HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-04-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 20, 2010, 6:00 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, and
Poggenpohl
Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board
Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Commissioner Klink, Planner Chilcott
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were 11 people in attendance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes from March 16, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
AMENDED PLAT, Lot 27, Prospect Mountain Subdivision, a PUD, 5th filing, Robert K &
Theresa C Bowman/Applicants - Request to expand the platted building envelope to
encompass the entire dwelling and deck as constructed in the mid-1980s.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Tucker) that the consent agenda be approved as
presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. REPORTS
A. Staff-level reviews
None
B. Pre-application meetings
Planner Shirk stated that Staff is expecting a submittal next month for a redevelopment
project on Highway 66. Director Joseph stated there has been conversation with the
owner of Mary’s Lake Lodge about a revision to a previously approved development
plan. This proposed revision should be on the Planning Commission s agenda in the
near future.
C. Town Board/County Commission . ou ^ * oQ«foio
Planner Shirk reported the code amendments pertaining to Short-term Rentals,
Vacation Homes/B&Bs and Accessory Kitchens were approved by the Town Board on
January 26, 2010 and by the County Commissioners on March 29, 2010 The code
amendment for Micro-wind Energy Systems was approved by Town Board on March
30, 2010, and by the County Commissioners on April 19, 2010.
D. PUD Problem Statement Status t ^ u
Director Joseph reported the problem statement has been accepted by the Town
Board and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Director Joseph stated in most communities, including Estes Park, a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is a provision for flexibility in the application of dimensional
standards (setLcks, minimum lot size, etc.) and standards for the separation of uses.
The problem statement directs the Planning Commission to review the current code
which is narrowly crafted, to provide for mixed-use PUDs in the Commercial 0ut|y'"9
zone district with a minimum lot size of three acres. The code does not provide for any
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 20, 2010
4.
density bonuses. Also included in the scope is to research other towns’ PUD
ordinances to help guide any possible revisions to the current code. Director Joseph
stated that PUDs are commonly used in larger communities across the country to
negotiate a win-win situation where the community gets some type of desired benefit
in return for added flexibility in the development standards. Planning Commission has
been directed to consider the benefits and potential unintended consequences when
drafting any PUD code revisions. Director Joseph explained the benefits would include
a more creative use of the land and the allowance of mixed-uses within zone districts.
The PUD process is a discretionary process the developer can choose to take under
the expectation they are producing a higher quality development that deserves the
flexibility that a PUD can provide. There is a trade-off between the development
flexibility and the predictability of zoning standards. Some of the possible incentives for
developers could include the following; solar design, creative architectural design
through use of high quality materials with high levels of craftsmanship, streetscape
amenities, parking amenities, features to create safe neighborhoods and pedestrian-
friendly neighborhoods; planned open space, etc. PUDs could also include a mix of
residential housing types benefitting all income levels.
Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that educating the public would be a large part of
the PUD process. Commissioner Tucker would be interested in learning how PUDs
could be advantageous in the Accommodations zoning districts. After discussion,
Chair Norris directed Staff to provide a map showing the number of lots that could
comply with the current PUD standards (CO-Commercial Outlying and minimum three-
acre lot size) compared to the number of lots that could comply if the PUD standards
included the A-Accommodations zone district, removing all public land from the
results. Director Joseph thought allowing PUDs into the Accommodations zone
districts would greatly increase the allowable lots while still complying with the
minimum three-acre lot size. While the land base for PUDs currently seems
limited, developers could always apply for rezoning and then proceed with the PUD
process. Commissioner Lane stated decisions would need to be made to determine
what incentives our community could offer to developers. Director Joseph explained
that density is typically the main incentive, with some communities offering various and
weighted density bonuses depending on the quantity and quality of the developer s
proposals. Chair Norris directed Staff to provide some tangible examples of PUD
ordinances from other communities, and any other incentives that the Planning
Commission may want to consider.
E. Comprehensive Plan Review Committee . ^ A i oh onin
Chair Norris stated the final committee meeting is scheduled for April 21, 2Uiu.
Results of the committee will be given to the Town Board for review.
REVIEW OF CURRENT TOWNHOME PROVISIONS IN THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) . .. . u
Director Joseph explained the current townhome provisions define a townhorne as at least
three units with a common wall, designed vertically rather than stacked, each with a front
and rear entrance. Each townhome owner also owns the land underneath the unit, whic
has zero lot lines. It was noted that the townhome provisions in the EVDC have not been
used since 2000. The current regulation states you have to have three units to quality.
Director Joseph explained that a free-standing, zero lot line, detached single unit is not a
townhome by definition and he thought it could be better addr?®sed in the
discussion. Currently, townhomes are permitted only in the RM-Multi-Family Residential
zoning district. There are similar projects that are frequently built In the ^
Accommodations zoning district, and it could be possible to reconfigure some of these as
townhomes- outwardly one would not be able to tell the difference between single
ownership and common ownership of the land. Director Joseph thought the P'ann|ng
Commission could address the need by expanding the townhome option 0 the A
Accommodations zoning district. Commissioners Lane, Poggenpohl, and Hull were in
favor of also including the A-1 - Accommodations zoning district.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
April 20, 2010
Public Comment:
Frank Theis/County Resident spoke in favor of the townhome code revisions. He said the
difficult terrain of the area sometimes makes it hard to design townhomes with a common
wall. In some cases, it would be much easier to design a free-standing townhome with a
zero lot line. This would allow more design flexibility. Mr. Theis indicated townhomes are
also easier to finance than condominiums. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated he is in
favor of expanding the townhome provisions to include other zone districts; however, he
would not want to see them as broad as the condominium provisions.
Public comment closed.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) to amend the appropriate tables in
the Estes Valley Development Code to allow townhomes in the RM, A, and A-1
zoning districts, while using the existing density standards.
Commissioner Tucker supported expanding townhomes into R-2-Two-Family zoning
districts in addition to RM-Multi-Family, A-Accommodations, and A-1-Accommodations.
Director Joseph explained the existing townhome regulations as they relate to minimum
lot size, and stated those standards could easily fit into the standards for RM-Multi-Family
zoning districts. If moved to include A—Accommodations, the same standards could still be
used, but other standards for that zoning district, such as transient rentals, etc. would
need to be removed. If free-standing units were to be allowed, a new set of standards
would need to be written to determine how townhomes should be configured. Director
Joseph stated that density requirements would need to be addressed if moving
townhomes into the Accommodations zoning districts. If the Planning Commission wanted
to allow townhomes into the A-1 zoning district without increasing the density limits that
already exist in that district. Director Joseph would prefer the motion be continued so Staff
could draft the appropriate code language and present it to the Commission at the next
regular meeting. There was general consensus among the Commission to proceed in that
manner. Commissioner Lane would also like to see how single-family and duplex
development would fit in the A-Accommodations zoning district so the Commission could
be better educated about whether or not this should be part of a PUD process. Director
Joseph clarified that the existing PUD process, without the element of commercial use,
allows a zero lot line free-standing residence or duplex.
Commissioner Hull withdrew the previously stated motion.
It was moved (Hull/Poggenpohl) to continue discussion on townhome provisions to
the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion passed unanimously with one
absent.
5. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EVDC
A. Small Wind Turbines
Chair Norris stated that Town Board remanded wind turbine regulations to address
three specific areas: setback, size, and the addition of a public review process.
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Staff proposed a new section to the EVDC that
establishes a Conditional Use Permit. This process would be very similar to the current
Special Review process, with the only differences being the name and the decision
making body. The Planning Commission would be the decision-making body for a
Conditional Use Permit. He emphasized the standards of review, which state iri part
“The application for the proposed Conditional Use Permits mitigates, to the maximum
extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and
services, and the environment.” This statement is very broad and would allow a
thorough review. Planner Shirk stated the proposal would include a one-year time limit
from the approval date in order to pull the permit. Staff suggested adding the
allowance of an extended time period at the time of review if requested by the
applicant. Additional time could also be extended at staff level after the initial approval,
granted there were no code revisions. Small wind turbines would be allowed in all
residential and commercial zone districts with the proposed Conditional Use Permit
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
April 20, 2010
(CUP). A CUP would be required for all small wind systems. A purpose statement for
the permit would allow the Commission to require that the setback be increased or the
location changed to lessen the adverse impacts on nearby land uses and properties.
Staff proposed the ability to waive the requirement of the CUP if the application shows
any of the following exist: a) Systems are not visible from properties within 500-feet of
the property boundaries of the lot containing the turbine. The waiver shall require
submittal of a visual analysis that demonstrates this visibility, or; b) Systems with a
swept area not exceeding 80 square feet, or; c) Systems setback from property lines
or easements at least three times the tower height; or d) Properties within mapped
ridgeline protection areas shall not be eligible for this waiver.
Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed requirements. He explained a two-tiered
approach was achieved in the code language by using the waiver process versus
those wind turbine applications requiring a public hearing. Commissioner Poggenpohl
did not support the proposed setback distance of two times the tower height. He also
suggested removing Section 5.2.B.2.h.(10), Safety Standards, stating it was not
appropriate in the land use code and the regulation of such should lie within the
building code. Commissioner Lane suggested removing the language in Section
5.2. B.2.h.(2)a. concerning visual impact, and changing Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)c. to five
times the tower height. Planner Shirk clarified that a setback of three times the tower
height would allow turbines on approximately 20% of lots in the Estes Valley, while
four times the height would provide an allowance of approximately 15% of the lots, and
five times would allow approximately 10% of the lots in the Estes valley to install a
small wind turbine.
Town Attorney White requested to eliminate Hwy 7, 34, 36 from Section
5.2. B.2.h.(2)a., stating an unintended consequence with the waiver process could
occur by listing specific roadways in the code.
Public comment:
Chair Norris indicated discussion would be on size of the turbines, setbacks, and the
public review process.
Dave Rusk/County Resident stated the existing restrictions are suitable, and thought
that two times the height of the tower was an appropriate setback amount. He stated
that “impact” was not well-defined. He thought the public review process would be a
way to regulate the visual impact, and was opposed to that process. Mr. Rusk stated
that property owners who have installed renewable energy sources have seen an
increase in their property value, and thought the proposed restrictioris could lower
property values for those that would not qualify for a wind turbine on their property. Mr.
Rusk stated it was very important that this community understood its role as stewards
of Rocky Mountain National Park and the negative perception that heavily-restricted
wind turbines could have on the community.
Paul Brown/Town Resident was opposed to the conditional use permit. He does not
agree with the proposed setback. He suggested the proposed ground clearance for
small turbines be similar to the regulation for micro-wind systems, in that the turbine
could be built lower to the ground if surrounded by some type of guard. He had
personal experience with micro-wind systems that performed the same whether they
were four feet or 30 feet off the ground.
Bob Clements/Town Resident spoke against the conditional use permit. He opposed
the proposal that implied all wind turbines would be considered to have the same
amount of visual impact. Mr. Clements mentioned that 95% of the renewable energy
survey respondents did not support a major setback. He suggested the Planning
Commission adopt a setback of one or two times the height of the tower.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
April 20, 2010
Director Joseph clarified that the survey figures were a subset of the total survey, and
believed the figures used by Mr. Clements did not include those respondents that were
in favor of a total ban on wind turbines.
Closed public comment.
Commission and Staff Discussion:
Commissioner Lane stated the public review process was initiated as a directive from
the Town Board. He supported the waiver in order to avoid the public review process.
He would consider slightly relaxing the setback restrictions of the waiver to allow wind
turbines on more lots. Commissioner Hull would support a setback of three times the
height of the tower in the proposed code language for the Conditional Use Permit.
There was general consensus among the Commission to allow the same ground
clearance allowance for small turbines as is stated in the code for micro-wind systems.
After lengthy discussion, there was general consensus to increase the size to 125
square feet in Section 5.2.B.2.h.(3), and also change the definition in Section 13.3 to
also read 125 square feet. It was agreed to eliminate Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)a. and
Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)b. There was consensus to relax the waiver restrictions to allow
turbines that are four times the height of the tower. Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)d would
remain the same. It was agreed to add the words “at least to Section 5.2.B.2.h(5)a,
which would read “Setbacks from property lines shall be at least twice the structure
height.” Planner Shirk stated one of the conditions of the conditional use permit is to
decrease the impact on adjoining properties. In some situations, there could be times
where a smaller setback would be desired to get the structure out of the view corridor.
He thought the Commission may want to reconsider the addition of “at least” to the
setback distance.
It was moved (Hull/Poggenpohl) to continue the Small Wind Turbine proposed
code amendments to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion passed
unanimously with one absent.
B. Clarification of the provisions for expiration of Development Plans
Town Attorney White stated there is a Colorado state statute dealing with vested
rights. The statute reads any development plan approval has the right to be vested for
a period of three years or greater, if so desired by the developer. Once vested, if the
governing body deprives the applicant of the ability to complete the development, as
approved, the developer or owner of the property has the right to recover damages for
that action. Those damages are the hard costs incurred by the developer or owner in
the preparation of the development plan or in conformance with the development plan.
It does not include an appreciation or loss potential in the value of the property. Upon
the approval of the development plan, there is a three-year time limit unless an
extension is granted by the Town Board or County Commissioners. The Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) does not state how to handle approved development
plans with expired vesting rights. Legally, building permits could still be pulled several
years later, as long as the developer was in compliance with any new code changes.
The purpose of this proposed code change is to expire the development plan at the
same time the vesting period expires, if there have been no building permits Pul|ed
towards development. The developer would be able to apply for an extension to the
development plan approval and subsequent vesting rights. Director Joseph stated
when a project is started and delayed, the Community Development Department tries
to actively engage the developer for completion time-lines. He further stated that
building permits are valid for a period of 18 months. Planner Shirk clarified the
extension period would be granted at Staff level based on a request by the developer.
After discussion, it was clear that the developer could come back multiple times for
extensions; however, if the code had changed. Staff would have the ability to deny an
extension.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
April 20, 2010
It was moved (Lane/Hull) to approve as proposed the amendments to the EVDC
concerning the Expiration of Development Plans, changing item (2) from a
period of 12 months to 18 months, and the motion passed unanimously with one
absent.
C. Clarification of, and revisions to, the A-1 Accommodations zoning district
density and dimensional standards.
Planner Shirk stated the purpose of this code amendment was to provide clarification
of the density calculation in the A-1 zone district.
It was moved and seconded (Lane/Fraundorf) to continue this item to the next
regularly scheduled meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one
absent.
There being no further business. Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m
Ron Norris, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary