The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commission 2021-03-16Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado,March 16,2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado. Meeting held VIRTUALLY in said Town of Estes Park on the 16 day of March 2021. Committee:Chair Matt Comstock,Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser, Commissioners Joe Elkins,Howard Hanson. Attending:Chair Comstock,Vice Chair Heiser,Commissioner Elkins, Commissioner Hanson,Director Randy Hunt,Senior Planner Jeff Woeber,Planner II Alex Bergeron,Planning Technician Charlie Rugaber,Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund,Town Attorney Dan Kramer,Town Board Liaison Barbara MacAl pine Absent:Commissioner Elkins joined meeting at 2:00 Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.Also attending was Matt Ashby, Ayres Associates consultant. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson)to approve the agenda.The motion passed 3-0. PUBLIC COMMENT. None CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser)to approve the consent agenda.The motion passed 3-0. CODE AMENDMENT:Solar Panel Setbacks Planner II Bergeron reviewed the staff report.He explained that the objective of this proposed Code Amendment is to enable the use of roof-mounted photovoltaic systems (perhaps better known as “solar panels”or “solar PV systems”)on structures that would otherwise have them installed if it weren’t for minimum setback requirements precluding installation.Approval of the Code Amendment will allow expanded use of renewable energy in Estes Park in a free-market context by removing a barrier to system installation. Discussion: Commissioner Hanson compared this Code Amendment to a three-foot roof eave.He noted that HOA’s are not allowed to prohibit or restrict solar systems installation and questioned if that applied to municipalities.Attorney Kramer stated that restrictions do apply to fees but was unsure of State Statute.Hanson considered this amendment as a “band-aid”approach with no harm coming from it. Chair Comstock stated that this amendment might be too limited and should perhaps cover a larger solar energy spectrum.Without structure,people are free to do what they want,suggesting that staff start work on more extensive solar panel code language.There being no guidance from the Town in placing solar panels on private property is concerning.Hunt explained that a building permit is required to install solar panels. 1 Bergeron replied that there is absolutely a need to have more structure and language. The time to make these more extensive changes would be when the Code is rewritten. Public input would be desirable,and this,in addition to limited staff availability,could challenging to do in the near future.This amendment is a partial solution to a current problem. Vice-Chair Heiser agreed that this is a step that solves some immediate problems.As is,this Code Amendment is good to move forward.He also would like this subject to be considered more thoroughly before rewriting the Code.Hunt did not confirm that further research could be achieved this year,but it would be possible if time allows it. PUBLIC COMMENT:None It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser)to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the text Amendment to the Estes Park Development Code with the findings as presented.The motion passed 4-0. CODE AMENDMENT:Impervious Lot Coverage Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the staff report.Currently,there are four nonresidential zoning districts within the EPDC where the “Maximum Lot Coverage (%)“ is inconsistent with and somewhat limited compared to what is allowable in other nonresidential zone districts.Those percentages are as follows: •A (Accommodations/Highway Corridor)—50% •A-i (Accommodations/Low Intensity)—30% •CO (Outlying Commercial)—65% •0 (Office)—50% Staff proposes increasing all of these to 80%. The second part of this Code Amendment was to change the Lot Coverage definition to eliminate “porous pavement and graveled areas”and no longer include “porous pavement and graveled areas”in the description of Impervious Surfaces. Discussion: Vice-Chair Heiser observed that changing the A-i zone from 30 to 80 percent is a significant change.Most of that land is in the County,not town limits.Woeber did not know the inventory of A-i properties within the town but will have that answer at the next meeting.Heiser suggested pulling the A-i zone out of the amendment. Hunt stated that payers would be treated as porous surfaces and could be based on the paver type.Public Works would likely require a drainage study,which would provide an additional review. Hanson suggested making this into two Code Amendments,making the lot coverage a separate issue.Impervious is absolute;porous is not,stating that he is a little nervous about changing the lot coverage to 80%. Commissioner Elkins stated that any ground cover that is not impervious is more prone to fire.If decreasing parking,vegetative space is increased,adding that the 80%is a good recommendation. Woeber noted that in pre-2000,the percentage was 80%.This is a typical figure with most development codes.Once setbacks,parking and driveway areas are subtracted out,the total numbers come up close to 80%for a commercial property. Hunt stated that there are frequent issues with the lot coverage percentages causing delays or dismissals of projects.There have also been variances issued due to the smaller lot coverage.It is extremely limiting for development. Impervious percentages may lead to offering incentives for zero-scaping (dry landscaping)in the new Code. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT:None It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins)to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the text amendment to the Estes Park Development Code with the exception of the A-i line in table 4.5,as presented in Exhibit A as recommended by staff.The motion passed 4-0. OTHER: Downtown Building Height Mail Ashby,Planner with Ayres Associates,reviewed the prepared PowerPoint on Downtown Building Heights.The goal is to explore what the values are and achieving them by answering the following questions: Why?More opportunity for housing What?Draft Code Language —mixed-use buildings up to 40 feet (use by right) How?Process and timeline —now through Fall 2021 Commissioner comments/questions summarized: Think bigger! Think vertical! Maximize the density in already developed areas by going up One of the only mechanisms for redevelopment in the downtown floodplain. Preference for redevelopment over workforce housing Infrastructure needs help,economic incentives Land base elevation use for height calculation Secondary zoning district for geography purposes Two stories of commercial,one residential is desirable Difference between height v story calculation Angles of the sun at different times of the year Ground floor for commercial use only Difference from the Downtown Plan adopted three years ago Height for an entire commercial use building Side lot-line setbacks It was requested that Ayres Associates return for the April 20 meeting for more discussion. Director Hunt informed the Commission that he would be retiring in the Fall.He hopes that the Planning Commission will have a role in selecting his replacement. There being no further business, karin Swanlund,Recording Secretary meeting at 4:08 p.m. M att air 3