Estes Park trustees urge broader density incentives for workforce housing, stop short on height increases

Estes Park trustees signaled support Tuesday for expanding development-code incentives for workforce housing beyond multifamily zoning, with several saying the town should allow higher densities in more districts while avoiding taller buildings that could alter community character. The discussion was a study session, not a vote, and staff said it will return later with more detailed recommendations on housing definitions and density bonuses in Development Code Section 11.4.

Planner Jackie told the Town Board the current bonus structure is underused even though Estes Park has relied on density incentives for more than two decades. Since changes made in 2017, the program has helped produce about 188 workforce or attainable units, including Peak View, Prospector Apartments, Wildfire Neighborhood and Grand Estates, she said. But she said bonuses are now largely limited to RM multifamily zoning, where only two vacant lots remain, forcing many developers to seek rezonings before pursuing housing projects.

Staff also raised whether the town should better match incentives to affordability levels, expand eligibility into accommodation and selected commercial districts, and add tools such as parking reductions, setback changes or faster review. Jackie said Estes Park's current base density of eight units per acre, with a bonus that can reach about 16 units per acre, is generally lower than comparable mountain communities and may no longer be enough to make new multifamily housing financially viable.

Mayor Gary Hall said the town "very much" needs to broaden where bonuses are allowed, pointing to accommodation districts, some commercial districts and possibly higher base densities in those areas. Hall said private developers are more likely to build workforce housing than deeply income-restricted units, which he said will "largely be addressed by the housing authority." He cautioned against creating too many affordability tiers tied to different bonus levels, arguing that "increased density at different levels" would be too complicated.

Hall also suggested the town may need to revisit its definition of attainable ownership housing, saying the current cap of 150% of area median income may be too low for some local workers and could be worth increasing. During the discussion, staff displayed Larimer County AMI figures showing that 100% AMI for a one-person household is $91,300, and that a three-person household at 150% AMI would be about $172,000.

Trustees and staff were notably cautious about using building height as the main incentive. Staff and the housing authority's development team said reduced parking requirements could do more to improve feasibility than allowing taller buildings. Hall called height "the electrified third rail," saying four- or five-story buildings would be hard to support because they would change the character of Estes Park. Staff said that concern matches feedback already heard in the broader code-update process.

Other comments pushed for keeping the policy understandable to the public while still addressing households below 60% AMI. Trustees said the town should be able to explain AMI levels in plain numbers residents can recognize, not just percentages. Staff said lower-income projects often need significantly more support than the current code provides and that successful programs in other communities typically combine density with other incentives rather than relying on density bonuses alone.

By the end of the session, board members broadly agreed staff should come back with options to expand density bonuses into more zoning districts, examine higher base densities and explore added incentives short of height increases. Staff said it would also talk with private developers and the Estes Park Housing Authority before returning with more specific proposals.