Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Joint Town Board and County Commissioners 2019-11-14RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado November 14,2019 Minutes of a Joint Study Session 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 1 41h day of November 2019. Board:Mayor Jirsa,Mayor Pro Tern Norris,Trustees Bangs, Blackhurst,Cenac,Martchink,and Zomes County Commission:Chair Donnelly,Commissioners 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:None Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.by Mayor Jirsa and Commissioner Donnelly. Introductions were conducted for both elected bodies and Town and County staff. Director Hunt provided an overview of Option B which would create an Estes Valley Planning Area with the same geographical boundary as the current area and an Estes Valley Overlay District to be governed by the Larimer County Land Use Code maintaining the same zoning districts.The option also outlines open space,rural areas, town level development,and town level facilities and services.The option outlines the differences in the urban area within town limits and rural areas of the unincorporated valley.The adoption of the new agreement provides for a jointly prepared Comprehensive Plan to be completed by December 31,2021,and if not,the unincorporated area would be added to the County Comprehensive Plan.The option outlines the review roles for both the Town and County with separate Planning Commissions and Board of Adjustments.Land within a defined town growth boundary shall be considered for annexation.The initial agreement would be for a five-year term with automatic five-year renewals. Director Ellis provided an overview of Option C which closely reflects the current Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)with the exception of the County staff completing the review of planning applications within the unincorporated area.The definitions for Option C are the same as those outlined in Option B.The Comprehensive Plan would be completed by the two entities with no deadline outlined in the option.She stated the option would outline the referral process and the current Estes Valley Planning Commission and Estes Valley Board of Adjustment would remain.The annexation and implementation processes would remain the same as Option B. Commissioner Kefalas commented the elected officials had received considerable input for Option C.He stated the underlining themes and values in the comments received included the need for cooperative land use planning,community engagement and building of trust,proper representation,sustainability,environmental protection, preservation of open space and the rural valley,job creation,smart responsible growth, long range planning and visioning,and efficient and effective use of public resources. Staff stated Option C contains a structural component providing for cooperative planning,where Option B does not.Both options provide for the ability to have a joint Comprehensive Plan.Option B would provide for parallel codes and separate Commissions.Staff stated the robust hearing schedule and expanded outreach/engagement would be retained with both options.Option B would concentrate urban development within town limits and protect the rural character for properties within the unincorporated area.This change would focus economic development and job creation within town limits.Smart growth and long-range vision would be addressed through the Comprehensive Plan.Option C would cost the County more financially. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Joint Town Board County Commissioner Meeting —November 14,2019—Page 2 Commissioner Johnson stated concern with Option B Section 10.2 Amendments to the Estes Valley Planning Area Boundary and how changes to the planning area boundary would be accomplished. Commissioner Donnelly stated concern with Option B Section 6.6 Amendment to —Implement Annexation Policy as the section is vague.He stated an annexation policy continues to be a fundamental issue which needs to be resolved.Mayor Pro Tern Norris agreed the section requires additional clarification. Commissioner Donnelly commented Option C would require the County to complete reviews for projects within the unincorporated Larimer County,provide an experienced Planner for meetings in Estes Park and a County Attorney.Director Ellis stated for the County to be successful under Option C additional resources,including staffing,would be required.Commissioner Johnson suggested sending a Planner would provide good customer service to the residents of the valley rather than sending them to Larimer County to testify. Those speaking in favor of Option C included Scott Schneider/County citizen,Vicky Henry/Town citizen,Jay Vetter/County citizen,Wayne Newsom/Town citizen,Susan Wolf/County citizen,Bob LeaviwCounty citizen,Johanna Darden/Town citizen,and Sharry White/Town citizen,Doug Sacarto/County citizen,Mike Kennedy/County citizen, Frank Theis/County citizen,Dale Young/County citizen and Thomas Beck/County citizen.Comments included maintaining the joint land use with the current IGA to represent all residents of the valley;county residents would lose if the planning area where to be separated;the separation would cause confusion and would be costly;the valley is one community with the same special districts such as the school,hospital, etc.;Option B has too many unanswered questions and there are concerns on a defined annexation policy;the Estes valley is not an urban growth area surrounded by rural area commonly found in the front range;concerned the County has not budgeted funds to complete a new Comprehensive Plan for the Estes valley;the valley does not have a growth management area but has a potential for redevelopment;one code,one commission should be maintained and to do otherwise would be regressive;and an annexation policy should be discussed with the new Comprehensive Plan. Kathy Manwaring/Town citizen stated a lack of transparency within the building division. The communication between the two divisions of Community Development needs to be reviewed as there is no clear comrnunication.She stated the Town requires the aid of the County as it relates to planning in the valley. John Meissner/Town citizen spoke in support of Option B.He stated the valley would continue to be one community with or without a joint code or joint commissions. Commissioner Johnson stated the proposed 2020 Larimer County budget does not include the Comprehensive Plan for the Estes valley because a current agreement to participate had not be executed. Commissioner Kefalas questioned the cost and potential confusion with two separate development codes for the valley.Director Ellis stated the County would carry forward as much of the current code as possible to provide continuity.Both options would require two distinct processes because the County would review applications within the unincorporated area moving forward. Trustee Bangs questioned the impact of each option as it relates to staffing and budget. Director Hunt stated Option C would not change the current processes significantly. Option B would require additional time upfront but would cost less in staffing in the future. Mayor Pro Tem Norris stated he heard public support for a new joint Comprehensive Plan and to retain a common development code and Planning Commission.He heard from the elected bodies support for a joint Comprehensive Plan with extensive public input.The elected bodies have not been aligned on a single code or Planning Commission.He would suggest the elected bodies approve an IGA to fund a new RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Joint Town Board County Commissioner Meeting —November 14,2019—Page 3 Comprehensive Plan for the valley and retain the current Planning Commission and code until the plan has been completed.The new plan would guide the future decisions. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Martchink)to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)to work together on a new Comprehensive Plan and defer a decision on a single or separate code and a single or separate Planning Commission until the Comprehensive Plan has been completed.An emphasis on the comprehensive planning process to accelerate the development of an annexation process,and the motion was not voted on as the substitute motion passed. Discussion on the substitute motion was heard prior to the vote and has been summarized:Trustee Blackhurst stated the motion would adopt Option B with overwhelming testimony for Option C.Trustee Cenac commented the overwhelming comments were from county residents to maintain a single code.The single code being interrupted by two separate bodies caused significant confusion this past year.Trustee Zornes stated he would not support Option B.Mayor Pro Tem Norris stated the community has voiced strong support for Option C from both town and county residents. Trustee Bangs stated support for Option B as the Town continues to grow with higher density,and thereby creating additional rural interfaces which need to be addressed. Trustee Martchink stated either option would not be catastrophic and either would be successful.He has been in support of Option B.Mayor Jirsa stated support for separating the Planning Commission,and both options have the potential of dividing the community. A substitute motion was moved and seconded (Jirs&Cenac)to approve Resolution 38-19,and the motion passed with Trustees Blackhurst,Norris,and Zornes voting “No”. It was moved and seconded (JirsalMartchink)to approve Resolution 39-19,and the motion passed with Trustees Blackhurst and Zornes voting “No”. The Town Board recessed while the County Commissioners held their discussion and vote on the items. The Board reconvened.Town Administrator Machalek commented staff would need additional direction from the Board on how to proceed with the Town Board approving Option B and the County Commissioners approving Option C.Discuss continued with Mayor Pro Tem Norris questioning the Board’s ability to reconsider Resolution 38-19. Mayor Jirsa recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m.to allow staff to discuss the Board’s ability to reconsider Resolution 36-19.The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Trustee Bangs commented her support for reconsideration would allow the Town to negotiate with the County to develop a path forward.Town Administrator Machalek stated even though no agreement was reached on an option for the IGA,there was agreement on the extension of the current IGA through March 2020.Staff would continue conversations with the County staff on the next steps. It was moved and seconded (Bangs/Norris)to reconsider Resolution 38-19,and the motion failed with Mayor Jirsa and Trustees Bangs,Cenac and Martchink voting “No”. There being no further business,Mayor 4je Williamson,Town Clerk he meeting at 9:02 p.m. Todd Jirsa,