HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Joint Town Board and County Commissioners 2019-09-30TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BOARD OF LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Official Meeting
Future of Land Use Planning in the Estes Valley
Monday, September 30, 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 by Staff:
•Summary of July 29 Facilitated Discussion Notes:
o Summary of July / August questionnaire results. Director Hunt
o Preliminary Summary of September Questionnaire Results. Director Hunt
•Review of Draft IGA Options. Director Ellis
•Resolution by Estes Valley Planning Commission. Director Hunt, EVPC Chair Leavitt
Public Comment on IGA Options and Alternatives.
Discussion among Elected Officials:
•Specific Next Steps
•Direction to Staff
•Decision(s) by Each Elected Body as Appropriate.
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
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Honorable Chairman Donnelly
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park
Lesli Ellis, Community Development Director, Larimer County
Date: September 30, 2019
RE: Review of Draft IGA Options for the Joint Town Board/County Commission
Meeting on September 30, 2019
Objective: Seek direction for next steps related to several cooperative planning
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) approaches prior to another joint meeting on
November 14, 2019.
Present Situation:
Earlier this year, the Town and County began to explore options for working
cooperatively with respect to land use planning and development in the Estes Valley
and alternatives to the current IGA. Since that time, we’ve worked together to host a
community input event, gather input via electronic means, and prepare agreement
options. We see that an IGA is necessary and appropriate to ensure cooperative long-
range planning and seamless land-use decision-making between the County and Town.
The current discussions are about how to replace and carry forward relevant parts of
the expiring IGA into our future arrangement.
Proposal:
The current IGA contains a built-in expiration or sunset date: February 1, 2020. Staff
has suggested an earlier goal to have a new IGA in place and effective on January 1,
2020, which would entail IGA approval by both Town and County governing bodies in
approx. mid-November, 2019. The next joint meeting of the two bodies is tentatively
scheduled on Thursday, Nov. 14.
3
County and Town staff have been collaborating on draft IGA language for consideration
by the Town Board of Trustees, the Board of County Commissioners, and stakeholders.
The two attachments accompanying this memorandum – Option A and Option B –
represent two options for Town and County review, discussion, and further refinement.
County staff provided Option A along with B.
These drafts are intended to aid discussions and allow examination of elements that
need additional study or detailed work.
Staff will be prepared on Sep. 30 to explain the drafts and answer questions. We will
also share any additional information that may become available in days leading up to
the meeting, including online comments.
Here is a summary outline of the attachments:
1. County staff's memo to Town staff, dated Sep. 9, 2019, which accompanied
Options A and B.
2.Attachment A (“Sixth Amendment…”) – also referenced as Option A: As the
County staff memo indicates, this is one option on the table; it essentially
maintains the status quo in the current IGA for approximately one year, except to
specify that County staff will begin processing of County applications Jan. 1,
2020, and no payment from the County to the Town for those services is required
in 2020. (These elements are already reflected in both Town and County draft
2020 budgets.) Town staff made no changes to County staff’s draft.
3.Attachment B (“An Intergovernmental Agreement…”) – also referenced as
Option B: This is the second and more intricate option. It outlines staff’s
concepts toward a new IGA. The County staff’s draft is original text; Town staff
changes show up as redlines and strikeouts.
4.Attachment 5A (“Planning Commission(s) and Board(s) of Adjustment –
Transitions”): This is a sub-category of Attachment B, substituting for Sec. 5
therein. It addresses transitions with our current Planning Commission and Board
of Adjustment.
5.An Estes Valley Planning Commission Resolution in Support of the JPA, dated
Sep. 17, 2019.
6.An additional commentary document from Planning Commission Chair Bob
Leavitt, writing on his own.
7.A Town staff compilation of "Pros and Cons" for the current IGA.
(Please note that this compilation is included as a result of various requests for a
document along these lines. It is a commentary from Town staff and should not
be construed as a formal position. As noted, County staff have not played a role
in this document’s preparation.)
8.Notetakers' comments from the July 29 listening session.
9.Data and comments from the online questionnaire in July-August.
10. Comment forms received online from the same time frame.
11. IGA with County for Joint Planning and Amendments. This is the current IGA.
4
Advantages:
•Provides a framework for Town Board and County Commission discussion
regarding the IGA
•Allows staff, the public, and all stakeholders to consider various alternatives
for proceeding with a joint Town/County cooperative planning structure
Disadvantages:
•Although there are undoubtedly pros and cons to each alternative presented
(and likely pros and cons for all alternatives), there is no intrinsic
disadvantage to have options made available and discussing them.
Action Recommended:
Town and County staff think that either option is feasible. However, staff recommend
proceeding with further development of Option B, with consideration to addressing
board transitions such as those presented in Attachment 5A.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A at this time.
Level of Public Interest:
High interest in the joint planning framework and the IGA in general. It is unknown what
level of public interest may exist regarding the options themselves.
Attachments:
1.County staff's memo to Town staff, dated Sep. 9, 2019.
2.Attachment A (Option A - “Sixth Amendment…”)
3.Attachment B (Option B - “An Intergovernmental Agreement…”)
4.Attachment 5A (“Planning Commission(s) and Board(s) of Adjustment –
Transitions”)
5.Estes Valley Planning Commission Resolution in Support of the JPA, dated Sep.
17, 2019
6.Pros & Cons for Retaining the Joint Planning Area by Bob Leavitt (provided Sep.
24, 2019)
7.Pros & Cons of Existing Intergovernmental Agreement Between Town of Estes
Park and Larimer County for Joint Planning Area, Development Code, and
Zoning Map (Randy Hunt: Sep. 25, 2019)
8.Small Group Discussion Notes from the July 29, 2019 Listening Session
9.Online Questionnaire in July-August
10. Comment Forms Received online (July and August, 2019, via County website
portal)
11. IGA with County for Joint Planning and Amendments
5
6
LARIMER COUNTY | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
MEMORANDUM
To: Travis Machalek, Town Manager, Town of Estes Valley
Randy Hunt, Community Development Director, Town of Estes Valley
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
From: Linda Hoffmann, County Manager
Jeannine Haag, County Attorney
Frank Haug, Assistant County Attorney II
Lesli Ellis, AICP CEP, Community Development Director
Date: September 9, 2019
Re: Estes Valley Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Options
This memo is to present suggestions for next steps related to the Town and County
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for cooperative land use planning for the Estes
Valley Planning Area.
Earlier this year, the Town asked the County to resume development review for the
unincorporated area of the Estes Valley beginning January 1, 2020. Additionally, the
Town requested that the current agreement (which expires February 2020) not be
renewed and that the Town and County explore other possible options for working
cooperatively with respect to land use planning and development in the Estes Valley.
Since that time, we’ve worked together to host a community input event and gather
input via electronic means, and County staff has begun to draft intergovernmental
agreement options. Additionally, the Commissioners asked County staff to work with
the Town to consider two approaches to the IGA.
A.The first option is to extend the existing agreement with minor amendments for
one year while the parties work on reaching agreement on a longer-term
cooperative land use approach. The extension would be implemented through a
sixth amendment to the IGA. The sixth amendment would also provide that
county planning staff will process development review applications in the
unincorporated area of the Estes Valley beginning January 1, 2000. An example
of such agreement is presented in Attachment A.
B.The second option is to prepare an IGA that explains how the Town and County
will work together on planning and address future issues such as the
comprehensive plan and defining town planning and growth limits. A draft of an
initial framework IGA to further discuss policy and gather Town and community
feedback is provided in Attachment B.
7
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2
Staff has been working together to review results of the July/August community
engagement and define the next stages of engagement and joint meetings of the Town
Trustees and Board of County Commissioners. The next event is scheduled for
Monday, September 30, 2019.
On September 10, would Town staff be willing to present and discuss the two above
approaches with Town Trustees? Trustees’ feedback to refine or add to one of the
above options or eliminate one would help guide us to prepare for the September 30
event and provide additional analysis of options. We will share Town Trustee feedback
with the Commissioners at a work session on September 16.
Thank you for your consideration.
8
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 September 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, pursuant to the fifth amendment, the IGA is set to expire February ______, 2020;
and
WHEREAS, the Town and County seek to amend the IGA pursuant to this Sixth Amendment.
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 IGA and five subsequent amendments thereto are modified to extend the termination
date of the IGA to and including February ________, 2021.
2.Commencing January 1, 2020, the County shall undertake at its own cost and expense to
process all land use applications that are submitted for properties within the unincorporated areas
of the Estes Valley and cease payments to the Town for such services. The Town shall
undertake at its own cost and expense to process all land use applications that are submitted for
properties within the Town municipal limits of the Estes Valley.
3.Except as amended herein, the IGA and all five subsequent amendments shall remain in
full force and effect as written.
9
ATTACHMENT 2
Sixth Amendment to IGA
Larimer County and Town of Estes Park
Page Two
Dated and effective as of the first date written above.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF LARMER COUNTY, COLORADO
By:
_________________________________ Tom Donnelly, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Clerk to the Board
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By: _________________________________
Todd A. Jirsa, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Town Clerk
DATE ________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
COUNTY ATTORNEY
DATE ________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
TOWN ATTORNEY
10
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Regarding Land Use Planning and Related Issues for the Estes Valley
Discussion Draft – September 513, 2019
THIS INTERGOVEMENTAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and effective this ___
day of _____________, 2019 (“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.”
Contents of the Agreement (for reference while reviewing drafts)
1. Definitions................................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Adoption of new plans and regulations. ................................................................................................... 4
3. Land Use Regulations and Fees ............................................................................................................... 5
4. Parties’ Roles in Development Review, Compliance ............................................................................ 76
5. Development Review Approvals (Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment) ........................... 98
6. Annexation ............................................................................................................................................. 98
7. Implementation of Agreement ............................................................................................................. 109
8. Performance of Agreement .................................................................................................................. 109
9. Third-Party Rights .............................................................................................................................. 1110
10. Agreement Amendments.................................................................................................................. 1110
11. Severability. ..................................................................................................................................... 1110
12. Term and termination of Agreement ................................................................................................ 1110
13. Effective Date .................................................................................................................................. 1210
RECITALS
A.WHEREAS, the Parties have worked together cooperatively on land use planning since the late
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 isare enhanced by cooperation in land use planning and
11
ATTACHMENT 3
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
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 the 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 Comprehensive Plan of Larimer County and 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;
4.Assure that land eligible for annexation to the Town are annexedconsidered for annexedation
prior to or concurrently with development (note: approach to annexation needsannexation
needs further discussion between County and Town);
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.Assure that development in 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
9.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;
12
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
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; and
J.WHEREAS, the Parties have sought community input and held hearings after proper public
notice for the consideration of entering into 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.
