Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-01-20I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 20, 2009 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 20, 2009,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Vice-Chair Klink, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Ron Norris, and John Tucker Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, Norris, and Tucker Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Thompson Planner Shirk, Commissioner Amos The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Vice-Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Dave Albee/Town Resident - Mr. Albee introduced himself as the newly-elected president of the Association for Responsible Development (ARD). He spoke today to honor Enda Mills Kiley, daughter of Enos Mills and a founding member of ARD in 1985. Mrs. Kiley passed away last week. She was and will continue to be a big inspiration to the group, as her goals to preserve and protect the valley are a primary focus for ARD. Mr. Albee also introduced new officers Sandy Osterman, Buddy Mitchell, and Don Sellers. Mr. Albee suggested a gathering of ARD members. Planning Commissioners, Town Board members, and Larimer County Commissioners to discuss common issues. Director Joseph indicated that a joint meeting between Planning Commission, Town Board, and the Board of County commissioners is being discussed and will most likely occur this spring. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident - As the new vice-president of ARD, she will see that ARD continues the quality of involvement that the Planning Commissioners have come to know and expect from ARD. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The positions being elected today must be as follows: The elected Chair must be a resident of the County, and the elected Vice-Chair must be a resident of the Town. That being said. Commissioner Doug Klink was nominated (Hull/Tucker) to serve as Chair for 2009. It was moved that nominations cease (Kitchen/Norris). The Commission voted unanimously to elect Commissioner Klink as Chair for 2009, with one commissioner absent. Likewise, Commissioner Tucker was nominated (Hull/Norris) to serve as Vice-Chair for 2009. It was moved that nominations cease (Norris/Fraundorf). The Commission voted unanimously to elect Commissioner Tucker as Vice-Chair for 2009, with one commissioner absent. Finally, it was moved and seconded (Hull/Tucker) to name the Administrative Assistant in the Community Development Department as Recording Secretary. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 20, 2009 3. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of meeting minutes dated December 16, 2008. b. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Request to continue this item to the February Planning Commission meeting due to the absence of Planner Dave Shirk It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) to APPROVE the consent agenda, and the motion PASSED unanimously with one absent. 4 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC), BLOCK 12 - WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION Planner Chilcott stated that she would like to focus the discussion today on proposed revisions to EVDC §7.8. This section addresses when a wildlife habitat impact assessment would be required, what would be contained in the assessment, and how it would subsequently be reviewed. After today’s discussion, proposed code changes as well as proposed setback requirements will be drafted for presentation at February s Planning Commission meeting. A habitat assessment would be required for development plan, subdivision plat, planned unit development, special review uses, and rezoning applications on property that contains critical wildlife habitat. Planner Chilcott indicated habitat assessments will not be required for construction of single-family homes built on lots zoned single-family residential. According to the proposed code, critical status would apply to the following habitats, aquatic, wetlands, riparian vegetation, potential conservation areas as defined by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, winter concentration areas of Big Horn sheep as defined by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, raptor nests and a one-half mile diameter buffer around the nest, and severe winter range for mule deer and elk. Another possible addition is migratory bird habitat associated with riparian vegetation and open water. Staff is proposing that a wildiife habitat map be adopted into the EVDC, rather than refer|'lcing the EDAW habitat assessment or the EDAW maps in the EVDC. Staff is using the EDAW assessment to assist in forming code language. Planner Chilcott displayed the most recent version of the critical habitat maps, which are available on the Town website. She pointed out the areas that are considered critical and could potentially require a study prior to development. When asked by Commissioner Tucker about the percentage of developable land in fh® valley and asked whether we should focus on the river corridors and the effect of wiid ife conservation in those areas since this is where the bulk of development/redevelopment in areas mapped as critical wildlife habitat may occur in the future. Director Joseph stated the Estes Valley is approaching build-out and developers will begin looking at re­ developing existing parcels rather than developing virgin land. Director Joseph concurred with Tucker about the focus on river corridors. Planner Chilcott recommends any adopted maps be used as guides for further studies. There may be times when property owners question the presence of critical habitat on their property, and the proposed code has provisions for those challenges and possible updates to the maps. This would take place through a public process to allow for comment. Another new addition to the proposed code includes the ability to waive the impact assessment. If it was concluded there was no critical habitat on the property, a waiver could be submitted and reviewed by the Community Development Director Planning Commission, County