence. Under current zoning, their three units are counted in the Town cap of short term rentals. If rezoned to “A-1”, those three units would become exempt from the cap, which only applies for residential properties. As a consequence, three more homes in Town could be shifted from residential use to short term rentals. Deﬁnitely a loss and public harm in a town that so desperately needs residential housing. Finally, the requested zoning is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. The Property lies at a transition between residential and commercial/accommodations zoning and uses. Adjoining parcels are zoned by both Accommodations and Estate (residential with 1 acre lot minimums). Comprehensive Plan FLU map suggests this parcel should remain residential, speciﬁcally as low density residential similar to the adjoining neighborhood. Re-zoning to “A-1” would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Joan Hooper 1270 Range Vier Road January 20, 2026 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 Drive For Against Neutral 440 Valley Road 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 Commissioners, Based on the information on the TOEP's website, the re-zoning request for the property at 440 Valley Road is only being requested by the property owners to repair mistakes made in the Town-wide re-zoning and subsequent "fixes" to the previous error made by the Town. Please approve this request to fix errors made by the Town. Thank you. 272727 282828 292929 A A-1 CO E RE RM E-1 Fall River PRIVAT EDR FALLRIVERLN WWONDERVIEWAVE WELKHORNAVE PR I V A T E D R VALLEY RD 355 525 855 813 470 450 490 900 890 775 415 701 777 455 920 801 455 480 440 450 460 470 430 410 900 875 350 880 825 441 445 560 490 845 740 496 951 132 325 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. 0 100 200Feet 1 in = 181 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development ZoningDistricts Printed: 10/20/2025Created By: kwasham Legend BuildingsZoning 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) 303030 Fall River PRIVAT EDR FALLRIVERLN WWONDERVIEWAVE WELKHORNAVE PR I V A T E D R VALLEY RD 355 525 855 813 470 450 490 900 890 775 415 701 777 455 920 801 455 480 440 450 460 470 430 410 900 875 350 880 825 441 445 560 490 845 740 496 951 132 325 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. 0 100 200Feet 1 in = 181 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Future Land UseMap 2022 Printed: 10/20/2025Created By: kwasham Legend 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 313131 Community Development 1069 Moan St. Estes Park Planning Commission January 20, 2026 440 Valley Road Rezone Denice D. Borda, Brian Delaney, and Dana D. Burke (Owners/Applicants) Presented by Kara Washam, Planner II Objective Make a recommendation to Town Board regarding the rezoning request for 440 Valley Road. •Applicants request to rezone from RM to A-1. •EPPC is the recommending-body for Zoning Map Amendments •Town Board is the decision-making body for Zoning Map Amendments. Vicinity Map Existing Site Proposal The applicants request to rezone the subject property from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A- 1 (Accommodations, Low-Intensity). •Reclassification of the existing three-unit accommodations structure from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge.” •Property must be zoned to a district that allows use. •Resort Lodge” is not permitted in the property’s current RM (Multi- Family Residential) zoning. •No future development is proposed with this application. Existing Lodge Land Use and Density The subject property is currently developed as a detached single-family residence and a 3-unit lodge used as accommodations. A-1 Density/Lot Size: •Minimum 10,890 sq. ft. per unit (4 units/acre). •Subject property (0.80 acres) could support up to 3 units if redeveloped. •EPDC does not distinguish between residential or accommodations uses, as both are permitted in the A-1. Land Use and Density, cont. EPDC § 6.8.B. (Nonconforming Lots/ Accommodations Use): •Accommodations use on a lot nonconforming as of Feb. 1, 2000, must be at least 15,000 sq. ft. in A-1. Staff Interpretation: Existing accommodations use is permitted to continue as the lot is greater than 15,000 sq. ft. Future Redevelopment: Any future redevelopment must adhere to the A-1 base density of 10,890 sq. ft./unit (max 3 units for this property). Estes Park Zoning Estes Forward Future Land Use Utilities and Services The existing development, including the single-family home and accommodation units, is currently served by Town of Estes Park Water and Power. Estes Valley Fire Protection expressed no concerns or objection to the rezone application. Upper Thompson Sanitation District expressed no opposition to the rezoning application but stated that a change of use from residential to commercial warrants reassessment and will result in a rate change. Site Access •Existing access to the property is provided by Valley Road. •No new access is proposed. •Public Works has expressed concern with lack of Town ROW in the vicinity and has communicated this with the applicants. •ROW dedication is optional and is not required with the rezoning process. Review Criteria Pursuant to § 3.3.D. of the EPDC, an application for a Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) shall be reviewed for compliance with relevant 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. Review Criteria #1 1.The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. •Minimal development on the subject property or in the surrounding vicinity in recent years. •Change in conditions in the area since the current zoning was established in 2000. •In 2011, the property known as "Fall River Lodge in Estes Park,“ directly across from the subject property, was rezoned from CO (Commercial Outlying) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity). •This rezoning was requested to convert a small residential building into a small resort lodge. Review Criteria #2 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. •Since no new development is currently proposed, staff has waived the development plan requirement per § 3.3.B.1. •Rezoning should still be reviewed for compatibility and consistency with the policies and intent of the Comp Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Review Criteria #2, cont. The "Suburban Estate" future land use designation permits single-family residential development but is inconsistent with the proposed reclassification of the structure from "Vacation Home" to "Resort Lodge." •Rezoning aligns with the existing growth and development patterns of the Estes Valley, as the corridor is primarily composed of accommodations. •Reclassifying the structure as a "Resort Lodge" would be compatible with the neighborhood. •Any future development would be subject to regulations of the EPDC. Review Criteria #3 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. •The property is developed with existing residential and vacation home uses and is currently served by utilities. •No comments in opposition to the rezoning were received and no comments indicated an inability to provide adequate services and facilities from service or utility providers. Advantages & Disadvantages Advantages: •Approval of the rezoning request would allow the property owners to reclassify their use from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge.” •Reclassification would allow the property owners to continue with their small lodge business operation and would ensure continued beneficial use of their property. Disadvantages: •Approval of the rezoning, and subsequent reclassification from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge,” would result in a loss to the Estes Park Workforce Housing Regulatory Linkage Fund, as these fees would no longer be applicable. Ballot Question 300 A potential disadvantage of approving the rezoning is that uncertainty remains on how the applicants and staff should interpret the requirements of 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?” The subject application was submitted on November 25, 2025. The applicants have not submitted written approval of the application by neighboring property owners in accordance with the above ballot language and as requested by staff. 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 January 2, 2026. •Legal notice published in the EP Trail-Gazette on January 2, 2026. •Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. Public interest in this rezoning request is low. Neighborhood Meeting was held on November 24, 2025: •No attendees At the time of this writing, three letters of public comment were received: •2 letters expressed opposition, 1 letter expressed support. Action Recommended Staff finds the application meets the Standards for Review in EPDC § 3.3.D. •Written approval from surrounding property owners has not been provided at this time. •Given the uncertainty on applying the requirements of Ballot Question 300, staff has no formal recommendation. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Town Board as it deems appropriate, including a recommendation on the application with or without an interpretation of the applicability of Ballot Question 300. Sample Motions Sample Motions: 1.I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Zoning Map Amendment application, to rezone the 0.80-acre subject property addressed at 440 Valley Road from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity). 2.I move to continue the Zoning Map Amendment application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3.I move to forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Board of Trustees of the Zoning Map Amendment application, finding that [state reasons for recommendation of denial]. 323232 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 Department: Community Development Date: January 20, 2026 Subject: Freelan Heights Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Stanley Lot 2A LLC, Brad O’Neil Owner/Applicant Type: Public Hearing, Land Use, Quasi-Judicial, Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider an application for a proposed preliminary subdivision plat which would create ten single family lots and eliminate six existing duplex lots, review the application for compliance with applicable codes, and make a recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees to approve or deny the application. Present Situation: The subject property is part of the Stanley Historic District (District) and is therefore governed by the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines (Master Plan), which is accessible here. However, development agreements for properties in the District dictate that subdivision applications remain subject to the subdivision process contained in the Development Code. Therefore, the Master Plan standards apply as does the Development Code process for subdivisions. This means the normal process of Planning Commission making a recommendation to Town Board on a preliminary plat applies, with the Master Plan providing the review criteria. A final plat application would be considered by Town Board only, should the preliminary plat be approved. A further complication is that the Master Plan dictates that all “new development” in the District be subject to the Master Plan process. So, while Town Board is the decision 3333 maker on the subdivision, the Stanley Technical Review Committee (TRC) has authority to approve “new development”, meaning all improvements associated with the subdivision, including buildings, site work, and landscaping. The Master Plan requires the TRC to review all new development first as a Preliminary Package, followed by a Final Package. This is in addition to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). The ARC reviewed and approved model home plans (Attachment #4) for the proposed subdivision in June, 2025, finding them compliant with relevant design standards. This completes the necessary ARC review, provided future construction is in general conformance with those plans. The TRC approved the Preliminary Package on November 4, 2025, finding it met the standards set forth in the Stanley Master Plan subject to setback variances for two proposed buildings. TRC review of the Final Package is anticipated to occur after Town Board action on the Preliminary Plat. Lot 2 of the Stanley Historic District was platted in 2004 as the Overlook Condominiums, which included four multifamily buildings, 11 duplex buildings (22 units), and six single family building envelopes. The multifamily and duplex buildings were subsequently built out. In 2020, Lot 2 was subdivided in to Lot 2A and 2B, with the unbuilt single-family envelopes on Lot 2A and the built out multifamily and duplexes on Lot 2B. In 2024 an amendment to the plat changed the six single-family envelopes on Lot 2A to duplex building envelopes (i.e. 12 units). This increase in density was in accordance with the densities permitted in the Stanley Master Plan. The context of the area includes single family homes to the northeast, the Black Canyon Inn to the north, duplex and multifamily buildings to the south on Lot 2B, and a significant rock formation to the west. There is considerable topography on the site, with slopes on most of the site between 15-30% and the significant rock feature on the northwest portion of the site with steeper slopes. The site is located outside mapped flood and geologic hazard areas but is within a mapped wildfire hazard area. Depending on timing of building permit submittals, the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code or Development Code standards may apply. The site is located within an important wildlife 3434 habitat area per the 1996 Comprehensive Plan wildlife map as a high use area for deer; however, no fencing is proposed. Proposal: The applicants request approval of a preliminary subdivision plat to eliminate the six existing duplex building envelopes and create 10 single family lots. Lots range in size from approximately 6,700 to 23,600 square feet. Access is provided by two private, shared driveways which connect to Overlook Court. The shared driveways will be maintained by lot owners and require a shared driveway agreement to be recorded with the final plat. The northern driveway connects to the property to the north, Black Canyon Inn, as an emergency access. Advantages: The application complies with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the Master Plan. Listed below is a summary of the major relevant standards from the Master Plan, such as lot standards, density, grading, and other similar standards normally considered by Planning Commission in review of subdivisions. Other more unique standards such as building design are omitted here in deference to the TRC review of “new development.” However, Planning Commission may choose to weigh in on those standards as well. 1. Lots. All lots meet applicable minimum standards prescribed in the Master Plan, including minimum size of 6,000 square feet. 2. Minimum Open Space. A minimum of 30% designated open space is required. Each lot includes a building envelope to limit the developable area on each lot and reserve remaining area as open space in order to meet the 30% requirement. 3. Grading. Buildings shall be sited in a manner that preserves existing land forms and overlot grading for the sole purpose of creating flat building pads is prohibited. The slopes of the site necessitate some disruption to existing landforms; however, the grading plan shows grading focused around individual building footprints, rather than creating large, flat building sites. This is consistent 3535 with the objective of minimizing earthwork and placing buildings to fit within existing contours. 