Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 1999-10-11BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Public Hearing October 11,1999 Commission: Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, Al Sager and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Commissioners Amos, Baird, Kitchen, Pettyjohn, Pohl, Sager and Taddonio Absent:None TAC Members: Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorp and Bill Van Horn Attending: Members Gamble, Hondius and Van Horn Absent: Member Thorp Also Attending Town: County: Consultant: Trustee John Baudek, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley Chief Planner Russell Legg, County Attorney Jeannine Haag Tina Axelrad from Clarion Associates Chair Amos called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and introduced the Commissioners, Technical Advisory Committee, Tina Axelrad and Staff. Minutes of the October 4,1999 study session were accepted as presented. Chair Amos reviewed the procedures for the public hearing noting there would be a 3 minute limitation on public comment unless someone is speaking for a group or organization. He gave a brief historical background regarding the development of the Comprehensive Plan and Estes Valley Development Code. Director Stamey presented a slide commentary on the evolution of public sentiment that reflected a need for development guidelines in the Estes Valley. The major aspects of the proposed Estes Valley Development Code and the key points of each chapter were explained. The Boundary Map outlines the 32 square miles that are included in the Estes Valley Planning area. The development of the Estes Valley Zoning Map was also reviewed. Those wishing to speak were asked to sign in and observe the 3-minute time limitation. Cards were distributed to those who wished to make written comments. Those written comments are included in these minutes by attachment. Public comments: Mary Lamy, 336 Rock Ridge Road - Comments included; • Make sure definitions match the stated goals. • Household definition of 8 unrelated people is too many, increases density, neighboring cities allow only 3-4 people. • Riparian areas deserve major protection and should use a 100 ft. setback for streams and wetlands rather than 50 ft. • Pedestrian and bike trails should be given high priority. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11,1999 Page 2 Dr. Bert Cushing, 105 W. Cherokee Drive - Comments included: • Urged support for 100 ft. setback for riparian corridors based on scientific research which indicated adjoining land area critical to healthy stream life. Patrick Cipolla, 632 Asen Avenue - Comments included: • Zoning variances are too liberal at this time. • Adjacent property owners within 500 feet should be notified for comments. • Lot splitting allows too much growth. Address the multifamily situation where many property owners are from out of town. • Accessory dwelling essentially changes a single family residence to two residences. Roland Retrum, 650 Freeland Court - Comments included: • Proposed code violates the basic policies in the Comprehensive Plan, i.e. new code offers density bonuses to large developments in opposition to Comprehensive Plan. • Comprehensive Plan approves an affordable housing program without increasing density. • Asked that his letter be entered into the record. Mary Bauer, 251 Mt. View Lane - Comments included: • Does not support increase in density as offered with density bonuses in Chapter 11 as it opposes the Comprehensive Plan. • Truly low-income families are not assisted. Should use 125% of poverty level. • Density bonuses will not make more attainable housing but will only benefit developers. Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane - Comments included: • Should have the density closer to Town and less as you move outward. • Density bonuses for affordable housing should benefit the public not the developers. Connie Phipps, 585 Wonderview - Comments included: • Realtor in Estes Park for over 20 years. • Much of what is left is not the easiest to develop. • Minimum lot width for the E-1 District should be increased to 200 ft from the proposed 100 ft. Ed Meyer, 450 Bluebird Lane - Questioned: • How many people would it take to get rid of all density bonuses? Lee Kundtz, 343 Ute Lane, representing Arapaho Meadows Home Owners Association- Comments included: • What if covenants are more restrictive than the Code? Should be clanfied. • Street lighting is exempt from shielding and should not be. Shielding should apply to the Town. • Does housing costs include taxes, insurance, utilities? County Attorney Haag commented that government does not enforce private covenants. Covenants if more restrictive supersede zoning but County does not enforce them. Bryan Michener, 2432 Mountainside Drive - Comments included: • Commended Planning Commission for their time. • Housing should be directed to a task force to balance out the issues. • Leave the door open for TDU’s (transfer density units). BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11,1999 Page 3 • Wildlife is disappearing and needs to be protected—all wildlife and not just the large mammals. • Riparian setbacks should be at least 100 ft. • 80% of wildlife spends part of the day in riparian corridors. • Trails along streams are a trade-off because we lose wildlife habitat. Daniel and Nancy Brown, 1280 Giant Track Road - Comments included: • Want to have their property in an A-Accommodation zoning. • Not concerned with the commercial uses, but the number of units per acre is an issue. • Wants the flexibility to keep their current uses and don’t want to be non- confonning. • Wants to be able to rent monthly, weekly, or nightly. Cindy & Dick Schreiber, 1111 Giant Track - Comments included: • Have 2 structures on their property. Was zoned A Accommodations when they purchased it, now is proposed E-1. • Wants to keep the current use of both structures. (Proposed code would allow them to continue the use.) Jacqueline Oldham, 1591 Jacob Road, representing the League of Women Voters - Comments included: • First goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect and maintain the natural beauty, river systems, wetlands and wildlife habitat. • Wetlands need to have a setback of 100 ft. • Ridgelines should be protected from all lines of sight, not just major arterials. • Exterior lighting provisions should apply to existing and new structures as well as street lighting. • Strongly support open space; however, it is inappropriate to provide density bonuses for open space. • Builders and owners need guidelines for landscaping and buffers. • The basis for approving or denying a “use by Special Review” needs clarification. • Disappointed design standards are not included in the Code. • Would encourage strict standards in slope restrictions. • Would encourage the use of residential PUDs. • Need coordinated development of hike/bike trails with EVRPD. • Density bonuses for attainable housing is not supported, because it will not solve our low-cost housing problems. Need to have a well-organized task force to readdress the issue. • Compliments the EVPC for Its hard work in producing the draft Development Code. Bill Van Horn, 2101 McGraw Ranch Road - Comments included: • Does not want his office property zoned O-Office, and submitted a letter on this issue. • Will put in writing and address the Commission on other issues. • The 50 ft. setback is unreasonable (too much). Property rights are at stake. If Town wants more setbacks, they should purchase them. • Provide a “%” rule for adjustment of setbacks. Lucille Younglund, 2801 Fall River Road - Comments included: • Acknowledged receipt and approved of the revised zoning for the Fall River study area. • Number of allowed employee housing units is not sufficient. • Does not want the river setbacks to go to 100 ft. as it would make most of the properties along Fall River nonconforming. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11,1999 Page 4 Keith Keenan, 2501 Big Thompson Canyon, representing Alpine Angers, local chapter of Trout Unlimited - Comments included: • Requested river setback of 100 ft. which will be more in line with County’s Land Use Code. • Asked the Commission to be proactive and not rely on Federal legislation. Chief Planner Legg commented the County had originally proposed a 50 ft. setback which applied to all lots, but after a report from Dr. Cooper of CSU, they went to a 100 ft. setback which did not apply to existing lots. It was a local policy preference. Director Stamey reviewed the current reference maps relating to the Town’s water service elevation and flood plain. One would expect lower density where those public facilities (water) are not available. This relates to fire protection, sprawl, extension of public facilities. Flood plain map indicates the 100 and 500 year flood plain which is a known hazard area. Chair Amos recessed the meeting for a 7 minute break at 2:53 p.m. Patrick Cipolla, 632 Aspen Avenue - Comments included: • Why two standards for rental and purchasing a home? • Estes Park needs an assisted living center. • We don’t need density bonuses. They don’t solve the housing problem. Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane - Comments included: • Accessory dwellings should not be allowed for a profit motive. Make it a requirement that they be connected the full length of the primary residence to avoid two structures joined by a covered walkway. • Urges the Commission to cover the full spectrum of affordable housing and not just on two points. Chief Planner Legg provided the definition of affordable housing that was developed through the Larimer County Department of Human Services. Bill Van Horn, 2101 McGraw Ranch Road - Comments included: • 80% forfeiture of lands especially for flood plain is arbitrary and excessive. Better would be 20% reduction of flood plain and 60% reduction above the blue line. • There should be a single Board of Adjustment. • Use variance requests will be a problem. Should be one Valley Board of Adjustment. James Bass, Florida (children own land here-Jennifer and Jeannie Bass)-Comments included: • Uncontrolled growth is happening in Florida where they tried to restrict development which resulted In major law suits. • If you downgrade the zoning on someone’s property, it’s taking money out of their pocket. • Wants to keep A-Accommodations. Has no interest to develop land. Helen Hondius, 1996 Uplands Circle - Comments included: • Would prefer no development on ridgelines. • Questions whether 50 ft. wetland setback Is sufficient. • Approves the protection provided in Chapter 7. • The density bonuses offered in Chapter 11 seem to run counter to the Comprehensive Plan. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11,1999 Page 5 • Would prefer a mandatory requirement to dedicate a certain percentage of housing to affordable housing as done in Basalt. John Hefley, 1380 Devils Gulch Road - Comments included: • Code should be voted on by the public. • Any change in zoning should be approved by the property owner. • Any requirement of additional setbacks should be purchased from the owner. • Limiting business growth will create unemployment, forcing families to move away. Bill Van Horn, 2101 McGraw Ranch Road - Comments included: • Why do we have an R-1 zone when there are only 2 properties in that zoning and they are already built out? • Conflicts in sections refem'ng to encroachments into the flood plain and required 50 ft. setback. • Grading and site disturbance regulations are too stringent. • Dredging is necessary where there are significant problems with sedimentation. • The requirement that no trees or vegetation should be removed for a view is a problem. Over zealous in trying to save the trees. • Parking and Loading requirements are fine if we had a lot of land. What we have left to develop are corridors too narrow for these restrictions. • Comprehensive Plan is only a referral document and not a regulation for review of a development plan. • Condominium maps do not fit within zoning regulations. • Regulations regarding areas of disturbance will be difficult to regulate. • Proposed employee housing provision limiting it to the business location Is too restrictive. The Commissioners responded to points made by Mr. Van Horn. Comprehensive Plan may be used for review because it is included by reference in the Code. Mr. Van Horn’s additional comments: • Code needs to be more specific as to what regulation from the Comprehensive Plan would be considered in subdivision regulation. • New level of review is many times greater than now. Additional staffing will be required. • There are inherent conflicts between the property owner and the rest of the community. If the community wants It, they should buy it. Chair Amos called a recess at 4:05 p.m. to be reopened at 7 p.m. Director Stamey again presented the slide program and comments on the Draft Estes Valley Development Code and Zoning Map for the evening audience. John Henry, 401 Riverside Drive - Comments included: • Bought his house 2 years ago since it was zoned commercial. Would like the zoning to stay commercial to allow future development. On the Zoning Map, every property along the river in this area is zoned commercial except for 5 properties, 2 of which he owns. Feels that is arbitrary. Bryan Michener, 2432 Mountainside Drive - Comments included: • More species of wildlife need to be considered for protection. • YMCA is not being held responsible for their development. • What would it take to include other outlying areas in the planning area? Roland Retrum, 650 Freeland Court - Comments included: • Disagrees strongly with the proposed attainable housing provisions. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11,1999 Page 6 • Presented a chart with the area median family income comparisons and proposed that 125% of the poverty level rather than a percentage of MFI be used for the “attainable” definition. • Limit the number of those eligible for attainable housing to this level. David Habecker, 221 Big Horn Drive - Comments included: • Nightly rentals in any residential area is wrong. Not fair to neighbors and legitimate accommodation businesses. • Increase in setbacks makes it difficult to build in some areas. • Handicap requirements in conjunction with building on slopes creates problems. • Should expand the zoning areas where senior centers may be allowed. Karla Porter, 2000 Devils Gulch Road, representing the Estes Valley Interagency Council - Comments included: • Zoning must allow for the affordable housing needs. • The increasing cost of land requires a need to create density allowances for affordable units. • Suggests using a mix of levels of assistance. John Spooner, 527 Hondius Circle - Comments included: • Several properties in the RE-Estate zoning have a guest house. If these are grandfathered in use, can they be used for a resident employee? • Would like for the old guest houses to be permitted to have a kitchen, be detached and used for resident employee housing. Michael Jones, 2848 Fall River Road - Comments included: • They are being zoned residential. If a neighbor wants to change his zoning, will the other neighbors be notified? This neighborhood shares an egress/ingress road. • His home currently has an accessory dwelling. Can he rent this on a year-round basis In the future? Staff responded that the neighbors would be notified in the case of a rezoning and that he would have the option of using the second dwelling unit for a family member or as a rental. Scott Duemig, 1360 Strong Avenue - Comments included: • When will the adoption of the Code take place? • What are the setbacks for A-1 ? . His appraisal was increased $15,000 when the appraiser was notified the property was currently zoned T-Tourist instead of residential. Does not want to lose that with the rezoning. Helen Taddonio, 2720 Eagle Cliff Drive - Comments included: • We need to have a balanced growth that takes Into consideration the entire community. Housing must be made available to workers being paid a minimum wage. . . • Provisions for minimum width of manufactured housing is too restnctive. • Nightly rentals in residential areas should not be allowed. Staff responded that the provisions regarding manufactured housing is based on state statute. Mrs. Taddonio noted that the HUD requirement should pre-empt the state requirement. Karen Zipser, 675 C Steamer Drive - Comments included: • Opposed to nightly rentals. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11,1999 Page 7 • Would like Planning Commission to do away with the density bonus plan. Bob Clements, 1889 Fall River Road, owner of Amben/vood Lodge - Comments included: • Currently zoned T-Tourist, going to A-1 Accommodations. • In the past he has had a restaurant on the property and would like to be allowed this option in the future as well as some other possible uses to supplement their income. • Zoning limitations infringe on his ability to earn a living. • Going to A Accommodation would be preferable, neighbors are zoned C-0. David Habecker, 221 Big Horn Drive - Comments included: • Trails are in conflict with wildlife protection. • Group living facilities need a provision for a caretaker’s facility. New zoning should avoid reducing property values. The zoning code should have precedence over the Town ordinance on nightly rentals. There being no further public comments. Chair Amos closed the public hearing. The next Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting will be at 1:00 p.m. on October 18,1999, for deliberations of the public comments and other input received from Staff and Commissioners. There being no further discussion, Chair Amos adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. 'yy[l£AjUj-ezt^ J Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Sec^^ary