The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-11-16RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 16, 2010,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission:Chair Ron Norris, Commissioners Doug Klink, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Norris, Commissioners Klink, Fraundorf, Hull, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:Commissioner Tucker, one vacancy. 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 seven people in attendance. Chair Norris expressed thanks and gratitude to Community Development Director Robert Joseph, who will be retiring in December. He was been an employee with the Town of Estes Park for over 25 years, and will be missed. In regards to the vacancy on the Planning Commission, interviews were held this week for two positions, one County and one Town. The County position will replace Commissioner Lane, and the Town position is currently held by Chair Norris, whose term expires on December 31, 2010. 1- Commiss?o°TpEoggenpohl stated the Public Works DePartllnen, ,hfu c°7'e*®dn displaying ail parks within the Town iimits that are managed by the Town Parks Department. 2 Approval of minutes from October 19, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Huli/Fraundorf) that the consent a3enJ?a bne, aPpdro^®d asTesented, and the motion passed unanimously, with one absent and one vacancy. 3 REZONING OF A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 440 VALLEY ROAD FROM E-^-ESTATE^O RM-MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Sor^LTda/OurUg-At that time, infomation from the Larimer County Tax Assessor SKS* 'p“ .“i «,.i 2[he property, the parcel most-likely would have been zoned RM in 2000. Planner Chilcott stated rheapmpPosePd RM zoning there could be P^^-'i-'XtarorallTnXrr!^^^^^ submittal would be required. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 16, 2010 Planner Chilcott stated the application was routed to review agencies and adjacent property owners. Staff received one public comment opposing the rezoning. This person lived across the street in a single-family dwelling. Staff recommended rezoning of 440 Valley Road from E-^—Estate to RM-Multi-Family Residential. Public Comment: Donald Borda/applicant stated the desire of the property owners was to complete the third unit in the tri-plex. No other structures were intended. Public comment closed. Staff and Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Poggenpohl stated he was generally not in favor of rezoning. He would, however, support this application. It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Hull) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the rezoning of 440 Valley Road from E-1-Estate to RM Multi- Family Residential. The motion passed unanimously, with one absent and one vacancy. 4. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE DEFINITIONS FOR #126, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND #137, LOT COVERA Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commission would be the “ending body, with final approval by Town Board anrfd 'hth6BOTa'in0,BoCa0rH Commissioners. If approved, the amendment would be heard by the Town Boa January, 2011 and the County Commissioners in February, 2011. This amendment would clarify that penneable pavement is not exempUmm impmbus ^rptSe^rarg^^^^^^^^^^^ definition." The definitions for both impervious surfaces and lot coverage are identical. RabnkCTCh0er'local designer was concerned that including pemneable pavers as 100% ^pervious was not a good stance to take. He opposed the amendment. Planner Shirk addressed Mr. Theis’ comments. He stated th^ P^Tvelo^fmTbTnus to ”^Ce^—erOne0,o?rtLnX^ 0,,f'lCa0,r;a9:eiSrcdard W3S '0 limi' 'he amount of the lot that can be covered with pavers, asphalt, gravel, etc. It was moved and seconded (KlinWHull) to reoomnrend app|^oval ‘°o‘dhee T°wn BOiard of Trustees the amendments to thoEstcsV Y ® | Coverage, and the motion Definitions, for #126 lmperv,ous Suiiaces and #137 L0t cove g passed unanimously, with one absent and one vacancy. 5. AMENDMENT TO EVDC TO REMOVE SECTION 3.10.E, REFERENCE TO ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY M ber the Estes Park Urban Renewal a ^ip^iinrio ,h\hirpP" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 16, 2010 Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.10.E, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. DISCUSSION ITEMS Duplex Subdivision Presentation. Director Joseph stated one of the Trustees requested to present information to the Planning Commission. Look for this item to be included on a future agenda. RM-Multi-Family Residential and /^-Accommodations Floor Area Ratio/Kitchen Problem Statement Director Joseph stated there was a holdover from prior zoning standards and land use regulations where density of units per acre was one of the major metrics for the intensity of development. When hotel rooms had no kitchen facilities and when vacation homes only had one kitchen, this code served a purpose. In the last few years, it has become problematic to try to use the number of kitchens, or the degree to which a kitchen is fully- equipped, in order to measure density. While most of zoning districts have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement, the A zone district does not. Director Joseph stated in todays world a FAR in all zoning districts would be a better way to measure density than units per acre. He recommended using a combination of different standards attached to the number of units that would include impervious coverage, parking, etc., for coimimercial accommodation developments or multi-family developments. He also recommended new standards be related more to the number of bedrooms than the number of kitchens. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated one of the dividing issues was whether or not the units were rented. He was also concerned about the size of the property in terms of the owne flexibility to have accessory facilities. Director Joseph suggested the context for this discussion was largely in the A and RM zonina districts In A rentals play a large part and would benefit from this amendm .suqq^stedtrwrUing a sTandardP that would exclude the RM zone district from the den^y formula Director Joseph explained that the number of bedrooms would be directly related He paS fn some respects, the degree to which a kitchen is used or not used changes over time. A building permit is not currently required to change a kitchen, while a building permit would be required to change the FAR. Discussion occurred between the Commissioners and Staff concerning Pa|rame*e,1^ smn” pTntol unintended consequences etCm Director Josep ex^^^^^^^^ S « and the Planning Commission have time to make this a wen mougni amendment. improved active recreation areas or c0l!nm° f5’sensitive lands or construction of bring other benefits, including high quality ma .er‘ . . t puDs could also providepr.. .w active/passive solar design, etc. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 16, 2010 Planner Chilcott stated that there have been three PUD applications since 2000, with two of those being approved and one withdrawn by the applicant. She outlined possible reasons as to why the PUD process has not been popular with developers: existing use- by-right regulations are working well; PUD regulations do not provide enough incentive for the developer to pursue this process over the use-by-right process; the three-acre minimum lot size could be a barrier; strictly limiting PUDs to the CO-Commercial Outlying zone district; and, although a developer could be granted an increase in height and/or floor area, a density increase would not be permitted under the current provisions. Planner Chilcott suggested the Commission focus on those main areas to be able to propose targeted changes in certain areas of the EVDC. She stated the visual preference studies are very time-intensive, and suggested reviewing the problem statement and look at considering specific targeted changes. Those changes could be presented to the Town Board for additional feedback and direction. To date. Staff has received very little Publ|c input. Planner Chilcott hopes that will increase once specific proposals are presented and discussed. Commissioner Klink questioned the PUD process and th® developer and the community. There was discussion between Staff and th® about the negotiation progress and whether or not the outcome is always beneficial to all parties involved. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that from the Town’s standpoint, there is a attractiveness to offer PUDs for future downtown redevelopment. He questioned whe fr not the pubi c Zu\d be in favor of PUDs in larger residential areas. He sted he comm sslon proceed in stages, concentrating on thr =COrnerSrco^ fg^rdatte ^^eiv^e in commercial areas subject to redevelopment. Pianner Shirk stated the other approved PUD apf^icant Jr^eph'staged'anoth1^r^t^r^titCtol,t^ee^(^ved with PUDs wiii be the redeveiopment o, some dilapidated areas in town. The commission gave direction to staff to focus on redeveiopment, smaiier minimum iot size, and expanding the zone districts. heard by the Town Board on November 23, 2010. Sign Code r . t the M0vember 9, 2010 meeting.The Town Board approved revisions to the Sign Code at tne iMovem Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Update attended a webinar on regulating Planner Shirk and Commissioner xample-pianner Shirk reviewed controversial land uses’v'(h®rf . SJ!lpndments The Planning Commission eventually the history of proposed ADU cpde am®ndrJien^hi h was denied and remanded back to issued a tecom,rienda,i?n^'he2O0rAt S time there were nine discussion topics Pianning Commissron in May, 2009 At th ®’are now new Town Board members requested for Planning Commission • aooroved code amendment aliowingand new County Commissioners^ There was also codeead draf( g prob|em accessory kitchens in principal d 9 _ accessory dwelling units on larger lots. Srsl^l ADUS from May 9, 2009. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 2:32 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 16, 2010 Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, Refeordiffg Secretary