HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Joint Town Board & Estes Park Planning Commission Study Session 2025-09-30RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town ofEstes Park, Larimer County, Colorado September 30, 2025
Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD and
PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of
Estes Park on the 30th day of September, 2025.
Town Board: Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, Trustees Brown,
Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster, and Younglund
Planning Commission: Chair Cooper, Vice Chair Arterburn and Commissioners
Mulhern, Pawson and Phares
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney Kramer,
Director Careccia, Facilitator Stewart and Deputy Town
Clerk Beers
Absent: None
Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
ANNEXATION POLICY.
Senior Planner Hornbeck stated the purpose of the discussion was to receive input on a
draft annexation policy, a potential code amendment regarding extraterritorial water
service as it relates to annexation, and interest in an intergovernmental agreement
(IGA) between the Town and Larimer County for annexation and development in the
Estes Valley. He reviewed the guiding principles which included: Natural Environment;
Built Environment; Economy; Housing; Health & Social Wellbeing and Transportation
and Infrastructure. Other considerations identified in the proposed policy included
enclave annexations and annexation of properties subject to pre-annexation
agreements which staff encouraged review be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Board discussion ensued regarding policy content and has been summarized: consider
changes to the use of "should" to "will"; to avoid redundant statements it was suggested
to remove the fourth bullet point under Economy; clarification was requested on whether
the Town can annex a property without owner permission; what the origin was of the
Health & Social Wellbeing principle; whether "adverse social or health impacts" should
be defined; concerns were heard related to subjective language in the principles; the
value of having certain principles identified in the comprehensive plan versus the
annexation policy; should workforce housing be a requirement of annexation;
incorporating "be compatible with" to allow consideration of a principle, and it was
reinforced, the principles are a guiding document and not a regulatory framework. After
Board and Commission comments Director Careccia stated the use of Health & Social
wellbeing was common in other application reviews and across other jurisdictions and
can be considered vague. He added the guiding principles may not be applicable for all
annexations.
Planner Hornbeck requested direction and support for a proposed code amendment, to
include requiring extraterritorial water service, conditioned upon meeting certain Town
standards. Extraterritorial water service was identified as water service provided to
properties located outside of town limits. Clarification was requested for what would be
considered an expansion to water service and how properties which cannot have water
service would be handled. Staff confirmed an annexation does not require or take away
water service. Discussion ensued regarding the potential of establishing a growth
development area with Larimer County through an IGA which would require a
subsequent discussion at a future meeting.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session - September 30, 2025 - Page 2
Discussion ensued on the Estes Park Municipal Code amendment to clarify the
requirements surrounding annexation when extraterritorial water service was requested
by property owners outside town limits and specifically waivers, and the responsibility
placed on the Town Administrator to make waiver considerations. The Board and
Commissioners determined no code amendment was necessary for a waiver process
for agreements to annex if the property was not currently eligible and current language
would remain for properties eligible to annex. It was determined there would be code
clarification which identifies the waiver determination as the responsibility of the Board
of Trustees.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REGULATIONS AND PROCESS.
Senior Associate Eric Krohngold/Design Workshop provided an overview of the
development review regulations and process. Input received through staff and
community member fact finding sessions identified concerns on the review process for
some application types and the importance of public comment options. In previous
conversations the Board stated a desire for final plat consideration to remain with the
Board and minor subdivisions could remain with the Planning Commission. He spoke
briefly on Proposition 123 related to funding pathways for affordable housing projects
which would require communities to streamline approval processes. He reviewed
current application types stating they were common compared to other Colorado
statutory municipalities. Research and engagement was focused on which processes
should be modified to respond to the complimentary goals in the comprehensive plan to
improve efficiency, providing meaningful opportunities for public participation and
meeting legal and statutory requirements. He reviewed proposed changes to final plats,
minor subdivisions, PUD final plan, special review uses, location and extent review, and
conditional use permits. Discussion ensued on placing planning items on the consent
agenda. Staff confirmed items which are routine or do not have substantive changes are
commonly placed on the consent agenda. Concerns were heard related to the
appearance of lack of transparency when items are presented on the consent agenda.
Town Attorney Kramer requested additional time to conduct legal review on whether
certain items could be on the consent agenda. Discussion ensued on location and
extent review and the frequency in which these type of applications are considered.
Discussion ensued on what standards are looked at as part of minor and major
modifications. General support was heard for clear definitions and the Board requested
avoiding the use of ambiguous references. Design Workshop would bring back
modifications to minor definitions for consideration at a future meeting.
SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING.
It was suggested and determined the Town Board and Estes Park Planning
Commission would set the next meeting when a topic was determined.
There being no further business, Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 5:57 p.m.
-^-^-1//c^ 2^--
"Barffly Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk