HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2026-06-16NOTE: 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, June 16, 2026, 1:30 p.m.
INTRODUCTIONS
AGENDA APPROVAL
CONSENT AGENDA
1.Planning Commission minutes dated May 19, 2026
PUBLIC COMMENT
ACTION ITEMS
1.Rezoning Request from Residential Multi-Family (RM) to Accommodations (A1)
440 Valley Road Planner II Washam
2.Conditional Use Permit 919 Elk Hollow Ct Planner Washam
For the addition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1.Development Code Update
2.Future Meetings
ADJOURN
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
June 10, 2026
11
222
draf
t
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, Phares, Pawson,
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:
333
draf
t
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.
444
draf
t
Planning Commission – May 19, 2026 – Page 3
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,
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.
555
draf
t
Planning Commission – May 19, 2026 – Page 4
DISCUSSION:
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
666
777
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: June 16, 2026
Subject: 440 Valley Road Rezone
Type: Public Hearing, Land Use
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider an application for a proposed Zoning Map
Amendment (rezoning) from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations,
Low-Intensity), review the application for compliance with the Estes Park Development
Code (EPDC), and make a recommendation to Town Board.
Background and Present Situation:
The subject property is zoned RM (Multi-Family Residential) and contains two
structures, a detached single-family home used residentially by one of the property
owners and a small, three-unit lodge used as accommodations. The Statement of Intent
(Attachment 2) provided by the applicants outlines a lengthy history of zoning
classifications on the property.
The applicants’ primary justification for the shift to A-1 (Accommodations, Low-Intensity)
zoning is regulatory alignment. Under the current RM (Multi-Family Residential) zoning,
the units are classified as a "triplex" or "independent dwelling units," which has resulted
in the requirement for three separate Vacation Home Licenses (VHL) and three
corresponding workforce housing linkage fees. The applicants contend that the A-1
(Accommodations, Low-Intensity) classification more accurately reflects their "small
lodge" business model and would allow them to consolidate their regulatory
requirements into a single accommodation license, with no associated linkage fees.
888
The applicants previously applied for the rezoning request in Fall 2025 and went before
the Planning Commission on January 20, 2026. At the public hearing, the Estes Park
Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward to 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 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 Board passed and adopted Resolution 12-
26, denying the Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) from RM (Multi-Family Residential)
to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) for failure to comply with Ordinance 11-25 as
enacted by the voters of the Town by the passage of Ballot Question 300 in November
2025.
Following this denial, the applicants have resubmitted their rezoning request to satisfy
the requirements of Ordinance 11-25 (Ballot Question 300). 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. The applicants provided the written
approvals to staff with the subject rezoning application (Attachment 3).
Proposal:
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.
999
Existing Site
Land Use and Density
The subject property is currently developed as a detached single-family residence and a
three-unit lodge used as accommodations. If the property is rezoned from RM “Multi-
Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity), the minimum land area for
development is 10,890 square feet per unit, or four (4) units per acre. For purposes of
density calculation, The Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) does not distinguish
between residential or accommodations uses, as both are permitted in the A-1
(Accommodations, Low Intensity) zoning district. The subject property is 0.80-acres,
which if redeveloped, could support up to three units. “Chapter 6. Nonconforming Uses,
Structures, and Lots” of the EPDC is applicable to uses, structures, and lots that were
legally existing prior to the effective date of the code, February 1, 2000. Approval of the
rezoning, and subsequent reclassification from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge,”
101010
would not create a nonconforming use. However, there is concern that rezoning the lot
would result in a nonconforming lot. § 6.8.B. of the EPDC states:
In all nonresidential zoning districts, a lot that is nonconforming as to area or
dimension as of the effective date of this Code may be occupied by any use
permitted by right in the zoning district, provided that a by-right accommodations
use shall not be developed on a lot with an area less than:
1. Forty thousand (40,000) square feet in the A zoning district, or
2. Fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in the A-1 zoning district.
Staff interprets this to mean that accommodation uses that are permitted by right in the
A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) zoning district may continue, as the existing lot is
greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. However, if the lot is redeveloped,
future development would be subject to the base density calculation of 10,890 square
feet minimum lot area per acre, or up to three (3) units for the 0.8-acre property.
Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary
Future Land Use Zoning Current Use
Subject
Parcel
Suburban Estate RM (Multi-Family
Residential
Single-Family Residential
and Short-Term Rentals
North Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential
South Mixed-Use Centers &
Corridors
A-1 (Accommodations,
Low Intensity)
Accommodations (Resort)
East Public/Semi-Public A (Accommodations) Religious Institution
West Public/Semi-Public A (Accommodations Religious Institution
111111
Estes Park Zoning Map
Estes Forward Future Land Use Map
121212
The Future Land Use Map in the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan provides a guide
for land use policies and decisions that direct growth according to character and
intensity of use. The Future Land Use Map designates the property as “Suburban
Estate” (Attachment 4), which is intended for low to medium density single family
residential development.
Utilities & Services
The existing development, including the single-family home and accommodation units,
is currently served by Town water and power. Estes Valley Fire Protection expressed no
concerns or objection to the rezone application. Upper Thompson Sanitation District
expressed no opposition to the rezoning application but stated that a change of use
from residential to commercial warrants reassessment and will result in a rate change.
Site Access
Existing access to the property is provided by Valley Road. No new access is proposed.
However, Public Works has expressed concern with lack of Town right-of-way (ROW) in
the vicinity of the property and has communicated this with the applicants. ROW
dedication is optional and is not required with the rezoning process.
Review Criteria
All applications for text or Official Zoning Map Amendments shall be reviewed by the
EPPC and Town Board for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth
below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. In accordance with § 3.3.D.
“Standards for Review” of the EPDC, all applications for rezoning shall demonstrate
compliance with the applicable standards and criteria:
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas
affected;
Staff Comment: There has been minimal development on the subject property or in the
surrounding vicinity in recent years. However, there has been a change in conditions in
the area since the current zoning was established in 2000. In 2011, for example, the
property known as "Fall River Lodge in Estes Park," located at 900 W. Elkhorn Ave
(directly across from the subject property), was rezoned from CO (Commercial Outlying)
to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) (Attachment 5). This rezoning request was
131313
sought to convert a large residential building into a small resort lodge, a concept similar
to what the owners of 440 Valley Road are proposing.
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in
the Estes Valley.
Staff Discussion: Since no new development is currently proposed, staff has waived the
development plan requirement per § 3.3.B.1 of the Estes Park Development Code:
“All applications seeking to amend this Code to allow a change from one (1) zone
district to a different zone district or seeking to amend this Code by changing the
permitted uses in any zone district shall be accompanied by a development plan.
This requirement may be waived by Staff if it finds that the projected size,
complexity, anticipated impacts or other factors associated with the proposed
development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver.”
While no new development is planned, the rezoning can still be reviewed for
compatibility and consistency with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley.
The Future Land Use map within the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan
categorizes the subject property as “Suburban Estate.” This designation lists single
family residential as appropriate land uses and development. This designation does not
promote future development of accommodation uses. Although the development is
existing, reclassification of the existing three-unit accommodations structure from
“Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge” is inconsistent with the “Suburban Estate” land use
designation.
The proposed rezoning is consistent and compatible with the existing growth and
development patterns in the Estes Valley and the surrounding area. Since the corridor
primarily consists of accommodations, reclassifying the subject structure as a "Resort
Lodge" would establish a compatible and consistent use within the neighborhood.
Should future development occur, such development would be subject to the
regulations of the Estes Park Development Code.
141414
Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning must align with the Comprehensive Plan and
development patterns, despite no plans for future development. The 2022 Estes
Forward Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use map designates the property as
"Suburban Estate" (single-family residential), which conflicts with reclassifying the
existing three-unit structure from "Vacation Home" to "Resort Lodge." However, the
rezoning is consistent with the surrounding accommodations corridor, making the
"Resort Lodge" classification a compatible neighborhood use.
3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.
Staff Comment: The property is developed with existing residential and vacation home
uses and is currently served by utilities. No comments in opposition to the rezoning
were received and no comments indicated an inability to provide adequate services and
facilities from service or utility providers.
Advantages:
· Approval of the rezoning request would allow the property owners to reclassify
their use from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge.”
· Reclassification would allow the property owners to continue with their small
lodge business operation and would ensure continued beneficial use of their
property.
Disadvantages:
· Approval of the rezoning, and subsequent reclassification from “Vacation Home”
to “Resort Lodge,” would result in a loss to the Estes Park Workforce Housing
Regulatory Linkage Fund, as these fees would no longer be applicable.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Approval of the rezoning, and subsequent reclassification from “Vacation
Home” to “Resort Lodge,” would result in an annual loss of approximately $4,500 to the
Estes Park Workforce Housing Regulatory Linkage Fund, as this fee would no longer be
applicable. In the event that new development is proposed in the future, the cost to
extend or improve infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) would be borne by the property
151515
owner and not the Town. Ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure would become
the responsibility of the Town, as would the provision of other services.
Level of Public Interest:
Low. A neighborhood and community meeting regarding the rezoning was held on-site
on April 11, 2026 and there were two attendees. No concerns or opposition were
expressed. At the time of this writing, one letter of public comment was received
(Attachment 6). Opposition was expressed, stating concerns that the rezone will
“…change the dynamics from a residential street to a commercial area.” The letter also
expressed concern regarding verification of the written approvals of the adjacent
property owners, which have been provided by the applicants. Public comments are
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 May 27, 2026.
· Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on May 29, 2026.
· Proof of sign posting provided by the applicants on June 1, 2026.
· Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town Board a recommendation of
approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment subject to the following findings of
fact:
1. The Estes Park Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Zoning
Map Amendment.
2. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the
Zoning Map Amendment.
3. The application complies with Estes Park Development Code § 3.3D “Standards
for Review.”
4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment.
161616
Sample Motion:
1. I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Board of Trustees
of the Zoning Map Amendment application, to rezone the 0.80-acre subject
property addressed at 440 Valley Road from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1
(Accommodations, Low Intensity), in accordance with the findings of fact outlined
in the staff report.
2. I move to continue the Zoning Map Amendment application to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing].
3. I move to forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Board of Trustees of
the Zoning Map Amendment application, finding that … [state reasons for
recommendation of denial].
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Written Approvals of Adjacent Property Owners
4. 2022 Comp Plan Excerpt- Suburban Estate
5. Ordinance 20-11
6. Public Comment Letter
7. Rezoning Exhibit (Aerial Map)
8. Current Estes Park Zoning
9. 2022 Comp Plan Future Land Use Map
171717
Land Use Application
Project Information
Lot Size______________Zoning_____________
Existing Land Use______________ Proposed Land Use__________
Is property located in the Floodplain? yes [ ] no [ ]
Is property part of a Condominium Association? yes [ ] no [ ]
Utility Services
Water Service (Existing)
[ ] Town
[ ] Well
Water Service (Proposed)
[ ] Town
[ ] Well
Sanitary Sewer Service (Existing)
[ ] EPSD
[ ] UTSD
[ ] Septic
Sanitary Sewer Service (Proposed)
[ ] EPSD
[ ] UTSD
Attachments Required:
Statement of Intent, Digital Copy of Plat/Plans
181818
Revised 2020.04.23 ks
Consultant/Engineer
PLEASE PRINT:
PLEASE PRINT:
Date
Date
Email
Applicant
Record Owner(s)
Signatures:
MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION
(not required for Board of Adjustment)
Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews,
Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final
Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface
estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application
for development and meet the statutory requirements.
I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met.
Names:
APPLICATION FEES
For development within the Estes Park Town limits view the fee schedule online at
www.estes.org/planningforms
All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
Record Owner
191919
Revised 2024-03-11 ks
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
PLEASE PRINT:
PLEASE PRINT:
Date
Date
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
Signatures: Record Owner
Applicant
Names:
I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the
application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park
Development Code (EPDC).
I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the
opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
The Estes Park Development Code is available online at: estes.org/developmentcode
I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by
the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EPDC.
I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal" sign from the Community Development
Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road, no later than ten
business days prior to the public hearing.
I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees/Planning Commissioners/Board of Adjustment members, with
proper identification, access to my property during the review of this application.
I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void
For Board of Adjustment applications: failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or
action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval may automatically render the
decision of the BOA null and void. (EPDC Section 3.6.D)
202020
Statement of Intent
The rezoning of 440 Valley Rd to A1 will accurately depict the actual existing use classification,
low-intensity accommodations, and specific use – small lodge low-intensity. This will allow the
property to be utilized as designed and permitted in 1987 and family operated for 15 years.
We the four senior owners of a small family owned and managed 1500 SF low intensity STR
building with three units – B1 - a “guest-unit” studio with kitchenette (2 guest max), B2 - a
studio with kitchen (2 guest max), and B3 - a 1-bedroom with kitchen (4 guest max} – request to
be rezoned from RM to A1. We have for 15 years been a successful STR accommodation
business with an onsite owner/property manager, as was required by the Town Clerk when we
went into business in 2011. We feel that our small, low-intensity accommodation is an
excellent example of what a STR was originally intended to be in Estes Park. We have had zero
complaints of any kind in 15 yrs – neither noise or any type of citation from the city or a
neighbor. We have had thousands of happy guests and feel fortunate to have hosted them and
take pride in helping to make their dream national park vacation come true.
In the last 15 years, the industry has transformed from a small presence to an overcrowded
market and may be starting to slow down. In 2011 we were required to have one business
license as an accommodation under one roof with an onsite manager. In 2017 (Ordinance 29-
16) the town clerk sent three registration packets to our business and this then translated to
three business licenses. Then in 2023 (Ordinance 02-22) the three business licenses each
incurred a work force linkage fee. Our business has been affected by these ordinances, and
after meetings with the CDD and the Town clerk in 2023 we see no relief from the unfair triple
business license/triple linkage fees we pay annually. The linkage fee has increased each year
with the cost-of-living. We face a hardship and a competitive disadvantage to large vacation
homes; as a small niche business of studio units, we are being taxed at a multi-bedroom rate.
These large homes pay one work force housing fee of $1500 while our small accommodation
which normally sleep 2/unit also pays $1500/unit – for a total of $4500. Financially in 2025 we
will have our first loss and we have had to raise our rates >$32/night to cover just the linkage
fee. We are uncertain if we can stay in business as a small 3-vacation home licensed business, in
the RM zone. We request rezoning to A1 so our business, that does not fit the typical vacation
home model of large independent dwelling units, does not have to incur the unfair burden of
having 3 business licenses and 3 linkage fees for such a small low intensity building.
Background: Our family property at 440 Valley Rd was incorrectly rezoned in the 2000 EVDC city
rezone as we’ve been told occurred to many properties in Estes Park. Our parents purchased
the property in 1986 as CO (single family + antique shop) and it was rezoned to E1 single family.
