Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2011-02-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission February 15, 2011,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Ron Norris, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Rex Poggenpohl, Rick Grabish Chair Klink, Commissioners Norris, Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Poggenpohl, and Grabish Interim Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Thompson Town Board Liaison Mark Elrod 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 six people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Johanna Darden/Town resident inquired about how the Help Preserve Open Spaces Initiative related to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (EVCP). She questioned whether the ability to use the open space funds would be affected if the EVCP was revised in areas that had been specifically referenced in the open space initiative. There was general consensus among the Commission to have public comment requests be researched by staff with the findings presented at the next requiarlv scheduled meeting. 2. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Approval of minutes from January 18, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. At the request of Commissioner Poggenpohl, the minutes were removed from the Consent Agenda. B. LOT 1, VISITOR CENTER SUBDIVISION, AND LOT IB OF THE REPLAT OF A oa&d^LL 0F L0T 1’ STANLEY meadow addition TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK - Request to correct the legal description on rezoning Ordinance 3-05 from Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Brookside Addition to Lot 1, Visitor Center Subdivision, and Lot 1B of the replat of a portion of Lot 4 and all of Lot 1 Stanley Meadow Addition to the Town of Estes Park. ft was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to approve the modified consent agenda and the motion passed unanimously. 3‘ 0F M,NUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION met IING. Commissioner Poggenpohl clarified his statement about the anticipated population increase along the Front Range. He stated the full potential of visitors to Estes Park from the Front Range may not be fully realized due to the traffic bottlenecks on Highways 34 and 36. It was inoved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Fraundorf) to approve the minutes as amended and the motion passed unanimously. 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) Interim Director Chilcott stated PUDs were advertised as an agenda item. Staff recommended the item be continued after public comment. This would allow Town Board and County Commissioners to provide feedback on the revised problem statement. After this feedback, code language would be drafted. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 15, 2011 Public Comment Sharry White/Town resident stated PUDs could be both beneficial and detrimental. Trusting that PUDs would be beneficial, she supported the concept, especially if using smart-growth concepts to improve Estes Park. Fred Mares/Town resident commended staff and the Commission for work completed thus far. He was not against PUDs in general, but was opposed to the timing of this code revision, stating that any revisions to the EVDC concerning PUDs should be completed after the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan was updated. Mr. Mares was also opposed to increased density and bulk in exchange for community benefits. He stated these tradeoffs could be contradictory to current community values, and suggested establishing standards for negotiation to assist the decision-making body. Johanna Darden/Town resident agreed with Mr. Mares comments. Public comment closed. Concerning PUDs, Interim Director Chilcott stated a Development Plan would go before the Planning Commission, a Development Agreement would go before the Town Board or County Commission, and a developer could hold public meetings for community outreach. By the time an application is put on the Planning Commission agenda, the project has met the submittal requirements, has been routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners, and the meeting(s) advertised in the newspaper. Planning Commission would serve as the recommending body for PUD proposals, forwarding their recommendation to the Town Board or County Commissioners. Comrnissioner Poggenpohl stated an authorized group should participate in the negotiations, and should have a “shopping list” of acceptable and unacceptable Items to negotiate. Interim Director Chilcott stated any proposed PUD code language could include descriptions of potential community benefits in more detail. Town Attorney White reminded the Commission that the applicant brings the proposal which is not necessarily a negotiated agreement between staff and the applicant. The applicant decides what he wants to bring forward to the decision­ making bodies, not staff. lt|nT.aLT0,Ved an1 S6C°nded <HuN/Norris) 1° continue discussion of Pianned parsed rnSeonusS|y° neXt re9U'arly SChedl"ed mee,ing and ,he motio" B. Land Subdivision of Multi-Family and Accommodation Development CiirnernSh,r.k rev,ewed the staff rePort- This is a proposal to amend the Estes distriL eCurrentrvnt tn0deh t0 a"0W townhome subdivisions in additional zone oJewf ^urrent'Y’ townhouses are allowed only in the RM-Multi-Familv Residential zone district. This proposed code amendment was initiated in response 0 a request from members of the development community to revise the code to make townhome subdivision regulations more flexible. Currently, the physical product of a townhome-style development is allowed in the rnnHo m0datl0nfh d.lstricts’ but on|y in a Condominium ownership form In the he an?-IS 0Wned by an association- ln townhouse developments,LXa" 0Wned by the Unit -d only common arLs are mnntnher Sfhrk 81316^ Plannin9 Commlssion approved the problem statement last TeNec:’ rih AA&W wy.itc6 T°Wn B°ard l3ter 'n January- He reviewed changes to lables 4-1, 4-4, and 4-5, removing Townhomes” as a specific use and adding them to the current subdivision standards in Section 10 5 H 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 15, 2011 Planner Shirk stated staff is proposing changes to definitions, specifically referring to townhome and condominiums as “projects,” regardless of the land ownership form it would take: stand alone, duplex, or multi-family dwelling. State law provides for condominiums in any zone district. The proposed code revisions would allow townhome projects only in zone districts that allow residential uses. Planner Shirk stated the proposed code revision would require a Home Owner’s Association for all new projects for the maintenance of common property within the development. He stressed the importance of the HOA being responsible for maintaining the streets, drainage, etc. within the development. Staff clarified to the Commission that a townhome is not a townhome until it meets the definition of a townhome. Staff proposed townhome projects have a minimum lot size of forty-thousand (40,000) square feet. Currently, the code states that each townhome must be on a lot of at least two thousand (2,000) square feet, and suggested that each individual townhome unit could be constructed on a smaller lot with approval of the decision­ making body. Planner Shirk stated setbacks in the proposed code revisions would be similar to existing code regarding zero yard setbacks. All units shall include building envelopes and may include zero yard setbacks. No structure shall be located closer to the outer perimeter lot lines than what the underlying zone district requires. He stated the floor area ratio and lot coverage would be calculated using the entire development rather than the individual lots. Planner Shirk suggested removing the following from the definition of multi-family dwelling: All the dwelling units in a multi-family dwelling are located on the same one (1) lot. Commonly referred to as apartments or condominiums. Staff also suggested removing the definition of Dwelling, Town Home, because the proposed revisions would make it extraneous. The new definition of a Townhome Project shall mean a subdivision which partitions land into individual lots with a gross land area of at least 2,000 square feet. Each lot shall contain no more than one dwelling unit or accommodation unit. Units may or may not be attached.. Commissioner Poggenpohl suggested requiring a portion of the lot not be covered by the structure, with the amount proportional to the footprint of the individual unit. This would allow property owners to have some private space surrounding their townhome. Planner Chilcott suggested one option could be to have a building envelope on each lot to obtain private space around each unit. Commissioner Fraundorf suggested requiring a certain number of square feet in the front and back of each unit. Planner Shirk stated the A-Accommodations and A-1 -Accommodations zone districts do not have open space requirements. The code does have limits of disturbance standards, which restrict where structures are allowed on the lot. Staff suggested it may be beneficial to have the decision-making body review the limits of disturbance to avoid structures being built in non-suitable areas (e.g. steep slopes, rock outcroppings, drainage areas, etc.) and requiring such areas to be part of the common areas under common ownership. This suggestion would allow the maintenance of such areas be controlled by the HOA rather than multiple property owners. Public Comment Fred Mares/Town resident requested clarification about zone districts that would allow townhomes. Planner Shirk stated townhomes would be allowed only in RM- Residential Multi-Family, R-2- Two-Family Residential {duplexes), H-^-Residential (mostly attainable housing). A—Accommodations and A-1—Accommodations zone districts. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 15, 2011 Johanna Darden/Town resident asked for clarification of why the code change was necessary. Commission Poggenpohl stated the proposed code amendment was to increase flexibility in land ownership and land subdivision to provide better opportunities for owners and to allow alignment with common lending standards. Interim Director Chilcott explained the proposed amendment would allow for owners to dissolve an existing condominium association after going through a process to replat for townhomes. It was staff’s opinion that the proposed amendment would bring an outdated standard up to date. Mark Theiss/County resident was supportive of the proposed code amendment. He saw it as helping the construction industry obtain financing for projects. He stated it would improve buyer’s mentality by being able to own land rather than air space. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Discussion revolved around allowing the property owner to have some outdoor space surrounding their unit. Comments included determining the value of allowing a property owner to have some private space on their lot that is not common space, and letting the developer decide if this was an option he wanted to pursue. Commissioner Poggenpohl supported allowing privately-owned space surrounding townhome units. Commissioner Norris supported the language as proposed. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull ) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Land Subdivision of Multi-family and Accommodations Development, as delineated in the Staff report, to the Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. Discussion occurred concerning the 2,000 square foot lot size, ways to keep natural features in common areas, locations of driveways, and requiring a certain percentage of the project be reserved for dedicated open space. The previous motion and second (Norris/Hull) was withdrawn. Staff was directed to insert into the proposed amendment a requirement for private open space for each individual, limiting how much of the each lot could be developed. Staff was also directed to draft language allowing the decision-making body to place land that fits the limits of disturbance criteria in a commonly held outlet. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to continue the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Land Subdivision of Multi-family and Accommodations Development to the next regularly scheduled meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. C. SOLAR ENERGY Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Based on information gathered at the January meeting of the Commission, staff drafted an amendment to the EVDC to specifically allow solar collectors as an accessory use in all zone districts. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended allowing solar collectors as accessory structures. State law allows net metering. The proposed code amendment would not allow solar collectors to be built and used as a commercial business. Planner Shirk reviewed the handout that is available in the Community Development office addressing accessory uses and structures. He stated that solar collectors were discussed with Fire Chief Scott Dorman, who researched RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 15, 2011 guidelines of photo-voltaic solar collectors. Staff recommended not including fire code issues in the land use code. The Fire Department was aware of the proposed amendment. Regarding glare, Planner Shirk researched solar panel glare through the American Planning Association (APA), and stated that virtually all solar panels use low-glare glass. It is in the manufacturer’s interest to catch as much sunlight as possible. Nearly all panels have an anti-reflective coating. The APA was not aware of any language incorporated into a land use code that specifically addressed glare. For the most part, glare from solar panels is really no different than glare from large windows. Planner Shirk spoke with local architect Thomas Beck to help determine a size estimate. The findings were that the energy consumption for one house depends on the type of heat and the size of the structure. Mr. Beck estimated a typical house requires about 3000 to 4000 watts per day. Most panels built today generate 250-300 watts and are approximately 30 inches wide by five feet tall. Using these estimates. Planner Shirk determined a typical array using today’s technology would be approximately 175 square feet, or 12 feet by 15 feet. The Town Light and Power Department confirmed that the numbers were fairly accurate. Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed code language, which would allow solar collectors as an accessory use in all zone districts. Rather than address glare in the code, staff recommended addressing the size of the array. Free-standing ground-mounted units would be regulated by the size of the panels, not the entire structure. There were comments from the Commissioners about being opposed to treating solar collectors differently than other accessory structures, and being opposed to installing solar collectors on top of a roof at an angle different from the roof. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Tucker) to eliminate the additional requirements listed in proposed section 5.2.B Table 5-1. After a comment about allowing public comment, the motion and the second were withdrawn. The Commissioners had no concerns about the proposed definitions. They were supportive of the handout that was available to the public. Public Comment Johanna Darden/Town resident asked for clarification on the maximum size. Chair Klink stated the regulations would be the same as for an accessory structure. Size would also depend on whether the panels were roof-mounted or ground-mounted. Closed public comment. Commissioner Poggenpohl would prefer some restrictions as to what can be placed on existing dwellings, specifically requiring the solar panels to stay within an envelope of the existing structure. Interim Director Chilcott explained that a roof- mounted system could potentially be more distracting than one mounted at ground level. Planner Shirk stated the ridgeline protection standards would apply with solar panels. It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Hull) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Solar Collectors, as delineated in the staff report, to the Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 15, 2011 Commissioner Poggenpohl stated he would vote to recommend approval, but wanted restrictions on dwelling-mounted units. 5. PRIORITIZATION OF ADDITIONAL CODE AMENDMENTS Chair Klink stated he directed staff to compile a list of code amendments brought before the Commission in 2010 and thus far in 2011. He reviewed the list with the Commission. Chair Klink stated staff recommends moving forward on the code amendment concerning the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Town Attorney White added it is federal law to treat religious and institutionalized persons the same as all others, and our code needs to reviewed to assure compliance with that law. Chair Klink directed staff to propose a draft amendment on RLUIPA within the next month or so. He directed staff and the Commission to get the current amendments completed next month, followed by RLUIPA and the potential rezoning of Creekside and Village Greens. Interim Director Chilcott stated the priority list would be updated monthly. Commissioner Poggenpohl commended Planning staff on organizing the priority list. Town Attorney White stated the longer-term possible code amendment concerning street design and construction standards would be considered a housekeeping issue. Chair Klink directed staff to hold off on this possible revision until the Public Works department asked to bring it before the Commission. It was suggested by Commissioner Poggenpohl to remove any housekeeping amendments from the priority list, and for staff to bring draft code language on those items to the Commission as time allows. Public Comment None 6. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Interim Director Chilcott stated the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan was discussed extensively in the study session. Discussion included the scope, topics of discussion for future meetings, how to make revisions to the Comprehensive Plan with limited funding, and completing a revision that reflects the true vision of the residents of the Estes Valley. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that a review validation and update was the concept the Commission was looking at, and it would take time to complete the update, with no set deadline. Public Comment Sandy Osterman/Town resident attended the Association for Responsible Development meeting, in which Betty Hull and Rex Poggenpohl addressed the Comprehensive Plan. She stated it was very informative and positive and gave the group a good understanding of the Comprehensive Plan. Johanna Darden/Town resident was concerned about the comprehensive plan not having an adequate definition of “open space”, and whether or not it included enough parameters for open space. She supported the ability to make revisions to the comprehensive plan. Fred Mares//Town Resident was appreciative of the productive discussion that occurred during study session. He supported the comprehensive plan and the possibility of updating it. He supported reviewing it by neighborhood as long as it would refer back to a master document. Mr. Mares recommended getting as much public input as possible, and suggested that volunteers may be helpful if under the direction of staff or the Commissioners. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 February 15, 2011 Commissioner Hull pointed out the specific chapters in the comprehensive plan that address open space. She did not see a specific definition for “open space”, although it was mentioned many times throughout the document. Commissioner Norris commented that the Commission’s approach should not set false expectations with the public. Chair Klink agreed. Chair Klink directed the Commission to re-read the comprehensive plan and compile a personal list of what they think needs to be addressed. They will give their reports at the next study session. 7. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported the EVDC Amendment for the Outdoor Display of Merchandise was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 18, 2011. Planner Shirk reported the Town Board approved amendments for Impervious Lot Coverage and the removal of references to EPURA from the EVDC at their meeting on January 25, 2011, and those amendments would go before the County Commissioners in February. Planner Shirk reported there has been no additional contact with people involved with the Park Theatre Mall. Planner Shirk reported a pre-application conference was held for an amended plat of Lot 1, Sundance Mountain Subdivision. The parcel contains a platted building envelope. Planner Shirk reported a pre-application conference was held for a lot split to divide the Kearney property on Fish Creek Road. Mr. Kearney wants to divide the upper area from the area closer to Fish Creek. Planner Shirk stated the review would entail some special requests regarding installation of infrastructure. Interim Director Chilcott reported considering a late September date for a meeting with Town Board and the County Commission, and asked the Commission to check their calendars for days that would or would not work for them. There being no further business, Ch^ff'rClink/adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m. Karen Thompson, ReSPraing Secretary