Commissioners, or Town Board. A determination about whether or not a wiidiife impact assessment would be required could be requested prior to submittal of a development application. Commissioner’s Klink and Norris stated that this RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS r Estes Valley Planning Commission January 20, 2009 needed to be a transparent process. Planner Chilcott stated that she believed the process would be transparent. Director Joseph indicated that staff routinely determines what information needs to be submittal as part of a complete application and that this could include a determination that a habitat impact assessment is not needed. This initial waiver does not mean that the subject is off-limits for discussion and does not prevent Planning Commission from requiring an assessment. Also, he said it is a common occurrence to ask developers for more information during the application review process, and staff always uses their best judgment to focus on pertinent information and tries to make the process flow smoothly. Planner Chilcott stated that code language now includes criteria by which an assessment would be evaluated. Planner Chilcott indicated the review criteria for determining impac s on wildlife species should include human-related activities (domestic pets, etc.) that cou d threaten the health or viability of a species. Along this same line, impacts on wildlife habitat that threaten elimination, reduction, or fragmentation of said habitat should be considered, as well as movement patterns and the potential displacement of species over the lonq-term. Finally, cumulative impacts should be considered in ordert0 df!ermiiJe how a development could impact adjacent properties and subsequent wildlife habitat. p|anner Chilcott stated that she believes the language used in this code was or|91Jia pr6r Clarion for use in Summit County and has been adopted in several other Colorado counties. Staff and Planning Commission needs to determine if the criteria listed will work for the Estes Valley. According to Planner Chilcott, the proposed code recommends the habitat study be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine what mitigation factors are nee^e^ ^ef5 to minimizeyimpacts. The Estes Valley Contractors Association requested that staff maintain a list of qualified biologists so language requiring this was added to the code. This list would be non-exhaustive, and any applicant could bring the nanie of ^ quahfied biologist to add to the list, which would be maintained in the Community Deye'°PnJ®"t Deoartment. It is suggested each biologist have at least two years experience with habitat review in the Colorado Rockies or two years of comparable experience in another area with similar characteristics and species. Each study would look at existing conditions, assess potential development impacts review mitigation of impacts, and include an implementation-monitoring enforcement plan foossiblv working with homeowners’ associations). If a developer had approval to habitat from one area they would be required to enhance or restore an area close by. Any damaged habitat would require repair. Commissioner Noms would J;k® *° |®® ^I'lJa^and of a database of documented wildlife sightings by public groups to track habitat a species in order to determine any wildlife trends. BurtCuSTown Resident - Being a retired stream ecologist. Dr. Cushing stated that it is well-known in his science that a river or stream reflects the valley that it drains bec^^s® of the linkages between the terrestrial and aquatic environments. Any imPacts t0 a stream’s valfey or environment will eventually impact the stream as w®11- and thea 0.shepr "he Impact the quicker it will change the stream. Dr. Cushing said the greater he magnitude of the impacts, the greater the impacts within the stream, and encouraged t Planning Commission to stay as far away as possible from streams in order to lessen t Dotential impacts. Concerning qualified biologists. Dr. Cushing stated many organizations now have “certified” ecologists, and these societies will often provide you with the names of those who have passed the criteria to be included on their lists. Commissioner Tucke asked Dr Cushing’s opinion on what damage, if any, has been done to streams in the Estes Valley. Cushing believes all been severely impacted, including some areas where the link between the terrestrial and aquatic environments has been completely destroye . Mark Elrod/Town Resident - Mr. Elrod has concerns about the qualifications of the biolooists proposed to conduct the habitat assessments. According to the proposed code, Se must be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Community RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS r Estes Valley Planning Commission ^ January 20, 2009 Development Director. It is also proposed that the Community Development Director compile and maintain the list of biologists. Mr. Elrod’s concern lies with the power of the Director to be the sole decision-maker of who is included on the list. Mr. Elrod believes the term “qualified biologist” should be defined by education, experience, years of seivice, etc He suggests the code at §7.8.F.1.a be changed to state “The assessment should be prepared by a qualified biologist. The Community Development Department nnay maint^n a list of qualified biologists known to it from time to time and from which selectioris may be made.” Mr. Elrod thinks qualified biologists included on the list should have a minimum of a master’s degree from a university in the United States, have a least two years work experience in the natural habitats of the Colorado Rocky Mountains^ because our environment is unique, he feels strongly that the biologists should have Colorado Rocky Mountain experience, rather than accepting “comparable” habitat experience. Sandv Osterman/Town Resident - Ms. Osterman indicated that the words “significant adveL impact- are still undefined and with no clear meaning. She asked ® to again refer to her letter dated January 14, 2009 and consider making the aPP changes, which would include establishing an escrow account as a way to reimburse a qualified biologist for his services. Corey LaBianca/Local Resident - Ms. LaBianca suggested all habitat assessments, even those being waived, be brought before a public hearing. r hThi^s-afcraf zTfZ spac?datSase as0an'exampl^of^owethe^pubUcClcanVlh^pn?nbracking certain animal species. atidl^srpleSedetoaseV^heWsirngte-1athik? residenflaf parcels taken out o, contention for habitat assessments. Mr. Mares would i!'<®^^ addressed ^a^ aepubIicnforum.aTl^^eed0for^^tw^dlife the public after the of'™\f®bpm;fe^Xlent apS^^^^^^ known to the public couid be ,aken care Of before the applicant goes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mares also suggests the wildlife b®bitha'.a“seenb and the open space study that18 curr®^ .y. hat our community is trying to achieve. XTaSe?:dpr’ff develops « SSS c'^SK trbe’ "mtra'cii^hn'gS decisions concerning development, habitat issues, and open space. II RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS r Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 20, 2009 At this point, the meeting was closed to further public comment and opened to Planning Commission discussion of the proposed written code. Commissioner Klink opened discussion on the proposed written code: §7.8A - No comment §7 8 B - Commissioners Klink and Hull commented they were pleased the single-family residence had been removed from potential habitat assessment. Commissioner Fraundorf questioned uses requiring special review, and Planner Chilcott indicated the possibility o an assessment waiver, noting that language needs to be included concerning the details of the waiver. Commissioner Norris requested more specific language concerning raptor nests with Planner Chilcott clarifying the proposed Vz mile area is the diameter surrounding the nest (1/4 mile radius). Town Attorney White stated thexnAfedt^°'nclude .a definition of Critical Habitat in §13, which can then reference the map. With that in mind, §7.8.b would not include proposed items 1-8 because they would be listed in the definition in §13. §7.8.C - No comment §78 D - Commissioner Klink indicated the definition 0^a,c’ualiJ;fd .biol°ngr;at with a list of those persons. S7 8 E 3 - Concerning revisions to an adopted map, Commissioner Huii noted that development plans. Planning Commission may or may not be 'mpressed vNnth ’ h h to judging the expertise ofnaag;naf;s’imSeU7fto ensureP|ts Planning Commissioners would take tthe p,anning commission to strike mutually agree^to lyZl Deve/o^men^D,Vector the Commission to review this section at a later date, giving bian improvements. §7,8.F.1 ,b - Director Joseph ciarified this portioh for the benefit of the Commissioners. nee?to rMetve the information and be aiiowed the opportunity to respond. §7 8 F 3 - Planner Chilcott indicated this item is for public guidance. sentence of §7.8.F.4.a. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 20, 2009 §7.8.F.4.b - No comment. §7.8.F.4.c - Commissioner Klink stated this is the section of the proposed code that allows approval or disapproval of an application if Planning Commission believes there is significant adverse impact on wildlife habitat and species. If an application is denied, the applicant could appeal to either the Town Board or the Board of County Commissioners. Attorney White suggested the language for this item should read “In cases where the significant adverse impacts of a development are not adequately mitigated to the maximum extent feasible resulting in a significant adverse impact on wildlife habitat and/or wildlife species in the Estes Valley.” Attorney White added this is a provision not in the current code and is one of the difficulties we have with the current code, which does not give the Planning Commission, Town Board, or County Commissioners the right to deny an application if they feel in their judgment the development is not adequately mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Attorney White also beliefs there should be leeway to approve a development that may not be able to mitigate the adverse impacts to wildlife. Commissioner Kitchen asked for examples of ways to mitigate impacts, some of which are listed in §7.8.G.1.d. Planner Chilcott reviewed those examples and will add others to the proposed code. A 10-minute recess was given at 3:35. The meeting reconvened at 3:46. Commissioner Hull wanted the citizens to know that public comment is extremely valuable and appreciated. §7.8.G - Commissioner Klink noted this section is the attempt to define significant adverse impact. The Commissioners agree the words “or may” should be struck from the proposed language in order to read “will have.” §7.8.G.1 - Planner Chilcott questioned whether or not the language in this paragraph was too strong. Director Joseph suggested writing the section as a goal, (i.e. the overall goal over time is to ensure the health and viability of a species). After discussion among the Commissioners, it was recommended to delete “individual” in §7.8.G.1.a and §7.8.G.1.b to give a broader definition to animals. It was agreed upon by the Commission to retain parts a-d in order to give guidance to the Commissioners and to be able to create a finding that will be defensible in court. It was also noted the wording should be meaningful in context so the developer will also have guidance. Fred Mares/Town Resident - Mr. Mares suggested using the word “population” rather than “species” when referring to either animals or plants. §7.8.G.1.d - Concerning lighting. Commissioner Fraundorf suggested “location” be used instead of “types”, as the building code is already in place for types of approved lighting. §7.8.G.2 - Commissioner Tucker feels that including the entire Estes Valley in this paragraph is too broad a term to use, as he does not think any localized development in the Estes Valley will eliminate a species. Commissioner Kitchen commented that many people have the perception that the new wildlife code will slow down or stop development in the valley. She feels the big picture with this proposed code is about growth. Commissioner Klink indicated this proposed code is trying to uncover significant impacts on wildlife that wildlife can or cannot adapt to. His opinion is this code is an attempt to establish a balance that takes into account the importance of wildlife while still allowing development and growth. Director Joseph stated no individual development would wipe out a species, but we need to deal with the cumulative effect development could have on at-risk species. Commissioner Norris would like the Commission to consider deleting to the extent that the viability of an individual species is threatened in the Estes Valley and the diversity of wildlife species occurring in the Estes Valley is reduced, and retaining items a-e as a basis for making a reasonable judgment. Commissioner Klink feels items a-e are too broad and should have a context of severity. Planner Chilcott suggested using language that would hopefully prevent getting to this level of severity before some level of mitigation was considered. Commissioner Klink suggested language that brackets the II RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 January 20, 2009 severity but is less than wiping out the species. Director Joseph directed Staff to continue to fine-tune this section. Fred Mares/Town Resident - Again, Mr. Mares suggested the use of “population” instead of “species.” §7.8.G.3 - Planner Chilcott believes this section is probably more important in larger developments where there is more infrastructure. As an example, the road constructed through the wetlands area at the Good Samaritan Village could have been rerouted had there been a habitat assessment completed. Commissioner Tucker added this portion of the code may not apply at the golf course, but could be very applicable in the bighorn sheep area of the Fall River corridor. Commissioner Klink would like to read a wildlife biologist’s definitions of “population” and “species” before changing these terms in the code, and would also be interested to hear what local wildlife professionals think of this proposed code. Attorney White would like see a review by biologists from a financial standpoint based on the criteria being requested. Commissioner Klink added that putting all development plans on the same level for habitat assessments may not be economically feasible to the developers, due to the variables of each development. §7.8.G.4.b - After discussion among the Commission, it was suggested to delete this section. Commissioners will review it again before making a final decision on the deletion. §7.8.G.5 - Attorney White noted this section would be forcing a developer to address cumulative impacts when the impacts have not previously been addressed. Commissioner Norris would appreciate knowing why Summit County included this section in their development code. It was tentatively agreed upon by the Commission to delete this section. §7.8.H.4 - Attorney White stated this is a statement to maintain active mitigation through homeowners associations. Planning Staff, or both. Commissioner Norris suggested the creation of a database to track wildlife trends, and Attorney White responded by stating if the data is relevant, it will most likely be included in the study. §13.3 - After discussion, the Qualified S/o/og/sf definition may be modified and brought back before the Commission. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Hull) to CONTINUE discussion of the proposed AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12, WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION to the February meeting. The motion PASSED unanimousiy with one absent. 5. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to CONTINUE agenda item 5, ADOPTiON OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT ASSESSMENT to the February meeting. The motion PASSED unanimousiy with one absent. 6. REPORTS STONEWOOD SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-10 In the absence of Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott reported this was a staff-level review for a proposed single-family dwelling. When the plat of the Kingswood subdivision was approved, this lot included four separate Limits of Disturbance areas, which fragmented the buildable area of the lot. With this understanding. Staff suggested the note “Limits of Disturbance shall apply unless modified by a site-specific development plan” be included on the plat, which was approved by the Town Board. This request was to amend the platted Limits of Disturbance in order to allow construction of the structure. ■ft RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 20, 2009 8 Staff suggests that even though this particular building would encroach into some rock outcroppings and remove three significant pines, Limits of Disturbance (LOD) criteria would not be compromised. This is because additional LOD would be dedicated, twelve new Blue Spruce (each at least six-feet tall and guaranteed) would be planted, and the disrupted rocks would be re-used as landscape features on site. Staff suggests these factors mitigate the disturbance in the planted LOD. Neighbors have been notified and subsequent comments addressed. It was determine the drainage swale will change after construction, so minor revisions to the drainage plan will be required. Staff has approved the proposed development plan with numerous conditions that are listed in the staff report dated January 2, 2009. Staff will follow-up on the conditions to ensure they are met. Commissioner Klink would like to see Staff keep the following items in mind when creating the agendas in the next several months: Bunkhouses, Existing ADUs before 2000 that are no longer compliant. Guest Quarters, ADUs, and discussion about changing the development process to allow a public concept phase. It was recommended to table these items for the February meeting, but possibly begin discussion during Study Sessions. Commissioner Norris suggested also discussing the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Chilcott thinks that would be a good topic for the joint meeting between all the governing agencies. 7. ADJOURN ChaiMflink adjourned the meeting at 5:03 p.m. s Klink, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary