Rezoning criteria and housing policies were the two big topics at an Aug. 7 joint study session between the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Planning Commission.
The two-hour session ended with members of both groups asking staff to draft rezoning language that broadens decision-making and to return with data and options on density bonuses, AMI caps, and ownership incentives. The joint study session was called as part of the rewrite process for the Town’s development code.
“We’re still seeking definitions, you know, ‘change in conditions’ has led to a lot of debate,” said Mayor Gary Hall at the top of the meeting: “Our last session, we talked about that a lot, as far as rezoning and planned developments and trying to get to a definition for the new development code, or before the new development code, as to what that means, something that we can all agree on. That’s my general sense, we’re really looking for definitions.”
Facilitator Susan Stewart laid out the approach and recapped where things stood. “We have basically three agenda items today,” she said—rezoning criteria, housing definitions, and next steps—with a target of “45 minutes” each. She asked members to “note down your questions” during presentations and “speak up” for the recording, which is accessible on the town’s YouTube site.
Stewart reminded everyone that the last meeting had focused on frustrations with the vague “change of conditions” requirement, a consensus that it should not be the sole test for rezonings, and a desire to replace it with a more flexible list of considerations. With that in mind, she introduced Steve Carecci, community development director.
Rezoning: from requirement to consideration
Careccia presented a matrix of how other Colorado communities handle rezonings. He said consistency with the comprehensive plan, compatibility, community benefit, and correction of error show up frequently, while “change of condition” tends to be treated as “optional or secondary” for other similar municipalities like Breckenridge, Fort Collins, and Longmont.
Town Attorney Daniel Kramer cautioned against trying to define the term, calling it “a long and winding road.” He added, “It’s not necessary that there only be three criteria and that one necessary criterion is the change of conditions … Instead, what might be more helpful is a general direction to the community development department to draft up something based in some way on the examples that Steve has brought,” Kramer said.
Several members backed shifting from must-meet rules to a qualitative list. Trustee Frank Lancaster supported “changing it from a requirement to a consideration,” warning that hard lines invite disputes. Trustee Bill Brown said the phrase itself “is just asking for a problem.”
Lancaster also pressed to keep property rights in mind. “Community needs can’t bulldoze over private property rights,” he said. “So that has to be a consideration of all this.”
After a bit more discussion from the members in the room, Kramer interjected to point out that “I’m hearing that a broad list of criteria, structured appropriately so that some are ‘ors’ and some are ‘ands,’ is what we’re aiming for, and we can draw something like that up unless you want to get more specific.”
The members largely agreed, but added that the decision framework should be linked to the comprehensive plan. “The comp plan is kind of like the arena within which we’re working,” said Trustee Kirby Hazleton. “That’s the fence that we’ve built around this entire thing.”
Some wondered if that would make the plan a controlling document. “No, not a controlling document,” Brown responded. He argued that the controversy over “change of conditions” showed why the words should be folded into a broader list of factors. Still, Brown acknowledged it could remain relevant in a situation such as a neighborhood fire that changes the physical landscape.
Stewart noted that the word “criteria” might be confusing, making it sound like a rigid requirement rather than one of several considerations. Hall said the consensus was to treat “change of conditions” as one factor among many.
Kramer and Town Administrator Travis Machalek then asked for the chance to bring back language that the boards and staff can mark up. Machalek said it is “much easier to move words on the paper and strike through things than it is to create in your mind.” Staff will draft code text that recasts “change of conditions” as one consideration among others and returns it for discussion.
Housing: definitions, data, and the density bonus
The group then moved into a conversation about housing. Stewart recapped the prior discussion: members had questioned whether the current definitions for “attainable” and “workforce” housing and the 200% density bonus were targeting the right segments of the housing market. She said the goal for the meeting was to revisit those definitions with current data and ask, “What are we trying to accomplish with density bonuses, and how are (they) influencing that?”
Estes Park Housing Authority Executive Director Scott Moulton opened with definitions. “Affordable” housing means a household is “not spending more than 30 percent of their gross income for housing costs.” In the development code, “attainable” is capped at 150% of Area Median Income, while “workforce” means a household with at least one member working within the Estes Park School District boundary, with no AMI cap.
Moulton highlighted production trends: under the older 150% density bonus, “no units were brought to market,” but after the increase to 200%, “the market brought 188 units to market.” Moulton also reported that two large, newly opened properties, the Prospector Apartments and Fall River Village, are “roughly 50 to 55 percent occupied, which is completely normal” during lease-up.
The discussion turned to who the policy serves. Trustee Mark Igel said he appreciated that the breakdown of who workforce housing serves centers on lower-wage roles and urged dropping high-pay workers like those who work at Estes Park School.
“I’m very glad you bring up that point,” Moulton said. “Personally, and I’ll use very strong language here, I despise the use of specific positions to justify or define workforce housing. I think it’s inappropriate.”
Brown raised a recurring critique that density bonuses are “a giveaway to the developers” and floated adding an AMI cap to the workforce definition to address perception.
Mayor Pro Tem Marie Cenac reminded the group why earlier boards had resisted density bonuses altogether: community opposition to what she called “Section 8-style housing.” While that label is often used inaccurately, she said, the perception had shaped policy for years.
Hall then offered one of the morning’s most sobering takeaways. “We’re never going to have a place for everyone up here,” he said. “We don’t have the room. If 30 to 40 percent of the folks who are working in this town are commuting, 30 years from now, an awful lot of them are still going to be commuting … Some of those low incomes, I don’t know where you’re ever going to put enough places to get all of those people to be able to live up here and not starve.”
The remark underscored what many advocates already suspect: Estes Park’s housing policy will continue to rely heavily on importing labor from outside town limits.
Trustee Cindy Younglund voiced her concerns that the town would “saturate” the market with higher-AMI units and “forget about our lower AMI” residents, suggesting larger bonuses for lower-income projects and a 175% AMI cap for ownership units. Kramer asked whether the 200% bonus was the right lever for deeper affordability. Moulton said it was “a start” and that a tiered structure pairing bigger incentives with lower AMI targets could work.
The upshot matched the rezoning item: staff and EPHA will gather data and developer feedback, then bring concepts back, which is likely to feed into the ongoing development code update.
What’s next
Members agreed to hold two standing joint check-ins each year, one in January and one in August, and schedule ad hoc sessions when major topics arise. Annexation was identified as the next likely special topic, and Hall proposed addressing it “maybe in November or December, away from the heat of the action here.”
The meeting showed two parallel truths. On rezonings, there’s momentum to move away from rigid, legally vulnerable requirements toward a broader, case-by-case approach anchored in the comprehensive plan. On housing, there’s an acknowledgment that policy changes, like the 200% density bonus, have delivered new units, but also a frank admission that political and geographic limits mean Estes Park will never house all of its workforce.
The priority emerging from both conversations is to protect property rights and community character while pursuing incremental housing gains—a balance that may leave many commuting workers priced out of living in town for decades to come.