Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Special Town Board Joint Study Session EPPC 2025-09-30 Informal discussion among Trustees and staff concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 3:45 p.m. Special Joint Study Session between the Town Board of Trustees and the Estes Park Planning Commission September 30, 2025 from 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park Accessibility Statement The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org. Meeting Participation This meeting will be streamed live & available on the Town YouTube page. Click on the following link for more information on Digital Accessibility. Public comment Public comments are not typically heard at Study Sessions, but may be allowed by the Mayor with agreement of a majority of the Board. Agenda 1. Annexation Policy Presented by Director Careccia 2. Development Review Regulations and Process Presented by Senior Associate Eric Krohngold/Design Workshop 3. Schedule Next Meeting The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org. Report To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees Chair Cooper & Planning Commission Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Department: Community Development Date: September 30, 2025 Subject: Annexation Policy Purpose of Study Session Item: The purpose of this study session is for Town Board and Planning Commission input regarding: • A potential annexation policy for the Town; • A potential code amendment regarding extraterritorial water service as it relates to annexation; and • A potential intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the Town and Larimer County regarding annexation and development in the Estes Valley. Town Board Direction Requested: Provide staff with direction on the following: • Are you supportive of the annexation policy as written or do you want to see changes? • Are you supportive of the proposed code amendment, including requiring extraterritorial water service being conditioned upon meeting certain Town standards? • Should staff continue to work with Larimer County on a possible IGA, to be brought forth separate from the above items? Are there additional items you would like to see included in an IGA? Present Situation: At the April 22, 2025 Study Session, staff recommended creating two documents to guide annexation, which the Town Board was supportive of: an internal annexation policy and an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County regarding annexation and development. An additional item staff recommends is a Municipal Code amendment regarding extraterritorial water service related to annexation. Annexation Policy The intent of the annexation policy is to provide high level guidance to Town Board, staff, property owners, and the community at-large regarding factors to consider with prospective annexations. It would serve as a guiding framework and not a regulatory document. Individual annexations could be considered for consistency with the policy, but the policy would not mandate that annexations meet any or all criteria in the policy or replace Town Board’s discretion. An outline of a potential policy based on topic areas in the Comprehensive Plan was provided in April. Those topics have been further refined and incorporated as guiding principles in the attached draft annexation policy. An item not previously included in the outline regarding enclave annexations has been added under “other considerations.” As mentioned in the policy, a municipality may annex an enclave with or without property owner consent when an unincorporated area has been completely surrounded by a municipality for a minimum of three years. Annexation of enclaves promotes the efficient delivery of government services and coordinated land use planning. A single governing authority is typically more effective and responsive than a patchwork of agencies. The policy states the Town will evaluate involuntary enclave annexations on a case-by-case basis. A second item added under “other considerations” deals with annexation of properties subject to pre-annexation agreements. Property owners may enter into pre-annexation agreements committing to annexation once their property becomes eligible. These agreements may be a condition for receiving Town water service outside the municipal boundaries or for approval of development within the County. Although these agreements are intended to run with the land, they may expire over time or go unnoticed by Town staff or new property owners. The policy states that to avoid such issues and ensure clarity, the Town should pursue annexation promptly upon eligibility unless determined to not be in the Town’s best interest. One area the policy does not address is geographic boundaries of areas that should or should not be annexed. Such boundaries could establish areas that are envisioned for future annexation and/or development, with areas beyond not considered for annexation. Given the minimal outward growth pressures or opportunities, staff does not view this necessary at this time. Additionally, since the policy is meant to be guiding document and not binding, there may be little value in establishing such boundaries within the policy. If there is interest in establishing a such a boundary, it will need to be a separate effort with extensive public outreach. Similarly, the policy does not address the concept discussed previously of proactive annexation of right-of-way by the Town for the purpose of opening up future annexation opportunities. Such an effort seems like a standalone project with separate considerations from this more broad policy. Code Amendment A related component is a Municipal