Estes Park board approves 440 Valley Road rezoning to accommodation use

The Estes Park Town Board voted Tuesday to approve Ordinance 11-26, rezoning 440 Valley Road from RM multifamily residential to A-1 accommodations low intensity. The change allows the property’s existing three-unit lodge to be treated as a resort lodge rather than three separate vacation homes, aligning the zoning with the way the lodging structure already operates. The owners returned with written approval from 74% of record property owners within 500 feet, satisfying the town’s Ballot 300 requirements after an earlier denial.

Trustee Frank Lancaster, presenting the staff report, said the property includes a detached single-family home and a small three-unit lodge used for accommodations. He said no future development is proposed and that, if the site were ever redeveloped, it would be limited to three total units under A-1 zoning. Lancaster also said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval both when it first considered the request in January and again after the resubmitted application came back this month.

Speaking for the applicants, Chris Eshelman said the family has operated the small lodge for 15 years with "no complaints, no noise complaints, no complaint of any type" and described the rezone as an effort to correct a long-running zoning mismatch. Another owner said the board’s January denial was based on Ballot 300 requirements and that the family then spent about three weeks gathering signatures from nearby property owners, collecting 23 of 31 possible approvals.

Mayor Gary Hall backed the request, calling it "a pretty non-controversial rezoning" and telling the applicants, "I think this board as a whole believes that this should be rezoned." Trustees also discussed whether the case could influence other lodging properties seeking rezoning to avoid workforce housing linkage fees. Trustee Bill Brown said other property owners could seek rezoning, but added that "getting around the linkage fee is not a justification for rezoning." Trustee Mark Igel said he did not see the case as setting a precedent because of the property’s specific history.

The staff report noted one letter of opposition raising concerns that the rezoning could shift the street’s character from residential to commercial, but no one spoke against the request at the hearing. During board discussion, trustees also confirmed that rezoning the property would not increase its allowable density; Lancaster said any future owner would still be limited to three units.

The ordinance, listed as Planning Commission Action Item Ordinance 11-26, approved the resubmitted application after the owners met the neighbor-signature requirement added under Ordinance 11-25.