Other than tweaking some language, a policy guiding decisions on how annexation proposals are viewed by both the Estes Park Town Board and the Estes Park Planning Commission in the future will not change significantly. However, streamlining processes related to the town’s revised development code, which is currently being written, may require some adjustments in the future.
Both subjects were the focus of the Town Board and Planning Commission members when they met in a joint study session on Tuesday. No final decisions were made regarding the content of either document.
Annexation Policy
Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck said that while the annexation policy serves as a guiding framework for decision-making, it is not a regulatory document, and the Board will have discretion to consider annexations.
Based on an April discussion, Hornbeck outlined two altered items for the joint consideration: annexation of enclaves and pre-annexation agreements.
Enclaves are parcels of land that have been surrounded by the Town for more than three years. The Town may annex these areas without the owners’ consent on a case-by-case basis. According to the policy, “Annexation of enclaves promotes the efficient delivery of government services and coordinated land use planning. It also helps avoid a fragmented approach that can occur when multiple jurisdictions govern a small area.”
Under pre-annexation agreements, Hornbeck explained, property owners commit to annex their land into town limits, once it becomes eligible, often in exchange for Town water. Water fees are higher for properties outside of Town limits than for those within Town limits.
Guiding principles outlined in the annexation policy are based on premises established in the Comprehensive Plan and include protecting the natural and built environments, the economy, housing, health, social well-being, and transportation and infrastructure within the Estes Valley.
Trustees raised minor questions regarding certain word choices, vagueness, and placement of guidelines within the policy. However, they were ultimately supportive of the annexation policy, with a few minor adjustments, including the removal of the health and social well-being section, which they said should always be considered in any decision made by the Town Board.
Also included in the annexation policy is a municipal code amendment requiring properties to meet Town standards for water service before being annexed into the town. Including the requirement prevents the Town from becoming responsible for properties with substandard utilities, according to Hornbeck.
Development Review Process
Consultants from Design Workshop provided an overview of potential early-stage changes that could result from regulatory and process code changes.
Senior Associate of Design Workshop Eric Krohngold said the goal was to “identify where certain responsibilities may be reallocated from Town Board or planning commission staff.”
Krohngold said actions are based on a goal of streamlining certain processes, minimizing regulatory obligations, and ensuring compliance with Proposition 123 and state requirements.
Proposition 123, passed by Colorado voters in 2022, redirects existing income tax revenue to fund affordable housing programs. Local governments that opted in, such as Estes Park, must commit to a 3% increase in affordable housing.
The proposed updates to how development regulations are handled aim to craft faster, clearer review processes that are modernized, user-friendly, and better aligned with the Comprehensive Plan and state housing requirements, Krohngold said.
Proposed updates to the Development Code include staff approval for streamlining minor subdivisions and projects, such as small adjustments to setbacks or parking. Major projects, such as final plats, density changes, rezoning, and large subdivisions that contain more than four lots, will still be considered by the Town Board.
The proposed updates also include moving final plats and Planned Unit Developments to the Board’s consent agenda. This would streamline the process but would also eliminate the opportunity for public comment and Board discussions on final plans. Preliminary plats and major amendments would still require discussion by the Town Board and public comment.
Mayor Gary Hall and Trustee Frank Lancaster raised concerns about moving the final plats to the Board’s consent agenda and agreed that, even if the plats were not controversial, they should at least be discussed. Town Attorney Daniel Kramer stated that additional legal review would be necessary before this update could be approved.
With several new changes in the early stages of updates to the development review process, more details are still to be reviewed regarding which developments will fall under staff, the planning commission, or require the Town Board’s approval. However, Trustees agreed they want to prioritize clear opportunities for public engagement.
Another joint study session on commercial design guidelines will take place in November, and housing classifications will be addressed in a December study session.