Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-05-18RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission May 18, 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, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson None 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 10 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes - April 20, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting - Page 5, first paragraph in Commissioner and Staff Discussion, change the word “setback” to “tower”. Amended Plat, Portions of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, 167 E. Elkhorn Avenue; 167 East Elkhorn, LLC/Applicant - Request to combine three separately described legal parcels into one. Amended Plat, Tract 3 & Tract 4 of the Amended Plat of the McCreery-Thompson property, 1654 Devil’s Gulch Road; Robert Thompson/Applicant - Request to adjust the boundary line between two adjoining lots. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as corrected, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS Staff-Level Reviews None. Pre-Application Meetings Director Joseph stated there was one pre-application meeting for a boundary-line adjustment at the base of Windcliff Subdivision for the Gatehouse property. Town Board and County Commission decisions on applications reviewed by Planning Commission: Micro-turbine code amendments were approved by the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners Bowman Amended Plat was approved by the Town Board Overlook Condominiums Supplemental Map #4 was approved by the Town Board Other Reports PUD Update Chair Norris asked all Commissioners to review the sample PUD language gathered from other communities by staff. He directed the Commissioners to submit comments to staff within two weeks. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission t May 18, 2010 Director Joseph stated that last month staff presented some of the broader community benefits often attached as conditions for approval to PUD approvals, such as solar orientation, public park space, and public infrastructure improvements. He then presented a staff report summarizing the potential benefits and issues associated with PUDs. He stated PUDs are typically a negotiated process where the developer comes forth with some community value with the project. Director Joseph explained another aspect of PUDs has to do with the built character of the project: aesthetics, traffic flow, parking, architectural design, site design, streetscape amenities, etc. Director Joseph stated that direction from the Commission and the public about the desired outcome from the PUD process would help guide staff’s initial draft of revisions to the PUD regulations. In comparison to other communities. Director Joseph stated the Estes Valley’s PUD provisions are modest and limited in scope. Director Joseph proceeded to discuss the pros and cons of PUDs. He stated that the current land use code is very well thought out in terms of providing site development standards that are common, quantifiable, definable, and objectively verifiable. The code addresses architectural design in a very limited manner. Our community is on a spectrum with a very structured and regimented code. Some communities are on the other end of the spectrum, with very discretionary codes that could potentially allow political forces to be part of the discretionary decisions. A con of these types of codes is that if you spend a lot of time creating land use approvals under a discretionary process each PUD becomes its own regulatory creature. PUDs require a greater amount of staff time to administer in the future, e.g. five or more years, to determine how to apply the standards specific to a PUD approval. A pro is that greater flexibility is produced for the developer and designer in the hopes of attaining a greater public good and higher caliber of design. Chair Norris noted that information about PUDs could be found on the Town website. Commissioner Tucker commented that a new PUD process could be beneficial to those in Accommodations zoning districts that may be interested in redevelopment. He suggested using caution in determining how PUDs are used in residential areas. Comprehensive Plan Review Committee Update Chair Norris stated the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee had completed its work and presented the findings and recommendations to the Town Board and the County Commissioners. Those two bodies will determine whether further action is warranted. 4. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, HALL CONDOMINIUMS, Lots 39 & 40, Hupp Addition, and Resubdivision of Block 6, Town of Estes Park, and a portion of a Metes and Bounds parcel, 160 W. Elkhorn and 154 Wiest Drive Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. Planner Chilcott stated this is a request to convert an existing downtown commercial property into condominium ownership. The site is located at the corner of West Elkhorn Avenue and Wiest Drive. No additional development is planned at this time. A total of five units will be created in two buildings. The northern building. Building One, will contain three units. The southern building. Building Two, will contain two units, one on the first floor and one on the second floor. The second floor condominium unit contains a number of residential apartments. The property is zoned CD-Commercial Downtown and the existing commercial and residential uses are conforming uses. Planner Chilcott stated a condominium conversion is a form of subdivision, so the application was reviewed for compliance with Chapter 10 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) which pertains to subdivision standards. The Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Town Board, which would review this proposal on May 25, 2010. The application was routed to multiple affected agencies for comment. The Water Department determined the one-inch copper service line to the buildings was adequate. Estes Park Sanitation District indicated no RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 May 18, 2010 upgrades to the two shared sewer service lines were required at this time; however, they recommended that the Condominium Declarations discuss the shared nature of the sewer service lines. Planner Chilcott stated the ISO calculations met the standards, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District had no additional requirements. The Light & Power Department also reviewed the application and had no concerns. The main discussion point in terms of adequate public facilities was stormwater drainage. The property does drain to the storm inlet in Wiest Drive; however, during cold weather, runoff creates an icing problem on Wiest Drive. Public Works recommended the drainage be undergrounded. Some design work would need to be completed due to the existing infrastructure under the concrete street. Planner Chilcott stated the applicant had expressed concern about Public Works’ recommendation to rebuild the four-foot-wide sidewalk to be an ADA compliant eight- foot wide sidewalk and serve as access to the north side of Wiest Drive. Planner Chilcott stated that the question before the Planning Commission is does the adequate public facilities for drainage apply to icing problems, and is a new sidewalk required to comply with subdivision standards, or does the sidewalk on the other side of Wiest Drive satisfy the subdivision standard. Commissioner Poggenpohl complimented staff for identifying these issues during the review process. Planner Chilcott stated staff recommended approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Public Comment: Amy Plummer from Van Horn Engineering, representing applicants Christine and Byron Hall, stated the applicants have agreed to comply with all nine staff recommendations except Conditions #4 and #5. Condition #4 states ‘The storm inlet in the alley needs to be activated and put back in service. If it turns out to be a ‘French-drain’ only, then it shall be converted to a Catch Basin and connected by culvert to the Storm Drain line in Wiest Drive. Prior to that work, a plan and profile shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. Or alternative design shall be approved by Public Works.” Ms. Plummer stated no changes are proposed at this time to the building footprint or use. The applicants have indicated there were no icing problems prior to the Wiest Drive improvements and the construction of the building directly west of the applicant’s building. As a result of the improvements, the street and sidewalk directly adjacent to the area in question were raised, and the applicant thought this may have exacerbated the icing and shading problem. According to the applicant, they were not given the opportunity to have their drain placed underground during the construction of the improvements, although the drain for the new building to the west was placed underground. While the condition for approval states the drain should be placed underground, that may not solve the icing problem. There are also multiple underground utilities that would need to be crossed in order to hook on to the other drain. Instead, the applicant would prefer to relocate the downspout further into the alley, and have the runoff drain into the existing French drain. Efforts would be made to keep the water from freezing before it reached the drain. Ms. Plummer expressed concern about the likelihood of an alternative design being approved by the Public Works Department. Ms. Plummer expressed the applicant’s disagreement with condition #5, stating the building and sidewalks were built before the ADA laws went into effect. Condition #5 states ‘‘A Code compliant sidewalk shall be constructed abutting the southern building face. Revised plans shall be submitted for staff review and approval demonstrating compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code Section 10.5. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections, and Trails.” She stated the sidewalk is a flat grade, three feet wide, and flush with the pavement. She thought nothing would be gained by widening a sidewalk that was already flush with the street. She suggested allowing the new, ADA compliant sidewalk on the south side of Wiest Drive to take the bulk of the pedestrian traffic. The designer of the Wiest Drive improvements had in their design scope to place utility cabinets on the north side of Wiest Drive, implying that pedestrians would use the south sidewalk. Ms. Plummer asked the Planning Commission to strike condition #5. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 18, 2010 Ms. Plummer stated getting the moisture underground before it freezes could be an issue. The applicant suggested installing heat tape and insulation on the downspout to the French drain to avoid freezing. The drain would need to be cleaned out and gravel placed in the bottom for drainage. The drain depth was unknown. Ms. Plummer was confident that positive drainage could occur once it was cleaned and refurbished. Mr. Hall would accept the responsibility of any icing problems and would redesign a solution if the original plan did not work. Town Attorney White stated the property owner was responsible for maintenance and repair of adjacent sidewalks. Discussion among Staff and the Commissioners included determining who was ultimately responsible for maintaining and repairing the sidewalk, and the Commissioners asking for assurance that the area in question would remain free of ice and snow. Commissioner Klink thought an unfair burden was being placed on the property owner in having to deal with the drain and sidewalk issue, stating it should have been addressed at the time of designing the street improvements. Director Joseph stated the applicant’s solution would alter the historic drainage pattern; therefore, if the solution was unsuccessful, he would not be allowed to go back to the original drainage plan. Jim Tawney/Town Resident stated that over a period of time, Wiest Drive has become a very dangerous street. For whatever reason, people tend to walk in the street and not on the sidewalk in that block. Closed public comment. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Lane supported the applicant’s solution, and thought the issue was ignored during the design stage. He also stated there was a glitch with the property owner notification in that not all property owners were notified of this proposal. Planner Chilcott stated the legal notice was published as per the EVDC. Staff also suggested notifying the remaining property owners by phone and mail to allow them to comment at the upcoming Town Board meeting. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map for Hall Condominiums, Lots 39 & 40, Hupp Addition, and Resubdivision of Block 6, Town of Estes Park, and a portion of a Metes and Bounds parcel, to the Town Board of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and revised by the Planning Commission, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. A water fixture/dwelling unit count shall be scheduled with a representative of the Water Department to ensure that the existing one-inch service line is sufficient for adequate service and to document existing fixture value units (FVUs) for credit toward future modifications within the units. 2. The following shall be provided to the Estes Park Sanitation District: a. A plumbing fixture count of the building in its current status. b. The number of residential apartments currently present and a plumbing fixture breakdown of those units. 3. The condominium declarations shall discuss the shared nature of the two sewer services that provide wastewater collection and maintenance requirements. 4. The existing roof drainage shall be redirected from the public right-of-way on the west side of the building into the existing French drain on the private property as RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission ! May 18, 2010 proposed by the applicant, and ongoing maintenance shall be provided to prevent icing. 5. A public pedestrian access easement shall be dedicated on the north side of the building (facing Elkhorn Avenue) measuring 4.7 feet by 49.87 feet, spanning the full width of the property, and shall address maintenance of any existing or future awnings, benches, etc. 6. A note shall be added to the preliminary condominium map stating that the private improvements in the public right-of-way, such as awnings/canopies, are shown for informational purposes only. Approval of this condominium map shall not constitute Town approval of these encroachments into the right-of-way. The Town can require removal of these improvements at any time. Maintenance of all private improvements is the owners’ expense, including but not limited to, awnings/canopies, landscaping, and sidewalk. 7. The preliminary condominium map shall show the improvements immediately south of the building, e.g., the sidewalk, steps, and landscape planters, near the southern awnings. 8. “Elkhorn Avenue” shall be identified as “West Elkhorn Avenue” and as Highway 36/Highway 34 Business. 9. Notify adjacent property owners of the proposal. 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Small Wind Turbines Planner Shirk briefly recounted the history of the wind turbine code amendments in Section 5.2 of the EVDC, which regulates accessory uses for all properties. He commented there was one public comment on this subject since the last meeting. In reviewing the staff report. Planner Shirk reviewed the changes to the code that were the result of direction given by the Planning Commission at the April meeting. Changes made included a Summary Table regarding the proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process and a housekeeping issue concerning Location and Extent Reviews. Standards for review and provisions dealing with extensions and expirations of the CUP and building permit were described. Planner Shirk explained if a wind turbine was abandoned or the use discontinued for one consecutive year or more, the tower would have to be removed. He reviewed the purpose of the CUP, stating it was to ensure the system mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. This may require the system be located and sized such that optimal performance is limited to lessen the impacts (such as to principal view corridors) on nearby land uses and properties. Language concerning specific numbered roadways was removed. A waiver of the CUP could be granted when there was an increased setback of at least four times the tower height, contingent on the proposed wind turbine not being located within a mapped ridgeline protection area. The waiver would not exempt applicants from any other requirements, only the CUP. Code language was added to clarify that a “building” permit was the type of permit required. The size of the swept area was increased to 125 square feet. Proposed setbacks were changed to be at least twice the structure height. In response to citizen concerns, the safety regulations were modified to allow small wind turbines with minimal ground clearance provided they were enclosed with fencing, grilles, guards, screening, shrouds, or any combination thereof. The CUP would apply to all zone districts. Planner Shirk stated the definition of Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems was modified to have a swept area greater than 15 square feet and less than 125 square feet to separate them from the Micro-Wind Energy Conversion Systems. Director Joseph suggested the code language providing for electrical connections should reference the appropriate section of the EVDC that deals with the requirement for underground placement of all utility cables. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission ( May 18, 2010 Commissioner Poggenpohl appreciated the deletion of the reference to the industry standards for safety, but was supportive of the Town and County building departments adopting some type of safety regulation in the building codes. Public Comment: Jim Tawney/Town resident stated wind turbines would be self-regulating, and opposed specific wind turbine regulations. Paul Brown/Town Resident wanted to find a compromise to allow most property owners to have a small wind energy system that could be connect to the utility grid while minimizing impact to surrounding neighbors. He suggested changing the setback from all property lines to be at least one times the height of the structure or be subject to the setback requirements for each zone district as outlined in the EVDC, whichever produces the greater setback. Mr. Brown also suggested changing the size of the swept area of small wind turbines to be greater than 15 square feet and not exceeding 45 square feet. Closed public comment. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Lane supported the draft as presented. He stated the Planning Commission received a wide response of opinions for and against all aspects of wind turbines. Through direction from the Town Board, the Conditional Use Permit was drafted. In certain circumstances, he would prefer to be able to allow wind turbines as a use by right without the CUP. He stated this proposed code amendment would allow the majority of citizens desiring a wind turbine to have the opportunity to apply. Commissioner Lane supported a setback of two times the height of the tower. Commissioners Poggenpohl and Klink did not support the CUP. Commissioner Klink stated the CUP subjects the Planning Commission to have a very untenable position where the Commission has complete leeway to make decisions that may be greatly based on the opinion of the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Hull stated that in this view-based community, there needed to be a balance between individual property rights and neighboring property rights. While neighbor opinion should not be the only thing considered during the review process, it should be considered nonetheless. She was not concerned with the subjective process. Commissioner Tucker did not support the CUP. He would like to see a setback of four times the height of the tower, with either an 85 or 125 square foot swept area. Commissioner Tucker supported removing the CUP and allowing wind turbines as a use by right. His goal was to eliminate the possibility of turbines in locations similar to the existing turbine on Highway 7. Commissioner Fraundorf does not support the CUP. He understood that a public review process and lower setbacks were directives handed down by the Town Trustees, but if the CUP was a way to accomplish those goals, it would be extremely subjective. Commissioner Fraundorf supported removing the CUP and establishing a setback of at least four times the tower height. He thought the current proposed draft would be approved by the Town Board and accepted by the public. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Tucker) to recommend approval of the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2 regulating small wind turbines to the Town Board of Trustees with the following changes: Remove the Conditional Use Permit and change the setback to four times the height of the tower; change Table 2.1 in Section 2.1.B to reflect the removal of the Conditional Use Permit; change Summary Table in Section 3.2.F to reflect the removal of the Conditional Use Permit; delete section 3.16 Conditional Use Permit; change Table 5-1 in Section 5.2.B.1 to allow small wind turbines in all residential zoning districts, subject to the setbacks; delete Section 5.2.B.2.h(1) and (2); change Section 5.2.B.2.h(8) from twice the structure height to four times the structure height; change Section 5.2.B.2.h(13) Safety Regulations to read RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 May 18, 2010 “All small wind energy conversion systems...”; in Section 5.2.B.2h(14) add reference to Section 10.5.4 Underground Utilities; change Table 5-2 in Section 5.2.C.1 to allow small wind turbines in all nonresidential zoning districts, subject to the setbacks. Commissioner Lane stated if the CUP was removed from the proposed amendment, he would support a setback of two times the structure height to allow small wind turbines in more areas of the Estes Valley. He stated the CUP was similar to a development plan or other applications requiring Planning Commission decisions. He did not see the CUP as a large problem. Commissioner Klink stated the recently approved code amendments for micro-wind systems will allow those smaller turbines on smaller lots. He was concerned about removing the property owner’s use by right. Chair Norris stated he could support the CUP. His main concern with the motion was the restrictions with the large setback. He would not support the motion as it stood. The previous motion was amended and seconded (Klink/Norris) to change all references of 125 square-feet swept area to 45 square-feet swept area, and change the setback from four times the structure height to three times the structure height. The Conditional Use Permit would be removed from the code amendment. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that setbacks were the key to visually controlling small wind turbines. He stated the 45 square-feet swept area was too small and would not allow much flexibility. Commissioner Lane did not support the 45 square-feet swept area. He stated that a wind turbine with an 85 square-foot swept area would be approximately ten feet in diameter. Commissioner Fraundorf did not support three times the structure height unless the Conditional Use Permit was reinstated. The previous motion was amended and seconded (Klink/Norris) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2 regarding small wind turbines to the Town Board of Trustees with the following revisions: Change all references of 125 square-feet swept area to 85 square-feet swept area, and change the setback to three times the structure height. The Conditional Use Permit would be removed from the code amendment. The motion passed 5-1. Commissioners Tucker, Klink, Hull, Norris, and Lane voted in favor. Commissioner Fraundorf voted against. Commissioner Poggenpohl abstained. See Exhibit A. Commissioner Poggenpohl did not agree with the mix of size and setback. Commissioner Fraundorf did not agree with the smaller setback without additional review. Chair Norris and Town Board Liaison Elrod agreed to work together on the presentation to the Town Board to be heard June 22, 2010. Townhomes Planner Shirk reported this proposed code amendment would change Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the EVDC, and would allow townhome subdivisions in the “A” and “A-1”- Accommodations zoning districts. Currently, townhomes are allowed only in the RM- Residential Multi-Family zoning district. This proposal was initiated in response to a request from members of the development community to revise the code to make townhome subdivision regulations more flexible. The proposed code amendment would change the Homeowner Association (HOA) provision in Section 4.3.D.4 to require HOAs for all townhome developments. Currently, HOAs are required only in townhome developments containing five or more dwelling units. Additionally, Table 4-4 in Section 4.4.B would change to allow townhome dwellings as a use by right in the “A” and “A-V-Accommodations zoning districts. In Table 4-5 in Section 4.4.C.4, footnotes 11, 12, and 13 were added. Footnote 11 mirrored the footnote for the RM-Residential Multi-Family zoning district, with the exception of reducing the density from eight dwelling units per acre to four RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 May 18, 2010 dwelling units per acre. This change was made to avoid an increase in density in the A-1 zoning district. Footnote 12 allowed zero lot lines. Footnote 13 allowed the calculation of the cumulative floor area ratio to be determined by using the parent parcel as the basis. Staff recommended the Recommendation of Approval to the Town Board. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Lane/Hull) to recommend approval of the Estes Valley Development Code amendments to Sections 4.3 and 4.4 concerning Townhomes to the Town Board of Trustees and the motion passed unanimously. Staff was directed to notify Dave Caddell of the decision. A-1 District Standards Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The existing code language concerning the A- ^-Accommodations zoning district standards is unclear regarding bed and breakfasts and the definition of a guest unit. The proposed amendment would address the difference between a bed and breakfast and a cabin-style operation or small hotel. The proposed code amendment would clarify that multiple units being rented in one building would count as one unit on smaller lots. Staff also proposed deleting a reference to Section 5.1.P in Table 4-4 due to irrelevance in the A-1 zoning district. The footnote to Table 4-5 was reviewed. Commissioner Lane suggested deleting a portion of the footnote to clarify that if you have a lot smaller than one acre, the minimum land area did not apply. After discussion between Staff and the Commission, it was suggested to continue the item until the next meeting to draft proper code language. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Poggenpohl) to continue discussion of the A- 1 Density code amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow staff to clarify specific definitions, and the motion passed unanimously. Director Joseph would appreciate the Commissioners consideration to change the meeting time to 1:30 p.m. during the busy summer months, and move back to evening meetings in September. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) to change the meeting time to 1:30 p.m. for the months of June, July, and August, and the motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen T Recording Secretary