Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-01-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 19, 2010, 6:00 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, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Chair Norris, Commissioners Klink, Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, and Poggenpohl Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Planner Chilcott The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were 8 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from December 15, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one abstention; Commissioner Lane abstained. 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDs) Commissioner Hull commended Community Development staff on the thoroughness of the information that was provided to the Commission about PUDs. Director Joseph reviewed the current PUD provision in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), stating the basic purpose of a PUD is to allow for mixing of commercial and residential use. The CO-Commercial Outlying zone district is the only district that currently allows PUDs. The current regulation allows uses permitted by right or by special review in the underlying zoning district, plus residential and accommodation uses. It has been discussed to allow PUDs in A-Accommodations zone district. Referring to the Zoning Map, Director Joseph stated the CO-Commercial Outlying parcels are fairly constrained, particularly when located next to public lands that have been set aside for uses other than commercial development. An expansion of the PUD allowance into the A-Accommodations zone district would significantly increase the land base for PUD opportunities. Chair Norris directed Staff to provide the total number of acres currently in the CO and A districts, while Commissioner Lane requested information about the number of lots within the CO and A zone districts that fall above and below the minimum three-acre threshold that is currently required. Director Joseph stated this information will be provided at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Director Joseph stated the parameters of the 3-acre minimum lot area requirement are such that the requirement is not cumulative, meaning a PUD does not enjoy any higher density or floor area ratio than what the underlying zoning would yield otherwise. Director Joseph stated some communities are allowed to negotiate density versus open space in PUD applications, but the EVDC regulations do not have that flexibility. The 30% open space requirement includes park space, public plaza space, public pedestrian space, and other areas open to the public. In general, PUDs are intended to produce higher-quality design and innovation, along with better land use. PUDs, as provided for in the EVDC, are a discretionary approval, whereby the Planning Commission could recommend denial of a proposal to the Town Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners because the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 19, 2010 qualities and attributes do not warrant being in the PUD process. Town Attorney White stated a developer can elect to develop under the traditional zoning rules if the PUD application is approved or denied. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated the current code is well-written though limiting. He pointed out that the Planning Commission will need to decide if they want the flexibility and freedom to have this creative tool to use for future development and redevelopment that is not available with traditional zoning. Director Joseph reiterated that PUDs are a negotiated process between the municipality and the developer and are designed to be a win-win situation for everyone involved. Director Joseph stated there is some constraint, by state statute, in how PUDs are used, but they are permitted inside and outside of Town limits. Commissioner Tucker wanted to consider expanding the PUD capabilities into the Accommodations zone districts. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated PUDs are complex and often misunderstood by the public due to the negotiation process. He mentioned PUDs could be a creative tool that could be used now and in the future with affordable housing issues and redevelopment. Commissioner Hull could envision expanding the PUD code to include Accommodations, Commercial, and Industrial districts. However, she expressed concern about PUD allowance in residential areas as being a way to bypass raM0na- zon'r?9 regulations. Commissioner Lane did not want to eliminate the possibility of PUDs in residential areas, stating PUDs are not required to have a lot of commercial development and could be a valuable addition to a residential area. Director Joseph explained that residential multi-family zone districts are considered residential areas. Chair Norris recapped the study session dialogue with Trustee Miller. The PUD orocess was explair^d. Pointing out a PUD allows for negotiation between the Town and the innnt vTfh' M‘ler stated in thG study sessi°n this was a tool for the Town to have nPt^o devel°Prp®nt a[ld redevelopment of the Estes Valley. Director Joseph added n the study session that a balance has to be struck between predictability of fixed zonino V',y that iS all0Wed Wi,h a PUD- Chair Norris su99ested the n™p would indude two Commissroners meeting with Trustee Miller to review input and begin work on a problem statement to present to the Town Board. m d lu u«gin worx on Public Comment: H? 9 " a?y. property owner can request a zoning change to any zone district and the process for doing so is outlined in the EVDC. Y ’ d Chair Norris closed the public hearing. 4' rhTEMVALLEY comprehensive plan (EVCP) review committee Russ Legg. This task force would review the EVPP anH P P a task force consisting of community leaders and citizens be created to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 19, 2010 review the EVCP. Subsequently, on December 15, 2009, Commissioner Poggenpohl outlined a proposed process for the review of the EVCP for the Planning Commission, which was discussed at an earlier Planning Commission Study Session. The outline included: (l)Values, mission, and goals for the valley on the Comprehensive Plan; (2)lnitial Problem Statement, with an emphasis on minimum or no consultant costs and a rough, adequate overall time frame; (3)Brief review by Planning Commission of the existing comprehensive plan to identify areas needing attention and possibilities for additions or deletions; (4)Brief report on the findings of the Planning Commission with a rough review and outline of the proposed detailed steps, resulting in a comprehensive problem statement for approval by Town and County officials; (5)Committee formation and committee meetings for a more detailed review; (6)Periodic progress reports from the committee to the Planning Commission, periodic summary reports by the Planning Commission to the Town and County officials, and a final report with recommendations from the Planning Commission near the end of 2010. Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan would be made the following year, including an update of the statistics using the results of the 2010 Census. Although this can be a very complex process. Commissioner Poggenpohl thought this proposal could be accomplished as written with minimal expense. Commissioner Klink thought it would be unwise to move forward on a review without accurate and current data. Director Joseph indicated there was a review of Chapter 3 and rlo^^dlX Vn ?j0?8‘ HI.S View of this ProP°sed task force was to look at the statistics and recommend updating them. Commissioner Hull was confused as to why this process was not initiated at the Planning Commission level, and thought the Town Board of Trustees f lPH0Cee? and#mfe recommendations to the Planning Commission. Commissioner waq nHatIr0n>hfee 1 f9S 0n the t0piC‘ Commissioner Fraundorf stated the entire report was 85/o data with a few sections of recommendations. He thought there was a w'th us'ng the word “Policy” when in general, the Comprehensive Plan is a Gh de ■ Pl?ctor JosePh stated the chapter on future land use required intensive effort and resultecl in the first ever unified development code and zoning scheme fo? the llfes Valley. He emphasized the importance of this document, which required state leoislation Fra^ rf J°tin/ h'3"0'"9 Comrclssion between the Town and the County. CommLioner Fraundorf stated some data sections drive decisions. He was accepting rformino a thp1 pind QIf|trCe' fwK thI0U9ht anV new data would be expensive to compHe. He thought the end result would be limited to a few minimal changes and/or updates Commissionpr Sea^Hhl Stat!d mLSSiun Statements have more valua than the estabnshmentrofSa°ask undampnl^fStl0ned. th6 °rder °f the Process' Commissioner Tuck^ stated ?he th dra"enta d0CUmeon WaS 900d’ and't was his desire to not conduct a formal review of he Comprehensive Plan. Chair Norris summarized by stating the generaT^orisenTus of arLs ba^/rgood dma0ndUCt 3 reVieW “ cos,-e,,ective|y Possible, with focus on key affasKxiaKg shortterm no spedfic^agen^!,^Dlirectorajoseph statedV'fh^^ouldtbe*<a0lv^uabie cpopriit:rsopaebnoua, tersnom;nabtcs°rp^^r^bnairN^^^ irms as^dtincg°r “rtogalb'rS 3 Pre'iminary reVteW ,0 6n9a9e T~ and Town Meeting recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. Commpthnen:4Sp,rTasrFor0int Cha'r N°rriS and Lane to the would hprfroP.r!VieWed the StUdy session conversation stating the Planning Commission would be focusing on communicating as well as possible with Town staff, Larimer County Illi RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 19, 2010 officials, and the public. Priorities were also reaffirmed. Future agendas were modified to place Staff Reports immediately following the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Poggenpohl expressed strong feelings that the existing Comprehensive Plan needs work in that completed items should be removed and incomplete items should be addressed. He stated the proposed task force is not properly balanced and would not serve the public in the best interest. He disagrees with the formation of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force. Public Comment: Johanna Darden/Town Resident agreed with Commissioner Poggenpohl and suggested he be on the task force. She thought the review of the Comprehensive Plan should be narrowed down to those items that are most important to the community. Fred Mares/Town Resident acknowledged that the Comprehensive Plan is a relevant document. He questioned the purpose and timing of the review. Mr. Mares suggested creating a good legal definition of the use or purpose of the Comprehensive Plan that would stand up in court. He questioned how any potential changes would be reviewed and approved, and also how changes might affect zoning and development in the future. He was pleased to hear the Planning Commission and Town Board would be working together on this task force. Public comment closed. Chair Norris announced his willingness to accept participation on the task force if it was a short-term commitment. Commissioner Lane thought he understood the confusion with the •ssues, and would welcome the opportunity to better the communication with the other Boards. As a representative from the County, he would do his best to bring as much County power and representation as was needed to this task force. SonirJ1JSSi0neo Po99enPohl stated he has a high level of respect for the Town Board and talk itS. 0mm,SS,0n- H,s resistance to this issue is the process and procedure of the l~rd andtlfec°nded (Klink/Hull) to appoint Chair Norris and Commissioner Lane to serve on the Comprehensive Pian Task Force, and the motion oassed with absta,in^na0vot)ne abatenti°n> and one against. Commissioner Poggenpohi was the abstaining vote and Commissioner Tucker voted against the appointments. Suntv'andthP ®^plained fhe Comprehensive Plan was built on consensus between the Witho^^t thpthFc:Ic U successful in bridging trust between those two entities Development Cod^ a'ley ComPrehensive Pl^n. '^ere would be no Estes vSfey HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT land in Estes Park haq hppn cpt I’-m ^ d appreciate information about how muchs s; housing could be proved ani evn^H ?-"81^ h0W the conceP,s of affordable RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 19, 2010 sometimes necessary to filter contentious dialogue that revolves around the site specific proposals to determine whether or not the plan would advance the housing needs of the community as a whole. Commissioner Lane would like to see a current snapshot that shows where the specific need for affordable housing lies; multi-family rentals or single­ family home ownership, various income levels, etc. He was also interested in knowing what alternatives or incentives the Planning Commission could use with land use options in order to address the affordable housing situation. Chair Norris expressed the desire to understand the top three or four needs, the extent of those needs, and the options available to the Planning Commission to meet those needs. Public Comment: Sandy Osterman/Town Resident would be interested in seeing the vacancy rates on affordable housing properties. She stated there are some people who work in Estes Park that choose not to live here, and those people should not be considered as needing affordable housing. She also pointed out that there are some areas listed as affordable housing options that have yet to be built. Fred Mares/Town Resident mentioned the need to understand the fundamentals of affordable housing and the factions that need to be addressed; summer housing families versus singles, working-class housing. He stated that steps taken to solve these issues may be very different depending on the issue. He suggested a possible solution may be a subsidized bus that goes up and down the canyon for summer employees. Chair Norris closed public comment. 6. MEETING TIMES There was discussion among the Commission concerning keeping the meeting time in the r;inn9gs0;nSibnaot:° ,he a,,ern00n timeline- C0nsejs L t0 7. REPORTS requirem^nt'^^^he downtola'ea8' Parkin9 SPaC6S Pr0Vided °n Si,e' and n0 Parkin3 chan9es are as foitows: Win°drt'Snese-l'•’read?ng0n H°meS' and B&BS’ 2" readin9 Shrua,y i" Wildli,e Habitat Protection final reading February 23 - Wind Turbines - 2nd reading 9 upcommg CountyC0mroissioners hearing of propos code changes are as follows: Meeting in Estes Park to hear Wildlife Habitat Protection PnHo RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 19, 2010 Town Attorney White reported the Town Board approved the first amendment to the Inter- Governmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County to extend the agreement and keep the Estes Valley Planning Commission viable. The County Commissioners will hear this item on January 26, 2010. Chair Norris recognized former Chair Doug Klink for his service to the Commission. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair Caren Thompson, Recording Secretary