Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2012-11-15Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 15, 2012 Minutes of a JOINT STUDY SESSION of the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of November, 2012. Town Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Norris, and Phipps Planning Commission: Chair Klink, Commissioners Bowers, Hull, Wise, Hills, Gresslin, and Tucker Attending: Town Administrator Frank Lancaster, Town Attorney Greg White, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Dave Shirk, Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District Executive Director Skyler Rorabaugh Absent: Commissioners Gresslin & Tucker Director Chilcott opened the study session at 3:30 p.m. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Director Chilcott gave an overview of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). The community began creating the Plan in 1992 and it was adopted in 1996. The Plan is unique to Colorado, and possibly the entire United States, in that it incorporates both the Town and the County in its guidelines. It has been 20 years since any public input sessions were held. A task force (Town Trustees, Planning Commissioners, Staff) was created in 2010 to review the Plan. The task force concluded the plan was still valid, but some areas needed updating. Director Chilcott stated the Planning Commission is the responsible party for maintaining the Plan. After much discussion over several years with the Planning Commission, staff has now drafted six options for updating the Plan: Option 1 – No update in 2013. Option 2 – Review and update facts, remove obsolete references, remove information that is no longer relevant. Take public input at regular public meetings. No additional outreach and public meetings. No change to the vision or concepts. No impact to budget. Option 3 – Develop Long-Range Neighborhood Plans. Take public input at regular public meetings, community outreach meetings, and other facilitated community meetings. Consulting fees and/or grants would be necessary. Option 4 – Update/Validate the Vision. Take public input at regular public meetings, community outreach meetings, and other facilitated community meetings. Consulting fees and/or grants would be necessary. Option 5 – Complete Update. This would require extensive public outreach by a third party, and involvement both in regular public meetings and through facilitated community meetings. Consulting fees could be in excess of $50,000. Option 6 – Update as recommended by the Task Force. See May 17, 2010 Task Force Recommendations and January 25, 2011 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Annual Report to the Town Board. Costs may be similar to Option 5. Director Chilcott stated the Planning Commission voted to recommend Option 2. Staff would draft the updates to the Plan and the updates would be listed as action items on the Planning Commission agendas. Cost would be minimal. Director Chilcott stated staff could also modernize the plan by adding some strategic planning guidelines and a Town Board/Planning Commission Study Session – November 15, 2012 – Page 2 trails plan. Collaboration could occur between the Town and the various Estes Valley Districts to add additional guidelines. Discussion occurred between the Town Board and the Planning Commission. Comments included: It is important to have an updated baseline to move forward; staff has been hesitant to move forward too quickly without adequate staff; and the logical step is to update because of new census and survey information. Director Chilcott shared information about how neighborhood planning works in areas with potential for redevelopment. Possible uses, commercial versus residential, mixed- use, etc. would be topics of discussion for this type of long-range planning. Neither staff nor the Planning Commission have been directed to study this type of planning for the Estes Valley to date. Skyler Rorabaugh/Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Executive Director stated he was interested in incorporating a comprehensive trails plan into the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. He stated it would be a huge advantage to the Estes Valley to have an interactive and interconnected trail system. The YMCA and RMNP both support an improved trail system. He stated grant applications would be better received if the local government entities worked together for the betterment of the community. A comprehensive plan would be a different document than the Master Trails Plan. Public input would be received and other agencies would be involved (e.g. YMCA, RMNP, Larimer County, etc.) Planning Commission Chair Klink stated the Planning Commission voted to recommend Option 2. After much discussion, it was decided to approach the update one chapter at a time. Trustee Ericson suggested the update be completed and adopted by 2016, prior to the 100th anniversary of Estes Park in 2017. He stated strategic and capital planning are becoming important components for Town government. Community involvement in 2014-2016 would bring it full circle. Other comments included: Option 2 would provide a baseline from which to move forward; the Plan would be a working document; comprehensive plans are often too comprehensive; the task is to find areas of agreement and build on those; a solid foundation needs to be in place before changing or updating the vision; the more input received the greater the public ownership of the Plan; important to have an informed public; Administrator Lancaster’s strategic planning initiative would be helpful to review; the current Plan needs to be updated with current data; the Plan is used as a resource for developers considering projects in the Estes Valley; the longer you wait to make a considerable update the more it will cost; begin allocating funds now for a complete update in the future; other local districts and organizations should be included in a future update; and grant possibilities should be researched. Each Commissioner and Trustee provided their comments, as listed below: • Trustee Phipps would support Option 2 as a first step. • Trustee Koenig would support Option 2, would support Option 3 in the future. • Trustee Ericson and Commissioner Bowers would support Option 2, and suggested the Commission come up with a longer-term goal in 2017. • Commissioner Hills stated some of the details could be left out. • Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated active dialogue with the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District would be beneficial whether or not the Plan was involved. Once the Bond Park renovations are complete funds would again be allocated to trails. • Trustee Elrod suggested considering economic opportunities with trail discussions and guaranteed easements for utilities would be good. • Director Rorabaugh stated parks and green space is important, and pocket parks are good for families and economic development. • Commissioner Wise stated concern with being able to complete the update in 2013; suggested an 18-month timeline. He expressed a desire to be realistic and Town Board/Planning Commission Study Session – November 15, 2012 – Page 3 the ability to maintain credibility. • Trustee Norris would support Option 2 with the possibility of Option 3 if funding was received. • Commissioner Hull would support Option 2 as a first step. • Mayor Pinkham stated Option 2 is the most logical starting point; key is to complete the update with some sense of urgency in order to move on to long- range planning. Trustee Elrod commented the County Commissioners should be involved in the decision. Director Chilcott stated a meeting was scheduled to meet with County Planner Russ Legg to discuss Larimer County input. The County Commissioners were invited to the meeting and chose not to attend. Director Chilcott stated the County Commissioners were happy to follow the lead of the Planning Commission and Town Board in situations like this when money was not involved, as they tend to yield to the knowledge and experience of the local municipality. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m. _______________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary