Three visions of planning

Material Information

Three visions of planning past, present and future
Murphy, Constance L
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
65, xiii, [5] leaves : maps ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
City planning -- Case studies -- Colorado -- Estes Park ( lcsh )
Regional planning -- Case studies -- Colorado -- Rocky Mountain National Park ( lcsh )
City planning ( fast )
Regional planning ( fast )
Colorado -- Estes Park ( fast )
Colorado -- Rocky Mountain National Park ( fast )
Case studies. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Case studies ( fast )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves ix-xi).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Constance L. Murphy.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
14059572 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1984 .M87 ( lcc )

Full Text

Constance L. Murphy
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
University of Colorado Denver, Colorado September 6, 1984

INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1
Vision of the Past...........................................................6
Chapter One
Words to Paint the Portrait............................................8
Chapter Two
The Federal Influence on Local Land Use..............................20
The Present Vision..........................................................27
Chapter One
The Impacts of Reactiveness...........................................29
Chapter Two
The Prices of Popularity..............................................37
Chapter Three
Local Planning: A Strong Foundation...................................40
The Future Vision..........................................................43
Chapter One
Preferred Community Actions..........................................45
Chapter Two
To Plan or Not to Plan?..............................................63
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................. ix

"The longest journey is the journey inward, of he who has started upon his quest..."
Dag HarrmarskjQld
I would first like to thank two professors I have come to call friends who inspired me in a myriad of ways:
To Herb Smith for his constant belief in planning and in me, when my doubts of both, paralyzed my writing.
To Jonni Jones for showing a middle-class WASP a world she might never have known and that changed forever my perceptions of all worlds.
I would like to thank the local citizens whose time and support aided me immeasurably: Barbara Cole, Ann Moss, Don Pauley, A1 Sager, Steve Stamey, Buddy Surles, and Richard Wood and Larimer County Planner, Jill Bennett.
I would like to thank the friends that suffered with me through the traumas of a 'summer of discontent' and lent support when I needed it most.
Most of all, I would like to thank John and Charlotte Murphy for freely giving the gift of education to all their children. You are the best.

I sit here overlooking Chasm Falls, watching the waters rush down to the green valley below and into a mirrored-lake reflection of the Rocky Mountains. A perfect setting for day dreams, I use it now to search for inspiration for a thesis introduction. A question slowly leads me to the answer. How does one introduce a paper that has become a reflection of change in philosophy and perception? Perhaps the only way is to tell of a journey that began one year ago and leads me now to a new way of viewing my place in the world of nature and man.
So it will begin here on this rocky perch with thoughts of all shape and color flowing to the cadence of the river's rhythm. Here and there a marmot darts among the rocks, busy with the doings of spring, and I ponder what he might have to say of we humans. Perhaps a vote by the animal kingdom would find us banished to some scorching desert where even scorpions would hold us in disdain. For we hold little respect for the sacredness of their world, as we try with each new technological advancement to carve our names in their fragile home as an insensitive child might do a tree. These scars are deepening, reopening, and spreading like an incurable disease.
We share a single vision here in the kingdoms of man it is a vision of today, divorced from the past, ignorant of the future. And each of the kingdoms possess a separate time frame for this vision; the East thinks in term of millennia, the Europeans in centuries, and we Americans in decades. Maybe this is why we in America create the most terrifying weapons, because our vision is the shortest.
All these kingdoms share a vision of a limited precarious future that blinds us to the vision of the past, a past that becomes older than our perceptions. It is no wonder that we have trouble perceiving the sacredness of life, billions of years in the making, for we have positioned ourselves at the helm of a haunting nightmare, where we possess the power to destroy those billions of years in a matter of minutes. I refer here to a story told by Ian McHarg that reviews the accepted values that bring us, now, so close to the edge.

"The atomic cataclysm has occurred. The earth is silent, covered by a gray pall. All life has been extinguished save in one deep leaden slit, where long inured to radiation, persists a small colony of algae.
They perceive that all life save theirs has been extinguished and that the entire task of evolution must begin again some billions of years of life and death, mutation and adaption, cooperation and competition, all to recover yesterday. They come to an inmediate, spontaneous and unanimous conclusion:
Next time no brains."
This talk of destruction may seem misplaced in a planning thesis; however, of what possible use is a planned society in which the future looms so ominously? Never fear, this paper will not attempt so bold and endless an undertaking as to explain and solve a world crisis. It will turn instead to a microcosm a community mired in this single vision of the present. It is a study of small proportion that may serve as a reflection of larger ills.
I return now to the journey that began in July of 1983 when a young student of planning stumbled upon an opportunity to rub elbows and mind with members of "the Profession." She was then an earnest volunteer, plodding somewhat clumsily into the foreign world of small-town planning, small-town politiking, and small town vision. It is a journey that ended with the discovery of a world and a profession more complex and demanding than she had envisioned. A profession often regarded far too simplistically and academically by planners and their peers.
Planning is a profession of contradictions: of comprehensive plans that seldom are, of complex codes that stifle creativity, of land-use plans ignorant of landforms, of strict codes capriciously enforced, and of community development deaf to the community voice. It is also a profession that has the ability and the responsibility to rectify these contradictions.

And, oh the glorious world of small town politiking! Here the microcosm most reflects the larger society. Here the rose-colored glasses were rudely struck from my idealistic nose (a nose that has learned to sense which way the rotten winds of politics blow). Here we find a reflection of the core of American politics, of smoke-filled, backroom decisions, of good-ole-boy favors, of manipulations of power and people, and all in the face of an apathetic constituency. It was here that I listened incredulously to the boasts of local developers about back-room meetings with town officials that resulted in the dismissal of a public-minded servant, the assurance of rezonings of annexable lands, and the subversion of the authority of the Town Board, the Planning Commission, and the hopes of the community. I have watched citizens struggling to understand the overall picture with only small pieces of the puzzle at their disposal. It has left me discouraged, angry and determined to speak out.
Perhaps the most disheartening discovery is the lack of citizen participation in the local decision-making process. Many times I have seen the citizen hand outstretched, asking the Town, "What are you doing for me?" These citizens are now responding to the crisis of sudden growth, but it appears too little and too late. I have watched the citizen response decidedly more positive to a bottom-line of economic prosperity than to a bottom-line of quality of life. There are recent 'stirrings' that indicate that the above scenario could be changing; citizen attendance at recent zoning workshops is quite high, and a newly formed citizen action group is gaining momentum locally.
Several themes have emerged in this paper, but the connections among then are not always clearly drawn. The difficulty arises from the comparative inadequacies between Estes Park and the larger society. Neither entity is ever a mirrored-reflection of the other. However, the themes of an economic land-use ethic, of a reactive society trapped in the present vision, of an unresponsive and irresponsible political system, and of a need for environmental sensitivity, all weave their way into both areas. I will turn again to the microcosm of Estes Park to set forth assumptions that will guide the reader through this paper.

Estes Park is in the midst of a growth boom. For example, two shopping centers, recently approved by the Urban Renewal Authority, could increase the retail square footage of the Town's central business district by over 300,000 square feet. There has been a 52% increase in building permits issued for residential and commercial development from 1982 to 1983. A research and development center has been proposed that could employ up to 200 persons.
2. The various levels of "incompetency"* at which the Town operates will leave the community ill-prepared to handle this growth boom.
3. Surrounding federal lands will be detrimentally impacted by local growth. For example, a recent PUD filing by the Mace family proposes three hotels and several hundred residential units on 427 acres that border National Forest Lands. And these federal lands are currently before Congress for approval as wilderness designation areas.
4. Planning will continue to be ineffective and piece-meal until the four basic tools of planning the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the subdivison regulations, and the capital improvements program are updated.
I will show that the incorporation of the three visions past, present, and future may be the best means for producing a planning process that can guide the community toward a positive future. Each entry of this belabored and beloved essay could easily be held as incomplete by any number of a field of experts The attempt is not intended to be a definitive essay on one subject. Rather, it is an attempt to weave many-colored threads into a pattern that will guide me as I enter the working world. It is not a pattern
*These levels of incompetency will be explored in-depth in the Future Vision, Part III, using the article, "The Competent Community" by Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., as a base of analysis.

that will please every eye, but it was never meant to be. It has become, for me, a point of departure. It is as simple and as complicated as that.
"Do not try to satisfy your vanity by teaching a great many things. Awaken people's curiosity. It is enough to open minds; do not overload them. Put there just a spark. If there is some good inflammable stuff, it will catch fire."
Anatole France


This section will journey back into the historic eras of Estes Park and show why such a journey is important to the field of planning. Of the three visions this paper will explore, the vision of the past is the easiest to tell and perhaps, the hardest to hear. For it recalls a simpler time before the complex world of limited resources, endangered species, pollution, and congestion was imagined. It is only when we can envision a world without man that we can appreciate the severity of his impact. And it is this knowledge that conmands us now to walk more gently and to plan more carefully where we take our next step.
The famous American historian, Henry Steele Commanger, once remarked that the pleasure of traveling can be doubled by a knowledge of history. And our appreciation and respect of all landscapes, natural and man-made, is also doubled by the knowledge. For example, a tourist visiting the Tower of London might see a mere tower of mortar and stone. A vision of the past might enable this tourist to further envision the imprisioned martyrs of England, once held high in the cold arms of this ancient pinnacle. Not merely an old building, but an evocation of ancient times.
One can stand amidst the ruins of the Lewiston Hotel in Estes Park and imagine the thousands of tourists who once roamed the grounds and gazed out at the Continental Divide. The Divide itself becomes more inspiring when one recalls that these majestic mountains once lay at the bottom of a great sea. It is this vision that increases our respect for the past, our understanding of the present, and our hope for the future.
There are several reasons why every planner should embrace this vision. First, it will increase the planner's understanding of current issues by providing the course of events that created a certain policy decision. Second, the planner may use past examples to build a case for current policy choices; a use that has long been important to the law profession. Third, the planner may project future patterns from past trends.
The final importance of the past vision for planners is it's positive effect on our value system. We live in an age when our elders are relegated to nursing homes and our historic sites to the dynamite's fuse. (Recall the

disregard for the historic Cosmopolitan Hotel in Denver, destroyed in a six-second flash of greed). It is, however, little wonder that we fail to recognize the value of age in our society; our educational system imparts less and less history to the young, and our economic system places greater value on immediate reward on persons embracing the present vision.
The following chapter will provide a glimpse at prehistoric Estes, the coming of man, the birth of tourism, and changes brought about by the automobile. Chapter two will focus on the federal influence in Estes Park, the National Forest Service and Rocky Mountain National Park.


Reading history is, for many, a tedious and unenjoyable task. In fact, there is little joy in the joy of history, but the problem lies not with the subject, but with the translator. There is no such thing as bad history, only bad writing; no such thing as boring history, only boring teachers. This dilemma is the result of a long-standing argument in the History profession -Is history an art or a science?
Dates and quantification of data have taken precedent over the artistic need to paint a portrait of the past with words. And attention to minute details often overwhelms the casual reader. Gibbon's History of the Roman Empire, a voluminous classic, is not often a favorite among readers. One cannot help but admire his tenacity for writing and chastise the limitations this imposes on the average reader.
Therefore, this author will endeavor to avoid miniscule detail and tiresome dates and try instead to present a readable portrait; one that succeeds or fails on the author's merits, not the subjects.
The Town of Estes Park is located at the confluence of two rivers, in the center of a green river valley, approximately 32 miles square, surrounded by mountains of varying height and appearance. The western border is bounded by Rocky Mountain National Park and the granite peaked mountains of the Continental Divide. The areas to the east, north, and south are bounded by the smaller, green-timbered mountains of Roosevelt National Forest. The valley is drained by two principal streams, the St. Vrain River and the Big Thompson Creek.1

The area addressed by this paper includes the Town of Estes Park and southwest Larimer County lands which border the Federal lands surrounding the valley. The Colorado Land Use Plan types this area as Front Range,2 however, a slope analysis clearly disputes this claim. Slope data from the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan reveals 52% of the area slope in excess of 16%, with 20% of this area over 30% slope.3 it is well to remember that Regional Plans, such as Colorados, sometimes draw too broad of a line in cataloguing land use.
It is difficult to visualize this beautiful valley without a visit or a painting such as the one by Albert Bierstadt which hangs in the Denver Public Library. Isabella Bird's description of the Estes Valley in her book, A Lady's Life in the Rocky Mountains, comes as close to painting the portrait as any other.
"... at a height of 9,000 feet, we saw at last Estes Park, lying 1,500 feet below in the glory of the setting sun, an irregular basin, lighted up by the bright waters of the rushing Thompson, guarded by sentinel mountains of fantastic shape and size, with Longs Peak rising above all in unapproachable grandeur, while the Snowy Range, with its outlying spurs, heavily timbered, come down upon the park slushed by stupendous canyons lying deep in purple gloom. The rushing river was blood red, Long's Peak aflame, the glory of the glowing heavens was given back from earth. Never, nowhere, have I seen anything to equal the view into Estes Park."4

"The message of the rocks depends on who reads it.
Some find it a blank page. Some see in it beauty, others utility: the conservationist and engineer often regard a great, unharnessed waterfall with opposite emotions. The message always has a broader significance for those who learn a little of its meaning and then go on to expand their outlook as they see more of the face of nature and appreciate more fully the relationship between man and nature."5 Pearl
The Rocky Mountains are a tremendous chain of uplifted land reaching the length of both American continents from the Arctic to the Antarctic. The Rocky Mountains of Colorado are part of the southern series of this chain and constitute 30% of the total land area of the state, consisting of seventeen mountain groups and ranges separating the Great Plains to the east from the Colorado plateaus to the west.6 These ranges are relatively young in geologic time (a mere sixty million years old) and occupy the site of the Ancestral Rockies.
The Ancestral Rockies were worn down almost to a plain over 150 million years ago. Slowly, this plain area began to warp downward and fill with the waters of a great ocean covering all of Colorado and connecting the Gulf of Mexico with the Arctic Ocean in a vast seaway.^ This ocean remained for millions of years and fossil remains can be found today embedded in the stone of the highest peaks in Colorado.
The land underneath this ancient ocean began to lift upward as the land was bent and folded by the squeezing pressure of the earth's plates. When this pressure became too great, the earth broke along cracks and slowly drained the ocean.8 Volcanic erruptions accompanied the uplift and compression to create an enormous mass rising from a steaming ocean bottom.

Since this initial rise of land there have been repeated uplifts, followed by erosion that several times reduced the mountains to a plain. Today these mountains are still rising, as rapidly as anytime in the past.9
The widespread glaciation that accompanied the Ice Age and the disappearance of the dinosaurs was the most recent event in the geologic history of Colorado's northern Rockies. The great hollows and ridges in the rugged peaks around Estes were cut by these glaciers, and thereby they graced the area with a unique and stunning landscape.^
The message of the rocks is an important one, for the "history of our people and the state of their economy owe a debt to these landforms that is enormous and only too little appreciated. "H Estes Park owes its fame to the beauty of this landscape as does all of Colorado. It was this landscape that brought the first settler to Estes and it is this landscape that now brings millions of tourists into the area each year. Yet we often deny the debt owed these mountains by allowing insensitive development of bordering lands.
"... these are discovered treasures in Colorado, which cannot be so transported and divided. These are the natural gems of mountain crags, lakes, and forests, which like a nation's crown jewels, are not private possessions, but are the heritage of successive generations."12 Clerc

"We cannot command nature except by obeying her."
Sir Francis Bacon
The Estes Park area consists of four life zones, all of which contain fragile communities easily disrupted or destroyed by man. The river valley, wherein lies the Town of Estes Park, is a modified plains life zone of grass steppe.^3 This area is a balance zone between the Transition Zone, 6,000 feet to 8,000 feet, and the Canadian Zone, 8,000 to 10,000 feet. Here we find the yellow pine, the beginnings of aspen groves, various species of cottonwoods, junipers, pinons, and scruboaks.14 The mammals found here include the prairie dog, Blacktailed Jack Rabbits, grasshopper mice, antelope, and badger;^^ however, the community of man has driven many of these native mammals from the valley.
The mountains surrounding the Estes Valley may contain up to three separate life zones according to their height. The Canadian Zone is characterized by coniferous forests and large aspen groves. The Hudsonian or Sub-Alpine Zone extends from 10,000 feet up to timberline; it is the upper
portion of the timbered belt of mountains characterized by Englemann's spruce,
and white fir trees.^ The Canadian and Hudsonian Zones contain an abundance
of animal life including the Pine Marten, Wolverine, Canadian Lynx, snowshoe
rabbit, elk, and deer.-*-7
The most fragile zone within the Estes area is the Alpine Zone. The border between this zone and the Hudsonian below is lined with dwarfed trees, fantastically twisted and altered by wind, frost, and snow. It is surprising then to find above this harsh environment a delicate garden of miniature flowers growing amidst barren rock, snowfields, and glaciers. 18 This zone becomes a "land of contrast and incredible intensity, where the sky is the size of forever and the flowers the size of a millisecond."19

It is crucial that planners have a sensitive understanding of these communities of nature when they are deciding land-use issues. In Estes Park, there are subdivisions, platted with disregard of elk migration routes; there are roads sliced across mountain sides creating ugly scars and serious erosion; there are borderline developments adjacent to the National Park and Forest lands which threaten fragile ecosystems. A popular hiking guide-book expresses this need for environmental sensitivity within Rocky Mountain National Park that can be extended to the entire area.
" [We] need to educate ourselves extensively about the ecology of Rocky Mountain National Park's wilderness so that we will not damage it out of ignorance. We must stress... the delicacy of all life on this austere land.
The role of caretaker demands that... [we] make these sacrifices and more so wilderness may live long after we are gone, as it lived long before any people saw it."20 Dannen
"How green was my valley then, and the valley of them that have gone." 2-L Llewelyn
Thirty-five miles east of Rocky Mountain National Park an archaeological site was found to contain the remains of twelve giant mammoths slain by the Paleo Indians. The Rockies then, were inhabited by man as far back as 12,000 years ago. These early Indians migrated across the Bering Straight from Asia during the final stages of the Ice Age, and they slowly hunted their way down to the Western United States.22 It is believed by many archaeologists that these people were the first to drive a species, the mammoth, to extinction a practice we now have perfected.22

The Estes Valley has always been a seasonal hunting area for the Indians, as harsh weather drove them down to the plains each winter. The earliest physical trace of habitation in the valley dates back from 3850 B.C. to 3400 B.C. These Indians used a unique hunting system of game-drive walls to trap animals. A group of tribesmen would chase an animal towards these walls where they would be slain by other Indians hidden behind the rocks.24
The last tribe to have "legal" claim to the Estes Valley and much of the Colorado Rockies was the Ute tribe. The six bands of Utes were believed to be at the height of power in the 1700's; however, the gold rush of 1858 was to guarantee their eventual removal to bleak reservation land. In 1877, the Atlas of Colorado was published and it revealed that one-half of the Colorado Rockies belonged to the Ute tribe. The response to this revelation was a slogan "The Utes Must Go."25
A treaty in 1873 reduced their holdings only slightly to over twelve million acres, and tensions began to increase as prospectors blatantly homesteaded Ute lands. In June of 1880, the Utes were finally banished by Senate decree to a small reservation in Utah.26 At last, the white man would possess the mountains. One Estes settler expressed the relief of all the whites in this opinion:
"Seemingly the redman...[has] not the capacity or necessary will-power for the improvement or possible development of nature's grand and prolific resources that are comprised of soils, forests, and mineral fields, and therefore, it appears to be destined for the white man."27
These words symbolize the new philosopy of land-use, a white philosophy of possession and exploitation. The Indian removal from Colorado marked the end of man harmonizing with his natural world and the beginning of the domination of man over nature.

Ute Interpretation of After Life
"Heaven with them is in three great strata... In the highest is the Ute spirit land, and all the Utes have wings. In the second are the buffalo and all the game and all the beautiful forests and meadows.
In the lowest strata are the white men."28
"I am glad I shall never be young again without wild country to be young in. Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map."29 Aldo Leopold
The river valley of Estes Park remained a primeval wilderness area during the time when much of Colorado was ruthlessly laid open by the mining boom of the 1850s. The early white visitors to this area were hardy mountain men living precariously from season to season on the fur trade.20 Both the mountain man and the Indian, by design or necessity, existed in a community controlled by nature not by man.
With the arrival of the first settlers, the Estes family in 1860, an instant philosophy of land ownership was introduced. The young son, Milton Estes, remembers his first view of Estes in just such terms.
"We were monarchs of all we surveyed, mountains, valleys, and streams. There was absolutely nothing to dispute our sway. We had a little world all to ourselves."

The Estes' found, however, that the harsh winter weather would eventually drive them to warmer places as it had the Indians. Nature was not yet prepared for a "monarch."31
The Estes claim was sold in 1866 and soon ended in the hands of a hardy little Welshman named Griff Evans. Evans found that ranching provided little income, and so he began to take in boarders. Tourism had entered the valley.32
The promotion of Estes as a tourist haven had actually started as early as 1864 when William Byers, editor of the Rocky Mountain News, prophesied in the paper that, the park would become "a favorite pleasure resort."33 The Evans ranch gained national attention in 1871 when the Chicago Tribune announced that his ranch would one day become a "prosperous resort worth a dozen Saratogas to the invalid."34
The word was out and Estes Park quickly gained world-wide fame through the writings of visitors like Isabella Bird, Carrie Strahorn, and J.S. Flory.35 Noone promoted the area more than Bird who was Estes' "first ideal guest: she told exciting tales, seldom retraced her steps, and what's more never overstayed her welcome."36
"Through want of enterprise and faith men are buying and selling, and spending their lives like serfs.
Enjoy the land but own it not."37 Thoreau
Tales of the valley's beauty soon reached the ear of an eccentric Englishman whose stay in Estes was to change the face of the area for many years to come. The Earl of Dunraven became a dominant figure in the Estes area in the late 1800's and was usually portrayed as a stuffy foreigner with a

penchant for hunting, drinking, and women. Through arrogance and misunderstanding of the American pioneer spirit, the Earl set the stage for a mini-American revolution of settlers against the tyrannical British. Naturally, the tale has become a great source of pride for the descendants of the early Estes settlers.
The story begins in 1874 with the Earls' first visit to Estes Park. It was then that he envisioned the entire valley as his private hunting reserve, much as Milton Estes had envisioned his kingdom.38 The Earl used his vast wealth to pay agent-squatters to stake false claims. His company, the English Co., soon controlled 15,200 acres of Estes land.39 what the Earl failed to foresee was the tenacity of the settlers in holding to their original claims. And by 1876 the settlers had organized behind a fiery lawyer, Alexander Q. MacGregor, to file suit against the false claims of the Earl.40
The Earl's hired hands tried to force the settlers out by driving herds of cattle through their land. It was hoped that they would eventually, "starve, sell out cheap, and leave the park to the good Earl." The settlers held out, and by the 1880s the Earl had given up all claims to the area.^l "The war was won. The feudal Lord had retreated. American tourists took over the park."^3
The brief tenure of the Earl in Estes Park had a great inpact on the growth of tourism and on current settlement patterns. He opened the first hotel, the English in 1877, thereby introducing mass lodging in the area.43 His oppressive tactics directed toward the settlers forced them to turn to tourists for extra income. The most important influence of the Earl was to save the Estes area from other, more detrimental, land uses for over twenty years. Therefore, we see today a town unique in its centralized growth and, until recently, absence of suburban sprawl.

"A continent ages quickly once we come."44 Ernest Hemingway
The village of Estes Park was platted in 1905 on the former property of local merchant John Cleave.45 Businesses soon opened all along Elkhorn Avenue, catering to the growing tide of tourism. The town proudly boasted, "Everything for the Tourist 1"46 as the founders planned and developed growth around a sole purpose: to create "first and foremost a vacation playground."47 The citizens went so far as to ban the building of any local cemeteries so there would remain "no permanent reminder of sorrow."48 Estes Park had indentured itself to a new ruling class: the wide-eyed, wealthy eastern visitors.
At this time, two thousand miles east, a wealthy inventor had just been informed by his physician that his deteriorating health afforded him little time left. This knowledge prompted the inventor, F.O. Stanley, to journey west to Colorado and, eventually, to Estes Park. The dry, mountain climate renewed Stanley's vigor, and he began to work with local residents to develop a better resort atmosphere. His accomplishments the massive Stanley Hotel, the Fall River power and light plant, the Town water supply system and the improved transportation network has earned him the title of "patron saint of tourism."49
The Stanley Hotel, completed in 1907, marked a new era in the resort industry, but it was the improved road system and the introduction of the automobile that accelerated the growth of the area as never before. The Big Thompson Canyon was blasted open in 190350r Fall River Road was built across the Great Divide, and soon, Trail Ridge Road, would add to the growing network of pavement. Stanley soon began operating a dozen Stanley Steamer cars up the St. Vrain Canyon between Lyons and Estes Park.91 The opening of Rocky Mountain National Park in 1915 and the completion of Fall River Road brought even more automobiles to see, with the greatest of ease, the wilderness west.

In defense of Mr. Stanley, his dreams were not uncoirmon for the time and his intention was always to better the area. No one could have foreseen a day when almost every American would own a car and have the leisure time to travel great distances. "The concept of the vacation crept into American Life" and, combined with a vast rail network and increased auto-ownership, the scenic, remote areas of America became accessible to "those of even the most modest means "52 The impact of the automobile has become a symbol of a consumer-society that molds singular dreams into mass-produced nightmares. The nightmare of Estes is traffic jams, increased car pollution, and creation of a dangerous environment for pedestrians.
"The car has made our cities uninhabitable. It is also the best way to escape them. Hurry to the roadless area because it won't be roadless long. Too much demand. And so we push the big wheel nearer the edge. The land of the free and the home of the auto dump. But man was born to wander."53 Russell

This chapter will recall the history of Rocky Mountain National Park (hereafter referred to as RMNP), and again, it will be a vision of the past that helps us to understand the roots of today's controversies. The federal influence in Estes Park is often warmly greeted by local "environmentalists"* and as often disdained by private enterprise. This conflict stems from two very different land-use philosophies: land ownership vs. land stewardship. The first of these is favored by, among others, individuals who buy and sell land for personal profit.
The second philosophy is one favored by those who seek to elevate the common good above individual profit. It is a philosophy with roots in the earliest years of man when land was held in a communal stewardship. It is a philosophy at odds with the rules of capitalistic society, and yet it was embraced by the Federal government in 1891, ironically at the height of the industrial age.
These two philosophies are directly influencing major land-use decisions today. They will continue to be the source of conflict between policy makers and private interests. It is not so important for planners to confine themselves to a set philosophy as it is for them to recognize that both will influence the majority of their decisions around land-use issues. For now, let us turn back to the microcosm of Estes Park to learn how these philosophies developed in the past.
* A park official jokingly referred to an environmentalist as a "person who moves into the wilderness, buys 60 acres of land, and fights to keep everyone else out." To this I will reply, "Better that than a developer who moves into the wilderness, buys 60 acres of land, and subdivides it into 120 1/2 acre lots!"

