Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 1999-10-18BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18,1999 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 Also Attending Town:Trustee John Baudek, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Chair Amos called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Approval of the Minutes of the October 11,1999 public hearing was delayed until a later meeting to give Commissioners more time for review. Chair Amos opened discussion by reviewing procedures. All Commissioners will have an opportunity to speak on each item if they so desired. Six discussion topics outlined by staff based on comments and letters received during the public hearing process will be discussed first. Commissioners will then be allowed to initiate discussion on any additional topics prior to a full review and final recommendation of the Code. Finally requested Zoning Map revisions will be considered. Attainable Housing - Director Stamey reviewed the staff report relating to Attainable Housing. The attainable housing issue is complicated. Town Board and staff are currently investigating a number of affordable housing strategies: however, these are not appropriate to include within a development code. The development code, on the other hand, can facilitate the development of affordable housing by providing incentives. Although density bonuses received a lot of criticism during the public hearing, they are commonly used in affordable housing programs, along with fee waivers, contributions, or deferrals. Staff recommended keeping the density bonus provision for attainable housing, as well as voluntary incentives for employee housing. Comments; Commissioner Taddonio - • Density bonuses only benefit the developer and increases the density of dwelling units in our community. • It had been reported to him that the Lone Tree project had been mismanaged and deserved investigation. • Using the Wildfire Ridge project as an example, he noted the monthly mortgage estimates of $750 and up for one-bedroom, G50sq. ft. units were still out of reach for low income families. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Baird) that all references made to density bonuses for affordable housing be removed from the Estes Valley Development Code. Commissioner Pohl - • The Commission would be assisting the Town by providing a mechanism in providing affordable housing, but it would only be one part of a larger process. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18,1999 Page 2 Town Attorney White commented that reports have shown the Lone Tree project is currently full with a waiting list. Debts have also been repaid on schedule. Town Liaison Baudek confirmed that management of Lone Tree has been successful. Commissioner Pettyjohn - • Code regulations add to the cost of development, not just the high end but also for affordable housing. Commissioner Sager- • The term “attainable” should be used instead of “affordable” as the temri “affordable” is relative. Commissioner Taddonio - • The Code is giving away density which does not achieve the goal of providing low cost housing for our working class. • Density bonuses should not be a part of the Code. • Attainable housing should be left to housing authorities to regulate. Town Attorney White - • The Lone Tree project was assisted by several mechanisms, i.e. donation of land, density bonuses, 3 grants, low cost government mortgage financing, and tax credit programs. The Town has been working with various housing authorities for several years attempting to provide affordable housing to the community. Town Liaison Baudek- • If density bonuses are removed, it will be that much more difficult to provide affordable housing in the future. Chair Amos - • County also uses TDU’s (transfer density units). • Affordable housing in the County is located in the growth managed areas nearer to downtown vicinities. • Should be no impediments in the Code for attainable housing. • Suggests following staff recommendation to approve density bonuses as an incentive for attainable housing. Motion was restated: That all references to density bonuses associated with so- called affordable housing be deleted from the proposed Estes Valley Planning Commission Development Code. Motion failed. Those voting “yes” - Baird and Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Sager and Kitchen. Commissioner Sager - • Staff comments identified the fact that the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners see the provision of affordable housing as a priority. • The Town Board and staff are currently investigating a number of affordable housing strategies. These strategies are not appropriate to include in this Development Code but the Development Code can provide an important menu item that might facilitate the development of affordable housing. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) that staff recommendation to include the density bonus provisions for attainable housing as defined as well as the voluntary incentives for employee housing be approved. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18,1999 Page 3 Commissioner Pettyjohn - • Density bonuses of 1 unit per 10 accommodation units was insufficient for employee housing and perhaps also the one unit per 2250 sq. ft. of commercial GFA. Town Attorney White noted one unit could include up to 8 people based on the definition of a dwelling unit. Director Stamey reviewed the definition of employee housing from the draft Code. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager and Kitchen. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn and Taddonio. Accessory Dwelling Units/Guest Quarters - Director Stamey presented the staff recommendation. At present, the County’s definition of Guest Quarters varies from the Town’s definition of Accessory Dwelling Units. Staff would recommend combining the two provisions into one standard. Staff also recommended the requirement of increasing the minimum lot size of the underlying zoning district by 50% in order to have an accessory dwelling unit. Commissioner Taddonio - • An accessory dwelling unit doubles the density. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Sager) that all references to accessory dwellings for housing purposes in residential areas whether attached or detached be deleted from the proposed Estes Valley Development Code. Commissioner Sager- • Accessory dwelling units should not be included In single family residential districts. Commissioner Pettyjohn - • What happens to existing residential areas that would become nonconforming by removing the provision for accessory dwelling units. Town Attorney White confirmed that nonconforming properties could be sold, rebuilt in case of fire, etc. Existing nonconfomiing accessory dwelling units could be remodeled as long as the size of the unit was not increased. Removing all reference to accessory dwelling units would only affect future developments. The definitions of an accessory dwelling unit and guest quarters were reviewed. Both are contained within a single family dwelling; however, the Town’s definition limits the size to no more than 33% of the principal residence and the County’s limitation is 40%. The County prohibits them as rentals, but allows them to be used for guests and resident employees. Both are structured so that they are separate units from the principal residence. Motion was revised to: “All references to accessory dwellings or guest quarters for housing purposes in residential areas whether attached or detached be deleted from the proposed Estes Valley Development Code.” Motion failed. Those voting “yes” - Baird, Sager and Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, and Kitchen. R was moved (Baird) that the Code be left as is and not include the required increase to 1.5 in minimum iot size. Also the two definitions couid be combined. Motion was withdrawn for lack of a second. Chair Amos suggested taking the motion in two sections - combining the two definitions and the increase in minimum lot size. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18,1999 Page 4 It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/Baird) that the provisions for Accessory Dweiiing Units and Guest Quarters be combined into one standard. Chief Planner Legg noted the County would revise its Guest Quarter definition to be combined with the Town’s accessory dwelling units in its entirety. Motion carried unanimousiy. Clarification from the Commission was requested in regard to rental provisions and percentage of principal residence. Commissioner Pohl - • Proposed that the County’s provision that there be no rentals replace the Town’s allowance of rentals for not less than 30 days. Town Attorney White commented that enforcement would be difficult. Discussion followed on detached and attached dwelling units. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pettyjohn) that accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 33% of the size of the principal residence or 800 square feet, whichever is less. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) that staff be instructed to include in the standard that accessory dwelling units shall not be used as rental units. Motion carried unanimousiy. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pohl) that accessory dwelling units shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling. If it was not possible to add on to an existing residence due to topography, application could be made to the Board of Adjustment. Motion carried. Those voting “yes” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Sager, Kitchen, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Amos. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to accept staff recommendation to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be developed as an accessory to a detached single family dwelling unit but require the minimum lot area to be 1.5 times the minimum lot area of the district. Motion failed. Those voting “yes” - Pohl, Sager and Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Baird, Amos, Kitchen. There followed discussion whether to allow Accessory Dwelling Units in all residential zoning districts. The 1.5 multiplier eliminates a lot of lots from consideration. County uses a maximum lot coverage provision. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pohl) to accept staff recommendation except to change the lot area multiplier from 1.5 to 1.33. Motion carried. Those voting “yes”- Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Kitchen, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn. Meeting was recessed at 3:58 p.m. Chair Amos reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Short Term Rentals - Director Stamey reviewed the Town ordinance regarding Short Term Rentals in Residential Districts. Chief Planner Legg explained the County’s peHey n^uioi^on rh^ax-iXi ng relattFig-to nightly rentals whttfe is very vague at present. The business license required d within Town limits would not be required in the unincorporated areas; however, the other restrictions in the Ordinance relating to nightly rentals would apply to the entire Valley. Town Liaison Baudek commented on the Town Board hearing regarding nightly rentals. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18,1999 Page 5 Commissioner Taddonio - • Nightly rentals are incompatible with residential zoning. • Accommodations are for short term periods and nightly transients. • Referred to a letter from Christopher Wold. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Sager) that nightly rentals in the Estes Valley as proposed in the current draft Code be prohibited. Director Stamey listed the residential districts which have allowable nightly rentals in the Code. Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of allowing short term rentals. Town Attorney White noted that the comments received by the Town Board indicated that more people were in favor of continuing nightly rentals in Town than were opposed to it. Town Liaison Baudek noted that this has been an on-going practice in Town for decades. Since the ordinance has been enacted in the Town, the complaints have been minimal. It was noted that when someone purchases a business license for a nightly rental, their utility rates are changed to commercial rates. Staff recommends this is a policy issue to be determined by the Boards. Motion failed. Those voting “yes” - Baird, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Kitchen. It was determined that since there were no changes to be made, it was not necessary to vote. River and Wetiand Setbacks - Director Stamey reviewed the comments received during the public hearing regarding river and wetland setbacks. Staff recommendation is to maintain the 50 foot setback. It was noted, however, that setbacks can be adjusted by the Planning Commission up to 25% during the review process, based on certain criteria. Wetlands have not had a setback in the Municipal Code except that building was not permitted in wetlands. In the County’s new Land Use Code, the major wetland areas have a 100 foot setback, with 50 foot setbacks for smaller ones. FEMA has identified the floodplain areas which affect the Town’s eligibility for floodplain insurance if not well regulated. The wetland setback is a building setback. The property is still available and can be used for the enjoyment of the owner. The land area can also be used for density and other lot area calculations. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Wetlands and Floodplain mapping for the Commission. Commissioner Baird - • Surrounding federally protected lands are not sufficient to provide all the necessary wildlife habitat and are being heavily impacted from millions of tourists every year. • Need to protect the ecosystem and wildlife habitat for both moral and economical reasons. Community depends on the scenic quality, on the wildlife and on the quality of our natural environment to make our living. • Riparian areas are less than 5% of the land area and 80% of the wildlife uses this at some time. • A 100 foot setback would be more ecologically sound. *77 -Tron'tihtt u)ct(Ar\ds Staff provided an estimation the number of remaining propertieithat have not yet been developed that-arc fronting wetlandcr It was moved and seconded (Baird/Taddonio) to make the river setback 100 feet. Discussion followed regarding property owner’s rights and the existing properties that would become nonconforming. Motion failed. Those voting “yes” - Baird, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Sager, Kitchen. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18,1999 Page 6 It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to maintain the 50 foot setback. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pettyjohn^, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Kitchen. Open Space Density Bonus - After a short break, discussion was resumed. The comments received during the public hearing regarding open space density bonuses were presented. This section contains two open space provisions, one for cluster developments and one that allows for a density bonus of 1.3 times the base number for the provision of additional open space and cluster developments. Staff recommendation is to keep the cluster subdivision provision and modify the density bonus. For an example, by using the clustering provision a 40 acre tract could increase its open space from 6 to 12 acres while allowing the number of lots to increase from 28 to 40. Town Attorney White noted that the advantage of having an open space set aside rather than just having a larger lot size is that the open space is preserved in perpetuity for the benefit of all the home owners. The Carriage Hills Seventh Filing was also used as an illustration. Staff recommended to simplify the provisions and will rework this section in draft form with additional illustrations for the next meeting. The conservancy lot would be eliminated. The vote was postponed until Staff’s revised draft would be presented. Technical Provisions of the Code - Director Stamey reviewed the technical issues and questions raised during the public hearing and subsequent correspondence, specifically those Issues raised by William Van Horn in his letter of October 12,1999. 