Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 1998-04-29BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission April 29,1998 Commission: Attending: Absent: TAC Members: Attending: Absent: Also Attending Town: County: Chair A1 Sager, Commissioners Wendell Amos, William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl and Dominick Taddonio All None Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorp and Bill Van Horn Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius and Bill Van Horn Roger Thorp Trustee Liaison Doylen, Town Attorney White, T own Administrator Klaphake, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Recording Secretary Botic Commissioner Jim Disney, Planning Director Larry Timm, Chief Planner Russ Legg Consultants: Chris Duerksen and Tina Axelrad, Clarion Associates, Leslie Bethel, RNL The Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Chair Sager. wr^ssioners over the past weeks and the Study Session heW ^ril 28, assist the Consultants to proceed. A Summary of Key Issues m response to public wBhes K av^Me today. Broad concepts and approaches will be discussed at this time with general consensus bemg soug . L XrtW^concernedwithvisualimpactinthefutnreforRMNP. Will mke wisdom. foresight, self- control and discipline to balance compatibility. Patrick Cinolla stated he recognizes from the Study Session (04/28/98) theEVPC B going in the rigM Ictl wtl leamiom the past; concerned with density bonus and how height is measured. 2. MINUTES , The April 14, February 10,1998 Minutes were approved. 1 A. sho.ida.«.c«i.niyon«aaa«,i«Mi!a™i...«'a.a™i»rd.«..w»r, guidelines? What should these cover? (Chair Sager) BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission - April 29,1998 Page 2 Recommendation. (Director Stamey) ♦ Mandatory design standards along the highway corridors (34, 36, 7) and central business district. • Standards should not focus on detailed architectural review, but rather address issues such as overall building scale, mass, height, materials, and color. * Design review be done by staff applying specific standards. Decisions appealable to the planning commission. Comments/Concems/Suggestions Utilize overlay zone for mandatory design standards Important for applicant to have choices Standards to address maximums on height Consultants to give direction for architectural review Mr. Duerksen suggested review be accomplished at staff level with potential for appeal to EVPC. Use of quantitative standards, steep slopes - no development over x%, address steepness of roads, have some mandatory and some voluntary (negotiable). Overlay is good approach. Commissioner Disney: don’t become too heavy handed, keep both tools. Spur 66 utilized a planning tool. Caution; don’t prevent a masterpiece, urged temperance. Most people want to “do the right thing”, just need a plan. Ms. Bethel: suggested utilizing a mix of voluntary and mandatory (height, massmg) to comprise a better package. . County Planning Director Timm: would like to have voluntary and mandatory, must have defining elements. EVPC Consensus • Proceed with reconunendation as outlined above. B. What are the preferred tools for open space preservation? (Chair Sager) Reconunendation (Director Stamey) • Provide for voluntary and mandatory techniques. . Mandatory open space set aside percentages for all new restdenttal subdmswns. . CufteringV^^dfor and encouraged, but not mandatory. Density bonuses up to a maximum cap be provided, subject to specific criteria. • Transfer of development units be explored and considered. . Rural Land Use Process be provided for. (Larimer County system). . Provide for fee in lieu of open space. ?0n^oI^™rftodLandUse-effective way to managegrowth, although doesn’t apply . FawrSSty *us - flexible ways to achieve density, where, -ech^ to handle . TDU - depending on marketplace, workable with proper codes and IG^ . County Planning Director Tinun: clustering will be mandatory ^°^the County I11 ^d^eas, density bonus will not be given. Rural Land Use (70 acres) does apply m Estes Valley County can require land dedication or fee m County areas. . f .. . ComLsioner Disney: TDU issues, work with the development commumty, be fair property owners, if done correctly, this will become the standard. EVPC Consensus • Proceed with recommendation as outlined above. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - April 29,1998 Page 3 C. Should new code provide for mandatory standards for preserving sensitive environmental areas? Which areas should be covered? (Chair Sager) Recommendation (Director Stamey) • Adopt minimum standards to protect key sensitive areas and resources • Scope • Riparian corridors (flood plains, wetlands, streams) Steep slopes Night lighting Vegetation protection Critical wildlife habitat Provide for flexibility to modify standards Wildfire Ridgelines Geologic Hazards Comments/Concems: • Mr. Duerksen is currently working with County on wildlife; this will work together for EVPC. . J , Wildfire issues - standards to reduce vulnerability, techniques to allow development • Underline “minimum”, “critical” • Ridgeline, builders advantage, define who is looking at building, who is interfering, Loveland example. County ridgelines • Mr. Duerksen offered two choices, 1) define specific viewing points, 2) apply standards and work with staff (general). . , . . Commissioner Disney: important aesthetic issues, balance, pubUc good vs. mdmdual rights. Real estate community may embrace, NIMB Ys, negotiation with staff to modify setbacks to allow intrusion if other steps are taken. Give staff the ability make a situation • There are good examples of buddings onridgelines, important to protect property nghts. Consideration of roof colors, work toward standards with property rights m mmd. • Attorney White: identify specific ridgelines. EVPC Consensus • Proceed with recommendation as outlined above. D. Should the new Code provide mandatory requirements and incentives for construction of affordable housing? (Chair Sager) Recommendation (Director Stamey) .. , ,. . Include mandatory requirements for the provision of affordable housing. (Annexations) • Provide for fee in lieu of providing housing. • Provide for long term availability/affordability. • Provide for a variety of approaches. . Provide for incentives (floor area exemption, second floor, accessory dwellings). Comments/Concems; • Bonuses and incentive to provide housing. . . Commissioner Disney: County is interested in density bonuses, tie to TDUs, harmomous EVPC Consensus • Proceed with recommendation as outlined above. E. Should short term visitor rentals in residential districts be allowed? (Chair Sager) BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Page 4Estes Valley Planning Conmiission - April 29,1998 Recommendation (Director Stamey) • Provide for use in some districts, but not all. • Provide for grandfathering of existing uses. • Provide for standards. Director Stamey noted this issue has been recommended to EVPC by both Town Board and County Commissioners. Comments/Concems: ♦ Grandfathering suggestion. • Discussion regarding enforcement, original intent. Attorney White reviewed history of issue. ♦ Commissioner Disney: the first priority is to adopt the Code, a step may be revisited. Concurs with grandfathering suggestions. Look at Special Review, neighborhood standards. EVPC Consensus • Proceed with recommendation as outlined above. F. Should the new code include revisions to make the review/development process more efficient and expeditious? (Chair Sager) Recommendation (Director Stamey) u * ft . Wherever permitted under Colorado law, push decision-making authority to the staff and planning commission, with the right of appeal by parties in interest. (For example, special reviews might be decided by the Planning Commission.) . Place more emphasis on preliminary plat approval - planning commission and town board (final plats are approved by staff as ministerial decisions, or consent). . Define a limited authority to enable staff to make minor modifications (eliminate need to seek some variances). , , . j ho . The scope of appeals made from the Planning Comm,ss,on to the Umitedutareviewoftherecordcompiledattheplanningcommtsswnpubhchearmg. "«o“on to consent iten. (adntinistrative rules of procedure for EVPC). ". Co.i^'^olwlSi^Wutoryrestrictions maynot allow County to delegate authonty. EVPC Consensus ♦ Proceed with recommendation as outlined above. C On the day that the new code becomes effective, should developments/projecte that are in die “pipeline” but not yet finally approved be subject to the new^code s req“*|'e^” n Should projects with final approvals, but which have not started construction or been Lpleted be exempt from the new code? (Effective date ofthenew code). Should short temf visitor rentals in residenttal districts be allowed? (Chair Sager) Recommendation (Director Stamey) beforbmldmgandsi,edesigns,andards.andsignifican,envtronmen,alresourcesmt . Spmv,JeMPaZ7^-,>onfreeze period, during Mch applications are no, accepted until the new code is adopted. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission - April 29,1998 Page 5 Comments/Concems: • If Freeze implemented is G.2. necessary? Recent Building Permit Application freeze did not present a problem (Staff determined completeness.) Don’t utilize a moratorium, use term “application freeze” or “hiatus” Town process is relatively short, County has much longer procedures. Consultant needs to know intentions so as to write Transition Rules Freeze must be determined by Town Board and County Commission, not EVPC Keep all four options at this time EVPC Consensus • Proceed with recommendation as outlined above. H. Should site and paridng lot landscaping requirements be modified for conunerdal and multi-family projects? (Chair Sager) Recommendation (Director Stamey) • Adopt stronger landscaping requirements that focus on quality, not quantity. • Consider reducing the amount of landscaping required, but increasing the size of individual plantings. • Mandatory irrigation of landscaping. • Landscaping designed to be more wildlife resistant. . ,. , . Consider the Town contribute landscaping materials for certam projects m hig way corridors. Comments/Concems: • Countv has no budget for maintenance. . Electric fence, if placement of plantings done properly, fencing may not be necessa^ . Ms. Bethel discussed size and quality of material, fencing, imgation as possible strategies. Importance of education, good guidelines, protection and fencmg. . Incentive for plantings, special price at nursery. (Available tlnu Town for example) . Town Parks Director Speedlin has a list available of appropriate plantmgs. EVPC Consensus . Proceed with recommendation as outlined above. 1. Should the special review process be revamped including more specific review criteria and conditions in the code. (Chair Sag ) speda, rede, uses P,anning commission, subject to an appeal. • Develop more specific criteria to guide decision-making.. ^ducethe nimber of special review uses, by making certain ones permitted . subject to specific conditions. Comments/Concems: . More emphasis on Planning Commission review. . Commissioner Disney: in favor of streamlining where apphcab . • Mr. Duerksen - can address I.- 2. EVPC Consensus , • Proceed with recommendation as outlined above. I BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission - April 29,1998 Page 6 Should the process of creating condominiums be included in the code’s definition of subdivision, and that such a division of property be subj ect to subdivision standards and review? (Chair Sager) Recommendation (Director Stamey) • The use of land for condominiums be included in the code’s definition of subdivision, and that such division of property be subject to subdivision standards and review. Comments/Concems: • Utilize a process to allow public consideration. County already has a process. • Attorney White: Town to recognize condominimization. • Commissioner Disney: consider Steamboat’s ordinance. EVPC Consensus * Proceed with recommendation as outlined above. GENERAL COMMENT Commissioner Pettyjohn requested there be uniform standards for aU classifications without regards to location. 4. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:07 a.m. Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary