6:30 P.M. BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING

Mayor Leon Tenney called the Special Joint Meeting of the Board of Trustees and the Planning Commission of the Town of Monument, El Paso County, Colorado, to order at 6:30 P.M. on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at the Town Hall.

CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Planning Commission Chairperson Betty Konarski brought to the Board's attention that the memos from Town Manager Rick Sonnenburg and from Town Attorney Gary Shupp contain conflicting information regarding the number of members assembled at a meeting requiring notice. Shupp responded that Sonnenburg's memo accurately reflects that three or more members assembled is a meeting which requires notice. However, Mayor Tenney stated that if the main event of a meeting is a meal, then there would not be a notice requirement even if three or more members are present. Shupp added that social occasions or events of three or more members are exempt by statute.

Mayor Tenney informed the Board that on Tuesday, May 23, 2000 there will be a meeting at the Governor's Office regarding the Monument Lake Dam Bill, and those Board members who are interested may attend.

Discussion of the Planning Process

Mayor Tenney informed the Board two sets of checklists were prepared to aid in the planning process: one for the developer and one for internal use. Mayor Tenney stated that Trustee Wilcox researched the Town's Ordinances and has determined that there is a five-day requirement for Applicants to submit their documents prior to their public hearing in order to allow for Engineering and Legal Review.

Mayor Tenney stated that according to Shupp, if the Planning Commission continues a public hearing item, that item is not automatically continued for the Board of Trustees but needs to be noticed separately.

Konarski suggested that since it is a prerequisite for the new Public Works Director to have an Engineering degree, that individual could perhaps be the Town's Engineer. Mayor Tenney responded that it is difficult to find an individual with an Engineering degree who is willing to accept the pay which the Town can offer; therefore the Town may accept someone to this position who has either an Engineer degree or an Engineer-related degree. Mayor Tenney informed the Board that the Town is re-advertising for the Director of Public Works position and may have someone fill this position within the next six weeks.

A lengthy discussion followed regarding the planning process. Trustee DeLaney voiced his opinion that the developer should have everything in place before his project is taken before the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission should then review the project and then it would go to the Board. Shupp stated that the Board may develop a planning process which allows for adequate review. Sonnenburg suggested that there be a planning process time sequence as follows: application received by staff, review by GMS Engineering and other Consultants, review by the Public Works Committee, Parks and Landscape Committee and Police Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission would set its agenda and notice the item for a Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission would review the project at a meeting, the Board would set its agenda and notice the item for hearing and then hear the item.

Mayor Tenney stated that the current 'one-size-fits-all' process should be customized for the various kinds of applications (i.e., a minor change should not have to go through the public hearing process.) Shupp confirmed that an item such as a boundary change could be approved by the Town staff and would not need a public hearing; zoning changes, on the other hand, would have to go before the Board. Shupp suggested that the Town could implement a three-tiered process: administrative level items, minor subdivision items and major subdivision items. Mayor Tenney stated that with due process, an Applicant could appeal to go before the Board. Shupp informed the Board that a referendum is always a possibility (typically through a petition process and then voted on by registered electors.) For example, Shupp stated that the City Council for the City of Woodland Park approved a WalMart for Woodland Park but the electors of the City voted against it with a referendum.

Mayor Tenney stated that the Board and the Planning Commission would each develop their own agendas and may decide to hold a Special Meeting if necessary to hear a particular planning item. Trustee Smith asked the Planning Commission members whether they have adequate time to review materials prior to hearing an item and Commissioner Leon Johnson responded that they generally do not. Several Commissioners suggested a week would be adequate. Trustee Smith suggested that there be a timeline for the project to move through each of the Committees.

Mayor Tenney suggested that the Applicant receive a checklist, be given one or two months to fulfill the requirements as listed on the checklist, and then the project would go to the Planning Commission. Mayor Tenney stated that in researching history, it appears that it took developers several months before their projects were approved (especially for larger proposals.) Mayor Tenney voiced his concern that with the current process, an Applicant's project may reach the public hearing point before each agency has given comments on the application.

Konarski questioned how the proposed process is different from the current process besides the fact that a few names have been added to the checklist. Mayor Tenney responded that it may not be very different, but the Town will need to look at enforcing the process. There was a brief discussion regarding the Builders and Developers Handbook. Shupp stated that the Builders and Developers Handbook is technically not legally binding and it may be better if the Town does not distribute these to the Applicant but rather gives them a copy of the Ordinance.

Konarski suggested that two more date lines be added to the checklist to reflect when an item is sent and when it is returned. Konarski also stated that she was told that the planning process would be computerized, and Mayor Tenney stated that it is important to have a 'paper trail' in the records. Mayor Tenney stated that the Town must first take care of the basics and then look into computerization because in the past there were no clear records kept. For example, 2 years ago no one knew who owned water taps in Town.

Mayor Tenney distributed a handout from Shupp regarding the City of Woodland Park's policy which sets a limit of five public hearings (only two of which may be major subdivision hearings) per meeting. Mayor Tenney stated that there has not been compliance with the planning process and this must change. Shupp stated that the Town can not force an agency to review something, and it would not want to hold up the planning process by requiring a certain agency to review a project.

Mayor Tenney suggested that the Town may want to limit the number of public hearings held per meeting, and also define what a major subdivision is. Mayor Tenney suggested that 5 working days prior to the public hearing, information be distributed to the Board and 5 working days prior to that, the staff should receive the information. The Board discussed various timelines for the review process. Shupp suggested that the Board not specify to the Consultants that they have only a certain number of days to review the materials but rather that the Town must have comments back a certain number of days before a meeting.

It was discussed that there is a 15 day public notice requirement for public hearings. Mayor Tenney suggested that the developer be responsible for getting the notice to the Town Clerk in time to meet the requirements for the hearing. Shupp suggested that the Board not require the developer to get the notice to the Clerk but rather have staff ensure that the notice is met. Mayor Tenney then suggested that the applicant be required to submit documents to staff in such a manner that staff have 30 days public notice and Consultant review.

Sonnenburg asked whether the Board would wish to set an absolute number of conditions which may be tied to a project, and Shupp suggested that the Board not do this because many conditions may arise for a project, and many of them may be minor conditions. Shupp further suggested that the Board not commit themselves to a particular process but rather see how things evolve and decide what works best.

Mayor Tenney summarized the results of the planning process discussion as follows: there would be a 30-day requirement for the developer to get documents to staff, the process would be on a first-come-first-served basis (those applicants who submit their complete documents first would be heard first,) there would be a limit of five (5) public hearings per meeting, two of which could be major subdivision hearings, staff would review the checklist and would be responsible for noticing the public hearing, the Consultants would review the project before the subcommittees' review and each subcommittee would review the project prior to the Planning Commission.

Next, the Board discussed the procedure for Applicant continuances. The Board agreed that an Ordinance should be drafted which indicates that an applicant would be allowed up to three continuances. In addition, they agreed that the applicant should be given a deadline of 12 months to meet the necessary requirements in the planning process.

The Board also discussed impact fees. Mayor Tenney stated that the Board must have everything in order by July 17 in order to allow new applicants to move forward once the moratorium is lifted. According to Mayor Tenney, Integrated Utilities Group is looking at possible impact fees for the Town, and their services would cost the Town between $16,000 and $20,000. Mayor Tenney voiced his opinion that it would be worth spending this money in order to protect the Town against possible lawsuits regarding impact fees. Mayor Tenney suggested that by mid-June the Board have a list of impact fees to approve or disapprove. The Board agreed to add an item to the May 25 Special Meeting agenda to expend the money for the impact fees review.

Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Process

Mayor Tenney informed the Board that 12 people have submitted letters of intent to serve on the Planning Steering Committee. Representatives from various organizations around Town were invited to join the Committee (i.e., TriView Metro District, Forest Lakes District, various Homeowners Associations, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.) Mayor Tenney reminded the Board that the Planning Steering Committee would have four subcommittees, and he suggested that each Town Committee nominate one of its members to serve on one of these committees also. Mayor Tenney anticipates that the Planning Steering Committee will hold its organizational meeting the last week of May or early June. Sonnenburg informed the Board that two consultants have responded to the ad to work on the Comprehensive Plan project, and staff will try to get others to respond in order to have some competition.

Mayor Tenney stated that because of the Tri-Lakes Comprehensive Plan and the I-25 Vision as proposed by County Commissioner Duncan Bremar, the Town may need to require some covenants around Town in order to have a consistent look. Mayor Tenney suggested that several items be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan such as the Monument Lake Preservation Committee's vision, the TriView Metro District vision and the I-25 corridor vision. Mayor Tenney further stated that the Town must decide what kind of community they would like to portray.

Trustee Smith asked the members of the Planning Commission whether they would meet in June to review the Committee's bylaws and the members agreed to hold a meeting in June in order to discuss this as well as the results of the May 25 meeting.

There being no further business, at 8:46 p.m. Trustee Wilcox moved to adjourn the meeting of the Board of Trustees; seconded by Trustee Smith; motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Audrey Auer

Town Clerk