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. 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 adopted by the Town and County effective in 19979 and as
subsequently amended.
1.4. Estes Valley Planning Area (EVPA). The Estes Valley Planning Area is that geographical area
beyond Town limits established in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. In such area, Town
level development is currently not considered appropriate or desired except where it annexes to
the Town. LandThis Agreement anticipates that Lland within the EVPA immediately adjacent to
Town limits should (or “may” or “must”?) may be annexed into the Town when Town Level
Development is proposed.
1.5. Estes Valley Overlay District (EV Overlay District). Regulations proposed to be adopted by
Larimer County as part of the Larimer County Land Use Code to maintain consistency with
existing Estes Valley Development Code and to implement this Agreement.
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, adopted in 2019 by the County Planning Commission.
13
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
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
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 that 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.
1.12.1.13. 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(s), The Parties agree to communicate and coordinate to prepare a
Comprehensive Plan for the Town that will extend into encompass the Town and the
unincorporated area of Larimer County within the Estes Valley Planning Area, which upon
adoption, the respective Parties shall replace and supersede the current Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan. If by __________(date – end of 2021?),?)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 included policies and maps
that address the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley. The Plan also will include a boundary
within the Estes Valley Planning Area boundary to delineate areas of the Estes Valley that are
14
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
suitable for annexation to the Town (e.g., a “town growth boundary,” or another term to be
defined), and areas that should remain rural in unincorporated Larimer County.
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.
2.3. Land Use Codes. The Parties agree that there shall be prepared a Land Use Code for the Town
and a Land Use Code for the County, which upon adoption by the respective parties shall replace
and supersede the current Estes Valley Development Code as to that Party. The County’s Land
Use Code as currently existing or hereafter amended or superseded is anticipated to include
regulations specific to the incorporated area of Larimer County within the Estes Valley.
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. These
disrictsdistricts and standards 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, and setbacks associated with the
relevant zoning districts, that are guided by the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan..
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 include 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 upon 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
approve development subject to the Town of Estes ParkValley 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 appeals, interpretations, and variances, including those applied at the building
15
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
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 Area. Within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley,
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. The Parties agree that
appeals, interpretations, and variances, including those applied at the building permit stage, shall
be processed and decided by the County as provided for in the Larimer County Land Use 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 Estes Valley 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 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:
3.3.1. 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
3.3.2. 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: The Parties agree to maintain and administer separate fees with their
respective jurisdictions in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
3.5.1. The County’s Capital Expansion fees for roads, community parks, and drainage shall apply
within the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley.
3.5.2. The County’s regional park fee shall not apply within the unincorporated portion of the
Estes Valley.
16
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
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 Estes Valley unincorporated
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 respective 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. Town Development and Improvements in the County. To the extent that development in the
Town requires the construction of off-site public improvements in the unincorporated County
area of the Estes Valley 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. Development Review Staffing Roles
4.4.1. County Review, Town Referral within Estes Valley. Within the Estes Valley Planning
Area unincorporated areas, 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 be
limited to whether shall include consideration of whether and how the proposal is consistent with
the Estes Valley Overlay District and supplemental regulations. If the Town staff recommends
against approval and the County subsequently grants approval, the County agrees to provide a
written statement to the Town outlining the reasons for approval. 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.
4.4.2. 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.
4.5. 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
17
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
within the Estes Valley Planning Area. These include but are not limited to the following areas of
regulation:
Table 1: Review Roles of Town of Estes and Larimer County
Type of Process or
Regulation
Within Town of Estes
(Who Administers)
Within Unincorporated Estes
Valley – Larimer County
(Who Administers)
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
TownCounty Health Department County Health Department
Wildfire Construction Wildlife Construction standards
in Larimer County’s building
code (Town Building Official)
Wildlife Construction standards
in Larimer County’s building
code (County Building Official)
Code Compliance Town Code Compliance County Code Compliance
Vacation Rentals Approved by Town (Town
Maintains its rentals and cap)
Those approved roll into County
program (County maintains the
current cap in the unincorporated
area for #__units)
18
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
5.DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVALS (PLANNING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT)
(Note: Options for this section will vary depending on input from elected officials and outcomes of the
questionnaire and public process.)
5.1. (Option A.) Estes Valley Planning Commission. Joint Estes Valley Planning Commission for
review in unincorporated valley to have the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the County
Planning Commission for the area of the unincorporated Estes Valley, with most final approvals
by the Board of County Commissioners. (Note: An alternative is to retain the joint planning
commission as an advisory group for the purpose of preparing the Comprehensive Plan and/or
transitionally for projects currently in the Town’s development review pipeline.)
OR (Option B) Larimer County Planning Commission. The Larimer County Planning
Commission shall review development applications in the unincorporated Estes Valley. (Note:
Discuss whether to adjust the membership to include a member from the Town.)
5.2. (Option A) Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (or County BOA, Option B). 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.
6.ANNEXATION
(Note: Discuss which current annexation provisions to carry forward and what new ones to add.)
6.1. 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 an written annexation petition 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 and, if appropriate, approve it in accordance
with the Larimer County Land Use Code.
6.2. Eligibility for Annexation. The Parties agree that the term “eligibility for annexation” shall
mean any land that is contiguous to the corporate limits via one point of connection, and that it is
anticipated that the Town’s policy to Town would annex as expeditiously as possible all lands
eligible for annexation in the Estes vValley 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 fully intends 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 annexed considered for annexation at such time that a development proposal is presented.
6.3. Future Annexations/Development Agreement. The County agrees that, in the case of lands
within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area which are not eligible for
annexation but that are proposing Town level development, the County shall require applicants
that apply 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 after the effective date of this Agreement to sign an annexation agreement as a condition of
19
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
development approval. The Town agrees to annex any such land associated with a signed
annexation agreement within six (6) months of said land becoming eligible for annexation.
6.4. Annexation of Roadways. The Town agrees to annex the entire width of roadways and all
roadways adjacent to Town limits.
6.5. Annexation of Enclaves: The Town agrees that it will review enclaves on annual basis to
determine their appropriateness for annexation and the Town’s ability to service said enclaves. If
the Town deems an enclave is appropriate for annexation and it can adequately provide services,
the Town will strive to expeditiously annex said enclave. (Note: County agreements generally
contain stronger language with a commitment to annexation of enclaves.)
7.IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT
7.1. Transition. Applications submitted prior to the effective date of this Agreement shall be
processed pursuant to the law and regulation in effect prior to this Agreement. Applications for
development submitted after the effective date of this IGA shall be processed according to this
Agreement.
7.2. Supplemental Regulations Timing: The Parties agree that within 45 days from the effective
date of this Agreement they will have proposed supplemental regulations to their Codes to
implement the terms of this Agreement. Such proposed supplemental 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. (Note: Discuss timeline. County is
aiming for concurrently preparing and adopting the supplemental regulations, but 45 days after
this Agreement may be more realistic.)
7.3. County Development Review Commencement. County will commence development review
on January 1, 2020 for all new applications received on or after January 1, 2020
7.4. 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.
7.5. 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.
7.6. Agreements with Special Districts. The Town agrees that it will strive to achieve
intergovernmental agreements with all special districts which shall require the special districts to
plan their facilities according to the Town’s adopted plans.
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.
20
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
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 by written agreement of both Parties.
10.3. Amendments to elements of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan: At least thirty (30) days
prior to the adoption of any amendments to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, the Town shall
notify the County and provide the County with an opportunity to make comments on any such
amendments to the Town’s Comprehensive 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 supplemental regulations. The Town shall notify the County of any such
amendment to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan within thirty (30) days of the adoption of any
such amendment. As a result of any amendment being made to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan,
the County shall not be obligated to amend either this Agreement, its Estes Valley Overlay
District or any supplemental regulations.
10.4. Amendments to elements of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan as specifically applicable to
unincorporated Estes Valley: At least thirty (30) days prior to the adoption of any amendments
to any elements of the County’s Comprehensive Plan that have specific applicability to the
unincorporated Estes Valley, the County shall notify the Town and provide the Town with an
opportunity to make comments on any such amendments to the County’s Comprehensive 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’s regulations. The
County shall notify the Town of any such amendment to the County’s Comprehensive Plan
within thirty (30) days of the adoption of any such amendment. As a result of any amendment
being made to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the Town shall not be obligated to amend either
this Agreement or any Town regulations.
11.SEVERABILITY.
If any portion of this Agreement is held by a court in a final, non-appealable decision to be per se invalid
or unenforceable as to any Party, the entire Agreement shall be terminated, it being the understanding and
intent of the Parties that ever portion of the Agreement is essential and not severable from the remainder.
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
21
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
decision that the Agreement not be renewed. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 180 days
noticedays’ notice.
13. 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
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Content:
_____________________________ ________________________
Town Attorney Town ManagerAdministrator
The County of Larimer:
_____________________________
Tom Donnelly, Chair
Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
_______________________
22
Discussion Draft – Sept. 513, 2019
Angela Myers, Clerk and Recorder
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Content:
_______________________ ________________________
County Attorney County Manager
23
24
5A. PLANNING COMMISSION(S) AND BOARD(S) OF ADJUSTMENT –
TRANSITIONS
[DRAFT: 2019-09-13]
[NOTE: this is a first draft and intended to represent a policy option, rather than a
defined direction]
5A.1. Transitional Estes Valley Planning Commission. The parties hereby continue, for a time-
limited transitional period, the Estes Valley Planning Commission (“Transitional EVPC”), with
duties, responsibilities, authority, obligations, and operational parameters pursuant to the terms
and conditions of this Agreement as follows:
5A.1.1. Authority. The Transitional EVPC shall have authority limited to the following:
5A.1.1.1. 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 land-use applications that are properly filed 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. It is anticipated that all such
“pipeline” applications will be considered and decided upon in a deliberatively
expeditious fashion.
5A.1.1.2. 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, appointed as members of an official Comprehensive
Plan Advisory Body 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.
5A.1.1.3. Upon final disposition of all “pipeline” land-use applications pursuant to
Section 5.1.1.1, the Transitional EVPC shall sunset and cease existence as a Joint
Planning Commission. In accordance with Section 5A.1.1.2, members of the Transitional
EVPC are eligible to continue in a Comprehensive Plan Advisory Body capacity.
5A.1.2. Membership. The Transitional EVPC shall be composed of seven (7) members. Three
(3) members shall be appointed by the Town and four (4) members shall be appointed by the
County. Each member shall serve for a four (4) year term, or until the EVPC’s sunset date,
whichever may occur first. It is anticipated the currently serving members of the EVPC will
continue as members of the Transitional EVPC, as they are able and willing, and that the
appointment process herein will need to be invoked only in the event of a vacancy.
5A.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
25
ATTACHMENT 4
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.
5A.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:
5A.2.1. Authority. The Transitional EVBoA shall have authority limited to the following:
5A.2.1.1. 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 land-use applications that are properly filed 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. It is anticipated that all such
applications will be considered and decided upon in a deliberatively expeditious fashion.
5A.2.1.2. Upon final disposition of all land-use applications pursuant to Section 5A.2.1.1,
the Transitional EVBoA shall sunset and cease existence as a Joint Board of Adjustment.
5A.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. It is anticipated the currently serving members of the EVBoA will
continue as members of the Transitional EVBoA, as they are able and willing, and that the
appointment process herein will need to be invoked only in the event of a vacancy.
5A.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.
5A.2. 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 filed on or after January 1, 2020. 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.
5A.3. Larimer County Planning Commission. The Larimer County Planning Commission shall …
[County may specify additional language here as appropriate.]
5A.4. 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.
26
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 filed on or after January 1, 2020. 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.
5A.3. Larimer County Board of Adjustment. The Larimer County Board of Adjustment shall …
[County may specify additional language here as appropriate.]
27
28
ResolutionInSupportoftheJointPlanningAreaBelowisaresolutioninsupportoftheJointPlanningArea,whichwasapprovedunanimouslyattheEVPCmeetingonFebruary19,2019,andrevisedandreapprovedonSeptember17,2019.WetheEstesValleyPlanningCommissionstronglysupporttheEstesValleyJointPlanningArea(JPA)andtherelatedIntergovernmentalAgreement(IGA).Oursupportisbasedonthefollowing:•Firstandforemost,theEstesValleyisoneintegratedcommunity.Intermsofcommoncommunityinterestsandconcerns,therearenoboundariesbetweentheTownandCountyintheEstesValley.•TheEstesValleyisuniqueinthatitislandlockedandnearlyallofthelandisdeveloped.ThesizeoftheEstesValleyisnotlarge.Thus,landuseplanningthroughouttheEstesValleyisofconcerntoawiderangeofTownandCountyresidents.•Itmakescompletesensethatlanduseplanninginsuchaconfinedgeographicareabehandledonacoordinatedbasis.ThisiswhytheJPAwasimplementedmorethan20yearsago.•TheEstesValleyPlanningCommissionismuchbetterequippedtoaddresslanduseissuesintheEstesValleythantheLarimerCountyPlanningCommissionduetoourknowledgeandexperiencewithlocallanduseissues.OurfocusisontheEstesValley.TheLarimerCountyPlanningCommissionisfocusedontheentirecountyandinparticularonthefrontrangecommunitiesandtheirissues.•AprimarygoalofthenewComprehensivePlanistocreateasharedvisionforthefutureoftheEstesValley.ThiscanonlybedoneifthereisoneComprehensivePlanfortheentireEstesValley,andthiscanonlybedoneiftheJPAisretained.•TheComprehensivePlanismuchmorethanaguideforlanduseplanning.Itencompassestransportation,parking,downtownplanning,trails,utilities,wateruse,floodcontrolandmitigation,firemitigation,andmore.Thesetopicsarebydefinitionvalley-wideasislanduseplanning.•ResidentsofthecountyportionoftheEstesValleymayhaveamoredifficulttimegettingtheirconcernsaddressedbytheircountyrepresentatives(theLarimerCountyPlanningDepartment,LarimerCountyPlanningCommission,andtheCountyCommissioners).TheseCountyofficialshavebusyschedulesandmayattimeshavemorepressingissuestoaddressthantheconcernsofEstesValleyresidents.Allthisactivitywilltake placeinFortCollinsratherthanEstesPark,unlessspecialmeetingsareheldinEstesPark.29ATTACHMENT 5
•IftheJPAisdissolvedthecountyportionoftheEstesValleywillcomeundertheCounty’sComprehensivePlanandDevelopmentCode.ZoninginthecountyportionofthevalleywillhavetoberedonesincetheCountydoesnothavethesamezoningdistrictsaswehaveintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode.Protectionsprovidedtoresidentsbycurrentzoningdesignationsanddevelopmentcodewillnotnecessarilybeavailableafterthisrezoning.Someneighborhoods,suchasCarriageHills,willbedividedwithoneportionunderTownzoninganddevelopmentcodesandanotherportionundercountyzoninganddevelopmentcodes.Thiswillcreatealotofconfusion.•DissolvingtheJPAwillincreasethedissentionanddisunityintheEstesValley.RetainingtheIPAtogetherwithanew valley-wideComprehensivePlanwillincreasecooperation,collaboration,andconsensusintheEstesValley.•DissolvingtheJPAwillaccentuatethelackofrepresentationthatresidentsexperiencewhendevelopmentprojectsarebroughtforward.Therewillbenovalley-wideforumlikethePlanningCommissionwherecitizen’sviewscanbeheard.•TheexistenceoftheJPAandIGAallowustodrawontheknowledgeandexperienceofCountyplanningstaffaswedevelopourownuniquesolutionstoEstesValleylanduseissues.GiventhepotentialnegativeconsequencesofdissolvingtheJPAandthelikelihoodofadditionalunintendedconsequences,andthelackofcompellingreasonsfordissolvingtheJPAItheresponsiblecourseofactionistoretaintheJPAandfixexistingproceduralproblemsbyrevisingtheIGA.GiventhecriticalimportancethattheJPAhasplayedinEstesValleyplanning,nogoverningbodyshouldproposetodissolvetheJPAunlessithasidentifiedandprovidedtherationaleforanalternativethatcanworkaswellorbetterthanaJPA,EstesValleyPlanningCommissionFebruary19,2019RevisedSeptember17,2019BobLeavilt,EVPCChair30
Pros & Cons for Retaining the Joint Planning Area
By Bob Leavitt
The following comments are mine alone and not those of other EVPC members.
The Joint Planning Area (JPA) refers to an area that emcompases the Estes Valley
which is jointly governed by the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. The JPA
includes a Comprehensive Plan, a set of Development Codes, Zoning Maps, Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment that are involved in managing land use in the
Estes Valley. When I use the term “JPA” I am referring to all of these things. This paper
addresses the question of whether the JPA should be retained or eliminated in the
revised Intergovernmental Agreement. I hope it is a balanced assessment that will
further the discussion of this important issue.
It is easy to confuse the Intergovernmental Agreement with the JPA. The two are not
synonymous. The IGA encompases all of the administrative and regulatory interface
points between the Town and County. The JPA addresses the method of managing
land use (in this case jointly) within the designated planning area. Clearly there are
many areas in the IGA that are out of date and in need of revision. Director Hunt’s paper
outlines many of them. It is possible to revise the IGA and address the problem areas
that clearly need to be remedied while retaining the JPA. At this time no option that
carries out this approach has been proposed by the Town or County. I think this option
should be on the table.
Reasons for Retaining the JPA
●Supports the concept that the Estes Valley is one community with many common
interests and concerns regarding land use planning. The views of residents on
land use do not change when you cross from Town to County territory, and the
boundary itself zigzags all over the place. It’s common to find Town and County
residents across the street from each other.
●Encourages cooperative planning between the Town and County by mandating
that joint planning take place.
●Has worked well for 20 years.
●Provides for the creation of a single Comprehensive Plan and a shared vision for
land use planning and many other types of planning in the Estes Valley. If the
JPA is eliminated there will be separate Comprehensive Plans for the Town and
County portions of the Estes Valley. This makes it very difficult to have a shared
vision for the future of the Estes Valley. The Town and County will each have to
31
ATTACHMENT 6
fund their own Comprehensive Plans, and the combined cost is likely to be
higher than if working together on a single Comp Plan. Note: A Comprehensive
Plan is much more than a land use plan. Among other things it includes
economic development, roads, trails, traffic management, utility infrastructure,
wildlife habitat conservation, and fire and flood mitigation. All of these things must
be jointly planned across the Estes Valley to have a coherent and effective
strategy for the future.
●Maintains a consistent set of development codes across the Estes Valley,
avoiding potential confusion for residents and developers.
●Provides a local forum for residents of both the Town and County portions of the
Estes Valley to air their concerns and a local body to address those concerns -
the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC).
●If the JPA is eliminated residents of the Estes Valley will have to take their
concerns to the Larimer County Planning Commission (LCPC) in Fort Collins.
However, if the LCPC holds periodic meetings in Estes Park this would reduce
the problem.
●The EVPC is better equipped to address land use questions than the LCPC
because of greater familiarity with Estes Valley land use issues.
●The LCPC is very busy, having many other areas to address besides the Estes
Valley. It may be hard to get them to focus on land use issues in the Estes
Valley.
Reasons for Eliminating the JPA
●Replaces the JPA with a widely used model for Intergovernmental Agreements
between towns and counties that has been used successfully in Larimer County
and elsewhere in Colorado. Larimer County has considerable experience with
these IGA’s.
●Removes ambiguity and confusion over the roles and responsibilities for land use
planning in the Town and County portions of the Estes Valley by clearly
separating these functions. However, the County is going to take over the review
of development plans in the County portion of the Estes Valley in any new
version of the IGA, and this will mitigate the problem if the JPA is retained.
●Implements a Town Planning Commission which may be more oriented toward
the Town’s land use planning requirements than the current EVPC.
●Some maintain that the County has an unfair advantage over the Town on the
EVPC because it has 4 members vs 3 for the Town. However, if one looks at the
voting record, meeting minutes, and recordings of EVPC meetings it’s clear that
this is not an issue. EVPC members view themselves as representing the entire
32
valley. There is no Town block or County block in terms of viewpoints and voting.
In spite of the facts, if this still remains a sticking point then one could reverse the
representation in the new IGA (4 Town, 3 County members).
●The Board of County Commissioners works closely with the Larimer County
Planning Commission (LCPC) and County staff. In contrast, the BOCC and
County staff do not work as closely with the EVPC. The EVPC works more
closely with the Trustees and Town staff. As such, it may be more effective for
the County to take over responsibility for the County portion of the Estes Valley
while the Town takes responsibility for the Town portion of the Estes Valley.
●Allows the County and Town to change zoning and development codes over time
in their respective areas of the Estes Valley to address changing needs in their
areas.
●The Estes Valley Joint Planning Area is unique in Colorado. As such, it’s unclear
how well it will adapt to the future. There is nowhere else to go in Colorado to
view other examples and share best practices with other communities and
counties. Because it is unique, future changes in state law could ignore our JPA
and have unintended consequences for the Estes Valley. However, this has not
occurred in the 20 year history of the current JPA.
One can see that there are good arguments for and against retaining the JPA. However,
two points are front and center that argue for retaining the JPA.
1.The reality that we are one community in the Estes Valley. We share the same
rivers, roads, trails, schools, hospital, library, fire district, wildlife, and mountain
views among other things. Residents of the unincorporated County area are
deeply interested in Town issues and visa versa. Decisions on land use within
the county affect residents in the town and visa versa. Residents of all parts of
the valley work and volunteer side-by-side in Town. Town businesses depend on
patronage from residents of all parts of the valley, especially during the off
season. We all share a love of the natural beauty in the Estes Valley and a desire
to preserve it. We live in one interdependent community.
2.The need for a valley-wide Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan is
supposed to represent the shared vision of the community. How can we do this
with two Comprehensive Plans? The second Comprehensive Plan is likely to be
the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan, not a separate one for the
unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan
directs the implementation of the Development Code within its jurisdiction. If we
truly need a combined Comprehensive Plan then we also need a combined
Development Code for the Estes Valley.
33
The JPA worked well for many years. Then came the Mountain Coaster project and the
issue of commercial development in residential zones. I would argue that this makes it
even more crucial that we have consistent land use planning across the Estes Valley. In
many locations we have residential development close to our remaining open areas that
could potentially have commercial development. Any development that takes place near
the border between Town and County will strongly impact residents of both areas.
Thoughtful planning is needed, with an eye toward our valley-wide Comprehensive Plan
and Development Code, to address commercial and residential development projects
as they are proposed.
Bob Leavitt
09/22/2019
34
PROS & CONS OF EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND
LARIMER COUNTY FOR JOINT PLANNING AREA, DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ZONING MAP
Randy Hunt: September 25, 2019
[NOTE: This list and the thoughts therein are primarily my own. The document has undergone review at
several Town staff levels. County staff have been provided several previous drafts since early August but
have not responded with comments at this time. Therefore, please regard this document as my
professional opinion, not necessarily representing others’ views. – RAH]
The IGA overall
•PRO: Original IGA, Comp. Plan, and Codes rectified significant differences in Town and County
plans, codes, and procedures in Estes Valley; this rectification gave us a unified Planning
environment and benefited both sets of stakeholders in general.
o It’s my understanding (secondhand, but from multiple sources) that Town and County
zoning districts and land-use Codes were significantly different prior to the EVDC’s
effective date in November 1999. Anecdotal stories are told about similar developments
or projects separated by only the Town-County boundary that went through very
different processes with very different results, despite similar circumstances. Although
no two properties are exactly alike, this does make the 1990s examination of zoning
maps and regulations appropriate, and probably necessary.
•CON: It seems apparent that many of the problems before 2000 have now been resolved; thus,
one of the organic reasons for the IGA has now been fulfilled. Improvement is always a
continuous process, of course; however, evidence suggests to staff that the biggest issues were
resolved.
o No one, to my knowledge, is proposing to turn the clock back to the 1990s and reinstate
a planning era that sounds like “benign neglect” of mutual Town and County interests.
No replacement IGA should try to undo that commonality of interest.
o Even though the commonality of interest in Estes Valley continues to exist and remains
valuable, there are differences between Town and unincorporated Valley. Two
examples:
▪Redevelopment of older and under-utilized properties is a growing need in the
Town. The CO Hwy. 7 (South St. Vrain Ave.) commercial corridor is one example.
There are pockets of redevelopment “ripe” areas in the County, but not nearly
as many.
▪Accommodations-zoned properties in the Town and County have some subtle
but cumulatively important differences from each other. A typical Town
Accommodations use would be one of the motels along US 34 east of
downtown. In the County, our largest single Accommodations property is the
YMCA. Both examples are accommodations uses, but they are not like each
other now and likely will not have the same future regulatory needs.
•PRO: The IGA has served, and still serves, a valuable role in requiring and facilitating cooperation
on land use between Town and County, and in setting a framework for doing so.
35
ATTACHMENT 7
o This cooperation exists at many levels and is a sound investment, with much credit to
the existing IGA. For example, our governing bodies meet jointly at least a few times per
year; the Town and County development review staff, along with other agencies, have a
conference call every Friday.
•CON: The Town of Estes Park in particular has changed and will continue to change. Population,
visitation, and the economy have grown – quite substantially by some measures. Estes Park
arguably was not an urban place before 2000. It is now.
o In my judgment, despite being a kind of abstract point, this is the strongest argument
for a future IGA that acknowledges the Town and unincorporated Valley have different
futures. Estes Park is an urban service center for residents, visitors, businesses,
institutions, and many other stakeholders. County areas in the Valley do not generate
the same needs and stakeholders do not seem to have the same wishes, as witnessed
by public dialog in recent years. Cooperative planning is important, but recognition of
differences is also important. Municipalities are not the same as counties; municipal
businesses and services are not the same as those in counties; and so on. This difference
in destinies will only grow, not shrink, as we move deeper into the 21st century.
o The IGA’s specifics do not match the reality of balance between the County and Town
interests. The Town has somewhat more population, and definitely has more “stop and
stay” visitors (visitors are stakeholders). The Town represents a substantial majority of
the Valley’s “gross domestic product”. Land use planning and regulations are closely
related to these fundamental economic and social phenomena.
o By contrast, the unincorporated Valley has most of the land area in Estes Valley. One
significant aspect of this fact is that most existing open space (designated or otherwise)
is in the County. If there’s a community-wide will to retain or enhance that, the
opportunities will always be greater in the County - just in terms of raw material.
•CON: Some seem to assume, maybe subconsciously, that something has to be broken before we
should try to fix it. The old saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is an unhealthy belief. Virtually
no planner, citizen or professional, would call that good planning. In my view, our IGA has some
functional obsolescence – but that doesn’t mean it’s broken. This does not mean we shouldn’t
try to make our IGA better. There are other common and successful forms of IGAs that work
well to coordinate land use planning in other communities.
Specific sections of the IGA
•PRO: Sec. II (Estes Valley Planning Area) - The boundaries set in the IGA for the Joint Planning
Area still make sense geographically; the boundaries are generally good at defining a
“community of interest.” There isn’t an argument to my awareness for changing the outer
boundaries of the Planning Area.
•PRO: Sec. II (Estes Valley Planning Commission) - As with the IGA and planning in general, the
fact of a joint Town/County Planning Commission, and the cooperative value of the PC’s duties,
have benefited County and Town.
•PRO: Sec. II (Estes Valley Planning Commission) - It may be noted that split view or decisions
along Town-County lines by the PC have seemingly been rare.
36
o CON: Sec. II.B (Estes Valley Planning Commission - Membership) - The County has 57.1
percent of the membership on the Planning Commission (4 out of 7 members appointed
by the County.) This ratio does not reflect the population, economic, and stakeholder
ratios between the Town and unincorporated Estes Valley. The Town has higher than 50
percent proportions for all of these measures (some are much higher, such as visitor
numbers and economic activity.) In the other direction, the unincorporated County has
considerably more than 57.1 percent of the land area in the Valley.
▪Although as noted there hasn’t been a recent history of Town/County divisions
on the Planning Commission, there is no clear-cut way to resolve the ratio of
Town and County membership in the event this does become an issue.
o CON: Sec. II.C (Estes Valley Planning Commission - Residency) - While board and
commission residency requirements are common and typically serve a useful purpose,
questions have been raised about the IGA’s 1-year residency requirement within the
respective jurisdiction. This has come up most recently in connection with the vacant
Town seat on the PC (which remains unfilled with no applicants after 9 months…)
o CON: Sec. II.C (Estes Valley Planning Commission - Residency) - Although not a
membership matter per se, a difference has been noted in Liaison roles to the PC. The
Town Liaison is an elected official – a member of the Town Board of Trustees. The
County Liaison role has been filled by a County Community Development Dept. staff
member. While both sets of individuals seem diligent in their respective roles with PC,
there is inevitably at least a perception that the conduits are not parallel.
o CON: Sec. II.H (Estes Valley Planning Commission – By-Laws) - A minor “con” is that by-
laws stand on their own and are typically not referenced in an IGA. Currently, this
section states that the Dec. 7, 1999 by-laws shall be the by-laws of the EVPC; in fact, the
PC has modified its by-laws multiple times since then, with Town and County governing-
body approval.
•PRO: Sec. IV (Estes Valley Board of Adjustment) - In general, this section has worked well. As
with Planning Commission, a joint Board of Adjustment has facilitated cooperative planning.
Several “cons” noted for PC, such as the imbalance of a County appointed majority, are present
here in the other direction, as 60 percent, or 3 out of 5, BoA members are Town-appointed.
While possibly the original idea was to split things equally overall with each body having a
majority from the different jurisdictions, there’s a built-in apples-to-oranges aspect, as Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment are separate bodies with very different subject matter.
•CON: There are no designated Liaisons for BoA. (Not necessarily an IGA issue.)
•PRO: Sec. V (Annexation) - Overall, this section has served us relatively well. Annexations have
occurred under the IGA provisions over the years and seem to have been orderly and rational.
Some minor difficulties exist and are noted.
o PRO: Sec. V.A (Annexation – Criteria) - The list of “threshold” proposals that trigger
annexation review and decision – e.g., larger subdivisions, commercial or industrial
development, etc. – are similar to other such trigger lists, and seem to have worked for
the Valley. The list of exclusions, while not strictly necessary, is also reasonable.
37
o CON: Sec. V.A (Annexation – Criteria) - The section requiring a signed petition in
conjunction with annexation consideration is quite rigid. An annexation petition is a
defined instrument in Colorado Revised Statutes (§31-12-107). Other land-use or
annexation IGAs in Larimer County require consideration of annexation in specific
circumstances, but none other, to staff’s knowledge, require a formal petition.
o CON: Sec. V.B (Annexation – County Roads) - In principle, this section is logical; however,
the wording leads to some rigidity and lack of discretion in annexing what may be
substandard rights-of-way, and/or roads that are maintained by HOAs but need to be
publicly maintained streets post-annexation. (To be fair, the Town also has existing
substandard rights-of-way, so this is not a County-unique concern.) A case-by-case
option for review in this section would serve stakeholders better.
o CON: Although not a “con” in the IGA itself, the fulfillment of this IGA section – or any
future IGA that deals with annexation, as it likely will have to do – should be
accompanied by a Town annexation policy. An unknown matter at this time is whether a
Town policy would go into the IGA by mutual agreement with the County, or whether it
would stand on its own. Either way, the IGA should acknowledge this element.
•PRO and CON: Sec. VI (Dev. Compliance with Other Town and County Requirements) - The intent
and overall value of this section in the IGA are positive. However, the list of regulations and
requirements is: (a) not complete; and (b) has not kept up with practice.
o CON: Sec. VI.A.1 (Compliance – Floodplain) - The IGA requires separate Town and
County jurisdictions for floodplain regulations and management. This may be
pragmatically realistic, and in fact may perhaps be a necessity under Federal or State
regulations. On the other hand, it is undeniable that floodwaters, and water in general,
do not follow neatly drawn geographical boundaries. Water management is awkward
when jurisdictions follow straight line boundaries, such as many between Town and
County.
o CON: Sec. VI.A.5 (Compliance - Drainage) - Much of the same logic in floodplains applies
to drainage as well.
o CON: Sec. VI.A.7 (Compliance – Wildfire Construction) - Also follows the same logic as
water issues above. While separate administration under Building codes would be
logical, wildfire construction does not need differential regulations. Wildfire, like floods
and drainage, is notoriously disrespectful of property and jurisdictional boundaries.
Methods and best practices should recognize that fires spread in ways that differences
in Codes can’t anticipate.
•CON: Sec. IX (Staffing and Costs) - This section is seriously flawed, and has been for some time –
perhaps always. While the intent was well-meant, seemingly stemming from an understandable
wish to save County stakeholders a long trip back and forth to Fort Collins, the structure, and
certainly the execution, of this section has been troublesome.
o CON: Sec. IX.B (Staffing & Costs – Duties of the Town Community Development Dept.) -
In conjunction with Sec. IX.B.3 (cost-sharing) this section has been dysfunctional. The
County compensation has been set at $30,000 per year to the Town per year for staff
services rendered. Additionally, the Town is authorized (Sec. VII.3) to retain County
38
application fees for County projects filed under EVDC; this varies year-to-year but to
staff’s knowledge has rarely exceeded $20,000 per year. The Town Planning division’s
annual expenditures budgeted in 2019 comes to approx. $1.2 million. Thus, around 4.2
percent of the Planning budget is paid out of County sources. Department statistics
show that in 2017-2018, around 44 percent of staff’s time was spent on County matters,
with 56 percent on Town matters. (Some duties cannot be split on Town-County lines,
such as Planning Commission expenses; those are assumed to be more or less equal.)
Time is only one measure, but an important one. This ratio is not balanced, resulting in
Town taxpayers subsidizing land use planning in the unincorporated area
o CON: Sec. IX.B (Staffing & Costs – Duties of the Town Community Development Dept.) -
Some in the community have suggested that Town staff have not performed as well in
reflecting County goals and expectations in terms of project review, code changes, and
other planning matters. The current Planning staff are in effect charged by the Town
Board (by adopted Town Board Strategic Goals, 2016 through 2019) to accelerate Code
amendments, support development, facilitate development needs for workforce
housing, and several other elements that may be fairly described as business friendly. As
in most of the country, business development, multi-unit housing, and similar
developments have always been focused more in the municipality than the
unincorporated area, for good reason. This bifurcation has grown rather than shrunk
over the years, as Estes Park has become more urban while the unincorporated Valley
has not done so at the same pace. Some residents have voiced opposition, or at least
discomfort, with additional development. Since development and especially Code
changes have focused on encouraging development or redevelopment, this pace of
change has probably resulted in divergent direction for Town and County as a whole.
This is a policy level issue, and a difficult one, for elected officials. Staff has had some
degree of trouble with reconciling issues that officials themselves also have trouble
with. One manifestation is different needs, and thus different responses from staff on
projects that are perceived by some as concerning, more so in County than Town. There
is no easy answer.
o CON: Sec. IX.E and F (Staffing & Costs – Duties of the Town Attorney and County
Attorney) - Cooperation and communication at the attorneys’ level seem to have been
more than adequate over time, but there are inevitable discrepancies, similar to the
local vs. distance elements discussed above. E.g., traditionally the Town Attorney has
been physically present at all Planning Commission meetings, with attendance a more
challenging matter (time and distance) for County legal staff. Legal services have not
notably suffered, but PC members, among others, have noted the wish for clarity in this
area. The arrangement works fine with routine, non-controversial issues; however, with
more complex issues, this can be a problem. The Town Attorney is advising staff,
Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustments, but when a County project is
challenged in Court, it is the County Attorney who must defend the case. This situation
assigns the authority for giving legal advice to the Town Attorney while the
responsibility for the advice and any subsequent consequences lies with the County
Attorney. It is a basic premise of effective management that authority and responsibility
should go hand in hand to be effective.
39
o CON: Sec. IX.I (Staffing & Costs – Improvement Guarantees) - This section of the IGA has
not been changed in years and does not match current practice. The fix goes beyond the
IGA and really needs a significant rewrite of the Development Code’s relevant sections.
Coordination between the two Engineering divisions and Building divisions, although
good in practice, does not match the IGA as written.
40
[From July 29, 2019 Listening Session: Joint Town Board / County
Commissioners public meeting – Estes Park Town Hall]
Small Group Discussion Notes
The following summary compiles notes from the six table discussions and organizes it
by, first key themes, and second the four questions that participants discussed.
TOP ISSUES/THEMES reported out from Group Discussions
•Desire for a long-range comp plan that we stick to
•Preserve wildlife/view/environment
•Diverse economy/demographic population/jobs/housing/families
•The whole Valley needs to be treated as ONE unified area
•Balance between tourism and residents
•There’s strong support for cooperative planning and uniformity in planning in the
Estes Valley Planning Area
•The elected officials and Town and County staff need to work out the details of
what is not working and how the problems can be fixed
•There needs to be communication and transparency about what’s wrong with the
IGA and how we fix it
•Citizens think many elected officials want to dissolve the IGA, but citizens want to
explore more of the why/reasons for dissolving the IGA
•Take care of these issues before the work begins on the Comprehensive Plan
QUESTION #1: Three to five years from now, what is your vision of land use and
planning in the Estes Valley?
•No workforce housing in undeveloped properties
•More/No less open space
•Remain small-character feel
•Developable land needs to be carefully studied for the highest or best use
41
ATTACHMENT 8
•Management of vacation rentals maintain current approved levels both within Town
and in Valley
•Balance of Community needs where development should occur and where it
shouldn’t
•On Board representing all areas equally
•No commercial uses in residential areas
•Comp Plan = balance of commercial needs and long -term goals
•Balance vacation home and housing needs of others in the area
•Representation of both County/City residents – we all live in the same place.
•Need for BALANCE
•A vision that is followed
•Predictability
•Separate Board for unincorporated area/IGA
•Esthetics and livability need to be considered as much as revenue and sales tax
•Commercial interests and residential concerns need to be kept separate
•Managed employee housing
•Walkability and pedestrian traffic in town needs to be more priority
•More balanced growth with nature and RMNP
•County has more technical expertise
•Need strong evacuation plan for floods
•The key is having a uniform Comprehensive Plan and uniform development
regulations
•Need homogenous regulations
•Not a lot of difference in character between land in the town and land in the county
•Would like to see a stronger relationship instead of a weaker relationship between
the town and the county
•Concerns that the relationship will be weaker
•Has been little communication from town officials on issues
•Have strong relationship with county with county oversight over the town
•Try to depoliticize planning/keep politics out of the arena
42
•Coordinated planning is essential
•There’s limited area in the town and it’s mostly built out
•Limitation of land – coordination and cooperation extremely important
•Biggest thing going for us is we have a good planning area
•The planning area should be planned together
•There is less confusion about jurisdictions with a joint Planning Commission but
can see advantage to only having a joint Board of Adjustment
•Discussions always start with the history of cooperative planning. Circumstances
haven’t changed enough to withdraw from the IGA
•Need uniformity
•Uniformity would bring strength to the relationship
•Need to talk about the problems with the current IGA and opportunities for changes
•To evaluation the alternatives we need to know what we’re trying to achieve that
isn’t being achieved now under the current system
•We haven’t talked about the deficiencies of the current system
•We’ve talked about the alternatives but not what the problems is
•Would like elected officials to comment on what they see as the problems
•Until we explore the problems, we can’t fully evaluate alternatives
•When letters between the Town and County first became public, there were some
problems listed but the solutions to those problems haven’t been explored
•The public had never heard of most of the problems cited in the letters between the
Town and Larimer County
•How can we talk about solutions if we don’t understand the problems?
•Try to fix the problems
•Put the problems in focus
•We know that there are budgetary and staffing issues between the Town and the
County
•There have been changes in state laws – are those opportunities?
•Find out from those who work with the IGA day in and day out what the problems
are
•Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
43
•It was represented that the circumstances that led to the creation of the IGA no
longer exist – what are those circumstances?
•Need better communication about what has been resolved
•What needs to be resolved?
•Frank Lancaster wrote a letter to Larimer County about the IGA – was there
community input behind that letter?
•The Park and Forest Service need to be involved in the discussion
•More affordable housing. Smaller lot sizes, permit higher buildings to
accommodate housing needs
•Forward-looking planned land use in the whole valley
•Comprehensive Plan that is actually a PLAN which stems from the IGA
•What does the community want; the community is the whole valley, not just what is
good for tourism.
•Maintain open spaces
•Inclusive, protect values, maintain open spaces
•Like to see it not change too much
•Businesspeople want tourism which negatively impacts residents
•Year-round residents that live outside downtown area want to keep dev elopment
within city limits
•Bridge commercial interest with the rural
•Frustrated by anyone who wants to divide up their property
•How can it bridge to be better? Have Town planners listen to the homeowners
instead of always favoring the developers that want to break up land
•Should have a single comprehensive plan for the valley – should be from a land
use point. We need a comp plan with the whole valley because we share fire, rec,
school, etc.
•Two fundamental problems:
•integrated land use code – Town is driving it
•Only 3% of Larimer County residents in Estes, so they are not heard by Tom
Donnelly and other Commissioners
•Have an IGA just for county to be represented
44
•Code changes to the county - proactive by the county commissioners to protect the
interest of the county residents
•Separate advisory committee to look at County issues separately to advise the
County before code changes are adopted. Commissioners never overturn town
decisions
•Big problem is annexation. Growth management areas can be a problem up
here. Onerous annexation for one property should not be allowed because they
affect everyone
•Feels disenfranchised living in Larimer County
•Town is so commercial heavy. Favoritism is for commercial activity. We have lost
the balance.
•Raising objections causes people to be called “Nuts”.
•Would like to see trails and bike paths.
•Possibly have a no development areas.
•Also, would like to have police and other services available and not have to call the
sheriff with a problem.
•How do we get city services without having the city density?
•Services can be handled differently
•Facilitator asked me (notetaker, Linda Hardin) about having city services in county
–can Town services be provided in the County? It could happen with an IGA with
the County paying the Town for the services.
•The Town wants childcare, the town wants flood control. Anything the Town wants
they try to tax people that are outside to get that
•The town’s interest is always more development, more density
•Angry about the rezoning of 10 acres on Dry Gulch Rd to 2 acre lots BY THE
TOWN. I (Linda) explained the process of the County elected officials approving
items after recommendations from the Planning Commission. It was pointed out
that the Town planning staff pushes it through even if the PC doesn’t recommend it
•The development code is a mess - should be easier to navigate and understand
•The Town should expand the boundary a little better to create a better balance
•Need to keep affordable housing in mind. We have a lot of people coming up from
the valley to work here
45
•Changes with the development code could come following a new comprehensive
plan
•Affordable housing is a problem. One struggle is pushing commercial activities into
residential zones
•Echo – clear and concise plan that is enforced consistently. Also need affordable
housing
•More affordable housing. Smaller lot sizes, permit higher buildings to
accommodate housing needs
•Forward-looking planned land use in the whole valley
•Comprehensive Plan that is actually a PLAN which stems from the IGA
•What does the community want; the community is the whole valley, not just what is
good for tourism.
•Maintain open spaces
•Inclusive, protect values, maintain open spaces
QUESTION #2: What do you think might be accomplished long-term with a
continued land use planning agreement between the Town and County,
considering current and other GMA examples offered in the presentation?
•Better representation of County residents
•Consistent Annexation – encourage annexation regardless of fiscal impact
•Community safety
•Communication and cooperation between the County and the Town
•Remain a vibrant community
•Balanced community
•Comprehensive plan that supports businesses
•Balanced growth plan
•Limit growth upwards (2 levels rather than 5)
•We need to have a Comprehensive Plan for the entire planning area
•Cooperation facilitates comprehensive planning
•Uniformity with zoning, codes and ordinances can be accomplished
•The Comprehensive Plan is 20 years old. Is it still relevant for vacant land?
46
•Estes Park is more developed that the unincorporated area
•Looking for well managed development across the Estes Valley
•Need to have discussions about where have density, open space, protection of
wildlife – will provide for better managed growth
•Do we have enough time to come up with a new IGA?
•The elected officials don’t want to talk about extending the current IGA because if
the IGA is extended, the urgency disappears
•Needs to be more transparency with the process
•Town government needs to be more responsive and transparent with citizens
•There may always be some sort of IGA but there won’t always necessarily be
cooperative/joint planning
•From examples, are there ideas that can be used?
•Couldn’t really tell from the presentation what some ideas might be
•There is no traditional growth management area in the Estes Valley like the other
examples
•Hate to lose the IGA over political differences among the elected officials
•The process used to develop the new Comprehensive Plan needs to be fleshed out
•At a minimum we need a jointly adopted Comprehensive Plan
•Needs to be strong cooperation
•Needs to be a better demarcation of political authority
•Commissioners represent a larger population – they don’t have the same focus and
attention of the Estes Valley as the Town Board
•The Estes Valley Development Code is different from the Larimer County Land Use
Code
•Balance and Inclusiveness regarding income/age/families and between the
business owners/workers and retirees
•A long term plan to supplement visitor economy such as a University or other
investors to balance the visitor/resident demographic
•Update the Comp Plan every 5 years, use it and follow it
•Land use geared to protecting the environment, follow the wildlife corridors, protect
our assets
47
•Protect the wildlife and view; that is why people live here and what drives the
community
•Flood management and improvements
•Substantive concerns – affordable housing and preserving beauty of the valley and
wildlife
•Affordable housing should not be at the expense of the rural areas
•Front range urban IGA are all about how to handle services
•Lyons and Steamboat areas both included protection for rural areas
•Nothing that protects the low-density areas of the Valley
•Eagle Rock applied for work force housing and couldn’t happen because of
zoning. The Town’s solution instead of an overlay zone, opened schools to be
allowed in every zone
•Town services extended into county without losing voice
•Continued commercial development is adding to the problem of affordable
services
•Individuals should not be allowed to annex their property at the expense of their
neighbors
•Town services in the County without losing voice
•Affordable and workforce housing solved without compromising existing rural areas
•Protecting beauty of the Valley
•Protection of wildlife
•Protection of existing rural areas (outside city limits) and residents
•Changes happening in town should not affect rural residential zones
•Development Code needs revisions
•Balance and Inclusiveness regarding income/age/families and between the
business owners/workers and retirees
•A long term plan to supplement visitor economy such as a University or other
investors to balance the visitor/resident demographic
•Update the Comp Plan every 5 years, use it and follow it
•Land use geared to protecting the environment, follow t he wildlife corridors, protect
our assets
48
•Protect the wildlife and view; that is why people live here and what drives the
community
•Flood management and improvements
QUESTION #3: When the Town updates the Comprehensive Plan, is it important
to plan for land uses in the Valley outside town limits, and if so, how?
•YES!!!!!
•Yes, plan for both
•The Town have a comprehensive plan or the Valley? (Joint effort)
•Need comprehensive plan before any zoning changes
•Need integrated plan
•There needs to be an equal weight
•There is not a difference of opinion among citizens at the town boundary
•The Estes Valley Planning Commission looks at inside and outside of town
boundaries as equal
•Makes no sense to create a separate political entity in the unincorporated area
•The valley needs uniformity in planning considerations
•The new IGA needs to look harder at annexation than the current IGA does
•Look at areas that are not part of the planning area now and see if they should be
included
•Community needs to understand what is involved with annexation
•Except for enclaves, neighborhoods need to petition for annexation
•Annexation of residential areas is a money loser for the town
•Lots of people see no advantage to being annexed
•Most of the area that can be further subdivided is in the unincorporated area
•Land in town is mostly developed
•Concerned that one person can petition for annexation for a larger area –
clarification that it takes a majority vote of the area property owners to be annexed
•Processes need to be spelled out on the town and county web sites
•Annexation issue is not going to go away
49
•Should be a narrative on the website in plain language regarding annexation –
what it means, what are the implications
•The whole table responded with Yes, absolutely!
•What is the problem with the current IGA? That has not been made clear.
•Problems with the ability to annex
•Town spending large amounts of time on county projects. If the problem is
financial, fix the finances.
•More involvement from County, don’t let town decide everything; checks and
balances
•Define who has the ultimate say
•County reacts to the citizen concerns, town reacts to business concerns
•County has a broader perspective due to dealing with other towns
•Inability of county citizens to vote on issues that affect the whole community
•Vacation Homes affecting long term housing rentals
•People outside town limits need to be heard
•Some want IGA to continue – some not sure
•Doesn’t want it to continue unless there is a separate advisory council for the
County – not with current planning commission
•The development code should be rewritten after the comprehensive plan
•Seasonal affordable housing creates unique challenges with respect to
transportation and other issues
•Appreciates having us together
•The whole table responded with Yes, absolutely!
•What is the problem with the current IGA? That has not been made clear.
•Problems with the ability to annex
•Town spending large amounts of time on county projects. If the problem is
financial, fix the finances.
•More involvement from County, don’t let town decide everything; checks and
balances
•Define who has the ultimate say
•County reacts to the citizen concerns, town reacts to business concerns
50
•County has a broader perspective due to dealing with other towns
•Inability of county citizens to vote on issues that affect the whole community
•Vacation Homes affecting long term housing rentals
QUESTION #4: Do you have any other general input about the land use planning
agreement or the transition of how the County will provide development revie w
services starting next year?
•Problems will not go away because of separate review
•Too much “developer” representation
•EVPA needs to be heard by Trustees
•Non-conforming uses be allowed to re-establish
•Have rules and stick to them.
•1/3 of the residents are unable to vote because they are “part-time” residents
•Commissioners and Trustees need to get on same page
51
52ATTACHMENT 9
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
[Received in July and August, 2019 via County website portal]
Comment Forms Received
Online
1.I am very much against the unilateral breakup of the IGA by the mayor and
trustees Walker and Cenac. Estes Park government has long been indifferent and
at times hostile to residential landowners in Town since we do not contribute
equally to the tax coffers compared to commercial businesses. This trend has
taken a threatening turn when Jirsa was elected, since he has attempted to
eliminate our residential zoning laws by permitting an undefined amount of
commercial development in residential zones. The fia sco around the Walker
mountain coaster is an example of the incompetence of our current government to
represent residential taxpayers in Town. We need to keep the current IGA system
since generally, the county commissioners have demonstrated more maturity and
experience in governmental and land use matters. The current attempt by Estes
Park administrators to remove sensible protections of residential landowners rights
indicates the level of corruption in Town government. Steps to create a balanced
approach to land usage in the valley would entail.: 1) Recall of Trustee Walker to
restore some credibility to Estes Park government. 2) A balanced approach to
protect residential property owners’ rights and to put some emphasis on open
space to promote view corridors, wildlife corridors, and sensible development in the
Valley. 3) Complete a Comprehensive Plan for Estes Park and the County that will
represent public input and not just the self-interest of commercial developers. This
plan need not include boiler plate items of history etc. but should contain one map
of the Town and Valley after extensive meetings with landowners in those regions
where open land exists. This must include those wanting to profit by selling their
land for development and residential homeowners who have an equal financial
investment in protecting the value of their land and homes. There also needs to be
a reasonable list of key items that governs commercial development such as a)
noise levels, b) traffic increase, c) size of proposed commercial development, d)
parking needed for project, e) real estimate of contribution of proposed business in
terms of tax dollars generated. Unfortunately, the current administration of Estes
77
ATTACHMENT 10
Park is both corrupt and indifferent to these principles. I doubt that much "peace"
will be attained in this Valley until the current administration is ousted.
2.We want to see residentially zoned land protected in the Estes Valley. We do not
want to see more commercial projects approved under the guise of parks and rec
on residential land. A precedent is being set that could spoil the Estes Valley
irreversibly. Very risky. We have worked hard for our home in Estes Park, and we
are very concerned that spot rezoning and manipulation of code will result in
lowering our property values. We do not want to see each project come under
special review as the Town is proposing - that opens up each project for different
interpretation. Residential land must be permanently protected against commercial
ventures. The Estes Valley is thriving! Pushing for more development is greedy. I
have read a lot of history of the past 100 years in the Estes Valley. Visitors have
been coming here all these years for an escape from the daily grind, to commune
with nature, for the small-town experience. Please work to protect residential
property rights and to keep the character of this town intact.
3.The Estes Valley is one community. The views of residents regarding land use
issues do not change when you cross from town to unincorporated county territor y
within the valley. Where views on land use differ it is due to the background of the
individuals such as retirees, business owners, developers, realtors, young families,
etc. It is not due to where they live. In terms of common community interests and
concerns, there are no boundaries between town and county in the Estes Valley.
