Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2026-07-21NOTE: The Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page at www.estes.org/videos Advanced Public Comment: Members of the public may provide written comments on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/EPPCPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting. All comments will be provided to the Commission for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. __________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Avenue Tuesday, July 21, 2026, 1:30 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Planning Commission minutes dated May 19, 2026 2. Planning Commission minutes dated June 16, 2026 PUBLIC COMMENT ACTION ITEMS 1. Minor Subdivision of existing 41.2 acre lot into two lots: 16.86 acres and 25.22 acres 1600 Fish Hatchery Road, Harmony Foundation Planner II Washam DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Design Workshop presentation on draft Development Code 2. Future Meetings ADJOURN The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. July 14, 2026 1 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 19, 2026 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the said Town of Estes Park on May 19, 2026. Commission: Chair Charles Cooper, Vice Chair David Arterburn, Dick Mulhern, Chris Pawson, Julie Phares Attending: Commissioners Cooper, Arterburn, Mulhern, Community Development Director Steve Careccia, Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison Frank Lancaster, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Pawson, Phares Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm. There were 7 people in the audience. INTRODUCTIONS Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Mulhern/Arterburn) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 3-0. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 17, 2026 It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Mulhern) to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 3-0. PUBLIC COMMENT NONE ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Mulhern nominated Vice Chair Arterburn as Chair, and Chair Cooper nominated Commissioner Mulhern as Vice Chair. Vice Chair Arterburn seconded both nominations. The vote passed 3-0. Arterburn took over as chair for the rest of the meeting. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Fall River Village Planned Unit Development Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report. The 24 existing units and event facility are located on a single 3.8-acre lot that is proposed to be subdivided into 14 townhome lots, one 8-plex lot, one duplex lot (2 units), and one lot for the event facility/office. The subdivision is a separate application and agenda item from this application to amend the existing PUD. Most of the desired uses are currently permitted under the PUD, which allows multi-family and two-family residential dwellings, government offices, and daycare. The PUD amendment is necessary to address nonconforming situations resulting from the subdivision and to make minor changes to allowed uses. The PUD seeks approval for changes in lot size, building envelopes, setbacks, parking, loading, sidewalks, and "uses". Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward to the Town Board a recommendation to approve the combined Preliminary/Final PUD Plan, subject to the following findings and conditions of approval: DR A F T 3 Planning Commission – May 19, 2026 – Page 2 Findings: 1. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment, with no objections received. 2. The combined Preliminary/Final PUD Plan application complies with applicable standards set forth in the Estes Park Development Code. Conditions: 1. Parking shall be managed by the owner's association to ensure parking is provided in accordance with the approved PUD in a safe manner that does not block emergency access and shall include enforcement of event facility occupancy limits as necessary. Pete Levine, Director of Real Estate Development for the Housing Authority, gave a presentation covering both agenda action items. He reviewed the background of how the Housing Authority became the owner of the property. The review covered finances, property goals and how to achieve the goals. Also discussed were the plans for Skyview and Cliff House, HOA rules and the sales strategy for the buildings on the upper level of Fall River Village. PUBLIC COMMENT: Keith and Marlene Stone, 350 Far View Dr., expressed concerns regarding traffic and noise. They raised questions about the parking capacity for the event center, noting that there are currently very few dedicated spaces, leading to fears of overflow parking along the Far View frontage, similar to past experiences with weddings at the location. Kristine Poppitz, county resident, argued that the PUD amendment should be classified as a major or new application rather than a minor one, which would trigger stricter requirements under the Town's development code and Ordinance 11-25. She expressed concerns about the lack of publicly available notes from the community meeting. She requested more clarity on the financial risks involved, specifically regarding the potential for the property to incur losses and to lose its affordability covenants. She raised questions about the operational details of the Sky View event center and the status of the proposed childcare facility, emphasizing that the community deserves clear and early communication about these land-use changes. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Cooper asked if the school bus stops in FRV, and Chair Arterburn asked about the neighborhood meeting minutes. Scott Moulton, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, stated that childcare would be open to the entire community and noted that they were unsure of the specific location of the nearest school bus stop. Regarding the community meetings held for this project, Moulton admitted that the meeting minutes had not been posted to the website, but committed to making them available. Planner Hornbeck clarified that there are 80 parking spaces in the lot. These include 16 garage spaces and 14 spaces in front of them, with the remainder designated as common parking for the office and event facility. The 97-person occupancy limit for the Sky View event center was derived from a study that assumed a 3-person-per- vehicle ratio. Accounting for residential and daycare parking needs, approximately 22 spaces are available during the day, and there is sufficient capacity to support the event outside office hours. It was confirmed that this is a major PUD application rather than a minor one, and it was acknowledged that the proposal is subject to standard development requirements, DR A F T 4 Planning Commission – May 19, 2026 – Page 3 which were followed. Potential questions about ordinance 11-25 should be deferred to the Town Board. Moulton answered questions raised by Commissioner Mulhern. He confirmed plans to install seasonally removable speed control devices (rubberized bumps) on the property to improve safety, as permanent structures are not feasible due to winter snow removal. He reiterated that the business plan—which involves selling 14 townhomes to pay down debt—has been consistently communicated to the Town Board. He emphasized that dedicated funding sources (voter-approved initiatives and regulatory linkage fees) and a $2.5 million debt service reserve serve as backstops to mitigate the risk of financial default or loss of affordability covenants. Discussion turned to the building code requirements for the units, specifically the need for attic fire separation and fire sprinklers in certain lots. The Housing Authority explained that they have a 180-day window to complete this work and are actively working with contractors to execute the retrofits as quickly as possible to meet safety standards prior to the final subdivision recording. It was moved and seconded (Cooper/Mulhern) to forward a recommendation of approval for the combined Preliminary/Final Planned Unit Development Plan according to the findings and conditions recommended by Staff to the Town Board of Trustees. The motion passed 3-0 2. Fall River Village Amended Plat Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report. The 24 existing units and event facility are located on a single 3.8-acre lot that is proposed to be subdivided into 14 townhome lots, one 8-plex lot, one duplex lot, and one lot for the event facility/office. A concurrent PUD amendment is necessary to address nonconforming situations resulting from the subdivision and to make minor changes to allowed uses. Per Review Procedures and Standards of the Code, "Subdivisions are approved in two stages: first, a preliminary subdivision plat is approved, and second, a final subdivision plat is approved and recorded." Section 3.2 of the Code requires the Planning Commission to review the preliminary plat and make a recommendation to the Town Board, which is the final decision-making body. The final plat is reviewed by the Town Board only. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward to the Town Board a recommendation to approve the preliminary plat, subject to the following findings and conditions of approval: Findings: 1. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available or will be made available by the applicant to serve the subject property. 2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment, with no objections received. 3. The preliminary plat application complies with applicable standards set forth in the Estes Park Development Code, subject to approval of the corresponding application to amend the PUD. Conditions: 1. All recommendations identified in the building code analysis shall be completed, inspected, and accepted by the Town prior to recording of the final subdivision plat. DISCUSSION: DR A F T 5 Planning Commission – May 19, 2026 – Page 4 Planner Hornbeck confirmed that while some lots were granted a zero-foot setback for internal property boundaries as part of the townhome development plan, the specific no - build area discussed is a distinct requirement to maintain safety and access around existing site amenities, such as the spa or hot tub. In response to Commissioner Mulhern's question about the water meters on lots 13 and 14, the HOA will be responsible for managing the water bill and using submeter data to bill individual lot owners for their actual consumption accurately. PUBLIC COMMENT: Kristine Poppitz, a county resident, questioned why the previous recommendation did not include a condition regarding the potential application of Ordinance 11-25, Town Board involvement. She also commented about the applicant's request for a sidewalk waiver, citing past public discussions regarding Peak View apartments. The commenter argued that the town code regarding sidewalks and trails should be strictly followed to ensure connectivity for residents and visitors, urging the commission not to set a precedent by granting special exceptions. Planner Hornbeck clarified that the Public Works department had reviewed the application and determined that new sidewalk construction was not necessary. The decision was based on the fact that the property is an existing development that already incorporates a sidewalk, which effectively provides the required pedestrian connection through the facility. It was moved and seconded (Cooper/Mulhern) to forward to the Town Board a recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat according to findings and conditions recommended by Staff. The motion passed 3-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Director Careccia provided an update on the Development Code revision process, noting we are currently reviewing early drafts and providing feedback to the consultant. The goal is to have a document ready for public review by July, with potential study sessions scheduled before both the Planning Commission and the Town Board in late July. He also reminded the Commissioners to notify the Planning Division regarding any potential absences for upcoming summer meetings to ensure proper planning . With no further business, Chair Arterburn adjourned the meeting at 2:45 pm. _________________________________ Dave Arterburn, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary DR A F T 6 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 16, 2026 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the said Town of Estes Park on June 16, 2026. Commission: Chair Charles Cooper, Vice Chair David Arterburn, Dick Mulhern, Chris Pawson, Julie Phares Attending: Commissioners Cooper, Phares, Pawson, Community Development Director Steve Careccia, Planner II Kara Washam, Planning/Permit Tech Joe Berek, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison Bill Brown, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Arterburn, Mulhern Commissioner Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:50 pm. There were 6 people in the audience. INTRODUCTIONS As the Chair and Vice Chair were absent, the Commissioners nominated Commissioner Cooper as Chair Pro Tem. Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Phares/Pawson) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 3-0. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated May 19, 2026 Approval of the May 19 meeting minutes was continued to the next scheduled meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT NONE ACTION ITEMS: 1. Rezone from RM Multifamily to A1-Accommodations 440 Vallely Road. Planner Washam reviewed the staff report. The applicants request to rezone the subject property from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low- Intensity) for the purpose of reclassification of the existing three-unit accommodations structure from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge.” In order to be reclassified, the property must be zoned to a district that allows such use, as “Resort Lodge” is not permitted in the property’s current RM (Multi-Family Residential) zoning. No future development is proposed with this application. The applicants previously submitted a rezoning request in Fall 2025 and appeared before the Planning Commission on January 20, 2026. At the public hearing, the Estes Park Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward to the Town Board a recommendation of approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, on the basis of the review criteria in § 3.3.D. of the Estes Park Development Code, if the Town Board determines it is appropriate to approve per the purposes of Ordinance 11 -25 (Ballot Question 300). Consequently, the applicants went before the Town Board on January 27, 2026, to request approval of the rezoning. The Town den ied the Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) for failure to comply with Ordinance 11 -25 enacted in November 2025. DR A F T 7 Planning Commission – June 16, 2026 – Page 2 Following this denial, the applicants have resubmitted their rezoning request to satisfy the requirements of Ordinance 11-25. They have obtained written approval from twenty- three (23) of the thirty-one (31) record property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. This represents seventy-four percent (74%) support, exceeding the required two-thirds (2/3) threshold. Staff recommended approval of the rezone request. DISCUSSION: Jennifer Waters, Town of Estes Park Civil Engineer, explained that there is no public right-of-way along the middle section of Valley Road, even though the town maintains it. While the dedication of a right-of-way is not a requirement for this application, there is hope that the residents will eventually dedicate the road to the town. Don and Denice Borda, applicants, presented the history of this rezone request. They have contacted the neighbors an additional two times since the previous meeting, obtaining the required percentage of signatures needed. Commissioner Pawson asked Town Attorney Kramer why this application couldn’t have bypassed the Planning Commission since this request had already been approved at a previous meeting. Kramer explained that while the Town Board theoretically has the authority to direct procedures, the previous denial was due specifically to non - compliance with Ballot Measure 300. Kramer clarified that the Planning Commission's core responsibility is to evaluate applications solely against the established review criteria in the Development Code, rather than on historical context. Commissioner Cooper asked about obtaining the signatures. The Bordas discussed the challenges they faced in complying with Ballot Issue 300, including the absence of guidance from the town, logistical hurdles and how they collaborated with fellow citizens to obtain the required signatures. PUBLIC COMMENT: None It was moved and seconded (Pawson/Phares) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Zoning Map Amendment application, to rezone the 0.80-acre subject property addressed at 440 Valley Road from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity), in accordance with the findings of fact outlined in the staff report. The motion passed 3-0 2. Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit 919 Elk Hollow Ct. Planner Washam reviewed the staff report. The Applicant proposes to construct a 510 - square-foot (34’x15’) detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) of modular construction to be installed on a permanent foundation. The intent is for multi-generational use to house a family that can no longer afford the Estes Valley area but work there. However, the Development Code does not dictate who can reside in the ADU. The proposed location of the detached ADU was selected to integrate seamlessly into the lot to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. The ADU will be sprinklered, as required by the Fire code. The applicant will provide one (1) space for parking for the resident(s) of the ADU, as required by EPDC § 5.2.B.2.a.(7). The ADU may not be used as a short - term rental unit (stays less than 30 days), as prohibited by EPDC § 5.2.B.2.a.(3). Staff recommended the following conditions for approval: • The primary entrance of the proposed ADU shall be oriented toward the existing single-family home, facing east. DR A F T 8 Planning Commission – June 16, 2026 – Page 3 • The exterior colors and materials of the proposed ADU shall generally match the existing single-family home as much as feasible. DISCUSSION: None PUBLIC COMMENT: Ed Ellington, 926 Village Green Ln, supported the ADU request as a neighbor. It was moved and seconded (Phares/Pawson) to approve the Conditional Use Permit, according to findings and conditions proposed by Staff. The motion passed 3-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Director Careccia spoke on the Development Code update. The department is currently working toward the 50% draft, which will be circulated to the commissioners, trustees and the public for review prior to the next meeting. The consultants will attend the Planning Commission meeting on July 21 to present an overview of the work done to date. Rezoning Criteria and Neighborhood meeting processes will likely be discussed at the August 18 Planning Commission meeting. The Town Board Study session on June 23 will include a discussion on rezoning criteria. The July 14 Town Board Study Session will include a discussion on neighborhood meeting procedures. The next open house for the Development Code is scheduled for July 21 at the Museum. With no further business, Chair Pro-Tem Cooper adjourned the meeting at 2:30 pm. _________________________________ Chuck Cooper, Chair Pro-tem Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary DR A F T 9 10 The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org. Memo To: Chair Arterburn & Planning Commissioners Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Kara Washam, Planner II Date: July 21, 2026 Subject: Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision- 1600 Fish Hatchery Rd Type: Public Hearing, Land Use Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider an application for a proposed minor subdivision which would divide an existing 42.08-acre lot into two (2) lots, review the application for compliance with the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), and make a recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees to approve or deny the application . Present Situation: The subject property is a 42.08-acre lot in the Harmony Subdivision and is located approximately 3,400 feet northwest of the intersection of Fish Hatchery Road and Fall River Road. It is zoned A (Accommodations) and is legally conforming to use and dimensional standards. The property is developed as Harmony Recovery Center and contains several buildings and amenities, which are accessed by two private drives (Recovery Circle and Wisdom Court). The specific use classification is “Treatment Facility” and falls under “Group Living Facility, Large.” The property is owned by Harmony Foundation, Inc. Proposal: The applicant requests approval of the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat (Attachment 4) to subdivide the existing 42.08-acre lot into two (2) lots, approximately 25.22 acres and 16.86 acres each. The existing structures are split between the two (2) proposed lots. The purpose of this subdivision is for financial reasons related to collateral on a future loan. No development is planned in the foreseeable future. 11 Existing Site (Aerial) Vicinity Map 12 Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Future Land Use Zoning Current Use Subject Parcel Accommodations & Mountains and Foothills A Accommodations Recovery Center North Neighborhood Village A-1 Accommodations, Low-Intensity Residential (Single-Family and Two-Family South N/A NR Natural Resources (Larimer County) Rocky Mountain National Park East Neighborhood Village & Mountains and Foothills A-1 Accommodations, Low-Intensity & EV A-1 (Larimer County) Single-Family Residential West Public/Semi-Public MZ Multizoned, CD Commercial Destination, & NR Natural Resources (Larimer County) Estes Valley Memorial Gardens and Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park Zoning Map 13 Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat Review Criteria In accordance with EPDC § 3.9.E. “Standards for Review”, all subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards," and all other applicable provisions of the Code. A Minor 14 Subdivision is defined as the “division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land into a total of not more than four (4) lots…provided that each resulting lot fronts onto an existing street, and that the subdivision entails no extension of public facilities.” Unlike standard subdivisions, which necessitate a two-stage approval process (preliminary plat followed by a final plat), minor subdivisions are streamlined. They require only a single stage review and approval process (no preliminary subdivision), with Planning Commission recommendation followed by Town Board decision . Depending upon the project's complexity, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the criteria based on issues relevant to any particular project. 1. Lots. The proposed minor subdivision includes two (2) lots approximately 25.22 acres and 16.86 acres. Both lots meet applicable dimensional standards for the A (Accommodations) Zoning District, including minimum lot size and lot width. The applicant provided a plat with existing improvements (Attachment 3) to designate fifteen-foot (15’) side setbacks created by the new lot line , and ensure adherence to all applicable building setbacks for the existing buildings and structures. 2. Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. The undeveloped southern half of the lot is mapped as “Steep Slopes.” The northeast quarter of the property is mapped a s “Debris Fan,” defined as a triangular-shaped landform that forms by deposition of material at the intersection of a tributary valley within a larger valley. According to the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), flooding, debris inundation, and sediment deposition on debris fans are recurrent, highly hazardous events typically triggered by extended rainfall or rapid snowmelt. 3. Utilities and Services. The Water Division, Power and Communications, Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District have reviewed and expressed no objections to the proposed minor subdivision. 4. Orientation of Land Uses. The proposed minor subdivision will continue to be used as “Group Living Facility, Large” with no additional development plan ned. 5. Improvements. Not applicable. No public improvements are required with the minor subdivision application. 15 6. Streets and Access. The existing lot is accessed from Fish Hatchery Road with individual buildings and structures accessed by two private drives (Recovery Circle and Wisdom Court). A Road Maintenance Agreement (Attachment 5) has been submitted for the private drives for Lots 1 and 2 and will be recorded with the minor subdivision plat. This will ensure that private maintenance of drives will continue, should the lots be sold or redeveloped in the future. 7. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails. Not applicable. A multi-use trail exists along Fish Hatchery Road on the north side of the property. 8. Grading and Site Disturbance. Not applicable. No development is proposed with the minor subdivision application. 9. Open Space Area. Not applicable. § 4.3.D. of the EPDC only requires residential subdivisions containing five (5) or more lots to set aside a percentage of the gross land area for open areas. 10. Stormwater Drainage. No applicable. Public Works expressed no concerns regarding drainage. 11. Public Right-Of-Way. Not applicable. There is no dedication of public right-of-way associated with this subdivision plat. Advantages: • This proposal is consistent with the standards of the EPDC, specifically § 3.9 “Subdivisions” and Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.” • Approval of the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat would allow the applicant to split the lot for financial purposes. Disadvantages: • None identified. Action Recommended: Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town Board a recommendation to approve the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat, in accordance with the following findings: 1. The Planning Commission is the recommending body for the minor subdivision plat. 16 2. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is the decision -making body for the minor subdivision plat. 3. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the subject property. 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment with no objections received. 5. The minor subdivision application complies with applicable standards set forth in the Estes Park Development Code. Finance/Resource Impact: None. Level of Public Interest: Low. As of the time of writing this report, no public comment has been received. If received, public comments will be posted to https://estespark.colorado.gov/currentapplications. Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. • Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on July 1, 2026. • Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 3, 2026. • Proof of sign posting provided by the applicants on June 10, 2026. • Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. Sample Motion: 1. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval of the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat, according to findings recommended by Staff. 2. I move to continue the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of denial of the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Application 2. Statement of Intent 17 3. Plat (with improvements) 4. Final Plat 5. Road Maintenance Agreement 18 19 20 21 1043 Fish Creek Road  Estes Park, Colorado 80517  970-586-9388  fax 970-586-8101  E-mail: office@vanhornengineering.com 29th May 2026 Statement of Intent for a Minor Subdivision at 1600 Fish Hatchery Rd, Estes Park This letter describes the intent of Harmony Foundation Inc, to pursue a subdivision that would split one existing 42.1-acre lot into two lots. Property information: The subject property is Lot 1 of the Harmony Subdivision, and is located on the south side of Fish Hatchery Rd. This property is zoned Accommodations (A) and no change to zoning is proposed. Existing Conditions: The property gets access from Fish Hatchery Rd. Two named roads called Recovery Cir and Wisdom Ct connect to the buildings. A shared access road agreement has been made and is attached to this submittal Multiple structures exist on the lot, Building Setbacks have been evaluated and no new nonconforming setback will be created. Proposed Subdivision: Our clients are seeking to subdivide the existing lot into two. The proposed west lot being 16.86 acres and the east lot 25.22 acres for about a 40-60% split. The purpose of this subdivision is for financial reasons related to collateral on a future loan. No development is planned. VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING 22 1043 Fish Creek Road  Estes Park, Colorado 80517  970-586-9388  fax 970-586-8101  E-mail: office@vanhornengineering.com Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you in the future regarding this matter. Regards, Sincerely, J. Andy Schaffner, Project Manager Lonnie Sheldon, CO. P.E. & P.L.S. 26974 For Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 23 MULTI USE TRAIL EASEMENT SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT 24 MULTI USE TRAIL EASEMENT SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT 25 ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (Recovery Circle & Wisdom Court) Located in the southeast 1/4 of Section 16-5-73, Larimer County, Colorado This Agreement is made this ________________ day of ___________________, 2026. RECITALS 1. The Harmony Foundation Inc., a Colorado Non-Profit Corporation, are the owners of lots 1 and 2 of the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision. 2. The above-described properties are served by two asphalt-paved roads: Recovery Circle and Wisdom Court. 3. The parties wish to set forth their rights and obligations as to the use and maintenance of the roads. CONSIDERATION Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the parties agree as follows: TERMS 1. The parties agree that they each shall have equal right to use the roads for access to their respective properties. 2. The parties agree that the roads shall be maintained in a condition suitable for passenger car and small truck vehicular use. The parties acknowledge that Larimer County shall have no responsibility or obligation to construct, maintain or repair the roads. 3. The parties agree that they shall share equally all costs of maintaining the roads including but not limited to resurfacing and snow removal. 4. In the event the roads are damaged by building construction or extraordinary use by an individual lot owner, that lot owner shall be responsible for the repair of such damage to bring the roads back to its condition prior to the damage. 5. Each party shall be responsible for removing, in a timely manner, mud and debris from the roads caused by building construction. 6. This Agreement may be amended or terminated only by unanimous consent of all parcel owners. 7. This Agreement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns as the case may be. 26 ____________________________________ Keith Larson Representing Owner of Lot 1 STATE OF _________________) ) SS COUNTY _________________ ) Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this _____ day of _____________, 2026, by: ____________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ______________ ____________________________________ Keith Larson Representing Owner of Lot 2 STATE OF _________________) ) SS COUNTY _________________ ) Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this _____ day of _____________, 2026, ____________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ______________ 27 Estes Park Planning Commission July 21, 2026 Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Harmony Foundation Inc. (Owner/Applicant) Presented by Kara Washam, Planner II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Objective Consider an application for a proposed minor subdivision, review the application for compliance with the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) and make a recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees to approve or deny the application. •Divide an existing 42.08 -acre lot into 2 lots. •EPPC is the recommending-body for Minor Subdivisions. •Town Board is the decision -making body for Minor Subdivisions. Present Situation •The subject property is a 42.08-acre lot in the Harmony Subdivision. •Zoned A (Accommodations) •Legally conforming to use and dimensional standards. •The property is developed as Harmony Recovery Center •Several buildings and amenities. •Accessed by two private drives (Recovery Circle and Wisdom Court). •The specific use classification is “Treatment Facility” and falls under “Group Living Facility, Large.” •The property is owned by Harmony Foundation, Inc. Vicinity Map of Subject Area Existing Site Existing Conditions Estes Park Zoning Proposal The applicant requests approval of the Harmony Minor Re- Subdivision Plat to subdivide the existing 42.08-acre lot into two (2) lots. •Approximately 25.22 acres and 16.86 acres each. •Existing structures are split between the two (2) proposed lots. •The purpose of this subdivision is for financial reasons related to collateral on a future loan. •No development is planned in the foreseeable future. Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Review Criteria Pursuant to § 3.9.E. “Standards for Review”, all subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10 and all other applicable provisions of the Code. Minor Subdivision is defined as the “division of one (1) or more lots, tracts or parcels of land into a total of not more than four (4) lots…provided that each resulting lot fronts onto an existing street, and that the subdivision entails no extension of public facilities.” •Two-stage approval process (preliminary and final plat) NOT applicable. •Minor Subdivisions require only a single stage review and approval process. Review Criteria, cont. Lots •The proposed minor subdivision includes 2 lots, approximately 25.22 acres and 16.86 acres. •Both lots meet applicable dimensional standards for the A (Accommodations) Zoning District. •The applicant provided a plat with existing improvements to designate 15’ side setbacks created by the new lot line and ensure adherence to all applicable building setbacks for the existing buildings and structures. Review Criteria, cont. Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. •The undeveloped southern half of the lot is mapped as “Steep Slopes.” •The northeast quarter of the property is mapped as “Debris Fan.” “A triangular-shaped landform that forms by deposition of material at the intersection of a tributary valley within a larger valley. According to the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), flooding, debris inundation, and sediment deposition on debris fans are recurrent, highly hazardous events typically triggered by extended rainfall or rapid snowmelt.” Review Criteria, cont. Utilities and Services •The Water Division, Power and Communications, Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and UTSD have reviewed and expressed no objections to the proposed minor subdivision. Orientation of Land Uses •The proposed minor subdivision will continue to be used as “Group Living Facility, Large” with no additional development planned. Improvements •No public improvements are required with the minor subdivision application. Review Criteria, cont. Streets and Access •The existing lot is accessed from Fish Hatchery Road with individual buildings and structures accessed by two private drives (Recovery Circle and Wisdom Court). •A Road Maintenance Agreement has been submitted for the private drives for Lots 1 and 2 and will be recorded with the minor subdivision plat. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails •A multi-use trail exists along Fish Hatchery Road on the north side of the property. Review Criteria, cont. Grading and Site Disturbance •Not applicable. No development is proposed. Open Space Area •Not applicable. Per § 4.3.D., only applicable for residential subdivisions containing 5 or more lots. Stormwater Drainage •Public Works expressed no concerns regarding drainage. Public Right-of-Way •There is no dedication of public ROW associated with this plat. Advantages & Disadvantages Advantages: •This proposal is consistent with the standards of the EPDC, specifically § 3.9 “Subdivisions” and Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.” •Approval of the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat would allow the applicant to split the lot for financial purposes. Disadvantages: •None identified. Public Noticing & Interest Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. •Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on July 1, 2026. •Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail -Gazette on July 3, 2026. •Proof of sign posting provided by the applicants on June 10, 2026. •Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. Public interest in this Minor Subdivision application is low. •No public comment has been received. Action Recommended Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town Board a recommendation to approve the Harmony Minor Re- Subdivision Plat, subject to the following findings: 1.EPPC is the recommending body for the minor subdivision plat. 2.Town Board is the decision-making body for the minor subdivision plat. 3.Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the subject property. 4.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment with no objections received. 5.The minor subdivision application complies with applicable standards set forth in the Estes Park Development Code. Sample Motions 1.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval of the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat, according to findings recommended by Staff. 2.I move to continue the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of denial of the Harmony Minor Re-Subdivision Plat, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Development Code Update Draft Discussion July 21st, 2026 Today’s Agenda Process Update Code Update Draft Discussion Next Steps 1 2 3 Process Update Development Code Update- Project Schedule Code Update Draft Discussion •New Zone District Additions •Permitted Uses, Definitions, and Standards Code Update Priority Areas Process Related Areas Topical Areas •Development Review Regulations and Process •Development Plan Criteria •Public Notice and Outreach •Minor Modifications and Minor Amendments •Code Consolidation and Navigation •Housing •Wildlife Habitat and Corridor Preservation •Wildfire, Flood, and Natural Hazard Prevention •Design Guidelines •Outdoor Lighting •Transportation and Parking •Signage Land Uses / Dimensions Process Related Areas Feedback Received •Provide clear and consistent criteria for when a development plan is required. •Introduce a “development plan lite” option with reduced submittal requirements for low-impact or small-scale projects to ensure proportionality in the review process. •Streamline review procedures to: −Reduce Town Board review of routine applications −Amend minor development plans, final plats, and subdivision amendments to be reviewed administratively −Utilize consent agendas to reduce review times while maintaining transparency. −Establish a clearer administrative pathway for "minor" review processes that would improve predictability and maintain regulatory compliance. This includes clarifying what qualifies as a minor modification and updating thresholds for staff approvals to eliminate redundant or unnecessary development review procedures. Current Development Review Regulations and Process R: Review Body DM: Decision-Making Body A: Appeals Code Section: § 2.1 - Code Administration and Review Roles Potential Updates Development Review Regulations and Process R: Review Body DM: Decision-Making Body A: Appeals Proposed Change * Consent Agenda * * 1.The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in this Code; and 2.The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans. Current Development Plan Requirements: Standards for Review Proposed a.The modification does not fundamentally change the nature or character of the approved use or development. b.The change maintains existing impact levels or demonstrably reduces impacts on adjacent properties. c.There is no material increase in traffic generation, parking demand, noise, lighting, or other operational impacts. d.The change is consistent with the intent and findings of any prior land-use approval. e.The change maintains full compliance with all applicable development standards. f.The change is consistent with the existing character of the area and does not appear to conflict with neighboring uses." Department-Level Review Planning Commission* Review *If all of the criteria below is not met, it will be elevated from department-level review to Planning Commission review. Staff May grant minor modifications up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the following general development and zone district standards. Planning Commission May grant minor modifications up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) Minor Modifications and Minor Amendments Minor Modifications •Minimum lot area and dimension requirements •Yard and building setback requirements •General development standards •Subdivision design standards Minor Amendments Staff: In evaluating whether a proposed amendment is minor or major, the Department shall consider whether the proposed modification: •Increases overall project density or intensity of development; or •Decreases the approved lot size or materially alters the approved lot configuration; or •Changes approved uses or the mix of uses; or •Increases building height or massing beyond that approved in the final plan; or •Expands established limits of disturbance or materially alters grading, drainage, or site circulation patterns; or •Materially affects approved infrastructure, including access, utilities, fire access, or stormwater facilities; or •Substantially modifies open space, landscape areas, or environmental protection areas; or •Results in a material deviation from the approved development plan, as determined by the Community Development Director. Code Consolidation and Restructuring Proposed 1: General Provisions 2: Code Administration and Review Roles 3: Review Procedures and Standards 2: Code Procedures and Review Roles 4: Zoning Districts 5: Use Regulations 6:Nonconforming Uses 7: General Development Standards 8:Signs 9:Planned Unit Developments 10:Subdivision Standards 11:Incentives and Development Provisions 12: Enforcement and Penalties 13:Definitions 14:Wireless Communication Facilities 1: General Provisions 3: Zoning Districts 4: Use Regulations 5: Nonconforming Uses 6: Development Standards 7: Design Guidelines 8:Planned Unit Developments 9:Subdivision Standards 10:Annexation 11:Signage 12:Wireless Communication Facilities 13:Definitions Topical Areas: Housing Feedback Received •Clearer, easier-to-find housing definitions and incentives •Wider range of “missing middle” housing types (duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage courts, tiny homes) to diversify the housing stock without changing the character of established neighborhoods. •Allow by-right different housing types in certain zones instead of a housing overlay approach. •Prefer making incremental changes like lot split, lot coverage, and setback reduction, instead of decreasing lot area and increasing height. •Identified the workforce/attainable housing shortage as a crisis, with strong interest in expanding ADU opportunities on residential lots •Faster, more predictable review processes for smaller housing projects like ADUs, rather than requiring special review or CUP approval in every district. •Short-term rentals are a major factor influencing housing availability and affordability and removing naturally affordable housing from the market. Housing: Typologies Code Update: Aligning zoning and development regulations to support a wider range of housing types. •Zoning district standards (dimensional/density) and use-specific housing standards are now organized together, with clearer tables for each district and cross-references to detailed use standards. •New housing types defined and regulated: Cottage Clusters, Duplexes, Triplexes, Townhomes, Tiny Homes, Dormitory Housing, and Manufactured Homes. Code Update: Promoting infill and clustered development. •Zoning district standards (dimensional/density) are revised to accommodate infill housing like ADU’s and allow lot splits to create more housing stock. •New density bonus for clustered development while doing subdivision development. 1 2 Housing: Typologies Code Update:Exploring the expansion of permitted housing types such as ADUs and cottage courts. •Removed barriers for ADU development by adding a streamlined, fast- track review process and updating base zoning district standards. Code Update: Supporting small-scale and affordable housing development. •Non-conforming lots as small as 70% of the minimum lot size can still qualify by right if deed-restricted to attainable/workforce housing. •RM and Mixed-Use districts can reach up to 38 feet (from a 30-ft base) when 100% of units in a building are deed-restricted attainable or workforce housing. •Attainable/workforce housing developments in RM and Mixed-Use districts are eligible for up to 200% of base net density, with required 50-year deed restrictions or restrictive covenants. 3 4 Topical Areas: Wildlife Protection Feedback Received •Strong interest in protecting sensitive habitats, riparian areas, and wildlife corridors, with opposition to development in these areas. Be aware of fragmenting wildlife corridors. •Desire to update the 2008 Wildlife Assessment to better reflect current conditions. •Refine design and development standards in wildlife zones such as fencing, lighting, and building placement to ensure development does not negatively impact environmentally sensitive, terrestrial, and riparian areas and natural resources. •Requests to require Colorado Parks and Wildlife input during site plan approval, not just as an afterthought. •Consider designating the entire town as a wildlife and habitat protection area instead of a natural resources overlay. Wildlife & Habitat Protection Code Update: Designate wildlife areas and integrate the mapping of critical habitat and wildlife corridors into the review process. •Designates the entire Town of Estes Park as critical wildlife habitat, with mapped high-priority areas identified using Colorado Parks and Wildlife data. •Requires a Wildlife Conservation Plan for most new development, including a habitat and species inventory, impact analysis, and mitigation measures. Code Update: Refine design and development standards in wildlife zones—such as fencing, lighting, and building placement. •Limits new construction, grading, and landscaping to the approved Limits of Disturbance (LOD), which protects habitat and maintains wildlife corridor connectivity. •New fencing standards applicable town-wide: 40” maximum height, with 6-foot-wide wildlife passage openings every 50 feet; no barbed wire. Community Development Director to approve exceptions as per site needs and conditions. •Update requirements for wildlife-resistant (bear-proof) refuse containers in the municipal code, native/approved plant lists, and add new exterior lighting limits near habitat areas. 1 2 Wildlife & Habitat Protection Topical Areas: Natural Resource Protection Feedback Received •Merge the Landscaping section into a single, comprehensive "Tree Protection and Landscaping" section •Clearly link vegetation removal standards to fire mitigation and creation of defensible space. •Define planning staff as the primary decision-making authority for reviewing and approving vegetation management plans, in consultation with the fire district. •Integrate the approved plant list from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District •Preference for flexible design guidelines over rigid, one-size-fits-all requirements. •Desire to keep landscaping natural-looking and consistent with Estes Park’s mountain character, not overly manicured. •Update diagrams for clarity and communication of standards. Wildfire Mitigation Code Update: Align the code with state-level wildfire mitigation strategies •The entire Town is classified as a high-risk zone, and all development must meet structure-hardening and site design standards from the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code. •Wildfire hazard areas are identified through an official Community Wildfire Protection Plan map (adopted by the Estes Valley Fire District), plus any areas flagged by the Colorado State Forest Service or County Wildfire Safety Specialist. Code Update: Establish clear, enforceable standards for wildfire mitigation in new and existing development •New subdivisions, larger multi-family or commercial buildings (over 5,000 sq ft), and any project the Fire Marshal flags as higher risk must submit a Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Plan showing site layout, vegetation, and fire-resistant design. •Smaller or lower-risk projects can get a waiver from the full mitigation plan if the Community Development Director and Fire Marshal agree the project doesn't increase wildfire risk. •All new construction must include defensible space around structures, consistent with the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code's Home Ignition Zone guidance. Code Update: Incorporate landscaping best practices •Ties directly into the Landscaping and Tree Protection standards; vegetation removal for fire safety is allowed even where it would otherwise conflict with tree preservation rules. 1 2 3 Topical Areas: Design Guidelines Feedback Received •Introduce design guidelines only for commercial and multi-family buildings. •Preference for flexibility — guidelines that focus on roof lines, materials, and scale rather than dictating a single “correct” style. •Concern about taller, bulkier buildings changing the look and feel of downtown and blocking mountain views. •Clear preference for smaller lot sizes than tall buildings. •Guidelines are meant to be forward-looking and apply to new development only, not existing buildings. •More prescriptive standards are generally supported where safety, wildlife protection, and viewshed preservation are involved. •Emphasis on pedestrian experience, active ground-floor uses, entrances along the street, landscaping, and stormwater integration. Design Guidelines Code Update: Adopt design guidelines for commercial and multi-family development Introduces guidelines supported with imagery based on the parameters below: •Site planning and how buildings relate to the street •Fitting in with the neighbors •Parking and circulation •Building form, mass, and scale •Materials and colors •Lighting, service, and mechanical areas •Remodels and flexibility Code Update: Clarify definitions and standards •Creates a new, standalone Design Guidelines chapter for new commercial, industrial, and multi-family development, as well as major remodels in which more than half of a building’s exterior or site is being changed. •Does not apply to single-family or duplex homes, or to minor exterior changes that don’t affect a building’s overall look or layout. 1 2 Topical Areas: Parking Feedback Received •Consider parking concessions for multi-family affordable housing developments. •Count electric vehicle parking spaces towards the site’s parking requirements. •Explore off-site parking and shared parking provisions to allow efficient use of the site. •Flexibility preferred for parking location and screening, with prescriptive requirements tied to safety, such as sight triangles. •Prioritize solid wall screening of parking facilities, loading zones, and stacking/drive-through lanes from public streets and rights of way. •Align parking regulations and short-term rental rules. •Add more detailed regulations around bicycle parking, rack locations, design, number of spaces required. Parking Code Update: Amend residential parking standards to reflect actual demand •Sets clear per-unit parking minimums by housing type, instead of a one-size-fits-all number. •Allows a reduced parking requirement (50%) for attainable and workforce housing. Code Update: Align parking regulations and short-term rental rules. •Establishes separate parking categories for low- and high-intensity accommodations, each with its own minimum. •Ties parking requirements to occupancy size to better match demand. Code Update: Evaluate hard surface requirements •Opens the door to pervious paving systems as an approved surface option, supporting stormwater management and reducing runoff. •Continues to require paved (or approved hard-surface) parking areas for most development, but allows unpaved or aggregate surfacing for trailheads. Code Update: Update shared parking and off-street parking provisions •Allows shared parking between uses with different peak hours. •Permits off-site parking within 600 feet of a use. •Let’s bike parking and EV charging spaces count toward a portion of the minimum parking requirement. 1 2 3 4 Topical Areas: Outdoor Lighting Feedback Received •Outdoor lighting is seen as an important part of protecting Estes Park’s community character and its dark night skies. •Strong interest in warm-white light sources and shielded fixtures to cut down on glare and light pollution. •Consider the assignment of lighting zone designations so that appropriate light levels can be referenced for commercial and retail areas versus residential or wilderness. •Add requirements for shielding, trespass, flag illumination, and pole heights; more information should be listed about the correlated color temperature (CCT) of lamp sources and curfew hours. Outdoor Lighting Code Update: Designate lighting zones with varying intensities to protect community character •Divided into two lighting zones - LZ1 and LZ2 - each with its own brightness limits tailored to the area’s character. Code Update: Refine and detail standards relating to light sources, locations, and types •Cap on how much light can spill onto neighboring properties. •Sets brightness limits on total property lighting and individual fixtures. •Requires fixtures to be fully shielded and aimed downward. •Cap on the color temperature of the lighting fixture. •Sets curfew for non-essential outdoor lighting. 1 2 Topical Areas: Signage Feedback Received •Integrate sign code from the Municipal Code into the Development Code. •Update standards for neon, LED, and other illuminated signage to reflect current best practices and emerging technologies. •Ensure signage regulations support dark sky principles by minimizing light pollution, glare, and excessive illumination. •Provide greater flexibility for government and public signage to allow for necessary communication while maintaining overall aesthetic standards. •Add more standards for new sign types. Signage Code Update: Integrate the Sign Code into the Development Code. •Consolidated definitions, intent, and permitting process into one chapter, cross-referenced to related Development Code sections. •Added unified appeals/variance process routing through the Board of Adjustment and Board of Trustees. Code Update: Update standards for neon, LED, and other illuminated signage. •New rules for neon-style signs: size, count, and area limits. •Prohibit EMC (electronic message board) sign types and added standards for nonconforming EMC’s. •Set max color temperature (K) for internally and externally lit signs. Code Update: Support darksky principles by minimizing light pollution. •Nighttime curfew •Banned beacons, searchlights, and skyward-directed lights. •Required shielding/downward aiming so that light sources aren’t visible from the street. •Illuminated signs are banned in residential zones Code Update: Greater flexibility for government and public signage. •Broadened exemption for government, school, utility, and special district signs. Code Update: Add more standards for sign types. •New categories added: feather flags, figurative signs 1 2 3 4 5 Land Uses/ Dimensions Feedback Received •Consider restructuring each zone district section to consistently include an intent statement, permitted and conditional uses, and dimensional standards, with zone-specific graphics. •Consolidate permitted and conditional uses across all districts into a comprehensive Master Use Table for ease of reference and consistency. •Conduct a thorough comparison of all existing zone districts against the Comprehensive Plan, identifying potential to rename or reclassify districts to better reflect current land-use goals. •Add a mixed-use district zone to enable a true mix of uses. •Need a separate zone to govern public facilities and buildings, more on the lines of an institutional zone district. •Strong interest in protecting sensitive habitats, riparian areas, and wildlife corridors; opposition to development in these areas. Hence, need a dedicated open space zone district. New Zone District Addition: Mixed-use Zoning District Consider areas in the Town for a mixed-use zone district to implement the Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors future land use. •New MU Mixed-Use District — a base zoning district, not just an overlay, for medium- to high-density development that blends residential, commercial, and complementary civic/employment uses along major corridors. Update the zoning code to include land uses and building forms not previously considered, to respond to new housing trends and mixed- use development needs. •Explicitly permits multiple use combinations on one lot/structure: multiple commercial or industrial uses together, residential + commercial combined, vertical mixed-use, and horizontal mixed-use with shared access, parking, and infrastructure. •Pedestrian-oriented design required — street-facing buildings, defined entrances, parking minimized and pushed to the side/rear. •Eligible for the new attainable/workforce housing density bonus (up to 200% of base net density). 1 2 New Zone District Addition: Public Facilities Zoning District Consider a separate zone district for government facilities, parks, and recreation structures •New PF Public Facilities District established for government buildings, schools and other institutional uses, and parks/recreation facilities, reflecting the community’s need for public services and open space. •Requires compatibility with surrounding uses through site design, landscaping, and buffering standards. •Subject to the same pedestrian amenity and linkage requirements (sidewalks, internal walkways) applied across nonresidential districts. 1 New Zone District Addition: Open Space and Natural Areas Zoning District Consider a dedicated zone for open space preservation •New OS Open Space and Natural Areas District — the first zoning district in the Code dedicated to open space and recreation land, preserving natural landscapes, scenic viewsheds, wildlife habitat, and environmentally sensitive areas while allowing passive and active recreation. Add standards for the zoning district to protect natural areas and allow limited development and land uses •New structures limited to those accessory to park/recreation use— restrooms, trailheads, picnic shelters, signage, concessions, and maintenance facilities only. •Natural Open Space Preserve areas must prioritize conservation; development is limited to trails, interpretive features, and minimal infrastructure. •Parking limited to the minimum necessary, with required landscape buffering and low-impact development techniques to reduce stormwater runoff. 1 2 Next Steps Next Steps •50% Code Draft Review (July/August) •Community Conversations Deliberations (August) •90% Code Drafting (September/October) •Code Adoption (Planning Commission and Town Board Meetings) (October- December) •Online Questionnaire & Project Website Updates (Ongoing) Thank you!