Code amendment to clarify the requirements surrounding annexation when extraterritorial water service is requested by property owners outside Town limits. Currently, Municipal Code requires applicants for water service outside the boundaries of the Town, including any changes or enlargement of service, to annex their property if required by the Town. If a property is not eligible, they are required to execute an agreement to annex when eligible for annexation. At a minimum, staff recommends an amendment to clarify and expand upon this code section as follows: • Clarify that annexation is required unless waived by the Town Administrator, upon consultation with the Directors of Public Works, Utilities, and Community Development. The basis for waiving this requirement would be that annexation is not in the best interest of the Town. • Clarify properties ineligible for annexation shall execute an agreement to annex when eligible, unless waived by the Town Administrator, upon consultation with the Directors of Public Works, Utilities, and Community Development. The basis for waiving this requirement would be that future annexation is not in the best interest of the Town or that the property is unlikely to become eligible for annexation in the foreseeable future. • Allow any of the above to be appealed to Town Board. An additional consideration that some other communities require is to condition extraterritorial water service on new development meeting certain Town standards. Since an agreement to annex associated with extraterritorial water service implies an expectation that the Town will eventually annex and take over maintenance responsibilities of public improvements, it is in the Town’s interest to make sure improvements are consistent with Town standards to avoid increased maintenance burden on the Town in the future. The following items could be required in accordance with adopted Town policies, standards, and requirements: • Following Town standards for the construction of paved streets with curb and gutter and inclusion of sidewalks or trails. • Stormwater improvements per Town standards. • Dedication of easements as typically required for Town utilities, access, etc. • Water utilities per Town standards. Intergovernmental Agreement Staff has continued dialogue with Larimer County staff regarding a potential Intergovernmental Agreement concerning annexation and development. An IGA is a larger, more involved project compared to adopting a Town annexation policy or code amendment. The IGA would require adoption by both the Board of County Commissioners and the Town Board and might warrant a joint study session to discuss. Given these complexities, it is expected work on an IGA would extend into 2026. Staff recommends adopting the Town policy and extraterritorial water code amendment in the more immediate term. If the Board is interested in continuing to pursue an IGA, staff can continue that work. Staff has identified two primary benefits that an IGA could provide to the Town: • Certain land use applications received by the County that are eligible for annexation would not be accepted by the County unless the Town first denies annexation. The Town currently has this authority by default when Town water is needed, which likely covers many proposed developments. The value to the Town would be the ability to require annexation on projects that do not require Town water. Requiring annexation can be advantageous to bring parcels under the Town’s land use authority, for potential tax revenue, to enable future annexations, etc. • County agreement to apply Town-adopted plans to land use applications in the Estes Valley outside Town limits. The value to the Town would be that the County could require development to be consistent with the Town’s future infrastructure plans. For example, the County could require dedication of right- of-way to accommodate a future road identified in the Town’s Transportation Master Plan or require construction of a trail or sidewalk linking to existing or planned Town facilities. Related to this, maintenance responsibilities can be agreed upon in an IGA. For example, if a trail or sidewalk would not normally be required by the County, but is required due to the Town’s plans, the County may expect the Town to maintain the trail. Another item the IGA could address is formalizing current practice regarding the referral process for land use applications. Currently, Town and County staff refer certain land use applications to one another for review and comment. Such referrals are not strictly related to annexation, but are relevant for the Town to review and comment on projects that could impact the Town or potentially be annexed at a future date. If either the Town Board or Board of County Commissioners do not wish to pursue an IGA, formalizing the referral process could occur separately, such as through a memorandum of understanding between Larimer County staff and Town staff. Proposal: If Town Board is supportive of the annexation policy as written, or with minor modifications, staff proposes bringing a resolution to adopt the policy for consideration to Town Board prior to the end of the year. If larger changes are sought, an additional study session is likely warranted. Similarly, if Town Board is supportive of the proposed code amendment related to extraterritorial water service and annexation, Community Development staff proposes to formalize the text of the amendment in coordination with Utilities and Legal staff for consideration as an ordinance by the Board prior to the end of the year. Lastly, if Town Board is supportive of continued work on developing an IGA with the County, staff proposes to continue dialogue with County staff, including preparing a draft agreement to be reviewed by Legal staff and presented at a future study session. Adoption would likely be in 2026. Advantages: The creation of an annexation policy with Larimer County is a component the 2025 Strategic Plan. Such a policy would help provide consistency and clarity for those involved in the annexation process. The IGA and code amendments are extensions of that effort. Disadvantages: Staff has not identified any disadvantages to these items other than continued staff time from both Town and County personnel. Finance/Resource Impact: The annexation policy is established within the Strategic Plan, with staff time resourced from the base budget. For future annexation requests, an evaluation of potential budgetary impacts will need to occur with each request. Level of Public Interest: It is anticipated that the consideration of an annexation policy will generate a moderate level of public interest. Attachments: 1. Draft Annexation Policy Town of Estes Park – Annexation Policy Purpose This Annexation Policy establishes priorities for considering annexations to the Town of Estes Park. It is designed to ensure that annexation decisions align with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan vision and themes for resiliency. This Policy provides high level guidance to Town Board, staff, property owners, and community members regarding factors to consider with prospective annexations. It shall serve as a guiding document and not a regulatory framework. Individual annexations should be considered for consistency with this Policy; however, annexation is at the discretion of Town Board and is not governed by this policy. Guiding Principles: 1. Natural Environment Goal: Use annexation as a tool to protect and enhance the Town’s natural resources and sensitive environmental areas. Policy Statements: •Annexation should prioritize the protection of environmentally sensitive lands, including watersheds, forests, wildlife habitats, and recreation areas. •Where appropriate, annexed lands should include dedication of parkland, open space, or conservation easements to preserve natural features. •Annexation should consider and mitigate risks from natural hazards such as flooding and wildfire. 2. Built Environment Goal: Promote a built environment that enhances the Town’s character, livability, and long-term infrastructure sustainability. Policy Statements: •Annexation should align with the Town’s Future Land Use Map and other adopted planning documents. •Land uses proposed within annexed areas must contribute to a balanced, diverse, and compatible mix of development in Town. •Annexation proposals should not place an undue burden on existing Town services or utilities. All necessary infrastructure upgrades or extensions should be funded by the annexing property. •The Town may require infrastructure studies to evaluate service impacts before approving an annexation. Attachment 1 3. Economy Goal: Strengthen the Town’s fiscal health and economic diversity through strategic annexations. Policy Statements: • Annexation should contribute to economic development by introducing or supporting uses that diversify the local economy or fill unmet commercial or service needs. • Proposals should demonstrate a clear benefit to Town finances, including how anticipated tax revenues will cover the cost of providing services and maintaining infrastructure. • Annexation should support job creation, tourism, or commercial development consistent with the vision of balancing the needs of local residents, visitors, and protecting the natural environment. • Annexation should provide housing opportunities for the workforce. 4. Housing Goal: Expand the supply of workforce and attainable housing through annexation. Policy Statements: • Annexation involving residential development should include housing types that are affordable to local workers and residents at varying income levels. • Annexations involving residential development should include a commitment to include a certain amount of workforce or attainable housing. • Annexations involving commercial development should include a commitment to offset increased housing demand and/or provide housing for workers. 5. Health & Social Wellbeing Goal: Promote a healthy, inclusive, and socially supportive community through annexation. Policy Statements: • Annexation should support behavioral and physical health, such as improved access to public health resources, parks, recreational facilities, and other amenities. • Annexation proposals should consider and mitigate any adverse social or health impacts on the existing community. • Annexation should seek opportunities to support services, programs, and infrastructure for children and youth to learn and thrive in the Estes Valley. 6.Transportation & Infrastructure Goal: Ensure annexations support resilient infrastructure and efficient service delivery. Policy Statements: •Annexed areas should facilitate improvements identified in the Transportation Master Plan or required by the Development Code. •The Town will avoid annexing streets or infrastructure that are not up to Town standards unless an improvement plan is provided and funded by the annexing party. •Annexations that reduce enclaves or eliminate patchwork boundaries between the Town and the County are preferred to improve service efficiency (e.g., police and street maintenance). •When annexing land, adjacent right-of-way should generally be included with the annexation so the Town can provide maintenance, law enforcement, and services to serve adjacent residents, rather relying on County services. Other Considerations Enclave Annexations When an unincorporated area has been completely surrounded by a municipality for a minimum of three years, the municipality may annex the area by ordinance, with or without the consent of the affected property owners. Annexation of enclaves promotes the efficient delivery of government services and coordinated land use planning. It also helps avoid a fragmented approach that can occur when multiple jurisdictions govern a small area. A single governing authority is typically more effective and responsive than a patchwork of agencies. The Town will evaluate involuntary enclave annexations on a case-by-case basis. Annexation of Properties Subject to Pre-Annexation Agreements Property owners may enter into pre-annexation agreements committing to annexation once their property becomes eligible. These agreements may be a condition for receiving Town water service outside the municipal boundaries or for approval of development within the County. Although these agreements are intended to run with the land, they may expire over time or go unnoticed by Town staff or new property owners. To avoid such issues and ensure clarity, the Town should pursue annexation promptly upon eligibility unless determined by Town Board or Town Administrator to not be in the Town’s best interest. The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org. Report To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Steve Careccia, Director Department: Community Development Date: September 30, 2025 Subject: Development Review Regulations and Process Purpose of Study Session Item: Design Workshop, the consultant working on the Development Code update, will provide the Town Board with an overview of potential changes to the Code’s development review regulations and processes. Presenting will be Eric Krohngold, Senior Associate, with Design Workshop, with support from Jessica Garrow, Principal, Design Workshop, or Phillip Supino, Land Use Code Specialist, Headwaters Community Planning (subconsultant to Design Workshop). Town Board Direction Requested: Provide direction on potential changes to the Development Code’s development review regulations and processes. Present Situation: The Development Code update kicked off in February of this year. Since then, work has progressed on the public engagement plan, including completion of two open houses, several pop-up events and public dialogues, and one community-wide survey. The Development Code establishes the procedures for the review of development applications, such as rezonings, development plans, and preliminary subdivision plats. Proposal: The consultant will present the Town Board with several potential changes to the Development Code’s development review processes. The intent is to increase efficiencies in the review process while still maintaining opportunities for appropriate public review. Feedback on these potential changes, as proposed in the attached presentation, is sought from the Town Board. Advantages: Some advantages of an updated Development Code include: •A more search- and user-friendly document; •Modernization and incorporation of current best practices; •Increased efficiency in the development review process; •Incorporation of newer development concepts and standards; •Improved aesthetics; and, •Implementation and alignment with the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan. Disadvantages: There are no disadvantages to discussing this study session topic. Finance/Resource Impact: There are no financial impacts at this time. Financial impacts have been accounted for with this year's budget. Level of Public Interest: Public interest has been and will continue to be high. Attachments: 1. Presentation Development Code Update Joint Study Session 1 September 30, 2025 Today’s Agenda- Development Review Regulations and Process Introduction Development Review Process Minor and Major Modifications 1 2 3 Attachment 1 Introduction Housing Typologies Code Update Priority Area Joint Study Sessions Process & Procedures Commercial Development Review Regulations and Process Design Guidelines Residential 321 September November December Purpose •Reallocating certain review responsibilities from the Town Board and Planning Commission to allow capacity for other priorities. •Streamlining processing and review requirements for specific applicant categories. •Minimizing regulatory obligations for applicants. •Ensuring compliance with Proposition 123 and other state requirements. Stakeholder and Staff Feedback •Proposed reduction in public comments on certain application types is a concern amongst the community. •The current process involves multiple levels of review, including Town Board consideration of minor application types. •Desire for streamlining review processes to increase efficiency and reduce regulatory burden on applicants. •Intention to simplify application procedures for low- impact applications (e.g., minor modifications). •Ensure balance between process efficiency and community participation. Town Board Feedback •Minor changes may be a Staff review instead of a Planning Commission/ Town Board review. •Final Plats to remain with the Town Board (consent agenda), but minor subdivisions may be reviewed by the Planning Commission. •The Development Code Update should better define thresholds for minor and major amendments. •Continue Town Board review for Preliminary Plats and major amendments, while exploring opportunities to include Planning Commission or Staff review for minor adjustments (while also remaining consistent with state law). Compliance with Proposition 123 •Proposition 123 dedicates certain funds from existing state income tax revenue to support affordable housing without raising taxes. •It funds a range of solutions, including rental housing, homeownership programs, land banking, and local government capacity-building. •Local governments must opt in and commit to a 3% annual increase in affordable housing units. •Jurisdictions must streamline development approvals, such as expedited permitting, by-right zoning, and predictable timelines. •A 3-year affordable housing plan is required, including development code strategies to support housing production. Proposed Updates •Review Process Changes: Updating the decision-making authority for certain application types to increase efficiency. •Major vs. Minor Modifications: Add clear definitions and thresholds to distinguish major from minor modifications, to determine the appropriate review process. Development Review Process •Code and Map Amendments •Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats •Preliminary and Final PUD Plans •Development Plans •Use Classification •Separate Lot Determinations Development Review Regulations and Process •Minor Modifications •Special Review Uses •Minor Subdivision •Location and Extent Review •Conditional Use Permit •Annexations Current Application Types Development Review Regulations and Process •Code and Map Amendments •Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats •Preliminary and Final PUD Plans •Development Plans •Use Classification •Separate Lot Determinations Current Applicable Processes Pre-Application and Submittal Phase Staff Review and Referral Phase Public Hearing Process and Final Decision-Making Phase •Minor Modifications •Special Review Uses •Minor Subdivision •Location and Extent Review •Conditional Use Permit •Annexations Development Review Regulations and Process •Code and Map Amendments •Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats •Preliminary and Final PUD Plans •Development Plans •Use Classification •Separate Lot Determinations Current Applicable Processes •Minor Modifications •Special Review Uses •Minor Subdivision •Location and Extent Review •Conditional Use Permit •Annexations Pre-Application and Submittal Phase Staff Review and Final Decision-Making Phase Current Development Review Regulations and Process R: Review Body DM: Decision-Making Body A: Appeals Code Section: § 2.1 - Code Administration and Review Roles Potential Updates Development Review Regulations and Process Proposed Process *Proposed Development and Review Process for the mentioned application types Pre-Application and Submittal Phase Staff Review and Final Decision-Making Phase •Code and Map Amendments •Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats •Preliminary and Final PUD Plans •Development Plans •Use Classification •Separate Lot Determinations •Minor Modifications •Special Review Uses •Minor Subdivision •Location and Extent Review •Conditional Use Permit •Annexations Development Review Regulations and Process R: Review Body DM: Decision-Making Body A: Appeals Proposed Change * Consent Agenda * * Q. Do you support the proposed process updates for the following application types listed below- •Final Plat (Consent Agenda) •Final PUD Plan (Consent Agenda) •Minor Subdivisions •Special Review Uses •Location and Extent Review •Conditional Use Permit Minor and Major Modifications Staff May grant minor modifications up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the following general development and zone district standards. Planning Commission May grant minor modifications up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) from the following general development and zone district standards. Minor and Major Modifications Current Minor Modifications Criteria •Minimum lot area and dimension requirements •Yard and building setback requirements •General development standards •Subdivision design standards *Minor Modifications from General Development and Zone District Standards Staff In no circumstance shall the Staff approve a modification that results in: Current Minor Modifications Criteria *Modifications to Approved Development Plans, Final PUD Plans, Final Subdivision Plans •An increase in overall project density •A decrease in lot size •A change in permitted uses or mix of uses •An increase in building height •An expansion of established limits of disturbance greater than ten percent (10%). Code Standard Administrative Adjustment Criteria Site Standards •Lot area Percentage change in area Lot Dimensional Standards •Setbacks Percentage change from the established lot line Fencing Percentage change from set height guidelines Development Standards •Parking Percentage change from set parking requirements Building Standards •Height (only for mechanical or energy efficiency) •Façade •Outdoor Lighting •Signage •Landscaping Percentage change from design/height/material guidelines Site Features •Trash enclosures •Mechanical equipment screening Percentage change from design/height/material guidelines Access Percentage change from the approved Preliminary Plan Minor Modifications Criteria Proposed Minor Modifications Criteria In no circumstance shall the Staff approve a modification that results in: Proposed Minor Modifications Criteria •Non-compliance with the standards of this Code •Inconsistencies with any conditions attached to the approval •An increase in the building height more than the specified threshold •An increase in density •An increase in building area more than the specified threshold •Non-compliance with neighborhood character and design guidelines •A negative impact on existing natural features and/or community assets Q. Do you support having detailed criteria for determining minor modifications and their associated thresholds ? Thank you!