HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board Study Session 2025-11-12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado November 12, 2025
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of November, 2025.
Board: Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, Trustees Brown,
Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster and Younglund
Attending: Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, Trustees Brown,
Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster and Younglund
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Attorney Kramer, Director
Careccia, Director Greear, and Recording Secretary Stoddard
Cameron
Absent: None
Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE: COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES. Eric
Khrongold, Senior Associate with Design Workshop, and Jessica Garrow, Principal with
Design Workshop, presented on the purpose, applicability, impact, and feedback
regarding commercial design guidelines. Community and staff feedback emphasized the
desire for design guidelines as eighty-two percent of respondents supported using design
guidelines to “maintain the character of the town”, and eighty-three percent supported
“reinforce the look and feel of downtown as a welcoming place for business and
pedestrians”. There was consensus from the community and staff that current height
standards of three (3) to four (4) stories should be maintained but some restrictions on
location, and that buildings should not ruin existing ridgelines or view sheds. It was noted
by Design Workshop that current commercial design guidelines are unrestrictive, leaving
building design and site aesthetics up to the property owner. The design guidelines were
presented in six (6) categories - mass and scale, materials and fenestration, street level
design, mechanical and service areas, lighting and signage, and parking. Each category
was broken down into subcategories to replicate code sections, which included
prescriptive and flexible code language examples. Pros to using prescriptive language
included providing clear standards for developers and staff. Although, it was noted that
certain sites in Estes Park are topographically challenged and require creative
workarounds to be developed, which prescriptive code language might inhibit. Pros to
flexible language included allowing more individuality and creativity in development, while
cons included the requirement for greater interpretation from staff, creating uncertainty.
Board direction was requested on the desired approach, extent, and applicability of
development activity within town limits, in preparation for the upcoming development code
update. Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: Expressed desire for
flexible code language regarding mass, scale, materials and fenestration, citing local
topography as necessitating flexibility; recognized that a flexible code allows for creativity,
prevents uniformity, and protects property rights; discussed the benefits to staff of
prescriptive code language, noting that standards would likely change over time leading
to inconsistency, and it would be difficult to guide staff through these decisions; requested
language supporting maintaining the eclectic nature of the town; noted the importance of
protecting view sheds on maintaining community character and tourism; request ed
prescriptive code language in regards to view sheds; objected to the development of
mass-produced standardized buildings typically used by corporations ; praised the
downtown corridor for its businesses hidden in alcoves, recesses and cavities; expressed
desire for durable weather-resistant materials be used for buildings, with no restrictions
on natural or unnatural materials, as well as improvement to accessibility for those with
disabilities, and walkability for pedestrians; requested code language surrounding
mechanical and service areas focus on function over aesthetics, particularly in regards to
vehicle accessibility, noting that some areas can look more industrial to divert
pedestrians; noted parking areas should be designed to minimize visual dominance and
prevent destruction from runoff and erosion, with consistency on finishes and prevention
of blind spots; and requested the code emphasize and complement the town’s wildlife
ordinance and dark sky standards.
DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTS. Director Greear provided an
overview of the Downtown Estes Loop Traffic Study results as produced by Lantz
Associates. The study consisted of an analysis of evaluated travel times, traffic volumes,
pedestrian activity, congestion levels, and vehicle emissions. Prior to the start of
construction of the Downtown Estes Loop in 2016 an environm ental and traffic
assessment was conducted by Lantz Associates, which established baseline conditions
for the study. Director Greear reported an increase in intersection volumes of one percent,
an increase of through volumes of seventeen percent, and an increase in pedestrian
volumes of forty percent. Travel times decreased by thirty-nine percent, while westbound
travel times decreased by three percent. Emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides
and volatile organic compounds decreased by thirty percent, thirty-one percent, and
twenty-nine percent respectively. Transit ridership on the Red Line increased from 13,317
in July of 2016 to 35,317 trips in July of 2025. It was noted that the Chapter of American
Public Works Association (APWA) named Stormwater Engineer Greg Muhonen 2025
Professional Manager of the Year and announced the Downtown Estes Park Loop
Couplet as the winner of the state’s “Transportation Project in a Small Community”
category. Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: Expressed concern
regarding the ease of movement of traffic west of the downtown corridor and potential
consequences for businesses seeing decreased pedestrian and vehicle traffic,
particularly on W Elkhorn Avenue; commended the project for addressing stormwater
drainage issues, assisting in environmental cleanup and flood mitigation, and replacing
outdated infrastructure using grant funding; inquired about a potential rise in wrong-way
driving incidents and citations; noted that a study over one year does not adequately
measure the success of the project, particularly in regards to the behavioral changes of
residents and effects on tourism and business; questioned whether further economic
analysis on the outcomes of this project would be feasible and determined that time and
capital would be best spent elsewhere; acknowledged that this project was highly
contentious to the community, of which about fifty percent of constituents disapproved;
and questioned the effects of Rocky Mountain National Park’s timed entry requirement
on traffic congestion and observed increased pedestrian activity.
Trustee Igel expressed disapproval of the project and questioned whether the outcomes
presented were indicative of project failure given the monetary input required for project
completion.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
None.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
It was requested and determined that Development Code Update – Engagement
Summary would be scheduled for January 27, 2026. The Commercial Loading Permit
Postseason Assessment has been unscheduled, but remains approved, and both the
Annexation Policy Discussion and the joint study session wit h the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District (EVFPD) on the Wildfire Resiliency Code were approved but
unscheduled.
There being no further business, Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 6:48 p.m.
/s/Sarah Stoddard Cameron, Recording Secretary