Decisions on land use within the county affect residents in the town and visa versa.
We all share the same roads and trails, the same views of the mountains, the same
wildlife, the same utilities infrastructure, the same emergency services, the same
schools, the same tourism impact, and the same traffic congestion. The Estes
Valley is unique in that it is landlocked and nearly all the land is developed. There
is no true Growth Management Area in the way that it is used in other communities
in Larimer County. Given the highly integrated nature of the community, the fact
that the land is almost fully developed, and the valley-wide impact of all land use
decisions, we must continue to have uniform and closely coordinated and land use
planning across the Estes Valley. The only way to do this is with a single valley-
wide Comprehensive Plan that is updated to reflect current conditions. Uniform and
closely coordinated land use planning can best be done by retaining the Joint
Planning Area (JPA) with a single valley-wide Planning Commission and Board of
Adjustment. Residents of the Estes Valley who serve on these boards are much
78
better equipped to address land use questions than the Larimer County Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment. The Larimer County boards would have to
deal with land use issues and the concerns of residents living in the unincorporated
part of the Estes Valley. These County boards are very busy with a lot of other
issues on their plates. If the JPA is terminated, the development code and zoning in
the unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley would have to be retained for some
period, perhaps several years. To do otherwise would be unfair to residents and
extremely chaotic. If we have one Comprehensive Plan and one set of
Development Code and Zoning, would it make any sense to terminate the JPA?
The JPA worked well for many years. Then came the Mountain Coaster project and
the issue of commercial development in residential zones. I would argue that this
makes it even more crucial that we have consistent land use planning across the
Estes Valley. In many locations we have residential development close to our
remaining open areas that could potentially have commercial development.
Thoughtful planning, with an eye toward our valley-wide comprehensive plan and
development code, is needed to address commercial and residential development
projects when they are proposed.
4.In general statutes/laws/regulations/codes (rules) are designed to meet a specific
need. A need that has, in general, been worked out by citizen and not special
interest groups. The most important factor of having the rules work is enforcement.
When the rules are good and not supportive of special interest groups do we see
the corruption of government. Therefore it is very, very important to have in any
sets of rules the ability for independent, effective enforcement to happen and for
citizen recourse. Politics should not be the measure of truth and trust and any set
of the rules should have safeguards written in them to stop any political views from
taking over the rules or hamstringing them such that independent and effective
enforcement is blocked. One of the problems that the Estes community faced was
a rewrite of the rules in such a manner as to hide the true intent by having no
"legislative history" to fall back on when concerns or challenges arose. So, coming
up with a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGS) needs to full and complete
analysis of the impacts, cost, enforcement required and mechanisms and how
special interest groups have influenced the process to safeguard the corruption of
the rules (IGA). You ask, "well how do we do this?" It is simple to find guidelines
from other jurisdictions that have good, sound, and reasonable instructions and
formats for the production the rules ... go out and find them. Yes, implementing
79
such guidelines takes time, which means funding must be available to do the work.
(And speaking of funding it must also be allocated also for proper independent and
effective enforcement of the rules!) The reduction of funding is the primary way in
which politics control the agenda of making fair citizen based rules. So, if you are
not going to put funding and enforcement independence requirements in the IGA
you are on the road to produce another failed set of rules.
5.It is important to address both the interests of both the residents (mostly county
outside the the town, but including many in within town boundaries) and
commercial interests in arriving at an equitable land use plan. Most residents
outside the town want tranquil residential environment mostly made up of 5 or 10
acre single family plots. On the other hand the commercial interests, perhaps to
counter reduced traffic flow resulting from the potential rationing of visitors to rocky
mtn national park restrictions, are trying to find ways to make Estes park a
destination all its own. My fear is that the commercial interests will resort to a
dollyville, kings dominion, silver dollar city, knoebels or cedar point solution, while
something like stone mountain focusing on attractions derived from the history of
rnp and early estes valley would the destination venue i believe the commercial
interests want and will need. If the town relies highly visible attractions, they run the
risk of losing those who visit for the wildlife, scenery and nature and those who
moved to the valley for the same benefits. It should also be noted that the valley
can’t support more automobile traffic. We have a growing number of increasingly
dangerous air quality alerts, mostly ozone attributable to auto traffic. It’s a difficult
assignment to develop a plan that will appease most valley residents.
6.A replacement IGA should be sought. Cooperation between town and county are
essential for preserving the character of an area as tightly constrained by
geography as is the Estes Valley. The current IGA does not seem to have been
able to maintain a good balance between town and county interests in recent days.
The county’s willingness to defer to the towns administrative staff in important land
use decisions does not seem fair to the interests of county residents. The
development of a comprehensive plan for the Estes Valley is essential. Serious
thought needs to be given to just how much development the Estes Valley can
accommodate without negatively impacting commercial, community and
environmental interests, all three.
7.Although I will not be attending this evenings meeting, I want to thank you for
holding it and for your interest in soliciting feedback on this critically important topic.
80
As an Estes Valley resident, I have observed our current development plan
approach and its implementation as more and more of the Valley is dedicated to
multiple types of development, and have grown increasingly concerned as less and
less open land exists for either public parkland, conservation easements or
preserved wildlife habitat. I fear were on a path here that many other communities
have taken: we encourage development until the time has passed for any
meaningful preservation of what remains. As you know, this Valley is
environmentally critical as winter range for deer, elk, and other animals. In addition,
overall congestion in both the town and outlying areas continues to mount - we risk
creating a community where fewer want to visit, and where fewer still want to live. I
strongly encourage consideration of plans to partner with the Estes Valley Land
Trust and other agencies to purchase available parcels for protection and public
use. I further do not support any additional development in the Valley beyond town
limits. It’s time to transition from development efforts to quality of life goals that will
benefit residents, visitors, wildlife, and future generations.
8.Sidewalk -- parallel with W. Wonderview west of MacGregor
81
82
83
ATTACHMENT 11
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Estes Valley Planning Commission Recent History
Bob Leavit, 09/27/19
The following comments are mine alone and not those of the other EVPC members.
Among some of the elected officials a concern has been raised that the Town Board
and BOCC always override the Planning Commission, showing that they don’t see eye
to eye and can’t get along. Therefore, it is said we need separate Planning
Commissions for the Town and County. Upon reviewing the history of the EVPC I found
that the governing bodies and EVPC agreed on the vast majority of decisions brought
forward. What has happened is that three high profile cases are being remembered as
representing the body of decisions by the EVPC. In each case there were valid
concerns raised in the regulations and in the eyes of the community. In each of these
three cases there were valid concerns that needed to be addressed and differences of
opinion on the Development Code to sort through when weighing the options. Time
permitting, I could review all of these concerns and issues, but suffice it to say that each
development plan was addressed with a careful examination of the information
presented.
Going back to January, 2017 there have been 39 development proposals and 10
rezoning requests brought to the EVPC. Of these, 36 development plans and 8 zoning
requests were approved by the EVPC and none were overridden by the governing
bodies (Town Board or BOCC). Among the 36 development proposals and 8 rezoning
requests that were approved there were some controversial projects with strong public
opposition. The majority had at least some public opposition. Nevertheless the EVPC
approved them. One rezoning action was denied by the EVPC and upheld by the Town
Board. One other rezoning request was denied by the EVPC and deferred by the BOCC
due to annexation question and never resubmitted. In no way can this be characterized
as an EVPC that always disagrees with the governing bodies. What can be said is that
we agree most of the time but in the case of three highly controversial development
plans we did not agree.
Here are some recent things we have agreed on.
●Most recently the EVPC and Town staff agreed on the Parks and Rec code
amendment. This would never have reached completion without the active
participation by the EVPC and the result was a compromise that most can live
with.
●The EVPC recently approved WildFire Acres project. A large well- planned
project combining multifamily and single family dwellings in a creative
arrangement that minimizes the impact on surrounding neighborhoods. The
EVPC also approved rezoning this parcel to RM - multifamily. Both actions had
significant neighborhood opposition.
●The EVPC approved a rezoning of a 10 acres parcel to 2 ½ acre parcels for a
property in the north end. This had strong neighborhood opposition but the EVPC
nevertheless approved it because the proposed usage is consistent with nearby
neighborhoods.
Going back over the last two years here are some notable areas of agreement.
●Neighborhood meetings in the pre-app stage of a proposed development are
now in code. They were pushed by the EVPC and gained the enthusiastic
support of Town staff.
●Posting of Development Plan Under Review signs on properties under review
and distributing clearly written letters (not postcards) in a wider radius from the
property in question. Again this was with the Town staff’s full support.
●Numerous developer friendly code amendments including a building height
bonus to couple with the existing density bonus.
The makeup of the EVPC has been criticized. On the current EVPC we have 2 property
developers, 1 young small business owner, 2 retirees and a semi-retired geologist.
There is an open position for the Town that has remained unfilled since January 2019. If
filled, it could add even more diversity to the EVPC. The 4 to 3 member representation
in favor of the County has also been criticized. Suffice it to say that the voting record
and record of deliberations of the EVPC show that there is no Town or County bias. The
EVPC views itself as representing the entire Estes Valley. In spite of the fact that this is
clearly a non-issue, if the governing bodies think it still has merit, then reverse the
representation to be 4 Town and 3 County. The EVPC will still function the same.
Planning Commissions are designed to be independent bodies within their jurisdictions.
A Planning Commission is not supposed to rubber stamp the proposals put forth by
Town or County staff. Their job is to dig into the proposals and provide
recommendations to elected officials based on their best assessment of the information
at hand and using the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan (where appropriate)
as guidance. It is normal for Planning Commission to disagree with elected officials on
occasion. If the disagreements become frequent then there is a problem that needs to
be addressed. What I have shown in this paper is that the EVPC and elected officials
agree on most of the land use issues brought to the EVPC and that the EVPC, Town &
County staff, and elected officials can work together effectively on land use matters in
the Estes Valley
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Frank Theis <ftheis3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION
To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>
Randy,
I just watched the Town Board discussion re. the IGA. It occurred to me that one revision to the IGA which would address the
concern that the Joint Planning Commission doesn't adequately represent Town residents, is to simply change the number of
appointed Commissioners to reflect the population ratio in the Estes Valley. In that case, if 28% of the overall population lives
in the County and 72% lives in the Town, the County Commissioners would appoint two members and the Town Board would
appoint five members of a Joint Planning Commission.
Just food for thought,
Frank
PS - I have no idea what the actual population ratio is.
10/1/2019
1
SEPT 30, 2019
THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING AREA:
IGA OPTIONS
OBJECTIVES FOR TOWN/COUNTY IGA
1.Work for a shared future vision – long range
Comprehensive Plan for “one Estes Valley”
2.Allow community and stakeholders to give input and be
informed
3.Detail roles and responsibilities for transition of staff,
elected officials, and appointed bodies, if changes
occur.
4.Implement seamless development review and
compliance; consistently administer regulations in
Estes Valley Planning Area
5.Concentrate town-level development in certain areas
and define rural
1
2
10/1/2019
2
DRAFT IGA OPTIONS
Two possibilities:
•Option A – Extend the current IGA for a year
•Option B – Renewed cooperative planning
IGA
OPTION A: SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
EXTEND CURRENT IGA
•Attachment 2 (p. 9)
•Extends the current IGA with its five amendments.
•Terms:
•Extends the IGA until February 2021.
•County starts to process land use applications in
unincorporated area (no compensation to Town).
•All other aspects of the IGA remain in full force.
3
4
10/1/2019
3
CURRENT IGA (ATTACHMENT 11, P. 83)
1.Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan for the Planning Area jointly
adopted (uniform land use classification and administrative
procedure) (p. 83)
2.Estes Valley Development Code jointly adopted (p. 83)
3.Joint EV Planning Commission (p. 84)
4.Joint EV Board of Adjustment (p. 85)
5.Development within the Valley, Annexation policies (p. 86-87)
6.Development Compliance (p. 88)
7.Fees (p. 88)
8.Duties and Responsibilities of EVPC (p. 89)
9.Staffing and Costs, and Improvement Guarantees (p. 89-92)
CURRENT IGA, AMENDMENTS (P. 95)
1.Dec. 2003 (p. 95) –Extended the Agreement for another 10
years (to Feb. 1, 2020). Adds alternate member for EVBOA.
2.First Amendment, Feb. 2010 (p. 97) –EVPC officers (chair
and vice chair and terms), and recommendations so that land use
decisions are advisory. Staffing and costs also amended. Deleted
“transition” section. Extended term for another 10 years.
3.Second Amendment, Nov. 2014 (p. 100) –Officers
modified. Alternate member section deleted.
4.Third Amendment, Mar. 2015 (p. 102) –Officers modified
again.
5.Fourth Amendment, Jan. 2017 (p. 104) –Addresses Host
Compliance Software and Services for vacation rentals and costs.
5
6
10/1/2019
4
OPTION B:REFRESHED IGA
•For Land Use Planning and Related Issues for
the Estes Valley - Attachment 3 (p. 11)
•A framework for a cooperative vision, plan, and
development review for Estes Valley Planning
Area.
•County initiated first version;
Town changes shown in red
OPTION B:REFRESHED IGA, CONT.
Sec. 2 – Adoption of Plans, Regulations (p. 14-15)
•Defines how we will jointly update the Comprehensive
Plan through 2021.
•Maintains Estes Valley Planning Area (JPA).
•Carries forward Land Use and Zoning Designations.
Sec. 3 – Land Use Regulations, Fees (p. 15-16)
•Presumes two Land Use Codes but that they are
coordinated; carry forward the current EVDC zoning
districts, uses, and standards for unincorporated area
Sec. 4 – Parties’ Roles (p. 17-18)
•In Development Review and Compliance (Table p. 18)
7
8
10/1/2019
5
OPTION B: REFRESHED IGA, CONT.
Sec. 5 – Development Review Approvals (p. 19 and
Attachment 4)
•Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment
•Options to keep joint boards or transition
Sec. 6 - Annexation
•Needs further discussion - later
Sec. 7 – 12 implementation, performance, amendments
and terms.
•5-year term.
9
10
10/1/2019
6
SEC. 5 – BOARD TRANSITIONS
Attachment 4 (p. 25)
•Transitional Estes Valley Planning Commission (p. 25)
•To address development applications that are in the “pipeline”
•Serve as members of Comprehensive Plan Advisory Board
•Transitional EVBOA (p. 26)
•Also for projects in the pipeline
•New Town and County Planning Commissions
•New Town and County Board of Adjustment
COMPARISON
1.template
Current (Option A) New Approach (Option B)
Term 1 year 5 years; will need to be
amended when plan is done
Joint Planning Area
Retains current boundary Retains current boundary
Plan Retains current plan Retains current plans; defines
how to update the plan jointly
Regulations Retains current EVDC Defines how to carry forward
EVDC into two codes
EV Planning Commission
and Board of Adjustment
Retains current structure Can retain current structure
or adopt new; addresses
transition
Staffing and
administering
development review
County planning staff will do
development review in
unincorporated area starting
2020
County planning staff will do
development review in
unincorporated area starting
2020
Annexation Retains current policies Mostly retains current
policies; will need to be
further defined
11
12
10/1/2019
7
MAKING THIS WORK - MECHANICS
Define “edge of town” through comp plan.
Code(s) – For unincorporated area, carry forward EVDC:
•Zoning districts with allowed land use uses
•Dimensions (density, height, setbacks)
•Development standards, such as:
•Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes
•Ridgeline Protection Standards (including map)
•Grading and Site Disturbance Standards
•Tree and Vegetation Protection
•Wildlife Habitat Protection
•Exterior Lighting
•Wildfire Hazard (map)
•Geologic Hazards (map)
QUESTIONS AND DIRECTION
•Seeking direction toward an option
•If Option A, can give direction to approve as is or
make changes.
•If Option B, suggest changes or modifications,
especially to:
•Adoption of plan and definition of town limits
•Joint or Independent Code
•Roles for Boards
•Inaction means IGA expires.
13
14
10/1/2019
8
REFERENCE MAPS
15
B m
________
c
0 t-.o°D)
-n Co
C
--I -I
C 0 3
m D 0 I
o ;go —
0 w Z
CD —r —3-3-a 0 Co
z
0 o0 =
o m0
3 macag1a—I
CD —o ‘<rnci ,•1cr-c
>E °E 0
z oO a-
CD
(p3C CD (DO
OD Z 03a3c
—F..)
zoO
—r(03 CD ==—
0m3-1 a-o Cmm0
CO 3 3 0
-I
r
-‘0
5.mr-I zm4-
CD 0 tM
.-
3-0DCD
Co
0 —4-
-,00
4-0
,
Estes Valley Planning Commission Recent History
Bob Leavit, 09/27/19
The following comments are mine alone and not those of the other EVPC members.
Among some of the elected officials a concern has been raised that the Town Board
and BOCC always override the Planning Commission, showing that they don’t see eye
to eye and can’t get along. Therefore, it is said we need separate Planning
Commissions for the Town and County. Upon reviewing the history of the EVPC I found
that the governing bodies and EVPC agreed on the vast majority of decisions brought
forward. What has happened is that three high profile cases are being remembered as
representing the body of decisions by the EVPC. In each case there were valid
concerns raised in the regulations and in the eyes of the community. In each of these
three cases there were valid concerns that needed to be addressed and differences of
opinion on the Development Code to sort through when weighing the options. Time
permitting, I could review all of these concerns and issues, but suffice it to say that each
development plan was addressed with a careful examination of the information
presented.
Going back to January, 2017 there have been 39 development proposals and 10
rezoning requests brought to the EVPC. Of these, 36 development plans and 8 zoning
requests were approved by the EVPC and none were overridden by the governing
bodies (Town Board or BOCC). Among the 36 development proposals and 8 rezoning
requests that were approved there were some controversial projects with strong public
opposition. The majority had at least some public opposition. Nevertheless the EVPC
approved them. One rezoning action was denied by the EVPC and upheld by the Town
Board. One other rezoning request was denied by the EVPC and deferred by the BOCC
due to annexation question and never resubmitted. In no way can this be characterized
as an EVPC that always disagrees with the governing bodies. What can be said is that
we agree most of the time but in the case of three highly controversial development
plans we did not agree.
Here are some recent things we have agreed on.
●Most recently the EVPC and Town staff agreed on the Parks and Rec code
amendment. This would never have reached completion without the active
participation by the EVPC and the result was a compromise that most can live
with.
●The EVPC recently approved WildFire Acres project. A large well- planned
project combining multifamily and single family dwellings in a creative
arrangement that minimizes the impact on surrounding neighborhoods. The
EVPC also approved rezoning this parcel to RM - multifamily. Both actions had
significant neighborhood opposition.
●The EVPC approved a rezoning of a 10 acres parcel to 2 ½ acre parcels for a
property in the north end. This had strong neighborhood opposition but the EVPC
nevertheless approved it because the proposed usage is consistent with nearby
neighborhoods.
Going back over the last two years here are some notable areas of agreement.
●Neighborhood meetings in the pre-app stage of a proposed development are
now in code. They were pushed by the EVPC and gained the enthusiastic
support of Town staff.
●Posting of Development Plan Under Review signs on properties under review
and distributing clearly written letters (not postcards) in a wider radius from the
property in question. Again this was with the Town staff’s full support.
●Numerous developer friendly code amendments including a building height
bonus to couple with the existing density bonus.
The makeup of the EVPC has been criticized. On the current EVPC we have 2 property
developers, 1 young small business owner, 2 retirees and a semi-retired geologist.
There is an open position for the Town that has remained unfilled since January 2019. If
filled, it could add even more diversity to the EVPC. The 4 to 3 member representation
in favor of the County has also been criticized. Suffice it to say that the voting record
and record of deliberations of the EVPC show that there is no Town or County bias. The
EVPC views itself as representing the entire Estes Valley. In spite of the fact that this is
clearly a non-issue, if the governing bodies think it still has merit, then reverse the
representation to be 4 Town and 3 County. The EVPC will still function the same.
Planning Commissions are designed to be independent bodies within their jurisdictions.
A Planning Commission is not supposed to rubber stamp the proposals put forth by
Town or County staff. Their job is to dig into the proposals and provide
recommendations to elected officials based on their best assessment of the information
at hand and using the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan (where appropriate)
as guidance. It is normal for Planning Commission to disagree with elected officials on
occasion. If the disagreements become frequent then there is a problem that needs to
be addressed. What I have shown in this paper is that the EVPC and elected officials
agree on most of the land use issues brought to the EVPC and that the EVPC, Town &
County staff, and elected officials can work together effectively on land use matters in
the Estes Valley
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Frank Theis <ftheis3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION
To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>
Randy,
I just watched the Town Board discussion re. the IGA. It occurred to me that one revision to the IGA which would address the
concern that the Joint Planning Commission doesn't adequately represent Town residents, is to simply change the number of
appointed Commissioners to reflect the population ratio in the Estes Valley. In that case, if 28% of the overall population lives
in the County and 72% lives in the Town, the County Commissioners would appoint two members and the Town Board would
appoint five members of a Joint Planning Commission.
Just food for thought,
Frank
PS - I have no idea what the actual population ratio is.