The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 1998-06-17BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission June 17,1998 Commission: Attending: Absent: Attending: Absent: Also Attending Town: Chair A1 Sager, Commissioners Wendell Amos, William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl and Dominick Taddonio All None TAC Members: Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorp and Bill Van Horn Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius and Bill Van Horn Roger Thorp Trustee Liaison Baudek, Town Attorney White, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Recording Secretary Botic CountyCommissionerLiaisonDisney,Conmussioners John Clarke and Cheryl Olson, County Attorney Haag, Chief Planner Russ Legg County: Consultants: Chris Duerksen and Tina Axelrad, Clarion Associates The Meeting was called to order at 10:08 a.m. by Chair Sager. 1. MINUTES/OPENING COMMENTS/OVERVIEW The Minutes of April 28 and 29, 1998 were approved as submitted. Vice-Chair Amos stated during the Study Session on June 16,1998 the Draft Annotated Code Outline was reviewed with comments/discussion from Commissioners and the TAC. Suggestions will be incorporated, there will be future reviews as Code is completed. County Commissions were welcomed. Director Stamey noted the EVPC, TAC, County and T own Staff have been working the past weeks in many study efforts. This is an outline which meshes Town and County development systems, sets forth Code organization, new items identified in the past few years have been added, specific problems will be addressed with the actual Code draft and reviewed in various public meetings. Thisis aTown and County effort to create acommon set of procedures. Larimer County Staff has been involved in the process and their comments have been incorporated in the draft seen today. Director Stamey introduced Chris Duerksen and Tina Axelrad (Clarion Associates Consultants), Trustee John Baudek and County Commissioner Jim Disney. Chris Duerksen reviewed the Annotated Ordinance Draft outline, highlighting key points. Mr. Duerksen explained no one is being asked to approve specific regulations at this time. Following today’s meeting there will be a meeting with the Town and County Attorneys, Staff and the consultants. Joint efforts are ongoing with the County regarding wildlife etc. He acknowledged Commissioners wiU need to see detail before decisions are reached. Article I - General Provisions - needs additional guidance onTransitional Provisions. Town and County will meet June 22nd. Article K - Code Administration and Review Roles - Procedures - will have specific standards. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 17,1998 Page 2 As legally allowed, decision making authority to EVPC/Staff. EVBOA needs to be created. Article m - Development Review and Administration Procedures - Review Procedures - common set of procedures, will mirror County’s new procedures where applicable, which they are currently working on. Utilize three step approach: Pre-Application Conference, Sketch Plan and Submittal. This will integrate Town/County business in a common set of procedures. Staffto review plot plan. Add PUD (Town doesn’t have. County is working on). Mr. Duerksen needs additional direction on Page 18 (size approach or specific type of use). Mr. Stamey has relayed information that EVPC would like to take size approach regarding “minor and “major” developments. Article rV - Zoning Districts. Tina Axelrad reviewed this section noting Design Overlay Zones would be discussed with RNL on June 23rd. Article V - Use Regulations - this covers Use Classification Definitions, Special Review Use Standaixls, Accessory Uses (Including Home Occupations) and Accessory Structures, and Temporary Uses. Article VI - Non-conforming Uses, Structures, and Lots - no major changes. Resources do not allow an inventory of non-conforming uses. Options could include registering non-conforming uses, or making determinations on a case by case basis.. Article VH - Zoning Development Standards - covers slope protection standards to open space/trails, wildlife habitat protection, etc. Article VIII - Incentives - Consultants have been instructed to pursue employee housii^options. Questions on density bonus and clnstering. Suggest administrative guidelmes and TDUs. Article IX - Planned Unit Developments - allows mixed uses on site. Article X - Subdivision Design and Dedieationflmproveinents Standards - covers General/Purposes - Improvement Guarantees, Improvement Standards. Artiele IX. Enforcement and Penalties - very important, will utilize a civil enforcement process (tickets rather than court) to bring about comphance. Article XII - Definitions - ( Pirn I ic COMMENTS - ANNOTATED CODE (AC)■■ S apTa commended Commission (going in right direction), areas of concern. 1. Height limitation 2. Upzoning to higher density 3. Limit use of density bonuses 4. Grading 5. Affordable housing, low cost, definitions 7. ""c^Srpt. (7-5), specific growth limitations 9. ^;X^r:Xcem land owners input for classification of land use 10. Where is standard/procedure for annexations? Steve Todd had the following questions t(.rina7 rFxccntions effect population goal) 1 Article Vni- what is rationale for density bonus/clustenng? (Exceptions etteci pop 2. Article VII - questioned 50' setback, proposed 100' . 9 3. Article IV - smaU Single Family - effects on populauon, why no R-35 district . BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 17,1998 Page 3 4. Article II - Decision making levels, what happens if Planning Commission makes a decision not in spirit of principles? Roland Retrum noted one day to review AC was insufficient, didn’t hear much about Comprehensive Plan in Study Session (06/16/98). Zoning is to be defensible based on Comp Plan. Areas of concern: 1. Comp Plan - density limitations - “saleable” area of land • Violates by variety of bonuses, variances, exceptions • Offers incentives not needed • Higher density zone - for what purpose? 2. Clustering • Comp Plan says do - proposal offers bonus 3. Comp Plan - low income housing should be addressed • Define income levels • Lone Tree doesn’t serve low income need, who will do this? 4. Comp Plan - strategy for growth 5. Town/County - implement • Decisions at Planning Commission level - good, but • Annexation - higher density 6. Comp Plan restricts development, =» streams, roads 7. Comp Plan limits multi-family to certain areas • Appears in commercial zones at higher density • Condominiums - jamming together units in tenement fashion • Have more public hearings John Phipps (local attorney representing Creighton Lake, Manor RV Park), if property is to be rezoned as shown in Comp Plan, he objects. 1. Questions on Non-conforming use area: • WOl all non-conforming uses be sunseted except vacation rentals? • Discontinuance (page 37) - ceases for 1 year - Define “ceasing” • Improving/expanding (page 38, e.) - doesn’t understand 2. Enforcement - Where will tickets be handled? Attorney White responded. 3. Condominiums • Site Plan - not same as Condo Map • After SpecialReview approval willTown be more involved? Attorney White responded. Ed McKinney 1. Authorities/approvals (page 10), avoid conflicting interpretation - one entity making decision. 2. Page 24 Definition of Single Family Residential Zones RE2.5 - “net of streets” - what about floodplain E-1 - 1 dwelling unit/acre, change is significant (from 1.7) 3. Page 25 “Net” or “gross” lot size - include streets? 4. Page 34 Design Overlay 2k)nes - “Highway 7" Ron Robinson 1. Non-conforming structure Kdamaged >50% - questioned if it could be restored. Attorney White answered no , explaining ‘use’ jf different thaf structure. IS -+harv (ComreeVe^ Heidi Todd 1. Will existing businesses need to comply with lighting standards? BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission - June 17,1998 2. Period before Code is approved - good faith efforts to comply/required? Page 4 Frank Haggard (Windcliff resident) 1. Survey taken last year in his neighborhood, results sent to Town and County, hopes neighborhood wishes will be observed (82% favor vacation rentals). 2. Why allow short term rentals in multi-family areas to continue and not in single family? Attorney White noted this draft is an outline, nothing is settled yet. 3. Whatever is decided on, vacation rentals will not end. If amortized in 1' years, there will be a financial hardship. 4. Process of Special Review - enable Planning Commission and Boards to grant special consideration for neighborhoods. 5. Appreciative of time and effort by the EVPC. TpS 2 VoAer controversial uses’, heUcopter, landing areas, is this a possibility in the future? 2. Page 34, Design Overlay Zones, why not include Devils and Dry Gulch? Judy Lamy 1. Consider “ground noise” Brad Dement (Real Estate Broker/Property Manager at Windcliff) 1 Not a uniform consensus in Valley regarding vacation rentals 2 Windcliff owners favors short term rental practice (80%+) 3. Allow by Special Review, or create a zoning class - 4. Recognize autonomy in a specific area like Wm c Eb Meyer . mentions9 Attorney White responded.1. Page 24, b., if annexed what is status, why 2 sizes mentions Bill Van Horn 1 Density concern, favors 5,000 sq. ft. lots 1. Need tor gamut of housing, need for a moving scale 3 Have relatively low cost and affordable 1. ProMde category for high standard mobile home park 2 Subdivision standards ' : rCem o“lop“ clShe mitigated, ‘‘cut onl/', separating lanes . If cut off at 30%, results in taking 3. liaison COMMENT John Baudek (Town Trustee) 1. Page 20,‘appeals’Page 20, ‘appeals’ : «'-^-s“ynothaveenou8h able to give input be done by County. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 17,1998 Page 5 4. COMMISSIONER DIRECTION - ANNOTATED CODE (AC) Wendell Amos 1. Strongly objects to density bonuses, consider TDUs • Maintain population objective (20-22,000), need to know effects on population with changes made to Code • Density bonuses will increase number of people • Larimer County is not giving density bonuses 2. Non-conforming section - needs to be easily understood Dominick Taddonio • Keep hd on population (may be effected by steep slopes) • Requested definitive statement from Clarion Associates • Requested Commissioners consider alternatives for growth Chris Duerksen • Bonuses • Would like direction, eliminate, reduce • Bonuses help accomplish other things in Comp Plan • Lid on population translates into how you map the districts • Separate growth cap - typically not in Code • Aimexation is not part of the Code • Number of tools to achieve population target • Text must be straight first, useful to separate, may want interim numbers, parallel process • There are some easy answers to today’s questions, formal process to answer questions • Process in a methodical way A1 Sager Mapping will be continuous 5. CONCLUDING COMMENTS Jim Disney - County utilizes a listening log, may be useful. Regarding density bonuses and TDUs, TDUs offer best and fairest growth management tool. John Baudek - process is moving in a positive fashion. 6. ADJOURN There being no fiirther business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:13 p.m. K^Q1/J2lAJUlJA __ Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary