Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-08-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 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, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Chair Norris, Commissioners Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, Klink, and Poggenpohl Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, Larimer County Chief Planner Legg, 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 1:30 p.m. There were 26 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes from the July 20, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. b. Amended Plat, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Big Horn at Spruce Subdivision; 219, 221, and 223 Big Horn Drive; John and Margaret Kacergis, Vincent and Karen Gerber/Applicants - Request to adjust the boundary line between three adjoining lots and vacate a portion of the utility easement c. Revised Development Plan 00-07D, Lot 3, Marys Lake Replat; Rams Horn Development Co, LLC/ Applicant - Applicant request to continue the review to the September 21,2010 meeting It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS a. Planner Shirk reported that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) concerning Townhomes and Expiration of Development Plans were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 16, 2010. The County Commissioners also approved the Gate House Rezoning and Boundary Line Adjustment. b. Planner Shirk reported the Town Board heard the EVDC amendment to clarify density in the A-^-Accommodations zoning district. c. Planner Chilcott reported there are two neighborhoods, Village Greens and Creekside, that staff would like to discuss with Planning Commission to potentially initiate a rezoning from R-1 to R. Staff believed it was worth considering due to the vacation home amendments recently approved by Town Board that included a last-minute revision removing the R-1 zone districts from the list of zone districts allowing vacation homes. Planner Chilcott explained the R-1 zone district was intended for attainable housing, and attainable housing cannot be rented for vacation home purposes. Staff did not anticipate the impacts on these two neighborhoods at the time the revision was made. The rezoning of Village Greens RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010 and Creekside would allow the property owners to rent their property as vacation homes, which was allowed prior to the vacation home code amendment. Planning Commission would need to direct staff to proceed with the zoning change. If so directed, staff would send legal notices and neighbor notifications. Staff would like to obtain feedback from the property owners and HOAs in Village Greens and Creekside prior to moving forward with the rezoning. Planner Chilcott added those are the two main subdivisions that are currently zoned R-1 that would be impacted. The setbacks would remain the same, but some lots would become non-conforming due to the smaller lot size. Staff was directed to proceed with the zoning change process. d. Planner Chilcott reported on a problem statement for code amendments concerning private schools and compliance with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Prior to proceeding with code revisions, staff would appreciate feedback from the Commission on the problem statement which, if accepted, would be fonwarded to the Town Board. Private schools are allowed as a principal use in all residential zoning districts, with limited development standards. They can be established on any lot, regardless of lot size. If the building is less than 2000 square feet or if there are fewer than ten parking spaces, no landscaping or screening restrictions exist, and there are no impervious coverage or floor area ratio requirements. In contrast, some daycare centers and home daycares do have some specific regulations that would help address the impacts of those uses in residential neighborhoods. Private schools that are accessory uses to a religious institution also have specific rules to address neighborhood impact. Planner Chilcott stated the other part of the problem statement looks at RLUIPA to ensure the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) complies with that law. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated this was an important amendment to consider due to the fact that many municipalities have recently been sued over decisions made concerning religious use. Commissioners Hull and Fraundorf voiced their support for this problem statement. Staff was directed to proceed with this problem statement. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF SMALL WIND TURBINES Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. At their June 22, 2010 hearing, the Town Board voted to remand wind turbine regulations to the Planning Commission, with policy direction to reduce the setback and add a public review process. Planner Shirk reviewed the table from the staff report detailing the setback factors. Chair Norris commented that micro-wind turbines were not limited to the proposed setbacks. Commissioner Hull commented that micro-turbines were specifically separated from small wind turbines in order to allow them on small lots. Planner Shirk stated the current proposed draft recognized a setback of two times the structure height. The Town Board directed the Planning Commission to include a public review process to allow neighborhood input regarding location of small wind turbines. Staff recommended a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff discovered this type of permit for small wind turbines was fairly common in other municipalities and jurisdictions. The language in the CUP process would be very similar to the existing Special Review process. Planner Shirk clarified that a Special Review is for land uses, not structures or accessory uses, and is reviewed by Planning Commission and approved by Town Board or County Commissioners. Special Review appeals are heard in District Court. The Planning Commission would be the reviewing and approving body for the CUP. CUP appeals would be heard by either the Town Board or the County Commissioners. Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed code language. Neighbors would not be allowed veto power on a wind turbine application, but rather could comment on location criteria for wind turbines on adjacent lots. Code language was included to address the time limit for installation once a CUP has been issued. If the use of a wind turbine was discontinued or abandoned for a period of one year, the CUP would become invalid and staff would be authorized to proceed with code compliance. The CUP would be specific to small wind turbines. A waiver was RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010 included in the CUP proposed draft, which would apply to systems placed at least four times the structure height from property lines or easements. The waiver would not exempt any other requirements. Staff recommended the re-insertion of the CUP, the swept area of small wind turbines be increased to a maximum of 125 square feet. After introduction of new wind turbine technology at the study session, staff recommended the definition of swept area read “Swept area shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured by the outermost perimeter of blades or the largest cross-sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind-driven parts.” Planner Shirk stated staff recommends a minimum setback requirement of twice the structure height. He reminded the Commission that the CUP review would allow an increase in the setback if needed to mitigate the impact in view corridors, or reduce the setback by up to 25% of the structure height. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated setbacks were the most powerful tool for controlling the visual landscape. He described a scenario using a 20-foot tower instead of a 30-foot tower, and said a greater percentage of lots would meet a setback of three times the structure height by using the shorter tower. Commissioner Poggenpohl supported the setback of three times the structure height and thought the CUP was helpful in areas where good, solid regulations do not exist. He thought the proposed regulations were solid; therefore, he would not support the CUP. Commissioner Tucker questioned the use of the Special Review process instead of the CUP, with Planner Shirk stating that process would work, with Planning Commission being the recommending body and the Town Board or County Commission being the deciding body. Commissioner Lane added the CUP would be the only one in the EVDC, and would be used only for wind turbines. Planner Shirk clarified that the current setback or the approved setback would apply, whichever was more restrictive. Public Comment: Johanna Darden/Town resident asked and received clarification about setbacks from property lines and how they related to small wind turbines. Paul Brown/Town resident was opposed to having any setback requirements other than what already exists. He suggested applicants discuss the proposal with neighbors prior to submitting the application. He thought the CUP may open the door for other discussions on other zoning issues of the EVDC, possibly for accessory dwellings. Chair Norris closed the public hearing. Staff and Commission Discussion: Commissioner Fraundorf stated there were actually four topics tied to this draft code amendment: 1) Housekeeping issues in Section 5.2.B.2.h.5 [size]. Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 [swept area], and Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 [safety regulations] that could be dealt with in one setting: 2) The Conditional Use Permit; 3) The setback requirements listed in Section 5.2.B.2.h.2 [waiver]; and 4) Setbacks listed in Section 5.2.B.2.h.8 [setbacks]. Commissioner Lane clarified that 125 square-feet swept area corresponds to an approximate 12-foot diameter blade, whereas an 85 square-feet swept area corresponds to an approximate 10-foot diameter blade. Commissioner Klink stated his opposition to a CUP. He thought it would be more costly for applicants due to engineering and surveying required to support the application, and to have view corridor studies completed. These costs could eliminate several potential applicants. Commissioner Klink stated the CUP could set a precedent: adding there are no regulations on tree height, location of homes on lots, 30-foot flag poles with flickering flags, etc. He would struggle with judging whose “expert” opinions were valid. He questioned whether or not there would be specific RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010 standards for these experts to meet, similar to those implemented in the code amendments for Wildlife Habitat Assessments. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Poggenpohl) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees not to implement the Conditional Use Permit process in EVDC Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, regulating smail wind turbines. Staff and Commission Discussion: Commissioner Lane stated the Planning Commission’s role is to take input and make decisions about the appropriate uses of land, but was not sure they had the ability to make the same determinations based on engineering aspects of how something was supposed to function in a particular area. He had mixed feeling about implementing the CUP. Commissioner Fraundorf Alan agreed with many of Commissioner Klink’s comments, but would support the CUP process. Commissioner Hull supported the CUP process, with the opportunity for neighbors to comment and compromise. Commissioner Tucker would support the use of the existing Special Review process. Director Joseph clarified that a code change would be required for Special Reviews to be able to review wind turbines within that process. Town Attorney White stated there is a fundamental difference between the Special Review (SR) process and the CUP process. The SR is not a use by right, but a use subject to a review to determine whether or not you can use the property for that use. With the proposed CUP, the applicant would have a right to install a wind turbine, subject to a public review process that would mitigate to the maximum amount feasible the adverse impacts on the neighboring properties. Chair Norris was opposed to the Special Review process because it would not grant the applicant a use by right, and would support the CUP. The Commission voted to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees not to implement the Conditional Use Permit process in EVDC Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, regulating small wind turbines, and the motion passed 4-3. Commissioners Poggenpohl, Tucker, Klink, and Lane voted in favor; Commissioners Hull, Norris, and Fraundorf voted against the motion. Chair Norris requested staff to append the language on the proposed Conditional Use Permit to the version of this code that would go to the Town Board, so if the Town Board chose to amend the recommendation by the Planning Commission, they could reinsert the Conditional Use Permit process back into the amendment. Discussion occurred among the Commissioners concerning the amount of the setback from the property lines. Commissioner Poggenpohl continued to support a setback of three times the structure height, adding that a lower structure height would increase the number of allowable lots. Commissioner Lane stated the setback of three times the structure height made sense if there was strong code language to support it. Commissioner Tucker would support a setback of two and one-half times the structure height. He based some of his decision on the table provided in the staff report. Commissioner Klink agreed with Commissioner Tucker. Commissioner Hull would support an absolute minimum setback of two and one-half times the structure height. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.8.a to read “Setbacks from all property lines shall be at least two and one-half times the structure height. For example; a thirty (30) foot tall system shall have a minimum setback of 75-feet from the nearest property line”, and the motion passed 5-2. Commissioners Tucker, Klink, Hull, Norris, and Lane voted in favor; Commissioners Poggenpohl and Fraundorf voted against the motion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010 Chair Norris stated the last version of the code amendment, Section 5.2.B.2.h.5, indicated the size of the swept area shall not exceed 85-square-feet. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that in light of the lower setback, he would support a lower swept area size. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Poggenpohl) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.5 to read “Size. The swept area of any individual system shall not exceed eighty-five (85) square feet,” and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Fraundorf stated Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 should be changed to add “or the largest cross-sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind- driven parts." Commissioner Fraundorf also stated Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 should be changed to read small wind energy conversion systems rather than micro-wind energy conversion systems. It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Hull) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 to add “or the largest cross- sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind-driven parts”, and EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 to read “small wind energy conversion systems”, and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Norris thanked the Planning Commission, Staff, and the public for their input on this topic. 5. REZONING REQUEST, Aspen Brook Planned Unit Development (PUD), Phases I and II, 2343 Aspen Brook Drive. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request by the applicant. Aspen Brook Townhome Home Owners Association, represented by Phil Moenning, to rezone the Aspen Brook PUD from RM-Residential Multi-Family to A- Accommodations. The property is located on Spur 66, and the total area involved is just over 13 total acres. There are various zoning districts surrounding the property. The property owners in Aspen Brook each own their own lot, unlike a condominium where only the air space is owned. Out of the forty total lots in the development, there are approximately six to eight vacant lots remaining. Planner Shirk reviewed the history of this PUD. In the 1980s the property was formally zoned E-Estate. At that time, it was developed with several small cabins. In 1988, Aspen Brook Investors petitioned for and received an upzoning from E-Estate to A-Accommodations. Planner Shirk clarified that in 1988, the determination of the “A” zoning was related more to density than land use. In 1989, Aspen Brook Phase I was approved by the Board of County Commissioners, with Phase II being approved in 1993. At that time, it was made clear to the Board of County Commissioners that Phase II was limited to single­ family dwellings. A note to that affect was included on the Phase II PUD plat. In 2000, the current zoning regulations went into effect after many months of work between the Estes Park Planning Commission, the Larimer County Planning Commission, and the public. This property was rezoned from A— Accommodations to RM-Residential Multi-Family. Planner Shirk explained the major differences between the existing “RM” zoning and the proposed “A” zoning. The existing “RM” zoning allows vacation home rentals, with an eight-person occupancy limit. The proposed “A" zoning does not have the eight person limit. One of the implications of rezoning the PUD to “A” was potential parking problems. This particular PUD was approved to have two parking spaces per unit. The current “RM” zoning is required to be residential in character, with no accessory uses permitted. The “A” zoning district allows accessory uses such as spas, restaurants, and meeting rooms. One other difference is the “RM” zoning district includes a floor area ratio requirement, whereas the “A” zoning district does not. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010 Planner Shirk stated that the Community Development department has received a significant amount of public comment on this rezoning request. He broke down the correspondence by phases, noting that in Phase I, twelve of the respondents were in support of the rezoning, and two were opposed. In Phase II, one was in favor of rezoning, and four were opposed. There was one additional comment received that opposed the rezoning. Planner Shirk clarified that the Aspen Brook Investments Properties and Phil Moenning, representing the applicant, were not included in these numbers. It was also noted that the applicant currently owns nine of the forty lots throughout the development. Planner Shirk commented there appeared to be confusion among the respondents, as some are under the impression their homes could not currently be rented on a short-term basis, and others that know their homes can be rented think that status would change if the rezoning was approved. There was a common theme throughout of the potential impact on property values. Planner Shirk stated after talking with a local real estate appraiser for an independent opinion, the appraiser said while rental income does not have anything to do with the actual value of the property, the pool of potential buyers would be greater knowing the properties can be used as accommodations not limited to eight individuals. Planner Shirk reviewed the standards as established in the Estes Valley Development Code. Section 3.3.D sets forth the following review criteria: 1) The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Staffs comment was there had been no significant changes in the area since implementation of the Future Land Use Plan in 2000. 2) The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; Staffs comment was that at the request of the applicant, no development plan was submitted. Staff suggested the proposed accommodations zoning was not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Future Land Use Plan. 3) The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved; as staff and affected agencies were reviewing the application. Upper Thompson Sanitation District had requested a current “as-built" plan. The District reported they were unable to review the rezoning request until they had more details about the development. Planner Shirk stated Upper Thompson Sanitation District requested a development plan to determine what currently exists on the property, what was proposed, and what a change in the zoning would allow for in the future development of the area. Estes Park Light and Power and the Estes Valley Fire District did not have those same concerns. Planner Shirk elaborated on other general development standards that go along with the A-Accommodations zoning district. Although a complete code analysis was not done, staff determined there were some standards that were lacking, including only one entry; the roads in the development are not paved; road width appears to be inadequate, and it appears there could be parking shortages. Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Findings and Recommendations, as outlined in the staff report. Planner Shirk stated that based on those findings, staff recommended disapproval of the proposed rezoning of the Aspen Brook PUD Phases I and II from RM-Residential Multi-Family to A-Accommodations. Larimer County Chief Planner Russ Legg stated he was here not to speak in favor or against the rezoning, but to explain the nuances of the particular codes that were in place when the Aspen Brook PUD was approved by the County Commissioners. Mr. Legg stated the Planned Unit Development code regulations are no longer part of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The PUD regulations as they were used by the county worked as a combination subdivision resolution that established the process, which allowed 18-foot roads, and it provided that regardless of the underlying zoning, a PUD could have attached dwelling units. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010 single-family dwellings, or other types of dwelling units. Whatever was requested had to be built according to the PUD and a Master Plan that went along with it. The underlying zoning district was used to establish the maximum residential density that could be approved in the project. If requested, the County Commissioners were permitted to override the density calculation. If approved, the PUD could then include condominiums, attached dwelling units, building envelopes, etc. Lots could be sold to individuals and future building permits were issued according to what was approved in the PUD. The approved PUDs in Larimer county had a vested right to develop according to the master plan even though the PUD code was no longer in effect. Today, the applicant would not be able to increase the development without going through a two-step process to 1) change the uses, and 2) allow the rezoning to occur. Commissioner Lane questioned why the zoning was changed to A- Accommodations preceding the PUD approval, if the units were to be single­ family dwellings. Chief Planner Legg stated the A-Accommodations zoning provided for a higher number of units. “A” zoning could have permitted other types of units, including accommodations, but in the county’s opinion that was not requested in Phase I nor Phase II. It was clearer in Phase II that development was limited to single-family dwellings. It was interpreted by the number of units and number of lots that Phase I was also considered single-family dwellings. Typically, the number of planned units would be sited on the plan. Chief Planner Legg stated the Larimer County code was silent about nightly rentals. Commission Lane stated in Phase I, there was a lot reserved for lodge use, and questioned whether or not the applicant could pull a building permit for something other than a lodge. Chief Planner Legg stated it was the county staff’s and the county attorney’s opinion that the lodge-use specification meant the lodge could be used only for the inhabitants and their guests of the PUD. Town Attorney White stated the process leading up to the adoption of the EVDC included the development of a comprehensive plan by the Estes Park and Larimer County Planning Commissions. This included a future land use plan that was site specific to each individual parcel in regards to future zoning districts. It was determined at that time to notify all property owners concerning the proposed zoning. Prior to final approval, a zoning review board was established to clarify questions and concerns of affected property owners. As required by law, legal notices were published in the local newspaper, and there were numerous, lengthy public hearings. This issue was very prevalent in the community. The legislative public rezoning that occurred was completed in one step. The code included a provision that any property owner could make a request to change the zoning within one year of the zoning change. Town Attorney White stated that with regard to this particular property, the applicant indicated he never received notice of the zoning changes. The county verified that the applicant was not mailed a public notice of the zoning change. Town Attorney White explained that this current request for rezoning is a request by certain property owners and is being processed under the current EVDC, not under the original provision that allowed the Planning Commission to review rezoning requests during the one year period. Public Comment: Tara Moenning/Applicant representative stated the Aspen Brook property was rezoned in 1988, before the purchase of the property. A business plan was developed based on the A-Accommodations zoning. The 1996 zoning map showed it was zoned E-Estate instead of A-Accommodations. The applicant believed an error was made when the zoning map was printed. Both Phases I and II were developed using the “A” zoning. The applicant stated she was not informed of the zoning change from “A” to “RM”. She stated that although there were public hearings on the rezoning process, they were very busy running their business. Ms. Moenning requested that the zoning be “restored” to A- Accommodations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010 8 Phil Moenning/Applicant representative stated there was a cascade of mistakes, including one by the applicant of not reading the newspaper public notices. In 1988, the Aspen Brook PUD was zoned Accommodations. He stated his thoughts about an error on the 1996 zoning map showing his property still zoned as E-Estate instead of A-Accommodations. He stated Aspen Brook is basically built out, and did not think a new development plan was necessary. Mr. Moenning submitted a letter from his attorney to Chief Planner Legg stating his position on the zoning. He stated his business relied on the “A” zoning to sell and operate their properties. He explained his view on determining property value, stating he thought that the number of people renting a vacation home was directly related to the amount of income a property produces. Mr. Moenning stated the lot specified in the PUD for a lodge had been identified by the assessor as a building site and not a common element. The planned use for this lot was commercial in nature, which was not permitted in “RM” zoning. He disagreed with the current “RM” zoning that limits occupancy to eight persons. He thought it was obvious to the current owners that Aspen Brook was an accommodations business. Mr. Moenning explained that some of the homes are permanent residences and some are used as vacation home rentals. Planner Shirk stated that based on the assessor’s records, 15 properties had transferred ownership since 2000. Penny Fox/County resident supported keeping the current “RM” zoning for Aspen Brook. At the time of purchase in 1994, she was told that residential homes would be built in keeping with what they saw. She explained in detail about the large homes adjacent to her property and the issues she faced on a regular basis. She stated that Aspen Brook Investments was for sale and was concerned what the future owner could do in the area. Discussion occurred between staff and the Commissioners about the potential uses of the area under new ownership. Doug Fox/County resident did not think the two large homes in the area could qualify as single-family dwellings. He supported the “RM” zoning and was concerned about what a future owner may do to the area. He stated that out of the 33 homes in the development listed by Aspen Brook Investments, only about one-half are rented out, 24 would be unaffected by the zoning change because they are already listed with the eight-person maximum or less, and five would be marginally affected. The rental rates for the two large homes owned by the Meonnings are based on 16 people in each unit. Rebecca Miller, speaking for her mother Peggy Taillon/County resident opposed the rezoning request due to the increased density, noise levels, and uncontrolled use of the riverside by residents and guests of the area. She was concerned about an increase of that use and would appreciate some sensitivity to the environmental impact. Ken Wills/County resident was opposed to the rezoning request. Their home was used as a rental before they purchased it. The property adjacent to him is currently used as a vacation home rental, and he has had issues with parking, number of vehicles, noise, trash, etc. Chair Norris closed the public hearing. A five-minute recess was called at 3:50, and the meeting reconvened at 3:55. Staff and Commission Discussion: Commissioner Poggenpohl asked and received confirmation from Town Attorney White that the legal opinions of the Town and County were that no zoning error was made. Commissioner Tucker stated from the public comments, the activities that are occurring on the property are typical with a hotel environment. If the zoning was changed to A—Accommodations, he would want to see an RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010 infrastructure plan to support it. Commissioner Klink could not support the rezoning of the property without seeing a development plan. Commissioner Hull agreed with Commissioners Tucker and Klink, and had additional concerns about parking. She could not support the rezoning as presented. Commissioner Lane asked for better clarification about the restrictions and/or allowances for the PUD as they relate to the underlying zoning. Director Joseph stated the PUD was fairly clear about the buildings, streets, physical configuration of the property, but less than precise about the use. Moving forward, if the Commission were to look at modifying the PUD process, they would want to be clear about the uses as well as the physical configuration. Commissioner Lane stated that it seemed clear the intent from the beginning was to build single-family rental units. He stated since the PUD was developed according to the plan using accommodations zoning, the fact the applicant missed the appropriate time limit to oppose the new zoning designation should not be the sole reason to reject the rezoning request. Director Joseph stated there are currently several vacant lots that are not completely code compliant to today’s regulations, but would still be entitled to have a single­ family dwelling. The Community Development Department regularly approves single-family homes on single-family lots of record without requiring adequate public facilities. If it was something other than a single family dwelling, then adequate public facilities would be reviewed. Chair Norris reminded the Commission and those in attendance that the Planning Commission did not deal with economic issues, but rather the development code and the information presented by staff and the applicant. Chair Norris referred to Chapter 6, page 33 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan that addressed future land use In the Spur 66 area. It reads “Accommodations immediately adjacent to the river are generally small scale and create an identity in the planning area. Future development should maintain and enhance the established character.” He also recognized the fact that there were 15 property transfers since 2000 under the “RM” zoning designation. Chair Norris was opposed to the rezoning request unless there was a development plan that addressed future construction and adequate infrastructure. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners the disapproval of the rezoning request for Aspen Brook Planned Unit Development, Phases I and II from RM-Multi-Family Residential to A-Accommodations, with the findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed 6-1. Commissioner Lane voted against the motion. 6. FUTURE MEETING TIMES There was brief discussion about changing the regular meeting time from 6:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. It was noted the meetings were originally moved to evenings to make it easier for the public to attend. There has not been a noticeable increase in attendance at evening meetings. A comment was made that the Commission would be flexible about holding special evening meetings when discussing topics with high public-interest levels. It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Hull) to change the regular monthly meeting time of the Estes Valley Planning Commission to 1:30 p.m. on the third Tuesday of each month, and the motion passed 4-1. Commissioner Klink voted against the motion; Commissioner Fraundorf did not vote. There was a brief discussion between staff and the Commission concerning the upcoming triangle meeting between the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Estes Park Town Board, and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, scheduled for Monday, August 30, 2010, 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., at the Estes Park Conference Center. There being no further business. Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010 10 Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, girding Secretary