Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Joint Town Board Study Session 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