In a long night filled with land use matters that began with a study session at 4:45 p.m. Tuesday and adjourned just before 1 a.m. on Wednesday, Estes Park grew by 40 acres.
Trustees voted during a marathon seven-hour Town Board meeting to annex land in unincorporated Larimer County on Deer Ridge for the proposed Elkhorn Lodge Phase II development.
Justin Mabey and Matt Lowder of East Avenue Development went home pleased that their requests to annex the land and zone it as A-Accommodation had been approved, although the two matters had to be considered separately.
The vote to annex the property was unanimous. Giving the property an A-Accommodations zoning designation, even with the restrictions outlined in the annexation agreement, however, was unacceptable to Trustees Frank Lancaster and Mark Igel.
“It’s just too intense for this property,” said Lancaster, who said he would have preferred seeing less density in the development concept. Igel agreed, saying, “It’s just too dense, even with the restrictions.”
According to the Town’s Development Code, there are two types of Accommodations Zoning Districts: A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District and A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity Zoning District.
A-Accommodations “applies primarily in highway-oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higher-intensity accommodations such as multi-story hotels and motels.”
A-1 Accommodations “provides for low-intensity and small-scale residential uses, low-intensity accommodations and very limited accessory uses located along highway and roadway corridors characterized by low-intensity residential and lodging uses, including resort lodges, cabins and condominium developments.”
In considering the zoning issue, the Trustees discussed whether Ballot Issue 300 applied since this was not a rezoning of land already within the Town of Estes, but rather the zoning of land being annexed from unincorporated Larimer County.
The motion to allow the A-Accommodations zoning passed 5-2.
Development of the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II has been a point of contention since it was first submitted for consideration a year ago, as evidenced by numerous emails and letters to Town Board members, and heated rhetoric on social media at community meetings.
Thirteen individuals signed up to speak at the public hearings on land-use issues. Each speaker was allowed two minutes to share their opinions. By the time the public hearing parts of the meeting ended, six speakers registered their opposition to annexation, while one encouraged the Trustees to vote to annex the property. The 10 who addressed zoning were evenly split, with five encouraging rejection and five encouraging adoption.
“I am for this project. I feel like the one to keep the history in this town, the history where it belongs at the Elkhorn, is East Avenue Development,” said Wini Spahnle, who has lived on Old Ranger Drive for 25 years.
“Nobody likes change. Nobody. The older you get, the worse you like it. And so I think sometimes we have to suck it up and look at this change as a good change. I am for them continuing this project and I cannot wait to see it continued and finished,” Spahnle said.
Bob Leavitt, who lives in Carriage Hills and served on the advisory committee for the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, said the participants in that process reached consensus to preserve the character of neighborhoods, and that low-density accommodations were one way to address these concerns. Levitt said the Elkhorn II property fit in the low-density accommodation category, but not in the higher category considered.
Other Land Use Issues: Rezoning
The Trustees nixed two other rezoning proposals because neither complied with the requirements outlined in Ballot Initiative 300. The requests to rezone both properties had been submitted before November’s citizen vote to restrict zoning changes, but Trustees determined they could not be considered when making their decisions.
The Estes Park Housing Authority submitted a request on behalf of the Town of Estes Park to rezone 179 Stanley Circle Drive from E-Estate to RM-Multi-Family Residential for a workforce apartment complex for town employees.
“There’s a lot of ambiguities there, but I can only take the voters’ wishes at face value,” said Trustee Frank Lancaster, referring to the language of Ballot Initiative 300.
“I’m not going to try and interpret what they thought they meant, or what they said. And face value is that it prohibits approval without prior approval. Personally, I don’t agree with 300. I didn’t vote for it. I think it creates unreasonable, onerous, and possibly impossible hurdles for property owners to express their own private property rights, but I will be going to deny the application solely on a failure to satisfy the requirements,” Lancaster said.
Also on the docket was a request to rezone 440 Valley Rd. from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low-Intensity). Owners Denice D. Borda, Brian Delaney, and Dana D. Burke had hoped to correct a multitude of errors dating back to the 1970s that had classified the property as a three-unit structure used for overnight lodging and had incorrectly classified it as residential during the last area-wide rezoning.
However, as with the Stanley Circle property, board members cited Ballot issue 300 as the reason for denying the request.
“As far as I’m concerned, our hands are strapped,” said Mayor Pro Tem Marie Cenac. “With 300, it says you need written acceptance from your neighbors, not just answering the phone. So in that case, I’m going to have to deny you because of Ballot 300, and I feel so bad, because if I were you, I’d be so frustrated,” Cenac said.
Land Use Issues: Development Code
During the study session before the Town Board meeting, the Trustees heard an update from Design Workshop spokesperson Eric Krohngold, who said the consulting firm is currently preparing a draft of the updated development code and plans to review their work with the planning commission in May and June.
Design Workshop plans to hold an open house for public feedback in June. In the meantime, individuals can obtain information about the project, and further details are available on the town’s website pages related to the development code update 2025-2026.
Trustees Bill Brown, Kirby Nelson-Hazelton, Marie Cenac, Cindy Younglund and Mayor Gary Hall voted for the intense zoning of that ridge-line parcel.
There will be no option to replace both Nelson-Hazelton and Brown in the April election – with only five candidates running, it means that at least one of them will automatically get “re-elected” by default. Ain’t public apathy grand!
I wish the two lame duck trustees had declined to vote, rather than leaving this vote as a permanent stain on their public service. But you’ll be remembered when we see that big glow on the ridge line in the future!
So sad. Many of the neighbors would have accepted A1 (low intensity cabins). This will destroy the neighborhood, impact the conservation easements near it, and go further towards making EP look like a ski town