"We have failed to recognize that the earth does not belong to us, but we to the earth."
Rolf Edberg
In 1891 the United States Congress passed a bill to revise and reform national land laws. An obscure section of this large document empowered the President to "set apart and reserve... public land becoming forests."54 This obscurity was to have a tremendous impact upon land-use across the United States, especially when the president was one Teddy Roosevelt, sportsman and avowed preservationist.
Roosevelt created countless reserves and parks during his tenure, one of which, the Medicine Bow Reserve,* borders much of the Estes area.55 The President's program soon encompassed 107 million acres of Western land, and many Coloradoans decided to stop him before Colorado became the "Roosevelt Reserve." Congress relented to their pressure and proclaimed that an act of Congress would be required for future forest designations. However, Roosevelt had the last laugh when he set aside 21 new national forests two days before the new law took effect. This upped Colorado's National Forests to 18, totalling 16 million acres, or 1/4 of the total state land area.56 His actions, however, created a strong anti-preservationist sentiment evident to this day.
The preservationist movement had its own fair share of advocates whose beliefs were articulated in the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. In these men, nature had found her champions.57 The Western States movement found its voice in John Muir and later Enos Mills. Mills made
* Now called Roosevelt National Forest

his home at the base of Long's Peak and his transformation from landowner to land steward was reflective of a changing public view of land.
The 1880's had seen many people make the switch from land exploitation to pursuit of scenic pleasures provided by the unique mountain environment. This change was inevitable as miners sought riches elsewhere, as ranchers found better grazing in the plains, and as hunting became scarcer and scarcer. "Only people seeking the pleasures of summer past-times appeared to be encouraged by what they discovered."58
When Enos Mills arrived in Estes Park, his first desire was to possess a portion of the beautiful land. Soon he learned from the tourist an "attitude of enjoyment without possession, a simple sense of appreciation." Inspired by the writings of Thoreau and Muir, he became a self-taught naturalist of equal stature. He lectured extensively across the United States and spent a life-time learning the many intricacies of nature in the mountains. Mills also encouraged the local Estes residents, such as Stanley, to promote the preservation of the lands surrounding their Town.60
"If we love our children, we must love our earth with tender care and pass it on, diverse and beautiful, so that man, on a warm spring day 10,000 years hence, can feel peace in a sea of grass, can watch a bee visit a flower, can hear a sandpiper call in the sky, and can find joy in being alive."61 Hugh H. litis
Enos Mills spearheaded a lobby group that effectively persuaded the U.S. Congress to set aside 358.5 square miles of land for the creation of a National Park in Colorado. In 1915, Rocky Mountain National Park was officially opened under the direction of the National Park Service.62 The dedication ceremonies marked the "end to an era of pioneering," as wilderness

became something to cherish rather than conquer. And with the establishment of a national interest in the area, Estes Park began to boom. By 1920, visitation had already jumped to 240,966 visitors.64
It is important to note here the differences between the policies of the National Forest Service (hereafter called NFS) and the National Park Service (hereafter called NPS). The NFS, supervising Reserve lands, renamed National Forests, based its policies on the philosophy of utilitarianism and conservation. The Forest lands are open to uses such as timbering, grazing, and hunting, and the policy is designed to ensure the highest and best "use" of land while maintaining a policy of conservation. The NPS policies are based on a policy of preservation and public enjoyment. Therefore, the National Park lands are designed for maximum protection and maximum public use.65 The two federal policies are detailed in the following chart.
Forest Service
National Park Service
1. Fishing Permitted. Stocking will continue by Colorado Division of Wildlife in cooperation with the Forest Service.
Permitted. Native fish are stocked where natural reproduction can maintain populations; naturally barren lakes are not stocked.
2. Hunting Permitted, under State Game Laws. In wilderness areas, mechanical transportation is prohibited.
Not permitted within the Park. The National Park Service cooperates with the Colorado Division of Wildlife in game management. Special hunting seasons outside the park boundary are scheduled to harvest animals that use the Park's summer range.
3. Timber Harvest Permitted outside of designated wildernesses in accordance with an approved management plan.
Not permitted. Natural ecosystems are preserved.
* From Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary Study, p. 5.

Forest Service
National Park Service
4. Domestic Grazing Permitted, but in designated wilderness managed to protect the wilderness resource.
5. Water Development Rights Existing developments and water rights will continue. However, new facilities in designated wilderness require Presidential approval. Outside wilderness new development may be permitted.
6. Mineral Rights Exploration and mining are permitted (unless previously withdrawn, but in designated wilderness managed to protect the wilderness resource. There is a statutory right to locate claims in wilderness until 12/31/83 and to mine valid claims established prior to this date.
7. Wilderness Use Dogs are permitted subject to restrictions. Rules and regulations established to protect the resources, but regulation of visitor use less restrictive than National Park Service.
8. Recreation Outside of wilderness, gathering of firewood for home or commercial use is permitted and motor vehicle use (within study area) is restricted to designated roads and trails.
9. Private Lands Long-range goal in wilderness is to acquire all private lands on a willing seller-buyer basis. Outside wilderness goal is to acquire for needed developments or to consolidate ownerships.
Not permitted, but where existing will be phased out to promote, as near as possible, a natural ecosystem.
Existing water rights will continue but any rights, including impoundments, will be acquired when the opportunity arises. Impoundments will be removed and the sites restored, as near as possible, to natural conditions. New developments in wilderness require Presidential approval, but general policy is to not permit them.
Mineral entry is withdrawn. Existing claims will be examined for validity. Existing valid mining claims with activity that is detrimental to Park values will be purchased.
Dogs are not permitted. Strict camping capacities and regulations are established to protect the resources.
Gathering of firewood for home use is not permitted. Motor vehicle use off established roadways is not permitted, with minor exceptions of snowmobile use by approval of National Park Service Director.
Long-range goals is to acquire all private lands within the Park on a willing seller-buyer basis. Lands would be restored as near as possible to their original conditions. Proposed development, if contrary to park values, would result in acquisition by condemnation.
The National Park Service philosophy is a difficult one to balance as a burgeoning public threatens the quality of the environment. This threat of over-use was not envisioned in the early years of Rocky Mountain National Park. The tourist was as much king within the National Park as he was within

Estes Park. With the completion of Trail Ridge Road, the goal of maximum public use was finally reached and the problems of congestion were just beginning.
Trail Ridge Road remained closely tied to the entrepreneurial environment of Estes Park. 66 Businessmen in Estes soon recognized the many assets the Park's public use policy could provide, but the policy of preservation would continue to spark controversy. The first town-park conflict arose from a Park regulation which restricted all public conveyance of visitors exclusively to one proprietor. Local businessmen were enraged, but soon learned that federal policies can be irreversible.67
In 1921 Roger Toll assumed power as National Park superintendent. He was able to soothe local tempers and resolve disputes. His vision of Trail Ridge Road complemented the economic drive of Estes Park, but his desire to enlarge the Park boundaries was viewed by locals as a threat to their economic life. Some Coloradoans saw the drive for a larger Park as "further endangering their rights to water, private property, mining, and economic prosperity in general. "63 it is the water rights more than any other issue, that continued to be the major bone of contention.
"Western people, although not unmindful of the value of their natural scenery, feel that when a conflict arises between preserving scenery or developing water resources, the latter, has the stronger case."69 Foscue
The conflicts of water are certainly not a new controversy in Colorado, and the future promises even more intense debate over the issue of water-rights. This issue arose in the Estes Area with the Colorado Big Thompson Water Diversion Project, and again, the philosophies of ownership and preservation came into the battle arena.

In 1933, when the Diversion Project was publicly suggested, preservationists reacted strongly against the idea.70 The project proposed a 13.1 mile tunnel carrying water under Rocky Mountain National Park and the Continental Divide to an exit near Estes Park. 71 Park officials were vehemently opposed to this intrusion into the fragile mountain park. The advantage, however, was clearly with the advocates of the project, because a vote against such a proposal could amount to political suicide for legislators. The project would irrigate 615,000 acres of land, provide inexpensive hydro-electric power, and, most importantly, create jobs in a depressed economy. 72 Though the preservationists lost the fight, they did cause the project to proceed with sensitive care to the mountain ecology.73
The conflicts of water and water rights is becoming an embittered and embroiled battlefield in Colorado and the Western United States. The day will soon arrive when the federal government will no longer be able to dam a river, bore a tunnel, or divert a stream to supply the thirsty populace. And as long as the government continues to create the illusion of an abundant water supply in arid regions, the citizens will not adopt necessary conservation methods. (For example, just by shutting off the faucet when one brushes ones teeth, close to 2000 gallons of water can be conserved annually). The water conflict is yet another symptom of a country that will not learn from the past and that will not prepare for the future by conserving precious resources today.


This section will attempt to fill-in the thirty years of change in Estes Park that followed the end of World War II. These years are included in the present because they span a decidedly different era of American history. The country that developed after the war was one of single-minded consumption, one of mass-media that brought the world into every living-room, and one of unbridled expansion and growth. Most importantly, it was a society that afforded the dangerous illusion of never-ending prosperity a prosperity that precluded future planning.
In this time frame, 1944-1984, Americans became trapped in the present vision. It was at first, an understandable reaction from a nation suddenly free from the frightening forces of war. It was time to heal old wounds, look ahead, and leave the past behind. It has become today, a regrettable trend, for if we learn but one thing from the past, it is that the great folly of mankind has been the repetition of mistakes time and time again.
If this folly of mankind was only thirty years old, it would be of great comfort. However, the roots of our present predicament run deep into the psyche of Western man. The tenets of Judaic Christian religion influenced Western civilization to perceive their world in a linear scope or straight path with a definite beginning and end. Eastern society, on the other hand, embraces a cyclical world process where the players change but the arena and rules constantly repeat themselves. The importance of this distinction lies in the influence of these two philosophy's on our treatment of the natural world. A linear path approach has disrupted and degraded all other ecological processes that function in cycles.
This digression is important for planners to understand if they are to grasp the complexities of our "reactiveness" as a society. Perhaps it seems of little comfort that two thousand years of thinking might require an equal time to change. Still it is necessary that we recognize that the short-sightedness of man's world view is the "oldest game in town." The

development of a "pre-active"* public will be a long and arduous task for our nation's leaders.
The purpose of this Section is to uncover the myths and assumptions in
Estes Park and the nation that perpetuate the reactiveness of man trapped in
the present vision. The first Chapter will briefly cover impacts of man on
the natural environment, the myths of "expert" advice, and the conflict
between the economic and conservation land-use ethics. Chapter Two will focus on the growing pains of Rocky Mountain Park and the shaky alliance between preservation and utilization. Chapter Three will explore the viability of planned growth for the Estes Valley and its environment.
The continuation of this journey to the present will help us put the problems of today in perspective. Or as historian Buchholtz comments:
"... more important, seeing how this land has been treated through time may help us determine how we prefer to see it in the future. For (its) future, like its past, is now in our hands.
* This concept is most humbly borrowed from Hebert H. Smith's book,
Citizen's Guide to Planning.

"The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives."
Indian Proverb
By 1945 the land-use changes around Estes Park prompted historian Foscue to remark, "the cultural landscape of Estes Park has developed largely without plan or blueprint."2 He proceeded to voice his concern that continued growth in the Estes Park basin might one day spoil the scenic value of the entire area, including Rocky Mountain National Park. Foscue pointed to the many views that had already been marred by "unsightly shacks and buildings out of harmony with the landscape" and the roads and trails that had scarred heavily timbered slopes.3
The 1950's penchant for ringing in the new and discarding the old resulted in a gradual transformation of Estes Park's downtown. The original mosaic brick patterns were covered with aluminum and plywood; balconies and colonnades were torn from the buildings; and bright, flashing signs competed for customers up and down Elkhorn Avenue. Every attempt was made to disguise the past and produce a flashy, carnival-like atmosphere. Today the sign code has mellowed some of this flash, but many facades still retain the honky-tonk look of the fifties.
The accelerated growth of residential land-use in the Estes Valley is indicative of the need for a serious policy of growth management. The chart below tabulates the total acreage and lot numbers taken from subdivision filings by decade in the Estes Valley.

Subdivision Filings in Estes Valley*
Decade Total Acreage No. Lots
1910-1920 216 225
1920-1930 183 196
1930-1940 94 91
1940-1950 208 84
1950-1960 384 75
1960-1970 730 779
A five year summary of annual building permits in the Town of
indicates a more recent jump in residential and conmercial activity
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
Permits Units
Permits 12 3 7 19 56^
These charts only scratch the surface of growth projection. The Estes Valley needs a compilation of all pertinent statistics to project future growth. This is the only way to present a sound case for the need of controlled growth in the area.
27 20 21 13 38
116 53 56 18 100
* From Mountain Lands Analysis, a Larimer County study.^

The demands of growth for increased services will continue to consume more and more revenues. Equally important is the effect of this growth on the esthetic quality of the Estes Valley. The sanitation district recently imposed a user fee because the urban trunk lines are operating at maximum capacity. What this means is that instead of infilling adjacent urban areas of growth, they have been extending small service lines to outlying developments. Wildlife migration routes are being disrupted; meadows for summer grazing of elk and deer are being consumed; mountain sides are being heavily scarred by steep-slope developments; and scenic views everywhere are being compromised.
Currently, two major shopping developments are under review of the Urban Renewal Authority and may break-ground as early as this fall. There is also a research and development campus in the wings that could employ as many as 200 new residents in a high-technology company. If the pace continues without sound growth management, the cultural landscape will soon consume the natural one, and Estes Park will be in danger of losing the quality of life that now draws tourists and residents alike to the mountains.
In the past two decades, Estes Park has fallen victim to the widely held notion that community studies are the only answer to community ills. Countless "experts" have descended on the Town and produced an incredible number of classic "shelf-sitters", including, Mountain Lands Analysis, Estes Park Downtown Study, Community Issues, Future Development Plan, Estes Park Riverfront Development Study, Economic Market Analysis, Landfill Re-Use Study, and Comparison of Estes Park with Other Tourism-Oriented Communities, to name but a few.
What the Town has failed to do is incorporate the information from these studies into a planning policy of guided growth. Some studies have been transformed into policy as with the ongoing Urban Renewal Program and the current revision of the Town zoning ordinance. However, these actions are

merely partial solutions to a greater problem; the real issues of future planning and growth management are not being actively pursued.
The blame for this "hodge-podge" approach to planning rests on the shoulder of three bodies: the politicians, the citizens, and the experts. It is the inadequacies of the expert that this paper shall now address. Consultants and public professionals have failed to provide a clear picture of the planning process, a picture that the layman can comprehend. The reasons for this are elaborated as follows:
1. There exists in the professional world the misguided notion that "by knowing more and more facts one arrives at a knowledge of reality"^ and that idealism is but the mark of a "dreamer." This author contends that reality is instead the awakening to the crisis of our planet and to our power to make critical change. And those who believe in the perpetuation of our system of waste and destruction are the true dreamers.
2. "Experts" are often schooled in the institutions of power that force than to take as given many patterns that must change if we are to find answers.7
3. The bottom-line in decision-making is all too often economic feasibility with little awareness of long-range hidden costs. (This concept will be discussed in greater detail in the land-use ethics part).
4. Most importantly, planners have not yet developed a "common professional framework that lets the public know that the process in which we (planners) believe is something upon which they can and should rely."^
The dialogue below is an amusing account of the mystery that often surrounds the planning profession. In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Arthur Dent is speaking with a city representative about the lack of public input into the decision to run a highway through his house.

Official: Dent: "But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months... the plans were on display." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
Official: "Thats the display department."
Dent: "With a flashlight?"
Official: "Ah well, the lights had probably gone."
Dent: "So had the stairs."
Official: "But you found the notice, didn't you?"
Dent: "Yes... yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying, 'Beware of the leopard.
Unfortunately citizen participation is often regarded as a necessary drudgery of the planning process. However, if citizen involvement is, as Herb Smith reasons, "the most effective tool of the planning process,"^ then planners must demystify the rules of the profession. These two players, the professional and the citizen, must find better means of communication to dispell the "myth of the expert" which feeds professional egos at the expense of citizen input.

"The extension of ethics, so far studied only by philosophers, is actually a process in ecological evolution... An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence...
The land-relation (ethic) is still strictly economic, entailing priviledges but not obligations."H Aldo Leopold
The economic land-use ethic functions best within the philosophy of those who treat land as "property for profit." It differs from the conservation ethic in two major aspects. First is the difference of time perspective; economics is centered on the short-term or near-future and conservation on the long-term. The second difference is over the best means for justly distributing resources and wealth; the economic ethic benefits a select few landowners, but the conservation ethic benefits every citizen.
At the national level, the economic land-use ethic is warmly embraced by the current administration. At the local level, this ethic is indirectly encouraged through the Town of Estes Park's failure to direct growth in environmentally sensitive areas. Kevin Lynch stresses the influence of the economic ethic as a deterrent to planning for the "sensory quality" of a region. He comments that we are unable "to control real estate development, due above all to the chaos of local government and the private exploitation of land. These are not simple problems: they go to the heart of our political, economic, and social structure."12
What then of the conservation land-use ethic? Is it important to planning? Aldo Leopold defined conservation as peoples effort to understand and preserve the capacity of land for self-renewal.H The idea of conservation, when applied to land-use, constantly stumbles in the face of economic feasibility. This is due to the failure of economists to include the

hidden, long-range costs of certain land-use. These hidden costs are often far greater than the immediate rewards of short-sighted planning, as the following example will show.
The Rocky Mountain News has been recently carrying a series of articles on the poisioning of waters flowing into California's San Joaquin Valley. The selfishness of 236 landowners, accumulating profits in excess of $500 million annually, has produced an agricultural runoff that threatens damage exceeding 2-3 billion dollars estimated for clean-up. The hidden, long-range costs of this federally-funded water project include the probable elimination of nine endangered species; the destruction of hundreds of citizens way of life; and the large-scale damage to an important wildlife migration refuge.^
The question remains, was this a lesson, far-reaching enough, to bring about a re-evaluation of land-use ethics? Or is the only condition for a planned, conservation of land the "elimination of the secret rule of those, who though few in number, wield great economic power without any responsibility to those whose future depends on their decisions?"-^ This paper will not propose anarchy as such, not while compromise is still possible. The chart provided below sets up the differences between the two land-use ethics. In Section III, The Future Vision, attempts will be made to define the compromises that must be made if the two ethics are to join in the mutual goal of producing a better society.
The Two Land-Use Ethics
Economic Ethic
Conservation Ethic
short-term, near-future time perspective
long-range, planned time perspective
individual rights
public rights
easily quantified monetary rewards
esthetic rewards difficult to quantify

Economic Ethic
Conservation Ethic
private ownership public stewardship
private enterprise governmental regulations
traditional land-use multi.-use, performance
C-l, C-2, R-l, R-2 based land-use

"We're loved to death. The resource is going to pot.
We're supposed to be an outdoor museum. What we have is an urban park."16
Edgar Manning, RMNP Resource Management Specialist
Post-war prosperity brought a tremendous influx of people to Rocky Mountain National Park; in 1947 alone, nearly 900,000 people visited the area.17 it was not long before the romantic image of the Park began to suffer in the face of greater automobile tourists traveling the paved highways. By the mid-50's, the park policy was "part idealism and part reality; its image was both romantic and wild, but it faced the reality of a demanding public."16
This period was one of little controversy as Rocky Mountain National Park clearly demonstrated that it could operate as a "shrewd investment for Colorado businessmen, paying annual dividends in tourist dollars."19 During the 1950's the Park boosted the states economy, as visitors spent some $47 million annually.20 Although the "playground" ideal was panning out in a monetary sense, the increasing visitation was putting unbearable pressures on the preservationist ideal.
By 1960 the national park management realized that the "preserve" aspect of the Park's motto could no longer take a back-seat to the "playground" aspect. Mission 66 was an attempt to "remedy many older problems and to prepare for the future, providing 'maximum enjoyment for those who use the parks', as well as 'maximum protection' of the scenic, scientific wilderness and historic resources that give them distinction."21
The Park spent a decade of research to produce two plans, the Master Plan and Wilderness Recommendation, to guide future growth. The master plan introduced such words as "limitation" and "stewardship" to the management vocabulary, and by 1972 a quota system was in place for the Park's back

country.22 This was the first attempt to establish a carrying capacity concept in Park management. It is likely to be a concept used more often in the future.
After the U.S. Congress passed the Wilderness Act in September of 1964, Park officials recognized certain areas of the Park should be designated as such and saved from heavy use. The idea developed that wilderness should be a place "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."23
At this writing, a bill is being presented before Congress to designate large sections of the Park as wilderness.
The relationship between Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park has grown more dependent with each passing year. The relationship has not, however, been without its share of controversy. Four of these episodes are described in the following pages. Each case is based on the conflicts between the economic-utilitarian land-use ethic and the conservation-preservation land-use ethic.
The first controversy developed from the Town's desire to create a ski area within the National Park boundaries. Park officials were not pleased with the proposition of a private enterprise operating on their land; however, community boosters lobbied for, and won congressional support.25 on December 18, 1955, Hidden Valley Ski area was officially opened.26 The outcome of this battle reflects the atmosphere of compromise in an era when preservation stood meekly in the shadow of recreation and economic growth.
The planning directives of Mission 66 were the cause of a second clash between the two ethics. By 1963 the Park had purchased some 11,000 acres of private land and proceeded to tear down many of the historic buildings.27 Critics of the move were supposedly bothered by "the rapid destruction of resorts that might have held some historic value," according to historian,

Buchholtz. However, local merchants feel that the real irritation was based on economics again. The loss of the rich clientele of the huge dude ranches was seen as a direct economic loss for the Town's tourist trade.
The Park's Wilderness Recommendation went public in 1973 and "nearly a thousand individuals and organizations presented their opinions about the Park's preservation. "28 Though the majority of opinion was in favor of the wilderness designation, scxtie local businessmen worried about the effect on the local economy. A letter to the Park management represents this concern by remarking that businessmen "survive only by our summer tourist trade, and (we) are sure the government would not want the death of a community on their hands. "29 The preservationist view won this round, but their victory would soon be tempered by the flames of a fire near Ouzel Lake in August of 1978.
The Ouzel Fire was started by a bolt of lightening in 1978, and in keeping with a new policy that "recognized the ecological significance of natural fires,"20 the fire was allowed to continue its slow burn. But in September, thirty mile per hour winds swept the fire eastward toward private lands. Once the fire threatened to leave the Park, it became a test for the new wilderness ideals, and "critics wondered whether every natural condition should really be restored, especially in a region growing ever more populous."21
The conflicts between the two land-use ethics continue today, and it may be that both sides are too strong at this time to meet on some middle road. Still, the need for compromise grows more urgent every year, whether planning can offer the process for compromise is as yet an unanswered question.

It is often easier to play the critic than the advocate when analyzing local government, and the Town of Estes Park is deserving of more praise than this paper has given. In 1985 Estes Park will celebrate it's 80th birthday, and in those eighty years, it has achieved a formidable list of positive steps. These accomplishments are credited as such:
1. Establishment of an active Urban Renewal Authority
- an ongoing upgrading of the main retail corridor of downtown Estes Park, including extensive landscaping of street, widening of sidewalks, and overall creation of a healthier pedestrian environment.
- soon to be published Design Guidelines Booklet to aide merchants in renovating store fronts.
- improved traffic circulation plan for the downtown.
- negotiations underway to form public/private partnership for an urban infill improvement of mixed-use commercial development.
2. Adoption of the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan in 1976.
3. Current revision of a thirty-year old zoning ordinance.
4. Possible budgeting of subdivision revision for the coming year.

5. Town planner has kept planning commission well-informed, has established a good relationship with the County, and possesses a cosmopolitan perspective.32
6. Negotiation of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and County to improve review process and overall relationship.
7. Increase of stable non-government bodies that maintain a check and balance on the Town political system. For example, the Forward Estes Park Foundation, a non-profit economic development corporation, was instrumental in the formation of the Urban Renewal Program.
The recommendations in Part III, The Future Vision, are based on the fulfilling of future responsibilities. However, "unless there is a planning attitude in the community on the part of the elected officials and those who elect them, planning will solve no problems, save no money, and be of little value in any other way."33
This section has stressed the need for future planning by demonstrating the vast changes that have occurred in the Estes Valley in a relatively short time. Our present vision will soon become our children's past vision. It is important that planning become a voice for those unable to speak for themselves for the generations to come in the eternal grand show.
"This grand show is eternal. It is always sunrise somewhere; the dew is never dried at once; a shower is forever falling; vapor is ever rising. Eternal sunrise, eternal sunset, eternal dawn and glory, on sea and continents and islands, each in its turn, as the round earth rolls."34 John Muir

The effectiveness of the sound planning process that should exist, given the above factors, will continue to be hampered by the short-sighted vision currently directing Town policy. The remedy is dependent on the speedy adoption of a future growth management plan and the following items:
1. Stronger powers of review for the Urban Renewal Authority.
2. Ongoing collection of growth statistics to project future trends.
3. Stronger relationship with the National Park and Forest Services to make use of their valuable data base.
4. End to non-public, politically-narrow, back-room decisions.
5. Major revision of Comprehensive Plan to include an extended area of influence and to clean-up the contradictions.
6. Most importantly, the Town needs to recognize its obligations to a conmunity that extends far beyond its borders.
The negotiation of an Intergovernmental Agreement should include the above recommendations. If not, it is questionable whether the Town of Estes should be allowed the greater sphere of influence and responsibilities it would entail.


"It took hundreds and hundreds of years to create the web of assumptions and the unchallenged institutions of exploitation and privilege people take for granted today. It will take a very long time to create new structures based on different values. But rather than belittling our task, this realization seeing ourselves as part of a historical process longer than our lifetimes can be a source of courage.
Francis Moore Lappe
The Town of Estes Park may be seen in a more sympathetic light, given the above quote and the unusual circumstances in which the Town operates. It would be difficult to find another Town of equal size, that faces the complex problems, so far outlined. Added to this sudden growth is a four-month economic season almost solely based on the tourist trade, and a long, hard winter that stretches the summer savings of local merchants. This is not to say, that the community is hereby excused from responsibility for the present crisis. On the contrary, the Town's failure to adopt a long-range perspective, a future vision, is a major cause of this crisis.
It is in the future vision that this small community stumbles and falters. Comments such as, "It's not politically feasible", "It's always been done this way", and "It's money in the bank", have all coalesced into a planning directive destined to bounce off brick walls in countless directions. It is time to tear down these walls and move unafraid into the future. If we learn to analyze and accept this future, we will eliminate the fear that paralyzes us most often: the fear of the unknown.
This author has enjoyed, up to this point, the relative security of the role of critic. However, the time has arrived for proposal of specific recommendations that emanate from the author's belief system. Nevertheless, it is the only fair conclusion for a critic to assume. This portion of the paper is divided into two chapters. The first chapter is an analysis/recommendation model for the Town's preferred actions. The second chapter sets forth several concluding remarks concerning the role of planning.

The final page is an epilogue that ties the many-colored threads into a pattern of belief.
In 1974 a Community Issues Forum was held in Estes Park to establish goals for the comprehensive plan. The residents were polled as to the preferred Top 10 Favored actions for government and the Top 10 Favorable Assets of the community. The top five of each category are listed below:
Favored Actions^
% of Respondents
1. Controlled Growth
2. Building Height Limitation
3. Downtown Revitalization
4. Tighter Development Controls
5. Bike Paths
Most Favorable Assets^
% of Respondents
1. Scenic Beauty
2. Small size people
3. Climate small size
4. Mountain Parks
5. People
Estes Park needs to adopt a process that will effectively accomplish the listed actions and that will protect the favorable assets. The reconmendations of this paper are not a cure-all approach, and in no way constitute a "plan" for the community. They are suggested directions of action for the community to consider, actions derived from compromise and communication.

This chapter was originally planned as a suggested program for a Growth Management System for the Town of Estes Park; however, this system became a bit unwieldy in the final analysis. Therefore, a model approach of analysis will be used instead, in an attempt to critique the present system and offer recommendations for each assumption set forth in the Introduction. A recap of these assumptions is as follows:
1. Estes Park is in the midst of a growth boom.
2. The various levels of incompetency at which the Town operates will leave the community ill-prepared to handle this growth boom.
3. Surrounding federal lands will be detrimentally impacted by this growth.
4. Planning will continue to be ineffective and piecemeal until the four tools of planning the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the subdivision regulations, and the capital improvements program are updated.
Each of these assumptions will be analyzed according to the model below:
Assumption: As stated.
Evidenced by: Facts supportive of this assumption.
Issue: Problem that the Town should address.
Actions: Suggested solutions to the Issue.
Intent: Expected result of the action.

The model analysis will conclude with a list of restraints that may inhibit the success of the preferred actions.
ASSUMPTION I: A. Evidenced by;
B. Issue:
The Model Analysis
Estes Park is in the midst of a growth boom.
1) The recent approval of two shopping centers that are adjacent to the urban area and that project an increase in commercial volume of over 300,000 square feet. One center is presently under construction.
2) A proposal of a research and development campus that could employ up to 200 persons. This will result in an increased demand for housing in an already tight market.
3) A public/private venture of the Urban Renewal Program to create a major multi-use retail development downtown. Private developers are presently being interviewed for this project.
4) Records show a 52% increase in building permits issued in 1983 over 1982 figures.^
5) In 1980, Estes Park contained 1,230 households, a 97% increase from 1970.5
6) A recent PUD proposal on nearby County lands that calls for three new hotels and over 300 residential units projected over the next ten years.
The Town of Estes Park should begin to efficiently
manage this growth.

1) Do nothing This is the crisis management approach to growth.
Intent: This option offers the community the opportunity to save money, up front, by setting future planning issues aside. The result is that that the long-term costs will be much higher than the initial short-term savings.
2) Update the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and subdivision regulations, and develop a capital improvements program.
Intent: This action, discussed in greater detail under Assumption IV, is the best means of managing growth. Continued revision and updating of these four tools of planning is essential to the goal of future, long-range planning.
3) Design and implement environmental controls, based on a careful analysis of the area's ecology, to protect natural processes such as flooding, storm-water run-off, and ground water recycling; and to prevent development in sensitive resource areas, such as mountain slopes.
Intent: Environmental Controls will:
a) prevent pollution of natural resources;
b) prevent interference with natural processes; and
c) protect or enhance the aesthetic qualities and character of a place. This action is discussed in greater detail under Assumption III. It's import to growth management cannot be overstated, for these controls may

effectively mitigate environmental impacts at the outset of development, and thereby offset the long-range costs of environmental degradation.
4) Negotiate an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Larimer County based on the completion of Actions 2 and 3.
Intent: The proposed agreement should improve the relationship between Town and County by establishing a more efficient communication network. A joint referral process for development review will improve both government's land-use policies, as will the definition of an urban growth boundary for the Town. However, this agreement should be developed after an in-depth study of mountain land-use is accomplished, and after a complete revision of the four tools of planning.
ASSUMPTION II: The various levels of incompetency at which the Town operates will leave the community ill-prepared to handle the growth boom.
A. Evidenced by: An analysis of the Town based on an article, "The
Competent Community" by Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. His definition of competence is stated below:
A competent community is "one in which the various component parts of the community: 1) are able to collaborate effectively in identifying the problems and needs of the community; 2) can achieve a working consensus on goals and priorities; 3) can agree on ways and means to implement the agreed-upon goals; and 4) can collaborate effectively in the required actions."6

B. Issue:
C. Actions:
The community should attempt to achieve competency at 5 related levels commitment, self-other awareness, communication, participation, and management of relations with the larger society in order to manage growth.
1) Do nothing.
Intent: Continued operation at the various levels of incompetence will ensure the failure of long-range planning by fragmenting the community.
2) Develop community commitment that comes with genuine involvement.
Intent: What exists presently is a fragmented community composed of people, not in search of a common bond, but in search of themselves. As Cottrell explains, through commitment, "the community is created."
3) Develop heightened awareness of self-interests and the interests of others within the community.
Intent: This new awareness will help the fragmented groups find a common ground and prevent those who seek control from controlling and exploiting or reducing the community's capacity to act effectively. These local power-brokers are presently striving "to blur identities and control perceptions of the situations in order to induce alignments and attitudes consonant with their special goals and interests.Estes Park consists of polarized self-interest groups that are often closed to fresh ideas and new perspectives. These

groups must find contnon interests if the community fabric is to strengthen.
4) Develop increased communication among citizens, between citizens and government, and between the respective governmental bodies.
Intent: Community, communication, and contnon are all words derived from the Latin root 'commun' meaning 'to share'. A community's effectiveness is a measure of it's ability to share a contnon purpose defined in "genuine, two-way communication.The local decision-making bodies are desperately in need of a "crystallization of opinion"^ that will guide their policies. This opinion can only develop if citizens stop fighting and initiate constructive communication.
5) The community should merge the previous 3 actions into "a process of interaction in which they are both process and product."10
Intent: Citizen participation in the definition of community goals is essential to the success of the planning process. The best means for creating a government responsible for and responsive to the citizens is for the citizens to demand it through commitment and participation in the decision-making process.
6) The Town of Estes Park should develop a more beneficial relationship with the "Larger Society"!! the County, State, and Federal governments.
Intent: Estes Park has been planning in a void for many years with little responsiveness to the

concerns of Larimer County and the Federal government. An increased understanding of the concerns and interests of each government will benefit the Town, County, and Federal units.
The Town and County should embark on a joint-planning study of the Estes Valley using the vast data base of the Federal government. It is the best means for producing comprehensive planning.
ASSUMPTION III: Surrounding federal lands will be detrimentally impacted by the growth boom.
A. Evidenced by: 1) The recent PUD proposal, previously cited under
Assumption I, borders National Forest Lands that are being considered for wilderness designation.
2) A conclusion of the Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary Study warns of subdivisions in Estes Park posing a problem for deer and elk herds.^
3) Larimer-Weld Council of Governments study that states that, "there are more than 30 square miles of non-public lands in the Estes area. As a result, extremely careful planning must proceed further development..."^3 There is at present little evidence that there has been "extremely careful planning" in lands bordering the Federal Park and Forests.
4) Estes Park has been much more pro-development than Larimer County. If an Intergovernmental Agreement extends the Town's sphere of influence, the Federal lands may be adversely impacted.

B. Issue:
C. Actions:
The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County have an obligation, to every American citizen, to protect the federal lands from the impacts of environmentally insensitive developments.
1) Do nothing.
Intent: This option will guarantee the free-reign of developers eager to capitalize on the scenic beauty of bordering federal lands. The enticement of a National Park in one's backyard will assure continued border developments.
2) Update and revision of comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations and creation of a capital improvements program, all based on a careful study of mountain lands.
Intent: Again this action takes precedent over all others, as it assures a strong foundation on which to place environmental controls. There is currently little information available concerning the impacts of development upon mountain communities. Therefore, it would be necessary to fill this void before enacting special ordinances or revising current ones.
3) Adoption of Environmental Performance criteria for mountain land development.
Intent: The results of this action are as follows:
1) The criteria may "give local government an involvement in development decisions for environmentally sensitive areas" which they did not previously have, and thereby "reduce

future governmental costs from environmental degradation. "14
2) The criteria may "refocus land-use controls so that they are designed to maintain the natural processes of environmentally sensitive areas, rather than designate the required use of land."15
3) A shift toward performance criteria in land controls can mean "a substantial refinement in a community's ability to identify which aspects of the development it needs to control."15
4) The design and implementation of these controls does not require special state enabling legislation and does not place a heavy financial burden on the community for special data systems or staff.^
5) Encourages developers to be more innovative to improve the compatibility of development with the natural functions of the land.1^
6) The controls eliminate the need for the drafters of the code to know about and test all available methods of development the burden of proof shifts to the landowner.
7) The controls more accurately separate uses that are compatible with the natural systems from those that are not.1^
An example of an environmental control ordinance can be found in the Index Item I.

A. Evidenced by:
3) Increased used of easements to preserve open space and mitigate environmental impacts of development.
Intent: Easements are a relatively inexpensive means of preserving strips and edges of land as open space. They benefit the public and also protect the landowners, as they are assured that border developments will be sensitive to their property. A local success story is Thunder Mountain Estates, a high density rural, residential development bordering the National Park in Larimer County. The County and developers renegotiated the conceptual plan several times, and produced a lower-density estate development with a large conservation easement to preserve a vital elk migration route.
Planning will continue to be ineffective and piecemeal until the four tools of planning the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and capital improvements program are updated.
1) The Estes Park Comprehensive Plan is often contradictory and projections inconsistent with fact. One example of the plan's contradictory nature is evidenced as follows:
The plan states on page 10 that development should not be designated on "slopes over 30%, in areas of extreme wildfire hazard, or in areas above 8100 feet in elevation." On the next page the plan states that any development proposed in the three hazard areas should be "carefully analyzed." One statement prohibits growth, one conditionally permits growth.

B. Issue:
C. Actions:
The Zoning Ordinance is a thirty year old document relatively unchanged in all this time. It is presently a Euclidian ordinance that is currently being revised. It has failed to be, in some instances, a strong legal tool the Town can rely on to manage growth. For example, the ordinance contains no adequate commercial review process that may have controlled the shopping center development now breaking ground.
3) The subdivision regulations are currently no more than a copied version of state statute, without reference to the comprehensive plan of Estes Park.
4) The absence of a projected capital improvements program is already causing problems for the community. For example, one of the two sanitation districts serving Estes Park (neither Town-owned) hurriedly imposed a user fee last month to cover costs of replacing an overloaded sewage system. Again, this is a crisis management approach that could have been avoided if the district could have relied on data from a Town capital improvement program.
The Town of Estes Park should coordinate the revision of all the aforementioned planning tools as "they are the legal foundation upon which all other approaches and techniques must be based."20
1) Do nothing.
Intent: Again, the short-term savings will never justify long-range costs that may cripple the community.

2) Initiate a joint Tov/n-County study of mountain land-use.
Intent: As previously stated, this action is essential to the success of long-range planning. If the joint venture makes use of federal studies and all Town and County studies, the process should not be a lengthy one. This action will also strengthen the Town-County relationship.
3) Revise and update the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan, and print the results in a "user-friendly" summarization for the public.
Intent: The comprehensive plan is the blueprint of growth for the entire community, but it is not infallible. It should always be kept current if it is to be useful to long-range planning goals. If this document is not kept current, the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and capital improvements program will be forced to operate independently and with decreased effectiveness. In short, the entire planning process would suffer.
4) Revise the zoning ordinance with reference to the revised comprehensive plan.
Intent: As pointed out in A Citizen's Guide to Planning, "Even the best zoning ordinance needs to be subjected to re-examination and revision approximately every five years in order to make sure it is geared to changing conditions."21 Estes Park is presently revising their zoning ordinance; however, it remains to be seen if the changes will reflect a comprehensive planning process.

5) Revise the subdivision regulations to reflect land-use controls specific to the Estes Park area.
Intent: Again this regulation must be predicated on a revised comprehensive plan or it will become "nothing more than an exercise of collective thinking, limited in scope, discretionary in requirements, and totally devoid of comprehensive
Furthermore, the community has a duty to deny subdivisions under adverse circumstances, and if this duty is not fulfilled, the community may be held liable for resulting damages. It would be well to remember this when approving subdivisions on slopes of over 30%, in areas of wildfire hazard, and at elevations over 8100 feet.
6) Institute a capital improvements program based on the growth projection from a revised comprehensive plan.
Intent: A capital improvement program (CIP) "is a summary of the needs of a community in terms of public improvements, the estimated costs of these improvements, and the development of logical priorities for their provision." The oft-used excuse that successive governments do not wish to be tied to the previous government's CIP projections is not acceptable. What this boils down to is community interests being sacrificed for political game-playing. There is no excuse for Estes Park not to have a projected CIP, and yet it does not.

An added impetus for adopting a CIP is that "courts are more reluctant to uphold land-use systems that retard growth that are not based upon reasonable capital improvement programs."24 Estes Park must recognize this critical interrelationship between capital projects and community growth.
7) Explore innovative zoning techniques for land-use management.
Intent; Traditional Euclidian zoning often produces bland developments. Some Town residents are currently demanding that the revised zoning ordinance be "in black and white." What they fail to realize is that the land-use fabric of Estes Park may one day appear as such: black and white. Below are listed some innovative zoning techniques gaining more use in communities across America.
1) Impact Zoning this involves the specification of types of impact; measuring impact against performance standards and thresholds using cost/benefit analysis and environmental impact statements, and tying issuance of various permits to the measure of
these impacts.25
2) Conditional Zoning the governmental unit, without committing itself, obtains a promise from a property owner that he will limit the use of his property, dedicate property, place a structure in a certain way, or limit rezoning in a particular manner.26

3) Performance Standards mentioned before under Assumption III, these standards specify maximum levels of stress to be imposed on natural resources.
4) Bonus and Incentive Zoning the community obtains certain amenities in a development in exchange for additional benefits to the developer.
5) Transfer of Development Rights "each parcel in a district is assigned a number of development rights based upon planning considerations, such rights being transferable between properties in that district or other districts similarly classified."27
6) Planned Unit Development this type of zoning allows for greater negotiation between the developer and the municipality. The PUD becomes, "in essence, a 'master plan' of integrated development of a large parcel or parcels of land. "28 it may eliminate the sterileness of Eudidian zoning by providing mixed uses on a single site.
7) Contract Zoning the landowner enters into a contract with the municipality in which he promises to subject his property to deed restrictions in exchange for desired rezonings.

The following four categories set forth the restraints that will inhibit the success of the preferred actions listed in the Model Analysis.
1. Political Feasibility Although many of us may find this an ignominious reality, it is, nevertheless the most common restraint on the abilities of planning to function effectively. It may inhibit the process for the following reasons:
a) Successive Town board members may not wish to accept the projected policies of former board members.
b) Immediate economic benefit may continue to be the best political slogan for votes.
c) Government policy may continue to be inhibited by the lack of broad citizen consensus on growth issues.
d) Special interest groups may earn the loyalty of government through back-door maneuverings.
e) Personal interviews with members of the Town board, Urban Renewal Authority, Town planning commission, and County planning commission, and with the Town planner and a County planner, reveals a debilitating lack of communication among the various groups.
f) Town governments frustration at the Federal bureaucracy may prevent them from recognizing the valuable data base available through the National Park Service and National Forest Service offices.

2. Conflicting land-use ethics This restraint may continue to operate at the various levels listed below.
a) In local parochialism: "Too often local pride does not grasp the national dimension, too often local interest overlook the broad comparative context in which a place, a resource, a moment in history must be judged." 29
b) In Town-County relationships: The county land-use philosophy is more cosmopolitan and environmentally sensitive than the Towns. This will hamper the coordination of an Intergovernmental Agreement because of "different perceptions about responsibilities and obligations."20
c) In the private sector: "Tracts of public-domain lands located adjacent to our national parks are likely to be prime candidates for purchase by developers and land speculators seeking to cash in on having a national park in their 'backyard'."31
d) In the community: No connection presently exists between the desire for a sustained high quality of life and the preservation of the natural environment.
3. Polarization of Citizenship It is important to note that in evaluating citizen participation, the measure must not be of quantity alone but also of quality. The absence of quality in citizen participation processes may exist for the following reasons:
a) "The voices which appear early in most growth-control debates tend to be those of a strident minority... the dissenters who are bent on a policy of preserving the status quo of the community, based on their perceived self-interests and often regardless of equity consideration."32

b) People are not cornnitted to the cournunity because they do not see:
1) "that what it does and what happens to it has a vital impact on their own lives and the values they cherish,"
2) "that they have a recognized significant role in it," and
3) they do not see "positive results from their efforts to participate in it's life."33
c) Citizen groups may continue to strike blindly at the easy targets, because they are not grasping the complexity of growth problems. In Estes Park, the Urban Renewal Authority has become the easy target, and it is being attacked for problems that have beginnings rooted decades ago. For example, citizens, angry over the URA board's inability to halt the development of two shopping centers, have launched a "poison-pen" attack at the entire Urban Renewal Program.
4. Murphy's Laws of Planning Due to the unprofessional aspect of these laws for inclusion in a planning thesis, they can be found in the Appendix under Item 2.

"Freedom is not the capacity to do whatever we please, freedom is the capacity to make intelligent choices.
This implies knowledge of the consequences of our actions."34 Francis Moore Lappe
The best defense for continued planning is that it can offer this knowledge of consequences from which citizens may make intelligent choices. It is, as Herb Smith remarked in Citizens Guide to Planning, "necessary for the sheer survival of our society... "35 in Estes Park, the precondition for sound planning is broad citizen participation, strong public leadership, and a committed, competent community. These are not simple preconditions, nonetheless they are essential for an adoption of a future vision.
And what of the professional planner? To accomplish good planning, we must both work within community restraints and still focus on the future with a vision of converting the impossible or improbable to the possible. We must not only be messengers of the future, but weave all three visions into a pattern from which the citizens can produce a community vision.
There are many challenges ahead for planners as we desparately try to sustain a process that runs contrary to our nation's basic values values of individual rights, of immediate economic rewards, of land exploitation, of reactive management solutions, and of linear life processes.
The paradoxes of our society often seem incomprehensible. The paradox of an aging politician, beating his right hand vehemently, in defense of the rights of an unborn child while, with his left hand, he poisons the garden in which the child must grow. The paradox of a government by the people and for the people, yet ruled by corporate self-interest lobbies. The paradox of freedom and liberty defended at the ultimate cost of nuclear nightmares.

And yet we do what we can; at levels we can best influence. Planning will never be the answer to all the world's problems, but it can single out a few and offer the promise of change. Given this perspective, the answer to the question, "To plan or not to plan?," must be, "Plan!"

I hope that the ideas presented in this thesis will be of help to the Town of Estes Park, and will inspire a planning attitude in some of its citizens. It presents a different way of looking at the community and at the world. It is not a dreamer's idealistic ramblings, but a realist's words of caution that the status quo of crisis management will continue to work against the hopes and desires of this community.
The trials and tribulations that have surrounded my "thesis experience" have opened my eyes to the wide spectrum between planning philosophy and planning reality. It is this thesis that gives me a sense of the motivations that first brought me to planning and keep me here now in the face of great adversities.
By uniting the three visions, we may gain the power and confidence of an important insight that we are an important link in the chain of life. That we can make a difference in the present and in the future. It is a simple and as complicated as that.

1. Estes Park Planning Commission, Estes Park Comprehensive Plan (Estes Park, Colorado, 1976), p. 3.
2. Colorado Land Use Commission, A Land Use Program for Colorado (Colorado, 1974), p. xi.
3. Estes Park Comprehensive Plan, p. 3.
4. Isabella L. Bird, A Lady's Life in the Rocky Mountains (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1960), p. 81.
5. Richard M. Pearl, Landforms of Colorado (Colorado Springs: Earth Science Publishing Co., 1975), p. 9.
6. Ibid, p. 40.
7. Richard M. Pearl, Nature As Sculptor, Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series, No. 6, (n.p.: n.p., 1956), p. 15.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid, p. 16.
11. Pearl, Landforms of Colorado, p. 6.
12. Frank L. Clerc, The Story of a Mountain Park (Denver: J.B. Scott & Co.,
1914), p. 41.
13. Edwin J. Foscue and Louis 0. Quam, Estes Park Resort in the Rockies, American Resort Series, No. 3, (Dallas: University Press, 1949), p. 33.
14. Edward Royal Warren, The Mammals of Colorado (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1942), p. xvii.
15. Foscue and Quam, p. 37.
16. Warren, Mamnals, p. xvi.
17. Ibid.
18. Foscue and Quam, p. 34.
19. Beatrice E. Willard, Ph.D. and Ann H. Zwinger, Land Above the Trees (New York: Harper and Rowe Publishers, 1972), p. 3.
20. Kent and Donna Dannen, Rocky Mountain National Park Hiking Trails (Charlotte, N.C.: Fust and McMillan Publishers, Inc., 1983), p. 29.

21. Richard Llewellyn, How Green Was My Valley (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964), p. 494.
22. C. W. Buchholtz, Rocky Mountain National Park (Boulder, Colorado: Colorado Associated University Press, 1983), p. 9.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid, p. 13.
25. Marshall Sprague, Colorado (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1976), p. 85.
26. ibid., p. 88.
27. E. J. Lamb, Memories of the Past and Thoughts of the Future (Press of the United Brethern Publishing House, 1906), p. 49.
28. Lonnie E. Underhill and Daniel F. Littlefield, Jr., eds, Hamlin Garland's Observations on the American Indian, 1895-1905 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1976), p. 63.
29. Aldo Leopold, "A Sand County Almanac" in The Earth Speaks, ed. Steve Van Matre and Bill Weiler (Warrenville, Illinois: Acclimization Experiences Institute, 1983), p. 56.
30. Foscue and Quam, p. 41-47.
31. Milton Estes, "The Memoirs of Estes : Park", The Colorado Magazine, 16
(July 1939), p. 6.
32. Ruth Stauffer, This Was Estes Park (Estes Park: Estes Park Historical
Museum, 1976), p. 7.
33. Buchholtz, p. 52.
34. Stauffer, p. 9.
35. Buchholtz, p. 83.
36. Ibid., p. 76.
37. Terry and Renny Russell, On the Loose (New York: Ballantine Books, Inc.,
1969), p. 35.
00 CO Stauffer, p. 13.
39. Buchholtz, p. 68.
40. Stauffer, p. 18.
41. Buchholtz, pp. 80-83.

42. Stauffer, p. 18.
43. Ibid, p. 15.
44. Ernest Hemingway, quote in Living in 'the Environment ed. G. Tyler Miller, Jr. (California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1975), p. 30.
45. Stauffer, p. 31.
46. Buchholtz, p. 119.
47. Foscue and Quam, p. 73.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid, pp. 52-54.
50. Stauffer, p. 37.
51. Sprague, Colorado, p. 144.
52. Buchholtz, p. 117.
53. Russell, On the Loose, p. 23.
54. Buccholtz, p. 114.
55. Ibid, p. 127.
56. Sprague, Colorado, p. 126.
57. Buchholtz, p. 113.
58. Ibid, pp. 105-106.
59. Ibid, p. 111.
60. Sprague, Colorado, pp. 143-144.
61. Hugh H. litis, quote in Living in the Environment, p. 176.
62. Foscue and Quam, p. 70.
63. Buchholtz, p. 105.
64. Ibid, p. 154.
65. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary Study (n.p.: n.p., 1979), p. 5.
66. Buchholtz, p. 177.
67. Ibid, 157.

68. Ibid, p. 165.
69. Foscue and Quam, p.
70. Buchholtz, p. 188.
71. Sprague, Colorado, p
72. Buchholtz, p. 191.
73. Ibid, p. 192.

1. Buchholtz, p. 228.
2. Foscue and Quam, p. 84.
3. Ibid, p. 39.
4. John Ballagh, Mountain Lands Analysis, (Larimer County, Colorado, 1974).
5. Town of Estes Park, Building Permit Summary, Office of Building Inspector.
6. Erich Froirm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Avon Books, 1965), p. 273.
7. Francis Moore Lappe, Diet for a Small Planet, rev. ed., (New York: Ballantine Books, 1982), p. 7.
8. Herbert H. Smith, The Citizens Guide to Planning, rev. ed., (Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association, 1979), p. 25.
9. Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (New York: Pocket Books, 1980) pp. 9-10.
10. The Citizen's Guide to Planning, p. 34.
11. Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Ballantine Books, 1970), p. 238.
12. Kevin Lynch, Managing the Sense of a Region (Massachusetts: The MIT press, 1980), p. 7.
13. Aldo Leopold, p. 258.
14. Rocky Mountain News, August 12, 1984, p. 24.
15. Erich Froirm, p. 299.
16. Buchholtz, p. 199.
17. Ibid, p. 193.
18. Ibid, p. 198.
19. Ibid, p. 201.
20. Ibid, p. 202.
21. Ibid.

22. Ibid, pp. 221-222.
23. Ibid, pp. 213-214.
24. Ibid, p. 226.
25. Ibid, p. 197.
26. Ibid, p. 198.
27. Ibid, p. 205.
28. Ibid, p. 214.
29. Ibid, p. 216.
30. Ibid, p. 199.
31. Ibid, p. 201.
32. Personal interview with Estes Park Planner, 13 August, 1984.
33. The Citizens Guide to Planning, p. 128.
34. John Muir, quote in Living in the Environment ed. G. Tyler Miller, Jr. (California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1975), p. 13.

1. Diet for a Small Planet, p. 56.
2. Estes Park Planning Commission, Community Issues Estes Park Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1, March 1974, p. 15.
3. Ibid, p. 9.
4. Building Permit Summary.
5. Economic Market Analysis, prepared for Downtown Redevelopment Program, Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Denver: Browne, Bortz, & Coddington, 1983), p. 5.
6. Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., "The Competent Community" reprinted from Chapter 11 in Further Explanations in Social Psychiatry, ed. Kaplan, Wilson, and Leighton (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1976) p. 548.
7. Ibid, p. 551.
8. Ibid, p. 553.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid, p. 554.
11. Ibid, p. 555.
12. Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary Study, p. 23.
13. Larimer-Weld Regional Planning Commission, A Guide for Planning and Development, 1972, p. 13.
14. Thurow, Charles, William Toner, and Duncan Erley, Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands Report No's. 307, 308 (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1975), p. 1.
Ibid, p. 97.
The Citizens Guide to Planning, p. 53.

21. Ibid, p. 77.
22. Ibid, p. 87.
23. Ibid, p. 92.
24. Randall Scott, ed., Management and Control of Growth, Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute, 1975), p. 143.
25. Planning Advisory Service, Urban Growth Management Systems, Report Nos. 309, 310 (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1976), p. 48.
26. Ibid, p. 39.
27. The Citizen's Guide to Planning, p. 81.
28. Ibid.
29. Robin Winks, "Visible Symbols of an Invisible Past," National Parks, March/April 1983, p. 10.
30. Urban Growth Management Systems, p. vii.
31. Sen. Henry Jackson, "Privatization and the National Parks," National Parks, Jan./Feb. 1983, p. 17.
32. Management and Control of Growth, p. 37.
33. Cottrell, p. 550.
34. Diet for a Small Planet, p. 52.
35. Citizens Guide to Planning, p. 9.

Adams, Douglas. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
New York: Pocket Books, 1980.
Bird, Isabella L. A Lady's Life in the Rocky Mountains.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1960.
Bucnholtz, C.W. Rocky Mountain National Park.
Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press, 1983.
Clerc, Frank L. The Story of a Mountain Park.
Denver J.B. & Company, Printers, 1914.
Dannen, Kent and Donna. Rocky Mountain National Park Hiking Trails.
4th rev. ed. Charlotte, N.C.: Fast and MacMillan Publishers, Inc., 1983.
Foscue, Edwin J. and Louis 0. Quam. Estes Park: Resort in the Rockies. American Resort Series, No. 3. Dallas: University Press, 1949.
Fromm, Erich. Escape from Freedom.
New York: Avon Books, 1965.
Lamb, E.J. Memories of the Past and Thoughts of the Future.
United Brethern Publishing House, 1906.
Lappe, Francis Moore. Diet for a Small Planet.
Rev. ed. New York: Ballantine Books, 1982.
Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac.
New York: Ballatine Books, 1970.
Littlefield, Daniel F. and Lonnie E. Underhill.
Hamlin Garland's Observations on the American Indian, 1895-1905 Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1976.
Llewellyn, Richard. How Green Was My Valley.
New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964.
Lynch, Kevin. Managing the Sense of a Region.
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1980.
McHarg, Ian. Design With Nature.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1969.
Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., inc., 1975.

Pearl, Richard M. Landforms of Colorado.
Colorado Springs, Earth Science Publishing Co., 1975.
Pearl, Richard M. Nature As Sculptor.
Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series No. 6 n.p.: n.p., 1956.
Russell, Terry and Renny. On the Loose.
New York: Ballantine Books, 1969.
Scott, Randall, ed. Management and Control of Growth, Vol. I.
Washington D.C.: The Urban Land Institute, 1975.
Smith, Herbert H. The Citizen's Guide to Planning.
Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association, 1979.
Sprague, Marshall. Colorado
New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1976.
Stauffer, Ruth. This Was Estes Park.
Estes Park: Estes Park Historical Museum, 1976.
Van Matre, Steve, ed. The Earth Speaks.
Warrenville, 111.: Acclimization Experiences Institute, 1983.
Warren, Edward Royal. The Mammals of Colorado.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1942.
Willard, Beatrice E. and Ann H. Zwinger. Land Above the Trees.
New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972.
Government Documents:
Ballagh, John. Mountain Lands Analysis Vol. II -Socioeconomic Characteristics.
Colorado: Larimer County Planning Department, 1974.
Colorado Land Use Commission. A Land Use Program for Colorado, n.p.: n.p., 1974.
Estes Park Planning Contnission. Comnunity Issues.
Estes Park Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1, 1974.
Estes Park Planning Coamission. Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. 1976.
Larimer County Planning Conmission. Larimer County Land Use Plan.
March, 1978.
Larimer County Planning Department. Intergovernmental Agreement for the Loveland Urban Growth Area. Feb., 1984.

Larimer-Weld Regional Planning Coitmission. A Guide for Planning and Development, 1972.
Planning Advisory Service. Urban Growth Management Systems.
Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1976.
Schroeder, Janet. Mountain Lands Analysis Vol. I -Environmental Characteristics.
Colorado: Larimer County Planning Department, 1974.
Thurow, Charles, William Toner, and Duncan Erley.
Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1975.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior.
Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary Study, 1979.
Cottrell, Leonard S. "The Competent Community." Reprinted from Chapter 11
in Further Explanations in Social Psychiatry, ed. Kaplan, Wilson, and Leighton. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1976.
Estes, Milton, "The Memoirs of Estes Park," The Colorado Magazine,
July, 1939.
Jackson, Sen. Henry. "Privatization and the National Parks."
National Parks, Jan./Feb., 1983.
Rocky Mountain News, Aug. 12, 1984.
Winks, Robin. "Visible Symbols of an Invisible Past." National Parks, March/April, 1983.


a violation shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.
The grant or denial of a permit shall not have any effect on any remedy of any person at law or in equity; provided, that where it is shown that there is a wrongful failure to comply with this ordinance, there shall be a rebuttal presumption that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury to the land of any person bringing suit.
Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance shall become liable to the township for any expense or loss or damage occasioned by the township by reason of such violation. This shall include without limitation by reason
of enumeration attorney fees and the cost of replacement of removed trees and other woody vegetation.
Any decision regarding a permit application under this ordinance shall be judicially reviewable. In the event that, based upon the proceedings and decision of an appropriate court of the state, a taking is declared, the township may within the time specified by such court, elect to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire the applicants land in fee by purchase at fair market value; or approve a permit application with lesser restrictions or conditions.
Subject to all other regulations set forth in this chapter, uses shall be permitted and regulations shall apply in the Planned Unit Development District (P-D) as set forth in this article.
The purpose of the Planned Development District (P-D) is to allow diversification of the relationships of various buildings, structures, and open spaces in planned building groups, while insuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and other provisions of this chapter, in order that the intent of this chapter that adequate standards related to the public health, safety, and general welfare shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantage of large-scale site planning for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. The amenities and compatibilities of the P-D District shall be insured through the adoption of a development plan and specific plans showing proper orientation, desirable design character, and compatible land uses. To this end, the use of the Planned Development District (P-D) is encouraged.
The uses permitted in the Planned Development District (P-D) shall be the uses designated on the approved development plan; provided, however, in the event such approved usage does not conform to the General Plan of the City, the General Plan shall be amended to conform to the development plan simultaneously with the amending of the zoning map classifying the parcel P-D.
The following provisions shall apply in the Planned Development District (P-D), which district shall also be subject to the other provisions of this chapter; provided, however, where conflicts in regulations occur, the
regulations set forth in this section or in the development plan or specific plans approved pursuant to the provisions of this section shall apply:
Size. The minimum size of any parcel for which an application for a P-D District shall be accepted shall be five (5) contiguous acres, except as otherwise provided for the Hillside Preservation District in this subsection. The entire parcel shall be in one ownership, or the application shall be made by, or with the written authorization for such action on behalf of, all property owners concerned and the applicant, together with a statement signed by interested owners that they agree to be bound by the regulations and conditions which shall be effective within the district. Any parcel of land, regardless of size, in the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) shall meet the requirements and provisions of the HPD regulations, except as otherwise set forth in this chapter. The five (5) acre minimum standard for the P-D Districts shall not apply to the Hillside Preservation District.
Other regulations. Regulations for area, coverage, density, yards, parking, height, and open ground area for P-D District users shall be governed by the regulations of the residential, commercial, or industrial zoning districts most similar in nature and function to the proposed P-D District uses as determined by the Commission and the Council. Regulations for public improvements and subdivisions shall be governed by applicable laws of the City. Exceptions to such regulations by the Commission and the Council shall be permitted when the Commission and Council find that such exceptions encourage a desirable living environment and are warranted in terms of the proposed development, or units thereof, in accordance with the regulations and limitations set forth herein.
Simultaneously with an application to classify a parcel to a Planned Development District (P-D), the applicant shall submit a development plan showing the area involved and/or a narrative containing the following elements:

(1) The circulation pattern, indicating both public and private streets;
(2) All parks, playgrounds, school sites, public buildings, open space, and other such uses;
(3) The land uses, indicating the approximate areas to be used for various purposes, the acreage and percentage of total area in each land use, the population densities, the lot are per dwelling unit (excluding public street area), the percentage of area covered by buildings, and land uses on adjacent parcels;
(4) A map showing the topography of the proposed district at one-foot contour intervals in areas of cross slope of less than five per cent (5%) at two-foot (2) contour intervals in areas of five per cent (5%) through ten per cent (10%) cross slope, and at five-foot contour intervals in areas exceeding ten per cent (10%) cross slope;
(5) The following studies of the proposed development:
(a) An economic analysis of conformance with a form provided by the city;
(b) A market analysis for proposed commercial developments;
(c) An environmental impact statement which shall include the following major elements in conformance with an outline provided by the city and the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of the State (1970):
(i) The environmental impact of the proposed action;
(ii) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented;
(iii) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact;
(iv) Alternatives to the proposed action;
(v) The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and
(vi) Any irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented;
(d) A general list of price ranges (both sale and rental) for proposed residential developments; and
(e) A geological analysis which shall contain an adequate description of the geology of the site and conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geological conditions on potential grading, excavations, street and utility improvements, and structures.
For any development proposal within the Hillside Preservation District which is less than five (5) acres, the provisions [herein] shall be required unless conditions warrant the waiver of said provisions by the Commission; and
(6) A development schedule indicating the approximate data on which the construction of the project can be expected to begin, the anticipated rate of development, and the completion date. There shall also be included, if applicable, a delineation of units or segments to be constructed in progression.
Development plans and, thereafter, specific plans shall be approved by the City before building permits may be issued for areas classified P-D for which development plans have not been approved prior to the adoption of the provisions of this chapter. The procedure for the approval of such plans shall be as set forth [herein].
Each application for the classification and/or approval
of development plans shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth [herein].
The Commission shall set a public hearing within forty-five (45) days after the filing of any complete development plan application unless the Commission otherwise receives a written request by the applicant to extend this time. For any proposal within the Hillside Preservation District, the HPR Board shall make its recommendation to the Commission within thirty (30) days after the filing of any complete development plan application. The Commission, after a public hearing, may recommend the establishment of a Planned Development District (P-D), and the Council, after a public hearing, may, by ordinance, establish a P-D District provided they find the facts presented at the hearings establish that:
(1) The proposed P-D District can be substantially completed within the time schedule submitted by the applicant;
(2) Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objectives will be attained;
(3) The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which could not be achieved through other districts:
(4) The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District;
(5) Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities for the area;
(6) Any exceptions from the standard district requirements are warranted by the design of the project and amenities incorporated in the development plan; and
(7) The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan of the City or that changes in the General Plan are justified.
(1) If, from the facts presented, the Commission or the Council is unable to make the necessary findings, the application to establish a P-D District shall be denied.
(2) The Commission may recommend disapproval of the development plan as submitted or may recommend approval of such plan, subject to specified amendments and modifications. No amendment or modifications to the development plan shall be recommended or made without the consent of the applicant. If the applicant does not agree to the suggested changes, the Commission shall recommend disapproval of the development plan.
(3) The Commission shall not make a favorable recommendation to the Council, nor shall the Council adopt an ordinance classifying a parcel P-D, without first having approved the development plan.

{4) The approved development plan shall become a part of the zoning map, subject to the provisions [herein]. All modifications or amendments to the development plan shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth [herein]. If, in the opinion of the Commission or the Council, the development of a P-D District is failing or has failed to meet the requirements of the development plan, or any part thereof, the Commission or Council may initiate proceedings to reclassify the property to another zoning district.
(5) Development plans approved in accordance with the provisions of this article shall become null and void if a specific plan, or the first of multiphase specific plans, is not filed with the Commission within one year after the effective date of the ordinance adopting the approved development plan. The provisions of this subsection shall be subject to reasonable extensions of such time upon a showing by the applicant of extraordinary or uncontrollable circumstances warranting such extensions.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit in any parcel zoned P-D or within a defined Hillside Preservation District, the owner or applicant shall submit following:
(1) A tentative subdivision map;
(2) Proposed landscaping pirns;
(3) Proposed engineering plans, including site grading, street improvements, drainage, and other public utilities, which plans shall be tentative in nature, and their approval shall not be construed to mean that the plans will constitute the final improvement plans for the subdivision. The City Engineer, after detailed design studies, may require modifications and/or additional plans and specifications. Such additional requirements requested by the City Engineer after the design studies may be made without a public hearing;
(4) For proposed developments within the Hillside Preservation District, a proposed grading plan based on the following criteria:
(a) The front boundary;
(b) Streets;
(c) Lots;
(d) Storm drainage systems;
(e) Existing and proposed contours;
(f) Slope ratios for heavy grading;
(g) The location of easements for drainage;
(h) The location of benches on slopes;
(i) Retaining walls; and
(j) Cross-sections of critical slope areas.
Such grading plan shall be reviewed by the HPR Board in relationship to adopted City policy on hillside grading;
(5) Proposed building plans, including floor plans and exterior elevations indicating the treatment of surfaces;
(6) Proposed plans for recreational facilities;
(7) Proposed parking plans;
(8) Proposed plot plans, showing building locations on each lot, building setbacks, and lot dimensions; and
(9) Where applicable, as a result of findings on site conditions and detailed site planning, supplemental information or modifications to the environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to the provisions [herein].
(1) The Commission may approve, approve conditionally, or disapprove the specific plans as presented. No developments shall be permitted in any P-D District, or any unit thereof, until the specific plans for such district, or unit thereof, have been approved or approved conditionally by the Commission.
(2) Prior to taking action on the specific plans submitted, the Commission shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth [herein],
(3) The owner or developer may submit specific plans for a portion or unit of the parcel zones P-D provided the development plan indicated the intention of the development of such parcel by units and established a time schedule for such development.
(1) Regulations for lot area, coverage, density, yard requirements, parking, budding, height, fences, and landscaping for P-D Districts shall be as for the residential, commercial, or other zoning district most similar in nature and function to the proposed P-D District land uses, as determined by the Commission.
Such regulations may be modified, as provided in subsection (2) of this section, in any P-D District when the following conditions have been determined by the Commission to exist:
(a) There is improved site design utilizing progressive concepts of building groupings;
(b) Provision has been made for substantial usable open space (maximum slope 10 per cent) for the use of the occupants of the area or the general public;
(c) The unsightliness of cut and fill areas has been reduced by planting trees, shrubs, and ground covers;
(d) A better community environment or improved public safety has been created by the dedication of public areas or space; and
(e) Utility and all other service distribution lines will be put underground.
(2) Upon making the findings set forth [herein], the regulations may be modified up to the following limits:
(a) For each square foot of reduction in lot size, equal amounts of land shall be dedicated to the City and be improved for open spaces for park, recreation, and related uses to be permanently set aside for the private recreational use of the development under a plan which will assure the City of the continued availability of such land and the development and maintenance thereof for the purpose proposed.
(b) Front, side, and rear yards may be reduced to zero; provided, however, where single-family dwellings are proposed and where no side yards are proposed (row houses), there shall be no more than five (5) dwelling units of any contiguous group. In such cases, the rear yard depths shall be 25 feet except where the lot or lots abut a park or open space.
(c) The reduction of public rights-of-way and/or the requirement for the installation of sidewalks may be made subject to the requirement of providing comparable open space, as set forth [herein].

(d) The gross population density and building intensity of any area proposed for development shall remain unchanged and conform to the basic overall density and building intensity requirements of the zoning district most closely conforming to the proposed development, as determined by the Commission. However, lot dimensions, building setbacks, and areas shall not be required to meet the specific requirements of this chapter, provided a more functional and desirable use of the property is made.
(e) Height limitations may be removed, permitting high-rise construction, provided such additional stories of dwelling structures shall not increase gross population densities set forth in the approved development plan and such heights shall mean appropriate reduction in building coverage and adherence to the objectives set forth [herein].
No grading or excavation permit shall be issued by the City for any location in a P-D District or Hillside Preservation District unless the permit has the approval of the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer who shall ensure that the issuance of the permit will not result in effects inconsistent with the purposes of this article if such P-D District falls within the defined HPD. For a P-D District within the HPD District, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer may, at their discretion, refer the permit to the HPR Board for its review. Approval of the permit shall be contingent upon the following conditions:
(1) The grading plan and work shall be directly related to an approved specific plan.
(2) Any grading and excavation shall be necessary for the establishment or maintenance of an approved specific plan.
(3) The design, scope, and location of the grading and excavation will cause minimum disturbance of the terrain and natural features of the land commensurate with the purpose of the grading and excavation work.
(4) All persons performing any grading and excavation operation shall put into effect all necessary safety precautions to minimize erosion, protect any watercourses and other natural features, protect the health and welfare of all persons, and protect private and public property from damage of any kind.
(5) The City shall place certain conditions on time limits and necessary site restoration, and shall undertake measures to assure fulfillment of such.
It is the intent of the Hillside Preservation District to place special controls on any proposed developments, public or private, within hillside areas of the City in order to:
(1) Preserve and enhance their use as a prime resource:
(2) Help protect people and property from potentially hazardous conditions due to grades and geology;
(3) Assure that any development be economically sound;
(4) Encourage innovative design solutions.
The Hillside Preservation District shall be considered as an overlay district to the zoning districts incorporated within. In cases of conflict between such zoning districts and the overlay, Hillside Preservation District, the provisions [herein] for the Hillside Preservation District shall prevail.
For any public hearing under the provisions and regulations of this article, the Commission shall give notice thereof by at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated within the City, at least 10 days prior to such hearing and by mailing a postal card notice not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing to the owners of the property directly affected, and within a radius of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of property directly affected, using for such purpose the last known name and address of such owners as shown upon the assessment roll of the County. The failure of any owner to receive such notice shall not invalidate the hearing proceedings.
It shall be the purpose of the Hillside Preservation District to promote the following City objectives which shall be considered as guidelines:
(1) To maximize choice in types of environment available in the City and particularly to encourage variety in the development pattern of the hillsides;
(2) The concentration of dwellings and other structures by clustering and/or high rise should be encouraged to help save larger areas of open space and preserve the natural terrain;
(3) To use to the fullest current understanding of good civic design, landscape architecture, architecture, and civil engineering to preserve, enhance, and promote the existing and future appearance and resources of hillside areas;
(4) To provide density and land-use incentives to aid in ensuring the best possible development of the Citys natural features, open space, and other landmarks;
(5) To encourage the planning, design, and development of building sites in such a fashion as to provide the maximum in safety and human enjoyment while adapting development to, and taking advantage of, the best use of the natural terrain;
(6) To preserve and enhance the beauty of the landscape by encouraging the maximum retention of natural topographic features, such as drainage swales, streams, slopes, ridge lines, rock outcroppings, vistas, natural plant formations, and trees;
(7) To prohibit, insofar as is feasible and reasonable, padding or terracing of building sites in the hillside areas;
(8) To provide a safe means of ingress and egress for vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and within hillside areas while at the same time minimizing the scarring effects of hillside street construction;
(9) Utility wires and television lines shall be installed underground;
(10) Outstanding natural physical features, such as the highest crest of a hill, natural rock outcroppings, major

tree belts, etc., should be preserved;
(11) Roads should follow natural topography wherever possible to minimize cutting and grading;
(12) Imaginative and innovative building techniques should be encouraged to create buildings suited to natural hillside surroundings; and
(13) Detailed and effective arrangements shall be formulated for the preservation, maintenance, and control of open space and recreational lands resulting from planned unit development.
(1) Established. There is hereby established a Hillside Preservation Review Board for the City.
(2) Membership: Appointment. The Hillside Preservation Review Board shall consist of seven (7) members: two (2) registered architects; at least but not limited to, two (2) persons who are experts in any of the following fields; landscape architecture, civil engineering, geology, biology, real estate, or similar applicable areas of expertise; and three (3) citizens of the City representing the public at large. If it is not possible to fill the member positions of the architects and/or other fields of expertise, these positions shall be assumed by citizens at large. All members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the Council.
(3) Membership Terms; Vacancies. Of the members of the Hillside Preservation Review Board first appointed, one shall serve for a term of one year, two (2) shall serve for a term of two (2) years, two (2) shall serve for a term of three (3) years, and two (2) shall serve for a term of four (4) years. Vacancies shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term. The members first appointed shall draw lots for the unexpired portion of the term. The members first appointed shall draw lots to determine their individual terms under the staggered terms set forth in this subsection.
(4) Membership: Terms; Limitations. All appointees to the Hillside Preservation Review Board shall serve not more than two (2) full consecutive terms on the Hillside Preservation Review Board and in no case more than eight
(8) years.
(5) Membership: Appointment to other boards, committees, and commissions. Any appointee to the Hillside Preservation Review Board affected by the provisions [herein] may be appointed, upon the expiration of his term, to any other board, committee, or commission.
(6) Membership: Removal. The provisions of this article shall not be construed to limit the power of the Council to remove any appointee to the Hillside Preservation Review Board by three (3) affirmative votes of the Council.
(7) Membership: Reappointment. Any appointee, upon the expiration of one year from the termination of his term, may be reappointed to the Hillside Preservation Review Board but may not exceed two (2) full additional, consecutive terms.
(8) Purpose: Hillside Preservation Review Board. The HPR Board shall:
(a) Review and recommend to the Commission on all phases of hillside preservation and development policies as 140
provided [herein];
(b) Assist the staff in evaluating HPD development proposals;
(c) Review and conduct open meetings with the developer concerning such proposals at which the public is urged to participate; and
(d) Provide liaison with the Commission on HPD policies and proposals.
Subject to all other regulations set forth in this chapter, uses shall be permitted and regulations shall apply in the Hillside Preservation District as set forth [herein],
The uses permitted in the Hillside Preservation District shall be the uses designated on the approved development plan of the applicant and as such uses are consistent with appropriate and applicable elements of the adopted General Plan of the City, such as, but not necessarily limited to, land use, housing, open space, parks and recreation, conservation, transportation, seismic safety, and any subsequent additions and changes to the General Plan and its elements as may be adopted by the City from time to time.
Applicants of any development proposal within the Hillside Preservation District shall pursue the procedures and standards set forth for the P-D District. Public agencies including special districts, proposing developments and improvements on their lands within the HPD in conjunction with the uses and activities for which such lands are held shall be exempt from pursuing a P-D classification, but such developments and improvements shall adhere to the objectives of the HPD and specifically to the standards set forth [herein].
No land over thirty-five per cent (35%) slope prior to grading shall be developed except at the specific discretion of the City and taking into consideration the recommendations of the Hillside Preservation Review Board and where it can be shown that a minimum amount of development is in the spirit of, and not incompatible with, the objectives of this article. In no case shall restrictions be placed which result in the use of such lands being unreasonably withheld. The following formula indicates those minimum percentages of the ground surface of a site which shall remain in a natural state (no cut or fill, but including recreation and landscape areas), or be developed solely for recreational purposes, based on the average per cent slope of the parcel in question after the deduction of land over thirty-five per cent (35 %) slope. Access streets and driveways, but not including parking areas, may be given credit toward inclusion in the definition of natural state" described above where it may be deemed beneficial to the City or where it can be shown that location and alignment requiring extensive runs of such streets and driveways cannot otherwise be practically altered.
The following formula is an acceptable method of determining the average slope:

0.00229 I L
Where S = Average per cent slope of site, after deducting any portion of site of over 35% slope
I = Contour interval, in feet L = Summation of length of contours, in feet A = Area in acres of parcel being considered.
The minimum per cent of site to remain in a natural I state (no cut or fill but including recreation and landscape
areas), or to be developed solely for recreational purposes, shall be based on the following relationship:
( U = 30 + (S 5)2
Where U = Per cent of site to remain in condition as . described above, S = Average per cent slope of site, after
1 deducting any portion of site of over 35% slope.
In areas where the slope exceeds thirty-five per cent (35%) and some development of such areas is deemed acceptable by the City, at least ninety per cent (90%) of such lands should remain in uncovered area as described above, unless such restriction based on the topography would be confiscatory.
Notwithstanding the requirements that the minimum per cent of the site shall remain in a natural state or be developed for recreational purposes, it is recommended that a minimum of 100 square feet of usable recreational open space, as defined [herein], be provided for each dwelling unit.
Parking in the Hillside Preservation District shall be provided off-street, and in no cases may parking lanes be provided except as approved in a development plan. The intermittent widening of streets for emergency parking and turnarounds at convenient places shall be encouraged.
The following on-site parking standards shall be the minimum acceptable for residential units within hillside areas. The City may require more parking where topography, special traffic, building, grading, or other circumstances warrant it. The uncovered parking spaces may include areas such as driveways outside garages or carports and off-street parking bays, except that each required space shall be accessible at all times.
(1) Single-family detached dwelling units. Two (2) covered spaces, plus two (2) uncovered spaces. The uncovered spaces may be incorporated within a parking area shared by spaces for other units: provided, however, in no case shall the total number of spaces so located together be less than the same of the separate requirements for each unit and shall be located no farther than 100 feet from each dwelling unit entrance.
(2) Two- and multiple-family dwelling units. For each dwelling unit, one covered space, plus one-half (V2) uncovered space for each bedroom more than one in each unit. In cases where a one-half (Vi) space occurs in a total figure, the standard shall be increased to the next whole figure.
(3) Guest space. In addition to the standards set forth [herein], a minimum of one guest space shall be provided for every ten (10) dwelling units, or fraction thereof.
The purpose of this section is to prevent inappropriate development from taking place in Mine Hill Township, in those areas characterized by certain soil types, slopes, and water levels, without proper corrective action if possible. Inappropriate development in these areas increases soil erosion and sedimentation, thereby intensifying flooding by clogging drainage structures. Sedimentation reduces reservoir life and destroys the recreational use of water bodies.
Inappropriate development on certain soils permits the introduction of toxic materials into water aquifers and encourages pollution. It destroys ecological and natural resources to the detriment of the township and region. It requires expenditures of public funds to correct deficiencies. Inappropriate development destroys the taxable value of property by causing damage to the environmental character of the land.
Soils Map and Other Data
The Soil Survey Map of the Morris County Soil Survey shall govern as to the type of soil in a particular area.
Applicants shall submit current soil logs and topographic surveys to support development proposals or to update soil survey data.
Application of the Soils Table*
Applicants shall not place structures or construct improvements on those lands indicated in the above table as unbuildable. Areas indicated as having severe development problems should be avoided unless corrective action is indicated, such as soil erosion and sedimentation control measures, storm drainage systems, riprap and retaining walls, fill, excavations, and other appropriate improvements.
Applicants for PUD, GA, commercial or industrial development, and major subdivisions of single-family homes may develop to the permitted density and coverage, using good design techniques such as clustering to avoid development on soils indicated as unsuitable for development or having severe problems in the soils table.
For space reasons the table listing soil limitations by soil code has been eliminated from the text of this ordinance. The table lists the problems and development limitations of various soil types.

NORTH 1*. 2000

1. Where people stand on an issue depends on where they sit.
2. Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.
3. If you try to please everybody nobody will like it.
4. Anything you try to fix will take longer and cost more than you thought.
5. Build a system that any fool can use, and only a fool will use it.
6. In any hierarchy, each individual rises to his own level of incompetence, and then remains there.
7. The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but thats the way to bet.
8. Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
9. If everything seems to be going well, you obviously don't know what the hell's going on.
10. If more than one person is responsible for a miscalculation, no one will be at fault.
11. When in doubt, mumble. When in trouble, delegate.
12. Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.
* Excerpts from Murphy's Law California: Celestial Arts, 1979.