HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2011-01-18RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 18, 2011,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Ron Norris, Alan Fraundorf, John
Tucker, Betty Hull, Rex Poggenpohl, RickGrabish
Chair Klink, Commissioners Norris, Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Poggenpohl,
and Grabish
Also Attending: Interim Director Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Elrod,
and Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent:Planner Shirk
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were three people in
attendance.
1' Commiss?onTpEoggenpohl stated he is a member of the Transportation committee
andTwaL recently announced that one third of Estes Park visrtors are from the Front
Range. There is an anticipated growth rate of 20% for every “'°r Qh® nee^re2a°
years which couid result in a large increase in the numbers °* Vl^t® f t° ' t |(ic
HoTev^r the full potential of Front Range visitors may not be realized due to the traffic
bottle-necks created by Highways 34 and 36.
2- App“ Ses horn December 21,2010 Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Fraundorf) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
between two lots raoHinn of the staff report. Staff had theThe Planning Commission waived the reading ot tne stan
following findings and conditions listed in the report.
''^/Tirdin^TecLn^rE^tn?^^^^^^^
3. TChidse'request has been ^
consideration and commenL No sign fic provision 0f public services,
reviewing staff relative to code Board.
4. This is a Planning Commission recommendation tne
"Tmcordation of the plat, the eiectnc service for the garage on Lot 26A shall
be fed from Lot 26A. „rrir,ort\/ owner shall submit a Change of
2- Ad0dres0s lorm’ihe DivlsronP!)1 Building Lfety to provide a new address for the
dwelling on Lot 26A.
3- Tahe ,Pn" qui^vtoW Pfa. (subject to staff rewew/approvai).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
January 18, 2011
b. Provide full subdivision name (University Heights Addition).
c. Remove “by a resolution adopted” from Board of Trustees Certificate.
d. Add the note “Approval of this plat does not affect the nonconformity of
structures on Lot 27A.”
e. Add a note stating the vacation of the 20-foot easement dedicated in Book
2150, Page 147 does not affect the 45-foot utility easement on the plat.
f. The dedication statement shall include “drainage facilities” as well as streets
and utilities.
g. The utility easements shall be designated as “public utility easements” except
for those that are labeled as private.
h. Include Town Engineer’s signature block, as outlined in Appendix B.
Public Comment
None.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None.
It was moved and seconded (Grabish/Tucker) to recommend approval of the
amended plat of Lots 26 & 27, University Heights Subdivision to the Town Board
of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the
motion passed unanimously.
4 LAND SUBDIVISION OF MULTI-FAMILY AND ACC0MI'l<?^1f^I,IS!l!
DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM STATEMENT (REVISED DUPLEX SUBDIVISION
!n?e(rimLDirector Chilcott reviewed the problem statement. Staff views this possible
code amendment as a policy issue. Members of the public have requested revisions to
the code to address financial issues. Staff’s opinion was that code revisions are for
land use issues rather than financial issues. Currently, rnulti-f^amily or t
development can be built in a condominium form of subdivision, but our
regulations are not flexible enough to allow that same ,ormJ^nd/n!'®7t^Xw^iexW i
a townhome subdivision. Staff supported considering an amendment to allow flexibility
in how land is subdivided.
Interim Director Chilcott showed illustrations of the current subdivision regulations.
Frora land use perspective, there is no difference between a condommium
subdivision and a townhome subdivision. The difference comes in the orJ|r °
ownershio causing the plat to look different due to easements, declarations, etc. Town
Attorney White added the subdivision configuration is allowed today as condominium ,
and land ownership would be the only difference.
Interim Director Chilcott reviewed the scope 0'
^ra::inSgrmrsr^:^^^^^^^^^^^ t^wa^d^^m^rn. ‘!ra«
revisions would also allow more flexibility with land suddlvls'°"n^^8'r “nk S 99
keeping the PUD discussion and the land subdivision discussion separ
Interim Director Chilcott stated staff could propose revisions “d“ldexil°*
townhome or duplex-type subdivision to use the same review process as the exis g
condominium review process.
Interim Director Chilcott explained how ;h8
using staff’s recommendation.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
January 18, 2011
Interim Director Chilcott explained the necessary steps to convert a condominium
subdivision to a townhome subdivision, which would include but not be limited to:
dissolving the condominium association; replatting the property review by showing
easements, etc., review by Planning Commission and Town Board, and compliance
with building code requirements. Town Attorney White explained that this conversion
would only work with condominium units that are not stacked. It should also be
understood that dissolving a condominium association with sold units requires
approval by all condominium owners and lien holders. He stated that existing semi-
built-out projects could be difficult to convert. The conversion process would be easier
when it involved phases of a condominium development that had not begun
construction.
Discussion occurred concerning minimum lot size as it related to density, and if the
minimum lot size could be changed to accommodate smaller units. Chair Klink
suggested making townhome and condominium review process the same, with the
ownership being different. Commissioner Fraundorf expressed concern about
unintended consequences.
In determining how to address use and ownership of the common areas and
easements, e.g. access, utility, and drainage, code language would need to be revised
to ensure these items would be shown on the plat.
The Planning Commission agreed that architectural standards should riot apP'.Y- st.aff
recommended allowing this type of subdivision in the
RM-Multi-Family Residential, A-Accommodations, and A-'i-Accommodations zone
districts, and the Planning Commissioners supported the recommendation.
Commissioner Grabish stated he would like to know f.0“!. ®ny°u'l;e'^ !hsfonato
created bv combining the regulations. Those outliers would allow the^Commission to
address any unintended consequences prior to adoption of the amendments. Inter m
Director ChilcT stated staff could also provide the Commission with a brief
inforrnational update with comments from the Building Division concerning
proposed amendment.
staff was directed to draft code language for the February meeting, and list any
specific discussion points.
5. SOLAR ENERGY PROBLEM STATEMENT statement The Estes Valley
interim Director Chilcott /eviewed,,,h® np.r?“X enerw Sllection systems. This
Development Code (EVDC) is currently silen to solar energy ooi^ y
issue was part of the renewable energy discussmn and follow^^^ (he fa|i of
turbine regulations in 2010. The ^en®wdP rt useof ground-mounted solar
To «fco"onrfSrtS^^^ determine the amount of regulation desired
by the community.
interim Director Chilcott stated that cul:e",
unlisted accessory uses. The cod®, are c'ustomarily found, and are required
specifically listed are permitted, p Y . 0|ar ^arm on a residential lot
to be an accessory to the princ.ple us®-'npothhue;sW°;fwould provide energy
would not be considered an accessory u , oetback and height requirements would to the home is a customary w^t percentage of
apply. Commissioner comments ,nc|^^®d: t!? by soiar panels; the need for
the available land would be Pe;!);,ss'd'eJ5 principle dwelling and the accessory
regulations regarding a size rat o between the principle desjre for c)ear
structure, measured in cubic feeJroof-mounted systems. Interim Director
definitions; and, possible size re9u ^ accessory use space allowed on a lot,
Chilcott stated there are limits on the amount ot accessory u h
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
January 18, 2011
and within those limits the property owner can choose how he wants to allocate that
space. The larger the lot, the more accessory use space is allowed. She stated there
are also limits on how much power can be sent back through the grid.
Staff was directed to bring the existing regulations for accessory structures to the
February meeting.
The Commission determined any regulations for solar energy systems should be
drafted into the EVDC. They agreed to use any currently adopted design standards
that could pertain to solar energy systems. The Commissioners recommended giving
Planning staff authority to review solar energy systems using the current building
permit process standards, which would include zoning compliance, accessory use
compliance, etc.
Chair Klink recommended listing solar energy systems in EVDC Section 5.2, Tables 5-
1 and 5-2 of the EVDC regulating accessory uses, making sure to reference applicable
sections of the code. A comment was made to keep the definitions of solar energy
systems as general as possible to accommodate advancements in technology.
The Planning Commission will review the draft code amendment at the February
meeting.
6. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS . . „ • ,
Interim Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She consolidated all previous work
into one summary that could be presented to the Town Board and the County
Commissioners for further direction, prior to drafting code language. At the
meeting, the Commission recommended that PUDs be allowed in all nonresidentia
zone districts. Staff recommended excluding the A-1->Accommodaf/ons zone distnc
Staff thought the PUD process may be more appropriate in the RM-Multi-Family Res/denf J than the A-1 district. Interim Director Chilcott suggested that once an
updated problem statement was provided to the elected officials, staff could more
actively solicit public input through a press release. Cor;;m,sslon®';.!rom2;eHrlt®in V
explaining in more detail the mixed-use opportunity; allowing addltlor\a'.den®lt.y " ^f.
AccoZoLons- and, revising the recommendation of “Accommodations to read
“same as existing, but without the kitchen requirement.”There was discussion about
changing the current density requirements and allowing other res!rictlon® .t0 ^onJ[0 ®
size interim Director Chilcott stated that if there was a FAR requirement in the A zone
district the proposed elimination of the kitchen and size language would probably
work Currently the A zone district does not have a specific maximum allowable floor
area r“ter further discussion, staff was directed to revised the density bonus to
remove kitchens from the existing PUD draft code amendment.
Concerning the presentation of the problem statement to the elected officials, Cha^
Klink asked for precise and specific feedback if there were issues in question. Interim
Director Chilcott recommended placing the January staff rePort> the r®vtl®e. JS
St^ement and a brief executive summary in the Town Board packets to a d wrth
feedback. Commissioner Grabish recommended the executive summary call attentio
to the general recommendations listed at the end of the staff report.
7‘ Director Chiicott reported the arttendrttent to the EVDC for lnnpe™™s
Coverage and Lot Coverage was presented to the Town Board °n Janua-y 1
2011 Ld wili be voted on at the January 25“’ meeting. If approved this
ameiidment will move forward to the Board of County Com™ss'oner!'II™f*f„
Miller was concerned that this amendment would discourage the use of pervious
MversV^he0pia^rning Commission requested the Town Board be made aware d
the background leading to the Planning Commission recommendation. Interirn
Director Chilcott will include the background information in the Town Boa
report, with a copy sent to Scott Zurn.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
January 18, 2011
2. Interim Director Chilcott reported the amendment to the EVDC for the removal of
references to EPURA was presented to the Town Board on January 11, 2011. This
amendment will be voted on at the January 25th meeting, and if approved, will
move forward to the Board of County Commissioners.
3. Interim Director Chilcott reported the Town Board acknowledged the amendment of
officer terms in the EVPC Bylaws at the January 11, 2011 meeting. The
amendment is being acknowledged by the County Commissioners on January 18,
2011.
4. Interim Director Chilcott reported the amendment to the EVDC concerning the
outdoor display of merchandise was approved by the Town Board on January 11,
2011 and is being presented to the County Commissioners on January 18, 2011.
5. Interim Director Chilcott reported changes are being made to the Community
Development Department’s website, with hopes it will be more user-friendly. Any
comments would be appreciated.
6. Interim Director Chilcott reported the department has a new County Liaison, Matt
Lafferty. Mr. Lafferty is working closely with County Liaison Russ Legg in
preparation for Mr. Legg’s retirement, and has plans to come to Estes Park to be
introduced to staff and the Planning Commissioners.
There being no further business, Chaij^
p.m.
adjourned the meeting at 3:10
Chair
Karen Thompson,ing Secretary