HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Joint Town Board and County Commissioners 2019-11-14LARIMER
COUNTY
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BOARD OF LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Official Meeting
Future of Land Use Planning in the Estes Valley
Thursday, November 14, 2019
5:30 p.m.
Town Board Room
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
Call to Order - Town Board (Mayor Jirsa)
Call to Order - County Commissioners (Chair Donnelly)
Presentation of Two Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Options by Staff:
• Option B — Patterned After Other IGA Models
• Option C — Patterned After Current IGA
Public Comment on IGA Options
Discussion among Elected Officials
Resolution 38-19: Adopt IGA (Town)
Adopt IGA (County)
[If necessary:]
• Resolution 39-19 to Amend the Current IGA to Extend it by Two Months (Town)
• Adopt an Amendment to the Current IGA to Extend it by Two Months (County)
Adjourn — Town Board (Mayor Jirsa)
Adjourn — County Commissioners (Chair Donnelly)
NOTE: The Town Board and County Commissioners reserve the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
This meeting will be recorded and available live online. 1
2
IfARIMER
COUNTY
TOWN OF FSTES PARK
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Honorable Chairman Donnelly
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
Laurie Kadrich, Community Planning Infrastructure and Resources
Director for Larimer County
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park
Lesli Ellis, Community Development Director, Larimer County
Date: November 8, 2019
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Options for Land Use and
Related Issues for Consideration on November 14, 2019
Objective:
The meeting objective on November 14 will be to review and select an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) regarding land use planning and related issues for
the Estes Valley. The meeting will continue discussions from the September 30 joint
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and Town Trustees and other separate
follow up meetings since that time. This packet supplements the packet from
September 24, 2019 that included a number of attachments, including the summaries of
community engagement materials, the current IGA and amendments, and other
analysis.
Background and Present Situation:
Earlier this year, the Town and County began to explore options for continuing to work
cooperatively with respect to long range planning, land use and development review in
the Estes Valley. Since that time, the parties have worked together to host a community
input event in July, gather input via electronic means in the summer, prepare agreement
options and analysis through the fall, and facilitate other community input and Estes
Valley Planning Commission input related to the options.
A land use and cooperative planning IGA is appropriate and useful in ensuring
coordinated long-range planning and seamless land use decision -making between the
County and Town, and staff and elected officials all conceptually have supported
3
moving forward on a refined agreement to carry the entities into the next decade. The
Parties also have largely agreed on working together to update the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. Several details have continued to be discussed, including
whether to retain a joint Estes Valley Development Code that would be jointly
administered by the Town and County staff and whether to retain the Estes Valley
Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment, or to move toward more traditional
cooperative models working elsewhere in Larimer County and the state.
Proposal:
Select a New Land Use Planning IGA:
County and Town staff have jointly prepared a revised Option B (patterned after the
Option B presented and discussed on September 30 that is similar to other land use
planning IGAs in Larimer County) for final consideration as requested by a majority of
the Town Trustees. The option presented in Attachment 1 includes changes to reflect
feedback given on September 30 and since that time.
Accordingly, Town staff presents Option B as the IGA ready to be adopted by the Town
Board by resolution. Adoption of the resolution will act as approval of Option B.
Additionally, County staff has prepared Option C (patterned after the existing IGA) as
discussed by several elected officials on September 30. See Attachment 2. Town staff
have reviewed Option C at a general level and supports inclusion of this alternative in
the packets for consideration.
In light of previous Town Board meetings, Town staff has not focused on the language
in Option C to the same degree of detail as it has on Option B. Accordingly, if the
Town Board wishes to pursue Option C, Town staff requests that the Town Board
approve a motion to direct Town staff to prepare Option C for adoption at a future Town
Board meeting.
The analysis table compares and contrasts the differences between the two IGA
approaches.
Extend the Current IGA to Transition:
The current IGA expires on February 1, 2020. Because discussions about the final IGA
have been a moving target this fall, County staff has requested that the new IGA
become effective April 1, 2020 instead of Jan. 1, 2020 to allow for a smooth transition
time of development review services for the unincorporated area from the Town to the
County Community Development department. Town staff have discussed the extension
with County staff, agree that the logic of a time -limited extension is sound, and support
this extension proposal in principle. Town staff would note that an appropriate
compensation from County to Town for the three additional months of service would
also be appropriate. Extension of the current IGA would extend the provision therein
that the Town Administrator and County Manager may mutually agree upon an
appropriate compensation for services (see current First Amendment, Sec. 3); thus, no
direct compensation element is needed in the Extension.
Advantages and Disadvantages: 4
Staff has presented analysis about the options to the Town Trustees and Board of
County Commissioners in discussions since September 30, 2019. Attachment 6 is an
analysis table that compares the differences between the two IGA options and how they
differ from the current IGA. It also notes the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The County and Town have anticipated the costs of Option B and presented them in
their respective budget proposals for the coming fiscal year. Option C has higher
financial and resource impacts for the County and would need to be considered as part
of the budget process if selected. For the Town, Option C is not expected to
appreciably change budget impacts from those envisioned in the proposed 2020 Town
budget.
Level of Public Interest:
There is high interest in the joint planning framework and the IGA in general and several
comments received expressing concerns about changing the current IGA approach.
Actions Recommended:
Town and County staff recommend Option B. This option most closely resembles
traditional planning intergovernmental agreements in Larimer County that have been
working well for decades. Staff finds this approach will continue to allow the Town and
County to coordinate on long range planning and visioning; chart a course for future
growth management and annexation policy; and provide a high quality of customer
service to town and county residents, consistency in decision making, and cost
effectiveness in providing services to residents. Additionally, County and Town staff
recommends approving the extension IGA.
Suggested Motions and Resolution for Town
Town Trustees will take action first on November 14. Staff recommends the following
motions for the Town Trustees:
1. I move that the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees approve Resolution
38-19.
2. I move that the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees approve Resolution
39-19.
Suggested Motions for County
The County Commissioners may choose to take the same action as the Trustees or
decline to take the same action. However, to move forward with an agreement, the
Commissioners' actions would need to mirror Trustee actions taken. Considering that,
staff recommends the following motions for the County Commissioners, with BCC at
least adopting motion number 2:
5
1. I move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement (Option _(same as
Trustees)), effective April 1, 2020 (amended as follows to be consistent
with Town direction).
2. I move to approve the Extension IGA as presented in Attachment 3,
effective starting on February 1, 2020 and expiring March 31, 2020.
Attachments:
The following attachments are including in this packet.
1. Option B — patterned after other community IGAs
2. Option C — patterned after the existing IGA
3. Extension IGA (extending the current IGA to allow for transition to April 1,
2020)
4. Town Resolution 38-19: Adopt IGA
5. Town Resolution 39-19 to Amend the Current IGA to Extend it by Two
Months
6. Analysis table comparing the options
6
�.It t t tt '% lie ued l"tt°t Other IGA Models
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Regarding Land Use Planning and Related Issues for the Estes Valley
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and effective this
1st day of April, 2020 ("Effective Date") by and between LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
("County"), a body politic organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado and
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ("Town") and jointly referred to as the "Parties."
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Parties have worked together cooperatively on land use planning since the mid-
1990s, with an initial intergovernmental agreement (IGA) effective February 1, 2000, with five
subsequent amendments, and which expires in February 2020;
B. WHEREAS, in 1996, the Town and County prepared and jointly adopted the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan for the land area in the Estes Valley Planning Area which includes lands
within Town limits and in unincorporated Larimer County, which plan is effective until updated
or superseded;
C. WHEREAS, the Parties agree that maintaining and enhancing areas of Town development in a
thoughtful and deliberate way, managing growth in the Estes Valley, and protecting open space
and conserving rural character are enhanced by cooperation in land use planning and
development review services;
D. WHEREAS, concentrating Town Level Development in areas planned and designated for such
development affords greater efficiency in the delivery of services such as water, streets and
transportation, fire and police protection and other services, and affords a measure of
predictability to landowners and residents concerning where services will be provided in the
future;
E. WHEREAS, maintaining the parts of the Estes Valley Planning Area that are designated for rural
uses as rural promotes the purposes of providing a community buffer between the Town and the
adjacent national park and federal lands, serves economic and community interests, and meets the
goals of the community as set forth through the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan;
F. WHEREAS, the purposes of this Intergovernmental Agreement (Agreement) are to:
1. Implement the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan as it currently exists or may hereafter be
amended or replaced;
2. Establish effective means of planning for future development and conservation within the
unincorporated portion of the County in the Estes Valley;
3. Assure that Town Level Development occurs only where and when facilities and services can
be provided to it and in appropriate locations within the Estes Valley that are able to support
higher intensities of development;
7
Option B — p. 1
4. Assure that land eligible for annexation to the Town are considered for annexation prior to or
concurrently with development;
5. Provide effective means for the appropriate design, construction, and maintenance of public
improvements;
6. Encourage the efficient use of land and open space conservation in appropriate locations,
including those in the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley;
7. Provide a mechanism for property owners, residents, stakeholders, and others to have input
on and be informed as to where development will occur in the future;
8. Ensure that development standards are thoughtfully aligned on either side of the Town limits,
so as to allow for intentional patterns of development that are consistent with the plan and
vision for the Estes Valley;
9. Assure that development in the vicinity of the Town does not negatively impact roads or
other infrastructure improvements in unincorporated Larimer County, and provide that when
there are negative impacts, those impacts will be appropriately mitigated; and
10. Allocate responsibilities of Larimer County and the Town of for purposes of administering
land use within their respective jurisdictions.
G. WHEREAS, pursuant to State of Colorado law, local jurisdictions are authorized to regulate the
location of activities and developments; phase development of services and facilities; regulate
development on the basis of its impact on the community or surrounding areas; plan for and
regulate the use of land so as to provide for planned and orderly use of land and protection of the
environment; cooperate or contract with other units of government for the purpose of planning
and regulating the development of land, including, but not limited to, the joint exercise of
planning, zoning, subdivision, building, and related regulations and annexation of property, all in
a manner consistent with constitutional rights and statutory procedures;
H. WHEREAS, communication among local jurisdictions, special districts, property owners and
other interested parties is essential to accomplishing this Agreement;
I. WHEREAS, any provisions in this Agreement may be implemented only to the extent legally
permitted by State and Federal Law;
J. WHEREAS, the Parties have sought community input and held hearings after proper public
notice for the consideration of entering into this Agreement; and
K. WHEREAS, in order to provide for an orderly transition to this Intergovernmental Agreement
and to allow for appropriate allocation of resources by all parties to support it, it is desirable to
extend the February 1, 2010 Intergovernmental Agreement and its subsequent amendments for an
additional two (2) months, to terminate on March 31, 2020, with this new Intergovernmental
Agreement to become effective on April 1, 2020. The extension is being accomplished by an
amendment contemporaneous with this Agreement.
Option B — p. 2
8
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants and obligations expressed herein, it is
hereby agreed by and between the Parties as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have the meanings set forth below.
1.1. Annexation. Annexation means the incorporation of land area into an existing municipality
with a resulting change in the boundaries of that municipality.
1.2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The adopted Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley
Planning Area, adopted by the Estes Park Planning Commission and the Larimer County
Planning Commission in December 1996. The Plan addresses land use, transportation, natural
resources, and other elements and guides through maps and text and generally indicates the
types, densities and intensities of land use that are acceptable for any given parcel of land or area
in the Estes Valley Planning Area. It also establishes the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary.
1.3. Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The adopted land use, zoning, and development
standards for the Estes Valley Planning Area adopted by the Town and County effective in 1999
and as subsequently amended.
1.4. Estes Valley Planning Area (EVPA). The Estes Valley Planning Area is that geographical area
including all of the Town of Estes Park and certain designated areas beyond Town limits
established in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and as depicted in Exhibit 1.
1.5. Estes Valley Overlay District (EV Overlay District). Regulations proposed to be adopted by
Larimer County in the EVPA as part of the Larimer County Land Use Code to maintain
consistency with existing Estes Valley Development Code and to implement this Agreement. In
such area generally, Town Level Development is currently not considered appropriate or desired
except where it annexes to the Town.
1.6. Larimer County Comprehensive Plan. The official vision and policy document guiding long-
range framework for decision making for Larimer County's unincorporated areas outside the
Estes Valley Planning Area, adopted in 2019 by the County Planning Commission.
1.7. Larimer County Land Use Code. The regulations proposed to be adopted and amended by the
Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the authority of Title 30, Article 28 of the Colorado
Revised Statutes to implement the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Code
contains, inter alia, land use regulations, development standards, and development review
procedures for the unincorporated areas.
1.8. Open Space. Land that is not occupied by any structure or artificial impervious surfaces and
that is intended for long-term conservation purposes.
1.9. Rural Areas. Areas which are outside the Town's corporate limits and which are planned or
zoned for rural estate or other rural residential uses or which are designated to remain as
9
Option B — p. 3
conserved areas. These lands are not intended to be annexed and will generally remain rural in
character.
1.10. Supplemental Regulations. Regulations proposed to be adopted by Larimer County in the
Land Use Code as part of the Estes Valley Overlay District (EV Overlay District) and that
provide for the implementation of land use, street, design, and other development standards
consistent with the Estes Valley Development Code and carried forward through the County's
development review process.
1.11. Town Level Development. Any development which uses Town level facilities and services
provided either by the Town or special districts and which is at higher intensities than rural
areas.
1.12. Town Level Facilities and Services. Services such as central water, sewer, responsive fire
protection, urban level street construction and maintenance, and/or similar services that are
typically provided by the Town or an appropriate district and are necessary to serve Town
Level Development as defined in this Agreement.
1.13. Town of Estes Park Development Code. The regulations proposed to be adopted and
amended by the Town of Estes Park Town Board of Trustees pursuant to the authority of Title
31 Article 23 of the Colorado Revised Statutes to implement the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan or its successor Plan(s) as such Plan(s) may apply to the Town of Estes Park.
2. ADOPTION OF NEW PLANS AND REGULATIONS
This section identifies the plans and boundary maps which are referenced in this Agreement.
2.1. Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley Planning Area.
2.1.1. Jointly Prepared Comprehensive Plan. The Parties agree to communicate and
coordinate to prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley Planning Area that will
encompass the Town and the unincorporated area of Larimer County, which upon adoption shall
replace and supersede the current Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. If by December 31, 2021,
the Comprehensive Plan has not been completed or does not extend to cover the Estes Valley
Planning Area, the County shall amend its Comprehensive Plan to include policies and maps that
address the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area, and the Town shall adopt a
Comprehensive Plan to include policies and maps that address the incorporated Town of Estes
Park. While the Comprehensive Plan will be jointly prepared, each Party will adopt it for its
respective jurisdiction, and nothing in this Agreement prevents each Party from amending the
Comprehensive Plan with respect to land use decisions within its own jurisdiction.
2.1.2 Boundary to Guide Future Annexation. The Comprehensive Plan also will include a
boundary within the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary to delineate areas of the
unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area that are suitable for annexation to the Town (e.g., a
"town limit" or "town growth boundary," or another term to be defined), and areas beyond which
should remain rural in unincorporated Larimer County.
Option B — p. 4
10
2.2. Estes Valley Planning Area Boundary. The Estes Valley Planning Area boundary is identified
in "Exhibit 1", and attached hereto and incorporated herein, including any subsequent
amendments thereto.
2.3. Town and County Land Use Codes. The Parties agree that there shall be a Land Use Code for
the Town and a Land Use Code for the County, and upon such designations by the respective
parties shall replace and supersede the current Estes Valley Development Code as to that Party.
As used in this Agreement, the terms "Land Use Code" and "Development Code" shall be
deemed synonymous. The Parties intend that the County's Land Use Code as currently existing or
hereafter amended or superseded will include regulations specific to the unincorporated area of
Larimer County within the Estes Valley Planning Area.
2.4. Land Use and Zoning Designations in the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area. The
County intends to recognize and carry forward the zoning districts and certain development
standards of the Estes Valley Development Code when proposing and adopting supplemental
regulations to the County Land Use Code for the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley
Planning Area in order to maintain consistency with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
These districts and standards are intended to provide continuity of development standards and
terminology within and outside the Town limits, and shall include but are not limited to standards
for steep slopes, ridgeline protection, grading and site disturbance, tree and vegetation protection,
wildlife habitat protection, exterior lighting, and allowed uses, building heights, density, and
setbacks associated with the relevant zoning districts, that are guided by the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. As the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan is updated, or as the Larimer
County Land Use Code is updated, the County shall exercise its regulatory function consistent
with the policies of the plan. Also, as the Town updates its Development Code over time, it will
forward its amendments to the County for consideration of adoption of parallel updates in the
County Land Use Code for the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
2.5. Land Use and Zoning Designations in the Town of Estes Park. The Town intends to
recognize and carry forward the zoning districts and certain development standards of the Estes
Valley Development Code via preparation and adoption of the Town of Estes Park Development
Code. It is anticipated that the Town of Estes Park Development Code's original adoption will in
content be substantially similar to the Town -applicable provisions of the Estes Valley
Development Code as it exists at the time of adoption of this Intergovernmental Agreement,
provided that the Town of Estes Park Development Code may from time to time adopt
appropriate amendments and modifications for clarity and reconciliation of non -harmonious Code
sections, or may include changes as deemed appropriate in response to specific land -use requests
on behalf of property owners. It is further anticipated that after adoption of a new Comprehensive
Plan, a rewritten Town of Estes Park Development Code that conforms to guidance in the Plan
will be prepared and adopted by the Town.
3. LAND USE REGULATIONS AND FEES
This section addresses the relevant development standards, procedures, and fees that apply to proposed
development in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.1. Town Limits. Within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Estes Park as they exist or may
be changed through annexation, the Town shall maintain and exercise the right to review and
11
Option B — p. 5
approve development subject to the Town of Estes Park Development Code, as existing or
hereafter amended. The Parties agree that, except as modified through appropriate due process in
accordance with applicable law and procedures, all Town regulations, standards and procedures
shall apply to future development within the incorporated Town of Estes Park. The Parties agree
that land -use applications, appeals, interpretations, and variances, including those applied for at
the building permit stage, shall be processed and decided by the Town as provided for in the
Town of Estes Park Development Code, as existing or hereafter amended.
3.2. Unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area. Within the unincorporated area of the Estes
Valley Planning Area, Larimer County shall maintain and exercise the right to review and
approve development subject to the Larimer County Land Use Code (including the Estes Valley
Overlay District and supplementary regulations). The Parties agree that, except as modified by
the supplemental regulations noted below, all County regulations, standards and procedures shall
apply to future development within the unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
The Parties agree that land use application, appeals, interpretations, and variances shall be
processed and decided by the County as provided for in the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Building Permits shall be processed according to the County Building Code.
3.3. Estes Valley Overlay District and Supplemental Regulations. The County will undertake the
required legislative process to establish the Estes Valley Overlay Zone District (EV Overlay
District) and supplemental land use regulations to implement this Agreement. The County agrees
that it will require development applications for Rezonings, Special Review, Development Plans
or Site Plans, and Planned Land Division in the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley Planning
Area to meet either the Larimer County development standards, as contained within the Larimer
County Land Use Code and its technical supplements or any other standards contained in the
Estes Valley Overlay District and supplemental regulations.
3.4. Modifications and Variances to Regulations. The Parties agree that the Town or County may
allow reasonable modifications from adopted standards within their respective jurisdictions where
the Town or County in its respective discretion determines that either:
3.4.1. By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the standard sought
to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional and
undue hardship upon the owner of the affected property, provided that such difficulties are not
caused by an act or omission on the part of the owner or applicant, or
3.4.2. The proposed modification will serve to advance or protect the public interests and
purposes of the standards for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a
plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. The County agrees
it will refer any proposed modifications to the Town for its review and a recommendation.
3.5. Fees for Development.
3.5.1. The Parties agree to maintain and administer separate fees with their respective
jurisdictions in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
Option B — p. 6
12
3.5.2. The County's Capital Expansion fees for roads, community parks, and drainage shall apply
within the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.5.3. The County's regional park fee shall not apply within the unincorporated portion of the
Estes Valley Planning Area.
4. PARTIES' ROLES IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, COMPLIANCE
4.1. Establishment of Improvement Districts. The County agrees to notify and allow the Town to
comment prior to establishing any improvement district within the unincorporated Estes Valley
Planning Area.
4.2. Utilities and Services. In areas where the Town has jurisdiction and oversight over the delivery
of utility services and other services relative to public improvements, the Town agrees to provide
a mechanism for the performance of inspections of any utility or other public improvements
provided by developers. In areas where special districts have jurisdiction and oversight over the
delivery of utility services and other services relative to public improvements, the Town agrees to
propose that the Town and the respective special district include terms in the intergovernmental
agreement with the special district that stipulate that the special district will perform these
inspections. The County agrees that it will propose provisions in the supplemental regulations
that the Town or the special district may charge developers an appropriate fee for this inspection
service.
4.3. Improvement Guarantees. Improvement guarantees shall be required as set forth in the EVDC,
or the Town's and County's respective Land Use Codes. The respective jurisdictions shall
administer and maintain all improvement guarantees. Appropriate jurisdictional agencies, such as
the Town Engineer and County Engineer, the Town Utilities Department, and the Sanitation
District(s) with jurisdiction, shall verify the estimate of construction costs, depending on the
geographic location of the improvements. Releases of security from an Improvement Guarantee
shall be authorized by the respective jurisdictional authority and released by the authorized
Community Development Department. To the extent that development in the Town requires the
construction of off -site public improvements in the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area
that are typically not associated with development in the County, the Town agrees to provide a
mechanism for maintenance of those off -site public improvements by adjacent property owner.
Such improvements include, but are not limited to, curbs and gutters, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, transit facilities, traffic signals, traffic control and traffic calming devices, drainage
facilitates, streetscapes, and medians.
4.4. Maintenance of Required Public Facilities. Maintenance of public facilities, if any, shall be
the responsibility of the Town or County, depending upon the respective geographic location of
the public improvement and subject to other applicable regulations. Each public facility shall be
subject to the policies and procedures of the respective jurisdiction.
13
Option B — p. 7
4.5. Development Review Staffing Roles.
4.5.1. Duties of the Town and County Staff. Town and County staff shall cooperate in the
review, approval, and monitoring of land use development within the Estes Valley Planning Area.
4.5.1.1. Duties of the Town Community Development Department. Town staff shall
serve as the primary administrator of the Town's Development Code within town limits.
4.5.1.2. Duties of the County Community Development Department. County staff shall
serve as the primary administrator of the County's Land Use Code within the unincorporated
Estes Valley Planning Area.
4.5.2. Referrals.
4.5.2.1. County Review, Town Referral within the Estes Valley Planning Area. Within
the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area, the County agrees to submit proposals for the
following proposed development applications to the Town staff for review and comment:
Rezoning; Special Review; Public Site Plan, Minor Special review, Special Exception, or any
land division application that results in the creation of one or more additional lots. The
Town's review and comment shall include consideration of whether and how the proposal is
consistent with the Estes Valley Overlay District and supplemental regulations. The Town
agrees to provide the County with written comments, if any, within twenty-one (21) days
after the County or its authorized representative mails to the Town a request for comments in
accordance with state statute.
4.5.2.2. Town Review, Referral to County for Town Development that May Impact
County's Public Improvements. The Town agrees to provide to the County an opportunity
to review and comment upon applications for development within the Town that may affect
the County's interests and public improvements, including, but not limited to, road
improvements and annexations.
4.6. Additional Review Roles. The Town and the County have additional operating rules,
regulations, ordinances and requirements which may apply to development and use of property
within the Estes Valley Planning Area. These include but are not limited to the areas of
regulation noted in Table 1 below.
14
Option B — p. 8
Table 1: Review Roles of Town of Estes Park and Larimer County
Type of Process or
Regulation
Within Town of Estes Park
(Who Administers)
Within Unincorporated Estes
Valley — Larimer County
(Who Administers)
Development Review
for Planning Cases
Town of Estes Development
Code (Town Community
Development Department)
Larimer County Land Use Code —
Estes Valley Supplement (County
Community Development
Department)
Floodplain
Regulations
Town floodplain regulations
(Town. Community Development)
County floodplain regulations
(County Engineering)
Sign Regulations
Town sign regulations (Town
Community Development)
County sign regulations (LC
Community Development)
Building Permits
Town Building Code (Town
Building Official)
County Building Code, permit,
and inspection programs (County
Building Official)
Streets and Roads
Standards
Street standards (Town Engineer)
Larimer County Rural Area Street
Standards. County road
construction, safety, and
maintenance (County Engineer)
Drainage
Drainage standards (Town
Engineer)
Drainage standards (County
Engineer)
Public Health and
Safety
County Health Department
County Health Department
Wildfire Construction
Wildfire Construction standards
in Larimer County's building
code (Town Building Official)
Wildfire Construction standards
in Larimer County's building
code (County Building Official)
Code Compliance
Town Code Compliance
County Code Compliance
Legal Counsel
Primary legal advisory to Town
Staff and the Town boards and
commissions for items in town
limits and to institute and
maintain all necessary legal
actions for matters within the
town limits (Town Attorney)
Primary legal advisory to County
Staff and boards and commissions
for the unincorporated area and to
institute and maintain all
necessary legal actions for
matters therein (County Attorney)
Vacation Rentals
Approved by Town (Town
Maintains its rentals and cap)
County Land Use Code (New
approvals by County; County
maintains the current cap in the
unincorporated area)
5. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVALS (PLANNING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT)
5.1. Larimer County Planning Commission. The Larimer County Planning Commission shall hear
all planning cases in the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area pursuant to the Larimer
County Land Use Code review development applications.
5.2. Larimer County Board of Adjustment. The Larimer County Board of Adjustment shall hear
all variance requests pursuant to the terms of conditions of state statute, the Larimer County Land
Use Code, and supplemental regulations.
15
Option B — p. 9
5.3 Town of Estes Park Board of Adjustment. The Town shall appoint a Board of Adjustment in
accordance with Title 31 Article 23 Part 3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Town of
Estes Park Development Code, with duties, responsibilities, and obligations as specified therein.
The Town of Estes Park Board of Adjustment shall have authority in all applications that are
designated in Statute and Code for Board of Adjustment review within the Town of Estes Park,
for all applications that are not instead reviewed by the Estes Valley Transitional Board of
Adjustment under section 5.5, below. Membership and residency shall be as specified in Title 31
Article 23 Part 3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Town of Estes Park Development
Code. It is anticipated that membership will consist of three (3) members appointed by the Town
Board for staggered terms.
5.4 Town of Estes Park Planning Commission. The Town shall appoint a Planning Commission in
accordance with Title 31 Article 23 Part 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Town of
Estes Park Development Code, with duties, responsibilities, and obligations as specified therein.
The Town of Estes Park Planning Commission shall have authority in all applications that are
designated in Statute and Code for Planning Commission review within the Town of Estes Park,
for all applications that are not instead reviewed by the Estes Valley Transitional Planning
Commission under section 5.5, below. Membership and residency shall be as specified in Title 31
Article 23 Part 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Town of Estes Park Development
Code. It is anticipated that membership will consist of five (5) members appointed by the Town
Board for staggered terms.
5.5. Transitional Roles for EVPC and EVBOA. The parties hereby continue, for a time -limited
transitional period, the existing Estes Valley Planning Commission ("Transitional EVPC") and
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment ("Transitional EVBoA"), with duties, responsibilities,
authority, obligations, and operational parameters pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement as described in "Exhibit 2."
6. ANNEXATION
6.1. Eligibility for Annexation. The Parties agree that the term "eligibility for annexation" shall
mean any land that is contiguous to the corporate town limits via one or more points of
connection, and that it is anticipated that the Town would annex lands eligible for annexation in
the Estes Valley Planning Area at such time that a development proposal and annexation petition,
including all required fees and supplemental information, is received from the property owner(s).
When a town growth boundary is defined, lands within that area shall be considered for
annexation at such time that a development proposal is presented. The Town represents that it
will give due consideration to the desirability of annexing lands at such time that they become
eligible for annexation based upon State annexation statutes (Title 31, Article 12, Colorado
Revised Statutes (C.R.S.)).
6.2. Town Limits Annexation Area. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan will define the area
appropriate for future annexation adjacent to the Town of Estes Park.
6.3. Annexation Petition. The County agrees that it will not accept any application for Rezoning;
Special Review; Public Site Plan, Minor Special review, Special Exception, or any land division
application that results in the creation of one or more additional lots on property that is eligible
for voluntary annexation to the Town unless a written annexation request which conforms to the
16
Option B — p. 10
Town's standard annexation conditions is submitted to the Town and is subsequently denied by
the Town. If such an annexation petition is denied by the Town, the County may accept said
application on the property and, if appropriate, approve it in accordance with the Larimer County
Land Use Code.
6.4. Future Annexations. The County agrees that, in the case of lands within the unincorporated
Estes Valley Planning Area that are not eligible for annexation but that are proposing Town Level
Development, the County shall require applicants that apply for one of the following County
processes after the effective date of this Agreement to sign an agreement to annex agreement as a
condition of development approval: Rezoning; Special Review; Public Site Plan, Minor Special
review, Special Exception, or any land division application that results in the creation of one or
more additional lots.
6.5. Annexation Agreements. The County agrees to require a binding annexation agreement as a
condition of approval on any development application for uses approved and located within the
unincorporated portion of the Planning Area that is planned for future town annexation but not
eligible for annexation to the Town at the time of development application, excluding subdivision
of 4 or less lots for residential use.
6.6. Amendment to Implement Annexation Policy. The Town is deliberating regarding the
appropriate policy to coordinate annexation with the County. The Parties agree to cooperate
diligently on the creation of such a policy to be completed within six months of adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan described in section 2.1.1 and intend to incorporate it herein as an
amendment once it is determined. Until such time, while the Town undertakes no specific
obligations with regard to annexation, the Parties agree to cooperate regarding Town Level
Development in the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area and on annexation petitions.
7. IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT
7.1. Commencement and Transition Period. Staff processing of applications for development
submitted after the effective date of this IGA shall be conducted according to this Agreement.
The County shall on April 1, 2020 resume maintaining all unincorporated -area project files and
Town staff shall have access to files. Town staff will be available to support County staff access
to historic case files for at least one year from the time of this Agreement or such time when files
may be transitioned from the Town to County.
7.2. Larimer County and Town Regulations Timing. The Parties agree that by April 1, 2020 they
will have proposed regulations to their Codes to implement the terms of this Agreement. Such
proposed regulations will address fees, land uses and development standards. The Parties further
agree to undertake the required legislative process to propose amending their respective land use
codes or related documents and procedures as necessary to implement this Agreement.
7.3. Training Regarding this Agreement. The Parties agree to (a) notify newly elected officials,
new managers and key staff of the existence of this Agreement, and (b) on an as -needed basis,
conduct training sessions on the procedures which are necessary to implement this Agreement.
17
Option B — p. 11
7.4. Mediation. If the Parities fail to reach agreement on any provisions contained in this Agreement,
the Parties agree to engage a trained mediator to help them resolve the issue.
8. PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT
Either party may seek specific performance or enforcement of this Agreement in a Court of competent
jurisdiction, but neither party shall have any claim or remedy for damages arising from an alleged breach
hereof against the other, nor shall this Agreement confer on either Party standing to contest a land use
decision or action of the other except as a breach of this Agreement.
9. THIRD -PARTY RIGHTS
This Agreement is not intended to modify the standing the Parties may possess independent of this
Agreement. This Agreement is between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County and no third -party
rights or beneficiaries exist or are created hereby.
10. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
The procedures for amending this Agreement shall be as follows:
10.1. Amendments to the text of this Agreement. The text of this Agreement may be amended
only by written agreement of both Parties. Either Party may initiate an amendment, but any such
initiation must be in writing.
10.2. Amendments to the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary. The Estes Valley Planning Area
Boundary may be amended in the Joint Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan or by written
agreement of both Parties.
10.3. Amendments to Elements of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. It is acknowledged that
the adoption of amendments to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan may necessitate
amendments to this agreement.
10.4. Separate Plans. In the event that the Town and County prepare separate comprehensive plans,
each party shall notify the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to the adoption of any
amendments to any elements of the Comprehensive Plan(s) and provide the other party with an
opportunity to make comments on any such amendments to the Plan that would in any way either
(1) affect the Estes Valley Planning Area, (2) call for an amendment to the boundaries, or (3)
cause any changes to be made to any of the Town or County regulations.
11. SEVERABILITY
Invalidation of any specific provisions of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of any other
provision of this Agreement.
12. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years from the date of its
execution. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five-year terms unless at least six
(6) months prior to its scheduled expiration, either Party should notify the other Party in writing of its
decision that the Agreement not be renewed. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon at least six
(6) months' notice.
18
Option B — p. 12
13. COSTS
The County will participate in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by providing staffing to co -lead and
support the plan effort, and participating in costs of hiring a shared consultant and contributing to the cost
of the consultant. No other payment shall ensue from Town or County to the other party for this
agreement.
14. EFFECTIVE DATE
In Witness thereof, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective on the Effective
Date first written above:
Town of Estes Park:
By:
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
The County of Larimer:
Tom Donnelly, Chair
Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
Angela Myers, Clerk and Recorder
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Content:
County Attorney County Manager
Option B — p. 13
19
Exhibit 1: Estes Valley Planning Area Map
Exhibit 2: Transitional Duties for Estes Valley Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment
20
Option B — p. 14
I -
Co
0
to
Co
a)
'CC
b13
co
a)
Co
a)
+.•
cn
-c
LU
,
4000111
Option B — p. 15
21
Exhi bit 2: Transition Roles for Est a Valley Plannin , C'om lis ion and
Board of Adjustment
The following provisions describe the transitional period for the Estes Valley Planning Commission and
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.
1. Transitional Role of Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Parties hereby continue, for a
period up to one year, the existing Estes Valley Planning Commission ("Transitional EVPC"),
with duties, responsibilities, authority, obligations, and operational parameters pursuant to the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
11 Authority. The Transitional EVPC shall have authority limited to the following:
1.1.a. The Transitional EVPC shall have all of the duties, responsibilities, and
obligations of a Joint Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Estes Valley
Development Code or its successor Code(s), as those duties, responsibilities, and
obligations apply to "in process" applications, as defined here. In process applications
are land -use applications that are properly filed, and deemed by the Town's Community
Development Director to be complete and ripe for review by the Transitional EVPC,
prior to the effective date of this Intergovernmental Agreement, but that have not reached
final disposition by the appropriate final decision -making entity by that date. In process
applications also include any applications that have been decided by staff and properly
appealed to the Transitional EVPC by that date. It is anticipated that all such applications
that are in process will be considered and decided upon in a deliberatively expeditious
fashion.
1.1.b. Members of the Transitional EVPC may, upon passage of appropriate
Resolution(s) of the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Board of County
Commissioners of Larimer County, be appointed as members of an official
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Task Force for preparation and deliberation toward
adoption by appropriate authority(s) of new Comprehensive Plan(s) for the Town of Estes
Park, the unincorporated Estes Valley, or both together. Upon such adoption, the
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Task Force shall adjourn and dissolve until such time as it
may be reconstituted by the Parties for the purposes of a future comprehensive plan.
1.1.c. Upon final disposition of all land -use applications in process pursuant to this
section, as determined by the Director of Community Development for the Town, the
Transitional EVPC shall sunset and cease existence as a Joint Planning Commission. In
accordance with Section b above, members of the Transitional EVPC are eligible to
continue in a Comprehensive Plan advisory capacity.
1.2. Membership. The Transitional EVPC shall be composed of seven (7) members. Currently
serving members of the EVPC shall be considered reappointed as members of the
Transitional EVPC, and they may serve as they are able and willing. The appointment
process that follows will need to be invoked only in the event of a vacancy. Three (3)
members shall be appointed by the County and four (4) members shall be appointed by the
Town. Each member shall serve for a four (4) year term, or until the EVPC's sunset date,
whichever may occur first.
22
Option B — p. 16
1.3. Residency. All appointees of the Town shall be residents of the Town for at least one (1)
year prior to their appointment. All appointees of the County shall be residents of the
unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley Planning Area for at least one (1) year prior to
their appointment. All members shall continue to be residents of their respective areas during
their entire terms. A County appointee on the Transitional EVPC residing in an area annexed
by the Town may continue to serve the remainder of that member's term.
2. Estes Valley Transitional Board of Adjustment. The parties hereby continue, for a time -limited
transitional period, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment ("Transitional EVBoA"), with duties,
responsibilities, authority, obligations, and operational parameters, pursuant to the terms and conditions
of this Agreement as follows:
2.1. Authority. The Transitional EVBoA shall have authority limited to the following:
2.1.a. The Transitional EVBoA shall have all of the duties, responsibilities, and
obligations of a Joint Board of Adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the Estes Valley
Development Code or its successor Code(s) as those duties, responsibilities, and
obligations apply to "in process" applications, as defined here. In process applications
are land -use applications that are properly filed, and deemed by the Town's Community
Development Director to be complete and ripe for review by the Transitional EVBoA,
prior to the effective date of this Intergovernmental Agreement, but that have not reached
final disposition by the appropriate final decision -making entity by that date. In process
applications also include any applications that have been decided by staff and properly
appealed to the Transitional EVPC by that date. It is anticipated that all such
applications will be considered and decided upon in a deliberatively expeditious fashion.
2.1.b. Upon final disposition of all land -use applications pursuant to Section a above, the
Transitional EVBoA shall sunset and cease existence as a Joint Board of Adjustment.
2.2. Membership. The Transitional EVBoA shall be composed of five (5) members. Three (3)
members shall be appointed by the Town and two (2) members shall be appointed by the
County. Each member shall serve for a three (3) year term, or until the EVBoA's sunset date,
whichever may occur first. Currently serving members of the EVBoA shall be considered
reappointed as members of the Transitional EVBoA, and they may serve as they are able and
willing. The appointment process herein will need to be invoked only in the event of a
vacancy.
2.3. Residency. All appointees of the Town shall be residents of the Town for at least one (1)
year prior to their appointment. All appointees of the County shall be residents of the
unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley Planning Area for at least one (1) year prior to
their appointment. All members shall continue to be residents of their respective areas during
their entire terms. A County appointee on the Transitional EVBoA residing in an area
annexed by the Town may continue to serve the remainder of that member's term.
23
Option B — p. 17
24
d A1le urrentA
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Regarding Land Use Planning and Related Issues for the Estes Valley
THIS INTERGOVERMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and effective this 1s"
day of April, 2020 ("Effective Date") by and between LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ("County"), a
body politic organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado and THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ("Town") and jointly referred to as the "Parties."
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Parties have worked together cooperatively on land use planning since the mid-
1990s, with an initial intergovernmental agreement (IGA) effective February 1, 2000, with five
subsequent amendments, and which expires in February 2020;
B. WHEREAS, in 1996, the Town and County prepared and jointly adopted the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan for the land area in the Estes Valley Planning Area which includes lands
within Town limits and in unincorporated Larimer County, which plan is effective until updated
or superseded;
C. WHEREAS, the Parties agree that maintaining and enhancing areas of Town development in a
thoughtful and deliberate way, managing growth in the Estes Valley, and protecting open space
and conserving rural character are enhanced by cooperation in land use planning and
development review services;
D. WHEREAS, concentrating Town Level Development in areas planned and designated for such
development affords greater efficiency in the delivery of services such as water, streets and
transportation, fire and police protection and other services, and affords a measure of
predictability to landowners and residents concerning where services will be provided in the
future;
E. WHEREAS, maintaining the parts of the Estes Valley Planning Area that are designated for rural
uses as rural promotes the purposes of providing a community buffer between the Town and the
adjacent national park and federal lands, serves economic and community interests, and meets the
goals of the community as set forth through the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan;
F. WHEREAS, the purposes of this Intergovernmental Agreement (Agreement) are to:
1. Implement the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan as it currently exists or may hereafter be
amended or replaced;
2. Provide for administration of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) within the
Planning Area;
3. Allocating Town and County resources including necessary funding for administration of the
EVDC and related functions within the Planning Area;
4. Assure that land eligible for annexation to the Town are considered for annexation prior to or
concurrently with development;
25
Option C — p. 1
5. Provide effective means for the appropriate design, construction, and maintenance of public
improvements;
6. Encourage the efficient use of land and open space conservation in appropriate locations,
including those in the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley;
7. Provide a mechanism for property owners, residents, stakeholders, and others to have input
on and be informed as to where development will occur in the future; and
8. Assure that development in the vicinity of the Town does not negatively impact roads or
other infrastructure improvements in unincorporated Larimer County, and provide that when
there are negative impacts, those impacts will be appropriately mitigated.
G. WHEREAS, pursuant to State of Colorado law, local jurisdictions are authorized to regulate the
location of activities and developments; phase development of services and facilities; regulate
development on the basis of its impact on the community or surrounding areas; plan for and
regulate the use of land so as to provide for planned and orderly use of land and protection of the
environment; cooperate or contract with other units of government for the purpose of planning
and regulating the development of land, including, but not limited to, the joint exercise of
planning, zoning, subdivision, building, and related regulations and annexation of property, all in
a manner consistent with constitutional rights and statutory procedures;
H. WHEREAS, coordination among the County and Town planning staff and communication
among local jurisdictions, special districts, property owners and other interested parties is
essential to accomplishing this Agreement;
I. WHEREAS, any provisions in this Agreement may be implemented only to the extent legally
permitted by State and Federal Law;
J. WHEREAS, the Parties have sought community input and held hearings after proper public
notice for the consideration of entering into this Agreement; and
K. WHEREAS, in order to provide for an orderly transition to this Intergovernmental Agreement
and to allow for appropriate allocation of resources by all parties to support it, it is desirable to
extend the February 1, 2010 Intergovernmental Agreement and its subsequent amendments for an
additional two (2) months, to terminate on March 31, 2020, with this new Intergovernmental
Agreement to become effective on April 1, 2020. The extension is being accomplished by an
amendment contemporaneous with this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants and obligations expressed herein, it is
hereby agreed by and between the Parties as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have the meanings set forth below.
1.1. Annexation. Annexation means the incorporation of land area into an existing municipality
with a resulting change in the boundaries of that municipality.
26
Option C — p. 2
1.2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley Planning
Area, adopted by the Estes Park Planning Commission and the Larimer County Planning
Commission in December 1996. The Plan addresses land use, transportation, natural resources,
and other elements and guides through maps and text and generally indicates the types, densities
and intensities of land use that are acceptable for any given parcel of land or area in the Estes
Valley Planning Area. It also establishes the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary.
1.3. Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The adopted land use, zoning, and development
standards for the Estes Valley Planning Area adopted by the Town and County effective in 1999
and as subsequently amended.
1.4. Estes Valley Planning Area (EVPA). The Estes Valley Planning Area is that geographical area
including all of the Town of Estes Park and certain designated areas beyond Town limits
established in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and as depicted in Exhibit 1. In such area,
Town level development is currently not considered appropriate or desired except where it
annexes to the Town. This Agreement anticipates that land within the EVPA immediately
adjacent to Town limits may be annexed into the Town when Town Level Development is
proposed.
1.5. Open Space. Land that is not occupied by any structure or artificial impervious surfaces and
that is intended for long-term conservation purposes.
1.6. Rural Areas. Areas which are outside the Town's corporate limits and which are planned or
zoned for rural estate or other rural residential uses or which are designated to remain as
conserved areas. These lands are not intended to be annexed and will generally remain rural in
character.
1.7. Town Level Development. Any development which uses Town level facilities and services
provided either by the Town or special districts and which is at higher intensities that rural
areas.
1.8. Town Level Facilities and Services. Services such as central water, sewer, responsive fire
protection, urban level street construction and maintenance, and/or similar services that are
typically provided by the Town or an appropriate district and are necessary to serve Town
Level Development as defined in this Agreement.
2. ADOPTION OF NEW PLANS AND REGULATIONS
This section identifies the plans and boundary maps which are referenced in this Agreement.
2.1. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, The Parties agree to communicate and coordinate to prepare
a Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley Planning Area that will encompass the Town and the
unincorporated area of Larimer County, which upon adoption, shall replace and supersede the
current Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
2.2. Estes Valley Planning Area Boundary. The Estes Valley Planning Area boundary is identified
in "Exhibit 1", and attached hereto and incorporated herein, including and subsequent
amendments thereto.
27
Option C — p. 3
2.3. Estes Valley Development Code. The Parties agree to continue to jointly administer the Estes
Valley Development Code as subsequently amended, and update it as needed to reflect changes
and updates to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
3. LAND USE REGULATIONS AND FEES
This section addresses the relevant development standards, procedures, and fees that apply to proposed
development in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.1. Town Limits. Within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Estes Park as they exist or may
be changed through annexation, the Town shall maintain and exercise the right to review and
approve development subject to the Estes Valley Development Code, as existing or hereafter
amended. The Parties agree that land -use applications, appeals, interpretations, and variances,
including those applied for at the building permit stage, shall be processed and decided by the
Town as provided for in the Estes Valley Development Code, as existing or hereafter amended.
3.2. Unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area. Within the unincorporated area of the Estes
Valley Planning Area, Larimer County shall maintain and exercise the right to review and
approve development subject to the Estes Valley Development Code. The Parties agree that land
use applications, appeals, interpretations, and variances shall be processed and decided by the
County as provided for in the Estes Valley Development Code.
3.4. Modifications to Regulations. The Parties agree that the Town or County may allow reasonable
modifications from adopted standards within their respective jurisdictions in accordance with the
EVDC.
3.5. Fees for Development.
3.5.1. The Parties agree to maintain and administer separate fees with their respective
jurisdictions in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.5.2. The County's Capital Expansion fees for roads, community parks, and drainage shall apply
within the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.5.3. The County's regional park fee shall not apply within the unincorporated portion of the
Estes Valley Planning Area.
4. PARTIES' ROLES IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, COMPLIANCE
4.1. Establishment of Improvement Districts. The County agrees to notify and allow the Town to
comment prior to establishing any improvement district within the unincorporated Estes Valley
Planning Area.
4.2. Utilities and Services. In areas where the Town has jurisdiction and oversight over the delivery
of utility services and other services relative to public improvements, the Town agrees to provide
a mechanism for the performance of inspections of any utility or other public improvements
provided by developers. In areas where special districts have jurisdiction and oversight over the
28
Option C — p. 4
delivery of utility services and other services relative to public improvements, the Town agrees to
propose that the Town and the respective special district include terms in the intergovernmental
agreement with the special district that stipulate that the special district will perform these
inspections. The County, Town, or special district may charge developers an appropriate fee for
this inspection service.
4.3. Improvement Guarantees. Improvement guarantees shall be required as set forth in the EVDC.
The respective jurisdictions shall administer and maintain all improvement guarantees.
Appropriate jurisdictional agencies, such as the Town Engineer and County Engineer, the Town
Utilities Department, and the Sanitation District(s) with jurisdiction, shall verify the estimate of
construction costs, depending on the geographic location of the improvements. Releases of
security from an Improvement Guarantee shall be authorized by the respective jurisdictional
authority and released by the authorized Community Development Department. To the extent
that development in the Town requires the construction of off -site public improvements in the
unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area that are typically not associated with development in
the County, the Town agrees to provide a mechanism for maintenance of those off -site public
improvements by adjacent property owner. Such improvements include, but are not limited to,
curbs and gutters, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, traffic signals, traffic control
and traffic calming devices, drainage facilitates, streetscapes, and medians.
4.4. Maintenance of Required Public Facilities. Maintenance of public facilities, if any, shall be
the responsibility of the Town or County, depending upon the respective geographic location of
the public improvement and subject to other applicable regulations. Each public facility shall be
subject to the policies and procedures of the respective jurisdiction.
4.5. Development Review Staffing Roles.
4.5.1. Duties of the Town and County Staff. Town and County staff shall coordinate closely in
the review, approval, and monitoring of land use development within the Estes Valley Planning
Area.
4.5.1.1. Duties of the Town Community Development Department. Town staff shall
serve as the primary administrator of the Estes Valley Development Code within town limits.
4.5.1.2. Duties of the County Community Development Department. County staff shall
serve as the primary administrator of the Estes Valley Development Code within the
unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area.
4.5.2. Referrals and Coordination on Recommendations.
4.5.2.1. County Referral to Town. Within the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area,
the County agrees to submit all proposed development applications to the Town staff for
review and comment so that Town and County staff can achieve agreement on a
recommendation.
4.5.2.2. Town Referral to County. Within the town limits, the Town agrees to submit all
proposed development applications to the County staff for review and comment so that Town
29
Option C — p. 5
and County staff can achieve agreement on a recommendation and input on development
within the Town that may affect the County's interests and public improvements, including,
but not limited to, road improvements and annexations.
4.6. Additional Review Roles. The Town and the County have additional operating rules,
regulations, ordinances and requirements which may apply to development and use of property
within the Estes Valley Planning Area. These include but are not limited to the areas of
regulation noted in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Review Roles of Town of Estes Park and Larimer County
Type of Process or
Regulation
Within Town of Estes Park
(Who Administers)
Within Unincorporated Estes
Valley — Larimer County
(Who Administers)
Development Review
for Planning Cases
Estes Valley Development Code
(Town Planning)
Estes Valley Development Code
(County Planning)
Floodplain
Regulations
Town floodplain regulations
(Town Community Development)
County floodplain regulations
(County Engineering)
Sign Regulations
Town sign regulations (Town
Community Development)
County sign regulations (LC
Community Development)
Building Permits
Town Building Code (Town
Building Official)
County Building Code, permit,
and inspection programs (County
Building Official)
Streets and Roads
Standards
Street standards (Town Engineer)
Larimer County Rural Area Street
Standards. County road
construction, safety, and
maintenance (County Engineer)
Drainage
Drainage standards (Town
Engineer)
Drainage standards (County
Engineer)
Public Health and
Safety
County Health Department
County Health Department
Wildfire Construction
Wildfire Construction standards
in Larimer County's building
code (Town Building Official)
Wildfire Construction standards
in Larimer County's building
code (County Building Official)
Code Compliance
Town Code Compliance
County Code Compliance
Legal Counsel
Primary legal advisory to Town
Staff and the EVPC for items in
town limits and to institute and
maintain all necessary legal
actions for matters within the
town limits. Also, primary legal
advisor to the EVBOA for all
matters within the Planning Area
(Town Attorney)
Primary legal advisory to County
Staff and the EVPC for
unincorporated area and to
institute and maintain all
necessary legal actions for
matters therein (County Attorney)
Vacation Rentals
EVDC (Approved by Town)
EVDC (New units approved by
County)
30
Option C — p. 6
5. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVALS (PLANNING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT)
5.1. Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) shall be
a recommending body and have the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the County
Planning Commission for the area of the unincorporated Estes Valley Planning Area, with all
final approvals by the Board of County Commissioners. The EVPC shall also have authority and
be responsible for approving the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The authority, membership,
residency requirements, officer duties, and attendance and other requirements are spelled out in
the bylaws for the EVPC as amended from time to time by the Town Trustees and Board of
County Commissioners.
5.2. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall hear all
variance requests pursuant to the terms of conditions of state statute. The authority, membership,
residency requirements, officer duties, and attendance and other requirements are spelled out in
the bylaws for the EVBOA as amended from time to time by the Town Trustees and Board of
County Commissioners. The Town attorney shall advise the Board of Adjustment as to
applications within the Town. The County Attorney shall advise the Board of Adjustment as to
applications within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley.
6. ANNEXATION
6.1. Eligibility for Annexation. The Parties agree that the term "eligibility for annexation" shall
mean any land that is contiguous to the corporate town limits via one or more points of
connection, and that it is anticipated that the Town would annex lands eligible for annexation in
the Estes Valley Planning Area at such time that a development proposal and annexation petition,
including all required fees and supplemental information, is received from the property owner(s).
The Town represents that it will give due consideration to the desirability of annexing lands at
such time that they become eligible for annexation based upon State annexation statutes. When a
town growth boundary is defined, lands within that area shall be considered for annexation at
such time that a development proposal is presented.
6.2. Town Limits Annexation Area. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan will define the area
appropriate for future annexation adjacent to the Town of Estes Park.
6.3. Future Annexations. The County agrees that, in the case of lands within the unincorporated
Estes Valley Planning Area that are not eligible for annexation but that are proposing Town Level
Development, the County shall require applicants that apply for Subdivision of five (5) or more
lots; Rezoning; Concept Plan; Development Plan for Commercial Accommodation, Commercial,
Industrial, or Multi -Family Development of 10 or more units.
6.4. Annexation Petition. The County agrees that it will not accept any application for any property
that is eligible for voluntary annexation to the Town unless a written annexation request which
conforms to the Town's standard annexation conditions is submitted to the Town and is
subsequently denied by the Town. If such an annexation petition is denied by the Town, the
County may accept said application on the property.
31
Option C — p. 7
6.5. Annexation Agreement. The County agrees to require a binding agreement to annex as a
condition of approval on any development application for uses approved and located within the
unincorporated portion of the Planning Area but not eligible for annexation to the Town at the
time of development application, excluding subdivisions of 4 or less lots for residential use.
6.6. Amendment to Implement Annexation Policy. The Town is deliberating regarding the
appropriate policy to coordinate annexation with the County. The Parties agree to cooperate
diligently on the creation of such a policy to be completed within 6-months of adoption of the
comprehensive plan and intend to incorporate it herein as an amendment once it is determined.
Until such time, while the Town undertakes no specific obligations with regard to annexation, the
Parties agree to cooperate regarding Town Level Development in the unincorporated Estes Valley
Planning Area and on annexation petitions.
7. IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT
7.1. Commencement and Transition Period. Staff processes of applications for development
submitted after the effective date of this IGA shall be conducted according to this Agreement.
The County shall on April 1, 2020 resume maintaining all unincorporated -area project files and
Town staff shall have access to files. Town staff will be available to support County staff access
to historic case files for at least one year from the time of this Agreement or such time when files
may be transitioned from the Town to County.
7.2. Training Regarding this Agreement. The Parties agree to (a) notify newly elected officials,
new managers and key staff of the existence of this Agreement, and (b) on an as -needed basis,
conduct training sessions on the procedures which are necessary to implement this Agreement.
7.3. Mediation. If the Parities fail to reach agreement on any provisions contained in this
Agreement, the Parties agree to engage a trained mediator to help them resolve the issue.
8. PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT
Either party may seek specific performance or enforcement of this Agreement in a Court of competent
jurisdiction, but neither party shall have any claim or remedy for damages arising from an alleged breach
hereof against the other, nor shall this Agreement confer on either Party standing to contest a land use
decision or action of the other except as a breach of this Agreement.
9. THIRD -PARTY RIGHTS
This Agreement is not intended to modify the standing the Parties may possess independent of this
Agreement. This Agreement is between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County and no third -party
rights or beneficiaries exist or are created hereby.
10. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
The procedures for amending this Agreement shall be as follows:
10.1. Amendments to the text of this Agreement. The text of this Agreement may be amended
only by written agreement of both Parties. Either Party may initiate an amendment, but any such
initiation must be in writing.
Option C — p. 8
32
10.2. Amendments to the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary. The Estes Valley Planning Area
Boundary may be amended by written agreement of both Parties.
10.3. Amendments to Elements of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. It is acknowledged that
the adoption of amendments to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan may necessitate
amendments to this agreement regarding.
11. SEVERABILITY
Invalidation of any specific provisions of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of any other
provision of this Agreement.
12. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years from the date of its
execution. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five-year terms unless at least six
(6) months prior to its scheduled expiration, either Party should notify the other Party in writing of its
decision that the Agreement not be renewed. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon at least six
(6) months' notice.
13. COSTS
The County will participate in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by providing staffing to co -lead and
support the plan effort, and participating in costs of hiring a shared consultant, contributing to the cost of
the consultant. Beginning on April 1, 2020, the County shall provide the necessary personnel or
resources to provide professional staffing to support development review within the unincorporated area
using the Estes Valley Development Code and working with the Estes Valley Planning Commission and
Board of Adjustment when relevant. The Parties agree to share the costs of subsequent updates to the
EVDC, including any major code updates.
14. EFFECTIVE DATE
In Witness thereof, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective on the Effective
Date first written above:
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park:
By:
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Option C — p. 9
33
The County of Larimer:
Tom Donnelly, Chair
Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
Angela Myers, Clerk and Recorder
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Content:
County Attorney County Manager
Exhibit 1: Estes Valley Planning Area Map
34
Option C — p. 10
35
Option C—p.)|
36
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO AND THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
This Sixth Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement Between Larimer County,
Colorado ("County") and the Town of Estes Park, Colorado ("Town") is made and effective this
day of , 2019.
I. RECITALS
WHEREAS, County and Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement effective February
1, 2000 ("IGA"), addressing their rights and responsibilities with respect to land use, zoning and
development within the Estes Valley, an area comprised of the Town and a defined area of
unincorporated Larimer County adjacent to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the IGA has been subsequently amended five times; and
WHEREAS, the IGA, as amended, is set to expire February 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Town and County seek to further amend the IGA pursuant to this Sixth
Amendment, to extend the term of the IGA until April 1, 2020.
II. CONSIDERATION
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the County and Town's mutual covenants, promises
and agreements stated herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the County and Town agree as follows:
III. TERMS
1. The first sentence of section X(D) of the IGA, as amended, is stricken and replaced with
the following language:
This Agreement shall remain in force and effect until April 1, 2020.
2. Except as amended herein, the IGA as amended shall remain in full force and effect as
written.
Sixth Amendment to IGA
Larimer County and Town of Estes Park
Page Two
Dated and effective as of the first date written above.
37
ATTEST:
Clerk to the Board
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF LARMER COUNTY, COLORADO
By'
Torn Donnelly, Chair
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Todd A. Jirsa, Mayor
DATE
APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNTY ATTORNEY
38
RESOLUTION 38-19
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE TOWN AND LARIMER COUNTY REGARDING LAND USE PLANNING AND
RELATED ISSUES FOR THE ESTES VALLEY
WHEREAS, the Town and County at present have an Intergovernmental
Agreement ("IGA") for land use planning and allied purposes that contains an expiration
date of February 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Town and County agree than adoption of another IGA for land
use planning and allied purposes is in the best interest of both parties and our citizens
and stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the Town and County governing bodies find themselves in mutual
agreement that certain specific provisions in a proposed IGA are reasonable and
appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Recitals in the proposed IGA are also applicable to this
Resolution and are hereby incorporated by reference in this Resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board of Trustees approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the
intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution, in substantially the
form now before the Board.
DATED this day of , 2019.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
39
40
RESOLUTION 39-19
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND THE
TOWN
WHEREAS, County and Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement
effective February 1, 2000, ("IGA") addressing their rights and responsibilities with
respect to land use, zoning and development within the Estes Valley, an area
comprised of the Town and a defined area of unincorporated Larimer County adjacent
to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the IGA has been subsequently amended five times; and
WHEREAS, the IGA is set to expire February 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, The Town and County have entered into a new IGA addressing their
rights and responsibilities with respect to land use, zoning and development within the
Estes Valley to be effective on April 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Town and County seek to amend the current IGA pursuant to this
Sixth Amendment to extend the term of the agreement by two months to allow time for
Town and County to make an orderly transition to new service delivery models necessary
to perform their respective responsibilities defined by the terms of the new IGA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board of Trustees approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the
intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution, in substantially the
form now before the Board.
DATED this day of , 2019.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
41
42
c>
CL
E
N
C
2
• —
Co
D.
E
w
aJ
Co
0J
+.0
V)
UJ
4--7)
C_c
4-:/)
L.) c
-c 13
0_ • - E-
D_ as 0
o
ca u
E .s
c
_c c C
ctj CO
a) °-
w
C
C).
LJ M
45 al
4-,
,•F
<
C.
E •
CL/
as to
0.0
0
- :3 (x)
rt
• 1
C
C M
C) V) a.
0
Ca
N
0
0
Cr)
ro
4-.
LU
a)
_c
(3
a)
a)
0
03
LE
x
U)
73
0
4-,
C
a) •
E
m
o
a) C
> 0
_o
CI
>- U
C)
03 >
> LLI
tatements #1 & 2
a)
v) a.)
C c c
,o cU 0 4-•
-0
"0 n3
C Oa .(L2v)
a
0
E 4-
0. E (0E _0
a)
-,
7300poecil
'-
RS C 0)
4-, 110 C cr)
a) z in •
_c al v)C n3 C
4-) )-:-. C
a) z c CO C
(..) 4-) 0 — >,
J-+ 0
0 0 4-0 a.
v) 1- ..:ro c c 7.,
E_ua)..,
2 " .. 0 E
co = v)
4._ 4-, :4= 0 U . 0
IV QJ tn
-C L. -0 v) I- /3 E
.s•--...1c(0>-.c o
1I as 0 .0 as U
C
0
0
0
E
a)
co
Lc)
L.)
-0 4--, 0 V) 73
0 >" cii _c o.,
QJ -0
CU >. OJ v) kJ 110 4-, L 0 0
c cc: 73al—
z 0 z ,,.-
0
_ E > ..r..,
< . 0) v) 0
0 -C-.. '. ..4. CD
t: (,) ...Z 0) 0>
•-- +, a) tz 4-J Q. ,,,•, .-Q "-:, z .
) 0
0 0 o., 0) .a.,
-0 73 Cu ......° t -5 C
cu 0 La
0 0 ...0 c _, --- v) 0
0 Cs) -0 CO 5... =.
CL 0 3 4.' C (tj.' 4-
0 0 0 0 4, 0
c Jo .0 C c
a) 4- > 0 0
..47.) -0 +..,l.) ..z.!./.,) E wC.7 ..„.....0
0
4-, -0 0 ' --. 0, Q.IVI fa c
4., C11
ei, X = 0 4., • 0 L.
4:C .c L... Z • -• 4' 0 a) o
as U z OJ:Z.' Z Q.)0 L
-, QJ 0 °
"Q")
U 0- 4-, 0) a)
as 4-a
0
C 0
CO . Z L -0 '-' QJ 'n 1. I. .4,
-' CU
..0
4-. a t E 0 .I.Q 00 Q-' 0 . 0
4.,
4., 0.E..- 2
tal 0
co
0 ..0 0
a. (0
Q., c3 CI. 4.4 V)
..Z
I CU -0 4-, kJ .1.... QJ 4-. 0 0 4-. ,...'' -0 1.-,
1--. Ca) E cu c 4-, 1--.
.I.,
al < 0 L. .... , . +-0 E c c,. .4.:...,.
73 v) i,; • -is "-F_. 0 z ..-. ,E t-9 0 CU ro v) z
N 73C mc '
fT3 22 •
,,, 0 a .6., c -1:3 to
• - -0 0 c _ -5* E 2 -c3...., c,: E ti)
c ro
-- ..._ v) 0 0 1... ca
CI 0 0
as ro 0-- (1)0-01 Li 0 cu c-rri0 0
0 ,Q-) 0 0 O. cu 0 "... 0 _c 4-' _c ,cs
CU •,..- co a.) co ._
4, ,... ...,e 73 , vi
U 1-1-1 ro c
C ccs >.- C a > )-- iu
L.
(um a)(11c
= a) as UEC
IA u) 16 To 112
o
cn
0
4--
V,
0
N
Q.)
110
N
a,
0
of
CZ
tafa
0
0
0
Q)
a)
-O
0
Address Which
II
using the EVDC for respective jurisdictions.
0
(0
vi
0 C
0
(13
C
tIO
N (I)
E
00 a)
c 0 o
• c 0_ U
o v) 0)
-a v,E
C
n3 0 00
J
L a)
7 0_�
-0 =
0 •3 O
co
—
>, N
> C 0
(0 7 '47
-C ro
_c U
U N
_C 0
E
O 0
`_ o
N
0 n3
N
>
,
o ac
c c
4 0
c
U l)
L -c
70 N
L 0
0 C
� o
U
0
(tiw
a)
CIA
n3
0_
.40
0)
0
o.
0)
Q)
0
N
CS
4.,
Q)
a
a-
Q)
0
a
N
a
c
0
CL
4-2
L.
4+0
RL
•
R
CU
U
R
0
N
c
O
.I
u
O
L
a
Q)
U 0
U
R
0
CL
CS
'o
a
a
a
N
'o
N
is
a
'1
>
a E a.
Overlay District
v
•
Q,
QJ
•
aL
0
R
0
a
c
O
O
a,
c
.o
R
7.
Q)
E
Whereas statement #3
c
CSS
c
E
N
O
To -
•
0)
>
0)
cc
c
a
E
Sec. 5 Develo
N
a)
N
0
0.
0
0.
0)
(0
O
•
.>
a)
cc
C
a)
E
Sec. 5 Develo
established EVPC in 1997.
a
0
Op
c
c
a,
E
E
O
a)
L
c0
N
a)
0
c
c
U
a
w
a)
L
c
c0
c
FO-
a)
00
4-
c.,
(3
a,
N
c
0
E
E
0
U
ba
C
E
C
(0
o.
has duties of
N
0
C
0
a)
v
v
L
ai
0
z
0
c
0
0
0_
E
0
u
based on population.)
OR Larimer
bA
c
a.
4-4
0
C
(O
w
O2$
J
C
0
4-
CO
U
4-
0
E
Conditional Use Permit).
C
H
m
4-
0
0.
0)
Cu"
E
a)
2
zs
c
a
v) o
o
a
R,O
U
'R a,
•
a
Cs
v
U
aJ
a(1.)
Zs
U
07
'a
a
CS
c'
R
U 73
Commission
C
O
U
Ci
a
C
co
N
v
E
v
E
c
(13
Q
>
c
0
0
a)
N
a)
E
a)
E
use decisions of EVPC are
v
L-.
v
0
:tit 0
R o
CI
R u
• R
01 0
O
R
a. 'a
444 4 a,
CS a 4
c c
a•
R
a CL
C31 N •
a,
R
a
c
a
v
Q)
4-4
0
c
0
0
c
Q)
v
L
v
L
123
0
v
ccs
U
u
a)
0_
N
v
c
C
0
0
.>
c0
L.
L.
U
>
w
v
s
4-, •
C C
(1)
vs Ts
5- a)
as <
C
a
U
a)
a
C
U
0
0
•
a)
c
a)
E
Sec. 5 Develo
maintains the EVBOA to hea
in the County.
a) '-, O
C
0 O aa, ac
a 0 v o v 0
.° of m
.� .c O : n; o .,�
=° a Uo a, 0
}�E�U aJ .
C v 0 a, 23 -
to
C n a 0° ><
C
W 'L O N -- (I)
a o a) U of a)
v> o•°4.4
L.
�, 0 0
v -0 v o
E 3 `t 0 v o
`s .v o '0 >
Q o a a-2 c
U ; a a
a a •; .° E
CS CO a o E a ;o-,
cu
-C L 0
cu O CS
v U a) v ate) a, h +.)
0(a a 3 a L `n ° ku
+)
to Q. C O., •- CS L -0
ti > � a
O , .fi O O C. -CS
o
s m 0 �' F c.. v a L o •S 0 o
0 CJ1 -0
C --0 Q v c 0 •o +; --CS a) (n
L O • (a O O L. v, z -O O
+O, Q_ O' C U a p
4- c 3 3 4) E a- o o L U C •
vC. m ice••' o a t° ca'., E E
C c) �, >. CS, o _a , aJ aJ E
v C •a >, Q (u o. C v U 0
(tea +, E o '.. 0 w ¢O .a a cs,
0
0 C
a o� sa.ors`,m a o o'c
I E a a . � c� a o y> o a 0
a ,n 21 ° o a 3 3° a)
.3v L.
7 v�c-0a o qI•
of Adjustment
Town considers
Sec. 6 Annexation — Sam as Option B.
C
O
.0
U
a)
4-
4,
(o
U
a)
4,
0
C
C
0
a)
a)
C
c
m
a
Annexation Policy
annexation and for certain
° vs 0
C .,_,cD
0 C aa., 0
O >- O C
. U ca t3
flc. U j, O
•-' aa)) 4- LE fTS
ra
C
a) (a (a ;_,
0 O = O
0 V, bA V, E
a C a) a)
a
> i) Q L iJ
a) tin C b an
'a CO CO (a (a
See Analysis for Option B to the left.
C
4-
O
U
a)
a)
73
4,
+,
+,
0
C
0
0
•U
)0
n a
a C
o
C •+7)
(o
.0 a •
= c
3 C
a)
0
U
>
u
a)
N
(a
>
O
a-
O.
as
4-
O C 'p
C
i 0 =
(a
m"_=„a
4 F W
O 1C >
O `~> ,.,
C
:,.., O C C
a1 (a ao
o
o c
,_, a) N =
(a a) a C .
a i .a) 0 U
I- D U m
'a 0 Q ( i 0
C N C C •O
a .° o
O E +, CS O at U L.
° v v' U o.0 O a o a) a)
Li o +, o L v (n a)
a U° n0, o +, 1......) o v ,�
F° CU zs 3 . SL. v -o
L. E 0 IIh
° •,•) L. C (n aJ
40, 0) aa) O a) o a a, a s ,a)
-CS v o L.L. >, a c 'a a 'a .v
v L. o •° 0 •C k o •a) a a 0 u_
0 o CS -0 0 a, U u 0 `� ,
Z a r a°° a .c 0 w c
c, 3 a, .o v a c 3 a) ,° c. 0 0
0 ovc.,j7,•a c o v o a 0a
�" LE 00 +
•vc o o+,0-0x°aa vv0
5. 40 -Cs -0
L. ° u a E
c o>O E oa `�aaoc
Q3a)O
0 1.° aJ 0 U CS
Parties' Roles in Develo
et
a+� a, LE U
v 2 L o
E.�I— C
a C o
o a c •
_
aJ E o•3
a)ct, ('tea
a C a) F. m
0 -a @
a La u W
U C
c .
(a 0 4-C
},
c 1:5c -0n
W CO
a v) .0 C
-o CDa c
> 2rt, o
0 to C C �
a C D
u C
C of
(a .a a
a>i v, ao c
Eas
(n U +' U
v
oq
CO
bb
CO
O
a4
c
al
c
0
0
C
C
I-
(n
N
CU
a-,
Co
L
O
O. Co
O v)
c tia
•
C c
c
v (73
o C
H
v C
> (B
v
a✓
C
c
(t)
E+'
(L°
0
aJvQJ
Extended in
Sec. 12 - Same as Option B.
C vv
iO C
U
o 0 >• as H
aJ
ate,) m �l -c o
a o
3 •S v � Q No
`•O 4.4 C C _OCc
a.EvCC
U -] CD a
�'aO C0) aJ o aJN
o"0 as
N C a L in\a 0 rsa
a in
opco �)� tow
aa0 vi 4-,c Q CL L
ate-+
V) y44' W LJ � N C -o
a 0 Q, aJ 4.., U a) L
‹C vai W -- a Ln (i Q
Term Review and
Transition
v
LLJ
0)
C
a
a,
a
0
a
aJ
aJ
C
a
C
r�.
v
O.
.`
C
Co a' 3
Co °
Z a O
V)
i- vi
4 vi 0- 1 aJ
C cu
N L/) 04-
° L aJ
O C Co aj 4.32 Q.
co a1 , Y O 1
CO C1 (E S.-•+•+
C 0 0 u
0 Q. _
- Co O.v)
C O c O. .)..,
U Q
aJ X C aa) (r) O
v) aJ = L c U
Sec. 13 —Same as Option B.
a) C CDc c
C O C
0 I- aJ
aL, o ° " aJ
a
L
c 4- I -Co
CU
a) 3
'O O 4-u a-, v
0 Co 1- (L6 C 4-,,
N -Ca-, aJ Co6
Q. (0 0 O Q Q
C fa. U 0 L
C > uCU 0 C
0
'• v) 0 •C a v) 0
n -o E a E
0 c o a) P.a
0 Co v) 0 4- CO
Development Comp
ra
2
C
C
U
4:11
C
co
a)
Estes Valley Staffing Respon
I.
-.. -o
U c
a) 0 CD
4-
ft) (71 0 +,
CO >..
C a
t 92 CIO ,- " =
ro CL C 0
0
°-0 CO3 0
+-, C .7) .0
co 73 0,
ro c ..: co
0 ap
4-, m Ea)
>
0 "' .0 E aa
0 c C 2 o s-
U 3 v) U 0
>. H0
U,
c c 7cs
= -S C E
o - a3 o 0 a)
u a u U -so
0
"3: a)
4-,
co c ttO :cs
2 .E (-3
ra o E a)
o U C -0
a) as --L.
E E. U
o_ o a
.-.-'1* a)>">
w
j
CO
+, t ay v, C
0
0 0_ > 0
0 0- )
If ) .
av,
0
C 0 0 c
LU ,--
o c 0
H— (DO
area in Town and recommend
C
CD
C
C
CO
Cl
CL
0
73
ro
.c To
5 >
cc a)
0
_c
C
o 0
I- 4-
>.
4-, o
c C
•-
0
cc a)
-c 04-,
"
4-,
C
C
0 C6
eL
.0 a)
-C
03
4-,
CO 0- CI)
0 =
8 73 CO
4- CD >
c
0
0
4-, a)
C -0 P
E a)
t Lci op 73
>. o_ ro C
- U
± a) CL CL
C -.....
CO
= +., 0_ ia. ---
E
-
0
CL (4 as "01S
4-,
U 0 __, > •-
,
s > 0 a) E c
4-,
0 cla) (..) V1 0 CDI--- U.J U 0_
(.0
03J
4-,
CO
a
C
a
E
Cu 2 +,0 V)
V0
) - 0 7 0 0
4-' (")
0 0 0 ay W U 0 ay U0 0
0 0_
>" c 4
a)
+-, > eL 03 CO (DC
C Q) *0
C -E 0 71
.- v)
o u s_ ., el, -_- E o 73 a)s.- C
C -0 4.4
VI
C) as C' co ao La L.) vs -, ...,C
.
1.s.s 72 0 C .., z 4...s•-• _oa) _ Ho
> 3 CO •
as
73 iii >-•
C ci) 4-,
CD 40
a) a) ,00:3 cucutn -Cc og
in C
0c oc 0 V,
_— U
= c
4-, 2 cv) 8 ,-.-_ E
vs 4- Ft. , 0
-cs o o
+-, '-c '2 0 0 ›
, , H "4--
0 a
12 0> .c c
C _c 1- ,- 4- , i__ CD
.4-' ..t, _a 4..0 0 (1) -° 2 as
0.,
I--
---a3,> 0 a3 C
k • J' 2 :I - -->-. .. 2. ''''W7) . 4 '0 . )L) L . g.)v).' cuL6 E
2
0 a 3 4 - - 73 Q. 03 -0 E 0
(1) is. 2.2 LT) ( j .47,
CL 0
a) a
Cl U co . .-..• z•-•••-• el -'iL) cs o
›...‘ 8
U)
co
to 0 C
0_ U (E
P- E 0
cu
0- 0 QJ
V)
+9 t =
V) 0 I
0 c-.1 ,_
Cs o_ -
o
CC H
o c
H— CD
decide onplan
C L.)
(t) 0
cc)
ro
to 0
sp_ co a)
cu
-cs
0
C
ro
v,
ro
CD
E cs.
0 v) 0
C
0 2
OH >
C c
E")
o o 0 QJ
I- I- 00
EV Code Changes
LU
2
a
9
w
> 5
WUJ
Ce
C
a)
E
eL
>
cu
0
v)
C
w >
4_ 0
0 I -
Ca)
0 0
HO
C
E
0.
-6-
>
a) 0
U
> c
cu
vi
o
)
a) 10
o ,
LI)
a)
U
C
CD
71
E
U
a)
0
U
C
U
T
C
a)
E U
0.
0
715 t"..2
a) 0
U
C
a) a)
-o
0
>
o
UJU F-
(.0
C
03
a. CD
a.
71.
0.)
0
U
"00)
CO 0
-J
C
N-
CL
C CE
(-)
o 7, C-
CD
u 47
CC -CD
=
o (,)
0
73
E c
>
0CDC
o_
0- 2 a'
<0-4
Cl.
0 a,
I- L.)
C CD
C
o a,)
"
-cs
a) .c
> rTs
0 4-'
C
e6
< 2
Approved by Town (with ca
Approved by Town (with ca
Vacation Rental
Co
be
a)
Co
be
C
a)
a)
C
be
C
C
C
o' 8
u
C
CO
C
Co
b.0
a) be
C
• 0
a)
a)
C
.Fte
C
w
0
C
4-,
be
0
U
C
Co
-0 0
O 0
o U
C C
0
0 F._
V)
C
C
0
Co
• ttO
be .0
E
C Co
>. 4-,
4-, C
C
0= 8
u
C
C
I -
Co
7
be
a)
C
be
C.-.
0
0
U
C
0
4-.
Co
• be
C
C Co
.b.0
>,
c
) u
C
0
C
Co
be
C
be
a)
0
U
Sign Regulations
bfl
C
Zs-
c
o •5
be
ou
u 01
be °- C
C ()
€) • -- 8
beCO
5 c
E
4..;•
.as
C E 6 E3
o
o a) s_
u a. o. 0
C
I-
ai
,
be
CO c
C
7--
0 5
1— co
a)
U
be
C
CO
C
U
be
C
C
be
o 5
U
a)
o.. c
C
CO
.as
E E3
o
O.)
0. o.O
C
U
abn
= 0
b.13
CO 5
c
C
o
F-
aC
0
z
Co
(j.?
ro 0
U
v;
>- -0
c Co
O • C
U (13
10-.)
4-,
E
• CU
CO 4-,
(f)
C
0
0I-
Co
-0
C
CO
a)
4-,
a)
vl
c
• 'F,J)
LU
Co
CO
a)
-
C
U
0)
CO
E
C
I-
V)
Co0
C
Co
4.4
4.1
a)
a)
4_,
4-
C
U
ir;
2
Co
0
C
Co
44
V)
44
a)
a)
s_
41
a)
a)
C
6 -.. 0C
41
4-
Co
scs
4.1
U
C
4-
C
0
U
Co
U)
4-,
C
0
U
a)
CoU
C
C
a)
C
co
E
-o
C
Co
a) c
COO
U
road construction
and maintenance
'137)
a)
C
be
C
L.0
4-,
C
U
0
CO
-0
C
Co
4-,
OD al
Co(1)
C C
1- C
L1.1
C
F-
-as
Co
C
Co
CD L-
be CI)
Coa)
C C
• -
Co be
5.-
Ow
C
0
U
U)
-0
Co
-0
Co
4.1
1-
(I) be a)
a) CO 0.)
C C C
• be cs be
" C
5.1.1 C.5-1
Streets and Roads
C
I-
2
(13
C
Co
4-,
0.) "
OD a)
Coa)
C C
• - • -
Co OA
s- c
W
a)
C
fa
CO
c 4?;
0
474 *.E.
U0
0
U
1- (13
,-;)
U
• 4--
04-
U O
-as
be be
• c
"q=
-0 CO
• C
T2
COO
l-
C
V) 0
C
O to
• C
U • -
=
=
• JO
O ,v)
U
735.
0
a) cbe
" 5 C
70.
7.= • 5
.c
C
0
U
444
C
U
a)
474
C
0
.474
41
C
U
U
a)
4-
CS
Wildfire Construction
4-,
C
U
C
V)
4-
al
Co
C
C
U
E
(T3
C :2
CO
0
C
CO
4-,
C
U
ro
• -
a)U
c4:--U 0
bebe
C C
'5 '5
_In be
be
C
0
be
C
a)
7:3
0
U
be
0 U
_o 0
• 73
C
CO CO
o.
C
s_ o
o U
Co 4-
>- I
o
C Lcs
o
U al
CO
0
" -0
CO C
ECO
o.CO
C
>.
0.)
0
4-+
C
0
0
U
0
4-+
0
*-5
Co
-as
ECCo
C o
0 Co
- 4-,
>.
a)
0
Eo
o u
CO 4-,
• '-
4-,
C VI
O
u as
U
0.
• LJJ
CO" 73c
ECO
o_ CO
• 0
al 0
sc-) U
0
0
o Co- 0
a)
C
0
44
4.4
0
4-,
a)
CO
CO
E
4-,
CO
-C
V)
s-
a)
4-,
Co
E
co
E
C
co
a)
U)
C
CO
be
C
a)
OJ
E
U
0.
uJ
C
01
4-,
CO
CoC
a)
4-,
4-,
C
CoC
Co
a)
U
a)
C
C
C
4z,
U
Co
CO
be
a)
CO
C
Co
C
Co
E
CO
a)
s_
CO
CU
4.4
CO
4-
0
C.
'CT)
C
U
_C
4-,
County Health Department
County Health Department
C
a)
Co
0.
a)
0
_c
4-,
CO
a)
C
U
C
a)
E
CO
o_ <
a) CD
0;
_c c
a-, a)
Co L-
A) c
U • „
a-, C
C
• 0 0
0 z t--
U
Public Health and
a)
4-
= County responsibility
VI >
4-,5- c co a) 0 o
a) E c 4 C > a)L. ` t
- ao.. a 3 1_ a) a, ° o as v a Y
C V) L�aO co aC C a1
L c a' N D 0 3 v D O a > c u-.
a) ..c a) _ ° �,L. o +� c v v c co E ra ° ° v
E_ a +-+ O L O O- 'n C to t6 4>' -D a) .� ` a) cn vi C O'�
c v= ° c o u v ra E c c O ° E a)
L co + C_C O O O
a) O O O> - 4- Va- O 4" -D c>o C v p s u C i 03
o E T a) Ct.
0u O @ T O h.0 coo N _C
c C N U (IS' (1.) V L .@ 30 (CO U C O C as a_' °o O. C
CU v >' o rQo E f6 = v v> E °c) u'
> ° rn N v; O E u c
CJ i° ° f6 �_ u Q `� E -a > T ,°'„ O a) C >; + O
-O c c0 Q i Q) C -D as N ro C Qas v)
+-� ,E C t a) 0 i• O. C "o a) L 0 > O. L. i 'O .—
C L- O a" O c6 a-, Vr O. O_ E co C ,' co o a) D O aJCU do O O_
J 40 V' c > v 4- +�. u' > a U) cui O> .0 a�i O_
o > cro
To cu
Ca v O a) -° -p N C D' ,, C A-, N W Vl ro +' E UJ ON +-+ D
> +� v tin o v co a) c° a v C a) a ate-' �> E C
C O 6 a C - ro c o a u o .E a) °) v _c o +' u a) :.c a) o. E
Q) i 1�/) CO
) "O N V C N 4..., > O_ . i-, .0 73 a) > 4-+ -D O.
Cd Q H LU n. 1- °vi CO X) C CD +' co u 4-, Vt CO E of (q 73 Q 'D ,-i D V) N
O> Q- a)
Q (-N.)crl cL T -1 N
i vs
a)
m U 6
an
LU
C a)
O ate-,
E
CIL O
O
'O D
4-, '_a)O a) V) viv aoc° a) a) 444 ;ca)
>
'L > 4-
U 0 D v w co C L c° 0
•L > ra +' v a 0 •
C 0 u 0 C
d+ ; u c aci = ,° ' - > 3 T
0 3 c
0 u fl O v O C CO u o
+�
` o co
V t U .ate, a`) a) v
CO O ° a) N o@ lii @= E c V a)
3 3 . E
LCV VI
a, L
L -C (6 >�
CB U �a1 O 4— cu a) a) To JO of > o D
O V) 0 E C O 0 \ G �p u 0 GA O
i, O u v h a) O O•L.i- C 4-
'> O C 1:3O O OQ cot6 O O++O.
O n O >
V"D c
> C a, a) Q;. O E a)-Uco-oO a) E LL o
aO 0Qa) >F w0W 4-,cO co O DcaC -CS ti C to 4± u
CU E w
C +� N E Q co 0• w +� u Q U J - @ ILO
f� c c° v c� v° �' w w cc Q Q Ov O E> o
>4 p a• E o o rca @ ttOcai w w w W W W W W W W w °) @ aui r6
VI a 73 V1 U 'C .0 V V
v) 0 N u O° cOo > O O co C 44--
= ' U N 0. E O- a1 I"' N J f6 -0 U 0 a1 ._ .-, Y H i, ,n H 0
{/\y0 a) C CU
3 a I- a rca > w r-I cv rYi
a) N n O )
W I- - to Q
I
i
a1
C
O
dA
a1
cd
C
aJ
E
a
a
z
cn
C1
a)
a
f0
s
U
a
L
0
4-
a
0_
CD
to
CI)
v
U
0
a
>
C
O
U
CD
U
.0
4-,
0
UA
C
C
0
NJ
to
QJ
to
4-
0
to
N
a
I-
C
Q1
4-
4-
0
to
U
U
•
0
C
C
O
NJ
4-
0
C
CU
to
tD
U)
W
rl
EV RE-1 Rural Estate
a
a
0
J
Qi
0
to
0
i-i
U
Q,
to
0
Q,
U
0
0,
EV RE Rural Estate
00
a-
Ca.
CD
U
C
0
a)
a
a
O
s-
L
4-4
C
CD
C
tv
0
O
v
a,
0
0
EV E Estate
to
CO
C
CO
4-,
to
C
a.)
a
0
av
v
0
to
C
0
U
EV R Residential
EV E-1 Estate
a
co
to E
a a0 C to U
cu >
a w
a CU C a)
v O
as 0
C
U v
, 0 C Q a,C tL
C C ca 4- O O
to .0 C to 0 C 4-' co E
av, }, O ,-, O L 2
I J LI N 0 o b0 a- co
cc '~ 4-,-, C L CO
�� C O O v,0- N C
0 QJ n. C CO > c0 an co = to
.F.., E N cD I : S C L O
o ,c C tom o 'an ;.
C [0 to N — +4 —
v L7 fL- > w C7 0
L
° e--I N m 4 tI1 t,p I- 00 ci
0
4,
C
CD
�o
V)
TCS
CU
to L
c v
E
0
CD U
Lt-
'474
0 0
2
co
2 C0C C cc c
WC
O
U
ci 4- Q
N
QJ
U
4-
0
0
•
I-
0
>-
CD
C
0
c0
O
E
O
U
U
>
Li)
to
C
v
-o
0
J
N
C
0
co
O
E
O
U
U
Q
Q
w
C
4-4
c6
U
a)"
E
O
U
0
U
>
w
CO
V)
C
v
v
E
J
>
w
•
EV O - Office
tN
CU
to
C
cD
J
N
0
C
CD
U
to
0
hA
C
C
O
NJ
2 from the EVDC.
Min.
Building
Width
(ft)
20
Max.
Building
Height (ft)
30
Min.
Building
structure
CO $
o
v---•
7, $
o
Front (ft.)
50
Min.
lot size
.-.o
�
N
Nmu
Q a
o
Max.
Net
Density
(units/ac)
ro
Zoning
District
EV RE-1
Li
Ui
w
0
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED BY THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
Estes Valley Contractors Association
PO Box 416
Estes Park, CO 80517
11/13/19
Estes Park Board of Trustees
Larimer County Commissioners
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to address the question of whether the Inter -Governmental Agreement
(IGA) should retain the Joint Planning Area and Joint Planning Commission with Joint
Development Code, OR have two separate planning areas/planning
commission/planning codes.
It is the position of the Estes Valley Contractors Association that we support the system
the way it is now and would like to keep the single planning area, code, and planning
commission for the entire Estes Valley.
Sincerely,
The Board of the Estes Valley Contractors Association
Z7¢4,4;f., 9ac,A2.
Devin Jacobs
Treasurer
Estes Valley Contractors Association
Public Comment
Estes Park/La'00er CountyUGA
David Everitt <dmvid nies.00m> Mon, Oct 28.2019at1116AM
To: 'townc|erk@eohao.org"^bowndedk@eateo.org>.']kefaa@|ahmecorg"<jkeMoo@|arimecorg>.
To whom it may concern:
In my studied opinion there is no compelling reason to eliminate the IGA between the two municipalities as is
contemplated by some advocating a dissolution of the cooperative planning process; and many important reasons to
retain an|8A. There are in many quarters of the Valley no clear distinctions between the land uses within the town of
Estes and the surrounding unincorporated area. The common concerns and interests of the naoidenoao in both
regions are many and the interface regarding such is critical for maintaining a cohesive and well -planned
community. Having no IGA serves no public good and potentially ignores the collective will of the whole community
which the public representatives are commissioned toserve. Furthermore, such adissected arrangement opens the
door for special interests to overrule the interests of the integrated populous which live in work in the area.
Due to my occupation as a real estate developer, | have seen and worked in accordance with |GAn in several
communities, including LahmerCounb/. Whereas | have not always agreed with or personally benefited from some of
the outcomes of this cooperative process, by -in -large I find these IGAs, rightly formulated, to be quite helpful by the
inclusion of all stakeholders impacted by common interest in the decisions process.
I strongly oppose the elimination or significant dilution of the IGA.
Thank you,
President, The Everitt Companies
970'222-0112
Sent fromM-aJI for Windows 10
Estes Valley Planning Commission - UGA -Vofe to maintain one valley -wide area
AndyThumert <athamert@gmoiicom^ Mon, Oct 28.2010sd818P[N
To: townclerk@estes.org
Hi Trustees,
On November 14, vote to maintain one valley -wide area for joint land use planning. Do NOT divide the Estes Valley
into two regions.
The Estes Valley isaplace where residents share much incommon. VVaall
share the same roado, txei|a, aohoo|a, hospital, fire district, library, wildlife, love of nature and love for our community.
VVeare infact one integrated community.
Furthermore any development project anywhere in the valley is of great interesthuawide range ofcitizens. And for
good reason: we share the same traffic, parking, noise, and environmental impacts and concerns wherever a project
takes place.
I look forward to seeing your votes align with the vast majority of the public!
Thank you,
Andy
Andy Thamert
Public Comment
Nov 14meeting: Intergovernmental Agreement
bothcooper <bcooper1QO0@ymhoo.com> Mon, Oct 28.2010a\1118AM
To: townclerk@estes.org
| urge you tomaintain ONE valley -wide area for joint land use planning. DoNOT vote todivide the Estes Valley into
two regions for land use planning. There is NO need for that kind of separation.
Thank you,
Beth Cooper
2420 s)ti Free Drive
Estes Pork
Intergovernmental Agreement
randoUmohanyxnnohorry42@yahoo.00m> Tue, Oct 29.2019at7:55AM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Dear Sirs:
|amoresident ofLahmerCo. ; but not ofthe town ofEstes Park. | hope that you will bainfavor ofrenewing the |GA
for another 5years.
I believe that one planning commission for the entire area would make better comprehensive decisions for both the
town and its surroundings.
Thank you for considering mypoint of view.
RandaUMahaxy
107ONorth Lane
Estes Park, CO80517
515-229'8299
IGA
pcminiov<puminier@gmaioom> Tue, Oct 29.2010et2:01PK8
To: towncierk@estes.org
While we live outside of the town limits, I want to let you know that we support continuing the ]GA. The town of Estes
and the outlying areas are located close together geographically. | think that while mmhave not always agreed with
the decisions of the Town of Estes, the town officials in Estes have a clearer idea of what is best for our area. The
Larimer County Commissioners have a large area to govern and won't have the same local knowledge that the town
public officials have.
We support continuing the IGA.
Cindy and John N1inier
2725Devils Gulch Road
Public Comment
Estes Park & Larimer County IGA
Intergovernmental agreement renewal
John Gehlhausen <jgehlhausen@tractorlaw.com> Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:22 PM
To: - distributed to all Trustees <townclerk@estes.org>, "jkefalas@larimer.org" <jkefalas@larimer.org>,
"johnsosw@co.larimerco.us" <johnsosw@co.larimer.co.us>, "donnelt@co.larimerco.us" <donnelt@co.larimerco.us>
Cc: Jan Gehlhausen <jan@tractorlaw.com>, "Susan & John Mulhearn (susandmulhearn6@gmail.com)"
<susandmulhearn6@gmail.com>
Ladies and gentlemen:
My wife, sister; and myself are full time residents of the Estes Valley. Across the street in front of our house is the
town of Estes Park.
We heartily oppose severing the intergovernmental agreement which currently covers land -use issues for those of us
who live in the Isles Valley surrounding the town limits of Estes Park and those who are in the town limits. The
re0.40n why is simple.
Most of what occurs on land -use issues in Estes Park affects os in the areas adjacent to Estes Park as much as it
does those living in the town. It would he ridiculous for those of its surrounding Estes Park to be defiled as much
voice or standing in land use decisions in the town as residerits would have simply because we are outside (barely)
the town limits. We are as dependent with regard to the wisdom of those decisions as much as citizens living in the
town. A decision to allow a business such as a trailerpark or cabaret across our street in town limits, while an extreme
example, affects us as much is town residents. We use the facilities in the town such as streets,
wildlife protection, library, the community center, parks, schools, shops, hospital, utilities, medical
services, and restaurants as much as do town residents. They also use the facilities outside the town limits as 1111.0)
as do we. In short, land -use decisions affecting any of those facilities or services affect us just as much as town
citizens and vice versa.
For these reasons we think having two separate land -use decision -makers would bc-.) a very unwise decision. Please
renew the intergovernmental agreement.
Thank you lei your consideration.
Sincerely yot.us,
John Gehlhausen
1926 tone Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: (303) 601-8982
Public Comment
Estes Park & Larimer County IGA
Fwd: Intergovernmental Agreement between Town of Estes Park and Larimer
County
Donna Pierce <maetreehuggergirl@gmail.com>
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Dear Mayor and Trustees,
Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:30 PM
On November 14 the Town of Estes Park Trustees and Board of [Larimer] County Commissioners will
hold a joint meeting to decide the future of the Intergovernmental Agreement. The current IGA expires
at the end of 2019, and a new five-year agreement will be put in place by these governing bodies. This
decision is critical to the future of land use planning in the Estes Valley, where residents share much in
common: roads, trails, schools, hospital, fire district, library, wildlife, and love of nature. We are in fact
one integrated community of both Town and County. Any land use decision in the Estes Valley is of
great interest to and affects a wide range of citizens. Traffic, parking, noise, and environmental
impacts are concerns wherever a project takes place in the Valley, whether it be inside or outside the
Town limits. We are one community and should remain as one community for the purpose of land use
planning.
There is no compelling reason to eliminate the IGA between the two municipalities as is contemplated
by some advocating a dissolution of the cooperative planning process; and many important reasons to
retain an IGA. In many quarters of the Valley no clear distinctions exist between the land uses within
the town of Estes and the surrounding unincorporated area. The common concerns and interests of
residents in both regions are many and often shared, and the interface regarding such is critical for
maintaining a cohesive and well -planned community. Continuing the IGA serves the public good and
collective will of the whole community, which the public representatives are commissioned to serve. A
dissected arrangement would open the door for special interests to overrule the interests of the
integrated populous living and working in the area. In fact, a disturbing trend in the direction of special
interests has been working in the Town recently. We need continued oversight to ensure that all Estes
Valley residents are heard.
While I have not always agreed with or personally benefited from some of the outcomes of this
cooperative process, in most cases our IGA encourages inclusion of all stakeholders impacted by
common interest in the decisions process.
Please vote to renew the IGA between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County.
Thank you,
Donna Pierce
Estes Valley Resident
Unincorporated Larimer County
Public Comment
Estes Park & Larimer County IGA
IGA between Town and County - from Johanna Darden
Bill J. Darden <bdarden@uchicago.edu> Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:53 AM
To: Todd Jirsa <tjirsa@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "eblackhurst@estes.org"
<eblackhust@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, "rnorris@estes.org" <rnorris@estes.org>,
"kzornes@estes.org" <kzornes@estes.org>
Cc: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Dear Mayor and Trustees,
I have quoted the comment of another citizen, because it expresses my view entirely. Please vote to
renew the IGA between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County.
"On November 14 the Town of Estes Park Trustees and Board of [Larimer] County Commissioners will
hold a joint meeting to decide the future of the Intergovernmental Agreement. The current IGA expires
at the end of 2019, and a new five-year agreement will be put in place by these governing bodies. This
decision is critical to the future of land use planning in the Estes Valley, where residents share much in
common: roads, trails, schools, hospital, fire district, library, wildlife, and love of nature. We are in fact
one integrated community of both Town and County. Any land use decision in the Estes Valley is of
great interest to and affects a wide range of citizens. Traffic, parking, noise, and environmental
impacts are concerns wherever a project takes place in the Valley, whether it be inside or outside the
Town limits. We are one community and should remain as one community for the purpose of land use
planning.
There is no compelling reason to eliminate the IGA between the two municipalities as is contemplated
by some advocating a dissolution of the cooperative planning process; and many important reasons to
retain an IGA. In many quarters of the Valley no clear distinctions exist between the land uses within
the town of Estes and the surrounding unincorporated area. The common concerns and interests of
residents in both regions are many and often shared, and the interface regarding such is critical for
maintaining a cohesive and well -planned community. Continuing the IGA serves the public good and
collective will of the whole community, which the public representatives are commissioned to serve. A
dissected arrangement would open the door for special interests to overrule the interests of the
integrated populous living and working in the area. In fact, a disturbing trend in the direction of special
interests has been working in the Town recently. We need continued oversight to ensure that all Estes
Valley residents are heard.
While I have not always agreed with or personally benefited from some of the outcomes of this
cooperative process, in most cases our IGA encourages inclusion of all stakeholders impacted by
common interest in the decisions process.
Please vote to renew the IGA between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County.
Thank you,"
Johanna Darden, Year -Round Town of Estes Park Resident
Public Comment
Estes Park & Larimer County IGA
Please keep the IGA
Don Sellers <don.sellers@gmail.com>
To: townclerk@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Town Board members
Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:57 AM
In this age when the population of our country is so divided, it seems counter productive to increase division within our
Town and Valley.
This has always seemed like one place to me: It is Estes Park from Lily Mountain to the switch -backs above Glen
Haven and from the Fall River Entrance to RMNP to Olympus Mountain. It is all one place. We all use the same
facilities, both governmental and commercial.
In fact, many people don't know where the border lines are that separate Town and County. The valley should be one
entity, at least in the Comprehensive plan and with respect to development planning. We should have one Planning
Commission where projects come to be evaluated, negotiated, and approved by both town and county
representative. Please update and keep the Intergovernmental Agreement.
Thank you.
Don Sellers
Estes Park
Fwd: IGA- could you please forward to mayor trustees and commissioners. Thank
you.
Forwarded message
From: Ann Finley <G.r .rlce a@:7c>trDA..2
Date: Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:51 PM
Subject: IGA- could you please forward to mayor trustees and commissioners. Thank you.
To: Jackie Williamson <iwilli rson(rr7r.,fi,.c:rc1>
To whom it may concern:
I would like to press upon our elected officials the importance of keeping the joint agreement we have with Larimer county
called the Intergovernmental Agreement, or IGA. This agreement has worked well for both the town and the county since 1997.
It brings to mind the adage...why fix it if it ain't broke.
The geography of this valley butts town up against unincorporated areas in many sectors. The IGA has provided a platform for
all citizens to have a voice regarding common concerns around all issues, particularly land use. Whether it is town or county we
are one community and providing a mechanism to collectively deal with any issues is essential . It would not be in the best
interests of the constituents you have agreed to serve to get rid of the joint IGA. To that end, I would encourage you to support
keeping it.
Ann Finley
Public Comment
Estes Park & Larimer County IGA
Intergovernmental Agreement
Russ <estesoldies65@yahoo.com> Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:58 AM
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "jkefalas@larimer.org" <jkefalas@larimer.org>,
"johnsosw@co.larimer.co.us" <johnsosw@co.larimer.co.us>, "donnelt@co.larimer.co.us" <donnelt@co.larimer.co.us>
Thank you for taking your valuable time to address and make a determination of the need for an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA)between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. Having served as a member of the Estes
Valley Planning Commission, I see value in developing a new IGA for the area and recommend you do so. However,
if a new IGA is enacted, the residence of Estes Park, and those in the Estes Valley, as well as those in Larimer
County must be assured there are "teeth" in the "Agreement" and that everyone is represented equally.
Knowing the existing IGA was ignored when the Coaster project was proposed, it would appear an IGA is of little or no
value. However, had the IGA been used as written, and adhered to as part of our regulations, rather than being
considered a guideline, both the citizens of Estes Park and Larimer County would have been served in an equitable
manner.
The concept of two Planning Commissions, two sets of Development codes, and two Boards of Adjustment makes
absolutely no sense, and makes one wonder what the impetus was for such a concept. Two Planning Commissions
would mean the Estes Park Planning Department has no say in the County, whatsoever, even when County actions
could impact local residents. Likewise, given the size of Larimer County, how would an item like the Coaster even
register with a County Planning Commission, when it is such a local issue? In general, it appears the Estes Valley
would also be short changed as it appears to be an add -on, or after thought rather than a represented area.
Several questions need to be addressed as the discussion regarding the IGA continues.
1. What was the impetus for two bodies being established to represent the Town of Estes Park, the Estes
Valley, and the County?
2. How will the values of the Estes Park residents be protected from the "whims" of the County?
3. How can you have two governing bodies and one Comprehensive Plan?
4. Who will make the difficult decisions when controversies arise, as there will be a number of them?
5. If the town and county are indeed separate entities, then the Director of the Town Planning Department
MUST not have any role outside the town.
It seems to me that everyone would be better served with a rigorous IGA, that stands as part of Development Code
for the town of Estes Park, the Estes Valley, and the County, and that is not seen a just a guideline. Also it is
mandatory that an IGA be enforced just as vigorously as any other part of the Development Code.
Thank you for your time and service.
Russ Schneider
1680Ptarmigan ....La.ne
Estes Park CO 8051_7
Public Comment
Re: Concerns about theUGA
Tue.Nov 5.20i8at3:42PKA
Cc: Todd Jima<tjima@eetea.org>.Patrick PWartohink<pmadohink@eotoo.org^.DrMarie Cenau<muenoo@oyhao.oq]>.
Carlie Bangs <cbangs@estes.org>, Ken Zornes <kzornes@estes.org>, Ron Norris <rnorris@estes.org>, Tom Donnelly
<tdonnelly@larimer.org>, Steve Johnson <johnsosw@co.larimer.co.us>, Town of Estes Park - Planning Division
<p|anning@eoteoorg>. "John Kefo|ao Okofe|no@|orimor.org)" `jkefa|aa@|arimecorg>. Eric B|aokhumt
<eb|ackhurst@eoteaorg>.Town Clerk <howno|erk@eateo.org>.Leo|iEllis <eUiu|k@|arimer.org>
{)nTue. Nov 5.201Sat3:27P[N Michelle Hiland wrote:
Dear Trustees, Commissioners and Planning Staff,
Can you please answer these questions before or during the Nov 14th meeting for the future of the Intergovernmental
1. If we have two separate planning areas in the Estes Valley, what does it do to the concept of having one
valley -wide Comprehensive Plan?
