HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2018-10-09The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
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.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated September 25, 2018.
3. Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 11, 2018 (acknowledgment only).
4. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated September 6, 2018 (acknowledgment only).
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. AMENDED PLAT, 920 DUNRAVEN ST., MARK NEWENDORP DBA AGA
DEVELOPMENT LLC/OWNER. Planner Becker.
Plat includes an easement for parking, in connection with microbrewery start-up
occupancy.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE #14-18 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO ADD "SIGHTSEEING/TOUR VEHICLE FACILITY" AS A SPECIAL
REVIEW USE IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS. Planner Woeber.
To allow “Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility” as an S2 Special Review use in the A,
CD, and CO Zone Districts and add definition of the same.
B. ORDINANCE #15-18 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO REQUIRE NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY MEETINGS PRIOR TO
APPLICATION. Planner Becker.
Adds requirement for applicant-facilitated public meeting prior to formal
application, for all projects that also require a subsequent public hearing.
Prepared 09-28-2018
*Revised 10-05-2018
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE #16-18 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
§9.08.090 PANHANDLING. Town Attorney White.
Removal of subsection (5) of §9.08.090 (b) of the Municipal Code which prohibits
panhandling on a public transportation vehicle.
2. ORDINANCE #17-18 IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE
APPLICATION AND REVIEW OF PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Town Attorney White.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. 2018 CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS. Public Information Officer Rusch.
ADJOURN.
*
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 25, 2018
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 25th day September, 2018.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Cody Rex Walker, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Carlie Bangs
Marie Cenac
Patrick Martchink
Ron Norris
Ken Zornes
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Cenac) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Steve Komito/Town citizen read a prepared statement addressing the comments made
by Major Jirsa on the need to conduct further modeling of the loop project and to address
the Park’s ongoing study to address traffic and overcrowding of the Park. He stated
concern with the Mayor’s and other Board member’s stated objection to the project which
has been in process for the past five years to address traffic congestion and accessibility
of the downtown corridor. He requested the Mayor and the other Trustees provide a clear
public statement as to why the current traffic improvement plan should be discarded.
Diana Van der Ploeg and Nancy Hills/Estes Park Citizens Against the Slide (EPCATS)
reviewed the timeline of the development plan submittal for the mountain coaster and the
preceding code amendments allowing the proposed plan. They requested a moratorium
on all commercial development until the code can be fixed to address the necessary
guardrails for this type of development in the future. It was requested that Mayor Pro
Tem Walker consider workforce housing on the property rather than a mountain coaster
and provide the needed housing.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen requested the Mayor announce clearly when public
comment would be closed and request if anyone else has a comment before closing
public comment in the future.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Zornes stated he would attend the Open Lands Advisory Board meeting. He
recognized the war veterans attending the meeting.
Trustee Norris commented the Platte River Power Authority annual report has been
released and provides details on their financial status and renewable energy. He
reminded the community to be bear aware. The Family Advisory Board would meet on
October 1, 2018. The Comprehensive Advisory Committee met and continues to review
the content for the new plan. Planning Commission met last week and discuss the need
to address code amendments for commercial uses in residential zones. DRAFT
Board of Trustees – September 25, 2018 – Page 2
Trustee Bangs stated the Transportation Advisory Board met and discussed the
upcoming public comment period beginning October 11, 2018 for pedestrian wayfinding
signage plan.
Trustee Cenac stated she and Trustee Zornes attended the trustee talk and had a good
discussion with those in attendance. The intent would be to have a talk each month. The
Rooftop Rodeo has once again been nominated as one of the top five medium sized
rodeos of the year.
Trustee Martchink stated he had a discussion with Administrator Lancaster to determine
the Board’s ability to place a moratorium on commercial development in residential zones.
Discussion ensued with Attorney White stating a moratorium can be approved by the
Board; however, it would have to be approved by both elected boards with a specific
purpose and limited time. The Board consensus was to bring the consideration of a
moratorium forward for discussion at the next meeting.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Policy Governance 3.8 Compensation and Benefits Report – Administrator Lancaster
reported full compliance with the exception the Town continues to not offer spousal health
insurance.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated September 11, 2018.
3. Audit Committee Meeting Minutes dated August 23, 2018.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 21, 2018
(acknowledgment only).
5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated August 15, 2018
(acknowledgment only).
6. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated August 16, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
7. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Reports.
8. Family Advisory Board Appointment of Carrie Brown and Michael Moon for
terms expiring April 30, 2021.
9. Upper Thompson Sanitation District Easement Agreements.
10. 2018 Estes Park Museum Remodel Contract Award to Saunders/Heath
Construction, $179,865 - Budgeted.
It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Bangs) to approve the Consent Agenda,
and it passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. 2017 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). Finance Director
Hudson stated the CAFR was completed by Anton Collins Mitchell LLP. Tyra
Litzau/Anton Collins Mitchell LLP presented an overview of the annual financial
reporting process. The auditing firm conducted an independent audit of the Town of
Estes Park’s financial statements as of December 31, 2017 and have expressed an
unmodified opinion (clean) the financial statements presented fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of the funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park in
conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). One material
weakness was identified related to a duplicate accrual of an accounts payable invoice.
Staff has added a special task to the year-end processes to address this issue moving
forward. Two additional comments were included in the management letter, one
relating to certified payrolls from subcontractors on the Parking Garage and another
relating to an accrual entry missed in the prior year. A single audit was also completed
with the auditors expressing an unmodified opinion. The auditors completed a Beyond
the Numbers report which compareed the Town’s financial situation among three peer DRAFT
Board of Trustees – September 25, 2018 – Page 3
communities, including Steamboat Springs, Glenwood Springs and Telluride. It was
moved and seconded (Norris/Cenac) to accept the audit report and
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ending December 31, 2017,
and it passed unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION #20-18 SUPPORTING THE LARIMER COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH INITIATIVE. Dave Coffman/Issue Committee Representative
presented a review of the ballot issue to address gaps in mental health services
through the construction of a new 60,000 sq. ft. building at a cost of $30 million
and provide an additional $15 million needed in annual funding to provide
services to the community. The tax would impose a 0.25% county-wide sales and
use the tax to provide mental health care services for residents which would
sunset in 25 years. The item has been approved by the Larimer County
Commissioners for the upcoming November General Election ballot.
Kent Smith/Town citizen stated he would support the tax initiative and thanked
the Mayor for supporting and championing the cause.
It was moved and seconded (Jirsa/Cenac) to approve Resolution #20-18
Supporting the Larimer County Mental Health Initiative on the General
Election Ballot, and it passed unanimously.
3. APPOINTMENTS TO THE LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BOARD AND
DISCUSSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
LARIMER COUNTY. Attorney White stated at a recent study session the Board and
Larimer County Commissioner Johnson discussed the two Town vacancies and the
desire of the Commissioners to have the vacancies filled by Town Board Trustees. He
stated the State Statutes do not prohibit elected officials from serving as a Local
Marketing District Board member. The appointments would provide governance
oversight and allow the Town and County Commissioners to review and, if appropriate,
approve the 2019 Operating Plan for the District. The two elected bodies would
consider possible amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement regarding the
appropriate number of elected officials that may or should serve as Local Marketing
District Board members.
Ann Wilcocks/Estes Valley Partners of Commerce (EVPC) Board secretary read
a prepared statement from the combined membership of the Estes Area Lodging
Association (EALA) and EVPC stating support for the Local Marketing District and
the organization’s Operating Plan.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Walker/Bangs) to appoint
Mayor Jirsa with a term expiring December 31, 2019 and Trustee Cenac with
a term expiring December 31, 2020 to the Local Marketing District Board,
and it passed unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION #21-18 OPPOSING AMENDMENT 74. Town Administrator
Lancaster reviewed Amendment 74 which proposes to amend the Colorado
Constitution to drastically limit state and local government services at a high
cost to taxpayers. The Amendment requires just compensation if private
property’s fair market value has been reduced by governmental law or regulations.
This would undermine the ability of state and local governments to effectively
represent constituents and protect their interests in vital areas such as clean water
and air, zoning enforcement and infrastructure improvements. The Amendment
would expose local governments and taxpayers with unprecedented levels of legal
exposure and result in taxpayer dollars going toward lawsuits, which could lead to
higher taxes and/or a reduction in government services. A similar law was passed
in Oregon and after several years and millions of dollars the electorate voted to
rescind the Amendment. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Zornes) to
approve Resolution #21-18 Opposing Amendment 74, and it passed
unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: DRAFT
Board of Trustees – September 25, 2018 – Page 4
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. APPEAL WIND RIVER APARTMENT HOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2018-03,
1041 S ST. VRAIN AVENUE, WIND RIVER HOLDINGS, LLC/OWNER. Mayor
Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner Woeber stated the applicant has
appealed the denial of the Development Plan by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission at the August 21, 2018 meeting. The Planning Commission did not
provide findings for the denial motion. He provided a brief overview of the project
to build 94 workforce/attainable housing units with a maximum height of 38 feet on
5.77 acres on a lot zoned RM – Residential Multi-Family. The applicant has
requested a waiver to allowed minimum centerline radius of 37 feet, in lieu of the
required minimum 50 feet. Attorney White has reviewed and approved the
Restrictive Covenant and Agreement for the Wind River project for workforce
housing, a requirement for the density bonus provisions in the Development Code.
Board discussion was heard and summarized: the applicant has worked with
CDOT to provide a lighted pedestrian crossing and was denied; applicant has
suggested the addition of a bus turnout; an additional discussion has begun with
CDOT to extend the sidewalk on the west side of the roadway to connect to the
pedestrian crossing at Graves Avenue; discussion on how the density calculation
was determined; whether the Fire District agreed with the radius waiver; and if the
proposed driveway should be considered a private street and if so be deducted
from the density calculation.
Peter Pewterbaugh/Appellant and developer reviewed the development plan
considered by the Planning Commission during the months of July and August.
The plan was amended to address concerns raised by the neighbors at the first
meeting in July, including adding a full eight foot curbed and guttered sidewalk
along the length of the property, a new bus stop on Highway 7, a pedestrian study,
additional parking analysis, relocation of speed limit sign to the southern end of the
property, change to building foundations to reduce view impact, and grading and
drainage improvements.
Chris Payne/Ballard Spahr a land use attorney reviewed the motions by the
Planning Commission which did not include findings and noted it was done so
intentional. He stated the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The development
plan proposed a multi-family apartment complex, a use by right in the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) without the need for a rezoning. The project was
recommended for approval by staff as it met the code requirements and adequate
public services. The plan proposes workforce housing through and a Restrictive
Covenant, thereby allowing the full density bonus per code with a height bonus for
the RM – Residential Zoning district. The covenant would secure the property as
workforce housing for 50 years.
Steve Lane/Basis Architecture reviewed the site plan and layout of the buildings,
view corridors, step down of the buildings, use of earth tones and varying materials
to provide an attractive project. The floor plans include one-, two- and three-
bedroom units designed as market rate units with high end finishes. He stated the
adjacent multi-developments at Eagles Landing and Eagle View have a higher
density with 20 per acre and 18 per acre respectively. An additional parking study
was completed by Delich Associates to confirm the number of parking spaces
proposed for the development compared to other developments in Estes Park and
with other parking requirements of nearby communities.
Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering reviewed the adequate public facilities for
the proposed development for electric, water, fire, sewer, transportation, drainage
and fire protection. He stated the EVDC does not contain a requirement for a
pedestrian crossing. Possible improvements could be considered, including
repainting the crossing, additional signage or crossing guards during school hours.
The additional traffic study confirmed a turn lane would not be required and CDOT
agreed. Drainage would include a detention pond on-site to mitigate the DRAFT
Board of Trustees – September 25, 2018 – Page 5
impervious coverage and to mitigate water quality. To address drainage issues at
the intersection, CDOT would place an underground pipe to direct water flow
across the highway to a historic flow location.
Those speaking in opposition to the appeal included Adam Bensman/Town citizen,
Kristin Hill/Town citizen, Ray Leaycraft/Town citizen, Marcia Weaver/Town citizen,
Karen Mossier Nicholson/Town citizen, Pat Newsom/Town citizen, Brookie
Gallagher/Town citizen, and Johanna Darden/Town citizen. Those in opposition
stated support for workforce housing; however, the proposed development has
been over built, too dense, negative impact to pedestrian movement, the parking
study does not consider the unique factors master leases would have on traffic;
the development does not strike a balance to meet the needs of all impacted;
concerned the driveway would be used to access the proposed daycare center
and should be considered a roadway; the plan does not meet the EVDC; non-
compliant congested parking lots with no area for kids to play and limited green
space; the development would be dormitory housing for seasonal/temporary
employees and not families; maximum density should be granted based on site
conditions and surrounding uses and does not have to be granted; concerned with
the crossing at Highway 7; and no buffering has been provided from the
surrounding E – Estate zoned properties and there should be a transition buffer.
Those speaking in favor of the appeal included Rita Kurelja/former Eses Park
Housing Authority Executive Director, Naomi Hawf/Estes Park Housing Authority
Executive Director, Aaron Florence/Town citizen, James Poppitz/Town citizen,
Randy Brieham/County citizen, Larry Leaming/Estes Park Health CEO, David
Batey/County citizen, Diane Muno/Town citizen, Ron Wilcocks/County citizen and
business owner, Jon Nicholas/EDC Executive Director, Charley Dickey/Town
citizen and business owner, and Greg Rosenor/Town citizen. The project would
provide needed workforce housing; help local businesses retain employees; begin
to address the 400 on the Estes Park Housing Authority waiting list; begin to
address the high turnover the hospital experiences with staff such as nurses and
surgical technicians; the lack of housing compounds the issue of finding qualified
applicants; there are a number of businesses that would be interested in master
leases to house employees and their families; Estes Park Health has been
negatively impacted by the lack of housing, and therefore, impacts the cost of
healthcare in the community; without housing the town cannot maintain a working
class; the location of the proposed housing development is near the schools,
hospital, downtown and trails; high density developments have a lower impact on
a neighborhood than single family homes and are better for the environment; high
density development has not shown to negatively impact the land value of adjacent
properties; the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce support the development; and
the development plan meets all requirements of the EVDC and should be
approved.
Alice Reuman/League of Women Voters President read a prepared statement
supporting workforce housing for those that work in the Estes valley, including
teachers, police officers, doctors, nurses, etc. The League encouraged the Board
to build on the current policies to support workforce housing.
It was moved (Norris/Walker) to extend the Town Board meeting to complete
the agenda, and it passed unanimously.
Peter Peterbaugh/Appellant stated the intent of the development would not be to
have only master leases and to provide dormitory housing for J-1 students or
seasonal housing.
Board comments were heard and have been summarized: Trustee Martchink
questioned the section of the Restrictive Covenant requiring the Town to review
and extend the lease of an individual that no longer qualifies for workforce housing;
Trustee Cenac stated concern with the double density, however, the development
meets the code; Trustee Bangs stated the proposed project would address the
housing needs in the community. She stated concern with the pedestrian crossing DRAFT
Board of Trustees – September 25, 2018 – Page 6
and requested the Town work with CDOT to address the issue; Trustee Norris
commented a balance should be found in the community when addressing the
housing issue and should also address the safety concerns; Trustee Zornes stated
he has been assured by staff the development meets the EVDC; and Mayor Jirsa
stated disappointment in the Planning Commission with their arbitrary and
capricious decision and their denial of the development plan with no findings.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Walker/Martchink) to approve Development Plan 2018-03, 1041 S. St. Vrain
Avenue with the associated waivers: 1) reduced centerline radius; and 2)
appeal from the Planning Commission’s denial of the same on August 21,
2018, finding the Development Plan meets the Estes Valley Development
Code requirements for approval per EVCD Chapter 3, and it passed
unanimously.
Mayor Jirsa called a recess at 10:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:38 p.m.
B. SPECIAL REVIEW, WIND RIVER APARTMENTS DAYCARE FACILITY, 1041 S.
ST. VRAIN AVENUE, WIND RIVER PROPERTIES, LLC/OWNER. Mayor Jirsa
opened the public hearing. Planner Woeber stated the Special Review would allow
the development of a daycare facility within the Wind River development. The
facilty would serve the residents and would have additional capacity for children in
the community. The current building would be remodeled and expanded to include
a leasing office and a fenced playground.
Kent Smith/Town citizen stated the daycare would address the needs of those
within the development and provide additional childcare much needed within the
community.
Greg Rosenor/Town citizen thanked the developer and his team for adding this
needed facility to the development which demonstrates his commitment to the
community.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded
(Zornes/Bangs) to approve the Special Review, Wind River Apartments
Daycare Facility, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, with the findings and conditions
included in the staff report, and it passed unanimously.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION.
It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Martchink) to enter Executive Session for the
discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have
requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town
Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board
(or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal
to particular employees under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(f), and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting to executive session at 10:55 p.m.
The Board reconvened at 11:15 p.m. were the Mayor adjourned the meeting.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 11, 2018 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Rex Poggenpohl, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Wayne Newsom, Pete
Smith, John Lynch
Attending: Members Newsom, Poggenpohl, Smith, Moreau, Lynch
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner II Brittany
Hathaway, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: None
Chair Poggenpohl called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were three people in
attendance. He introduced the Board Members and staff.
1. AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approved the agenda as presented
and the motion passed unanimously.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated August 7, 2018
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the minutes for August 7,
2018 as presented and the motion passed 4-0 with Lynch abstaining.
4. 1077 FALL RIVER COURT, Owner: Mike and Brenda Lauer
Planner Hathaway reviewed the variance request stating that it was to grant an alternative
front setback of 10.5 in lieu of the established 25-foot minimum front setback required by
the E-1 Estate Zoning District to build a covered front entry feature. The home is located
immediately east of the 25’ front setback and the current building and driveway location
does not allow for a covered front entry structure outside the building setback area. Staff
recommended approval of the variance request.
Staff and Board Member Discussion:
Chair Poggenpohl noted that for quarter acre and half acre lots setbacks are 15 feet. He
questioned why this lot, being in E-1, but not one acre, a 15 foot setback wouldn’t work,
instead of the proposed 10.5 foot setback. There was a brief discussion among the board
members regarding this.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
September 11, 2018
Applicant Comments:
David Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, noted that the home has issues with
water drainage and this project and the requested setback alleviates some of those
issues.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the requested variance
allowing a setback of 10.5 feet on the front, east side of the property in lieu of the
25 foot required setbacks. The motion passed 4-1 with Poggenpohl voting against.
5. REPORTS-Director Hunt
1. The Board was reminded to use their estes.org email for public business.
2. Mountain Coaster appeal has been filed for Board of County Commissioners, Board of
Adjustment and Planning Commission, in that order. A special meeting will be
conducted by this board on the ruling of a staff decision as opposed to a Planning
Commission decision. This now becomes ex parte. A date for that meeting will be
decided upon according to availability of board members. Four members are required
to be present for an appeal hearing.
3. Director Hunt will be out of the office the month of November due to medical condition.
4. The Comprehensive Plan rewrite committee has met three times and the RFP should
be done by the end of 2018. This board has some input with content, scope and
outreach of the plan. Wednesday, September 19 at 10:00 a.m. is a larger, open to the
public meeting at the Community Center.
5. Member Moreau brought up the process of enforcing the lighting variance given to the
parking garage on the upper level, stating the lights do not get turned off at midnight
as was originally agreed to. Code Compliance Officer Hardin will look into this and get
an answer.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:41 a.m.
___________________________________
Rex Poggenpohl, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 6, 2018
Minutes of a special meeting of the Family Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Room 203 of the Estes Park Town Hall on
the 6th day of September, 2018.
Present: Laurie Dale Marshall
John Bryant
Karen Randinitis
Nancy Almond
Jodi Roman
Courtney Hill
Also
Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Suzanna Simpson, Administration Executive Assistant
Absent: Rachel Balduzzi
Tyler Schmitt
Ron Norris, Town Board Liaison
Guests: Charley Dickey
Mike Moon
Carrie Brown
Chair Randinitis called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m.
WIND RIVER CHILDCARE FACILITY:
Mr. Pewterbaugh was unable to attend the meeting. If the Wind River project moves
forward he has indicated a willingness to reschedule a presentation on both the housing
and childcare aspects of the project.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None
TRUSTEE LIAISON REPORT:
N/A
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Family Advisory Board – September 6, 2018 – Page 2
It was moved and seconded (Almond/Roman) to approve the July 26 special meeting
and August 2 regular meeting minutes and the motion passed unanimously.
REVIEW AND DISCUSS NEEDS ASSESSMENT, ETC:
Discussion occurred around the potential need for a follow up needs assessment, who
would facilitate the assessment, and whether or not more data collection would be well
received by the community. Member Almond added that BBC, the company that
produced the first childcare needs assessment did not feel that enough time had
passed, or enough change had occurred to warrant a follow up from them. She also
added that EVICS is hiring a new employee who will monitor data on waitlists and
overall need in the community, at which point EVICS could conduct a simple survey
related to that information. Member Hill cautioned against saturating the community with
surveys.
Member Almond also provided an update on the CCAP program from the State and
Larimer County. It is anticipated that the current waitlist will remain in place for two to
three years. The waitlist currently has around 200 children on it, which is down from 300
in November, 2017. EVICS has gone over budget on scholarships as of August, 2018
and they require recipients to be on the waitlist.
Chair Randinitis mentioned the centralized waitlist and inquired as to whether EVICS
will be able to monitor that and collect data perhaps by creating an intake form. After
discussion on the details and logistics of this form and the type of data it would contain,
it was decided that EVICS and the ECE groups would work together to facilitate this, as
it is not an appropriate task for the FAB.
STUDY SESSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Chair Randinitis and Vice-Chair Marshall presented the 5 agreed upon
recommendations to the Town Board at a recent study session. As a result, Trustee
Bangs, Trustee Norris, and ATA Machalek have been tasked with developing a
recommendation for the formation of a childcare and housing ad-hoc task force.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek explained that the task force would likely focus
on and refine the Town’s involvement in childcare and housing, and make
recommendations to the Town Board. The FAB recommendations would serve as a
foundation on the childcare side. The effort will try to determine if there is a nexus
between childcare and housing, and if it is more appropriate to approach the two issues
with a joint effort or separately. Member Almond proposed making an alteration to one
Family Advisory Board – September 6, 2018 – Page 3
of the recommendations addressing the need for a community investment fund. After
working with the ECE it has been determined that it should more accurately reflect this
group’s efforts to take charge of the investment fund, while asking the Town to
contribute to the fund and encourage other entities to do the same.
