HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2026-01-27Informal discussion among Trustees and staff concerning agenda items or other Town
matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Town Board of Trustees Study Session
January 27, 2026 from 4:45 p.m. – 6:45 p.m.
Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park
Accessibility Statement
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services.
Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or
townclerk@estes.org.
Meeting Participation
This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page. Click on
the following link for more information on Digital Accessibility.
Public comment
Public comments are not typically heard at Study Sessions, but may be allowed by the
Mayor with agreement of a majority of the Board.
Agenda
4:45 p.m. Development Code Update Engagement Summary
Presented by Director Careccia
5:45 p.m. Break for Dinner
6:00 p.m. 2025 Transit Year-End Review
Presented by Manager Klein
6:30 p.m. Trustee and Administrator Comments and Questions
6:40p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items
6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Steve Careccia, Director
Department: Community Development
Date: January 27, 2026
Subject: Development Code Update: Community Engagement Summary
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Design Workshop, consultant for the Development Code update, and the Community
Conversations partnership will provide the Town Board with a summary of community
engagement efforts and feedback received to date. Presenting will be Eric Krohngold,
Senior Associate, and Ketaki Ghodke, Planner, with Design Workshop and Melissa
Westover with Community Conversations.
Town Board Direction Requested:
None at this time, unless the Board has direction they would like to provide to staff and
the consultant.
Present Situation:
The Development Code update started in February of this year. Since then, work has
progressed on the public engagement plan, including completion of two open houses,
several pop-up events, a community-wide survey, several public dialogues, and two
public deliberations.
Proposal:
Summaries of the public engagement activities related to the Development Code
update, along with feedback received to date, have been compiled and will be
presented at this study session. The information is also presented in the attachments.
Advantages:
Some advantages of an updated Development Code include:
•A more search- and user-friendly document;
•Modernization and incorporation of current best practices;
•Increased efficiency in the development review process;
•Incorporation of newer development concepts and standards;
•Improved aesthetics; and,
•Implementation and alignment with the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan.
Disadvantages:
There are no disadvantages to discussing this study session topic.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Financial impacts have been accounted for with this year's budget.
Level of Public Interest:
Public interest has been and will continue to be high.
Attachments:
1.Design Workshop Presentation Report
2.Community Conversations Summary Report
3.Community Conversations Briefing Document
4.Engagement and Outreach Summary
Development Code
Update Study
Session 4
January 27, 2026
Attachment 1
Today’s Agenda- Community Engagement Summary
Outreach Goals
Process and Method of
Outreach
Feedback and Takeaways
Next Steps
1
2
3
4
1
Outreach Goals
(5 mins)
2
Purpose and Intent
•Inform the public about the Development Code update
process and how that may affect land uses, development
outcomes, and planning decisions.
•Gather feedback and opinions on topics that could substantially
change the Development Code within Estes Park.
•Tailor questions to community members and project
stakeholder groups.
•Maintain flexibility in the engagement process and methods to
adapt to needs or opportunities that arise during the process.
3
Process and
Outreach Methods
(10 mins)
4
Process
ENGAGEMENT
METHODS
5
Outreach Methods
•Pop-Up Engagement Activities –
Conducted in August and September 2025
at various public locations to reach
residents and community members outside
formal engagement meetings.
•Community Open Houses – The first
open house was held on June 25, 2025,
followed by a second open house on
September 20, 2025.
•Online Questionnaire – Open from mid-
July through September 2025, available in
both English and Spanish, focusing on
housing, environment, transportation, and
design issues.
6
Outreach Methods
•Topical Focus Groups – Conducted in July
and August 2025 with subject matter experts.
These were organized by topic: Natural
Environment; Housing; Economy, Health, and
Social Considerations; and Built Environment,
Transportation, and Infrastructure.
•Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),
Planning Commission, and Town Board –
Provided periodic feedback on technical and
policy issues throughout the process.
•Project Website & Social Media – The
project website has been updated bi-monthly
and has hosted the online questionnaire.
Outreach has also been conducted through
social media and newsletters.
7
Outreach Methods
Virtual OutreachIn-person Outreach
8
What We heard
9
Housing
(5 mins)
10
Housing Types
•Broad interest in a wider range of housing types,
especially duplexes, cottage courts, townhomes, and
ADUs.
•Given the importance of height restrictions,
townhomes, duplexes, and cottage courts are the
preferred building types over 3-4 story structures.
•Cottage courts and similar typologies help
reinforce neighborhood character by adding
diverse, appropriately scaled housing options.
-
11
Housing Types and Height Restrictions
“ Preserving the character
of the town and
neighborhoods is very
important.”
“ Buildings should not ruin
existing ridgelines (keep
the max number of floors
to 2 or 3).”
Majority of
respondents*
desired diverse
housing typologies
in these areas
*Respondents from Open House
12
Mixed-use
Development
(5 mins)
13
Mixed-use
Majority of respondents* desired mixed-use
development in these areas.
*Respondents from Open
House
•Preference for mixed-use zones along
highways, transit corridors, and
existing commercial areas.
•Valued benefits include walkability,
efficient land use, site revitalization,
convenient access to services, and
support for local businesses.
“Incentivize redevelopment over
new development, and limit
high-density housing to highway
corridors where adequate
transit and multi-modal
transportation are available.”
14
Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
(5 mins)
15
PUD and Clustered Development
•Support allowing PUDs in residential zones to
achieve different types of housing.
•Prioritized outcomes such as workforce housing,
multimodal connections (trails and bike lanes),
environmental conservation, and historic
preservation.
•Current PUD regulations are too restrictive and
do not provide enough flexibility to
accommodate smaller lot sizes or innovative
designs.
16
Design Guidelines
(5 mins)
17
Town Character
Respondents supported requiring design
guidelines for commercial-use buildings and
multi-family housing developments
•Valued the eclectic, pedestrian-friendly
nature of downtown and expressed
concern about losing this identity through
larger or more uniform developments.
•Strong support for establishing design
guidelines for commercial and multifamily
projects to ensure compatibility with Estes
Park’s small-town and mountain character.
•Emphasis on flexibility, focusing on roof
lines, materials, and scale rather than
prescriptive styles.
“New construction should have some
flexibility to explore different styles and not
become too much of the same thing.”
82%
Respondents supported guidelines that reinforce
the look and feel of downtown as a welcoming
place for businesses and pedestrians
83%
18
Natural Resources
(5 mins)
19
Ridgeline Protection
“The code should prohibit
ridgeline development and
excessive earthwork on steep
slopes.”
•Protections were seen as generally
effective but could be strengthened
with more prescriptive building
placement standards.
•Concerns about significant cut-and-
fill projects altering the landscape.
“Buildings should not ruin
existing ridgelines.”
20
Wildlife Protection
•Strong interest expressed in protecting
sensitive habitats, riparian areas, and
wildlife corridors.
•Opposed development in critical areas, while
also updating the 2008 Wildlife Assessment
to better protect those areas.
•Adopting fencing standards to avoid
disruption of wildlife migration patterns.
•Requiring Colorado Parks and Wildlife input
during site approval.
“Please make sure to limit development in
high wildlife areas and in riparian areas. Also,
be aware of fragmenting wildlife corridors.”
21
Wildfire Mitigation
•Broad support for defensible space, fire-
resistant materials, and landscape practices.
•Desire for town-wide standards due to ember
spread risk.
•Mixed views on vegetation removal, with
interest in flexible, area-based, and risk-based
definitions.
Wildfire
Hazard Areas
22
Parking and
Transportation
(5 mins)
23
Parking Requirements
•Concern that reducing parking would increase
congestion and spillover.
•Support for fee-in-lieu options in targeted areas,
especially to fund multi-modal transit.
Q. Do you support reduced
parking requirements for
affordable or workforce
housing?
Q. Do you support counting
enhanced bike parking and EV
spaces towards minimum parking
requirements?
Q.Except for Downtown, do you
support allowing a fee-in-lieu
option to reduce the required
on-site parking in town?
•Conditional support for reducing parking
requirements with transit commitments.
•Emphasis on transit planning to support infill and
redevelopment.
24
Outdoor Lighting
(5 mins)
25
Outdoor Lighting
•Strong interest expressed in having warm-white
light sources and shielded light fixtures to
minimize glare and light pollution.
•Strong emphasis on outdoor lighting as an
important aspect for the community’s character.
26
Growth and Tourism
Impacts
(5 mins)
27
Tourism and Short-term Rentals
•Tourism is seen as economically vital but
impacting housing, traffic, and neighborhood
character.
•Future growth expected through infill and
redevelopment, supported by infrastructure
investment.
•Short-term rentals are viewed as reducing
long-term housing supply and affordability.
•Mixed views on regulation: support for
stronger controls balanced with property rights
and economic benefits
28
Process and
Governance
(5 mins)
29
Non-conforming Lots Definitions and Communications
•Strong support for small, site-specific
improvements to non-conforming lots and related
zoning amendments.
•Mixed views on expediting the administrative review
process.
•Mixed feedback on setting specific thresholds for
changes to non-conforming lots
•Clearer definitions for key terms (e.g.,
affordable housing, environmental justice).
•Stronger neighborhood-level input in
rezoning and development decisions.
•Greater engagement with private-sector
partners to understand the feasibility of new
housing development.
•More visuals and graphics in the
Development Code to improve public
understanding of development guidelines.
30
Next Steps
(5 mins)
31
Next Steps
•50% Draft Code (March-April)
•50% Draft Code Review with TAC
and Planning Commission (May-
June)
•Open House #2 (June)
•Project Website Updates (Ongoing)
32
Thank you!
2025
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Development Code
Deliberative Meetings
SUMMARY REPORT
Of Meetings held on October 9 and 15
Susan Stewart
Prepared for the Town of Estes Park by
Community Conversations, a Partnership
of the Estes Valley Library, and the Estes
Valley Restorative Justice Partnership
C O M M U N I T Y C O N V E R S AT I O N S
Attachment 2
2
Executive Summary
This report synthesizes the conversations and themes gathered during two community wide
public deliberations about the Town of Estes Park Development Code in October 2025. The
work was requested by the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department as part of
the public input for the update of the Town’s Development Code. In total, 8 7 community
members participated in these events which addressed the topic of affordable housing for the
workforce in Estes Park. The analysis in this report is organized around the following sections
and themes:
Affordable Housing Options and Ideas
The complexity of adding more affordable housing, zoning definitions, and housing types
Location-related suggestions for affordable housing
Quality of Life in Estes Park
Concerns about growth, infrastructure, and environmental sustainability
Developing with neighborhood and community in mind
The Development Process and Accountability
Frustration with current processes, inconsistencies, and goals
Creative suggestions for implementation of the plan
A key cross-cutting issue across all areas of the discussion was a deeper reflection on the future
of Estes Park. Some see growth and affordability as necessary to sustain the economy and
services that support the population. Others fear overdevelopment will erode the very qualities
that make Estes Park special and want to preserve things as they are. Two quotes typify this: “If
we don’t grow, we die” and, “The Ponzi scheme of endless growth will ruin what we love.”
There is, however, common ground and an agreement that the status quo is not working, that
wildlife must be protected, infrastructure must improve and keep pace with any new
development, and decisions must be transparent. Overall, participants viewed a moderate
version of growth, carefully targeted and cautiously implemented, as the most realistic and
unifying.
The source material comprises raw notes from community deliberations in Estes Park
regarding local housing challenges and potential changes to the Development Code. These
discussions reveal a strong desire to find a balanced approach to housing growth, addressing
the need for affordable workforce housing for workers while simultaneously preserving the
town's unique character, natural environment, and viewsheds. Participants debated three
main approaches—maintaining the status quo with minor updates, a moderate implementation
of the comprehensive plan’s housing goals, or a more aggressive development strategy. Many
ultimately favored a moderate approach, carefully implemented as the most sustainable
3
compromise. Key concerns throughout the discussion included infrastructure capacity, the
negative impact of short-term rentals, seasonally vacant homes, and the need for clarity and
enforcement in any updated development code.
Methodology
Community Conversations and the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department
partnered to host two public deliberations on Thursday, October 9 and Wednesday, October 15
in which 87 people participated at the High School Commons. Both events had the same
process design and were divided into two sections which allowed attendees to have small group
conversations about housing related challenges tied to the Town Development Code.
All attendees were assigned to a small group designed by a pre meeting registration survey for
diversity of perspective, which was facilitated by volunteers and staff from Community
Conversations. There was also a volunteer note taker present at each table capturing
comments and conversations anonymously. The discussion guide and questions were designed
by Community Conversations with feedback from the Town of Estes Park Community
Development Department. In all, 20 Community Conversations volunteers, 3 Library volunteers,
one League of Women Voters volunteer, 3 childcare workers, and 4 staff made this possible.
To create an effective design for these deliberations, a core group of volunteers and staff of
Community Conversations did extensive research into the Comprehensive Plan, the current
Development Code and some proposed changes, and the current situation of workforce housing
in Estes Park. In July of 2025, five stakeholder dialogues were held to understand the issues and
values underlying the various positions of people in Estes Park about housing and town
character as they related to the Development Code. Stakeholder groups included people in the
workforce who have been challenged to find housing, homeowners, business leaders, Spanish
speakers, and a mixed group with young families and others not included in the other
stakeholder groups. Based on the dialogues held in these groups in July, an extensive briefing
document about housing in Estes Park was created for background information for deliberation
participants (see appendix). A thorough discussion guide with many of the opinions expressed
during the dialogues in July was created as a ‘placemat’, a springboard for discussion.
Participants in October deliberated in two main areas. The first discussion was to seek common
ground in recommendations for the Town to include in the Development Code update,
especially as it relates to the current need for affordable housing in Estes Park. During that
deliberation, participants were given three possible approaches to the Code update. Approach
one was to update code language but not change the Code to implement Comprehensive Plan
housing goals. Approach two was a moderate change to the Code toward accommodating the
4
housing recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Approach three was an aggressive
implementation of the Comprehensive plan housing suggestions and goals. The second
discussion was to seek creative ideas about what to do and where to build housing solutions for
the varied workforce in Town. The second discussion included a brainstorming session and an
opportunity to draw different types of housing on a table-sized map (see appendix B).
The data in this report was compiled in real time by trained volunteer and staff note takers at
each table. The resulting dataset includes notes from 14 separate tables. After data entry,
comments were thematically coded by volunteer and staff researchers who reviewed themes
across topics and tables. The raw data was also given to an AI program to compile key themes.
In the sections below, major themes are organized roughly according to the frequency with
which they appeared in the notes, considering the following demographic information and
knowledge that certain communities may be overrepresented in the data.
Demographic information
To create table groups with diverse perspectives, people were asked to register online and
respond to a few demographic questions. In total, 87 people attended the deliberations. Of
those who registered initially, 24 were no-shows, with 22 walk-ins on the meeting days. This
affected our ability to create truly mixed groups, especially in the second meeting that had 15
walk-ins. It is worth examining the various reasons for the drop -off in registered participants
and the final numbers including walk-ins who did not register and for whom we do not have
data.
Of the 87 total participants, 44 filled out the post-meeting surveys. Where totals do not reach
100%, some people declined to answer. Of those who filled out the survey, 55% identified as
female and 45% as male. 86% of respondents identified their race as white, 7% noted they
were Hispanic or Latinx, and 2% identified their race as Asian American and Indigenous
respectively.
Age of Respondents
5
Housing Status
Annual Household Income
Post-Deliberation Survey (see Appendix A)
Participants were given a survey on housing and public deliberation at the end of each meeting.
Forty-four (44) of the 87 total participants completed the survey, allowing us to know their
attitudes as well as any ideas they wanted added to the meeting notes. Survey responses can
be viewed in Appendix A, and individual comments were added to the raw data for analysis.
There were a few notable results from the survey. Around 60% of those answering the survey
favor building housing in general in Estes Park while 20% somewhat oppose and 20% strongly
oppose building housing in general. When it comes to affordable housing, 90% see it as a major
or minor problem for the town. Seventy percent (70%) favor building affordable housing and
16% strongly oppose it. This data helps to interpret the other analysis and suggestions in the
body of the report. This is a fair match for the overall demographics of Estes Park residents.
Renters and low-moderate income households were under-represented in the deliberations and
survey respondents, despite considerable efforts to bring these populations into the
conversations.
6
Affordable Housing Ideas and options1
A significant number of the participants at these events had attended neighborhood or Town
Board meetings, open houses, and stakeholder meetings, had sought affordable housing at
some time in their life, and/or were familiar with the development code update process. It
seemed overall that this group of community members was fairly involved in conversations
throughout the town about the Development Code. Participants showed up in a variety of ways,
from strong advocacy for their positions, to engaging in dialogue with other participants, to
being mostly in listening mode, contributing the occasional comment.
A majority of the participants agreed on a conservative leaning yet moderate approach to
implementing the housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan through the Development Code
update. Some participants would prefer the status quo, and a few want less support for
workforce/ affordable housing, while others wanted an aggressive implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan goals. There was agreement that housing costs far exceed local wages in
Estes Park and that to have a vibrant community, a mix of people is needed.
Historically, a prominent, dense housing development on highway 7 that was approved for
increased density because it would be affordable for the workforce, was out of reach for local
wage earners by the time it was completed. Participants said its outsized scale and austere
character clashes with the surrounding neighborhood. This experience drove much of the
resistance to further development of affordable housing. Interestingly, once some of the table
groups began to discuss with a map the possibilities of where housing might be built, they were
much more open to building housing in an appropriate, balanced, incremental, and locally
directed way. Key themes focused on how to expand housing opportunities, diversify types of
housing, and make living in Estes Park more attainable for the workforce.
An urgent need for affordable workforce housing
Participants suggested that an imbalance between retirees and people with second homes and
the young families and other workers in town leads to tensions in this discussion. Some
participants shared their stories of struggling to find a place to live so they could work in Town.
Stories were from all kinds of wage earners and families and described those who have left
because of lack of opportunity to live and grow in the community. “Young people and working
families want to stay but can’t afford to,” was a common thread about both homes for rent and
purchase. "We want to live here for the rest of our lives. Can we arrange something (make a
1 This deliberation used the formal definition of affordable which is that housing cost should be no more than 30%
of a family’s gross monthly income for rent and utilities. Costs for mortgage, utility, taxes, interest, and insurance
should be no more than 38% of one’s gross monthly income for housing ownership to be affordable.
7
deal?) because of that?" Many acknowledged the persistent community challenge to house the
diverse people who work in Town and the instability that the seasonal character of the tourist
industry causes for community members who work in Town. Other participants expressed deep
concerns about increasing density, and were suspicious of data about the need for housing in
Town. Some suggested that living in Town was a privilege that was earned economically, and
that it is not the role of the community to ensure housing for those who live and work here.
Other ideas included raising wages rather than building more housing, and busing people from
down the mountain.
Expanding housing types and flexibility for building
There was robust support overall for expanding the types of housing and some support for
modifying lot sizes allowed through the code. Many felt that the current code and zoning
language are too restrictive and should be changed to allow for different types of housing such
as cottage courts, ADUs in non-compliant lots, duplexes, tiny homes, co-housing, and cluster
developments. Several people stated, “We have to be open to more kinds of housing.” Others
thought that developments like cottage courts promote community which was very desirable
for many people.
Community members spoke of businesses that lose valuable employees when they cannot find
affordable housing or have been living in very poor-quality housing. Others felt the burden
should be on employers to provide housing. “Why is the town responsible for workforce
housing and not the employers?” Many cited examples of employers already investing in
housing and suggested other large employers (such as commercial businesses and the hospital)
who could be required to build or provide housing for their workers. Several tables discussed
the challenge that the seasonal housing needs of low-income summer workers and seasonal
rent increases, create severe instability in housing availability for long-term workers. There
were ideas for housing summer workers who tend to be young, single, and open to minimalist
housing. Creative ideas included reserving campground spaces for summer workers , using
FEMA-style trailers and RVs, and providing employer incentives for building dormitory style
housing.
Infill, Redevelopment, and Mixed-Use solutions
There was robust support for moderate growth, especially that which adapts, reuses, and
redevelops, and less support for expansion and sprawl at the periphery. Suggestions were far-
ranging and sometimes conflictive. Some wanted to “redevelop existing properties with
conservation in mind,” focusing on underused, rundown, and vacant properties. Some
suggested opportunities to increase density close to downtown by developing mixed-use
corridors along Highways 7 and 34, Moraine Avenue, and the bypass. Still others wanted the
8
town to annex properties and build affordable housing at the periphery. In general, the desire
was to build where we already have infrastructure and to “Use what we already have,” and
“Move wisely, not recklessly.”
The role of short-term rentals (STRs) in the current housing crisis
Even though the final use of a house or condo is not regulated by the code, the issue of short-
term rentals and the impact they have on affordable housing came up time and time again. The
complexity of adding affordable housing to a community with a large seasonal increase in both
tourists and workers generated discussion and many ideas. “Our sense of neighborhood has
been lost to short-term rentals,” was a common opinion. STRs were viewed as a key driver of
scarcity of affordable housing and the rising costs of housing. During the July dialogues, many
of those challenged by housing shared stories of home instability caused by the high number of
higher priced rentals in the summer months. “Each property converted to Airbnb represents a
family forced to leave.”
Brainstorming solutions to the lack of affordable housing
Many possibilities were offered as solutions for providing more affordable housing for both
rentals and ownership.
•Use existing empty apartments and underutilized housing; provide subsidies for
affordability.
•Enlist nonprofits and EPHA to shift to further subsidize existing properties.
•Require businesses/hotels to provide or reserve housing for employees.
•Encourage ADUs, garage apartments, tiny homes, container homes.
•Repurpose motels, lodges (Olympus, Mary’s Lake, etc.) for workforce housing.
•Explore dormitory-style housing, co-living, congregate living, campgrounds, RV sites, and
temporary housing (e.g., FEMA-style trailers).
•Focus on mixed-income housing and small, sustainable homes.
•Carefully site and develop mixed use housing near infrastructure and commercial
corridors
•Explore inclusionary housing policies (require affordable units or pay cash in lieu).
•Rent control and creative financing ideas (grants, state partnerships, foundations).
•Concern about seasonal vs. permanent workforce housing — both needed but different
approaches.
•“In 3-5 years, our house will be sold by EPHA. EPHA should consider 'rent to buy' ".
9
These ideas were about where and how to allow housing within the Town’s geography:
• Increase density in town center, along highways, near jobs/infrastructure.
• Focus development in central areas to protect outlying open spaces.
• Avoid sprawl; protect periphery and open space.
• Allow vertical mixed-use (housing above shops) but be careful about height.
• Support cottage courts, duplexes, multiplexes, clusters, PUDs, and smaller detached
homes.
• Preserve setbacks, views, and neighborhood character.
• Limit height but allow flexibility depending on terrain.
• Allow subdividing of existing properties.
• Concentrate growth where infrastructure exists; avoid high-density far from services.
• Preserve 9-hole golf course, riversides, open space, and elk corridors.
Community members identified tangible sites and examples for development or protection:
• Redevelopment targets:
o Olympus Lodge, Mary’s Lake Lodge, Elkhorn Lodge area, Tiny Town, Rent -
All/Village Thrift, The Slab, Wonderview and Eastside areas.
• Preservation priorities:
o 9-hole golf course, riverside, Fall River corridor, Stanley Park, open lands
around lakes.
• Annexation possibilities:
o Rock Inn area, Hwy 7 corridor, Fish Hatchery area.
• Mixed-use potential near Stanley Museum, downtown, HWY 34 corridor.
10
Quality of Life in Estes Park
“Growth should sustain the community, not replace it” is a comment that typifies the
ambivalence among participants about the need for affordable housing as well as the deep
desire to retain the elements of the Town that make it a special place. These elements include
an attachment to open space, natural beauty, wildlife corridors, and scenic views. They also
include a desire to keep the small-town feel and friendliness, as well as for some, to have
intergenerational and cultural diversity. Participants also described concerns over the strain that
increased density may put on infrastructure such as water and sewer capacity and managing
traffic.
Participants see that Estes Park is an important tourist destination and that tourism provides the
economic base for the Town’s survival. Residents called for balancing tourism with the livability
of the Town. Some also called for intentional development of other, year-round industry.
Although many of the comments and suggestions in this area are beyond the scope of the
Development Code update, they are important to understanding the desire of residents in
relationship to the development of the Town going forward.
Some key ideas and suggestions from participants in order of most to least commonly suggested
include:
Core idea: Preserve the natural beauty, wildlife, and environment while accommodating
housing.
•Should have assigned trained staff to represent wildlife studies (similar to how we
approach traffic studies)
•Protect wildlife corridors, riparian zones, and open spaces.
•Maintain greenbelts, pocket parks, and landscaped areas in developments.
•Preserve elk movement and river setbacks. Some feel wildlife is resilient and will create
new patterns in response to development; others stress strong protection.
•Emphasis on sustainable, nature-integrated design (height, materials, layout).
•Avoid overdevelopment near Mary’s Lake, Lake Estes, and Fall River.
•Support “feathering” density — higher in core, lower at edges.
•Ensure infrastructure and fire safety are integrated into planning.
11
Core idea: Keep Estes Park’s identity while adapting for future generations.
• Preserve scenic views, historic charm, and small-town feel.
• Support community-oriented housing (shared spaces, playgrounds, sidewalks, parks).
• Ensure developments fit the “look and feel” of Estes without making code overly
prescriptive as to the way new developments look.
• Use new housing development to maintain and encourage a mixed-age, multi-
generational community.
• Create possibilities in the code to encourage affordable housing that supports families
and seniors alike.
• Integrate art, creativity, and social spaces (e.g., artist live/work spaces, artists decorating
buildings and playgrounds).
• Avoid segregation of income groups; distribute affordable housing throughout the Town
and in new developments.
• Encourage multi-generational and multicultural participation in planning.
• Encourage “adopt a family” or shared housing programs.
• Protect against short-term rentals and corporate buyers disrupting community life.
Core idea: Link growth with necessary infrastructure improvements.
• Improve transportation (shuttle/bus system for commuters and tourists). This is
especially true for making the shuttles run when workers need them, such as earlier in
the morning and at the end of work hours. “Shuttles stop running at 9:00 pm but many
restaurant workers work until 10:00 pm.”
• Inadequate sanitation and water supply are currently stressed in some parts of town.
These must be addressed both by the Town as well as by any new development or
redevelopment.
• Address parking issues, traffic congestion, and access to services.
• Provide underground parking; link pedestrian and bike paths.
• Move certain services (PD, Post Office, Town Offices) out of the core to decrease traffic
and parking stress in downtown.
• Plan for fire mitigation and environmental design.
• Infrastructure upgrades must precede or accompany housing and be paid for by
developers.
• Preserve and improve measures for wildfire prevention in the Code.
12
The Development Process and Accountability
Residents are concerned about how planning, zoning, and implementation decisions are made,
and how they should be improved in the code. Although we did not specifically focus on the
decision-making process and accountability during the deliberations, it was clear that
improvements to this area of the Code would be essential for a significant number of
participants to trust the process, accept Code changes, and accept the decisions made going
forward.
The case most often cited for the distrust was the Prospector Apartments. A number of
participants supported this development because it was approved as a design for the workforce
and they acknowledged the need. A density bonus was given in the initial plan approval.
However, by the time Prospector was built, it was rented at market rates which are far beyond
the reach of the majority of the workforce, and it sits half-empty. The other concern was that
because a tremendous amount of dirt was added to the original field, the apartment buildings
were much taller than community members thought they would or should be. They were seen
as too high and too dense for the neighborhood they were built in. Some participants linked
the results directly back to the decision-making process and to limited accountability and thus a
perceived favoritism for developers over the good of the community. One participant
commented, “Developers promise what the Town wants but deliver what they want.”
The second most common case cited in justification was the town rezoning in 2000. Some
residents understood that the rezoning changed their lot from compliant to non -compliant. So
for example, if they wanted to make changes on their property such as adding an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU), the cost to move through the process to approval would be prohibitive.
This concern drove a mistrust of possible changes to zoning definitions in the updated Code, as
well as discouraging people from providing affordable housing on their own property.
Not as many concrete suggestions were provided in this thematic area, primarily because we
suggested there would be an opportunity to deliberate on this in depth when there is a 50%
draft version of the updated Code. The core idea of the suggestions is to build transparency,
accountability, and community participation into Code and policy.
•Write better definitions of workforce and attainable housing in the Code that is
appropriate for the Estes Park workforce. This would include a recognition that Estes
Park AMI is roughly 20% LOWER than Larimer County, and that most of the workforce
who currently need housing are in the 60% AMI bracket and lower.
•Include greater transparency in the planning process, greater enforcement of terms
agreed on in plans, and follow-up.
13
•Concern was expressed about a lack of vision for coordination and overall development
of the Town, and a piecemeal developmental process. Code should reflect the mission
and values of the town. It was suggested the town would benefit from hiring an urban
planner and environmental designer who might add the big picture view into specific
development approvals.
•Residents expect open, evidence-based, and participatory decision-making processes.
These would include up-to-date, accurate data on housing needs as well as population
trends and the impacts of short-term rentals. The data should be compiled by an
independent source that includes but is not limited to Estes Park Housing Authority data.
Transparency and fairness must be built into the Code (“no concrete fog”).
•Residents want their voices not only developer and business interests heard in land use
decisions.
•Distrust of “developer influence” and “rubber-stamp” rezonings.
•Call for data-driven decisions (facts on need, income, waiting lists).
•Concerns about overreach into private property rights.
•Desire for clear terms, enforcement, and accountability. “The code must be written in a
fashion that allows for compliance / enforcement assurance (C/EA). There must be staff
to handle in a timely manner C/EA. Staff attorney or development staff that give
guidance or interpretations must be written and made public… especially the town’s
attorney’s options on C/EA. A public database of C/EA actions must be made for honesty
and transparency for the public to gain the town’s trust back.”
14
Conclusion
We would like to extend our gratitude to the community members who attended these
deliberations and engaged in conversations with one another about these very important issues
facing our Town. We are also grateful to our own volunteer and staff facilitators and note takers
as well as the core group of volunteers and staff who worked tirelessly to prepare thoroughly
researched materials as the background information for the deliberations. Matters related to
housing and the land use code have become challenging to discuss in our community and we
are grateful that the Community Development Department sets such a high priority for listening
to what the community wants and needs.
Public deliberation has great potential for Estes Park and other towns around the country.
Typical public engagement processes do not provide an opportunity for community members to
have productive discussions across perspectives. Many times, we lose creative ideas and the
ability to listen to one another in the face of differing opinions. In the post deliberation survey,
we asked people about their views on meeting with and discussing issues with those who hold
differing opinions. Perhaps worth remarking on is that 42 of the 44 survey respondents feel
that discussing and listening to differing opinions on issues in our community is important.
About 50% of survey respondents felt the meeting affected their perspective on the housing
issue.
While this report noted important themes and suggestions for this group of participants and as
input for the first draft of the updated Development Code, we look forward to the ongoing
conversation as we consider the draft of the updated Code in the first part of 2026. Continuing
to encourage those in the community less represented at these meetings to have a voice and
influence is a vital part of this ongoing work. It is important to get people in conversation with
one another as we move forward.
15
Question Response
Do you agree that the Estes Valley needs more housing?
Strongly Agree 40.90%
Somewhat agree 25%
Somewhat disagree 18.20%
Strongly disagree 15.90%
Do you favor or oppose building more houses, condos, or townhomes in Estes Park?
Strongly favor 38.60%
Somewhat favor 22.70%
Somewhat oppose 18.20%
Strongly oppose 20.50%
Would you prefer to live in a community where houses are…
Larger and farther apart but schools, stores, and restaurants are farther away 48.70%
Smaller and closer together but school stores and restaurants are within
walking distance 51.30%
Do you support allowing increased housing options (duplexes, townhomes, above-garage
apartments, etc.) in residential zones in more populated areas, or restricting zoning in those
areas to single family houses?
I favor zoning for increased housing options 57.10%
I favor restricting zoning to single-family houses 42.90%
Do you support smaller lot sizes with smaller single-family homes and cluster housing in
some residential zones?
Strongly support 38.60%
Somewhat support 27.30%
Somewhat oppose 6.80%
Strongly oppose 27.30%
How much is affordable housing a problem for the Estes Valley?
Major problem 63.60%
Minor problem 27.30%
Not a problem 9.10%
Do you favor or oppose building more affordable houses, condos, or townhomes in Estes
Park?
Strongly favor 45.50%
Somewhat favor 25%
Somewhat oppose 13.60%
Strongly oppose 15.90%
Realistically, how much can be done to solve the problem of affordable housing in the Estes
Valley?
A great deal 20.90%
A fair amount 39.50%
Not much 39.50%
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
:
P
o
s
t
D
e
l
i
b
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
r
v
e
y
Re
s
u
l
t
s
Re
s
u
l
t
s
16
What are your top three goals when it comes to increasing housing supply in Estes Park?
Preserving wildlife corridors 59%
Preserving neighborhood character 52.30%
Providing housing close to jobs, schools, and stores 38.60%
Providing enough affordable housing 31.80%
Limiting the growth of Estes Park 31.80%
Providing enough housing at all price points 20.50%
Ensuring safe, accessible, and fair housing for all 20.50%
Preserving historic buildings 13.60%
Increasing/ maintaining property values for existing homeowners 13.60%
Preserving high quality stores, restaurants, and services 4.50%
Giving residents a voice in zoning decisions 2.30%
Many fewer multimillion dollar houses 2.30%
Provide tiny units in run down motels for 3-month seasonal workers 2.30%
Regulations that are non-ambiguous and enforceable 2.30%
No additional housing 2.30%
When it comes to the major local issues, how interested are you in hearing perspectives
that are different from your own?
Very interested 70.50%
Somewhat interested 27.30%
Not interested 2.30%
How important is it to have discussions with people you disagree with on important issues?
Very important 61.40%
Somewhat important 34.10%
Not important 4.50%
How productive is it to have discussions with people you disagree with on important local
issues?
Very productive 34.10%
Somewhat productive 61.40%
Not productive 4.50%
The deliberation meeting affected my perspective on the housing issue.
Strongly agree 11.40%
Somewhat agree 43.20%
Somewhat disagree 25%
Strongly disagree 20.50%
17
Appendix B: Housing Location Combined Maps
In the final discussion period, each small group had a table-sized map of the Estes Valley with
colored pens to represent different types of housing. Groups considered the question: Where
should new affordable housing be located in the Town of Estes Park? These 4 maps are the
combined results of all 14 table groups. Some groups put many ideas and comments on their
maps. Other groups left their maps empty due to dialogue on other topics. The legend for
each map tells how many groups’ ideas are represented by each color on the map.
Each of the first 3 maps
here represents one type
of housing.
Mixed-Use was primarily
imagined as a
combination of housing
and commercial
properties in a vertical
style.
Multifamily housing was
considered good for
developing a sense of
community.
18
Many people felt that
people in the
workforce would like
to rent or own a
smaller detached
home. Two groups
discussed where
these homes might
be built. People felt
that newer styles of
homes on smaller lots
might be good for
these detached
homes. Housing
types mentioned
were cottage courts,
encouraging ADUs
and tiny houses, and
clusters of homes
around a common court to encourage the sense of community.
Although every
group had the
opportunity, only
one group, and one
person in a different
group suggested
there should be
residential areas
marked for no
development. Their
ideas are
represented in this
map. (Other groups
may not have had
adequate time for
this discussion).
2025
NEED FOR HOUSING IN
ESTES PARK:
WHAT SHALL WE DO?
Deliberative Meetings
October 9 and 15
Estes Park Affordable Housing
Briefing Document by
Community Conversations
C O M M U N I T Y C O N V E R S A T I O N S
Community Conversations, October, 2025 1
Attachment 3
Table of Contents
How do we Address Housing Issues?
Creating Affordable Housing:
Financial and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities …………….. 9
The Estes Park Housing Authority is looking for solutions …….…… 10
Housing type, density & zoning examples …………………………….…… 11
Smart growth principles ................................................................ 12
Affordable housing case studies: ……………………..…………………… 13-16
Vista Ridge Condominiums, Falcon Ridge Apartments and Townhouses,
Prospector Apartments and Fall River Village
Definitions & data sources …………………………………………………… 17-18
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………. 3
What is a deliberative workshop?…………………………………………………… 4
Housing in Estes Park Current Status
Where we live and work; Estes Park Land Use Map ………………………. 5
Who is here;Estes Park and Estes Valley Demographics ……….……….. 6
How are we housed; Estes Park & Estes Valley Housing stock ………… 7
Housing available vs needs;where are we misaligned with housing
needs …………………………………………………………………………………….………… 8
Community Conversations: A Collaborative Partnership
A Note from Community Conversations
In 2022 after much community consultation and collaboration,the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan
was adopted. This plan outlines the long term goals for creating a resilient community based in six
important areas; the natural environment, built environment, economy, housing, health and social,and
transportation and infrastructure.
Housing for those who live and work and form a vital part of the community has long been identified as
one of the most important and complex issues facing Estes Park. It is featured as one of the six areas of
the Comprehensive Plan. Part of bringing the plan to action is a careful updating of the Town of Estes
Park Development Code.
Currently in the middle of a two-year process, the Town of Estes Park along with its consultant, Design
Workshop,has been working to update the Estes Park Development Code. The code is a unified set of
regulations governing both zoning and land use within the boundaries of the Town of Estes Park.
For the purposes of these deliberations, housing options and land use regarding housing options will be
addressed. This is representative of a small section of the code; however, it represents the most
complex issue and needs a high level of community input.
Your participation is vital in assisting with the process of the Development Code update.Thank you for
giving your time and ideas to this process.
What you are reading now is an Estes Park Housing Brief outlining the current data and conclusions
regarding our housing situation.Our Community Conversations volunteers have taken many weeks to
thoughtfully prepare this document in consultation with local experts.The purpose of this brief is to
give factual information that,as a key stakeholder,will help give you needed information to participate
in this process.
Warmly,
Community Conversations Team
Some Key Housing Goals in the Comprehensive Plan
H2 Create New Housing Opportunities
H2.1 The Town and County located new housing opportunities consistent with the Future Land Use
Map.
H2.2 The Town allows infill and redevelopment that provides more housing with a focus to increase
workforce and affordable options for all income levels.
H2.3 The town uses development bonuses and other tools to incentivize deed-restricted affordable
workforce housing.
H2.4 The Town considers requiring that development include deed-restricted affordable housing or
pay a fine.
Potential actions
•Explore removing density limits in commercial zones
•Explore allowing large single-family homes to be converted into multiple units
•Allow duplex, triplex, cottage court, dorm and other “missing middle” housing types
•Explore density increases tied to the creation of deed-restricted housing (e.g. small lot subdivision,
reduced lot coverage, additional height)
•Explore an inclusionary housing requirement for residential development.
•Explore a workforce housing linkage requirement/fee for residential and commercial development.
•Explore maximum unit sizes to limit cost and maintain future infill potential
•Identify and remove regulations that create unintended barriers to housing development.
What is a Deliberative Meeting?
What have we learned so far?
Through a series of stakeholder dialogues in July conducted in English and Spanish with 75
participants, we learned community issues and values around affordable housing in Estes Park:
•The community is concerned that affordable housing (including rental and purchase options) is
scarce leading to many ripple effects. These include: employee retention, higher costs of
goods sold, difficulty in maintaining needed public infrastructure (schools, town services and
health care), and a move toward the community lacking age and socio-economic diversity.
•The community is concerned about growth and maintaining the character of our mountain
town. This includes: preserving wildlife corridors, maintaining views and open space,
population growth, overdevelopment, development that does not reflect the mountain ‘feel’.
•The community is concerned about the current development code. Language and definitions
are vague, or missing all together. Allowable housing options need to be better defined and
expanded. Zoning districts are also a concern and need more clarification.
•The community opinion is mixed regarding how far the Comprehensive Plan housing goals
should be implemented.
A Deliberative meeting brings together a group of people with an interest in a public policy
problem for informed and thoughtful consideration of potential solutions to the problem. It is a
way of involving a demographically representative group from the community in decision-making
that goes beyond simply collecting opinions or holding a one-time public meeting.
Before arriving, participants study a briefing document offering objective data and information
on the topic, ensuring participants arrive well informed. In the meeting, facilitated deliberation
enhances:
•Learning about the issue by exploring background information, trade-offs, and different
perspectives.
•Deliberating by weighing pros and cons, considering values, and discussing options with
others.
•Engaging respectfully with diverse viewpoints, often working toward common ground or
shared priorities.
•Contributing to shape outcomes by providing well-reasoned input that will guide
policymakers, planners, and organizations.
In short, deliberative engagement is about creating structured opportunities for communities to
think together before deciding together. It is often used in planning, policy development, and
community decision-making where issues are complex, contested, or have long-term impacts.
We call them Wicked Problems.
Community Conversations, October, 2025 4
Where we live and work
Within the Town of Estes Park, more than half of the area is dedicated to residential housing. Visitor
accommodations and Parks and Open Space are the other two dominant land uses.
Outside of Town limits, most privately owned land in the Estes Valley is dedicated to low-density residential
housing.
The Development Code applies only within town boundaries, shown as dotted lines on the map. However, the
Town has the option to annex adjacent lands for future growth.
The planning area for the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan includes a 3 mile area around the Town. This
includes most adjacent privately held land but excludes the communities of Glen Haven, Drake and AllensPark.
Community Conversations, October, 2025 5
Estes Park Community
The total year-round population of the Town and Valley is not changing, but there is a shift in age since 2000.
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. Enrollment in
Estes Park schools is down from 1393 in 2001 to 956 in 2025. There is a parallel loss in businesses and services
for residents (e.g. TruValue Hardware, the Nursing Home, Obstetric, Home Health Care and Hospice services).
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
2000 2010 2023
1,898 1,918 1,348
7,028 6,865 6,296
2,092 2,931
4,079
Town+Valley Full-time Residents
< 18 18-64 65+
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2000 2010 2023
917 946 641
3,217 3,211 2,848
1158
1,663
2,390
Town Full-time Residents
< 18 18-64 65+
year:
age:
year:
age:
Estes Valley Households
Family,
no children
46%
Family
+children
15%
Single
33%
other
6%
In 2020 there were 5671 households in the Estes Valley, with 3023 of those in the Town.
16.4% of households had children and 47.6% had at least one person of retirement age.
Who Is Here: in winter in summer
11,723
1,688
3,000
residents
commuters
daily visitors
~21,300
~3,100
~30,000
residents
commuters
daily visitors
Estes Valley residents in 2023 are:
•89% white, 5.6% hispanic, 4% asian
•94% speak English as first language
•median age 57
•1.5% under 18, 35% over 65
•53% of those over 25 have Bachelor's degree
•$95,522 median household income
•7.5% living in poverty
The Estes Valley is a resort community, home to almost 12,000 year-round residents. Just under half live
within the Town limits and the other half live in surrounding unincorporated Larimer County. About 1,700
more workers make the daily commute into Estes Park. Every summer the population almost doubles with
an influx of seasonal residents and workers.
Community Conversations, October, 2025 6
Estes Park Housing Stock
Estes Park needs to house workers, their families, visitors and retirees. Visitors and most 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. There are few entry -level
homes for purchase; most homes on the market are larger and higher -end.
Build Rates & Growth Capacity:
In 1980 there were ~ 1,700 housing units in Town.
Between 1980 and 2010 a building boom added ~2,500
more. Since 2010 only a few hundred housing units have
been built. Lack of vacant land and low-density zoning are
the major reasons that building slowed. As of 2022, only
287 new dwelling units could be built on the remaining
vacant land in Town, given current zoning. That leaves
annexation, rezoning and redevelopment as top
strategies to expand housing in the Town of Estes Park.
single
family
71%
2-4plex
23%
4-9plex
2%
10+ units
4%
OWNER -OCCUPIED
single
family
23%
2-4plex
30%
4-9plex
26%
10+ units
21%
RENTER -OCCUPIED
Existing Housing:
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Valley Town
Type & Occupancy:
# of homes in 2020
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
VacantVacant, primarily for seasonal/recreational use,
including 2nd homes and short-term rentals
4,382 of the 9,510 housing units in the Estes
Valley are within the Town. 36% of those are
seasonally vacant. Most owner-occupied
homes are detached single family. Most
rentals are duplex or multiplex.
Housing Size & cost (2025):
In Aug 2025 the median single family
home for sale had 3 bedrooms and cost
$934,500 (range $419,000 -$2,550,000).
The median attached home (townhouse,
condo) had 2 bedrooms and cost
$554,000 (range $310,000 -$899,800).
0
25
50
75
attached
homes
detached
homes
1 2 3 4 5 >5
# of bedrooms:
#
o
f
h
o
m
e
s
Community Conversations, October, 2025 7
Housing Needs vs.Supply
Housing Supply vs.Demand:
1.Shortage of rentals for very-low income households (< $25,000 annual income). That drives
overcrowding of units and/or paying more than 30% for housing.
2.Shortage of entry-level homes for middle income households (< $100K annual income) to buy.
3.Shortage of low-income housing for our ~5000 seasonal workers.
4.Summer rents are often much higher than off-season, creating instability in the rental market.
5.Shortage of affordable mid-level homes to meet the needs of growing families.
Renters, Owners & In-
Commuters
$33,140: renter median income in 2020
$92,050: owner median income in 2020
~2/3 of incoming commuters would live
here if they could afford it
60-67% of renters would buy a home in the
next 5 years if they could afford it.
Estimated current housing needs:
•Visitor needs are met with ~35,000 "pillows" in 6236 units the Estes Valley in 2024.
•Seasonal workers need low-income rental or dormitory-style housing.
•160-240 rental units needed in 2023 to relieve overcrowding (more than 2 people/bedroom).
•650-1,000 homes/rental units needed in 2023 for incoming commuters who want to live here.
•1,000-1,880 homes < $375,000 needed in 2023-2025 for first-time buyers.
As a tourist town many of our workers hold low-wage service sector jobs. This is especially true for our
summer workforce. As a consequence the median income for Estes Park is at least 20% lower than the
rest of Larimer County. On the other hand, much of our housing is higher-end, beyond the financial reach
of much of our workforce. This mismatch between supply and demand means that many workers struggle
to find housing.
High housing costs have adverse consequences. Employers have difficulties finding and retaining
employees. Young families end up living and working elsewhere. In-commuting is expensive, and
contributes to congestion and greenhouse gas.
*affordable: ≤ 30% of gross income # permanent residents in 2023
household
annual income
maximum
rent*
maximum
home price*
% of Estes Park
AMI #
# households
#
< $25,000 $625 $93,700 < 34%430
$25,000 to $49,999 $1250 $187,400 34-68%366
$50,000 to $99,999 $2500 $374,800 136%599
> $100,000 > $2500 > $374,800 > 136% 1183
Affordability: What can people in the Town afford?
Community Conversations, October, 2025 8
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
renting
households
affordable
rental units
affordable
homes to buy
< $25K $25K to $50K $50K to $100K > $100K
1
Estes Valley (EV) Housing Affordability
Supply vs.Demand (2020)
annual income:
#
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
2
Density Bonuses, Deed Restrictions & Cost: Current land, construction and financing costs make it almost
impossible to build low-to-moderate income single-family homes. Higher density and shared walls help bring
down costs, but most residential zoning limits these options. Over the past decades, communities like Estes
Park have tried relaxing zoning restrictions and adding low-cost financing to incentivize construction of more
lower cost housing. Deed restrictions are attached to those new buildings to guarantee that they will remain
lower cost housing, usually for 50 or 100 yrs.
Good News: The Estes Valley now has an inventory of 586 deed-restricted rental units (252 by income, 334
for workforce) and 51 more deed-restricted condos for ownership. That amounts to 8% of total housing
units in the Town dedicated to workforce. This has met much of the rental needs for our middle-high income
workforce, though low-moderate income workforce still struggle to find affordable rentals..
Challenges: Deed-restrictions decrease property values, which is good for starting home-buyers but bad for
homeowners who need their home value to appreciate. It also depresses property tax revenues. Even with
deed restrictions home ownership remains out of reach for most of the workforce.
Financial Challenges and Opportunities
Regulatory Challenges & Opportunities
Creating Affordable Housing
Zoning: Zoning today works to balance property rights of owners and their neighbors; to preserve the integrity
and character of neighborhoods. But zoning also restricts the options for more efficient land use and more
cost-effective housing. Our zoning code was written in the era of suburban expansion when detached single
family homes were required by fashion.
Good News: We now have an opportunity to update zoning in the Development Code, to keep up with
societal changes (e.g. smaller families, rising housing costs, vanishing vacant land) and housing innovations
(e.g. condominiums, townhouses, co-housing). For instance, a more nuanced definition of "density" might
incorporate the benefits of "clustering" for creating shared open space, promoting community interactions
and preserving wildlife habitat.
Challenges: Along with potential benefits, changes (aka updates) can have unintended negative
consequences. A cautious or incremental approach may limit this risk but may also limit benefits.
Planning & Permitting: The development review and construction process can take months or years; delays
add to costs. A new Colorado law allows Towns to streamline approval processes for projects in the public
interest.
Good News/Challenges: A streamlined approval process could lower building & financing costs and give
greater access to state and federal funds,but also reduce opportunities for time for administrative input and
oversight.
Building Codes: Building codes lay out minimum standards for safety and usability. They are continually
upgraded to incorporate the latest technology and laws. These upgrades are a driver of rapidly increasing
construction costs.
Opportunities: We could be less stringent when we apply the building code and make it easier to obtain
variances. Or we could adapt the "Universal" building code to local conditions.
Challenges: It would be difficult to provide guardrails that would prevent abuse of selective application of the
building code; and protect the public from the consequences. Easing application of the building code, or
adapting it to local conditions opens a legal challenge if problems arise with new buildings.
Community Conversations, October, 2025 9
126 units on 1.6 ac
S. St. Vrain Ave
Housing Type, Density & Zoning
Other options outside of current zoning:
8 units/acre
R1-residential
RM-multifamily
10-12
units/acre
RM -multifamily
≤4 units/acre
R -detached
R2 –duplexes
Townhouse
or Multiplex
>15 units/acre
RM-multifamily
Virginia Drive
Wildfire Road
4-plex on 0.26 ac
Fir Ave
Fir Ave Bailey Lane
12 condos on 1.9 ac
Timber Mtn. Lane
Apartment
Detached
Bailey Lane
Columbine Ave Duplex or
Detached
+ADU
South Court
Examples of higher density Estes Park under current zoning:
Dormitory-style
Vertical Mixed Use
stacked within the same building
Horizontal Mixed Use
single use buildings spread across
a cohesive area
Cottage Court
Source:
Design Workshop
Community Conversations, October, 2025 10
Smart Growth Principles
Smart Growth for strong communities
Some principles to help make the most effective use of our land include:
•Location:housing close to where people work, play, shop and go to school reduces traffic and
preserves open space.
•Transportation Choice:transportation options that connect people to what they need, whether
they drive, walk, bus or bike. This reduces reliance on cars, traffic congestion and need for parking,
as well as allowing greater freedom of movement for everyone.
•Housing Choice:mix housing type & affordability to support households of all sizes, ages and
incomes.
•Optimize land use: compact building design (multistory, clustered, shared walls, smaller footprint)
allows for increased density, and lowers building and infrastructure costs. It can potentially save
open space for socializing, nature and wildlife or be used where open space is not desired.
•Preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods: use rehabilitation, infill and redevelopment in
existing neighborhoods with a strong sense of place to preserve the look and feel of the
community.
•Sense of Community:include amenities like pedestrian walkways, pocket parks, play areas and
shops that bring together community members and enhance social interactions. Give community
members a voice in what is built in their neighborhoods.
from Lancaster County Housing doc, https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/smart-growth/key-principles/and Louise Olson' source
Cluster housing developments can
preserve more land in its natural
state –less roads, fencing, grading,
and overall development impact on
the land and wildlife.
The shared open space provides
opportunity for better amenities
than individual homeowners could
build on individual lots.
The shared open space and
amenities promote resident
interactions that help build a sense
of community.
Cluster housing can also be used to
decrease cost and increase density
where creating open space is not
desired (example: infill)
Cluster Housing as an example of Smart Growth
Community Conversations, October, 2025 11
Affordable housing case study:
Income-restricted condominiums for entry level ownership
Brief description: Vista Ridge Condominiums is in a mostly
residential/mixed use area. It provides affordable condo
ownership opportunities off Dry Gulch Rd, 2-3 miles from
schools, downtown and other amenities. It lacks common
facilities (e.g. party or exercise rooms, picnic area, play area).
Affordable units are either 2 or 3 bedrooms, with an
attached garage and small entry porch/patio. Buildings cover
32% of the lot and 23% more is paved.
# of units: 13 buildings have 3, 4 or 5 units, for a total of 61.
Restrictions: affordable for households ≤ 80% AMI)
Current sale prices: $252,520 in 2025
HOA fees: $380/month
Real estate taxes (2024): ~ $900 for restricted units
~ $2700 for market-value units
Timeline:
2002 –annexation, subdivision & preliminary plans
approved by Trustees, including 150% density
bonus for attainable housing
2002 -Estes Park Investors LLC (private investor/
EPHA partnership) formed to develop the property
10/26/2002 –EPI LLC bought properties
08/11/2003 –99 yr deed restriction covenants
2007 -construction completed
Occupancy:100%
Cost/unit (construction, fees, infrastructure):
$286,000/unit (2025 dollars) in 2003,
$214,000/unit (2025 dollars) in 2004
Challenges Faced: The project was conceived and approved as starter homes for low-to-middle
income households. The deed restrictions indirectly tie sales prices to AMI, so that condo values
appreciate slower than the rest of the housing market and barely keep up with inflation. This keeps
re-selling condos affordable for new low-to-middle income buyers, but the sellers get little return on
their investment. The result is that many owners are "stuck" in these condos, as they cannot sell
them for enough to move into larger or more family-friendly homes.
In addition, condo fees are rising rapidly and consuming larger fractions of household incomes. This
makes it even more difficult for households to save, pay ahead on mortgages, or otherwise improve
their financial and housing situations.
Lessons Learned: Deed restrictions tied to AMI are limiting the ability for entry-level condo-owners
to move up into different housing. It is not clear how to address this problem.
Vista Ridge Condominiums
Organization/Owner:Estes Park Investors LLC
(EPHA partnership) & various condo owners
Location:820-891 Crabapple Lane; 1741-1769
Wildfire Rd, Estes Park, CO 80517
Affordability: 32 units market rate
29 units low-to-middle income (≤ 80% AMI)
Density: 10 units/acre on ~ 6 acres
Community Conversations, October, 2025 12
Affordable housing case study:
Income-restricted rental apartments
Brief description: Falcon Ridge is located at the north edge
of Town, 2-3 miles from schools, downtown and other
amenities. It has magnificent views and is adjacent to an
open meadow where elk congregate. This
multigenerational housing is affordable and pet friendly.
Shared space includes a clubhouse for resident gatherings,
a basketball court and an outdoor play area. Since Estes
Park lacks year-round public transportation, living at Falcon
Ridge makes commuting a challenge. Units are 1-, 2-, or 3-
bedrooms, with ample parking.
# of units: 48 units
Restrictions: affordable for households 30-60% AMI
Current rents: $512-$1,588 based on AMI
Real estate taxes: Tax-exempt
Timeline:
03/31/2015 –Falcon Ridge Apartments LLLP
formed to develop the property
03/31/2015 –30 yr deed restriction covenants
2016 -construction completed
Occupancy: 100%
Challenges Faced:
Lessons Learned:
Falcon Ridge Apartments and
Townhomes
Owner:Falcon Ridge Apartments LLLP, an EPHA
partnership
Location:1629 Soaring Circle, Estes Park, CO
80517
Affordability: low-income (30-60% AMI)
Size and Density: 5.5 acres with 8.65 units/acre
Community Conversations, October, 2025 13
Affordable housing case study:
workforce rental housing at market rates
Prospector Apartments
Organization/Owner:Rural Coz Estes Park St. Vrain LLC
Location:1041 S St Vrain Ave, Estes Park, CO 80517
(Hwy 7 & Lexington Lane)
Affordability: middle-to-high income
Density: 16.3 units/acre on 5.76 ac
Brief description: Prospector Apartments is located on a
Highway corridor in a residential area. It provides pet-
friendly apartment living within 2 miles of schools,
downtown and other amenities. It lacks indoor common
space (e.g. party or exercise rooms) but has a 11,532 sq ft
grass/walkway area with 2 shaded picnic tables. Buildings
cover 55% of the lot and ~30% more is paved for parking and
access.
# of units: 94 units in 4 three story buildings (no elevators)
on 5.76 acres with 182 parking places (59 under carports).
Tenant/rent restrictions: workforce or attainable (units
cannot exceed 150% AMI for rent + utilities)
Current rents: $1645 for 1bd/1ba/625 sq ft.
$1795 2bd/2ba 960 sq ft $1845 2bd/2ba 1055 sq ft
$2099 3bd/2ba 1181 sq ft
Real estate taxes (2024): $33,920.36
Timeline:
09/01/2017 -vacant lot purchased for $2.18M
09/25/2018 -Town approved development plans
with density and height bonuses for "workforce
attainable housing"
10/16/2020 -sold to RCEPSV LLC for $3.1M
2022 –modified plans removed the playground,
daycare center, decks and balconies, adding
carports and EV charging.
02/27/2023 –covenants signed restricting units as
either attainable or workforce
09/2024 & 02/2025 -certificates of occupancy
09/01/2025 occupancy:~ 50%
Cost/unit (construction, fees, infrastructure):
~$380,000
Challenges Faced: The project was conceived and approved to meet housing needs for middle income
workforce, especially young families. This justified the height and density bonuses that made this urban-style
project palatable in a residential neighborhood. The final restrictive covenants set units as either for
workforce at market rates or "attainable" (rent + utilities < 150% AMI). The result is that the apartments are
affordable for middle-high income workers, but the rents are too high for many working families. This left the
community feeling angry and betrayed.
Construction and financing costs were higher than anticipated. This drove a downgrading of amenities in 2022
that affects quality of life for residents and "curb-appeal" for neighbors.
Lessons Learned: All parties need to understand the differences between workforce and attainable housing
for projects requesting rezoning or height and density bonuses. In addition, the precise terms of the restrictive
covenants and other conditions need to be specified in writing before project approval.
There is no simple solution when a developer's financial difficulties and cost overruns present a choice
between bankruptcy and downgrading approved amenities. Part of the answer might be to make more
conservative budgeting and adequate reserve funds a condition for project approval. There is also an
opportunity for EPHA to provide leadership in creative refinancing.
Community Conversations, October, 2025 14
Affordable housing case study:
Re-purpose visitor accommodations for resident apartments
Brief description:This property is located just to the west
of downtown Estes Park, nestled along the banks of the
Fall River. It was converted from a hotel and wedding
venue to residential housing. It is within easy walking
distance of downtown along a multimodal path. This
property offers 1,2,3, and 4-bedroom townhome style
living in the heart of Estes Park. Most units have balconies
or porches, and larger units have attached garages. Shared
space includes a clubhouse for resident gatherings, a pool,
2 hot tubs.
# of units:89 units,65 of which are income-restricted
Restrictions: workforce & 60-80% AMI
Current rents:1-bed $1,248
2 bed $1,499-$2,034
3 bed $2,350
4 bed $2,636
Real estate taxes (2025): tax exempt
Timeline:
05/04/2004 & 02/21/2007 –subdivision plats, PUD
approval & began construction
06/04/2008 -bankruptcy
12/11/2009 -1st tax sale
08/21/2014 new owner & financing
2006-2017 -construction completed
10/01/2024 –Purchased by EPHA
06/03/2025 –30 yr rent restriction covenants
Occupancy: 56%
Cost/unit (purchase price): $393,258
Challenges Faced: Financing purchase of a $35M property at reasonable terms required considerable
ingenuity. The sale closed at over 100% of the cost with a less than 5% interest rate. In order to pay
the annual debt payments and pay down part of the loan principal,14 of the largest units will be sold
at market price.Received $7M from CHFA to pay off the debt and a moral obligation from the Town
as a backstop. Favorable financing terms were obtained through a variety of sources in exchange for
30yr rent restrictions, with at least 65 units affordable to households at ≤80% AMI. If the units are
not sold, the property will not be viable and would be subject to foreclosure which would eliminate
all attainable/ affordable rent covenants.
Lessons Learned:Too soon to tell!
Fall River Village
Owner:EPHA
Location:110-200 Filby Ct., 276-288 Sunny
Acres Ct. & 290-314 Sweet Sage Ln., Estes Park,
CO 80517
Affordability: low-to-middle income
Density: 19 units per acre on ~ 6 acres
Community Conversations, October, 2025 15
Definitions
Affordable Housing
HUD definition:Households pay no more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs.
For renters that is rent + utilities.
For homeowners that is mortgage + property tax + insurance + condo fees + utilities.
There is no definition for Affordable Housing in the current Estes Park Development Code.
Area Median Income (AMI) levels*
< 80% AMI = Low-income
< 50% AMI = Very low-income
< 30% AMI = Extremely low-income
*based on Larimer County AMI.
Town of Estes Park Town AMI is ~20% lower according to 2023 US Census figures.
Attainable Housing
HUD definition: matches a community's predominant income levels.
Estes Park Development Code defines this as affordable for households earning ≤ 150% Larimer
County AMI, adjusted for household size.
Workforce Housing
HUD definition: restricted to members of the local working community.
Estes Park Development Code defines this as at least one resident in each unit is employed within the
Estes Park School District R-3 Boundary map.
Estes Valley
2022 Comprehensive Plan definition: The Estes Park planning area includes the Town of Estes Park
and a 3 mile area around the Town. This includes most adjacent privately held land but excludes the
communities of Glen Haven, Drake and AllensPark.
US Census definition: The Estes Park County Census Division includes the Town of Estes Park and
surrounding unincorporated Larimer County including Glen Haven, Drake and Pinewood Springs but
excludes Boulder County communities such as Allenspark.
EPHA definition: EPHA uses the Estes Park School District (R-3) as the Estes valley. This includes all
of the Estes Park County Census Division, as well as Allenspark.
Community Conversations, October, 2025 16
Data Sources
p5. Map of Estes Park Land Use came from one of Design Workshop's Estes Park Development Code Update
Open House boards
p6. Demographic data is derived from 2000, 2010, 2020 & 2023 US Census tables.
Estes Valley is defined by County Census Division, including Estes Park, Drake, Glen Haven and Pinewood
Springs but not Allenspark.
Visitor numbers from EP Comprehensive lodging assessment (2024) and
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/factsfigures.htm
Summer (part-time) residents were extrapolated as follows using numbers from the 2022 Housing Needs
Assessment: (number of vacant housing units –short term rentals)= number of part time resident units, with
1.95 average household size. And adding those summer workers who do not commute (estimated at 67%).
Summer commuters was estimated by multiplying summer workers by winter commuter rate (33%).
p7. Existing Housing data is derived from the 2023 Housing Assessment, where the Estes Valley is defined as
the Estes Valley School District. Housing inventory for sale came from the 08/07/2025 Housing Briefing
provided to the Town Trustees. Build Rates and Growth Capacity came from Fig III-2 of the 2023 Housing
Needs Assessment and the 2022 Comprehensive Plan appendix B: "1,485 acres of vacant private land are
potentially suitable for future development. 642 new dwelling units could potentially be built on vacant land as
currently zoned. 44.5% of the projected new housing units fall within the current Estes Park Town limits."
p8. Town of Estes Park AMI and number of households x income bracket came from 2023 US Census tables.
Housing supply vs needs data derives from the 2023 Housing Assessment. This Estes Valley is defined as the
Estes Valley School District. Visitor needs and available accomodations came from 2024 Estes Park
Comprehensive Lodging Assessment. Estimated housing needs for 2025 derived from the 2023 Housing
Assessment.
p10. Existing housing example images were street views captured with an iPhone in Sept 2025.
except the South Court image was taken from a realtor website and the S St Vrain image from an EPHA
website. Other housing images and graphics courtesy of S.Carraccia EP Planning Department.
p12-15 Affordable housing case studies data from Larimer County Assessor records, Larimer County Records,
EP Planning Department records, EPHA websites and personnel
Community Conversations, October, 2025 17
Estes Park Housing Authority Creating Affordable Housing
EPHA was established in 1993 to address the gap between housing needs and availability. Their mission is to
"create and facilitate housing opportunities and services for persons of low and moderate income". They do
so by:
•acting as a developer, building low-middle income housing for both rental and ownership
•banking vacant land for future development of needed housing
•buying existing properties and converting them to lower-cost rental or ownership units
•managing the rental and condo properties they own
•administering the deed restrictions for privately owned rental and condo properties
•offering rental and downpayment assistance to help workforce afford available housing
About half of EPHA's budget comes from property income (rents) and about half comes from 6E funds
derived from our local lodging tax. Since EPHA is a tax-exempt organization they can offer lower rents or
purchase prices than tax-paying developers or landlords.
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATEESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Engagement & Outreach SummaryEngagement & Outreach Summary
October 2025October 2025
Attachment 4
2 |
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
ENGAGEMENT OUTREACH OVERVIEW
Public Open
Houses, Online
Questionnaire
Focus Groups, Pop-up
Events, Community
Meetings
Direction from
Elected Officials and
Staff
Support from Community
Conversations Group
(additional outreach complementary
to this engagement effort)
FEEDBACK PROCESS
The Town of Estes Park, in collaboration with Design Workshop,
conducted an extensive engagement process to inform the
community about the Development Code Update. This process was
designed to capture broad-based community perspectives as well
as targeted technical insights from local experts and stakeholders.
Engagement methods included:
• Community Open Houses – The first open house was held on
June 25, 2025, followed by a second open house on September
20, 2025, providing project information and opportunities to
comment on topical code areas.
• Online Questionnaire – Open from mid-July through
September 2025, available in both English and Spanish,
focusing on housing, environment, transportation, and design
issues. The questionnaire received 303 complete responses.
• Project Website & Social Media – The project website
has been updated bi-monthly and has hosted the online
questionnaire. Outreach has also been conducted through
social media and newsletters.
• Topical Focus Groups – Conducted in July and August 2025
with subject matter experts. These were organized by topic:
Natural Environment; Housing; Economy, Health, and Social
Considerations; and Built Environment, Transportation, and
Infrastructure.
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Planning
Commission – Provided periodic feedback on technical and
policy issues throughout the process.
• Pop-Up Engagement Activities – Conducted in August and
September 2025 at various public locations to reach residents
and community members outside formal engagement meetings
and inform them about the Code update and direct them
towards the questionnaire and open house.
OUTREACH LOCATIONS
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
12
11
Lake Estes
Highw
a
y
3
4
Highway 36
High
w
a
y
7
Highway 34
Pop-up Events
Estes Valley Community
Center
Estes Park Library
Food Truck Event
Estes Lake Trailhead
Avant Garde Aleworks
Farmers Market
Bond Park Pavilion
1
3
4
5
7
8
9
2
6
10
Community
Organization Meetings
Estes Valley Sunrise
Rotary Club
Estes Valley
Neighborhood
Association (Virtual)
Preserve Estes Park
Open Houses
Estes Park Museum
Estes Park Middle
School
11
12
| 3
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
ENGAGEMENT OUTREACH OVERVIEW*
130+
Participants
in both Open
Houses
70+
Interactions
with community
members
through Pop-up
events
50+
Participants
across all
community
meetings
40+
Participants
in Focus
Groups
300+
Responses
to the online
Questionnaire
*The outreach participation numbers presented reflect Design
Workshop’s engagement efforts only.
4 |
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
HOUSING
Key Takeaways
Broader Housing Mix
• Interest in expanding the range of housing options for different demographics within
the community as well as support workforce housing needs.
• Low-density residential zones are difficult to add more density in, due to larger lot
sizes, and due to deed-restricted housing regulations.
Affordability Challenges
• Limited availability of affordable and attainable units, particularly starter homes and
smaller rental units such as studios and one-bedrooms.
• Concern that young families and workers are being priced out.
• Restrictive zoning, high parking minimums, lengthy permitting processes, and a lack of
incentives as barriers to producing lower-cost housing.
Workforce and Deed-Restricted Housing
• Concerns about deed-restricted housing not always reaching intended households.
Bankers, developers, and housing advocates noted that eligibility, financing, and long-
term enforcement mechanisms need clarification.
• Suggestions included scoring or incentive systems for projects that incorporate deed-
restricted housing and fee-in-lieu requirements for developments not able to provide
units directly.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
• Support exists for ADUs as a tool to provide smaller and more flexible housing
options.
• Current process for approval is too slow and costly, with no streamlined review or
inspection process, creating barriers to implementation.
• Recommendations included creating pre-approved ADU plans and a clearer, faster
approval pathway.
Short-Term Rentals
• Short-term rentals are a major factor influencing housing availability and affordability
and removing naturally affordable housing from the market.
• Many larger homes are used seasonally or as short term rentals, reducing availability
for year-round residents.
• Suggested stricter regulation, exploring incentives or conversion pathways for short-
term rental units to become workforce housing.
79%
21%
Smaller Lots
Taller Buildings
Q.
To preserve open space and/or help with housing
affordability, would you prefer to see smaller lots or
taller buildings?
Open Comments:
• Be more aware of the definition of ‘affordable’ housing
vs ‘employee’ housing. Too many high income residences
are in ‘employee’ housing that should be available for
‘affordable’ housing.
• Need guidelines on density of short-term rentals.
• Do not support high density and height bonuses.
• Prioritize affordable workforce housing over vacation
rentals.
| 5
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
HOUSING TYPOLOGIES
Paired Homes (Duplex & Triplex)
61%
Townhomes
44%
Cottage Courts
59%
Courtyard Apartments
24%
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
54%
Fourplex
20%
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
45% Support
32% Neutral
23% Do not Support
Q. Where in the Town would you like to see the housing
typologies (mentioned on the right)?
Q.To support a greater variety of housing in Estes Park, which
housing types would you like to see more of? (Choose your top 3)
Q. Do you support updating
zoning to allow a broader mix of
housing types and ensure the code
aligns with the Town’s Comprehensive
Plan housing goals?
6 |
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Key Takeaways
Role of PUD’s
• PUDs as an opportunity to secure outcomes such as
attainable housing and trail connections, while highlighting
the need for reform to allow clustering, smaller lots, and
mixed-use flexibility.
• Emphasized having a central open space that promotes
social interaction and community building.
Desired Community Benefits
• Prioritized outcomes such as workforce housing, multimodal
connections (trails and bike lanes), environmental
conservation, and historic preservation.
Flexibility in Regulations
• Current PUD regulations are too restrictive and do not
provide enough flexibility to accommodate smaller lot sizes
or innovative designs.
• Reform was recommended to allow PUD’s in residential
zones to achieve community needs.
Incentives for Benefit
• Suggested tools included density bonuses and impact fees
to encourage developers to include community benefits as
part of their projects.Q.
Do you support
clustered development
within Planned Unit
Development (PUD),
to help preserve open
space?
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Environmental Conservation
and Protection
Multimodal Transportation
Improvements (trails, bike lanes)
Provision of Attainable, Workforce
or Employee Housing
Recreational Amenities
(Playgrounds, Playareas)
Adaptive Reuse or Historic
Preservation
Enhanced Building Architecture
or Green Building Technique
70%
53%
47%
47%
44%
27%
Q. What types of flexible community benefits would you like to
see included in a Planned Unit Development? (Choose all that apply)
50% Support
34% Neutral
16% Do not Support
Q. Do you support
allowing Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) in
certain residential zones in
Estes Park?
| 7
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Improved walkability and less reliance on cars
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
Q.
Where in the Town
would you like
to see mixed-use
development?
Key Takeaways
Identified Benefits
• Key benefits of mixed-use development, including improved walkability,
more efficient land use, revitalization of underutilized sites, convenience
of access to services, and stronger support for local businesses.
Adaptive Reuse
• Identified opportunities for reusing underutilized commercial and
lodging properties for housing. This was seen as a practical way to
introduce new units while respecting existing development patterns.
Design Preferences
• Maintaining Estes Park’s eclectic architectural character and avoiding
overly uniform or resort-like design approaches.
• Flexibility in design guidelines, rather than prescriptive requirements,
was considered important.
• Mixed-use zones along major highways and transportation corridors,
and in existing commercial zones within the Town.
Q.
Do you prefer
vertical mixed-
use or horizontal
mixed-use?
54%
Horizontal
mixed-use
46%
Vertical
mixed-use
62%
Efficient use of land47%
Revitalization of underused areas44%
Support for local businesses and job creation42%
Variety of housing options34%
Convenience and easy access to services26%
Q.Which benefits of mixed-use zoning would you most like to see
prioritized in Estes Park? (Choose your top 4)
8 |
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
NATURAL RESOURCES
WILDFIRE MITIGATION
Key Takeaways
Wildlife Protection
• Strong interest was expressed in protecting sensitive habitats, riparian areas, and
wildlife corridors.
• Opposed development in these areas, while also updating the 2008 Wildlife
Assessment to better protect those areas.
• Adopting fencing standards to avoid disruption of wildlife migration patterns.
• Requiring Colorado Parks and Wildlife input during site approval.
Flood Resilience
• Emphasized protecting floodplains and waterways. The 2013 flood was frequently
referenced as a reminder of vulnerabilities.
• Suggestions included stronger development regulations near flood corridors and
suitability assessments for subdivisions.
Steep Slopes and Ridgelines
• Protections were seen as generally effective but could be strengthened with more
prescriptive building placement standards.
• Concerns about significant cut-and-fill projects altering the landscape.
Additional Protections
• Expressed support for stronger dark-sky standards, noise controls, and improved
enforcement of environmental protections.
Key Takeaways
Wildfire Risk
• Dedicated defensible space, fire-resistant building materials, and landscape practices
were broadly supported.
• Need for standards to apply town-wide (not just in high-risk areas), given that embers
can travel long distances.
• Recommendations included retrofitting triggers (e.g., when replacing roofs or decks).
• Exploring funding mechanisms such as public grants or insurance programs to support
compliance.
Landscaping and Vegetation
• Mixed feedback on the removal of flammable vegetation, with some proposing to have
flexibility in defining flammable vegetation, taking into account the overall flammability
index of the area.
Q. Do you support requiring defensible space
around all structures, including the removal of
flammable vegetation, to reduce wildfire spread through
neighborhoods ?
Q. Do you support requiring wildfire safety measures
like fire-resistant materials and defensible space for new
development only, or for both new and existing homes?
Do not Support 9%
Neutral
Support
28%
62%
0 20 40 60 80
0 10 20 30 40 50
Do not Support 27%
Neutral
Support
26%
47%
70503010
Open Comments:
• Please make sure to limit development in high wildlife areas
and in riparian areas. Also be aware of fragmenting wildlife
corridors.
• The code should prohibit ridgeline development and
excessive earthwork on steep slopes.
| 9
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
SHORT-TERM RENTALS & TOURISM IMPACTS
Key Takeaways
Economic Impact
• Challenges associated with the Loop project, including traffic diversion away
from retail areas.
• Sidewalk maintenance responsibilities as a burden on individual business
owners.
• Interest in exploring a Business Improvement District (BID) to coordinate
improvements.
• Redeveloping underutilized spaces, such as the Big-Horn parking structure, into
mixed-use projects that could support both housing and retail.
Short-Term Rentals
• Cited as reducing the supply of long-term housing and contributing to
affordability challenges.
• Supported stronger regulation or caps, while others emphasized property rights
and the economic role of short-term rentals.
Growth and Future Development
• Tourism recognized as a vital part of the local economy, but participants also
noted its impacts on housing availability, traffic, and neighborhood character.
• Suggested exploring Community Housing Overlay Zones to direct growth and
balance the needs of residents, tourism, and businesses.
• With limited undeveloped land remaining, most future growth is expected
through infill and redevelopment. Public infrastructure investments (water,
transit, trails) will be key to supporting this.
• Views, traffic management, and maintaining Estes Park’s unique identity were
cited as essential considerations for future code changes.
PROCESS & GOVERNANCE
OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Key Takeaways
Clear Definitions
• Clearer terminology, particularly for “affordable housing” and “environmental
justice,” to improve shared understanding.
• Adding more visuals and graphics in the code to understand development
guidelines, overlay zones and building requirements, making it more accessible to
the public.
Communication Tools
• Need for stronger neighborhood-level input in rezoning and development
decisions.
• Engaging private-sector partners, including financial institutions and builders, to
ensure housing strategies are feasible.
Non-conforming Lots
• Majorly supported allowing small, site-specific improvements to non-conforming
lots and amending zoning standards to allow for these improvements.
• Mixed opinions about expediting the current administrative process for
reviewing non-conforming lots.
• Setting specific thresholds for changes in non-conforming lots also received
mixed results. Thus, indicating mixed views on making overall changes to the
process of the existing review of non-conforming lots.
Key Takeaways
Dark Sky Lighting Compliance
• Strong interest was expressed in having warm-white light sources and shielded
light fixtures to minimize glare and light pollution.
• Strong emphasis on outdoor lighting as an important aspect for the
community’s character.
Q. Do you support expediting the
existing administrative process for
reviewing non-conforming lots?
47% Support expediting the
existing administrative process for
non-conforming lots
38% Neutral
15% Do not Support
Q. Do you support amending
zoning standards for unique
lot conditions while preserving
neighborhood character?
58% Support amending zoning
standards for unique lot conditions
28% Neutral
15% Do not Support
10 |
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
DESIGN GUIDELINES & MASSING
Key Takeaways
Town Character
• Valued the eclectic, pedestrian-friendly nature of downtown and expressed
concern about losing this identity through larger or more uniform developments.
• Strong support for establishing design guidelines for commercial and
multifamily projects to ensure compatibility with Estes Park’s small-town and
mountain character.
• Emphasis on flexibility, focusing on roof lines, materials, and scale rather than
prescriptive styles.
Lot Size Preferences
• Support for smaller lot sizes as a way to create more affordable housing
options, rather than increasing building height.
Building Height
• Taller buildings (3–4+ stories) raised significant concerns among residents,
particularly related to impacts on view sheds, ridge lines, and Estes Park’s
mountain-town character.
• Selective flexibility on height, in specific locations and with strong design
requirements, could help enable affordable or workforce housing.
• Emphasized the need for visual zoning tools such as illustrative diagrams,
form-based examples, or 3D models, to help the community better understand
what additional density could look like. This was seen as a way to reduce
uncertainty and support more informed decision-making.
Q. Do you support requiring design guidelines for commercial
use buildings and multi-family housing developments, to
maintain the current character of the town?
Q. Do you support guidelines and regulations that reinforce
the look and feel of downtown as a welcoming place for business
and pedestrians?
Do not Support 4%
Neutral
Support
14%
82%
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Do not Support 2%
Neutral
Support
15%
83%
Open Comments:
• Preservation of quality of neighborhoods. No turning of residential
zoning into other types of zoning , including apartment houses or
reducing lot sizes.
• Continue to not allow large commercial business such as Walmart, ski
developments, no more dollar stores.
• Code should incentivize re-development over new development ,
and should limit high-density housing to highway corridors where
adequate transit and multi-modal transportation are available.
• Buildings should not ruin existing ridgelines. New construction should
have some flexibility to explore different styles and not become too
much of the same thing.
| 11
ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Scan the QR code to visit the project website for more updates.
PARKING & TRANSPORTATION
Key Takeaways
Parking Requirements
• Some supported reduced parking requirements, shared
parking, and substitutions such as bike or EV spaces.
• Expressed concern that reductions would worsen
congestion and spillover parking.
• Fee-in-lieu options were seen as appropriate in targeted
areas or preferred if the fees would go towards developing
multi-modal transit alternatives within the Town.
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
• Current EV infrastructure was described as inadequate,
with only six charging stations in town.
• Suggested shared or time-limited chargers as more
effective than requiring private developments to install new
infrastructure.
Connectivity and Trails
• Emphasized the need for more sidewalks, bike lanes, and
trail connections.
• Connecting campgrounds to downtown as a priority and
recommended better wayfinding to improve the use of
existing trails.
Transit Options
• Lack of local and regional transit beyond Bustang service.
• Stressed the importance of planning for transit access to
support future infill and redevelopment.
• In favor of reducing parking requirements only when the
Town commits to multi-modal transit alternatives.
Q. Do you support reduced parking requirements for affordable or
workforce housing?
Q. Do you support counting enhanced bike parking and EV spaces toward
the minimum parking requirements?
Q. Except for downtown, do you support allowing a fee-in-lieu option to
reduce the required on-site parking in town?
Do not Support 19%
Neutral
Support
40%
41%
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Do not Support 16%
Neutral
Support
41%
43%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Do not Support 26%
Neutral
Support
45%
29%
DW LEGACY DESIGN®
Legacy Design is the defining element of our practice. It is our
commitment to an elevated level of design inquiry to arrive at the
optimal solutions for clients. The process ensures that our projects
reflect the critical issues facing the built environment and that they
deliver measurable benefit to clients and communities. It is the
foundation of the firm’s workshop culture and guides all projects.
www.designworkshop.com
Development Code Update
Deliberative Meetings
Presentation Received 2026-01-27
Our Work Method
Community Development provided direction independent from Design Workshop
What is the “wicked problem” and how can we talk about it? A Learning Adventure
Focus on the Housing component of the Comprehensive Plan
Creating Safe Spaces for many voices to emerge
o Volunteers and staff: technical expertise, broad networks, facilitation and note taking
o Listening to stakeholders in 5 facilitated dialogues in July
o Research, research, research
o Intensive invitations to deliberate –special emphasis on hard-to-reach folks
o Design for Deliberation –facts and opinions based
o Deliberations for mutual understanding, common ground, and creative solutions
Some Underlying Values from the Housing Dialogues
July 2025
Compatibility/
Fit
Accessibility/
Connectivity
Preserving
our diverse
community
Stability
Safety
Community
Connection
Individual
Property
Rights
Economic
Vitality
Environmental
Sustainability
Town self-
sufficiency
Having a
voice
Beauty
Dignity/
quality
housing for all
Affordability
Affordable Housing
Briefing Document
Volunteers
Partner collaboration – EPHA and others
Stakeholder issues and values about housing
and community character from 5 dialogues
Rigorous research - Kudos received
◦Current housing available and demographics
◦Housing need
◦Some options for smart growth
◦Case studies
◦Definitions
2025
NEED FOR HOUSING IN ESTES PARK:WHAT SHALL WE DO?
Deliberative Meetings
October 9 and 15
Estes Park Affordable Housing
Briefing Document by
Community Conversations
C O M M U N I T Y C O N V E R S A T I O N S
Making Qualitative Research Actionable
This is a report only of the deliberations, other findings are in the briefing document
and discussion guide
Recorded comments from 14 table groups of mixed stakeholders
Immersion in the data – including 3 data analysis meetings with staff and volunteers
Theme- based analysis of 35 pages of raw data
◦Stories
◦Thoughts
◦Feelings and Passions
Themes Into strategies and Actions
Approach 1
NO
Implementation
Approach 2
MODERATE
Implementation
Approach 3
ROBUST
Implementation
What approach should we take to implement the Housing goals of our
Comprehensive Plan?
Can we preserve the small-town eco-friendly mountain character of
Estes Park while ensuring there is enough housing affordable for those
who work here?
COMMON
GROUND
Approach 1: Make Code language easier to use and understand;
NO implementation the Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals
Overview: We should take a hands-off approach to housing sections of the Code update, as we
cannot know the exact needs. Instead, we should let the market and existing resources deal with
housing needs. We do not want to encourage the development of housing that we do not need.
Potential Actions
Update the Code language to enhance user-friendliness, eliminate or update outdated requirements
and standards, and to comply with new state requirements. Keep existing zoning districts and do
not use the new Code to align with housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
Key arguments for
NO Comp Plan implementation
Concerns/ tradeoffs with
NO Comp Plan implementation
•Clarified Code language will be easier to
understand, use, and better guide
decision-making.
•The Comprehensive Plan is aspirational
and was approved by the board and not
popular vote.
•Current zoning works well to protect
property owners.
•Current Code processes are adequate for
building new housing.
•We already have unintended
consequences of building new housing
that is not affordable for many in our
work force.
•It’s better to keep density as low as
possible around town.
•Too much building on highway corridors
creates urban canyons.
•Redevelopment can destroy historic
properties
•Our small-town feel is preserved
•Wildlife corridors are protected
•The natural environment is not further
disturbed for housing
•Workers can commute into Estes Park;
they do not need to live here.
•Changing Code to require things to look
the same would lose the eclectic charm
of the town.
•Condos and townhomes all look the
same; boring and unlovely.
•We do not need to change Estes Park; it
is wonderful the way it is.
•The town becomes exclusive (like Aspen
and Vail) as high housing prices drive
away, diversity in age, race, and
socioeconomic status.
•Housing demand increases and is unmet
– workforce is diminished
•High employee turnover
•Hourly wage earners face substandard
housing and increasing housing instability
•Fewer younger families can afford to live
in Estes Park
•Community infrastructure services are
threatened (hospital, school, town
services, etc.)
•Cost of services continues to rise
•Current zoning does not encourage infill
and redevelopment of aging and vacant
commercial areas
•Current Code defines Workforce Housing
without income brackets, allowing
workforce density bonuses for higher-cost
housing.
•Current Code defines Attainable Housing
at a cost too high to be affordable for
most EP workforce.
•Converting visitor accommodations into
resident housing decreases tax income for
the Town and limits visitor options.
•With no streamlined development
process, access to state and federal funds
for affordable housing is limited.
A Likely Outcome
The Development Code continues to be a barrier to Smart Growth, multiuse, redevelopment, and
affordable housing. As a result, the Town becomes more elite. It loses its small-town community feel
and resident services. Valuable workers feel they are disposable and leave.
Approach 2: MODERATE implementation of Comp Plan Housing Goals
Overview: Current market forces and Code restrictions discourage building alternatives to
single family homes. Code changes that remove barriers to affordable housing could
encourage Smart Growth while preserving open spaces, wildlife, community and quality of
life.
Potential Actions
Update the Code language. Improve Attainable and Workforce housing definitions. Allow
more housing options (triplexes, duplexes, dormitory-style, clustered small homes, etc.).
Add Mixed Use Zoning to encourage infill, re-development and concentrate increased
density in commercial and highway corridors. Create a fast-track approval process.
Key Arguments for MODERATE Comp Plan
implementation
Concerns/Tradeoffs with MODERATE
implementation
•Growth is Smart and controlled.
•Younger families could live here.
•Employee retention is improved.
•More working residents maintain
demand for infrastructure and
services like hospitals, schools,
shops and grocery stores.
•Improved definitions for Attainable
and Workforce housing (e.g. add
income brackets) would encourage
building more affordable housing.
•More allowable housing options
could help developers build more
affordable housing; and create
transitions between higher and
lower density areas; create options
for working families who want to
purchase a home here.
•Updated zoning could encourage
attractive affordable housing close
to services, parks, and schools.
•Infill, redevelopment and mixed-
use zones could create revitalized,
walkable neighborhoods with
shops serving residents and shared
green/public spaces that foster
good neighbors and community.
•Dormitory housing for seasonal
workers increases rental stability
for long term renters.
•Streamlined review opens access to
state and federal funds.
•Higher density may impact wildlife,
compromise views and tranquility
•Higher density may pose greater
danger from fire and flood.
•Higher density may require costly
upgrades of Town infrastructure.
•Higher density may change the feel or
character of the neighborhoods.
•More residents could change our
small-town feel and character.
•Too much building on highway
corridors creates urban canyons.
•Denser housing often looks cookie
cutter; boring and unlovely.
•Abrupt transitions may reduce the
value of single-family homes adjacent
to higher density housing.
•Converting visitor accommodations
into resident housing decreases tax
income and limits visitor options.
•Could lead to an oversupply of
affordable housing.
•It may be hard to fill the businesses in
a multiuse property.
•Dormitory housing may sit empty in
the off season.
•Redevelopment can displace residents
and destroy community.
•This does not go far enough to meet
the affordable housing needs. Many
community members will still not find
a secure place to live.
A Likely Outcome
More housing is built that is affordable for our community members. The rental market
stabilizes. The Town population increases as commuters find homes. This will maintain
demand for businesses and services for residents. It will be tricky to increase density
without compromising town character, cohesive neighborhoods, wildlife movement, and
views.
Approach 3: ROBUST Implementation of Comp Plan Housing Goals
Overview: Providing enough affordable housing for our workforce and families to
meet current and future needs while preserving community values may include
requirements to obtain greater incentives and goals for low- income housing.
Potential Actions
Update the Code language and create a fast-track approval process. May allow;
greater height (above 38 feet) and density in commercial zones and highway corridors,
smaller lot sizes in more zoning districts, single-family homes to be subdivided into
multifamily homes. Require a percent of residential subdivisions to be affordable;
require business developments to include workforce housing. A zoning overlay creates
targeted areas with relaxed rules allowing increased density, more incentives, and
fast-tracked approvals.
Key Arguments for ROBUST Comp Plan
Implementation
Concerns/ Tradeoffs with ROBUST
Implementation
•We can meet the community’s
current and future need for long
term, sustainable, and affordable
housing.
•Those who want to work and live
here can buy or rent a home.
•Adequate housing for seasonal
workers increases stability for
long term renters.
•Robust code definitions and
processes stabilize market swings
and allow continued Smart
Growth.
•More deed restricted properties
ensure future housing options for
those who work in EP.
•Businesses and entrepreneurs
have greater options to be
creative and provide new or
improved services
•Condos, multiuse properties, and
small lots in cottage courts create
the opportunity for strong, caring
neighborhoods to form, often
around gardens and green spaces.
•Careful application of the new
code can preserve open space and
wildlife movements as well as
views.
•More housing would increase the
Town population
•Higher density may impact
wildlife
and pose greater danger from fire and
flood.
•Higher density may require costly
upgrades of Town infrastructure.
•Higher density may change the
feel or character of the
neighborhoods.
•Too much building on highway
corridors creates urban canyons.
•Deed restrictions require
government oversight and limit
future land use options.
•Deed restricted properties do not
appreciate at market rates, so
owners find it hard to “move up”.
•Difficulty to ensure a property is
developed as originally approved,
leaving properties built with
unintended consequences.
•It may be difficult to build so
much housing without
compromising our
neighborhoods, small-town
character and natural
environment.
•We cannot know the future need
for housing.
A Likely Outcome
The population of the Town may increase and support a stable vibrant community.
Workers would feel valued and business could retain employees. It would bring
changes to the Town character and neighborhoods. It would require the Town to invest
in more transportation, infrastructure and services. Views, wildlife, tranquility and
small-town character might be negatively impacted.
Toward Comp Plan Housing Goals
How Far?
Conservative side of moderate: what does that mean?
◦Urgent need for affordable workforce housing, most believe it is a serious problem
◦High quality attainable housing for workers
◦No compromise on: eclectic builds, community sense, views, wildlife, natural
environment
◦Smaller lots and houses, especially for workforce first time purchase
◦Focus on Infill and redevelopment rather than expansion and sprawl
◦Encourage mixed-use along highway corridors
◦Encourage innovation for both year-round and seasonal workers
◦Build partnerships between business, government, and citizens for solutions
Definitions and Incentives for
Development
Use definitions that apply for our real workforce, not general for Larimer County
(current code uses 150% of Larimer County AMI as attainable) for incentives that
meet the Estes Park workforce need
Refer to the briefing document for Definitions discussion
Make the Development Code define and incentivize where the real need for housing
lies in Estes Park
Workforce greatest need: 50-80 % of Estes Park AMI (which is 20% below the Larimer
County AMI)
Workforce need: 100% Estes Park AMI or less for first time buyers
Recognition that this is very challenging and requires multi-stakeholder collaboration
Quality of Life in Estes Park
“Growth should sustain the community, not replace it.”
Ambivalence: we need workforce housing but also to
retain the elements of the Town that make it a special
place.
Keep Estes Park’s identity while supporting the economy
and adapting for future generations
Link Growth with necessary infrastructure
improvements
Approval Process and Accountability
WE did not ask about this but the message was powerful and clear (elephant in the
room)
YES, we need to develop workforce housing AND the process must be tighter
People want a process of approval they can be involved in and can trust
Past experience – plans were approved but the final product does not meet workforce
needs
◦Target Estes Park appropriate definitions of workforce income for incentives
◦Accountability/ enforcement of the developer to the approved plan
◦What changes to the approved plan might trigger a new plan approval process?
We did not ask their recommendations for a trusted process – a good question for the
draft deliberations
Next Steps
What to do with creative ideas?
Who else could use the briefing document?
Who else could use the report?
Power of public deliberation
Next deliberation – one – in May or June –on the draft of the code
Thank you for your partnership with Community Conversations
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To:
Through:
From:
Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Machalek
Dana Klein, Parking and Transit Manager
David Greear, PE, Public Works Director
Department: Public Works
Date: January 27, 2026
Subject: 2025 Transit Season Recap
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Presentation of 2025 Transit Season Recap including passenger numbers and
technology updates
Town Board Direction Requested:
No Direction Requested
Present Situation:
During 2025, the transit program operated daily from May 23 to October 19 for the Red
Route and July 1 to October 19 for all other routes. The attached presentation provides
details on ridership, expenses and program details during the operational timeframe
Proposal:
None – Information Only
Advantages:
None – Information Only
Disadvantages:
None – Information Only
Finance/Resource Impact:
None – Information Only
Level of Public Interest:
Public Interest in the Transit program is moderate
Attachments:
1.2025 Transit Season Recap Presentation
The Peak (Estes Transit) :
2025 Year-End Report
Town Board Study Session
January 27, 2026
Dana Klein, CPP, CCTM
Parking & Transit Manager
Attachment 1
The Peak Branding –Red Route
The Peak Branding
2025 Service Map
2025 Service Maps
2025 Service Maps –TRAK demo
2025 Ridership Data (The Peak)
Seasonal Ridership Data
(The Peak)
RMNP Hiker Shuttle carried 28,723 in 2024 and 37,541 in 2025.
2025 Ridership Data (Bustang)
2019: 1,142 riders (22 per trip)
2020: No service
2021: 1,222 (10 per trip)
2022: 2,473 (15 per trip)
2023: 3,022 (19 per trip)
2024: 3,362 (20 per trip)
2025: 3,100 (19 per trip)
2025 Sponsorship Program
•$20,850 in financial support from 21 sponsors
•15 Returning sponsors
•6 New sponsors
•Local Printing Firm for exterior and interior ads
Grant-Funded Projects: Current
1. Visitor Center Parking Lot – Design
•Anticipate completion end of 2026
•Currently $800k+ in grant funding available for construction; plan to seek
additional funds as part of regular Town 2027 budget process
2. FTA 5311 Administration / Operating
•FY 2023: $70,000 (double our original allocation)
•FY 2024: $100,000 (1 of 8 agencies statewide to receive expansion)
•FY 2025: $189,264 (expansion delayed – CDOT/DOT budgets)
•FY 2026: $239,996.00 (includes 2025 delayed expansion funds)
3. 2023 CMAQ - Operations
•FY 2025: 1,093,529 available through 12/31/2027
•Using for local and regional service enhancements as well as technology for
guests to see shuttle locations on routes
What’s in Store for 2026?
Summer service implementation
o Negotiate pricing with contracted service provider
o Likely a similar schedule to 2025
o Special event services
Bustang to Estes
o Likely Memorial Day through Elk Fest
Projects, projects, projects!
o CMAQ service enhancements to current routes (shuttle location tech)
o Visitor Center Parking Lot – Design
o Transit Development Plan – Implementation planning of
recommendations in plan
o Review of passenger boarding by stops to enhance services at most
needed locations.
What’s in Store for 2026?
Thank You for your support!
•Questions ?
•Comments ?
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Future Study Session Items
February 10, 2026
•Water Master Plan
•Plaque Honoring Civic Service/Art in Public Places
February 13, 2026 (Special Session)
•Wildfire Resiliency Code Joint Session with Estes Valley Fire Protection District
February 24, 2026
•2026 Street Improvement Program Overview
•Whimsadoodle/Big Horn Parking Lot Update
•Public Comment Policy
March 10, 2026
•Exemption of Certain Products from Sales Tax
•Vendor Fee Rate for Sales Tax Collection
Items Approved - Unscheduled
•Annexation of Enclaves
•Murals and Sign Code
•Policy 102 (Town Committees) Liaison Review
•Policy 102 (Town Committees) Focus Groups Draft
•Joint Session with Fire District – Wildfire Resiliency Code
•Growth Management Areas Overview
•Police Department Facility Financing
•Commercial Loading Permit Post-Season Assessment
•Liquor License Process
Items for Town Board Consideration
•None