Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2019-02-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Robert Foster, Steve Murphree, Frank Theis Attending: Leavitt, White, Smith, and Theis Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner I Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Foster, Murphree Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 40 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 4-0. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of February 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Approval of February 19, 2019 Study Session minutes It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 4-0. 5. RESOLUTION: JOINT PLANNING AREA and PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF REPRSENTATION Chair Leavitt briefly outlined the proposed Resolution in Support of the Continuance of the Joint Planning Area. Public Comment: Tom Gootz, 2855 Grey Fox, in complete support of continuing the Joint Planning Area. Mike Kennedy, 2550 Devils Gulch Road, inherent problem of the town and county not having the same objectives; town wants commercial developments, county citizens want to preserve their residential tranquility. Joint areas don’t address opposing views. Citizens of county need support and advice independent of the town. Dave Converse, 2119 McGraw Ranch Road, in support of the resolution. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 Jim Swaney, 1579 Jacob Road, doesn’t object to the joint process, but does not agree with how it is conducted. Commission comments: Smith supports the Joint Planning Area but agrees with some of the concerns of County residents. White supports the IGA continuation stating it works well for the Estes Valley. Theis supports the resolution and noted that it can be frustrating using a different building department, but the same planning department. The Planning Commission is the sounding board for the public and without the IGA, county residents would have to go to the Larimer County Planning Commission. Leavitt stated that we are one valley in terms of a community and people and concerns are across the entire valley. Separating land use planning from all the other joint planning seems to be backwards. There are issues that need to be addressed and resolved in the IGA, but the Joint Planning Area should stand. It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to approve the Joint Planning Area Resolution as presented and the motion passed 4-0. Chair Leavitt reviewed the Proposal to Address the Lack of Representation, breaking it down into two parts. 1) Modify the Estes Park development codes to have all development projects with community wide impacts be reviewed and approved by the EVPC rather than the Community Development Staff. 2) Requirement that all appeals of development plan decisions be reviewed and approved by both the Town Trustees and County Commissioners in separate hearings, which is already being done for Code changes. Development decisions are quasi-judicial, Code changes are legislative in nature Attorney W hite stated that point number two is not legally sustainable as written in Colorado. Ultimate power to approve land use is retained individually between the Town Board and the County Commissioners. Leavitt added that perhaps this would be an advisory role, rather than an approval role for the governing bodies to weigh in on. Theis stated that he thinks the resolution needs to be refined. White recommended a continuance to March. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to continue the Proposal to Address the Lack of Representation Resolution as presented to the March 19, 2019 meeting. The motion passed 4-0. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS Planner Becker reviewed the objective of the By-Law’s amendment. The previous update was done in 2014. This update’s main focus is on Planning Commission meeting start times to allow for a greater number of public to attend. Staff recommended April as a date for notification of the new times, to be effective with the May 21 meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 Commission Discussion: 99% of changes are a cleaning up of previous by-law versions. The intent is to move to evening meetings and monitor attendance for six months. Another change is following the State Statutes on dealing with conflicts of interest. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Smith) to approve the updated By-Laws and the motion passed 4-0. 7. ESTABLISH START TIME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND STUDY SESSION This change came about from public requests of wanting to attend meetings but unable to due to the afternoon time. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/White) to set the Study Session start time to 3:30 p.m. and meeting start time to 6:00 p.m., ending by 10:00 p.m. unless otherwise voted to extend, for the remainder of the year, with a review after six months, effective May 1, 2019 and the motion passed 4-0. 8. CODE AMENDMENT: VACATION HOMES AND BED AND BREAKFAST INNS Request to continue to March, 2019 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to continue the Vacation Homes and Bed and Breakfast Code Amendments to March. The motion passed 4-0. 9. CODE AMENDMENT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY Director Hunt stated that it is staffs request to continue the item to a later meeting, but to review and allow public comment at this meeting. There is no time line or deadline for this subject. He reviewed the code amendment and the recent discussions regarding it. This would remove some but not all comprehensive plan references and review criteria from the Development Code. Traditional planning, broadly speaking, has two types of actions to be taken: Ministerial, which are administrative actions, would remove comp plan references as criteria (variances, development plans, temporary uses/structures, Location and Extent reviews, final subdivision plats) and Legislative, which are discretionary actions, would keep comp plan references. Public Comment: Tom Gootz, concerned about what has already been taken out of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically Section 7.8, Wildlife Habitats. In 2008 an updated map of Wildlife Habitat areas, protecting Big Horn Sheep and Raptors was published. This is not what people want. There are far reaching effects that must be paid attention to. Committee Discussion: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Need a closer look to fully understand the ministerial changes. Theis agreed in principle with Tom Gootz on the wrongful removal of wildlife habitat, and we need to be sure a requirement of wildlife habitats are in plan reviews. It is unknown at this point what comp plan will look like in the future. It was moved and seconded (White/Theis) to continue the Code Amendment of Comprehensive Plan Consistency to March, 2019. The motion passed 4-0. 10. CODE AMENDMENT: PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES Chair Leavitt stated that he authored the conceptual plan written in an effort to generate discussion not a proposal, and in an attempt to avoid unintended consequences. He added that he didn’t sign his name, and Director Hunt was not involved. Staff recommended continuance of the Park and Recreation Code Amendment. Public Comment: Mike Kennedy, asked why we are putting emphasis on commercial development in residential districts. Mark Gunther, 421 Ridgeview Lane, hopes that any future code changes would be such that if we are looking at a commercial project in a residential area the code not allow it. Geoff Letchworth, 1726 Devils Gulch Road, there is no protection for open space land becoming developed. Tom Gootz, Table 4.1 includes many Commercial uses allowed in Residential zones and this needs to be considered. Ed Degan, 2534 Devils Gulch, delineation between residential and commercial is what people like and want. Virginia Page, 1861 Raven Ave, residential should mean residential, protect Estes Park or it won’t be Estes Park anymore. Diane Ernst, 148 Stanley Circle, appreciates what was said at the Study Session. Thanks to the Planning Commission for hearing the public. Commission Discussion: It was agreed that this is an incomplete process, and the emails have been received and heard and taken seriously, give and take will be necessary to make this all work. Recreation does not have to mean commercial. No code can anticipate every scenario that may come up. It is the hope of the PC to clarify as best we can and allow for temporary uses and keep residential residential. A complete proposal will be forthcoming. The moratorium is in place until April. Theis thinks there should be little if any commercial in residential areas. It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to continue the Code Amendment for Park and Recreation Facilities to March, 2019. The motion passed 4-0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 11. REPORTS: Director Hunt A) Two amendments for later study session: minimum number of parking spaces for development reviews, and Neighborhood and Community meeting notification updates and sign requirements. B) Planning Technician will be hired to help with work load. C) Planning Commission vacancy for a Town resident. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary