HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Joint Town Board and County Commissioners 2019-09-30RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado September 30,2019
Minutes of a Joint meeting of the ESTES PARK TOWN BOARD AND
LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park,Larimer
County,Colorado.Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said
Town of Estes Park on the 301h day of September 2019.
Board:Mayor Jirsa,Mayor Pro Tern Norris,Trustees Bangs,
Blackhurst,Cenac,Martchink,and Zornes
County Commission:Chair Donnelly,Cornmissioners Johnson and Kefalas
Also Attending:Town Administrator Machalek,County Manager Hoffman,
Attorney Kramer,Community Development Director Hunt,
County Planning Director Ellis and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent:Trustee Bangs
Meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m.by Mayor Jirsa.Introductions were conducted
for both elected bodies and Town and County staff.
Director Hunt provided a review of the outcomes from the last meeting and the
responses from the online questionnaire.He stated the questionnaire provided
significant input and comments with three overall points:transparency in process and
decision making;necessity for communication between the Town and County;and
community character;i.e.natural resources,open space,wildlife,views,econornic
health,diversity,etc.Those responding also desired a unified Comprehensive Plan for
the entire valley and a unified planning area in which a joint Planning Commission
makes decisions and/or recommendations.There were also calls for continuity of
zoning and land use regulations,and purposeful location of uses in the different zoning
districts.Comments received since September included fixing only those elements in
the current Intergovernmental Agreement (ISA)rather than starting with a new IGA;the
Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC)has a roll in the Comprehensive Plan;and a
sense the process has been rushed.
Director Ellis provided an overview of the objectives for the Town and County ISA which
included a shared future vision —long range Comprehensive Plan for the valley,allow
community and stakeholder input,detail roles and responsibilities,consistently
administer regulations in the Estes Valley planning area,and concentrate town-level
development in certain areas and define rural.Two draft ISA options were presented:
Option A would extend the current ISA for an additional year,and Option B would
provide a renewed cooperative planning ISA.Option A would provide additional time to
discuss a new ISA;however,it would not allow an immediate discussion on the current
challenges.It would address the need for the County to process land use applications
in the unincorporated area of the valley.Option B provides a framework for how the
Town and County would work together on a shared Comprehensive Plan,maintains a
joint planning area,carries forward the land use zoning designations with the use of two
separate land use codes,lays out the roles of staff,defines the development review
approval with Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment,annexation would needs
more discussion with a discussion on where the Town boundary exists versus the rural
unincorporated Larimer County,and outlines a transitional EVPC and Estes Valley
Board of Adjustment (EVBOA).An overlay district would be adopted with the current
zoning districts,development standards,and any other items unique to the community
such as steep slope,wildlife corridors,view corridors,etc.She stated having an ISA in
place prior to the development of a new Comprehensive Plan would provide clarity and
continuity with the changes on the elected boards.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Joint Town Board County Commission Meeting —September 30,2019—Page 2
Bob LeaviWEVPC Chair provided a summary of the resolution in support of a joint
planning area passed by the EVPC.The resolution states the Estes valley in one
integrated community which shares roads,schools,land use,etc.The EVPC stated in
the resolution the need for a closely coordinated land use planning for the entire valley.
The Comprehensive Plan would be implemented through a Development Code which
would become problematic with an overlay and two diverging codes.He stated the joint
planning area has worked well over the past 20 years.He suggested there could be an
Option C maintaining the planning area and fixing the issues which need to be
addressed.
Those in favor of a joint land use IGA and Option A:Johanna Darden/Town citizen,Seth
Hanson/local developer,David Yale/County citizen and Windcliff Architectural
Committee Chair,Doug Sacarto/County citizen,Vicky Henry/County citizen,Frank
Theis/County resident and EVPC Commissioner,Dick Spielman/Town citizen,and Dave
Converse/County citizen and EVPC Commissioner.Comments have been
summarized:The Estes valley citizens consider the area one community;completion of
the new Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan should take place prior to considering
changes to the land use IGA;the realtor community would not favor two separate
development codes for the Estes valley;a need for clarity as soon as possible for
developers;need for a unified approach to land use development for the valley;strongly
encouraged the elected bodies to keep the established EVPC and EVBOA;no change
should occur until after the upcoming elections in April and November of 2020 as a
number of the Board member and Commissioners are term limited or may not be re
elected;and land use decisions in the small geographic area are impactful to the entire
valley and should be integrated.
John Meissener/Town citizen stated support for Option B and the need for those outside
the Town to have a vote on issues impacting the entire valley.
Rex Poggenpohl/County citizen stated more developable land lies within the County
with half the residents living within the County.The elected official should take a long-
term view when considering land use.
The elected officials and staff discussed the impacts of an overlay,the use of separate
codes,the legality of utilizing one code for the overlay,and the mechanics of land use
and application process for properties within the overlay.
Comments were heard from the Town Board and County Commissioners and have
been summarized:Commissioner Johnson stated he does not support either Option A
or Option B;however,the joint agreement allows for a high level of collaboration with
the use of a joint planning area,code and commission.He suggested proceeding with
Option B and continue utilizing the joint planning area,code and commission with
county staff completing the review of applications in the unincorporated area.Trustee
Norris stated he favored a joint planning area and a joint Comprehensive Plan.The
overlay option retains most of the common code features which are valuable.He would
support working through Option B with Option A as a fall back.Trustee Blackhurst
wouTd support Option A with an exception it be extended for three or four years to allow
the Comprehensive Plan to be completed.He would only support Option B if there was
a unified Development Code.Trustee Zornes stated Option A would push off the
decision and Option B requires improvement.The citizens have provided input and
would like to maintain the joint EVPC,EVBOA and Development Code.Commissioner
Kefalas would support the continued development of Option B in a way which respects
the values of the community to include a joint planning area,joint planning commission
and serves to complete the Comprehensive Plan.Trustee Cenac stated there needs to
be a joint Comprehensive Plan;however,she would support a separate Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment.She stated support for Option B.Trustee
Martchink stated support for Option B and would only support Option A as a fall back
plan.The IGA should not be allowed to expire without a new plan in place.He
supports a joint Comprehensive Plan.Commissioner Donnelly stated he would not
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Joint Town Board County Commission Meeting —September 30,2019 —Page 3
support Option A for a one year extension and the completion of the Comprehensive
Plan.Option B would need to address issues such as an annexation policy.He
supports the County completing reviews within the unincorporated planning area.
Mayor Jirsa stated support of Option B with a cooperative approach and acknowledges
the difference within the valley.
Director Ellis stated the next steps would include further drafting of Option B with
variations on how to address joint boards,planning area and code.Staff would develop
a matrix to outline the differences and similarities of the variations.Director Hunt
requested several study sessions with the Board to discuss clarifications of Option B
prior to November’s meeting.
There being no further business,Mayor Jirsa adjourned meeting at 8:07 p.m.
Todd Jirsa,yor
JØJe Williamson,Town Clerk