Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-12-21RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2010,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Ron Norris, Commissioners Doug Klink, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Rex Poggenpohl, Rick Grabish Chair Norris, Commissioners Tucker, Fraundorf, Hull, Poggenpohl, and Grabish Interim Director Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Commissioner Klink The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were three people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Dave Caddell/County resident stated that newer condominium projects have stalled due to the unavailability of secondary long-term financing for projects that are not built out. He stated the issue was the impact on the local economy when projects stop, and also a hidden impact on home sales. Mr. Caddell stated that people are skeptical to buy real estate in the area because of these unsold or unfinished condominium projects. He would like to see townhomes allowed in the same zone districts that currently allow condominiums, and also allow existing condominium projects to be replatted as townhome projects. He stated that detached units should be included in this change. He encouraged the Planning Commission to make this a priority. Interim Director Chilcott stated the original problem was reviewed by Planning Commission and would need to be revised to fully address the entire scope of Mr. Caddell’s concerns. She understood that Mr. Caddell felt a sense of urgency to move forward as quickly as possible. Mr. Caddell explained the ownership difference between townhomes and condominiums. Townhomes are fee simple and condominium owners own the air­ space of their unit. Town Attorney White stated the fundamental change would be the creation of small lots. Each individual unit would be located on its own lot. Discussion occurred between Mr. Caddell, Staff, and the Commissioners about potential problems with foreclosures, involvement of home owner associations, zoning, replatting, and the need to have the elected officials aware of the situation. Mr. Caddell was concerned about the future impact on the Town if the situation is not remedied soon. Interim Director Chilcott stated that Staff would draft a revised problem statement to address the concern and present it at the January, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from November 16, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) to approve the consent agenda as presented, and the motion passed unanimously, with one absent. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Norris announced that he had been reappointed for a four-year term, expiring December 31, 2014. He announced that Rick Grabish was appointed to complete RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 21, 2010 Steve Lane’s term, which will expire June 30, 2011. Chair Norris thanked staff and Commissioners for open discussions this past year during his term as Chair. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated the Town Public Works Department has produced a map of all the public parks and properties by the Town Parks Department. As the new Interim Director, Ms. Chilcott encouraged all Planning Commissioners to meet with her individually if they have concerns or recommendations. The Community Development Department has been working on the proposed adoption of the 2009 International Building Codes, the 2011 budget, building contractor licensing, and policies and procedures to help the department become more efficient with fewer staff. Interim Director Chilcott requested the solar energy agenda item be discussed before PUDs to accommodate the public in attendance. 4. BYLAWS Chair Norris stated a change to the Planning Commission bylaws was necessary to make them consistent with the new Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. The agreement calls for two-year terms for the Chair and Vice-Chair positions, instead of one-year terms. It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Hull) to approve the amendment to the bylaws of the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Tucker) to nominate Commissioner Klink as Chair for 2011-2012, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) to nominate Commissioner Tucker as Vice-Chair for 2011-2012, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) to nominate the Community Development Department Administrative Assistant as the Recording Secretary, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 6. SOLAR ENERGY Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. At the November 16th study session, the Planning Commission requested staff research solar panels and present information at the December hearing. Based on this. Staff has research the following: A) Fire Department concerns; B) Current regulations; C) Other jurisdictions; D) Glare; E) Solar radiation maps; and F) Colorado solar access laws. A. Fire Department - Community Development Staff discussed solar panels with Chief Dorman, who is researching this issue through the State Fire Chiefs Association. Staff expects this information will be available at the January 18, 2011 meeting. B. Current Regulations - The Estes Valley Development Code is currently silent to solar panels. Existing regulations that would apply are structure height and setback requirements, and accessory use standards. Accessory use regulations specify that accessory uses/structures: a) Shall be clearly incidental and customarily found in connection with the principal use; and, b) Shall be constructed, maintained and conducted to avoid ... glare from artificial illumination or from reflection of natural light. Reuben Bergsten, with the Light and Power Department, has verified that “net metering” applies to solar energy. Currently, the Light and Power Department does not offer any financial incentives for solar RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 21, 2010 panels. Mr. Bergsten estimates between 20-25 customers in the service area have PV solar. The Division of Building Safety issued five permits for solar panels in 2010. Planner Shirk stated building departments in Colorado are prohibited from charging building permit fees for solar energy installation. C. Other jurisdictions - Larimer County does not specifically regulate solar panels, but classifies them as structures subject to height and setback requirements. Pending regulations in Pitkin C ounty place a height limit of 10-12 feet for ground mounted arrays, and require neighbor notification for roof-mounted systems greater than 400 square feet (with planning commission review if a neighbor objects). Roof- mounted systems could be raised four (4) feet above the height of the roof but could not protrude above the ridge of the roof or a ridgeline. D. Glare - A concern about solar panels relates to possible reflected glare. According to an October 2009 article in Scientific American, silicon solar cells “have an albedo, or reflectivity, of 1/6.” This converts to 0.16, or about the same as asphalt roof shingles. As a matter of comparison, fresh asphalt has an albedo of 0.04, worn asphalt 0.12, desert sand 0.40, fresh concrete 0.55, and fresh snow 0.8 (source: Wikipedia). Staff discussed this issue with Thomas Beck, local architect and member of the American Institute of Architects Committee of Environmental Design. Mr. Beck indicated that solar panels typically have a sheet of glass as an outer protection. Based on this, the glare potential for a solar panel is the same as a glass window. Mr. Beck also indicated that he has worked with Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Boulder, and Boulder County, and none required any specific review of potential glare. E. Solar radiation maps - These maps look at the effectiveness of solar radiation across the United States. Based on map standards, this part of the county has the second highest average solar radiation in the county, with an annual average of 5-6 kWh/m2/day. F. Colorado solar access laws - The following applies to HOAs; Staff has included this information for reference purposes. Section 38-30-168 of the CRS states any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property solely on the basis of aesthetic considerations which effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy device is void and unenforceable. This does not apply to aesthetic provisions which impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy devices and which do not significantly increase the cost of the device or significantly decrease its performance or efficiency. Section 38-32.5-101, specifies that solar easements “shall not be acquired by prescription.” This differs from the State of California, which allows ex-post-facto solar easements (example: north neighbor installs solar panels and discovers south neighbors existing trees block solar access. North neighbor was able to force removal of the trees to provide solar access). Planner Shirk showed photos of several different types of solar products. Planner Shirk asked for feedback from Commissioners, taking into account the existing height limit, setback requirements for accessory structures, and maximum cumulative square footage for possible ground mounted structures. Staff recommended discussion on the following: 1) Definition to clarify for personal use only RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 21, 2010 and for personal consumption only - no commercial operations allowed; 2) Specific locational criteria; 3) Possible landscaping standards; 4) Painting of support structures to match the surroundings; 5) Larger structures to be screened from public right-of- way. At a minimum, staff recommended adding solar panels to the use classification chart for accessory uses, any additional requirements, and a definition. Staff and Commission Discussion: Discussion occurred between staff and the Commission, including building permit requirements, requirement to be in working order, wind design standards, glare enforcement, accessory space allowances, allowed sizes of accessory structures, significant adverse impacts on neighboring property owners, accommodations of roof- mounted thermal storage units directly beneath panels. Also, the total square footage of the entire envelope of the structure should be considered, height below roof line, standard setbacks, possible screening to mitigate glare, special regulations for free­ standing units, and keeping regulations as minimal as possible to encourage use. Public Comment: Thomas Beck/County resident and leading solar expertise in the area, owns a home with integrated roof tiles and an accessory structure with roof-mounted solar collectors. He discouraged more regulations and procedures that would make solar energy more expensive. Having done consultation work for several companies, all have dealt with standard building permit procedures for setbacks, snow load, dead load, wind speed, and accessory square-footage requirements. He urged caution when regulating glare. He stated the majority of installed products have a glass cover that would be reflective. Commissioner Hull expressed her concern about glare. Mr. Beck stated 90-95% of what is being installed today has a protective glass cover, which creates glare. There are products on the market that create less glare, but they are significantly more expensive. Commissioner Hull stated other nearby municipalities have interests in mitigating glare from solar panels, and would support similar regulations in the Estes Valley. Commissioner Poggenpohl was supportive of no regulations of solar energy products that are attached to a structure within a small building envelope. His concern was detached and/or moveable panels and their size. Commissioner Fraundorf encouraged code language to be in line with building, energy, and fire codes. Commissioner Hull was concerned about free-standing solar energy products. Chair Norris directed staff to move forward with a problem statement, including the main issues of glare, ground-mounted units, and compliance with other agencies. Standard height and setbacks would apply. Staff will provide a problem statement at the next regularly scheduled meeting. 7. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDs) Interim Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. In a recap of the discussion at the November Planning Commission meeting. Currently, there are limited incentives for developers, and very few PUD applications have been submitted. Staff recommended making targeted changes to the current regulations to provide more incentives for developers and to give the decision-making body a clearer ability to require additional public benefits. Staff drafted the following recommendations, which were open for discussion: A. Allow PUDs in all non-residential zone districts and possibly the Multi-Family Residential zone district (currently allowed only in CO). The majority of the Commissioners supported this recommendation, with Commissioner Hull undecided. It was suggested by Commissioner Grabish to consider using buffer zones and consider how PUDs could work alongside ideas for historic preservation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 December 21, 2010 B. No minimum lot size. Currently PUDs are allowed on parcels three acres or larger, which can be a barrier for developers. Realistically, many lots in the non-residential zone districts are less than three acres. The Planning Commissioners agreed with the recommendation, with Commissioner Fraundorf suggesting that there be some designated minimum lot size besides zero. Staff mentioned that the lot size could vary by zone district. C. Allow multi-family units to be built at 12 units per acre. Currently, PUD regulations allow accommodations uses, residential uses, and mixed uses. Interim Director Chilcott explained the current density bonus regulation and various scenarios. Staff recommended the decision-making body having the option to somewhat vary the density, but believed it was important to have some sort of standard. The Commission asked staff for more specifics concerning the current accommodations standard size limit of 800 square feet. Commissioner Fraundorf suggested being silent to the 800 square foot standard. D. Add the ability to vary the yard, bulk, and dimensional requirements for all PUD lots. Current PUD regulations allow the decision-making body to vary these standards for interior lots in a PUD, but not those that border the outside of the PUD. Staff suggested that by allowing the ability to vary these standards on all lots in the PUD, it would allow some buffering and consideration of adjacent property owners. E. Allow parking variations upon review and approval of a parking study. Interim Director Chilcott stated that parking is not specifically addressed in current PUD regulations. Staff suggested that at times a parking study could reveal a workable plan that could allow exemption or modification of the standard. F. Give the decision-making body clear ability to require construction of critical public infrastructure, superior architectural and site design, and Built Green buildings and/or site design. Interim Director Chilcott stated the current PUD regulations do not give the decision-making body this ability, nor do they address other community benefits or public needs, such as attainable housing. Staff recommends allowing the decision-making body to require that these needs and benefits be met as deemed necessary with each individual PUD. Commissioners Fraundorf and Norris agreed with this recommendation, as long as the code was open-ended to work out the details in the negotiation process with the developer. Staff requested feedback on whether or not to require mixed uses in the revised PUD regulations. This mix would include commercial and residential uses. Commissioner comments were that the economics of the project should drive the uses, and that most successful developments contain a variety of mixed uses. The majority of the Commission were not supportive of a mixed-use requirement. Staff requested feedback on whether or not to give the decision-making body the ability to vary other standards, such as landscaping, driveway design, roads, etc. Commissioner comments included drafting a conceptual review option for the developer to bring these items to the forefront prior to final review. Public comment None. 8. REPORTS Interim Director Chilcott reported that the Bobcat Ridge Supplemental Condominium Map #2, The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Supplemental Condominium Map #2, and the rezoning of 440 Valley Road were approved by the Town Board of Trustees on December 14, 2010. The code amendments for the outdoor display of merchandise were also approved and will be presented to the County Commissioners in January, 2011. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2010 Planner Shirk reported a pre-application meeting to consider condominiumizing the Courtyard Shops was on the staff schedule. Planner Shirk reported that Jim Sloan of the Black Canyon Inn would like to amend the current condominium map to place three units by the creek on the south side of the property. Planner Shirk reported that staff met with the architect charged with designing the Park Theatre Mall. The proposed plan may require variances through the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment prior to Planning Commission review. Town Attorney White reminded the Commission of the quasi-judicial nature of the review. Any private conversations should be declined. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary