HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2011-09-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 20, 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, Joe Wise
Chair Klink, Commissioners Norris, Fraundorf, Poggenpohl, Tucker, and
Wise
Also Attending:
Absent:
Director Chilcott, Town Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, Town Board
Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Commissioner Hull
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 was one person in attendance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Johanna Darden/Town resident stated she gives a lot of thought to her comments and
would appreciate the Commissioners taking time to read them. Commissioner Tucker and
Chair Klink expressed their appreciation for her comments.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, August 16, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting
It was moved and seconded (PoggenpohlAAfise) to approve the consent agenda as
corrected, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. REZONING OF LOT 1, WITT SUBDIVISION
Planner Shirk reviewed staff report. The property is located at 900 West Elkhorn Avenue
and is currently zoned CO-Outlying Commercial. The applicant desires to rezone the
property to A-I-Accommodations (low density) and convert the existing house to a small
hotel with a change of use permit. Planner Shirk reviewed the history of these lots,
indicating in November, 2003, the other three lots of the Witt Subdivision were rezoned
from CO to A-1, and Lot 1 zoning was retained as CO at the property owner’s request.
Planner Shirk stated the CO zone district is no longer appropriate for this neighborhood.
Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies. Upper Thompson
Sanitation District noted that floor plans must be provided to them to address any
additional fees. The Division of Building Safety stated the new use would need to comply
with the current building codes.
Planner Shirk stated the requirement for a development plan was waived since the
structure is in place. He stated the parking area will require more review to ensure
adequate parking facilities.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the conditions listed below.
Public Comment
Bob Fixter/Applicant stated the previous owners built the home as a bed and breakfast.
There would be minimal changes made to the structure. Any changes would be
completed in stages.
Conditions
Prior to the issuance of a business license, a Change of Use permit shall be obtained
from the Division of Building Safety. This may require additional site work to address
EVDC parking requirements and requires compliance with comments described in memos
from:
a. Chief Building Official, dated 2011.09.05
M RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
September 20, 2011
b. Utilities and Public Works, dated August 5, 2011
c. Upper Thompson Sanitation District, dated August 3, 2011
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) to recommend approval to the Town
Board of Trustees of the proposed rezoning of Lot 1, Witt Subdivision from CO-
Outlying Commercial to A-'\-Accommodations with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
4. REPORTS
A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Revised Problem Statement
Director Chilcott stated there were several issues related to ADUs. In revising the
problem statement, a section was added for community and property owner needs and
desires. She stated ADUs are limited to 30% of all residential lots in the Estes Valley,
with 1.33 times the minimum lot area required for an ADU. Director Chilcott stated
there are multiple reasons for ADUs, including guest quarters for family and friends,
income (short-term and long-term rentals) and caretaker quarters. ADUs could also
address provisions for affordable rental housing and aging in place.
Director Chilcott stated the current definition of an ADU presents difficulty with
regulations. The current code states “ADUs may contain private sanitary
facilities...and may contain cooking and food storage facilities. In the case of any
conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and any other
requirements of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control.” Staff would
prefer not to focus on the details of cooking or food storage facilities as they relate to
ADUs. There is also a conflict in the code with Accessory Kitchen regulations, which
are less restrictive than then ADU regulations. Staff would encourage the Commission
to review the direction from the Town Board and the community desires to complete
the problem statement. Staff would then present the problem statement and general
recommendations to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners prior to
drafting code amendments, with the exception that key issues for attached and
detached units would be addressed in order to determine where the focus should lie.
One of the big concerns has been from property owners with detached ADUs that
were potentially legal prior to the adoption of the EVDC in 2000. Some of those
property owners would like clarification as to how they can repair and/or improve their
ADUs. Currently, ADUS can be repaired and maintained, but not improved. Staff
would like to make as many non-conforming ADUs as possible conforming. A minimal
amendment to Chapter 6 of the EVDC would allow property owners of legal non-
conforming detached ADUs to make changes/improvements within the footprint of the
existing unit.
Public Comment
Betty Nickel/Local professional designer was very invested in the ADU issue. Her
clients desire detached guest houses for family or caretaker housing. She stressed the
importance of the uniqueness of ADUs, and not categorizing them as “one size fits all”.
Clear direction in the code is necessary for her to continue designing for her clients.
Many properties are large enough that ADUs would not impact the community and
adjacent neighbors, while providing property rights to the owners. Ms. Nickel asked the
Commission to weigh the impacts of the surrounding neighborhood when drafting code
language.
Johanna Darden/Town resident supports the current ADU regulations. She was
concerned about rentals and enforcement. She would oppose property owners
improving their detached ADUs by adding additional stories to existing units.
Closed public comment.
Problem statement comments
ATTACHED ADUs
Commissioner Poggenpohl was in favor of a land use affidavit for ADUs. Staff
recommended one comprehensive set of ADU regulations rather than separate ADU
1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 20, 2011
and Accessory Kitchen regulations. Any action on grandfathering would be completed
separately from other amendments. Commissioner Poggenpohl recommended
revising the Desired Outcomes to read “...to address the ADU issues outlined above.”
Commissioner Tucker suggested identifying the benefits to the community as a result
of the actions taken by the Commission.
Last month, Commissioner Fraundorf provided a draft chart as a guide to determine
recommendations by staff, Planning Commission, and Town Board. That chart was
revised and presented by Director Chilcott. Discussion occurred as to what
recommendations the Planning Commission would present to the Town Board (see
attached charts). Staff recommended eliminating the minimum lot size for attached
ADUs due to inconsistent lot sizes in the E-Estate zone districts established in 2000.
Director Chilcott stated the E-1-Estate zone district (one acre minimum) has many
undersized lots which would limit many properties in that zone district from being able
t0-+u°I1uStrUACt an attachecl ADU- Eliminating the minimum lot size would align the code
with the Accessory Kitchen regulations. Director Chilcott stated there may be other
options for minimum lot size, and she wanted the Commission to be aware of the
potential constraints associated with minimum lot sizes. Planner Shirk stated many
tCh°pm h.lnS Tre es!f ,s^ed from the center line of the road, which makes many of
hem just undersized for the zone district, after accounting for right-of-ways.
Additional discussion occurred concerning minimum lot size. Planner Shirk stated that
out of approximately 4700 lots in the Estes valley, 55% meet the mlnimurn
timertPhr hrj-' and °nl'',about 28% mee' ‘he current requirement of 1.33
attachecl ADUs can essentuiii t. Su,e,d .w'th tbe accessory kitchen amendment,
“rSl°eSTdlIfremriyorCuZni,C^ all0W an attached ADU of
square feet, or 33% of the orinrinai h ir’ re9ulations contain a size limit of 800 Closed off io the ml hoPu"rPsteff WhiChfVer 'S 'eSS- '' 'he area is no'
considered an attached ADU if it couid be closl'nH*0* an ADU' " WOuld only be
was general consensus to limit the size of an attarhfHa Ani?eparate dwel,in9- There
49% of the size of the principai dweilin^whichelrles^^^ t0 100° SqUare feet' or
ADUs, and wouid reltsil1 posHerecodee|aPnaua n9 fComrnission review for attached
code language was drafted. It was aoreed that thr 9randfatherin9 affer the initial
controls written into the Development Codrd h h6re Sh°U d be n° architectural
understand tha? rS'were nT^aldwed3^^,?^^ Ptr0Perty °Wners wou,d
does not allow properties with accessory dwdl no units S aIfd the current code
ADuT^lIf "S5 A’fA.'s .1 attadiw,
family residential zone districts Commii?inn0 m P'n9 the characteristics of single-
be addressed in multi-family and othe^rnrc^stlSr Sta'ed af,°rdable housin9 C0UW
detached ADUs
of the c°rereiloanllllllh'^0™n™™ for detached ADUs, the majority
support a one-acre minimum, stating thalThe ramhf* Sl2e,', Commissioner Wise would
iarger would be fairty minimal, an^ reorelrlll^lIrwlrLlbl0 ;CTui«^
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
September 20, 2011
detached ADUs if the minimum lot size were one acre. Director Chilcott stated 18% of
the lots in the Estes Valley are two acres in size.
It was agreed that there should be no architectural controls written into the
Development Code. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated this was a building department
issue, but would hope the appearance of a detached ADU would be similar to the
principal dwelling.
There was unanimous consensus to require a land use affidavit, and to not allow
rentals of detached ADUs. As with attached ADUs, the issue of grandfathering would
be addressed after initial draft code amendments have been presented.
Town Attorney White reminded the Commission that private property rights state that
you can rent your house on a long-term basis. There was lengthy discussion about
rAeJ.. ! 0f ADUS• There was consensus t0 be able t0 rent a property containing an
ADU to one party. Unity of ownership must be maintained. The Commission was
against one party living in one dwelling (long or short-term) and having the ADU being
available for rent (long or short-term) to a different party.
Discussion occurred concerning affordable housing. Chair Klink suggested stating in
the problem statement that the Commission chose not to address the affordable
housing issue as it related to accessory dwelling units.
Town Attorney White stated the problem still exists between the definition of an
accessory dwelling unit and an accessory structure. The definition needs to be
addressed for lots less than two acres. There was lengthy discussion about the
differences between ADUs and accessory structures and also about the accessory
kitchen regulations. Staff recommended merging the definitions of ADUs and
accessory kitchens.
sSttelamprThtTrlf'th9 10 Si2e reslrictions ,or detached ADUs. Director Chilcott
cSerhs of9fh»hn nV- h! .m0re accessolV use sPace '= allowed. A statement in
hapter 5 of the EVDC states an accessory use structure needs to be clearlv
LTofmprft and^ustoma;,lVfound with the principal use. Accessory use square footage
allotment can be used for various structures. Impacts of accessory structures can be
very different depending on the property (e.g. trees versus open soacer The
Comm|ss,on did not give a final recommendation for size restrictions 0^ detached
tCHh.lKli.nkrdrCted ltaff t0 forward the Problem statement on to the Town Board and
the Board of County Commissioners for their review and feedback.
B. Triangle Meeting
C. Director Chilcott and Planner Shirk reported on the following:
’ mootL,V,n9St0n Amended Plat was continued to the October 25th Town Board
meeting, as requested by the applicant. ard
2. The^Town Board approved the Birch Avenue Condominiums Map on August 23,
3’ I,liieKSttff reS°urt addressin9 the code amendments for RLUIPA and Private Schoolq
will be heard by the Town Board on September 27, 2011
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 20, 2011
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The rezoning of Lot 1, Witt Subdivision will be going in front of the Town Board on
September 27, 2011.
The Town Board will review a supplemental condominium map for Park River West
Condominiums on September 27, 2011. This project is almost built out.
An Amended Condominium Map for East Riverwalk Center Condominiums will be
reviewed by the Town Board on September 27, 2011. If approved, a portion of the
general common element would be changed to limited common element to allow
the Timeout Sports Bar provisions for an outdoor seating area.
A Pre-Application meeting was held for a proposed development on Fall River
Road, south of the river and accessed through Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums.
The project would require a new bridge. The tract is about 13 acres, and the
developer is proposing a townhome subdivision with six to eight free-standing
units. A wildlife habitat assessment and traffic impact analysis would be required.
The name given to this proposal is Stonegate Homes, and the long-time developer
IS from the Colorado Springs area.
Staff has not scheduled any pre-application meetings nor received any submittals
for the Elkhorn Lodge project.
For the record. Commissioner Tucker sent an email to County Commissioner
Donnelly concerning the Duncan Subdivisjpwrl-Je did not receive a reply.
There being no further business, Chair Kl led the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
Karen Thompson,ing Secretary