2. How will vacation rental regulations and the cap on the number of VRs in the current Development Code be
affected by having two separate Development Codes?
Both ofthese questions are part ofwhy |amvery concerned about dividing the Estes Valley into two regions for land
use planning, one consisting of the Town and the other consisting of the rest of the unincorporated Estes Valley.
Further disadvantages are aofollows:
People who live outside the Town limits will have to take their concerns to the Larimer County boards in Fort Collins.
The Larimer County Planning Commission serves all of Larimer County and since this isalarge area hocover they
cannot be in tune with how Estes Park should grow and what the interests of the people that live and work in the area
are. This opens a door to rubber stamp developments that may be destructive to the surrounding area.
The town limits and the county are interwoven so separate land uses in such proximity to one another has a great
potential to create incompatibility throughout the area, harming neighborhoods and communities.
Vacation rentals are already a contentious issue in the Estes Valley so there is greatconcern that byhaving two
development codes there will be more vacation rentals in residential areas, which is already detrimental to
communities.
The comprehensive plan should include all of the Estes Valley and with separate development codes for the town and
the county this will make it complicated and ineffective.
Please vote tomaintain one valley -wide area for joint land use planning sowecan keep Estes Park acohesive and
well -planned community.
Thank you,
K8ioheUeHi|and
Public Comment
Estes Park & Larimer County IGA
Support for Keeping Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Town of Estes Park
and Larimer County
Lance Benham <lanny1172@gmail.com>
To: townclerk@estes.org
Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:37 PM
To: Town Clerk
Kindly provide a copy of the below communication to each of the Town Trustees. Thank you.
Lance Benham
Dear Trustee of the Town of Estes Park,
It is my understanding that a meeting will be held next week between the Town of Estes Park Trustees and the
County Commissioners to decide the future of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Please accept this communication
as a voice of strong support for extending, or renewing, the current Intergovernmental Agreement.
As a career design professional (Mechanical Engineering) and a home owner in Estes Park, I am very disappointed
that a proposal has been advanced that would separate the Town from the Valley from a land use planning
standpoint. This is a reckless strategy that, predictably, will create confusion for homeowners, developers, design
professionals, real estate agents, and buyers and sellers. Significantly, having two sets of Development Codes, two
Planning Commissions, and two Boards of Adjustment to address development projects and zoning requests,
depending upon whether the property is inside or outside of the Town limits, will promote divisiveness within our
community.
Project development and land use planning within Estes Valley, inclusive of the Town of Estes Park, should benefit
the area as a whole. Importantly, development planning should be based upon common standards that promote
wholistic development strategies and land planning solutions that preserve the unique ambience of the area. The
Town of Estes Park should not be decoupled from the Valley. Estes Valley is an integrated community where
residents share much in common: the same roads, trails, schools, hospital, fire district, library, wildlife, respect for
resource conservation and love for our community. Development projects anywhere in the Valley are of great interest
to a wide range of citizens since we are all affected by the same traffic, parking, noise, and environmental impacts
that may result from inadequate planning or conflicting development standards.
The importance of establishing coherent and consistent development standards and setting a high bar for approval of
changes in land use cannot be overstated because the consequences of failing to do so are permanent and often
severe. Too many communities across the country have experienced erosion of both residential and commercial
property values because their planning commissions approved changes in zoning that led to incompatible types of
development, creating storm water issues, traffic nightmares, light and noise pollution, and myriad other adverse
impacts. The Town of Estes Part does not need its own Planning Commission that will rubber stamp every
development project.
Further to the above, having two separate planning areas within the Estes Valley would seem to work against the
benefit we currently enjoy by having one Valley -wide Comprehensive Plan. Lastly, and to the credit of many, a great
amount of effort went into the vacation rental regulations and the cap on the number of vacation rentals in the current
Development Code. It is not at all clear to me that the current regulations can be sustained if we migrate to having
two separate bodies weighing in on all the issues associated with vacation rentals. There are those who would like to
get more vacation rental properties developed and would be thrilled to see less restrictive vacation rental regulations
in residential zones. Needless to say, that is a recipe for Estes Valley and Estes Park losing its timelessness ... and
its luster.
Thank you for your service to our community. Please vote to preserve that community.
Public Comment
Respectfully.
Lance (& Linda) Benham
Estes IGA for planning _YES
hoonekoudar@auo|.com<baonaoudor@am|.uom> Wed, Nov G.2O1Qsd8:04PKA
Nov 7.2O1Q
TO: Estes Park Town Board
LarimerBoard ofCounty Commissioners
FROM: Sandy Lindquist, full-time Town resident and homeowner
RE: Estes Valley continued IGA for planning -- YES
As a homeowner and full time, in -town resident for more than twelve years, I am in favor of keeping this IGA in
effect for coordinated, inbegreted, valley -wide planning purposes. My reasons follow.
° The Estes Valley is e rare and precious resource within e emoU, unique, natural setting adjacent to National
Park and National Forest.
° ThetmwngoognsphivaUyexiotavviththecounty|iken"handing|ove;''pnojaots/aotiviUeainoneendh/direcdy
impact the other.
" O*opitoaUthe|ngistioa|andfinonuia|reaoonaforkaepingthe"Town'and"County''aUUoepanaha.the
topographic bowl comprising the Estes Valley is ONE united community in terms of how it should balance
preservation and (re)development for the good of its residents (human and animal) and its visitors.
° Government should continually be streamlined -- not expanded -- with equitable decisions handled as locally
oafeasible bydirect stakeholders.
* The valuable Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) and associated boards should comprise LOCAL
representatives living within the "bowl.
Estes Valley IGA PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO TRUSTEES
mike konnedy<eoranoh@gmeicom> Tua.Nov 12.2O1Qat5:2APK8
The Estes Valley has evolved considerably inthe 2O years since the first |GAwas adopted; Estes Park isnolonger o
village, but a town and the unincorporated Valley has seen considerable residential expansion. However, the Estes
Valley remains unique, only about 30 square miles locked in by mountains and Federal lands on all sides. These
unique factors created a strong sense of community going back to the 1800's that carried through the last
century. That sense of community or willingness to coexist, at least on the some level, is in jeopardy. The proposal
for separate, but "similar" comprehensive plans, development codes, planning commissions, Boards of Adjustment
and so forth, as supported by the Mayor, will create major divide in what has been anoheaive and mostly united
community. I hope you opt to continue an IGA that incorporates a joint planning, execution and enforcement. We
must remain eninterconnected entity hopefully withtheebi|ityandvviudom(ofindao|uUonototheohaUengeofaoing
both the town and its new urban needs and the unincorporated county and its desire to remain a residential haven.
The Valley ieone community! Don't divide us!
Mike Kennedy
Public Comment
Estes Park &LaMnmmrCounty |GA
720.244.6411
IGA
Dorothy Gibbs <owlsnest124O@gmaioom> Sat, Nov Q.2O19at12:4QPPW
To: townclerk@estes.org
Tothe Town Trustees: First, thank you oomuch for the time and effort you put into this job that iseoimportant hoall of
us! I live a couple of hundred yards outside the Town limits, but so much of what you do affects me too. I think there
are many of us who don't even realize which group we are geographically part of. Please, please let the agreement
between the Town and the County continue. Change if and when necessary, but do keep consulting and doing joint
planning. Thanks!
Dorothy
OorothyS. Gibbs
Y240I}�.y.iYoGulch Rd.
Estes Park CO 805,17
970'588-4092
Keep the Current IGA
DonGordon <gnr ona323@Vnon.com> Tue.Nov 12.2O1Aat12:33PK8
To: 'townc|erk@aohee.org" <howno|edk@eabmorg>. ']kefa|aa@|ohmer.org" ^4kefa|oa@|ahmer.org>.
Please keep the existing Intergovernmental Agreement (|GA)intact for all future land use planning inEstes Park and
the surrounding unincorporated properties.
Mayor Jirsa and CCD Randy Hunt prefer two separate regions for planning purposes — one for the Town of Estes
Park and one for the rest of the unincorporated land in Estes Valley. If a decision is made to go with two planning
areas there will be two sets of Development Codes, two Planning Commissions, and two Boards of Adjustment to
address development projects and zoning requests, depending on whether the property is inside or outside of the
Town limits. This will lead to confusion for homeowners, developers, real estate agents, and buyers and sellers.
If a decision is made to go with two planning areas the Planning Commission for the area outside the Town limits will
be the LahmerCounty Planning Commission. The LCPC deals with land use issues across the entire county. |Ca
doubtful they will be able to devote the amount of time and energy to Estes Valley land use issues as the current
Estes Valley Planning Commission. The same will be true for the Larimer County Board of Adjustment in comparison
to the current Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. People who live outside the Town limits will have to take their
concerns tothe LarimerCounty boards inFort Collins.
With all the disadvantages of having two sets ofDevelopment Codes, Planning Commissions, and Boards of
Adjustment why would anyone favor this approach? Mayor Jirsa and CDD Randy Hunt maintain that there are
significant differences between the Town and County portions of the Estes Valley. So much so that we must have two
sets of Development Codes and review boards to address land use projects in these areas. But does this make
sense? Are the Town and County areas of the Estes Valley so different? The Estes Valley is a place where residents
share much incommon. Most proposed development projects are of interest to all residents living in the Estes Valley.
Public Comment
Estes Park & Larimer County IGA
The proposal for two separate planning areas may lead to poor oversight of the Mayor and CCD when future
questionable land use proposals are presented for approval. There are many stakeholders in the Estes Valley that
will need a forum to present their views/objections to these questionable land use proposals and having a separate
Town region for land use approvals will negate that opportunity.
I urge you all to support the continuation of the current IGA!
Don Gordon
Comment for today's joint PC and County Commissioners meeting
Douglas Klink <dougklink@gmail.com> Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:22 AM
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>
I served on the Estes Valley Planning Commission for almost 10 years, twice as Chairman. I would like to go on
record in support of abolishing the joint planning commission and land use code.
There are many reasons why this experiment should end. It is a cumbersome and complicated process, involving two
boards trying to represent their constituencies in a manner seen only in Estes Park. The creation of any new code
gives the Town of Estes Park much more input into the process, and the county residents are under represented. It is
exceedingly difficult and tedious to get anything passed, and joint meetings happen very infrequently.
It became very clear during a number of hearings during my tenure that in many cases the code creation process had
become a farce, gamed by those wishing to obstruct development and change. Instead of coming to EVPC meetings
and trying to help provide public input to develop a particular code, special interest groups would just wait until they
could go directly to the Town Board, make comments the EVPC had never heard and had opportunity to include in the
proposed code or development review, and convince the Town Board to vote down the project or code. This was the
main reason I resigned from the Planning Commission, it had become a rigged game. And it works over and over
again to this day.
Residents in the county get a bad deal under the IGA. It's a long drive to Fort Collins, and the County Commissioners
rightly focus their energies on areas where most of their constituents live. The Town has high barriers to annexation
because they lose money on residential services due to the low property tax they choose to impose. Anywhere else
in Colorado, if you live in the County you are governed by the County, not a nearby town. In the Estes Valley, you
have a County Sheriff instead of local police. You have County snow plowing, not Town and are much more likely to
live on a dirt road. You have a County Building Inspector. But Town officials you cannot vote for have a huge say in
your development code as well as your water and electric rates.
Clearly the answer to those who want the Estes Valley to live as one harmonious group, is annexation. That's the
way the rest of the world does it, and it's time that we ended our experiment and move on. I suggest that those who
want the IGA to continue instead start a movement to make it easier for those who want the Valley to live as one to be
able to annex into Estes Park. It's a proven model and would provide a clear path forward and get rid of this
cumbersome and ineffectual joint planning area experiment.
Sincerely,
Doug Klink
Larry & Karen Olson
229 Pine Tree Dr
Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 586-9393
November 6, 2019
John Kefalas
Larimer County Commissioner
200 West Oak Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
NOV 0 8 Z019
Af1)1410t4,11.SIFINT SEfiv g„:, ES
RE: Intergovernmental Agreement — Estes Park & Environs
Hi John,
Hope this finds you well. And, thanks for all the work that you, your staff, and other
commissioners do for the citizens of Larimer County. We own a home and live in the Estes
Valley outside the Town of Estes Park.
We are writing concerning the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to be decided on November
14th for Estes Park and surroundings. We strongly favor one region that includes both
Town of Estes Park and the unincorporated Estes Valley (one valley -wide area for joint
land use planning).
We share so much in common with the town. Roads, trails, schools, hospital, recreation district,
fire district, library, wildlife, love of nature and love of community. Traffic, parking, noise, and
vacation rentals are all common problems. We are one integrated community.
It appears to us that it may be a waste of time, energy, and money to have separate
Development Codes, Planning Commissions, and Boards of Adjustments. It can be confusing
to landowners, developers, real estate agents, buyers and sellers which development codes
may apply. Our impression is that the current combined five-year agreement (concept
originated in 2000) has served us well. Let's continue it with minor adjustments as appropriate.
Regards,
Larry & Karen Olson
cc. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department
Larimer County Community Development
SIGN -IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Individuals wishing to be heard during Public Comment will be limited to two (2) minutes in
order to allow everyone the opportunity to be heard. Public Comments are expected to be
constructive.
Written comments are welcome and should be given to the Town Clerk prior to the start of
the meeting.
Joint
-o n
ount o
en
issioners
FUTURE OF LAND USE PLANNING IN THE ESTES VALLEY
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
STREET ADDRESS
Citizen (Check One)
TOWN or COUNTY
leirre,;(4-4/a/ 7•,-
2101/6/- end 0
- '
A ferfAt2it,j c.,
i se .s„ 6-4-7-3-0-4J ii,i-rvianns..J
/ e Yi 1-1,-
I 17 .8 I (cii ikde _
q444- er
'..-7
e (or 5e
c.),(ict h te
If ..c.0 W. tclodydzigth s
----e.—.4,0( ,,,,,,,„ fr, 40 .....,:z , itti
J�L4orWoo
,, 7
a 1 ril
'7n&n 7ri Ve
10 ,r
0/44'44-11<' 1,/
t,... ,,e4 , E,
71 1 Jr)/9 k) eitileder
..: /
' "V
hii•-•
10 . . : M „
„ 13
...f., 4) ra du, ,49.
14
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
STREET ADDRESS
Citizen (Check One)
TOWN or COUNTY
'15
t),f'L
16
,
Iv
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
V