The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Joint Town Board Study Session 2019-07-29LARIMER COUNTY TOWN OF ESTES PARIc TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES BOARD OF LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Future of Land Use Planning in the Estes Valley: Facilitated Discussion with Citizens Monday, July 29, 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. 5:30 p.m. Mayor Jirsa & Chair Donnelly to open the study session 5:45 p.m. Presentation by Staff: Purpose, Background, Options; Introduction to Facilitated Discussions 6:15 p.m. Small Group discussions, moderated by Facilitators 7:00 p.m. Reports out by Facilitators to the full group 7:15 p.m. Closing Comments by Mayor and Chair; Next Steps NOTE: The Town Board and County Commissioners reserve the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. *The opening and closing segments of this meeting will be recorded and available live online. The middle segment (small group discussions) will not be recorded or available online due to technological limitations. TOWN OF ESTES PARI r4 nil I J /11/4) dg,ibl,J,1111 THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING AREA FOrrigipprw prffir f Rory rego Nip pgpre fir Nowirg 101 ' [ I If 6ff: FOrr (/ / )// T of/ "P"; 'r .110, ?Si II *of ,',?),fitiospie / f 7/ TOWN OF ESTES PARI 6r:r; wz2;7/A • Continue ongoing conversation: • Elected officials met in February • Town and County managers exchanged letters in May • Provide information about the Town of Estes and County Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) related to the Estes Valley Planning Area ("the Planning Area") • Describe the IGA's history, mechanics, and relationship to the Comprehensive Plan • Discuss future options for cooperative land use planning • Seek public input Ill HISTORY OF COOPERATIVE PLANNING IN THE ESTES VALLEY "1WI1r1NN) vni mW�fl�d • Early 1990s — Decided to have joint land use planning for the Estes Valley Planning Area. The Comprehensive Plan Task Force started the joint Comprehensive Plan • 1996 - Comp Plan adopted as part of the Larimer County Master Plan and in 1997 as the Town's Comprehensive Plan • Apr. 25, 1996 - House Bill 96-1119 was signed into law by Gov. Romer • Feb. 1, 2000 - First Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) approved between Town of Estes and Larimer County. The Estes Valley Development Code and Zoning Plan were effective TOWN OF ESTES PARIc CURRENT IGA EXPIRES FEB 2020 ITS COMPONENTS: 1. Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) • 4 County -appointed and 3 Town -appointed members to review developments in the Estes Valley. 2. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (EVBOA) • that is jointly appointed (3 Town and 2 County). 3. Policies for annexation rroz4 ;14 Or: 7,'//'• 4. Estes Valley Development Code and zoning throughout the Planning Area 5. Decision -making authority with respective elected representatives. EVPC mostly advisory, with appeals possible to the respective governing body. 6. Generally, Town staff in Community Development review and manage the land use code throughout the planning area (including county area) on behalf of the County. County staff serve as a resource. The agreement notes staffing responsibilities and differences related to Code Enforcement and legal advice. / TOWN or ESTES PARK fP • Town of Estes has asked Larimer County Community Development to begin to provide development review services in the Estes Valley (unincorporated areas only) January 1, 2020 • Town initiated discussions to allow Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to expire and for town and county to work together on a new/revised IGA • Larimer County agreed to work with the Town of Estes on these issues and host community engagement. '"kook„,„,,,„,„141101110 11111„ County has cooperative planning and growth management IGAs for: Fort Collins Loveland r Berthoud Windsor VA f3 Ik4 Will be working with other towns (i.e., Wellington, Timnath, Johnstown) TOWN OF ESTES PARK,_ }..L N 11 N N ,,Lt '"" :"q":••;i7 ••iP 0 0 751.5 3 Mlles rirryr r,„(04 r: A TOWN or ESTES PARK , A LOVELAND/LARIMER COUNTY IGA • Key Components: Also has GMA (and a Cooperative Planning Area and Community Influence area). r: • Comprehensive Plan: City Plan extends into the GMA. • Code(s): Supplementary regulations for GMA Overlay Zone district conforming to city's plan. County refers. sq • Key Components: Cooperation re: managing urban development. Establishes a Growth Management Area (GMA). • Comprehensive Plan: County a% uses City's plan to guide development in the GMA. • Code(s): Separate codes. County defers to city in the GMA and uses its code outside. • Annexation: City intends to annex properties within the GMA and annexes enclaves. r 777,u-Kf://y;fply • STEAMBOAT SPRINGS ...•••AND ROUTT COUNTY. • • • • ••• • Steamboat Springs Area Plan, with study area boundary (the light green) within which is an Urban Growth Boundary • Annexation policies addressed. AA, ‘`t TOWN OF ESTES PARK City Structure Plan PUrnkFartCans it eit z ,.'471 • g g/ a - , ?,',/N, ,, ''' J w ';';'•.-4-'-u' ,*,4; ) - - , • .• /7 /" / /,., ::!,,, ' %. - .gg4gg'',,411 .:,h,,....4"„',.„y,.: f';,,,,,/ ';,.'4',', ,,:g'.i, • 6 41 „ ild,, , 4,. • „144 ro." • ' Lha d — ,4„,,,, qahlf. tttkftentla E9ss1 5.41 A ........., Era /4..3 ,,,,, nnonnnonn.nnanunnnnnan ,,,,, ir / „, , . ...... • t ,tAl A A t/TtT"J UH ITY a III U� Illli 1� �/lll �l�ll� �ll�ll � ,�11�11 �L �L� ,l ea,, u, du 11 u, � / I LYONS AND BOULDER COUNTY • IGA implements goals of town and county comp plans and references other partnerships. • Lyons has a Primary Planning Area where annexation and development may occur (yellow). • Also includes "Interest Areas/Rural Preservation" (green), and "no development areas" (orange) 701 vyyry DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE it TOWN or ESTES PARK,_ FACILITATED DISCUSSION (for the July 29 meeting) —4 questions in 45 minutes 1. Three to five years from now, what is your vision of land use and planning in the Estes Valley? 2. What do you think might be accomplished long-term with a continued land use planning agreement between the town and county, considering current and other examples? 3. When the Town of Estes updates the Comprehensive Plan, is it important to plan for land uses in the Estes Valley outside town limits, and if so how? 4. Do you have any other general input about the land use planning agreement or how Larimer County should transition to provide development review services starting next year? Reconvene for report out at the end of the meeting TOWN or ESTES PART Through Aug. 12, go to: g and see link for Estes Valley Planning Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Ms, &shut 0444 HbAtir ILIALA Webb FARAH FM: hL 1111111 oi000lol'000i00000, 1,1 ", . , 4 04 orko.00l 44 Igmbrai 045.14 PnIfer , TOWN OFF,STES PARIco Estes Valley Planning Area Study Map Legend j ESTES PARK 4.400 ACRES ESTES VALLEY PLANNING AREA 20,840 ACRES ri ROCKY MOUNTAK I RP US FOREST SERVICE CONSERVATION EASEMEUTS Nom HERMIT PARK FM UNDEVELOPED PARCELS 316 PARCELS 4,515 TOTAL ACRES IN UNINCORPORATED ESTES VALLEY 411111 N W EbsiwAILLL ID ESOLIDADS February 2019 TOWN or ESTES PARK,_ Future Land Use Plan Single Family R4aldan11 al 1=1,11 Rural Estate : ID acre min. IRE-1) I Rural Estatn 2 112 acre ruin IRO = Biala 1 nue min, (El) (stole,' 1,2 Snre (E) Enwinenlisl li,,I acre min. Mu TFamily RapIderglal I Family 27,000 S.F. min ((iq) ED rAulli-Taini(f 3.0 disincre (MO Spada, Slaty Arena ETJ Fan RIM( Glanl Tres Combusts! Retroslien (CRI mmerciat Downlvnn (C60) commerciai (C) ET) otra (n) AuomniocItiloni 111111111111 Ao:sminodnEons (A) Accommcdalions Low Oensdy (A-1) Planted Unit Osygleenvisl 111111111111111111111111111111 Commorchl (PIJO,C) Residential -(11 =3 Runk 0. Swill -public, (INS( ladnalriel 811888 Restricted Irsiustnal 11.1) Parks / Dann SPace NO Parks 0 Romano ?Open Spans (15) It, 114 Comments on land use planning 3 messages Bob Leavitt <bleavitt@estes.org> Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:07 PM To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>, Trustees <trustees@estes.org>, "John Kefalas (jkefalas@larimer.org)" <jkefalas@larimer.org>, "Linda Hoffmann <hoffmalc@co.larimer.co.us>" <hoffmalc@co.larimer.co.us>, Tom Donnelly <tdonnelly@larimer.org>, Steve Johnson <swjohnson@larimer.org>, Frank Lancaster <fancaster@estes.org>, Lesli Ellis <ellislk@co.larimer.co.us>, Steve Murphree <smurphree@estes.org>, Dave Converse <dconverse@estes.org>, Sharry White <swhite@estes.org>, Nicholas Smith <nsmith@estes.org>, Frank Theis <ftheis@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> After last night's land use planning meeting I had another thought I wanted to add. We have begun the process of discussing what our vision of land use planning should be in 3 to 5 years. Missing from our discussion thus far is a review of the current IGA. What's working in the current IGA? What's not working? What should be changed to accommodate changes in state law? We've heard vague references to changing conditions. What are those changing conditions? The groups best suited to review the current IGA are the Town and County Planning Departments and the Town Trustees and County Commissioners. These are the people who deal with the IGA on a regular basis and who can speak to the strengths and weaknesses of the current IGA. A close examination of the current IGA is needed before we start talking about solutions and ultimately whether or not the Joint Planning Area will be retained in the Estes Valley. How can we discuss solutions when we haven't identified the problems that exist in the current IGA and the changing conditions that need to be addressed? I recommend that this be one of the main topics in the next public meeting. To get things started the Town and County Planning Departments could draft a list of known problems and areas that need revision to accommodate changing conditions. This list could then be circulated to the governing bodies for their input. At this point it's not necessary to have a consensus but rather to get all the known issues out on the table. By this fall a consensus list of areas in the IGA to be addressed will be required. This would be combined with input gleaned from the public listening sessions into an overall strategy for the new IGA. One of the side benefits of this exercise is that it will give the public a better understanding of the components of the IGA and how the IGA functions in the interactions between Town and County. The above comments are mine alone and not necessarily those of the rest of the EVPC. Thanks, Bob Bob Leavitt Chairman Estes Valley Planning Commission Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> To: Bob Leavitt <bleavitt@estes.org> Cc: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>, Trustees <trustees@estes.org>, "John Kefalas (jkefalas@larimer.org)" <jkefalas@larimer.org>, "Linda Hoffmann <hoffmalc@co.larimer.co.us>" <hoffmalc@co.larimer.co.us>, Tom Donnelly <tonnelly@larimer.org>, Steve Johnson <swjohnson@larimer.org>, Frank Lancaster <fancaster@estes.org>, Lesli Ellis <ellislk@co.larimer.co.us>, Steve Murphree <smurphree@estes.org>, Dave Converse <dconverse@estes.org>, Sharry White <swhite@estes.org>, Nicholas Smith <nsmith@estes.org>, Frank Theis <ftheis@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Bob, all, Thank you; I think you've identified an important point. Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:40 PM Some of the difficulties with the current IGA are outlined in Frank Lancaster's May 31 memorandum to elected officials and the PC (see p. 7), and echoed in Linda Hoffmann's June 17 follow-up to same. In fact, Linda's response specifically suggests that we (Town and County) "... prepare and share pros and cons of the current land use IGA and other models..." as a near -future step (p. 3). Frank's outline is a good start, but I agree that more detail on this set of issues is appropriate. If there's no objection, I'll compile a list to share. Once staff has refined it, we could proceed to public review, perhaps during early August. Thanks, RAH Randy Hunt, AICP Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org [Quoted text hidden] John Kefalas <kefalajm@co.larimer.co.us> To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Cc: Bob Leavitt <bleavitt@estes.org>, Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>, Trustees <trustees@estes.org>, "John Kefalas (jkefalas@larimer.org)" <jkefalas@larimer.org>, "Linda Hoffmann <hoffmalc@co.larimer.co.us>" <hoffmalc@co.larimer.co.us>, Tom Donnelly <tonnelly@larimer.org>, Steve Johnson <swjohnson@larimer.org>, Frank Lancaster <fancaster@estes.org>, Lesli Ellis <ellislk@co.larimer.co.us>, Steve Murphree <smurphree@estes.org>, Dave Converse <dconverse@estes.org>, Sharry White <swhite@estes.org>, Nicholas Smith <nsmith@estes.org>, Frank Theis <ftheis@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:29 PM I would also like the proposed list to include IGA provisions that are working well and examples of best practices of collaboration between EP and LC. Thank you. LARIMER COUNTY [Quoted text hidden] John Kefalas County Commissioner, District 1 Commissioners' Office 200 W Oak. St, a 2nd Floor PO Box 1190, Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 W: (970) 498-7001 Cell: (720) 254-7598 iketallas@iariirner.orag www.larornroer.org