It was moved and seconded (Hill/Roman) to change the recommendation to “the Town
shall contribute to a fund for the startup costs of a quality childcare center with a two-
year target of $1 million” to replace the language requesting the Town to establish a
fund, and the motion passed unanimously.
CHILDCARE COLLABORATIVE:
An update was provided on the efforts of EVICS and the ECE and their meetings to
produce a collaborative effort around childcare efforts in the Estes Valley.
SALES TAX:
In a recent meeting with Mayor Jirsa, Chair Randinitis, and Vice-Chair Marshall, Mayor
Jirsa recommended that the FAB explore the idea of using excess sales tax revenue for
childcare funding. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek explained the process of how
this type of revenue stream works and the advantages and disadvantages of this type of
model. He will send the Town’s confirmed 2019 budget priorities to the FAB to
determine if they want to ask for a diversion in funds.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Member Almond inquired about the FAB’s role in advocacy and brought forward two
amendments that she feels are appropriate for the FAB to support. Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek stated that the group can recommend that the Town Board
support initiatives that relate to the purpose of the FAB. Member Bryant expressed
concern that this would be a slippery slope for the group without more discussion on
what role they want to take as a board on advocacy, as there are many initiatives that
could relate to their purpose.
Seeing no further business the meeting was adjourned at 5:24 p.m.
Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Family Advisory Board will take place Thursday, Oct. 4 at 3:30
p.m. in Room 203 at Town Hall.
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker, Planner I
Date: October 9, 2018
RE: Amended Plat, 920 Dunraven St., Mark Newendorp dba AGA Development LLC
/Owner
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing and make a decision on an Amended Plat request, to dedicate a 20-
foot access/parking easement and 15-foot public access easement for two town streets,
Comanche St. and Dunraven St.
Location
Lots 12 and 13, Quasebarth Resub, Town of Estes Park, located west of State Highway 7
between Dunraven St. and Comanche St.
Present Situation:
The property is described as Lot 12 and Lot 13 of Quasebarth Resub with a total area of .27
acres. The property is zoned CO, with a Lot Consolidation tentatively approved by Town Staff in
August of this year. The Lot Consolidation is to be recorded with the final approval of this
Amended Plat.
Proposal:
This Amended Plat Lot Consolidation has been approved tentatively with staff approval, with
proposed Lot 12 and Lot 13 being combined.
Typically, a simple Amended Plat would be a staff-level review process. However, the Town
Department of Public Works requested the applicant dedicate a 20-foot and 15-foot public
access/parking easement. The 20-foot easement is located along Dunraven St. and the 15-foot
easement is located along the south portion of the property on Comanche St. This dedication
requires Town Board review and approval.
Advantages:
Town is provided an additional parking access easement
Disadvantages:
Increased traffic
REVIEW PROCESS:
This amendment to existing lots within a recorded subdivision is considered, per the Estes
Valley Development Code, Section 3.7, a “Staff Minor Modification to Approved Final Plans.”
Memo
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
This particular proposal involves dedication of public easements which requires review and
approval on a plat by the governing body (Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees).
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees approve the Amended Plat,
dedicating the easements as proposed.
Budget:
None
Level of Public Interest
Low
Sample Motions:
1. I move to approve the Amended Plat to dedicate public access easements for Dunraven
St. and Comanche St. as proposed.
2. I move to deny the Amended Plat to dedicate public access easements for Dunraven St.
and Comanche St. as proposed. [State findings for denial].
3. I move to continue the application for an Amended Plat to dedicate public access
easement for Dunraven St. and Comanche St. as proposed to a date certain. [State
reasons for continuance].
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Amended Plat of 920 Dunraven Street
240
251
260
421415411 381
321
351
920
910881
860
911
361970960950
870
860
881
S
S
AIN
T
V
R
AIN
A
V
E
3RD STDUNRAVEN ST
COM AN CH E ST
UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 3UNIT 5
UNIT 12
UNIT 11
UNIT 10
UNIT 9
UNIT 8
UNIT 4
UNIT 7
UNIT 6
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 20 40Feet
1 in = 41 ft±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity D evel opment 920 Dunraven St .
Printed: 10/5/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway
Subject Property
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: October 9, 2018
RE: Ordinance No. 14-18: Amending the Estes Valley Development Code to Add
“Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility” as a Special Review Use in Certain Zoning
Districts
Objective:
Review and approve proposed a text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC), to add “Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility” as an S2 Special Review use in the A,
Accommodations, the CD, Downtown Commercial, and the CO, Outlying Commercial Zoning
Districts, and also add a definition of the same.
Present Situation:
The applicant who initiated this Code Amendment began discussions with Community
Development staff approximately a year ago, after acquiring an established “trolley” operation,
which provides tours, wedding charters, and the like to Estes Valley visitors. The applicant’s
use has been established for approximately one year in an A, Accommodations zoned property.
Their leased site is part of a larger parcel which has an existing motel use, the Coyote Mountain
Lodge at 1340 Big Thompson Avenue.
The applicant’s use has been allowed in this location through approval of two Temporary Use
Permits (TUP), each for a six month period. The current TUP expires on November 1, 2018.
There is no provision to extend the use beyond that, other than the Code Amendment and
Special Review process, as proposed.
The reason for staff proposing to add this use to the EVDC is that there is no use currently listed
in the EVDC which clearly allows for it. Although various sightseeing, tour, and wedding charter
uses such as the applicant’s have long existed in the Estes area, these have been established
by past Department staff under Code interpretations that were at times perhaps somewhat
irregular. Staff determined that the use needs to be clearly defined. “Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle
Facility” is, in staff’s judgement, an appropriate use in the A, CO and CD Zoning Districts as an
S2 Special Review. An S2 Special Review is reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission, who then makes a recommendation to the governing body, which would be the
Town Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners, as applicable.
It is fairly standard practice for an Accommodations use to have buses or large passenger vans
for guests of a hotel, lodge, resort or similar. These are often used for excursions, tours, and
airport shuttles. If under the same ownership of a given Accommodation use, and clearly
incidental and customarily found in connection to that use, those buses, passenger vans, or
similar vehicles may be considered an accessory use to the principal use. In the applicant’s
case, although the vehicles are used partially for motel guests, they are also a separate, distinct
business and not under the same ownership as the motel.
There are other companies currently offering sightseeing tours in the Estes Valley area, offering
“jeep tours” and the like. In a business license review several years ago, previous planning staff
determined a vehicle jeep tour use was allowable by right in the CD Zoning District. Staff notes
that as on-site storage of the vehicles was not a use allowed on the CD Zoned site, where the
vehicles were stored is unknown. Staff has determined the use would be more appropriate in
the CD and the CO, Commercial Zoning Districts as an S2 Special Review Use, which is being
proposed.
Although this amendment was triggered by the use not being identified in the EVDC, or being
allowable on the applicant’s A, Accommodations property, it should be emphasized that a Code
Amendment to add this use may be applicable to any A, CD, or CO property, with Special
Review approval. It could be used by, and useful to, other similar vehicle operators than just the
property in question. This type of use is not unusual in the Estes Valley, and this amendment
would likely be of utility in other locations.
Regarding the proposal to add “Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility,” staff notes “vehicles” in this
context is a broad term that would include, per the proposed definition, “…any motor propelled
passenger vehicle, which has six or more seats, used in the conveyance, for hire, of tourists and
sightseers...”
Proposal:
This Code Amendment would add the use to the EVDC as an S2 level Special Review in the
CD, Downtown Commercial, and the CO, Outlying Commercial Zoning Districts, and also add a
definition of the same. The attached Exhibit A [Red], has the changes to the Nonresidential Use
Table (Table 4 – 4), and the definition of the use that would be added to Chapter 13, Definitions.
Advantages:
Generally complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
Adds options for the establishing and allowing a beneficial and longtime use in the Estes
Valley.
Disadvantages:
Adds slightly to Code length and complexity.
Action Recommended:
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment as draft in Exhibit A [Red].
The Estes Valley Planning Commission, at their August 21, 2018 meeting, forwarded a
recommendation of approval of the Code Amendment, by a vote of 4 – 2.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Estes Valley Development Code
amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 14-18, including findings as identified in the Ordinance.
I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny the Estes Valley Development Code amendment
as stated in Ordinance No. 14-18, finding that… [state findings for denial]
I move that the Town Board of Trustees continue the Estes Valley Development Code
amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 14-18 to [date certain], in order that… [state direction to
staff pursuant to continuance]
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 14-18: Amending the Estes Valley Development Code, adding
“Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility” as an S2 Special Review use in the A,
Accommodations, the CD, Downtown Commercial, and the CO, Outlying Commercial
Zoning Districts, and adding a definition of the same.
2. Exhibit A [Red]
Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, B. Table 4-4:
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Chapter 13. Definitions, Section 13.2 Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and
Examples
ORDINANCE NO. 14-18
AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD
“SIGHTSEEING/TOUR VEHICLE FACILITY” AS A SPECIAL REVIEW USE IN
CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS AND ADDING A DEFINITION
OF THE SAME
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code, ADDING “SIGHTSEEING/TOUR VEHICLE FACILITY” AS A
SPECIAL REVIEW USE IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ADDING A
DEFINITION OF THE SAME, and found that the text amendment complies with Estes
Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that
the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A [Red],
be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth
on Exhibit A [Red], attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit A [Red].
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 Estes Park,
Colorado, this day of _______, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the ____ day of _______________, 2018 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _____ day
of ____________, 2018, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
EXHIBIT A [Red] Estes Valley Development Code Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Chapter 13. Definitions, Section 13.2 Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples (Proposed, Excerpt) B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Additional Regulations Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility S2 __ S2 S2 __ __ __ COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES EXHIBIT RED
Page 1
Chapter 13. Definitions, Section 13.2 Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples
44.3 Sightseeing/Tour Vehicle Facility means a facility for the location of any motor-propelled
passenger-carrying vehicle, which has six or more seats, used in the conveyance, for hire, of
tourists and sightseers, for the purpose of a sightseeing trip or tour in the visiting and viewing of
places of interest. The facility may or may not involve on site ticket sales and customer parking and
may or may not involve on site storage of the sightseeing/tour vehicles.
EXHIBIT RED
Page 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker, Planner I
Date: October 9th, 2018
RE: Ordinance #15-18: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to
Require Neighborhood / Community Meetings Prior to Application
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Review and Recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) regarding required Neighborhood and Community
meetings prior to application.
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the
following:
Provide an opportunity for a current unsatisfied need in the Estes Valley for a
voice for the local community to become aware of what projects are being
proposed in their neighborhood or the community in general and have input in
the process with Developers and Consultants.
Provide a clear interpretation of how and where development applications and
other board approved projects are occurring.
Update our plan to accommodate local neighborhood and community members
so they are aware of local impacts while creating open communication between
the Town and Community.
Present Situation:
Currently Development Review and projects that go to a governing body for approval
are required to provide two weeks legal notice and notification to surrounding neighbors.
It is common planning practice around the United States to provide a venue for a
neighborhood and or community engagement meeting between the developer/applicant
and the neighborhood.
It is unknown why our Development code has no such method for easy communication.
It is our time to adapt to meet the changing development patterns and accommodate
neighborhoods.
Proposal:
A neighborhood and community meeting code amendment would allow homeowners to
become informed and involved in the Estes Valley Development Review Process, more
so than they have in the past. This is incredibly important because the more involved on
the front end the community becomes the more invested and supportive they will be in
the process and development. In the past few years as larger and more complex
development proposals have come forward many community members have only been
able to comment publicly after projects have gone through most or all of the review
phase. This has caused confusion and concern about what is actually proposed to
being built and further complicates the relationship between the owner/developer and
the neighborhood and community.
By allowing a space for discussion for all those impacted and involved in the beginning
of the process all voices can be heard and considered.
It is staff’s recommendation that including this neighborhood and community meeting
code amendment in the EVDC would meet a growing need for both current and future
homeowners and all those wishing to develop in the Estes Valley.
Amend EVDC section §3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure B.
Neighborhood and Community Meeting, §3.2. F Summary Table, Standard
Development Review Process by Application Type, Chapter 13 Definitions, and
Appendix B Submittal Requirements, as stated in Exhibit A [“Green”], dated October 9,
2018, attached.
Advantages:
Provides a space for the open flow of communication and information between
developers/applicants and neighborhood and community members.
Provides a larger venue for public involvement and engagement.
Less confusion among citizens on what is permitted and not in local
neighborhoods.
Disadvantages:
Applicant/consultant might have more financial impact in regards to development
costs.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review for a decision to approve, deny, or
approve with conditions.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
High: Previous and current ongoing projects are involving more and more public
engagement and community communication.
Low: This particular Code Amendment.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance No. 15-18, amending the
Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit A [Green], finding that the
amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the
Development Code.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance #15-18: AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
REQUIRE NEIGHBORHOOD / COMMUNITY MEETINGS PRIOR TO APPLICATION
2. Exhibit A [Green]- (October 9th 2018)
ORDINANCE NO. 15-18
AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REQUIRE
NEIGHBORHOOD / COMMUNITY MEETINGS PRIOR TO APPLICATION
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted public hearings on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Sections §3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure B.
Neighborhood and Community Meeting, §3.2. F. Summary Table, Standard Development
Review Process by Application Type, Chapter 13 Definitions, and Appendix B Submittal
Requirements, and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3. D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that
the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A [Green],
be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth
on Exhibit A [Green], attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit A [Green].
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 Estes Park,
Colorado, this day of _______, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting
of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2018 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the _____ day of , 2018, all as required by the Statutes of the
State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
Exhibit A [Green] October 9, 2018
Chapter 3. Review Procedures and Standards
§3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure
………………………………………………………3-3
A. Step 1: Pre-Application
Conference…………………………………………………………………………………………
3-3
B. Step 2: Neighborhood & Community
Meeting…………………………………………………………………………3-4
C. Step 3: Staff Review and
Report………………………………………………………………………………………………
3-4
D. Step 4: Estes Valley Planning Commission Action of
Recommendation……………………………………3-4
E. Step 5: Board Review and
Action…………………………………………………………………………………………….3-
5
F. Summary Table-Standard Development Review Process by Application
Type…………………………3-5
G. Flow Chart of Standard Development Approval Procedure
…………………………………………………….3-6
§ 3.2 - Standard Development Review Procedure
All development applications are subject to the following five-step "standard" review procedure,
unless variations or exceptions to the standard procedure are expressly provided for in the
particular development application requirements set forth in this Chapter.
Standard Development Review Process
Step 1 Pre-Application Conference
Step 2 Neighborhood and Community Meeting
Step 3 Application/Completeness Certification
Step 4 Staff Review and Report
Step 5 Estes Valley Planning Commission Action or Recommendation
Step 6 Board of Trustees/Board of County Commissioners Review and Action
A. Step 1: Pre-Application Conference.
1. Purpose. The purposes of the pre-application conference are to provide an opportunity
for the Applicant and the Staff to discuss the review process schedule and submittal
requirements, the scope of the project and compliance with this Code.
2. Applicability. A pre-application conference is mandatory for the following applications:
a. Special review uses;
b. Development plans;
c. Rezoning applications;
d. Preliminary subdivision plat;
e. Preliminary PUD plans;
f. Variances;
g. Minor subdivisions; and
h. Annexations.
Staff may waive the pre-application conference on the ground that the proposed
development is not complex and will not have any significant impacts on services,
roads, natural resources or adjacent property.
(Ord. 18-02 #2)
3. Scheduling. The pre-application conference shall be scheduled by the Applicant with
Staff at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of submission of any related application.
4. Submittal Requirements. All Applicants shall submit a sketch plan to the Staff for
review no later than five (5) days prior to the scheduled pre-application conference. See
Appendix B to this Code for sketch plan submittal requirements.
B. Step 2: B. Step 2: Neighborhood and Community Meeting.
1. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to educate occupants and owners of nearby
lands about the proposed development and application, receive comments, address concerns
about the development proposal, and resolve conflicts and outstanding issues, where possible.
(A) Favored practice. Neighborhood meetings are encouraged as opportunities for informal
communication between owners and occupants of nearby lands, applicants and other residents
who may be affected by development proposals.
(B) Applicability. Except as stated otherwise in this code Neighborhood meetings shall be
mandatory for zoning and planning projects that require a public hearing as specified in this
Code.
(D) Procedure. If a neighborhood meeting is held by the applicant, it shall generally comply with
the following procedures:
(1) Time and place. The neighborhood meeting shall be held at a place that is generally
accessible to neighbors that own and/ or reside in the notification area to the land subject to the
application. It shall be scheduled after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday or at any time on a weekend
day.
(2) Notification. The applicant shall provide notification of the neighborhood meeting a minimum
of ten business days in advance of the meeting by placing notice in a newspaper or display
advertising of general circulation in the Estes Valley and by mailing notice to all owners and
occupants within the notification boundary of the land subject to the application. The list of
owners within the notification area of the affected property shall be obtained by the applicant
from the most recent version of the property owners of record provided by The Town of Estes
Park. The notification shall state the time and place of the meeting.
(3) Conduct of meetings. At the neighborhood meeting, the applicant shall explain the
development proposal and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of the
process for review, and respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about the
application and propose ways to resolve conflicts.
(4) Staff attendance. Town staff may attend the neighborhood meeting for the purpose of
advising the attendees regarding applicable provisions of the Development Code, but shall not
serve as facilitators or become involved in negotiations at the neighborhood meeting.
(5) Written summary of neighborhood record of meeting. The applicant shall provide the
Planning Department a written summary of the neighborhood meeting. The written summary
shall include a list of those in attendance, a summary of the issues related to the development
proposal discussed, comments by those in attendance about the development proposal, and
any other information the applicant deems appropriate. The written summary of
the neighborhood meeting shall be included with the application materials, and be made
available to the public for inspection.
(6) Response to summary. Any party in attendance at the neighborhood meeting may submit an
additional written summary indicating their understanding of the issues related to the
development proposal discussed, comments by those in attendance about the development
proposal, and any other information they deem appropriate. This written summary may include a
response to the applicant's written summary of the neighborhood meeting.
Neighborhood meetings are optional for any other applications not requiring a public hearing.
B. Step 2. C. Step 3: Application Timing and Certification of Completeness.
1. Except for variances, all development applications shall be submitted to Staff a minimum
of fifty-five (55) days prior to the next regularly scheduled EVPC meeting at which the
application will be reviewed. See §3.6 regarding variances. Staff shall have the discretion
to shorten submittal time frames.
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
2. Within eight (8) working days of submittal, the Staff shall either certify the application as
complete and in compliance with all submittal requirements or reject it as incomplete and
notify the Applicant of any deficiencies. See §3.1.C above.
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
C. Staff Review and Report. No later than fourteen (14) days prior to EVPC meeting, Staff shall
refer the development application to the appropriate review agencies, review the
development application and prepare a staff report. No changes to the development
application or any accompanying plans or information shall be permitted after submittal,
except for any changes or additional information requested by the Staff during their review.
(Ord. 8-05 #1)
D. Step 4: Estes Valley Planning Commission Action or Recommendation.
1. Public Hearings or Meetings Required.
a. General Rule. Except as provided in subsection 1.b below, within forty-five (45) days
from the date that a submitted application is certified as complete, the EVPC shall
review the application at a public meeting or hearing as required by this Code or
applicable law.
b. Authority to Hold Application for Later EVPC Review. Notwithstanding the time for
action requirements set forth in subsection 1.a above, whenever an extraordinary
number of applications are submitted, such that the Staff is unable to complete their
review adequately prior to the next regularly scheduled EVPC meeting, the Staff
shall be authorized to hold an application until the next subsequent processing
period for EVPC review. Once the application is placed on the official agenda for a
public meeting or hearing before the EVPC, all other time requirements for review
pursuant to this Section and Chapter shall apply.
2. Compliance with EVPC's Conditional Approvals.
a. EVPC Final Actions. When the EVPC is the Decision-Making Body, approval of an
application shall not become final and appealable until all conditions of approval
have been complied with. (See Chapter 2 above.) Acceptance of all conditions of
approval and compliance, where feasible (e.g., required revisions to plans and
drawings), shall be completed by the Applicant within thirty (30) days of the EVPC's
action.
b. EVPC Recommended Actions. When the EVPC is a reviewing body only, conditions
of EVPC-recommended approval that require revisions to the submitted application,
plans or drawings shall be completed by the Applicant within thirty (30) days of the
EVPC's action. (See Chapter 2 above.) A revised application shall be a condition
precedent to placing the application on the Board's agenda. (See Step 5 below.)
E. Step 5: Board Review and Action.
1. Board Action Required. Within thirty (30) days from the date that the Board receives
the application, including any revisions, the Board shall hold a public hearing and
consider the development application, the staff report, the Planning Commission's
recommendation and the evidence from any public meeting. The Board shall take final
action by either approving, approving with conditions or denying the development or land
use applications based on its compliance with the appropriate review standards.
2. Compliance with Board's Conditions. Board approval of an application shall not
become final and appealable until the Applicant complies with or accepts all conditions
of approval. Compliance with conditions of approval (e.g., required revisions to plans and
drawings), shall be completed by the Applicant and submitted to the Staff within thirty
(30) days of the Board's action, unless a longer time is requested by the Applicant and
agreed to by Staff.
F. Summary Table—Standard Development Review Process by Application Type.
Step 1 Pre-
Application
Conference
Step 2
Neighborhood
& Community
Meeting
Step 3
Application/
Completeness
Certification
Step 4
Staff
Review
&
Report
Step
5
EVPC
Action
Step
6
Board
Action
Code Amendments-
Text/Map
M M A A A A
Preliminary
Subdivision
M M A A A A
Final Subdivision V M A A N/A A
PUD-Preliminary Plan M M A A A A
PUD-Final Plan V M A A N/A A
Special Review Use
S1
M M A A N/A A
Special Review Use
S2
M M A A A A
Variances (Ord. 18-01
#5)
M V A A N/A BOA
Minor Modifications V V A A-SR A-SR N/A
Development Plan
Review
M M A A-SR A-SR APP
Use
Classification (Ord. 8-
05 #1)
V V A A N/A APP
Separate Lot
Determinations (Ord.
8-05 #1)
V N/A A A N/A APP
Temporary Use
Permits
V N/A A A A N/A
Minor
Subdivision (Ord. 18-
01 #5)
M V A A N/A A
Location and Extent
Review (Ord. 21-10
§1)
M V A A A A
Conditional Use
Permit (Ord. 21-10 §1)
M N/A A A A A
Annexations (Ord. 18-
01 #5)
M M A A N/A A
"V" = Voluntary "M" = Mandatory "A" = Applicable "N/A" = Not Applicable
"APP" = Appeals "BOA" = Board of Adjustment "SR" = Special Requirements (Refer to
Text)
§ 13.3 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES
161. Neighborhood and Community Meeting: Informal meeting between the applicant and
any interested citizens involving informal communication between owners and occupants of
nearby lands, applicants, and other residents who may be affected by development proposals.
APPENDIX B. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
II.SUBDIVISION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. General Submittal Requirements
5. Neighborhood and Community Record of Meeting Record.
E. Condominium Projects
2. Neighborhood and Community Meeting Record.
III. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Development Plan Submittal Requirements
6. Development Plan Submittal Package Contents.
e. Neighborhood and Community Meeting Record.
IV.SPECIAL REVIEW USES—SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Submittal Requirements
5. Neighborhood and Community Meeting Record.
V.CODE AMENDMENTS (REZONINGS)—SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Submittal Requirements
7. Neighborhood and Community Meeting Record.
VI. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS—SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Preliminary PUD Applications—Submittal Requirements
4. Neighborhood and Community Meeting Record.
B. Final PUD Applications—Submittal Requirements.
5. Neighborhood and Community Meeting Record.
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: October 9, 2018
RE: Ordinance 16-18 Amendment of the Municipal Code’s Prohibition of
Panhandling Activities
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Review and, if appropriate, adopt Ordinance No. 16-18 which removes subsection (5) of
Section 9.08.090 (b) of the Municipal Code which prohibits panhandling on a public
transportation vehicle.
Present Situation:
By letter dated August 28, 2018 addressed to Mayor Todd Jirsa of the Town of Estes
Park, the Town was contacted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) requesting
that the Town repeal Section 9.08.090 (b)(5) which prohibits panhandling on a public
transportation vehicle. The letter cited recent U.S. District Court and U.S. Supreme
Court cases which have addressed the constitutionality of municipal panhandling
ordinances that they relate to constitutional prohibitions of restriction of free speech.
The Town had previously addressed issues raised in these federal cases by amending
its Panhandling Ordinance in 2017 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-17. The letter
acknowledged that the ACLU had no concerns with Section 9.08.090 (b) (1) – (4) of the
Municipal Code.
I have reviewed the Browne v. the City of Grand Junction, 136 F. Supp. 1276 (O. Colo.
2015), case cited by the ACLU. Also, the Town’s municipal insurance pool, CIRSA,
offered the Town the opportunity to seek further legal review by a Colorado attorney that
participated in the Grand Junction case.
The Grand Junction case did not specifically address a ban on panhandling on public
transportation even though a portion of Grand Junction’s ordinance prohibited
panhandling on a public bus. However, in analyzing the ruling of the U.S. District Court
in the Grand Junction case, it is the CIRSA attorney and my opinion that based upon
the analysis of the constitutional limitation of prohibiting panhandling in public areas, the
Town’s restriction on panhandling on a public transportation vehicle may not be legally
sustainable.
Accordingly, both the CIRSA attorney and I recommend to the Town Board that
subsection 9.08.090 (b)(5) be repealed. Even with the repeal of this subsection, the
Town may still prohibit aggressive, intimidating, threatening, or coercive panhandling on
a public transportation vehicle.
Advantages:
The adoption of Ordinance No. 16-18 will remove the possibility of potential litigation
involving subsection (5) of Section 9.08.090 (b) of the Municipal Code.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
As Town Attorney I recommend the adoption of Ordinance 16-18.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 16-18.
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 16-18.
Section 9.08.090 of the Municipal Code.
Note – Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any
other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the Town Board is required to have
the Ordinance included.
ORDINANCE NO. 16-18
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9.08.090 PANHANDLING
OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Section 9.08.090 of the Municipal Code prohibits certain
panhandling activities; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend a portion Section 9.08.090 of the Municipal
Code by deleting sub-section (5) of Section 9.08.090 (b); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the amendment to Section
9.08.090 and determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to approve the
amendment of Section 9.08.090 of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 9.08.090 (b)(5) of the Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety.
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 Estes Park,
Colorado this _________ day of _______________, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2018 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2018.
Town Clerk
Chapter 9.08 - Offenses Against Public Peace, Order and Safety
9.08.090 - Prohibited panhandling activities.
(a) For the purposes of this Section, panhandling shall be defined as soliciting people in
public for money, food or other goods.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to panhandle if such panhandling involves the
following prohibited conduct:
(1) If the person panhandling engages in conduct toward the person solicited that is
aggressive, intimidating, threatening, or coercive and causes the person
solicited to reasonably fear for his or her safety.
(2) If the person panhandling directs fighting words to the person solicited that are
likely to create an imminent breach of the peace.
(3) If the person panhandling touches or grabs any person being solicited.
(4) If the person panhandles in such a manner to intentionally obstruct or block a
street, sidewalk, doorway, entryway or other passage way in a public place used
by vehicles or pedestrians or obstructs the passage of a person solicited or
requires the person solicited to take evasive action to avoid physical contact
with the person panhandling or with any other person.
(5) If the person panhandles on a public transportation vehicle.
(Ord. No. 15-17 , §1(Exh. A), 5-23-2017)
TOWN ATTORNEY Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Date: October 9, 2018
RE: Ordinance No. 17-18 An Ordinance Imposing A Temporary Moratorium
On The Application And Review Of Park And Recreation Facilities In
Residential Zoning Districts
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Present Situation:
Considerable public concern has been raised concerning the review process for the
Estes Mountain Coaster. One specific concern is that the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC) provides that Park and Recreation Facilities, as defined in the EVDC, are
a permitted use in all residential zoning districts in the Estes Valley. Community
Development Department Staff is currently formulating amendments to the EVDC to
address concerns with Park and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning districts
within the Estes Valley, which amendments are scheduled to be reviewed by the Estes
Valley Planning Commission, the Town Board, and Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners within the next 90 days.
Ordinance No. 17-18 imposes a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and
processing of development applications for Park and Recreation Facilities in residential
zoning districts within the Town. The moratorium is for a period of 90 days to allow
sufficient time for the Community Development Staff, Town Board and Board of County
Commissioners, including public comment, to determine whether it is appropriate to
amend the relevant provisions of the EVDC relating to Park and Recreation Facilities
within residential zoning districts of the Estes Valley.
There is established legal authority for the Town Board to impose temporary
moratoriums on land use applications so long as those moratoriums are limited in scope
and are for the minimum period of time necessary to review and if appropriate, address
the issue.
Ordinance No. 17-18 only applies to new development applications for Park and
Recreation Facilities within the residential zoning districts located within the Town.
Advantages:
Adoption of Ordinance No. 17-18 allows a sufficient period of time for review of current
regulations and processes for Park and Recreation Facilities as a permitted use within
the residential zoning districts in the Estes Valley and to address any negative effects of
the current EVDC provisions which allow Park and Recreation Facilities as a permitted
use within all residential zoning districts of the Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
It is not known whether any potential development applications for Park and Recreation
Facilities in residential zoning districts would be affected by this moratorium.
Community Development Staff does not know of any proposed development
applications for any future Park and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning districts in
the Estes Valley at this time.
Action Recommended:
The review and, if appropriate, adoption of Ordinance No. 17-18 is a policy decision of
the Town Board.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None
Level of Public Interest
High.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 17-18
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 17-18 An Ordinance Imposing A Temporary Moratorium On The
Application And Review Of Park And Recreation Facilities In Residential Zoning
Districts
ORDINANCE NO. 17-18
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE
APPLICATION AND REVIEW OF PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, in 2017, the Town and Larimer County approved the amending of
Section 13.2.C.34 – Parks and Recreation Facilities to remove the term “non-
commercial” from the definition of Park and Recreation Facilities in the Estes Valley
Development Code (“EVDC”); and
WHEREAS, currently Park and Recreation Facilities are a permitted use in all
zoning districts within the Estes Valley Development Code Boundary Map Planning
Area (the “Estes Valley”); and
WHEREAS, there currently exists considerable public concern about Park and
Recreation Facilities being a permitted use in all residential zoning districts of the Estes
Valley; and
WHEREAS, due to the public concern about the possible negative effects of Park
and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning district in the Estes Valley, the
Community Development Department Staff is currently formulating amendments to the
EVDC to address concerns with Park and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning
districts within the Estes Valley, which amendments are scheduled to be reviewed by
the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Town Board, and Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners within the next 90 days; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Board of Trustees that it is necessary to
impose a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing of any development
application for Park and Recreation Facilities located in residential zoning district of the
Estes Valley to allow the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Board of Trustees, and
the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to review possible amendments to
the EVDC concerning Park and Recreation Facilities within residential zoning districts in
the Estes Valley; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to impose this temporary moratorium for only the time
period necessary to allow the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Board of
Trustees, and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to adequately
review possible new amendments, including public comment, and if appropriate, adopt
amendments to the EVDC concerning Park and Recreation Facilities within residential
zoning districts within the Estes Valley; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable provisions of Section 29-20-101 et seq.
C.R.S. known as the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, the
Town of Estes Park has the power to impose this temporary moratorium.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
1. The Board of Trustees hereby imposes a temporary moratorium on the
acceptance and processing of any new development application for Park and
Recreation Facilities as defined in Section 13.2.C.34 of the Estes Valley
Development Code for development in the RE-1, RE, E-1, E, R, R-1, R-2, RM
zoning districts of the EVDC within the Town of Estes Park.
2. This temporary moratorium shall take effect immediately and be in force for
ninety (90) days unless extended, amended and/or terminated by further
action of the Board of Trustees.
WHEREAS, the immediate passage of this Ordinance is necessary for the
preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Town in order to
temporarily delay the acceptance and review of any development application for Park
and Recreation Facilities within residential zoning districts in the Town of Estes Park,
and therefore this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately after its
passage, adoption, and signature of the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tem.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this _____ day of ____________, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Town Clerk
ADMINISTRATION Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer
Date: October 9, 2018
RE: 2018 Citizen Survey Results
Objective:
To provide an overview of the scientific results of the Town’s 2018 Citizen Survey.
Present Situation:
In support of the Town Board’s strategic plan, staff conducted a citizen survey in 2018 using
the National Citizen Survey (NCS) model. The NCS is a statistically valid survey of resident
opinions about the community and the services provided by local government. It is a
customized, yet uniform, survey tool used by more than 400 local jurisdictions across the
country, allowing benchmarking with the results of those jurisdictions. The Town conducted
this survey in 2011, 2014 and 2016, allowing comparisons to past results as well. Specific
uses of the results include monitoring trends in resident opinions, measuring performance,
communications and informing decisions on budget, land use and strategic planning.
Estes Park’s Citizen Survey was administered by mail to a random sample of 1,600 households
within Town limits beginning in late June. Of 1,550 valid addresses, 625 households responded
with completed surveys, a response rate of 40 percent. Response rates in other communities
are typically 25 to 40 percent. Responses were weighted to reflect the overall demographic
composition of the community using U.S. Census Bureau data.
In August, the survey was posted to the Town’s website and promoted to the general population
for voluntary participation. The online survey was completed by 435 people. These nonscientific
results are reported separately from the scientific results. In general, results of the scientific and
nonscientific surveys are similar.
Complete results reports for the scientific and nonscientific surveys are available at
www.estes.org/citizensurvey. The attached presentation provides a summary of the scientific
survey results.
Level of Public Interest
Moderate
Attachments
2018 Citizen Survey Results
10/4/2018Estes Park, COKey Findings2018The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMAAbout The NCSCommunity LivabilityCommunity characteristicsGovernanceParticipationIn this summaryScientific survey resultsKey findingsGovernanceSpecial topicsComplete results atwww.estes.org/citizensurveyCommunitiesare partnerships among...ResidentsCommunity-based organizationsGovernmentPrivate sectorThe NCS & Estes ParkParticipant in 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018Scientific sample of 1,600 householdsConducted late June through mid August625 returned surveys; 40% response rateWeighted to reflect demographics usingCensus±4% margin of errorExpanded sampleOnline optionSpanishNational Benchmark Comparisons
10/4/20182018 National Benchmark Comparisons74received similarratings24received higher ratings23received lowerratings2018 Ratings Compared to 201691received similarratings13received higher ratings23received lowerratingsEducation and Enrichment Community EngagementMobilityNatural EnvironmentRecreation and WellnessBuilt EnvironmentSafetyEconomyLegendHigher than national benchmarkSimilar to national benchmarkLower than national benchmarkMost importantKey Focus AreasEstes Park continues to be a great place to live. Excellent27%Good48%Fair22%Poor2%Overall Quality of LifeExcellent36%Good46%Fair17%Poor2%Place to Live
10/4/2018The natural environment is a top priority and key focus area. Key Finding #1Estes Park’s growing economy and identity as a vacation destination are impacting affordability and mobility. Key Finding #2Governance ratings, overall, remain strong but public trust has declined. Key Finding #3GovernanceHow well does the government of Estes Park meet the needs and expectations of its residents? Excellent21%Good52%Fair22%Poor6%Overall Quality of Town ServicesExcellent28%Good50%Fair17%Poor5%Overall Customer Service by Employees
10/4/2018Should service levels be decreased, maintained or increased?• For no services did the majority favor decreasing levels• Majority favor maintaining current levels for 31 services• Majority favor increasing levels for 9 servicesoBroadband/internet services (potential)oStreet Repairs (excludes highways 34/36/7)oTown-sponsored workforce housing solutions (codes, funding, land)oAdding concrete sidewalks when streets are constructedoFree, year-round shuttle services (potential)oLand use planningoTraffic system improvements (intersections, signs, lanes, etc.)oOn-street bike lanesoTown financial support for childcare initiativesSpecial Topic/Custom QuestionMoving Forward Citizen-centricDecision makingCitizen-centricDecision makingData-drivenDecision making Data-drivenDecision making TheNCSConclusions and QuestionsKey findings: Complete results: www.estes.org/citizensurvey•The natural environment remains a top priority•Estes Park’s growing economy and identity as avacation destination are impacting affordability andmobility.•Governance ratings, overall, remain strong but publictrust has declined.