The “corrective rezone” which occurred in 2010 from E1 to RM was also a mistake, and it should
212121
have been rezoned to A1. After my father’s death in 2008 we no longer could use the two
buildings as fulltime family residences. The CDD in 2009-2010 had lost the “address file” – thus
all the records for our property. The burden of proof that my parents had submitted the
required plans/permits for converting an old antique shop into 3 low intensity
accommodations/guest units was placed on the 3 surviving children who had always planned to
complete our father’s 1987 design. Note: 19 CDD records were finally found at city Hall, 13
years later, in 2023 after 2 CORA requests were made by the owners. The first records request
was made at the direction of CDD Director J Garner who profusely apologized “we just keep
finding files”.
Thankfully our father was an architect/chief of Planning and Engineering at Purdue University
and we supplied CDD with the permit numbers and our father’s architectural plans from 1987
and 2001 (#4075, M-50-01). In the 2010 CDD corrective rezone there were delays and
unnecessary confusion in a complex process for first time hopeful business owners – we were
falsely accused as code violators, and informed by CDD Director Bob Joseph that we no longer
owned a commercially zoned property – but only after he denied us a 2010 plumbing permit to
remodel the final 3rd small 1 bedroom unit that we had worked tirelessly to get ready, so we
could get a STR business license. In 2009, CDD had sent code enforcement/police unannounced
on a false code violation to inspect the property a few months after our father’s death, but
there was no mention of the non-conforming E1 city-wide zoning mistake nor was the error
addressed when my father got a permit in 2001 – just a year after the EVDC rezone. The email
records between code enforcement, the police and Larimer County substantiate that the
“address file” went missing at this time. Director Joseph directed that until we correctively
rezoned to RM, and purchased an additional UT sewer tap to allow for a kitchen
sink/dishwasher in the 3rd unit, we could not get a plumbing permit to proceed. Note: this was
the second tap for the 1500 SF building as he allowed unit B1 to be grandfathered in from 1987
as a guest unit. At the 11/16/2010 Town Board study session, Commissioner Poggenpohl stated
it was quite a stretch to go from CO to E1 single family; he then questioned why the corrective
rezone was not for A1 or as it was originally zoned. We then realized we had not been
presented with the correct intended use for our small low intensity accommodation business.
We believe that with no records at CDD in 2010, the false accusations, and having to prove we
had legal permits, the true intended use for the property was misguided. We did get it
“correctively rezoned” and there was no CDD fee when we agreed to a downgraded corrective
rezone from the original CO to RM. However, the intended use was always for low intensity
accommodations, as the submitted architectural drawings and permit in 1987 recorded. We
later realized the CDD use written on the 3 Certificates of Occupancy “new attached single
family dwellings” and labeling the small building a “triplex ” was not accurate and nor was RM,
for our intended use.
222222
No new development is planned at our property. Rezoning to A1 is more in line with the Future
Land Use Map of 2022, with mixed-use properties across the street and semi-public lands on
both sides of the property. Without rezoning, the property is a lone outlier in the current and
future maps – as a “suburban estate” and the only such property directly on the
“accommodation/business highway 34 corridor ”, and as an RM property surrounded by A, A1,
and CO in the immediate highway corridor and intersections. This area will see increased traffic
as the Elkhorn redevelopment and larger commercial workforce projects on Hwy 34 are
completed. Our intent is for the property to retain its natural beauty and low intensity
character for the enjoyment of our guests and family, and to maintain the designated wildlife
corridor along the Fall River.
232323
242424
252525
262626
272727
282828
292929
303030
313131
323232
333333
343434
353535
363636
373737
383838
393939
404040
414141
SUBURBAN ESTATE
The Suburban Estate category is intended for low to
medium density single family residential development,
including conservation development that may be
supported by limited small-scale neighborhood
commercial located at crossroads or along arterial roads
within the Town� Any non-residential uses are appropriate
when they demonstrate the following:
»Supports a local, neighborhood need
»Is appropriately located for the access and
transportation requirements of the activity (e�g�,
a rustic camp may be acceptable on gravel road,
whereas a retail use should be located on a paved
road)
»Availability of adequate utilities and infrastructure
(e.g., water, sewer, fire protection)
»Scale and intensity of the use is in harmony with the
surrounding neighborhood based on factors such
as:
• Built character
• Proximity to residential areas
• Proximity to sensitive environmental features
or wildlife areas
• Proximity to unique or highly visible
viewsheds, landforms, or places of interest
Appropriate Land Uses and Development
Types
»Single family residential subdivisions with low to
medium density
»Single family homes with accessory dwelling units
»Single family clustered or conservation
developments (in the County)
»Limited neighborhood-serving commercial located
at primary intersections (in the Town or key
locations)
Built Form
The Suburban Estate Category typically consists of
medium-sized single-family homes on lots that are at
least a quarter-acre in size� Medium-density conservation
development with smaller lots requires public water and
wastewater� However much of the development in this
category is served by septic where public wastewater is
unavailable and larger lots can accommodate individual
systems� New homes should be appropriately scaled
for compatibility with existing neighborhood character�
Existing suburban neighborhoods served by public
utilities can accommodate moderate increases in density
through the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units�
»Building Height: 1 - 2�5 stories
»Block Length: N/A
»Primary Road Setback: 30+ ft�
»Transportation System: Automobiles are the
primary mode of transportation on low-volume
streets that are wide enough for pedestrians to
safely walk the shoulder� As much as possible,
dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs are discouraged
in favor of efficient, interconnected street networks.
Previous (1996) Future Land Use Categories
»Estate 1 Acre Min�
»Estate 0�5 Acre Min�
67ESTES FORWARD | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
424242
0 0
ORDINANCE NO.20-11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO REZONE LOT I OF THE WITT SUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT 900 W.ELKHORN AVENUE
WHEREAS,the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning
a Lot 1 Witt Subdivision,located at 900 W.Elkhorn Avenue,from CO Commercial
Outlying to A-i Accommodations;and
WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning change be
granted.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,COLORADO:
Section 1:The zoning Lot 1 Witt Subdivision,located at 900 W.Elkhorn
Avenue,shall be changed from CO Commercial Outlying to A-i Accommodations.
Section 2:This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30)days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
PARK,COLORADO,THIS 27’DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2011.
tb41in Clerk 1tEPLTt’j
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees on the 27 day of September,2011 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park,Colorado,on the 3O-
day of c ,2011,all as required by the Statutes of the State of
Colorado.
a
ToVn Cerk
T
434343
444444
To: Estes Park Planning Commission, Estes Park Town Board
From: Denice and Don Borda, Brian Delaney, Dana Burke, 440 Valley Rd.
6/10/26
During the 2000 Estes Park town-wide rezone and adoption of the Estes Valley Development
Code, 440 Valley Rd was rezoned from CO to E-1. CDD Director Joseph in the 2010 TB memo
stated “440 Valley Road was commercially zoned for at least 25 years, and allowed for multi-
family residential use”. Our father, an architect, purchased the property in 1986 and remodeled
the antique shop into studio/cottages in 1987 with permit #4075 (attachment 1). In 2010 the
owners/adult children were unaware of the townwide rezone mistake until they applied for a
plumbing permit on 9/27/2010. We believe our parents were not informed in 2000, of the
rezone of their property. It was not reflected in any of their architectural or property records, or
on town documents after the 2000 rezone, such as a 2001 permit #M-50-01 to add an office to
unit #3 of the studio/cottages.
2010 Rezone E1 to RM - Director Joseph’s Planning Dept. correctively rezoned the property to
how it had been used by our deceased parents, and they ignored the applicants intended use as
a small accommodation of three guest units as designed and permitted in 1987 (attach. 2 and 3,
floor plans). Director Joseph’s team changed the use of the building from studio / 2 cottages as
written on the 1987 permit #4075, to three attached dwelling units listed as the job description
on the 2010 plumbing permit (attachment 4). This was learned after a 2023 CORA action, which
revealed internal office communications on plumbing permit B-8961.
On 9/27/10 the applicants were ambushed by CDD when their plumbing permit was denied and
work was stopped until 10/18/10 (Chronology attach 5). The owners were instructed by Joseph
to file an application to corrective rezone from single family to RM, and to purchase a second
water tap for $7500 to get the plumbing permit to restart work. The owners were railroaded
into giving up commercial zoning, with false code violations of “no permits”, harassment by the
police on two visits to the property, and Planning claims that they had lost the address file on
the property - permits, plans, everything. No code violation was ever pursued by Planning and
presented to the owners in 2008 -2010. When the files were found in 2023 by a second CORA
search, it disclosed that Planning was still referring to the false violation of a 5-plex (attach 6)
when the property has always been 3 guest units. This is referenced on 10/8/10 in a note to the
Water Dept., questioning the need for increased rates (attachment 7). This mistake of a 5 -plex
stayed on County Assessor records for a decade. The owners were recently reimbursed by the
ToEP for 15 years of overpayment for a construction water tap relating to the 2010 rezone.
Nothing was presented in the corrective rezone 11/23/10 memo (attach 8) or presentations to
the Planning Commission or Town Board that the owner’s intended use was to get a business
45
license and rent the guest units. Planning Commissioner Poggenpohl at the Study Session for
rezone questioned why the property was not correctively rezoned to A1 and stated that it was
quite a stretch to go from CO to E1 single family. At that Planning Commission Study Session the
applicants learned of the mistake to rezone to RM, and that it should have been to A-1. At this
point, the applicants were informed they could not speak at a study session, and it was too late
to correct the misguided corrective rezone to RM.
Our Father was Chief of Planning and Engineering at Purdue University for 26 yrs. He
maintained detailed files and utilized the 1985 Uniform Building Code (UBC), as utilized by the
town, to design the units permitted in 1987. It is noted that our father received the UBC
document from Steve Stamey, planner for the Town of Estes Park, on 5/22/87 (attach 9). The
UBC from 1985 states in 17.24.040 – Dwelling Area, “A minimum of 600 square feet of floor area
shall be provided for each family dwelling unit”. The 3 guest units that he designed were each
less than 600 sq ft of livable space and should not have been classified family dwelling units in
2010, but should have remained studio/cottages/guest units.
In the rezone memo dated 11/23/2010 to the Town Board, Joseph states that staff became
aware of the multi-family use when the property owner applied for a building permit for one of
the units. Though in the 2010 memo to the Planning Commission, Planner Ch ilcott states they
knew of the mistake in 2008, when the county and police were sent to the property. Director
Joseph and staff had numerous opportunities to catch the E-1 mistake in the 2000 townwide
rezone. These incidents occurred:
1.1987 permit (#4075) for the 3 guest units.
2.No notification postcards were returned by the applicant’s parents during the 2000
town-wide rezone. Planning had a database and confirmed this in 2010.
3.In 2001 a new permit was pulled to add an office to the third guest unit #3 (# M -50-01).
4.In 2008 emails, obtained from the 2023 CORA, Planning informed the County that there
was a 1987 permit #4075, but it was ignored by Planning, the County, and the Police.
5.In 2008, Larimer County visited the property unannounced and badgered the applicants
86-year-old father and took photos of the doors and property. The County/Planning then
created a false 5-unit apartment complex floor plan of the building (attach 6).
These mistakes affect our business today, and have caused a financial hardship that A-1 zoned
properties do not share. In 2011 the structure’s classification was changed from guest unit to
“New Attached Single-Family Dwelling” on the certificate of occupancy. This official document
has no ordinance or code to guide what label goes in the blank, per Planning and the Chief
46
Building Official at our October 2025 meeting. During this meeting, we were notified that they
had three additional Cert. of Occupancy for our 3 guest units issued in 2019. They were
labeled: “This One-Story Triplex”. We were unaware new official documents were issued.
This Certificate of Occupancy is important in classifying STR’s for Vacation Home licensing and
for Accommodation classification. It affected our licensing in 2017 when a Cert. of Occupancy
became a licensing requirement (Ord. 29-16). We were issued one license for The Bunkhouse at
Old Man Mtn. for the first 6 years of business, 2011-2016, and then we were required to have 3
business licenses with the new ordinance that required a Cert. of Occupancy. Had the
Certificates had the correct label of guest unit and not new single-family dwelling unit, which
UBC states is greater than 600 sq ft, this would have required one license and not three. Since
starting the business in 2011, the Town Clerk required an onsite manager, for an
accommodation with 3 units (but not required of a vacation home) which we continue to do
and have done for 15 years. In 2023 the 3 licenses required a new Work force linkage fee for a
total of $4500 (Ord. 02-22). On 1/31/26 we were required to renew the licenses and Workforce
Housing fees totaling $5150. We have paid over $20,000 in Workforce Housing fees and
licensing over 4 years. As an A-1 accommodation we would have paid $200 over 4 years for one
business license. So, Seniors who are part of the workforce, are required to subsidize the new
workforce while motels, hotels, lodges, restaurants, shops and businesses, who require a work
force, pay nothing in workforce linkage fees.
Fall River Lodge, directly across Business Hwy 34 from The Bunkhouse, was used by CDD as a
comparison as a similar small residential building converted into a small resort lodge. It is
similar to what we are requesting be restored, CO to A1, if our commercial zoning had not been
taken in the 2000 town-wide rezone. However, Fall River Lodge was never a small residence, it
was designed as a 10,339 sq ft residence, 8 bedrooms, 9 baths, 3 kitchens, a pool and exercise
room. They pay no workforce housing linkage fee and (as the owners informed us in our
neighborhood meeting) they pay $50 per year for one business license.
Ballot 300 - Planning contended our application was submitted on November 25, 2025 in our
first application. The applicants submitted a Rezoning Request application on October 20, 2025
and made payment at that time. This was prior to the 11/4/25 Estes Park vote on ballots 300
and 301, and the certification of the results of the passage of Ballot 300 in late November. On
11/28/25 we became aware from local online news that Ballot 300 passed and Ballot 301 did
not. Since we began the Standard Development Review Process prior to the vote and
certification of the results of the passage of Ballot 300, we believed it did not apply to our
rezone request, just as the Town-owned 179 Stanley Circle rezone was contending. The Town
Board denied both rezone requests based solely on Ballot 300. However, we were informed
during the Town Board meeting by Planning that if we obtained the required signatures the
47
application would be promptly revisited and the rezone approved. Immediately after the Town
Board Meeting we began contacting neighbors for the approval signatures required from
property owners within 500 feet of our property. On February 26, 2026 we presented greater
than 67% of the required signatures to the Town Clerk and then the Town Board. The Town
Board stated they were in uncharted waters and should have continued the Zoning Map
Amendment application to the next meeting instead of denying it, and that they would know
better the next time. They agreed to address the issue in an Executive session and we were told
that there was no mechanism to overturn the denial based solely on ballot 300. We were
instructed by the Mayor and the Town Administrator to submit a second application and
complete the entire process over again. Planning agrees we have 74.2 % approval of adjacent
property owners within 500 feet of the property and they recommend approval of our rezone.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
454959
A
A-1
CO
E
RE
RM
E-1
Fall River
PRIVAT
EDR
FALLRIVERLN
WWONDERVIEWAVE
WELKHORNAVE
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
VALLEY RD
355
525
855
813
470
450
490
900
890
775
415
701
777
455
920
801
455
480
440
450
460
470
430
410
900
875
350 880
825
441
445
560
490
845
740
496
951
132
325
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 100 200Feet
1 in = 181 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development
ZoningDistricts
Printed: 10/20/2025Created By: kwasham
Legend
BuildingsZoning
Zoning Class
Accomodations (A)
Accomodations (A-1)
Commercial Outlying (CO)
Commercial Downtown (CD)
Commercial Heavy (CH)
Office (O)
Restricted Industrial (I-1)
Rural Estate: 2 1/2 acre min. (RE)
Estate: 1 acre min. (E-1)
Estate: 1/2 acre min. (E)
Residential: 1/4 acre min. (R)
Residential: 5000 sqft min. (R-1)
Two Family: 27,000 sqft min. (R-2)
Multi-Family: 3-8 du/acre (RM)
465060
Fall River
PRIVAT
EDR
FALLRIVERLN
WWONDERVIEWAVE
WELKHORNAVE
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
VALLEY RD
355
525
855
813
470
450
490
900
890
775
415
701
777
455
920
801
455
480
440
450
460
470
430
410
900
875
350 880
825
441
445
560
490
845
740
496
951
132
325
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 100 200Feet
1 in = 181 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development
Future Land UseMap 2022
Printed: 10/20/2025Created By: kwasham
Legend
Buildings
Future Land Use -2022
<all other values>
Future Land Use
Accomodations
Mixed-Use Centers and Corridors
Downtown
Industrial Mix
Public/Semi Public
Mixed Residential Neighborhood
Suburban Estate
Neighborhood Village
Mountains and Foothills
Natural Resource Conservation and Parks
475161
485262
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: June 16, 2026
Subject: CUP for ADU- 919 Elk Hollow Ct
Type: Public Hearing, Land Use
Objective:
The Applicant requests the Planning Commission review the proposed 919 Elk Hollow
Court Conditional Use Permit for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in an E
(Estate) Zoning District.
Present Situation:
The subject property is a 0.42-acre lot in the Elk Hollow Subdivision. The property is
addressed as 919 Elk Hollow Court and is located approximately 650 feet west of the
intersection of Lexington Lane and South Saint Vrain Avenue (Highway 7). It is zoned E
(Estate) and is legally conforming to use but is legally nonconforming to dimensional
standards, as the E (Estate) Zoning District requires a minimum lot size of 0.5-acres.
The lot was platted in 1978, and the existing single-family home was constructed in
1986. The Applicant purchased the property in 1998.
To help alleviate the workforce and attainable housing shortage in Estes Park, the Town
Board approved a Code Amendment to the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) in
January 2022 to allow ADUs on most residential properties which previously prohibited
them. The EPDC defines an ADU as “…a second dwelling unit which is integrated either
with a single-family detached dwelling structure or with a detached accessory structure
on the same lot as the principal dwelling.” Pursuant to EPDC § 5.2.B.2.a.(8)(b), “lots
legally non-conforming as to minimum lot size as set forth in Table 4-2 are eligible to
pursue accessory dwelling unit approval by application for a conditional use permit…”
495363
9LFLQLW\0DS
([LVWLQJ6LWH $HULDO
505464
=RQLQJ0DS
7DEOH =RQLQJDQG/DQG8VH6XPPDU\
)XWXUH/DQG8VH =RQLQJ &XUUHQW8VH
6XEMHFW3DUFHO 6XEXUEDQ(VWDWH ( (VWDWH 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
1RUWK 6XEXUEDQ(VWDWH ( (VWDWH 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6RXWK 6XEXUEDQ(VWDWH ( (VWDWH 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
(DVW 6XEXUEDQ(VWDWH ( (VWDWH 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
:HVW 6XEXUEDQ(VWDWH ( (VWDWH 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
3URSRVDO
7KH$SSOLFDQWSURSRVHVWRFRQVWUXFWDVTXDUHIRRW ¶[¶ GHWDFKHG$'8RI
PRGXODUFRQVWUXFWLRQWREHLQVWDOOHGRQDSHUPDQHQWIRXQGDWLRQ7KHLQWHQWLVIRUPXOWL
JHQHUDWLRQDOXVHWRKRXVHIDPLO\ZKRFDQQRORQJHUDIIRUGWKH(VWHV9DOOH\DUHDEXW
ZRUNWKHUH+RZHYHUWKH'HYHORSPHQW&RGHGRHVQRWGLFWDWHZKRFDQUHVLGHLQWKH
$'87KHSURSRVHGORFDWLRQRIWKHGHWDFKHG$'8ZDVVHOHFWHGWRLQWHJUDWHVHDPOHVVO\
LQWRWKHORWWRPLQLPL]HGLVUXSWLRQWRWKHQHLJKERUKRRG7KH$'8ZLOOEHVSULQNOHUHGDV
UHTXLUHGE\WKH)LUHFRGH7KHDSSOLFDQWZLOOSURYLGHRQH VSDFHIRUSDUNLQJIRUWKH
UHVLGHQW V RIWKH$'8DVUHTXLUHGE\(3'&%D 7KH$'8PD\QRWEHXVHG
DVDVKRUWWHUPUHQWDOXQLW VWD\VOHVVWKDQGD\V DVSURKLELWHGE\(3'&
%D
515565
3URSRVHG6LWH3ODQ
$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLW $'8 &RQFHSWXDO
525666
5HYLHZ&ULWHULD
7KHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\]RQHG( (VWDWH LVDFUHVLQVL]HRURIWKHDFUH
PLQLPXPORWVL]HUHTXLUHGIRUWKH( (VWDWH =RQLQJ'LVWULFW%D E RIWKH
(3'&UHTXLUHVDOHJDOO\QRQFRQIRUPLQJORWWR³SXUVXH$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWDSSURYDO
E\DSSOLFDWLRQIRUDFRQGLWLRQDOXVHSHUPLW´
RIWKH'HYHORSPHQW&RGHFRQWDLQVSURFHGXUHVDQGVWDQGDUGVIRUDSSURYDORID
&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWDQGVWDII¶VFRPPHQWVDUHEHORZ
&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLW
$3URFHGXUHVIRU$SSURYDORQ&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLW$SSOLFDWLRQVIRU
DSSURYDORID&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWVKDOOIROORZWKHVWDQGDUGGHYHORSPHQW
DSSURYDOSURFHVVVHWIRUWKLQRIWKLV&KDSWHU
D6WDII&RPPHQW 7KHDSSOLFDWLRQIROORZVWKH&83DSSURYDOSURFHVVDV
SUHVFULEHG
%6WDQGDUGVIRU5HYLHZ$OODSSOLFDWLRQVIRUD&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWVKDOO
GHPRQVWUDWHFRPSOLDQFHZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHFULWHULDDQGVWDQGDUGVVHWIRUWKLQ
&KDSWHU8VH5HJXODWLRQV´DVDSSOLFDEOHDQGWKHIROORZLQJUHTXLUHPHQW
7KHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUWKHSURSRVHG&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWVPLWLJDWHVWRWKH
PD[LPXPH[WHQWIHDVLEOHSRWHQWLDODGYHUVHLPSDFWVRQQHDUE\ODQGXVHVSXEOLF
IDFLOLWLHVDQGVHUYLFHVDQGWKHHQYLURQPHQW
D6WDII&RPPHQW 7KH&83DSSOLFDWLRQIRUDSURSRVHG$'8IROORZVWKH
DGGLWLRQDOUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUVSHFLILFDFFHVVRU\XVHVSHUPLWWHGLQWKH
5HVLGHQWLDO]RQHVDVSUHVFULEHGLQ%DRIWKH(3'&7KH$'8ZLOO
EHDSSUR[LPDWHO\VTXDUHIHHWDQGLVEHORZWKHVL]HOLPLWRIVTXDUH
IHHW7KHSURSRVHGORFDWLRQRIWKH$'8ZLOODGKHUHWRDOOEXLOGLQJVHWEDFNV
,WLQFOXGHVWKHUHTXLUHGDPHQLWLHVRISULYDWHVDQLWDU\IDFLOLWLHVFRRNLQJDQG
IRRGVWRUDJHDQGVOHHSLQJDUHD2QH RIIVWUHHWSDUNLQJVSDFHZLOOEH
SURYLGHG7KH$'8VKDOOQRWEHXVHGDVDVKRUWWHUPUHQWDOQRUUHQWHGIRU
535767
DSHULRGRIOHVVWKDQWKLUW\ GD\V 7KHUHZLOOQRWEHPRUHWKDQRQH
$'8RQWKHORW
5HYLHZLQJ$JHQF\&RPPHQWV
7KLV&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWDSSOLFDWLRQZDVUHIHUUHGRXWIRUDJHQF\FRPPHQWV1R
FRPPHQWVRUFRQFHUQVZHUHUHFHLYHGUHJDUGLQJWKH&83DSSOLFDWLRQ0LQRU
LQIRUPDWLRQDOFRPPHQWVZHUHUHFHLYHGUHJDUGLQJWKHSURSRVHG$'8ZKLFKZLOOEH
DGGUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVXEVHTXHQWEXLOGLQJSHUPLWDSSOLFDWLRQUHYLHZSURFHVV
$GYDQWDJHV
$SSURYDORIWKH&83ZRXOGDOORZWKH$SSOLFDQWWRPRYHIRUZDUGZLWKFRQVWUXFWLQJD
GHWDFKHG$'8RQKHUSURSHUW\IRUPXOWLJHQHUDWLRQDOOLYLQJ
'LVDGYDQWDJHV
7KHUHDUHQRNQRZQGLVDGYDQWDJHVWRDSSURYLQJWKH&83
$FWLRQ5HFRPPHQGHG
6WDIIUHFRPPHQGVDSSURYDORIWKH (ON+ROORZ&W&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLW &83 IRU
DQ$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLW $'8
)LQDQFH5HVRXUFH,PSDFW
1$
/HYHORI3XEOLF,QWHUHVW
/RZ$QHLJKERUKRRGDQGFRPPXQLW\PHHWLQJUHJDUGLQJWKHUH]RQLQJZDVKHOGDWWKH
(VWHV3DUN/LEUDU\RQ$SULODQGWKHUHZHUHWHQ DWWHQGHHV7KH$SSOLFDQW
GLVFXVVHGWKH&83IRUWKHSURSRVHG$'8&RPPHQWVZHUHJHQHUDOO\SRVLWLYH1R
FRQFHUQVRURSSRVLWLRQZHUHH[SUHVVHG$VRIWKHWLPHRIZULWLQJWKLVUHSRUWQRSXEOLF
FRPPHQWKDVEHHQUHFHLYHG,IUHFHLYHGSXEOLFFRPPHQWVZLOOEHSRVWHGWR
KWWSV HVWHVSDUNFRORUDGRJRYFXUUHQWDSSOLFDWLRQV
6WDIISURYLGHGSXEOLFQRWLFHRIWKHDSSOLFDWLRQLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK(3'&QRWLFLQJ
UHTXLUHPHQWV
:ULWWHQQRWLFHPDLOHGWRDGMDFHQWSURSHUW\RZQHUVRQ0D\
/HJDOQRWLFHSXEOLVKHGLQWKH(VWHV3DUN7UDLO*D]HWWHRQ0D\
3URRIRIVLJQSRVWLQJSURYLGHGE\WKHDSSOLFDQWRQ-XQH
545868
$SSOLFDWLRQSRVWHGRQWKH7RZQ
V&XUUHQW$SSOLFDWLRQVZHEVLWH
5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ
6WDIIUHFRPPHQGVDSSURYDORIWKH (ON+ROORZ&W&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLW &83 IRU
DQ$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLW $'8 VXEMHFWWRWKHIROORZLQJILQGLQJVRIIDFW
7KH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQLVWKH'HFLVLRQ0DNLQJ$XWKRULW\IRUWKH&RQGLWLRQDO
8VH3HUPLW
$GHTXDWHSXEOLFSULYDWHIDFLOLWLHVDUHFXUUHQWO\DYDLODEOHWRVHUYHWKHSURSHUW\
7KLVUHTXHVWKDVEHHQVXEPLWWHGWRDOODSSOLFDEOHUHYLHZLQJDJHQF\VWDIIIRU
FRQVLGHUDWLRQDQGFRPPHQWZLWKQRLGHQWLILHGRXWVWDQGLQJLVVXHV
7KH&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWDSSOLFDWLRQFRPSOLHVZLWKDSSOLFDEOHVWDQGDUGVVHW
IRUWKLQWKH(3'&
6WDIIUHFRPPHQGVWKHIROORZLQJFRQGLWLRQVRIDSSURYDORIWKH&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLW
7KHSULPDU\HQWUDQFHRIWKHSURSRVHG$'8VKDOOEHRULHQWHGWRZDUGWKHH[LVWLQJ
VLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHIDFLQJHDVW
7KHH[WHULRUFRORUVDQGPDWHULDOVRIWKHSURSRVHG$'8VKDOOJHQHUDOO\PDWFKWKH
H[LVWLQJVLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHDVPXFKDVIHDVLEOH
6DPSOH0RWLRQ
,PRYHWRDSSURYHWKH&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWDFFRUGLQJWRILQGLQJVE\6WDII
,PRYHWRDSSURYHWKH&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWDFFRUGLQJWRILQGLQJVE\6WDIIZLWK
FRQGLWLRQV>VWDWHFRQGLWLRQV@
,PRYHWRFRQWLQXHWKH&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWWRWKHQH[WUHJXODUO\VFKHGXOHG
PHHWLQJILQGLQJWKDW«>VWDWHUHDVRQVIRUFRQWLQXLQJ@
,PRYHWRGHQ\WKH&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWILQGLQJWKDW«>VWDWHILQGLQJVIRU
GHQLDO@
$WWDFKPHQWV
$SSOLFDWLRQ
6WDWHPHQWRI,QWHQW
6LWH3ODQ
1HLJKERUKRRG0HHWLQJ5HFRUG
555969
Land Use Application
Project Information
/RW6L]HBBBBBBBBBBBBBB=RQLQJBBBBBBBBBBBBB
([LVWLQJ/DQG8VHBBBBBBBBBBBBBB3URSRVHG/DQG8VHBBBBBBBBBB
,VSURSHUW\ORFDWHGLQWKH)ORRGSODLQ"\HV>@QR>@
,VSURSHUW\SDUWRID&RQGRPLQLXP$VVRFLDWLRQ"\HV>@QR>@
Utility Services
Water Service (Existing)
[ ]Town
[ ] :HOO
Water Service (Proposed)
[ ]Town
[ ] :HOO
Sanitary Sewer Service (Existing)
[ ]EPSD
[ ] 876'
>@6HSWLF
Sanitary Sewer Service (Proposed)
[ ]EPSD
[ ] 876'
$WWDFKPHQWV5HTXLUHG
6WDWHPHQWRI,QWHQW'LJLWDO&RS\RI3ODW3ODQV
.43 E1
residential residential
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
566070
Revised 20NV
Consultant/Engineer
PLEASE PRINT:
PLEASE PRINT:
Date
DateApplicant
Record Owner
Applicant
Fax
Email
Phone
Cell Phone
Mailing Address
Applicant
Fax
Phone
Email
Contact Information
Phone
Cell Phone
Cell Phone
Mailing Address
Mailing Address
Record Owner(s)
Email
Signatures:
Fax
MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION
QRWUHTXLUHGIRU%RDUGRI$GMXVWPHQW
Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews,
Rezoning, Preliminaryand Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot,and Preliminaryand Final
Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface
estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice mustbe given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application
for development and meet the statutory requirements.
I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met.
Names:
APPLICATION FEES
For development within the Estes 3DUN Town limits view the fee schedule onlineDW
ZZZHVWHVRUJSODQQLQJIRUPV
$ll requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal.
Record Owner
Christian and Kristen Hill
po 1793
9702173475, 9702379005
hillkris@aol.com, Hillchrischris@msn.com
Kristen Hill
po 1793
9702173475
hillkris@aol.com
Northstar Homes
3814 S.C.R 5
9706678830
northstar-homes.com
Kristen Hill
Kristen Hill
576171
Revised 20 NV
Ź
Ź
Ź
Ź
Ź
Ź
Ź
Ź
Ź
PLEASE PRINT:
PLEASE PRINT:
Date
Date
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
Record Owner
Applicant
Signatures: Record Owner
Applicant
Names:
I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the
application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes 3DUN
Development Code (E3DC).
I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the E3DC,and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the
opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
The Estes 3DUN Development Code is available online at:HVWHVRUJGHYHORSPHQWFRGH
I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by
the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the E3DC.
,XQGHUVWDQGWKDW,DPUHTXLUHGWRREWDLQD'HYHORSPHQW3URSRVDOVLJQIURPWKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW
'HSDUWPHQWDQGWKDWWKLVVLJQPXVW EHSRVWHGRQP\SURSHUW\ ZKHUHLWLV FOHDUO\YLVLEOHIURPWKHURDGQRODWHUWKDQWHQ
EXVLQHVVGD\VSULRUWRWKHSXEOLF KHDULQJ
I understand that a resubmittal fee willbe charged if my application is incomplete.
The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
I grant permission for Town of Estes Park EmployeesPlanning Commissioners%RDUGRI$GMXVWPHQWPHPEHUV with
proper identification access to my property during the review of this application.
I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void
)RU%RDUGRI$GMXVWPHQWDSSOLFDWLRQV IDLOXUHRIDQDSSOLFDQWWRDSSO\IRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWDQGFRPPHQFHFRQVWUXFWLRQRU
DFWLRQZLWKUHJDUGWRWKHYDULDQFHDSSURYDOZLWKLQRQH \HDURIUHFHLYLQJDSSURYDOPD\DXWRPDWLFDOO\UHQGHUWKH
GHFLVLRQRIWKH%2$QXOODQGYRLG (3'&6HFWLRQ'
Kristen Hill
Kristen Hill
Kristen M Hill
Kristen M Hill
2/21/26
2/21/26
586272
2/21/26
The intended use for this proposed ADU is for multi-generational living. I plan to have an
Aunt live in it. She works in the Estes Valley, but can no longer aƯord her current living
situation. Therefore, it is not only multi-generational use, but aƯordable housing for a long-
time resident (40 years) of the Estes Valley.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kristen M Hill
596373
606474
616575
626676
Estes Park Planning Commission
June 16, 2026
440 Valley Road Rezone
Denice D. Borda, Brian Delaney, and Dana D. Burke
(Owners/Applicants)
Presented by Kara Washam, Planner II
Objective
Make a recommendation to Town Board regarding the
rezoning request for 440 Valley Road.
•Applicants request to rezone from RM to A-1.
•EPPC is the recommending-body for Zoning Map Amendments
•Town Board is the decision-making body for Zoning Map
Amendments.
Vicinity Map of Subject Area
Background
The subject property is zoned RM and contains 2 structures:
•Detached single-family home used residentially by one of the
property owners.
•Small, three-unit lodge used as accommodations.
The applicants seek a rezoning to A-1 for regulatory alignment:
•Current "triplex" classification necessitates 3 separate Vacation
Home Licenses and workforce housing linkage fees.
•Reclassifying as A-1 would better match their lodge model,
consolidating these into a single accommodation license without
linkage fees.
Existing Site
Present Situation
Previous History:
•Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval on January 20,
2026.
•Town Board denied the request on January 27, 2026 (Resolution 12-26),
citing non-compliance with Ordinance 11-25 (Ballot Question 300).
Current Status:
•Applicants have resubmitted the request to satisfy Ordinance 11-25
requirements.
•Secured written support from 23 of 31 record property owners within 500 feet
(74% support).
•Exceeds the 2/3 (66.7%) threshold required by the ordinance.
Proposal
The applicants request to rezone the subject property from
RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low-
Intensity).
•Reclassification of the existing three -unit accommodations
structure from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge.”
•Property must be zoned to a district that allows use.
•Resort Lodge” is not permitted in the property’s current RM (Multi-Family
Residential) zoning.
•No future development is proposed with this application.
Existing Lodge
Land Use and Density
The subject property is currently developed as a detached
single-family residence and a 3-unit lodge used as
accommodations.
A-1 Density/Lot Size:
•Minimum 10,890 sq. ft. per unit (4 units/acre).
•Subject property (0.80 acres) could support up to 3 units if
redeveloped.
•EPDC does not distinguish between residential or accommodations
uses, as both are permitted in the A-1.
Land Use and Density, cont.
EPDC §6.8.B. (Nonconforming Lots/ Accommodations Use):
•Accommodations use on a lot nonconforming as of Feb. 1, 2000,
must be at least 15,000 sq. ft. in A-1.
Staff Interpretation:Existing accommodations use is permitted to
continue as the lot is greater than 15,000 sq. ft.
Future Redevelopment:Any future redevelopment must adhere
to the A-1 base density of 10,890 sq. ft./unit (max 3 units for this
property).
Estes Park Zoning
Estes Forward Future Land Use
Utilities and Services
The existing development, including the single-family home and
accommodation units, is currently served by Town of Estes Park
Water and Power.
Estes Valley Fire Protection expressed no concerns or objection
to the rezone application.
Upper Thompson Sanitation District expressed no opposition to
the rezoning application but stated that a change of use from
residential to commercial warrants reassessment and will result in
a rate change.
Site Access
•Existing access to the property is provided by Valley Road.
•No new access is proposed.
•Public Works has expressed concern with lack of Town ROW in
the vicinity and has communicated this with the applicants.
•ROW dedication is optional and is not required with the rezoning
process.
Review Criteria
Pursuant to §3.3.D. of the EPDC, an application for a Zoning
Map Amendment (rezoning) shall be reviewed for compliance
with relevant standards and criteria:
1.The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas
affected.
2.The Development Plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would
allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in
the Estes Valley.
3.The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.
Review Criteria #1
1.The amendment is necessary to address changes in
conditions in the areas affected.
•Minimal development on the subject property or in the surrounding
vicinity in recent years.
•Change in conditions in the area since the current zoning was
established in 2000.
•In 2011, the property known as "Fall River Lodge in Estes Park,“ directly
across from the subject property, was rezoned from CO (Commercial
Outlying) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity).
•This rezoning was requested to convert a large residential building into a small resort
lodge.
Review Criteria #2
2.The development plan, which the proposed amendment to
this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with
the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with
existing growth and development patterns in the Estes
Valley.
•Since no new development is currently proposed, staff has waived
the development plan requirement per §3.3.B.1.
•Rezoning should still be reviewed for compatibility and consistency
with the policies and intent of the Comp Plan and with existing
growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley.
Review Criteria #2, cont.
The "Suburban Estate" future land use designation permits
single-family residential development but is inconsistent with
the proposed reclassification of the structure from "Vacation
Home" to "Resort Lodge."
•Rezoning aligns with the existing growth and development
patterns of the Estes Valley, as the corridor is primarily composed
of accommodations.
•Reclassifying the structure as a "Resort Lodge" would be compatible with
the neighborhood.
•Any future development would be subject to regulations of the
EPDC.
Review Criteria #3
3.The Town or other relevant service providers shall have the
ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might
be required if the application were approved.
•The property is developed with existing residential and vacation
home uses and is currently served by utilities.
•No comments in opposition to the rezoning were received and no
comments indicated an inability to provide adequate services and
facilities from service or utility providers.
Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages:
•Approval of the rezoning request would allow the property owners to
reclassify their use from “Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge.”
•Reclassification would allow the property owners to continue with
their small lodge business operation and would ensure continued
beneficial use of their property.
Disadvantages:
•Approval of the rezoning, and subsequent reclassification from
“Vacation Home” to “Resort Lodge,” would result in a loss to the
Estes Park Workforce Housing Regulatory Linkage Fund, as these
fees would no longer be applicable.
Public Noticing & Interest
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance
with EPDC noticing requirements.
•Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on May 27, 2026.
•Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on May 29, 2026.
•Proof of sign posting provided by the applicants on June 1, 2026.
•Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
Public interest in this rezoning request is low.
•Neighborhood Meeting was held on April 11, 2026 (2 attendees).
•At the time of this writing, one letter of public comment was received,
expressing opposition.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town
Board a recommendation of approval of the proposed Zoning
Map Amendment subject to the following findings of fact:
1.The Estes Park Planning Commission is the Recommending
Body for the Zoning Map Amendment.
2.The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is the Decision -
Making Body for the Zoning Map Amendment.
3.The application complies with Estes Park Development Code §
3.3D “Standards for Review.”
4.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing
agency staff for consideration and comment.
Sample Motions
1.I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Board of
Trustees of the Zoning Map Amendment application, to rezone the 0.80-
acre subject property addressed at 440 Valley Road from RM (Multi-Family
Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity), in accordance with
the findings of fact outlined in the staff report.
2.I move to continue the Zoning Map Amendment application to the next
regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing].
3.I move to forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Board of
Trustees of the Zoning Map Amendment application, finding that … [state
reasons for recommendation of denial].
Estes Park Planning Commission
June 16, 2026
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU)
919 Elk Hollow Court
Kristen Hill (Owner/Applicant)
Presented by Kara Washam, Planner II
Objective
The Applicant requests the Planning Commission review the
proposed 919 Elk Hollow Court Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the E
(Estate) Zoning District.
•EPPC is the decision-making body for Conditional Use Permits.
Vicinity Map of Subject Area
Existing Site
Estes Park Zoning
Background & Present Situation
•The subject property is a 0.42 -acre lot in the Elk Hollow Subdivision
and addressed as 919 Elk Hollow Court.
•It is zoned E (Estate) and is legally conforming to use but is legally
nonconforming to dimensional standards .
•E (Estate) Zoning District requires a minimum lot size of 0.5-acres.
•The lot was platted in 1978, and the existing home was built in 1986.
•The Applicant purchased the property in 1998.
•Town Board approved a Code Amendment to EPDC in January 2022
to allow ADUs on most residential properties, which previously
prohibited them.
Proposal
The Applicant proposes to construct a 510-square foot
(34’x15’) detached ADU of modular construction to be
installed on a permanent foundation.
•Multi-generational use to house family, who can no longer afford
the Estes Valley area but work there.
•The proposed location 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.
•1 space provided for parking for the resident(s) of the ADU.
•The ADU is prohibited to be used as a short -term rental unit (stays
less than 30 days).
Proposed Site Plan
ADU Conceptual
Review Criteria
The subject property, zoned E (Estate), is 0.42-acres in size,
or 84% of the 0.50 acre minimum lot size required for the E
(Estate) Zoning District.
§5.2.B.2.a.(8)(b) of the EPDC requires a legally-
nonconforming lot to “pursue Accessory Dwelling Unit
approval by application for a conditional use permit”.
§3.16 of the Development Code contains procedures and
standards for approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Review Criteria §3.16.B.
All applications for a Conditional Use Permit shall
demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and
standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Regulations”, as
applicable, and the following requirement:
The application for the proposed Conditional Use Permits mitigates, to
the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby
land uses, public facilities and services and the environment.
Staff Comment:The CUP application for a proposed ADU follows the
additional requirements for specific accessory uses permitted in the
Residential zones as prescribed in §5.2.B.2.a. of the EPDC.
Review Agency Comments
This Conditional Use Permit application was referred out for
agency comments. No comments or concerns were received
regarding the CUP application.
Minor informational comments were received regarding the
proposed ADU, which will be addressed through the
subsequent building permit application review process.
Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages:
•Approval of the CUP would allow the Applicant to move forward with
constructing a detached ADU on her property for multi -generational
living.
Disadvantages:
•There are no known disadvantages to approving the CUP.
Public Noticing & Interest
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance
with EPDC noticing requirements.
•Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on May 27, 2026.
•Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on May 29, 2026.
•Proof of sign posting provided by the applicants on June 1, 2026.
•Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
Public interest in this CUP request is low.
•Neighborhood Meeting was held on April 22, 2026 (10 attendees).
•At the time of this writing, no public comment has been received.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the 919 Elk Hollow Ct CUP for
an ADU, subject to the following findings of fact:
1.The Planning Commission is the Decision -Making Authority for
the Conditional Use Permit.
2.Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve
the property.
3.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing
agency staff for consideration and comment, with no identified
outstanding issues.
4.The Conditional Use Permit application complies with applicable
standards set forth in the EPDC.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval of the
Conditional Use Permit:
1.The primary entrance of the proposed ADU shall be oriented
toward the existing single -family home, facing east.
2.The exterior colors and materials of the proposed ADU shall
generally match the existing single -family home as much as
feasible.
Sample Motions
1.I move to approve the Conditional Use Permit, according to findings by
Staff.
2.I move to approve the Conditional Use Permit, according to findings by
Staff with conditions [state conditions].
3.I move to continue the Conditional Use Permit to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing].
4.I move to deny the Conditional Use Permit, finding that … [state findings
for denial].