4. Preservation of Significant Vegetation. The Development Code defines significant conifers trees as those with a diameter at breast height of eight inches or larger. It appears approximately 20 significant trees will be removed due to new construction and approximately 25 new trees are proposed. Buildings do appear sited in a manner to minimize loss of trees. For example, buildings on lots one and two are clustered towards the common lot line. 5. Preservation of Significant Views. Buildings should be sited in a manner that preserves significant views. The primary concerns relate to maintaining views to the site. The most significant views of the historic district are those from the south towards the Hotel. Those views will not be impacted. Views from the homes north of the subject parcel will be impacted but not to an unexpected extent given development is permitted on the subject property; and given the proposed building orientation leaves view windows southwest towards Longs Peak. Photo simulations of the new buildings is provided in Attachment #5. 6. Road Alignment. Roads and driveways will require modest cut and fill. Finished grades appear to generally be within a few feet of existing grades. This is consistent with the requirement of following contours of the site. 7. Landscaping. The Master Plan seeks to soften off-site views of buildings with landscaping and plantings that reflects native vegetation patterns. The landscape plan depicts aspen and spruce trees, located to soften views of buildings. 8. Pedestrian Circulation. The Master Plan requires sites to facilitate pedestrian circulation. A sidewalk currently exists along Overlook Court, terminating at the cul-de-sac. The low volume of traffic does not warrant new sidewalks on the shared driveways. 9. Density. The Master Plan establishes a maximum number of units allowed on Parcel 2. Detailed calculations provided by the applicant are included with Attachment #6. The Master Plan refers to Parcel 2, also known as Lot 2, which was subsequently subdivided into Lots 2A, the subject property, and Lot 2B, the previously built development to the east. The Master Plan envisioned three 3636 development scenarios for Lot 2, including all residential, with a cap of 46 units, all accommodations, with a cap of 92 units, or a mix of residential and accommodations. The maximum allowed units under the mixed development scenario, which applies in this case, is 92 units, with maximums on each type of unit. For each residential unit built, the 92 permitted accommodation units decreases by two units. For every two accommodations units built, the 46 permitted residential units decreases by one. Lot 2B has 30 accommodations units and Lot 2A is proposed to have 5 accommodations units. The 35 total accommodations units reduces the 46 allowed residential units to 28. The total 15 residential units on Lots 2A and 2B complies. Lot 2B has 10 residential units and Lot 2A is proposed to have 5 residential units. The 15 total residential units reduces the 92 allowed accommodations units to 62. The 35 total accommodations units on Lots 2A and 2B complies. There is also a cap on the total square footage of accommodations units set at 75,000. TRC approved a variance on July 12, 2022 to allow a maximum accommodations square footage of 76,776. That maximum is reduced by 1,250 square feet per residential unit. The 15 residential units reduce the allowed square footage to 58,026. Existing (39,422 s.f.) and proposed (17,865 s.f.) accommodations square footage is 57,287, under the allowed maximum. To ensure the allowed maximum is not exceeded, staff requests the plat document which lots are accommodations units and which are limited to residential use only. 10. Off-Site Utilities and Services. While not a requirement in the Master Plan, utility and service providers have reviewed the application. The Water Division, Power and Communications, Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and Estes Park Sanitation District have expressed no objections to the proposed subdivision. Disadvantages: None identified. 3737 Action Recommended: Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town Board a recommendation to approve the preliminary plat, subject to the following findings and conditions of approval: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission is the recommending body for the preliminary plat. 2. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is the decision-making body for the preliminary plat. Town Board approval of a final plat is also necessary to subdivide the property. 3. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available or will be made available by the applicant to serve the subject property. 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment with no objections received. 5. The preliminary plat application complies with applicable standards set forth in the Stanley Master Plan. Conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall designate which lots permit accommodations use and which are restricted to residential use. 2. Access easements and driveway/drainage maintenance agreements, benefiting all lots with indirect access, shall be included with the Final Plat application and recorded with the Final Plat. Finance/Resource Impact: Future ongoing expenditures for other municipal services serving the property will be minor compared existing town-wide expenditures on these items. Level of Public Interest: As of this writing no formal public comments have been received on this application; however, staff has received inquiries from three individuals who expressing concern the application does not comply with the Master Plan. In accordance with the notice requirements in the Code, notice of this hearing was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, on January 2, 2026. Notice was mailed to all required adjacent property owners on January 2, 2026. A sign was posted on the 3838 property by the applicant. A neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant, a summary of which is enclosed (Attachment #7). Sample Motion: 1. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, according to findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of denial the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Statement of Intent 2. Preliminary Subdivision Plat 3. Landscape Plan 4. Building Plans 5. Photo Simulations 6. Density Calculations 7. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 3939 TRC RESOLUTION 02-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT MASTER PLAN APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE PRELIMINARY PACKAGE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE FREELAN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the Preliminary Package of the project referenced in the title of this resolution meets the requirements of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan for a preliminary package; WHEREAS, while adequate for a Preliminary Package, the materials include insufficient detail for the Technical Review Committee (TRC) to determine whether the plans meet the Final Package requirements of the Master Plan and the applicable development agreement with regard to the conditions listed below and; WHEREAS, a Final Package in conformance with the Stanley Historic District Master Plan shall be submitted for TRC review and decision. NOW, THEREFORE, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: New development associated with the Freelan Heights Subdivision project Preliminary Package meets the standards and requirements in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan and Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44, subject to the variances below: 1. TRC approves a variance to allow a setback of 25 feet from the north property line on Lot 6 as a design solution advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan. 2. TRC approves a variance to allow a setback of 10 feet from the south property line on Lot 1 as a design solution advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan. New development associated with the Freelan Heights Subdivision project Preliminary Package is approved, conditioned upon submittal, review, and approval of the following items in accordance with the Master Plan, or Development Code as applicable: 1. Details on materials used in and around drainage facilities shall be provided with the Final Package to demonstrate river rock and cobbles are used rather than angular rip-rap or exposed concrete. 2. Limits of disturbance and tree protection standards shall be shown on construction plans. 3. Specific species and plant sizes shall be provided with the Final Package. 4. Additional details regarding retaining wall material and height shall be provided with the Final Package. 5. Sight distance shall be shown on the Final Package landscape plan where driveways intersect with Overlook Court. 6. The Final Package and subdivision plat shall depict shared driveways within outlot(s) to be maintained by a homeowners association. 4040 7. Each building permit application shall provide building height calculations, details on exterior light fixtures, and utility meter placement. 8. Within the covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the subdivision, the applicant shall place a prohibition on the installation or construction of fencing and screen walls over 40 inches in height. 9. The Final Plat shall designate which lots permit accommodations use and which are restricted to residential use. DATED this day 4th of November, 2025 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Travis Machalek Chair, Technical Review Committee ATTEST: Karin Swanlund Recording Secretary 4141 October 29, 2025 Estes Park Community Development Statement of Intent Freelan Heights (Stanley Lot 2A) Summary We are proposing a for-sale 10-unit mixed residential/accommodations development on Lot 2A within the Stanley Hotel Historic District in Estes Park. Lot 2A is a 3-acre vacant site with A-Accommodations zoning and is the remaining development parcel within the Overlook residential/accommodations community consisting of 40 existing units. The 6 building envelopes within Lot 2A were initially platted for single family homes but were recently approved for 6 duplexes yielding 12 units. We are proposing to revise the plat replacing the 6 building envelopes and surrounding common area with a 10-lot subdivision. We will then construct and sell 10 detached townhomes to be built within the 10 lots.. We believe this development will provide certain benefits and advantages to the Stanley residential community including: a distinct product type not currently offered within the Overlook neighborhood, a preferred unit type for primary and second home buyers, buildings with smaller massing, and expanded landscaping between the buildings. The individual units will be two stories above grade with finished walk-out basements. Total unit square footage is anticipated to be in the 3,200 to 3,600 sf range. Each unit will have a 2-car garage and feature up to 5 bedroom/bath suites. Exterior amenities include south or west facing decks on the main and upper levels and a patio on the lower level. Except as noted in the variance request section below, the site plan, exterior building designs and residential/accommodations unit mix will conform with the development standards and design guidelines within the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. Exterior siding will consist of natural materials with an appropriate mix of textures and muted colors that will complement the existing Overlook units. High volume ceilings and abundant natural light is planned for the interior spaces. All units will utilize energy efficient designs and construction materials. We anticipate providing EV charging stations within the unit garages. Variance Request With the goal of maximizing unit separation, we are lowering the density from the approved 12 units to 10 units and requesting variances for the following setback requirements: 1. 15’ south setback for Lot 1. The property directly south of Lot 1 contains a drainage easement. Accordingly, we request a 10’ south setback for this lot. 4242 2. 50’ north setback for Lot 6. It appears the Stanley Historic District Master Plan established the 50’ setback along Lot 2A’s north property boundary as a buffer to help protect the mountain views enjoyed by the residential properties to the north of Lot 2A. However, the property directly north of Lot 6 is vacant, non-residential land owned by Black Canyon Inn. Furthermore, this property has no mountain views due to the large rock outcropping on the western portion of Lot 6. The property to the north and east of Lot 6 is currently platted for 8 townhomes but the owners of Black Canyon Inn recently purchased this property with the intent of rezoning it to Accommodations and building additional hotel units on this property. Accordingly, we request a reduction of the 50’ north setback requirement for Lot 6 to 25’, which is the setback requirement for the eastern property boundary of Lot 2B (the Overlook development). We believe the site plan with these two set-back variances is advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan and the Guidelines. Respectfully, Brad O’Neil Estes Valley Partners Don Darling Darling Enterprise 4343 4444 ’ ’ 45 ’ ’ 46 47 48 Stanley Lot 2A Model Unit Design preliminary design subject to final refignments Design Compliance Floor Plans Elevations Perspectives Model Unit Location p 2 p 3 p 4-7 p 8-12 p 13 Long's Peak and Continental Divide View to the West Prospect Mountain and Estes Park View to the South Lake Estes View to the East June 16, 2025 4949 Compliance with Stanley Historic District Master Plan Key Design Guidelines Proposed Design Building Form Development shall provide a unified high quality architectural character with a variety of building configurations designed to fit the site and create visual interest with varied rooflines, building footprints, and entry treatments. Roofs have a minimum pitch of 4:12 and maximum allowable height of 30’ as defined. The exterior design of the house has a variety of architecturally distinctive elements including varying wall planes on each façade, exposed heavy timber roof framing, and a prominent turret element designed to showcase the panoramic views from inside. All roofs have a 4:12 pitch and the uppermost ridgeline has a maximum allowable height of 29’-2”. Materials Exterior materials should be in keeping with the mountain environment and be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The use of natural materials such as redwood and cedar, and accent stone is encouraged. Wall materials should convey a sense of human scale and warmth. Stones should be laid in a manner that conveys the appearance of a structural element rather than as a veneer facing another material. They should not convey an overly urban or industrial character. The exterior materials align well with the mountain environment and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The use of cedar wood siding provides a natural texture and warm appearance. Stonework at the base of the walls is composed of natural stone giving this material the look of a structural element and effectively complements the wooden siding. The combination of these materials including the heavy timber framing enhances the house’s integration with its natural surroundings. Colors On exterior walls the predominant tone should tend toward warm earthy hues, whether in the natural patina or weathered color of the wall surface itself or the color of the paint, stain or other coating. The wood siding features gray/brown stain on the primary walls and a darker gray/brown stain on the accent walls. The roof shingles and the stone base will compliment the wood siding with gray/brown tones. Trim will be dark gray. Decks Attached decks and patios shall be encouraged but not required for all units. These shall be spacious, private functional outdoor living spaces carefully sited and partially enclosed by building walls, low landscape retaining walls, and plantings. These shall be constructed using the same stone and wood materials and detailing used on the building exterior. The house includes decks at each upper level and a lower-level patio that are spacious and functional. The second level deck, featuring a pergola structure, is partially enclosed by walls on two sides providing privacy from adjacent houses. The careful siting of these decks, especially the second level deck with its elevated views, enhances the house’s relationship with the site. Miscellaneous Careful consideration of wind protection, solar orientation, framing of desirable views, privacy, and varied entry treatments shall be clearly demonstrated in the building architecture and its relationship to the site and neighborhood buildings. The panoramic views of the continental divide to the west to Lake Estes to the east are framed by the extensive use of glass, the 2-story turret element and spacious second level deck. All levels at the rear elevation feature large windows and sliding glass doors maximizing solar gain and natural light. 2 5050 Up Game Table Wet Bar Mech Storage Bedroom Suite 5 Bedroom Suite 4 Family Patio Lower Level Main Level Upper Level Long's Peak and Continental Divide Prospect Mountain and Estes Park Lake Estes Views Kitchen Family Dining Master Suite Laundry Entry Up Dn FP FP 2-Car Garage with Storage Deck Dn Open to Below Bedroom Suite 3 Bedroom Suite 2 Deck Bar Fridge Fire Pit Linen FP Floor Plans •3,612 finished sf •2 levels above grade with walkout lower level •5 bedroom suites •3 outdoor spaces with upper level heated deck Up Grille Pantry Mech 3 5151 Front Elevation A B H A - Vertical cedar siding with gray/brown stain B - Vertical cedar siding with darker gray/brown stain C - Dry stacked stone to compliment siding with gray/brown tones D - Dark gray trim E - Windows and doors with dark gray frames F - Heavy wood timber framing with redwood stain G - Dark gray metal railings H - Asphalt shingles to compliment siding with gray/brown tones C D F E G 4 5252 Left Elevation 29'-2" above average finished grade (30' max) 4'-10" average finished grade 4:12 pitch - all roofs 0' 10' 5 5353 Back Elevation 6 5454 Right Elevation 7 5555 8 5656 9 5757 10 5858 11 5959 12 6060 Lot 2A Model Unit 13 6161 6 5 4 3 2 7 8 9 10 1 KEY EXISTING TREE TO KEEP PLANTED ASPEN TREE PLANTED SPRUCE TREE NATIVE SHRUB 1.5" ROCK BORDER NOTES: ALL PLANTINGS TO BE WATERED WITH DRIP IRRIGATION . 3' ROCK BORDER AROUND PERIMETER OF EACH UNIT (1.5" ROCK). ALL TREES TO BE PLANTED AT LEAST 10' AWAY FROM UNIT PLACED MOSS ROCK ST A N L E Y L O T Es t e s P a r k , C O PARK LANDSCAPING PR O J E C T : REVISIONS INITIAL:DATE: DATE: DRAWN BY: GF CHECKED BY: LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET: 1 PR O J E C T : REVISIONS LA N D S C A P E P L A N INITIAL:DATE: DATE: 08/28/2025 DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: SHEET: 6262 Stanley Lot 2A Photo Survey Views6363 View 16464 View 16565 View 26666 View 26767 View 36868 View 36969 View 47070 View 47171 Stanley Allowable Residential and Accommodation Units per Stanley Historic District Master Plan (SHDMP) 9/20/2025 Lot 2B (Overlook Condos) resi and accom units Lot 2A (Freelan Heights) accom units allowed based on SF Unit #SF Resi Accom Max accom SF per SHDMP 75,000 301 792 792 Overage approved by TRC 7/12/2022 1,776 303 864 864 Revised max accom SF 76,776 305 864 864 307 792 792 Lot 2B resi units 10 311 792 792 Lot 2A resi units 5 313 864 864 Total resi units 15 315 864 864 Accom SF reduced by each resi unit (1,250) 317 792 792 Total accom SF reduced (18,750) 321 792 792 Allowable accom SF 58,026 323 864 864 325 864 864 Lot 2B accom SF total (39,422) 327 864 864 Lot 2A accom SF allowed 18,604 329 792 792 Lot 2A accom SF per unit 3,573 341 792 792 Lot 2A accom units allowed 5 343 864 864 345 864 864 Total resi and accom units allowed per SHDMP 347 864 864 Lot 2A resi and accom units 10 349 792 792 Lot 2B resi and accom units 40 314 1,755 1,755 Total Lot 2A and 2B units 50 316 2,175 2,175 Total resi and accom units allowed 92 318 1,755 1,755 320 2,175 2,175 Total accom units allowed per SHDMP 322 1,755 1,755 Lot 2A accom units 5 324 2,175 2,175 Lot 2B accom units 30 326 1,755 1,755 Total Lot 2A and 2B accom units 35 328 2,175 2,175 Total accom units allowed(1)62 330 1,755 1,755 332 2,175 2,175 Total resi units allowed per SHDMP 334 1,755 1,755 Lot 2A resi units 5 336 2,175 2,175 Lot 2B resi units 10 402 1,755 1,755 Total Lot 2A and 2B resi units 15 404 2,175 2,175 Total resi units allowed(2)28 406 1,755 1,755 408 2,175 2,175 (1) Each resi unit reduces accom units by 2: 92-(15x2)=62 410 1,310 1,310 (2) Each 2 accom units reduce resi units by 1: 46-(35/2)=28 412 1,290 1,290 414 1,310 1,310 416 1,290 1,290 418 1,310 1,310 420 1,290 1,290 Total SF 54,216 14,794 39,422 Total units 40 10 30 7272 Stanley Lot 2A Neighborhood Meeting Summary Meeting Date: Q R : How can we build 10 units when there are only 6 existing lots?R Q How did we fast track the approvals, ie start building a unit without conducting public meetings and obtaining subdivision approval? R: The model home is being built within one of the existing building envelopes that only required ARC approval prior to building permit issuance. The subdivision application is a separate process that is currently underway with the Town which will involve a series of public meetings. Q Is the existing infrastructure sufficient to handle the increase in units? R Q How will drainage work for the site? R 7373 Q: Will we share in the maintenance cost of Overlook Ct and reimburse Overlook Homeowners for the original cost of their private road? R Q Can we adjust the units to be built on lots 9 and 10 to minimize the impact of the mountain views from the neighbors to the north? R Q Will we keep and improve the surface of the emergency access lane that connects to Black Canyon Inn property? R Q Are we conforming to set back requirements? R Q Will the total massing of 10 detached homes be greater than 6 duplex buildings? R Q R Q R Q:R 7474 Community Development Planning Commission January 20, 2026 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Freelan Heights Stanley Lot 2A LLC, Brad O’Neil Owner/Applicant Presented by Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Vicinity Map of Subject Area Subject Property Previous Approvals Freelan Heights Plat Grading & Drainage Landscape Plan Advantages 1.Lots. All lots meet applicable minimum standards prescribed in the Master Plan, including minimum size of 6,000 square feet. 2.Minimum Open Space. A minimum of 30% designated open space is required. Each lot includes a building envelope to limit the developable area on each lot and reserve remaining area as open space in order to meet the 30% requirement. 3.Grading. Buildings shall be sited in a manner that preserves existing land forms and overlot grading for the sole purpose of creating flat building pads is prohibited. The slopes of the site necessitate some disruption to existing landforms; however, the grading plan shows grading focused around individual building footprints, rather than creating large, flat building sites. This is consistent with the objective of minimizing earthwork and placing buildings to fit within existing contours. Advantages 4.Preservation of Significant Vegetation. The Development Code defines significant conifers trees as those with a diameter at breast height of eight inches or larger. It appears approximately 20 significant trees will be removed due to new construction and approximately 25 new trees are proposed. Buildings do appear sited in a manner to minimize loss of trees. For example, buildings on lots one and two are clustered towards the common lot line. 5.Preservation of Significant Views. Buildings should be sited in a manner that preserves significant views. The primary concerns relate to maintaining views to the site. The most significant views of the historic district are those from the south towards the Hotel. Those views will not be impacted. Views from the homes north of the subject parcel will be impacted but not to an unexpected extent given development is permitted on the subject property; and given the proposed building orientation leaves view windows southwest towards Longs Peak. Photo simulations of the new buildings is provided in Attachment #5. Advantages 6.Road Alignment. Roads and driveways will require modest cut and fill. Finished grades appear to generally be within a few feet of existing grades. This is consistent with the requirement of following contours of the site. 7.Landscaping. The Master Plan seeks to soften off-site views of buildings with landscaping and plantings that reflects native vegetation patterns. The landscape plan depicts aspen and spruce trees, located to soften views of buildings. 8.Pedestrian Circulation. The Master Plan requires sites to facilitate pedestrian circulation. A sidewalk currently exists along Overlook Court, terminating at the cul-de-sac. The low volume of traffic does not warrant new sidewalks on the shared driveways. 9.Density. The Master Plan establishes a maximum number of units allowed on Parcel 2. Detailed calculations provided by the applicant are included in the packet and staff has verified conformance. Disadvantages •None identified. Action Recommended Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town Board a recommendation to approve the preliminary plat, subject to the following findings and conditions of approval: Findings: 1.The Planning Commission is the recommending body for the preliminary plat. 2.The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is the decision-making body for the preliminary plat. Town Board approval of a final plat is also necessary to subdivide the property. 3.Adequate public/private facilities are currently available or will be made available by the applicant to serve the subject property. 4.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment with no objections received. 5.The preliminary plat application complies with applicable standards set forth in the Stanley Master Plan. Action Recommended (cont.) Conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall designate which lots permit accommodations use and which are restricted to residential use. 2. Access easements and driveway/drainage maintenance agreements, benefiting all lots with indirect access, shall be included with the Final Plat application and recorded with the Final Plat. Public Notice In accordance with the notice requirements in the Code: •Newspaper notice published January 2, 2026 •Mailed notice sent January 2, 2026 •A sign was posted on the property by the applicant Sample Motions 1.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, according to findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of denial the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, finding that … [state findings for denial].