Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2011-03-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission March 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, Hull, and Grabish Interim Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Mark Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Commissioners Tucker and Poggenpohl 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 seven people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Johanna Darden/Town resident thanked Town Attorney White for answering last month’s question about open space and the Comprehensive Plan. She hoped that the open spaces initiative document would be used for guidance when revising the Comprehensive Plan. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from February 15, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Norris requested the minutes be removed from the Consent Agenda. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Norris addressed the statement in the minutes concerning RLUIPA. Town Attorney White requested the statement read that the Estes Valley Development Code needs to be reviewed to assure compliance with the federal law. It'was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to approve the minutes as corrected and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Land Subdivision of Multi-Family and Accommodation Development Planner Shirk stated the main purpose of this proposed code amendment was to remove townhomes as a type of land use designation and define it as a type of ownership. This could be accomplished by removing townhomes from the specific use charts in the zoning district language. Planner Shirk stated there was a minor change from last month’s review. Language was added to specify that all townhome projects would be required to submit a development plan application with review by the Planning Commission. This would allow staff and the Commission to review the overall development standards. Clarification was made regarding Home Owner Associations (HOA) as they relate to a townhome project’s stormwater facilities, private streets, and open areas (not an inclusive list). The Public Works Department requested that the HOA be responsible for maintenance of stormwater facilities and private streets. Planner Shirk stated the minimum lot size language was modified to remove the one-acre minimum lot size regulation and rely on the minimum lot size for the underlying zone district. The language for setbacks was modified to allow for reduced setbacks for interior lots. Planner Shirk stated a reference for the Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage was included in the proposed amendment. After last month’s discussion, a statement was RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 March 15, 2011 added to limit lot coverage to no more than 80% of the individual lot. This would allow 20% of each lot to be privately owned. The only design standards in this proposed amendment state that there shall be no more than eight (8) attached townhome units per single structure or building. Staff proposed a requirement for an Outlot; Common townhome property shall be placed in platted outlets and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner’s association. This includes but is not limited to stormwater facilities, parking lots, private streets or roads, open space, and areas protected by Limits of Disturbance standards. Planner Shirk stated this was specifically for townhome properties, because state laws govern common property in condominium developments. Interim Director Chilcott stated this was not intended to prohibit an application that would propose public ownership of any of those facilities. Clarification was made by staff about the difference between condominium projects and townhome projects, and where some areas of the proposed amendments would need to relate specifically to townhomes, due to the type of ownership. Planner Shirk stated the definition of Townhome will be struck from the definitions. The revised definition of Outlot would be added to Section 13 of the EVDC. PUBLIC COMMENT None. STAFF AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. Planner Shirk stated if approved, the Town Board would hear the proposed amendment in April and May, with the County Commissioners hearing it in June. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Grabish ) to recommend approval of the proposed amendment 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 with two absent. 5. AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planned Unit Development Interim Director Chilcott reviewed the history of problem statement. Feedback from the Town Board was summarized in the Town Board minutes. The County Commissioners did not express any concern about moving forward with the concept, and liked the process Estes Park uses by working out local issues with local boards and commissions. Public Information Officer Rusch prepared a press release encouraging public input into the process, and staff recently spoke at the Association for Responsible Development (ARD) meeting. Dialogue with the public has been encouraged. The Staff would like to discuss the general concepts for definition and purpose of PUDs, current regulations in the valley, and potential public benefits available through PUDs. Staff would appreciate general feedback from the Commission and the public on each of those items prior to drafting code language. Interim Director Chilcott stated staff thinks the definition could be revised to emphasize creativity, flexibility and public benefits, some of which is lacking in the current definition. It could include a process that would require a comprehensive review of the project design to allow for flexibility and creativity in site and buiding design, so that benefits accrue to the public. The Commission did not have comments against the definition, although Commissioner Norris thought a concrete definition may be a bit premature at this point. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2011 Interim Director Chilcott stated an Advisory Service Report from the American Planning Association was used as guidance for the purpose statement, and some of the other language was taken directly from the state statute. The key element was that the current PUD regulations were to encourage PUDs that would result in innovations in commercial and residential development, encourage more efficient use of land and public services, encourage integrated planning, provide for well-located commercial sites and well-designed residential developments, and conserve the value of land. Staff recommends revising the purpose statement to more clearly describe the desired purpose of PUDs in the Estes Valley. Staff recommended identifying the maximum allowable modifications to code standards, and suggested that any requested incentives and public benefits be clarified early in the review process, possibly through a concept plan review. Interim Director Chilcott pointed out that EVDC Section 3.4.D.1.e discusses improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards. This would include, but not be limited to, open space, environmental protection, tree/vegetation preservation, and efficient provision of streets, roads and other utilities and services. Interim Director Chilcott stated staff recommended including language in a public benefits section stating “in no case shall waivers or modifications be granted unless the application demonstrated a substantial public benefit.” The public benefits would be superior features that benefit the surrounding neighborhood or the public in general. Staff recommended the Commission’s role in deciding a PUD application would be to judge, balance, and reconcile the relative value of the project amenities and public benefits offered, and any potential adverse effects according to the specific circumstances of the case. Interim Director Chilcott stated there are various possibilities to qualify public benefits. The underlying principal would be to have a good balance of the relative value to the incentives requested. Interim Director Chilcott reviewed the various public amenities and needs that had been discussed in previous Commission meetings, and gave examples of public benefits identified by other communities. In researching PUD regulations from other communities, staff found they vary greatly, and what may be a benefit to one may not be to another. COMMISSION AND STAFF DISCUSSION Commissioner Fraundorf thought there should be more emphasis on public benefits in the purpose statement. Commissioner Norris stated if using the word “creative” in the code language, it should have a clear definition. There was a brief discussion among the staff and commission as to where to insert the statement on public benefits in the code language in order to have the greatest effect. Chair Klink stated PUD regulations on public benefits would need to be written in a way that people can understand and agree with them as being a fair. He gave an example of listing wetlands or steep areas as a public benefit, when in reality, nothing could be built there anyway. He would not support increased density or other bonuses if these or similar areas would be acceptable public benefits. Commissioner Grabish added that any particular restriction with respect to a lot that would have restricted its use, that benefit ought to inure to the public benefit and not be counted as a benefit toward the PUD amenities. Interim Director Chilcott stated discussion could continue at a future meeting to begin to determine what incentives developers would have and how many standards could be waived. Commissioner Norris would like to include “higher quality design” into the code language where applicable. Discussion occurred about what public benefit means to one group of the public may not be considered a benefit to all of the public. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2011 6. Further discussion occurred about the specifics of the term “public benefit.” Interim Director Chilcott stated staff would continue looking at PUD codes from other communities to arrive at an acceptable definition of public benefit. Commissioners Hull and Norris suggested compiling the public benefits into one list or format it in descending order. Chair Klink suggested that discussion of specific public benefits be tabled until all Commission members were present. Brief discussion occurred concerning how PUD regulations may be very similar to what is already written into the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Klink clarified that the Comprehensive Plan acts as a guide, while the development codes are the regulations. PUBLIC COMMENT Johanna Darden/Town resident did not agree with the proposed minimum lot size for PUDs. She supported creativity and design that would not increase density. She does not see a need to create more commercial space or housing. She strongly discouraged employee housing above businesses, stating that there are many vacant homes in town that could be used for employee housing. Ms. Darden disagreed with the PUD purpose statement. She submitted her written comments for the public record, to be posted on the Town website. Fred Mares/Town resident stated PUDs are very complex. Benefits to public and incentives for developers are complex, and possibly the benefits could be site specific, depending on the type of PUD proposed or the zoning district of a proposed PUD. He thought it would be difficult to write one code for PUDs that could relate to all the different situations. Mr. Mares would appreciate more public forums on PUDs. Charley Dickey/Town resident was a developer of a PUD in Texas. The regulations there required a neighborhood buy-in. Variances, landscaping, road improvements, and site development were all addressed. He stated there needed to be motivation on both sides; one from the developer to go through the PUD process, and one from the public. He supported downtown redevelopment that might include employee housing on the second level. He agreed with Mr. Mares in that the code should be broader to encompass all zoning areas, with disapproval being an option for the decision-making body. He stated public benefits may actually be better described as community benefits. Planner Shirk stated Larimer County requires neighbor meetings in certain situations where the development is not a use by right. Public comment closed. It was moved and seconded (Grabish/Fraundorf) to continue the discussion of Planned Unit Developments to the next regularly scheduled meeting and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported Impervious Lot Coverage and Removal of EPURA from the EVDC were approved by the County Commissioners on February 22, 2011. A presentation on PUDs was presented to the County Commissioners at their work session on February 28, 2011. Planner Shirk reported that on February 22, 2011, the Town Board voted to approve the following: rezoning of the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau; the amended plat of a lot in University Heights; an amended condominium map for The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums; and the development plan and vesting period extension for Stone Bridge Estates. Stone Bridge has been proactive this year in getting some revegetation completed. They also replaced some silt fencing with logs. The developer was given a three-year extension. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2011 Planner Shirk reported one pre-application meeting for a boundary line adjustment on Shady Lane. Planner Shirk reported the hiring of Kevin Ash in the Public Works Department. Kevin will be working on project reviews. He replaced Greg Sievers, who retired at the end of 2010. Interim Director Chilcott reported there has been no further activity on Park Theatre Mall. Interim Director Chilcott reported on the code revision priority list. Although RLUIPA will take more time than some other code revisions, staff recommended it be given high priority. A problem statement was submitted to Town Board several months ago. Staff would like to put this item on the agenda for the April meeting. It was suggested for staff to bring information to educate the Commission on RLUIPA and where changes need to be made in the EVDC. Planner Shirk reported there will be two amended plats on the April agenda. p.m. business, Chair KImk adjourned the meeting at Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary