Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2017-05-16RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 16, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Chair Michael Moon, Vice-Chair Russ Schneider, Commissioners Betty Hull, Doug Klink, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Bob Leavitt Chair Moon, Commissioners Schneider, Hull, Klink, Murphree, White, and Leavitt Also Attending: Absent: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson None Chair Moon called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. He explained the purposed of the Planning Commission. The meeting began late due to extended discussion during the study session. There were four people in attendance. There was a brief discussion regarding workforce housing. Comments included but were not limited to: we need to have a process, height measurement is important; height and workforce housing are two separate issues; workforce housing needs to be defined; desire to know what the overall housing strategy is before making a decision. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the agenda, with the revision of moving the proposed EVDC amendment regarding building height calculation before the proposed amendment regarding building height in the RM zone district and the motion passed 7-0. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Pat Newsom/town resident commented on two ways the Estes Park real estate market is bolstered, which she shared after listening to the discussion in the study session. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, April 18, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 4. FALL RIVER VILLAGE II, LOTS 5A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION A. Development Plan 2017-02 B. Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) 2017-01 C. Rezoning Request for Lot 5A; RM-Multi-Family Residential to CO-Commercial Outlying D. Preliminary Condominium Map Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The project is currently zoned CO-Commercial Outlying on the west side and includes a PUD overlay. The eastern portion is RM-Residential Multi-Family and developed with three duplexes. There is a rezoning request for the RM portion to be rezoned to CO to encompass the entire property into the PUD. The proposed Development Plan is to develop the existing vacant land with three duplexes, two triplexes, and a private community hall. When the existing three duplexes are combined into the PUD overlay, a total of 18 accommodations units will be available. There is also an amended plat application that is being reviewed at staff-level. Planner Gonzales stated the applicant met all the requirements in the review criteria; however, they requested several waivers, which are listed in the staff report. Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to affected agencies, and no significant concerns were noted. Adjacent property owners were notified by mail, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 16, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff and Commission Discussion There was brief discussion about the topography and parking spaces, and the proposed community hall. Public Comment Paul Pewterbaugh/owner stated the reason for the community center is to meet unmet demand for group gatherings (family reunions, business gatherings, weddings, special events, etc). It is meant to be a feature to bring up the quality of the entire facility. The community building will be acoustically fortified to keep the sound inside the building. The rooftop deck has an enclosed wall on the north side to keep noise to a minimum. Steve Lane/project architect stated all the new buildings will be in line with the other duplexes and triplexes (modern mountain architecture). There was additional discussion between the owner and the Commissioners about the development in general, including but not limited to: fencing, trails, emergency exit, occupancy load of community hall (approximately 100), catering kitchen, loading area, access for adjacent residential lots, community hall roof material (matte rust). Mr. Lane stated he is involved with the Downtown Plan, and this type of development is exactly what the plan is envisioning. Pat Newsom/town resident stated she lives nearby and provided a brief history of the project area. She was supportive of the community building, except for the roof line. Julia Daley/local resident was supportive of the development, and stated the property owner has a vision for making the west end of Elkhorn Avenue a better place. Greg Rosener/local resident was supportive of the project. Public comment closed. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to approve the Fall River Village II Development Plan according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to recommend approval to Town Board for the Fall River Village II Preliminary Condominium Map, Preliminary Planned Unit Development, and Rezoning according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 5. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELPOMENT CODE REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION FORMULA FOR ALL ZONE DISTIRCTS Director Hunt reviewed the staff report, stating the formula to calculate the building height on a sloped lot is complex and difficult to calculate. The proposed amendment would make the calculation very simple and easy to describe. It involved taking the average of the high and low points of the roof to create a horizontal plane. The same would be done for the finished floor elevation. A vertical line would be drawn between the two, which would be the determined building height. The proposed amendment would also revise the definition of "Grade, Finished". Public Comment James Poppitz/town resident stated a clarified calculation will be appreciated. He attended the Housing Meeting the previous night, and was supportive of a higher height limit and three-story buildings in order to address local housing needs. Greg Rosener/town resident spoke on behalf the Economic Development Corporation and supported the change in the way height is calculated. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 16, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Steve Lane/local architect supported the proposed amendment, stating it would benefit development on the Estes Valley's steep slopes. Diane Muno/representative of Economic Development Corporation stated the Commissioners have been very thoughtful in their discussions today and she appreciates that. Many businesses, large and small, participated in the housing forum last night, and supported the proposed amendment. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion There was brief discussion regarding the current allowance of a maximum of 10% height adjustment by staff. With the proposed amendment, that administrative provision would be removed. Director Hunt stated he would bring forth a code amendment that would remove staff's ability to authorize an administrative adjustment up to 10% in the current height limitation. As Community Development Director, he would not be approving any of those administrative adjustments. Height variance requests would go through the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Leavitt) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners the amendment to the EVDC as stated in Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed unanimously. 6. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVLEPOMENT CODE REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE RM-RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT Director Hunt reviewed the staff report and Exhibit Bl. He stated the primary goal is to have the ability to construct a three-story building and accommodate a variety of roof styles in the RM zone district. The proposed amendment would set the height limit in the RM zone district at 38 feet, allowed only for multi-family dwellings (three or more units in a single structure). He explained the reason behind the proposed removal of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the near future. In many cases, FAR would prohibit three-story buildings in the RM zone district, which would defeat the purpose of increasing the height limit. Director Hunt stated the existing lot coverage maximum of 50% would be increased to 65%, which is a common percentage across the country. Director Hunt reviewed Exhibit B2, which adds an incentive-based alternative for developers of workforce housing in multi-family buildings. If 50% of the units' occupants meet the criteria for workforce housing, a density bonus would be available. Director Hunt stated the Town Board has directed him to simplify the EVDC. It is hard to determine if we would get more or less workforce housing projects with either of these exhibits. Staff prefers simple, clear, and consistent code language. The community has a need for housing. The town can either grow up or out, and growing out is limited. He was supportive of three-story buildings in the RM zone district. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner White stated she visited the undeveloped sites in RM zone districts, and was supportive of the height increase. Commissioner Hull stated there were several three-story condominium complexes in the Estes Valley. She thought developers could build the same buildings within the existing 30-foot height limit and 10% administrative allowance. Rita Kurelja/EPHA director stated multi-family housing that is federally funded and administered by the Housing Authority cannot limit housing to workforce. The majority of the residents at Falcon Ridge work in the Estes Valley (41 out of 48 units). A density bonus would be allowed if they met the workforce criteria or the criteria for affordable housing. Additional discussion occurred with Ms. Kureija regarding the housing situation, density bonus, and providing housing 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 16, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall for the working class. Developers could utilize the density bonus if they met the workforce criteria or the income-qualifying criteria. Public Comment Greg Rosener/town resident was supportive of the 38-foot height limit. The density bonus (up to 16 units per acre) is directly tied to workforce or income-qualifying housing. Judy Nystrom/town resident recently spoke with a developer interested in building workforce housing. She was supportive of the 38-foot height limit, stating some of the height can be hidden by our topography. Jon Nicholas/president of EDC supported any efforts to provide workforce housing. The developer should have the flexibility to offer all types of housing (workforce, attainable, etc.). Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion There was brief discussion regarding the density bonus. Staff met with several developers who were interested in housing projects if three-stories were allowed, as that would make it more economically feasible. The goal is to incentivize workforce housing, not new condominium developments for retirees. Planner Gonzales stated developers he has talked to are looking for workforce housing more than attainable housing. 16 units per acre seems to be the minimum density developers are looking for when determining economic feasibility. The majority of inquiring developers could not get the desired density without adding a third floor. Impervious lot coverage is also a large concern. Director Hunt stated he could create an Exhibit B3, which would be a combination of B1 and B2. Revisions could be made to Chapters 4 and 11. There was additional discussion as to how the code language proposed In an Exhibit B3 would read. There was general consensus to provide developers with incentives if building workforce housing. The Commission was not in favor of allowing the higher density for units that would be marketed to retirees or used for vacation rentals. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees and County Board of Commissioners an amendment to the EVDC as stated in Exhibit B2 with the addition, in order to avoid conflicts that wouid be detrimental to the utilization of that exhibit, of incorporating the density ianguage from Exhibit Bl, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Pian and with Section 3.3 of the Deveiopment Code, and the motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Huli voting against. 7. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING DESIGN STANDARDS IN RM—RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT Director Hunt reviewed the staff report, stating Exhibit C deals with design standards for buildings with floors above thirty (30) feet in height in the RM zone district. The principal design standard proposed is the step-back feature, which requires floors above 30 feet to be stepped back ten horizontal feet from the building's foundation or vertical wall at grade for building elevations that are adjacent to a dedicated public street, dedicated public trail, or dedicated public open space. In exchange for the increased height, we would preserve some of the ability to see the natural landscape and have more sunlight at the street level. Staff and Commission Discussion Director Hunt stated the step-back requirement may involve a reduction in one unit. As we continue Comprehensive Plan discussions, the step-back feature may be applicable in other areas as well, and not limited to just the RM zone district. Chair Moon was supportive of the provision to incorporate a variety of facades. Director Hunt gave credit to the City of Laramie and Planner Carrie McCool for the proposed code language. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 16, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public Comment None. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to that the Town Board of Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners approve amending the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit C, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed unanimously. 8. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA AND TO CATEGORIZE SPECIAL REVIEW PROJECTS ACCORDING TO INTENSITY Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The objectives of the proposed code amendment are listed in the staff report. In 2016, a high-profile Special Review brought to light the impacts of "to the maximum extent feasible." The proposed amendment is the culmination of several study session discussions and a Joint meeting with Town Board and County Commission. The proposed amendment would classify Special Reviews by type. The decision-making body could be different, depending on the intensity of the development. Language in the Standards for Review was clarified, a list of specific review criteria will be addressed by the applicant, and the review and approval processes were shortened for many Special Review uses. Staff and Commission Discussion There was brief discussion regarding some changes to the proposed amendment. There was general consensus to make the following changes: • Residential Family Home Daycare, Large - changed from SI to S2; • Non-Residential Family Home Daycare, Large - changed from SI to S2 in the A-1 zone district • Remove Section 3.5.B.4 - "Neighborhood compatibility" • Remove Section 3.5.B.9 - "Noxious odors" It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to that the Town Board of Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners approve amending the Estes Valiey Development Code as stated in Exhibit A and with the changes mentioned above, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed unanimously. 9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED PER LOT OF DEVELOPMENT Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The objective of the proposed code amendment would eliminate the word 'uses' and replace it with 'structures', as legally allowable structures in the EVDC; provide a clear interpretation of what is allowed in residential zone districts in regard to how many dwellings can be allowed on one lot; and align the EVDC with the Water Division Standards to avoid conflicting departmental allowances. Public Comment None. Staff and Commission Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hull) to that the Town Board of Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners approve amending the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed unanimously. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 16, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING REMOVAL OF PROVISION THAT CURRENTLY PROHIBITS NON-COMMERCIAL USE IN PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The objective of this proposed code amendment is to eliminate the word 'Noncommercial' in the definition of Park and Recreation Facilities (Section 13.2.C.34); and provide a clear interpretation of what is allowed. Planner Becker stated the definition is particularly confusing and problematic because it implies there are commercial parks to be accounted for in the EVDC area. There are no designated commercial parts in the EVDC area. Public Comment None. Staff and Commission Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Klink) to that the Town Board of Trustees and the County Board of Commissioners approve amending the Estes Vaiiey Development Code as stated in Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in accord with the Comprehensive Pian and with Section 3.3 of the Development Code and the motion passed unanimously. 11. REPORTS A. Chair Moon reported the rescheduled date for the Large Vacation Home Review meeting will be Friday, June 30, 2017. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. in the Town Hall Board Room. B. Director Hunt reminded all Planning Commissioners to respond to the Downtown Plan Survey. C. Director Hunt stated the View @ 242 Preliminary Condominium Map was continued to the May Town Board Meeting, not "approved" as listed on today's agenda. D. Director Hunt reported receiving permission to begin the hiring process for a Senior Planner. There being no further business. Chair Moon adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m. Michael Moon, Chair aren Thomps ording Secretary