Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJoint TB CC EVPC Study Session 2010-08-30 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 30, 2010 Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD, LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Holiday Inn in Salon E & F in said Town of Estes Park on the 30th day of August, 2010. Town Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Levine and Miller County Commission Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter Planning Commission Commissioners Hull, Klink, Lane, Norris, Poggenpohl and Tucker Also Attending: County Manager Lancaster, Chief County Planner Legg, Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk Williamson, Director Joseph and Planners Shirk and Chilcott Absent: County Commissioner Johnson and Planning Commissioner Fraundorf Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PAST YEARS ACCOMPLISHMENT. Planning Commission Chair Norris reviewed the accomplishments of the past year, including the development and use of a problem statement template, review of statutory role of the Planning Commission and how it relates to the Town Board and County Commission, and a new emphasis on communication through the Town Board liaison to the Planning Commission. The group discussed areas that are working well:  A collaborative Planning Commission that is effective and result-oriented.  Working relationship is good between the Board and Planning Commission; however, disagreements should be handled respectfully. Important to acknowledge and agree to disagree in a professional manner.  Problem statement has work well and allows for a formal written explanation with legislative input.  Planning Commission members are open and express their opinions. Comments are not intended to be personal.  The enhanced community outreach, Mayor Chat, Commissioner Donnelly community meetings and public hearings by Planning Commission have been beneficial.  The vetting of the issues by the Planning Commission and the Town Board prior to the County Commission is a helpful and allows the Commissioners to focus on the main issues. The group discussed areas of improvement:  Need to develop a process for dealing with difficult legislative issues in which all three Board/Commissions can be involved. Issues are reviewed first by the Town Board with no input from the County Commissioners. Members of the Planning Commission would like to receive input from the County as well. Town Board Study Session – August 30, 2010 – Page 2  Planning Commissioners need to understand whether appointed by the Town or the County, they represent the entire valley.  Concern with the Town Board and the County Commissioners hearing issues with a different subset of constituents, and not receiving the same input Planning Commission hears. It was noted the process of reviewing issues with the Town Board followed by the County Commissioners has been an informal tradition that has worked well for the past 10 years.  Town Board has directed Planning Commission to review an issue with the expectation of a certain outcome. Planning Commission continues to address issues and develop the best outcome for the valley.  Planning Commission is advisory to the elected officials and their role is to provide a recommendation on issues that can be changed by the elected officials. The group outlined suggestions on how to address concerns raised:  Continue to use the problem statement. Identify difficult issues up front and hold joint meeting to discuss before Planning Commission begins a review of the issue.  Town Board staff reports should be forwarded to the County Commissioners for concurrent review.  Representation at Town Board and County Commission meetings by staff and a Planning Commissioner to provide an overview of the public comment and discussion heard at the Planning Commission meetings.  Town Board Liaison should facilitate ongoing communication between the Board and Planning Commission early in the process on difficult issues to provide feedback as the Planning Commission evaluates options. The Board agreed this would be helpful and suggested a bullet list of issues be brought forward to discuss at a Town Board meeting or study session.  A County Commissioner Liaison present at Planning Commission meetings.  Hold joint public meetings on code changes in an effort to provide the same information and public input to both the Town Board and the County Commission.  Joint study sessions with all three entities should be held to discuss difficult issues to identify key concerns before Planning Commission begins researching and discussing the issue. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Planning Commission Chair Norris reviewed the findings of the Comprehensive Plan Committee. The plan as a whole continues to be valid; however, several areas need to be addressed as they relate to housing, traffic, historic preservation and sustainability. Funding for a new plan or major overhaul would not be available. The Town Board and County Commission consensus is the plan as a whole is good and needs some updating. Discussion followed and is summarized:  Sustainability is too broad a term and needs to be narrowed. Look at the issue from a macro level as it relates to economic viability and infrastructure. It was suggested scenario development be used to address sustainability.  A comprehensive plan requires public input and should be considered when discussing the process as it moves forward.  The population of the valley has changed dramatically since the adoption of the plan; therefore, public input on the vision statement should be heard. The current population would like to see the Town move away from a tourist based community and not grow the shoulder season.  Planning Commission should take the lead on developing the process to update the plan and communicate it to the elected officials for consideration. Town Board Study Session – August 30, 2010 – Page 3  The plan should be updated every 10 years to identify specific issues that need to be addressed such as sustainability through economic, environmental and social impacts. These issues directly impact land use.  Need to identify potential commercial land, redevelopment opportunities and commercial businesses that could be attracted to Estes Park in an effort to develop a non-tourist economy.  Issues are already being reviewed by other entities; therefore, the Planning Commission should not work on the issues separately. The Commission should coordinate with the separate groups and use the information developed to update the plan.  Public input may identify other issues that should be addressed other than those determined by the subcommittee. SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS. Director Joseph updated the group on the recent effort to permit vacation rentals in the entire Estes valley. He stated staff has completed the first round of public outreach and anticipates initiating a second round in September. The next phase would be addressing those businesses/property owners not registered. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk