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
• 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
• 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
• 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 development 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
• 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
• 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?
• 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
• 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 the wildlife corridors, protect our assets
• 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
• 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
• 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 review 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