Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-10-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission October 19, 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, and Rex Poggenpohl Chair Norris, Commissioners Klink, Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, and Poggenpohl Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson 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 two people in attendance. Chair Norris announced that Commissioner Lane has moved his principal residence out of the Estes Valley: therefore, he was no longer eligible to maintain his position on the Planning Commission. Chair Norris and the other Commissioners thanked him for his time and service on the Commission. Commissioner Lane was a Larimer County representative, and the county will be responsible for finding his replacement. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from September 21, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. It was noted that the mylar due date for Marys Lake Lodge Development Plan 00-07D should be October 21,2010 instead of September 21,2010. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) that the consent agenda be approved as corrected, and the motion passed unanimously, with one vacancy. 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDs) Planner Chilcott stated staff has been focusing on identifying what could be accomplished with amended PUD regulations that could not otherwise be achieved with the current zoning regulations. Last month. Staff was given direction by Planning Commission to draft visual tools to help engage the public and to articulate some desired outcomes, beginning with a hypothetical analysis of Moraine Avenue and Cleave Street. It was important to stress that these examples were purely hypothetical, and used only as a starting point to conceptualize what a PUD might do in different areas. Staff researched a variety of options as ways to discuss desired outcomes where superior design and/or public amenities could be incentivized. Possible incentives could be changes in density, height restrictions, setbacks, parking, etc. Planner Chilcott gave several visual examples of different looks for multi-story buildings that could be used to generate public discussion. Moraine Avenue could be used to visualize different options, such as commercial highway-oriented activity close to the highway, with various other uses mixed in between the highway and the river. Open spaces, trails, etc., could also be included in the examples. Based on information provided at the last meeting. Planner Chilcott designed a sample survey that could be completed by the public to gain feedback on PUD options. Planning Commissioner’s comments included: adding space on the survey for public comment; creating general lists of possible attributes for the community and benefits for the developer: the pros and cons of architectural controls; the PUD process as an opt-in process; focus on physical attributes rather than style. Commissioner Poggenpohl suggested allowing staff to take time to create a quality questionnaire. There was general consensus to use sketches rather than photographs to keep specific locations out of the survey. Commissioner Fraundorf suggested creating questions that result in very clear RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ri Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 October 19, 2010 and specific answers, and emphasized the importance of being able to act on the survey results. Planner Chilcott stated there could be attributes of a PUD that would be more suited to some areas than others. Planner Chilcott will proceed with developing the survey. Public Comment: Sandy Osterman/Town Resident suggested using caution when relating to specific areas in the community, as the ideas may not come across as hypothetical. She also questioned who the “public” was, residents or visitors? If you incorporate trails, paths, parks, etc. then there is more for everyone to benefit from. Chair Norris closed the public hearing. Commissioner Klink wanted assurance that the Town Board was in favor of moving fonward with the PUD study. Planner Chilcott replied that the Town Board reviewed the PUD problem statement, and staff recommended that a sample visual preference study would be compiled and presented to the Town Board. It would be their decision as to whether or not to proceed. Commissioner Hull would appreciate knowing each Town Board member’s position on this topic before moving forward. Commissioner Klink recommended creating another PUD problem statement with detailed ideas so Town Board could give specific directions for proceeding with code revisions. He would like to have direction from the Town Board prior to staff spending time on designing a survey. Commissioner Norris stated the Planning Commission should consider an updated dialogue with the Town Board to work out the important details prior to moving forward. Director Joseph stated the focus needed to rest on the trade-offs. One side of the scale has the upside for the private sector (more density, bulk, increased floor area ratio) and on the flipside what the developer would bring to the table. How you mix and match those offsetting tradeoffs was something that would need to be sorted out on a case-by-case basis. It could be difficult to create a mechanical formula, although one municipality has adopted a weighted point system that could begin to serve as such. Director Joseph suggested illustrating the proposed lists of attributes. Town Attorney White recommended submiWng to the Town Board something concrete and tangible, not conceptual. Chair Norris directed staff to create two lists of attributes, one with possible community benefits and one with possible developer benefits. Where applicable, illustrate with sketches He also suggested planning a joint study session with the Town Board to discuss the future direction of PUDs. 4. OUTDOOR DI^LAY OF MERCHANDISE - Proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Code (EVDC) Section 8.1 COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN AND COUNTY SIGN CODES, and EVDC Section 5.3.D.1 Temporary Seasonal and Holiday Sales. Planner Chilcott stated the proposed code amendment for the outdoor display of merchandise originated through a request from the Sign Code Task Force. The outdoor .TX0Lmfr^handlSe Cr:ently resides in the si9n code, and the task force members r^owoi th 1 1 Jeri?ve? from the sign code and implemented into the Estes Valley nf tho ^m?nt c0de’ The.focus of the proposed amendment was primarily on the location nLnldlSPH y' So1,J® Port,°ns address the display size, if the display is more permanent in PhiilJ^ft a+n(^ d Imit the dlsplay t0 250/0 of the flo°r area of the building. Planner Chilcott stated the recommendation from staff would add to the EVDC a limit for the size of temporary displays to be no more than 10% of the gross lot area. An applicant could apply for a temporary use permit for temporary retail sales for a period of up to 60 days 1 nS tefnJh°,ia7 dlspl?y would not recluire additional screening, and would be allowed on 10/0 of the lot area. The proposed code amendment would also update a reference to the sign code portions of the Larimer County Land Use Code, Sections 8.7 to Section 10. This code amencJment was presented to the Community Development Committee, who gave staff direction to proceed with implementing it into the EVDC. Town Attorney White stated the current CD-Commercial Downtown zone district does not allow outdoor sales of merchandise. The proposed amendment would apply to individual property owners renting part of their lot for retail sales, i.e. Christmas trees, flea markets. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 October 19, 2010 retail items, etc. He clarified that Bond Park is controlled by the Town of Estes Park using a permit system, and would not be affected by this code amendment. Director Joseph explained the difference between the outdoor display of merchandise and outdoor storage, and suggested adding code language that addressed the difference. He reviewed the history of when the outdoor display of merchandise originated in the sign code. Commissioner Poggenpohl recommended clarifying some of the definitions, such as outdoor “display” versus outdoor “storage”. Public Comment: Charlie Dickey/Town Resident was curious as to whether or not any public comment was received from outlying businesses. He questioned if the required number of parking spaces would be considered when allowing merchants to set up outdoor displays. He was also interested in knowing if the Town would be enforcing the code. Planner Chilcott stated there was no public comment received prior to the meeting, and explained that the temporary use permit process allows staff to look at overall impacts and location of use, which would take parking into account. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Fraundorf) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1 and Section 5.3.D.1 concerning the outdoor display of merchandise. The motion passed unanimously, with one vacancy. 5. IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE PROBLEM STATEMENT Planner Shirk stated a recent application for a revised development plan exposed a loophole in the definition of lot coverage. The current definition of lot coverage “shall mean that portion of a lot that is covered by principal and accessory buildings or structures, and by surfaces that prevent the passage or absorption of stormwater such as paving and driveways.” The recent application included permeable pavers that did not prevent the passage of stormwater. Planner Shirk researched definitions of impervious surface lot coverage to address the loophole. Staff recommended using the existing definition of lot coverage and adding an amendment stating that permeable pavement of any type would not be exempt from the calculation to determine the percentage of lot coverage allowed. This proposed amendment would also clarify that other types of coverage, such as a gravel parking lot, would not be exempt. Staff would like direction from the Planning Commission as to whether or not this problem statement should be presented to the Town Board prior to approving code language. It was the general consensus of the Commission that this code amendment was minor and would not require a problem statement presentation to the Town Board. Commissioner comments included: whether or not to encourage the use of permeable pavers; to request input from the Public Works Department concerning stormwater; the life-span of permeable material versus impervious material; possibly allowing the use of permeable pavers to forego the need for a detention basin, while not allowing them to be used as a way to develop more land. Director Joseph stated the proposed amendment offered clarity, and was more restrictive than the current code. He explained that although they are indirectly related, the stormwater calculations are independent of lot coverage calculations. Director Joseph stated there are various types of permeable paving systems that do not support plant life. He would be more apt to give credit for permeable pavers if they did. Planner Shirk was directed to present draft code language at the next regularly scheduled meeting. He will add a statement of clarification that permeable pavement, pavers, gravel, etc. are not exempt from lot coverage calculations. 6 REPORTS Planner Shirk stated the Small Wind Turbine code amendments were heard by the Board of County Commissioners on October 18, 2010, and were unanimously approved. The Town Board made changes after the Planning Commission’s August recommendation for approval. Town Board changes included: re-inserting the Conditional Use Permit (CUP); a list of submittal requirements for the CUP; and, review criteria to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance and addressing shadow flicker, color, and visual impact. There was some concern expressed about the filing fee for an appeal to the Board of County RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 October 19, 2010 Commissioners. Planner Shirk reviewed the section addressing visual impact and stated if a proposed wind turbine location lies within a wildlife habitat protection area, the applicant would need to submit a wildlife conservation plan. Planner Shirk reported the County Commissioners heard the Rezoning Request for Aspen Brook PUD. The County Commissioners heard the request at their September meeting. The Commission tabled the item and directed Community Development staff to determine the closest match to the applicant’s former “A” zone district. Staff determined the A-1- Accommodations zone district was the best fit. It was determined that Lot 29A could only be used for a single-family dwelling and/or a rental/sales office. Short-term rentals in this PUD would not subject to occupancy limits, and there were several exemptions from current A-1 requirements that staff determined the applicant would not be able to meet. The 30-foot height limit and exterior lighting standards would apply. These changes were approved by the County Commissioners on October 4, 2010. Planner Shirk reported the Town Board of Trustees approved the extension of the vesting period for Marys Lake Lodge Condominiums for a three-year period expiring in 2013. Director Joseph reported on the budget for 2011. The budget for the Community Development Department was frozen, with exception of an improved phone system and improved software for the permitting process. The Commission expressed gratitude to the IT department for being instrumental in obtaining this software for Community Development without budget implications. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson,ng Secretary