HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Techincal Review Committee 2025-11-04Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 4, 2025
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Technical Review Committee of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town of Estes Park on November
4, 2025.
Committee:
Attending:
Absent:
Town Administrator Travis Machalek (Chair), Public Works
Director David Greear, Stormwater Engineer Greg Muhonen,
Architect Joe Calvin, Structural Engineer Matt Khachaturian
Chair Machalek, Director Greear, Member Muhonen, Member
Calvin, Member Khachaturian, Community Development
Director Steve Careccia, Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck,
Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
none
Chair Machalek called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. TRC members introduced
themselves.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Muhonen/Greear) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Minutes from the June 17, 2025, Architectural Review Committee meeting were
acknowledged.
AGENDA ITEM: Freelan Heights Subdivision Senior Planner Hornbeck
Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Brad O'Neil, manager of
Stanley Lot 2A LLC, has submitted a Preliminary Package application for the Freelan
Heights Subdivision. The subject property is Lot 2A of the Stanley Historic District
Subdivision. The site is currently platted with six duplex envelopes, allowing for a
maximum of 12 units to be built. This proposal would replace the six duplex building
envelopes and 12 units with 10 detached townhome lots. Staff finds that the proposal
largely complies with applicable standards, with limited inconsistencies. Areas staff find
inconsistent with the Master Plan are the building setbacks proposed on Lot 1 and Lot
6.TRC has the authority to grant variances to these setback requests:
1.North setback of 25 feet on Lot 6 rather than 50 feet.
2.South setback of 10 feet on Lot 1 rather than 15 feet
Approval shall be conditioned upon submittal, review, and approval of the items below
in accordance with the Master Plan, or Development Code as applicable:
1.Details on materials used in and around drainage facilities shall be provided with
the Final Package to demonstrate river rock and cobbles are used rather than
angular rip-rap or exposed concrete.
2.Limits of disturbance and tree protection standards shall be shown on
construction plans.
3.Specific species and plant sizes shall be provided with the Final Package.
4.Additional details regarding retaining wall material and height shall be provided
with the Final Package.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Technical Review Committee -NOVEMBER 4, 2025 -Page 2
5. Sight distance shall be shown on the Final Package landscape plan where
driveways intersect with Overlook Court.
6. The Final Package and subdivision plat shall depict shared driveways within
outlot(s) to be maintained by a homeowners' association.
7. Each building permit application shall provide building height calculations, details
on exterior light fixtures, and utility meter placement.
8. Within the CC&Rs for the subdivision, the applicant shall place a prohibition on
the installation or construction of fencing and screen walls over 40 inches in
height.
9. The Final Plat shall designate which lots permit accommodation use and which
are restricted to residential use-square footage calculations.
10. The applicant shall work with staff to explicitly address the questions regarding
the curvilinear roof room, as per Design Guideline C.3, specifically regarding the
rooftop trellis.
DISCUSSION
During the discussion, Muhonen asked why fences are prohibited even though privacy
screening is allowed. Staff explained that no fencing is proposed at this time, and any
future fencing would require TRC review, with minor modifications possibly handled
administratively. However, because this specific application includes a restriction
prohibiting fencing, that option would no longer be available. Hornbeck agreed with this
interpretation. Staff also noted that Condition 8 limits the height of fences and screen
walls to 40 inches.
Jennifer Waters, Town Engineer, explained that she reviewed the civil engineering
materials and found the drainage reports acceptable, with a final report required at the
construction plan stage. Concrete curb and gutter are permitted on public streets, and
aesthetic considerations were evaluated with no related prohibitions in the master plan.
Director Greear asked about mail delivery for the development. Hornbeck answered that
he had notified the Estes Park Post Office but had not received a response. The
applicant has not yet spoken with the Post Office.
Applicant Presentation
Brad O'Neil, co-owner and applicant, described the project's history and goals,
emphasizing diversifying product types and maximizing separation between units. The
lots were designed to capture views of Longs Peak, with lots 8, 9, and 10 arranged to
maintain view corridors for neighbors to the north. Lot 10 will be lowered by seven feet
to reduce its impact on adjacent properties. Design was taken from neighboring homes
to the north with the intent of following the Master Plan guidelines.
Answering questions from the Board: The driveways serving lots 7-10 are steep, but
the 20-foot-wide shared drive allows for vehicle turnarounds. A street stub on the north
side connects to the Black Canyon Inn and is approved for emergency access and will
be a fire exit only, with a gate installed. O'Neil also explained that the previous plan
would have increased the hotel inventory from six single-family units to twelve duplex
units. The utility plan highlighted the placement of gas meters, with relocation options
under review. The curvilinear roof form related to the trellis was discussed, and the TRC
will determine whether any prohibition is subjective or objective. The landscape plan
incorporates aspen trees, retaining walls built with natural boulders, and exterior lighting
2
RECORD OF PROCEED I NGS
Technical Review Committee -NOVEMBER 4, 2025-Page 3
that will comply with the municipal code during the building permit review. Expansion on
Condition 9 regarding square footage calculations in the final package resolution was
requested.
Public Comment
Gerald Mayo of 265 Lookout Street and 320 Overlook Court expressed concern about
preserving the hotel's historic character. He noted that while a total of 46 units are
allowed, Lot 28 may permit an additional 13 units. He also raised issues regarding the
previous lack of neighbor notification. Mayo also questioned the legality of the 2022
subdivision , noting that Lot 2 should currently consist of only six units .
Dave Margheim of 400 Prospector Lane shared concerns about increasing the number
of units from three to four farther east, which he believes will reduce available views. He
also suggested limiting access to Overlook Court because of its heavy use .
Committee Discussion
In terms of density, 92 units were initially approved for Lot 2 , comprising 46 residential
and 46 commercial units .
It was noted that, per the Master Plan, Colonial/Georgian style is not allowed, and
development should maintain a mountain environment aesthetic.
Chair Machalek emphasized compatibility with the Master Plan, with no mandatory style
required , but prohibiting construction that resembles the hote l.
It was confirmed that publicly accessible roads cannot be gated.
1. It was moved and seconded (Muhonen/Greear) to approve TRC Resolution
25-02 with the addition of Condition number 10, The applicant shall work
with staff to explicitly address the questions regarding the curvilinear roof
room, as per Design Guideline C.3, specifically regarding the rooftop trellis.
The motion passed 5-0.
There being no further business, Chair Machalek adjourned the meeting at 2:20 p.m.
rdii~<-z: naIeK, GnaIr
K~S£~
3