1. Land Area Requirements for Density Calculations (Section I.9.C., a. and b.) - The land area within the 100 year floodplain and the land above the water service elevation are credited at 20% of their actual land area for density purposes. These standards have been In effect within the Town since 1986. The 100 year floodplain is mapped and recognized as a health, life, and safety hazard. The intent is to reduce density where this hazard exists. Also, there is no reason to give credit for undevelopable land such as the river channel. Water service elevation standard is also a health and safety issue (fire fighting) as well as a growth management mechanism (extension of municipal facilities). A developer has the option to extend water service prior to it being available in an area. Overtime, the water service elevation will increase as new service becomes available. It is staffs recommendation to maintain the floodplain and water service elevation development standards. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) that the staff recommendation to maintain the floodplain and water service elevation development standards be approved. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Board of Adjustment (Section 2.1 .A.3) - Comments received were in favor of a single Board of Adjustment for the Estes Valley. The Town and County could each have their separate Boards, but it seems consistent with Code and planning principles to create an Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The operating details of the Board will be established in the Town/County operational Intergovernmental Agreement. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to recommend the establishment of an Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Timing of Review and Approval (Section 3.1 .D.1) - The provision states that if the Decision-Making Body does not act on an application within a specified time period, the application is deemed denied, unless the Decision- Making Body and the applicant agree to a time extension. This is an important provision if a project takes more time to review, due to its size, complexity or need for additional information. This section would also allow an applicant to continue a project in the review process, rather than start over. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18,1999 Page 7 Discussion to be continued at the next meeting, which was scheduled for Wednesday, October 20, 1999, at 9 a.m. If necessary, deliberations will continue Thursday and Friday, October 21 and 22,1999. Chair Amos recessed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Chair Amos reconvened the meeting at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 20,1999. 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 Also Attending Town: DirectorStamey.Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Chair Amos noted the two additional public letters received from E. H. Meyer and Warren Clinton. Commissioners were asked if they had any comments. Commissioner Pettyjohn commented she regretted her vote to approve the 50 foot river setbacks based on her observation of certain sites. There seems to be a very high percentage of buildings that would become nonconforming. Concerned there will be a lot of Board of Adjustment reviews. Director Stamey noted that in the nonconforming section, it allows for those development plans that have gone through the approval process. Town Attorney White also noted that many of these structures are already nonconforming with the current 30 foot river setback and there have been very few variances requested since the change to 30 feet. Chair Amos referred to Section 6.3.E. as an adequate provision to handle variance requests on river setbacks. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) that the commission provide for the remaining 30 questions of Mr. Van Horn’s letter and staff’s responses and place on a consent agenda unless there is a motion to withdraw a specific item. After several items were withdrawn, the motion was withdrawn and discussion continued on a point by point basis. 3. Timing of Review and Approval - Discussion was resumed. The wording of this section is necessary due to the legal provisions mentioned above. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to approve Section 3.1.D.1 as currently stated. Motion passed unanimously. 4. The Review Process (Section 3.2.C) - The review process is done as quickly as possible but some agencies may require additional time for response. It is anticipated that review agency comments would be returned within the 30 day window. 5. Development Plan for Rezoning Application (Section 3.3.B.1) - This requirement may be waived by Staff based on the nature of the project. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 20,1999 Page 8 County has used this provision for some time and it has proved invaluable. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pohl) to accept as currently written. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of a Rezoning Request (Section 3.3.D.1)-Director Stamey reviewed the steps taken in developing the Zoning Map. All property owners were notified of their current zoning and the Future Land Use Plan at the time of the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Still there is a possibility that situations have changed and the proposed zoning may need to be modified in some cases. Town Attorney White suggested adding a provision that any property owner who feels that in the rezoning there was a mistake, would be allowed to come back before this Commission and the Boards for review within a specified time limit (i.e. one year). It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/Kitchen) to add a section allowing any property owner to apply within one year for rezoning of the property on the basis that a mistake was made in the original rezoning of the property under this Code. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Effects of Approvals and Lapse (Section 3.3.E) - Staff recommends the following change to this section. “When a development plan is required by this Section, if an Applicant fails to apply for a building permit and commence construction or operation with regard to the rezoning approval consistent with such development plan within 1 year from the effective date of the amendment, such development plan shall automatically lapse and become null and void.” This clarifies there will be a lapse of the development plan, not the actual rezoning. The Boards retain the right to reconsider the rezoning, but new zoning would not necessarily expire with the development plan. It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/Pohl) to accept the additional wording suggested by staff to Section 3.3.E. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Applicant’s Knowledge of Requirement (Section 3.6.C.2.e) - It is standard land use law that a self-imposed hardship (of the owner’s own making) can be grounds for denial of a variance. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pettyjohn) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Use Variance (Section 3.6.C.6) - A use variance (change) should only be granted by the legislative boards through a rezoning. Historically the Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to approve a use variance. Use variances in the County are due to the large geographical area and variety of uses that may be associated with an agricultural operation. In Town it is more appropriate to rezone the property to allow a use variance. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Sager) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Private Open Areas (Section 4.3.D.1) - Staff believes that the private open area should not be included within the area of the platted lots. By incorporating the required private open area as a separate lot or lots, the openness can be ensured, larger areas that are more effective can be created, and linkages to adjoining open areas can be achieved. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Taddonio) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Floodplain Regulations (Section 4.5.A.1) - This section states that the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County Floodplain regulations will apply. FEMA suggests changes to Town/County floodplain regulations as needed. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 20,1999 Page 9 The Town and County must comply in order to stay eligible for floodplain insurance in the community. There are limited floodplains in the Estes Valley, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Slope Adjustment (Section 7.1 .A.2.a) - The Zoning Map placed some areas in the RE (2.5 acre) District, with the consideration that the slope adjustment would apply. Alternatively, the other consideration was to place several of these tracts in the RE-1 (10 acre) District. Slope adjustment was considered a more reasonable regulation than rezoning certain properties to RE-1. Access, drainage, and site disturbance are some considerations for adjusting site size based on slope. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Grading, Ciearing and Excavation on slopes greater than 30 Percent (Section 7.1 .B.4) - Staff recommended the following revision: “Clearing, excavation, and grading on slopes greater than 30% would not be allowed, unless expressly approved through a development plan.” It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) to add the additional wording to this Section. Motion passed unanimousiy. 14. Cut and Fiii (Section 7.2.B.2) - This section establishes a 10 foot limit on the change of the natural grade. This section encourages alternatives to large cuts and fills. This standard also works together with the 30 foot height limitation. The goal is to provide reasonable parameters with the Code that requires development to be sensitive to a site. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn and Kitchen. 15. Site Design Practices (Section 7.2.B.6.a through f) - This section addresses site design practices, and also environmental and aesthetic purposes set out in the Code. Practical experience staff has had in the field has been applied. Discussion followed regarding the limitation of only 2 tiers. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Pettyjohn) to accept this Section with the exception of removing the 2 tier limitation. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Dredging of Waterways (Section 7.2.7) - It is appropriate to state this standard to enhance the protection of the Valley’s streams and riparian corridors. Staff recommends adding “.. .except as authorized with a floodplain development permit or with an approved development plan.” It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Pettyjohn) to accept this Section with the additional wording. Motion passed unanimously. 17. Limits of Disturbance (LOD) (Section 7.2.D) - As a matter of practice, the LCD would be established prior to creating building sites or lot lines. The LOD provides the framework to implement the various development standards in Chapter 7, especially the environmental protection standards for river setbacks, wildlife habitat and steep slopes. Ideally, the applicant will work with staff to determine these LOD areas during the pre-application review. This provision would not be retroactive to a lot of record. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimousiy. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 20,1999 Page 10 18. Tree and Vegetation Removal (Section 7.3.D) - Discussion regarding the definition of “Limits of Disturbance” revealed a confusion that Staff will address with language clarification at the point that LOD is introduced under Item d. The LOD areas are the locations that may be disturbed. The requirement to replace trees of a certain size is too demanding. An 8-inch tree is too large to be successfully transplanted. Rate of survival is poor. The provision that replacement may be with vegetation of equal value allows the needed flexibility. To answer Mr. Van Horn’s concern, the Commission assumes that the Town will also be regulated by the Code. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pettyjohn) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. Discussion continued regarding the replacement of trees. The height of 12 feet for replacement trees seemed excessive. It was moved (Baird) to change Section 7.3.D.5 by adding the word “each” after the phrase ‘ihree trees” in item a and adding the word “each” after the phrase “two trees” in Item b and that Item c begin with “Aiternativeiy, with staff approvai...” The Commission decided to wait for Staff to provide the appropriate rewording. This motion was withdrawn. Town Attorney made comment that the Boards have requested a timely recommendation. The Planning Commission must be ready to present their recommendation to the Boards by next week. Chair Amos suggested the meeting be continued Thursday, October21,1999, at 1 p.m. Meeting will be in Room 202-203 of the Municipal Building. Both Director Stamey and Chief Planner Legg offered to meet with Commissioners individually to answer questions. Director Stamey also commented on a report that provided the statistics from the Lone Tree project for the year 1997. Chair Amos recessed the meeting at 12:10 p.m. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 21,1999 Page 11 Chair Amos reconvened the meeting at 1:15 p.m., Thursday, October 21,1999. Commission:Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cheiie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, Al Sager and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Commissioners Amos, Baird, Kitchen, Pettyjohn, Pohl, Sager and Taddonio Absent:None Also Attending Town:Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Open Space Density Bonus - Staff resumed the discussion from Monday by presenting a revised example and wording on how the clustering provision would provide private open space, allow for clustering of smaller lots, with a density bonus of 1.2 times the basic allowable density. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pettyjohn) to approve the staff recommendation. Discussion followed. The cluster provision would now apply only to the RE-1,RE and E-1 Districts. Open space that is designated as a separate lot(s) is owned in common and for perpetuity. Chief Planner Legg commented on the County’s PUD experience. To encourage the public policy of clustering, a small bonus was effective. The additional lots were not that noticeable in the clustering. Commissioner comments: • The public mood was more receptive to open space in the Estes Valley. • Clustering has a built in incentive without a bonus since a developer can build for less with clustering. • There is incentive for the purchaser with the benefit of open space. • A small bonus of even 1.1 would be sufficient since It would add one or two additional lots. • If you don’t give developers an incentive, they won’t do it. • From an environmental viewpoint, the effect of less land disturbance from clustering would be worth the trade off of having a few more houses. Staff reviewed an example of a 40 acre subdivision with 29 allowable lots after applying minimum open space requirements and access ROW’S. A visual presentation demonstrated the Impact of clustering with a 1.2 density bonus increase. Appraisers have commented that the valuation of open space eventually causes the value of the smaller neighboring lots to increase. The assessor assesses the value of the open space and divides the taxes up among the homeowners in the development. The original motion was withdrawn. Town Attorney White suggested adding the word “minimum” before “lot sizes” in Section 11.3.E.2.a. and at the end of E.2.b. add “...in the RE-1, RE and E-1 districts.” It was moved and seconded (Pohl, Sager) to accept the changes as presented by Staff which included a 1.2 density bonus for open space. Motion passed. Those BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 21,1999 Page 12 voting “yes” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Kitchen. Those voting “no” - Taddonio. It was noted that any reference relating to conservancy lots is deleted. 18. Tree and Vegetation Removal (Section 7.3.D) - Discussion was resumed. It was staffs recommendation to change Item 5.b. to a minimum height of 6 feet. Item 5.a. to a minimum caliper of 2.Vz inches and add “each” after “trees” in both. It was moved and seconded (Pohl, Sager) to accept the changes as presented by Staff and to add the following after “Replacement of Significant Trees.” In Section 7.3.D.5.: “This requirement may be waived upon recommendation of staff with Pianning Commission approval.” Motion passed unanimously. 19. This item was previously discussed. 20. Wetland Setbacks (Section 7.6.E.) - There was a brief discussion regarding the need for these setbacks. There are no current regulations in either Town or County. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Taddonio) to accept Section 7.6.E as written. Motion passed unanimously. 21. Setbacks for Wildlife Habitat (Section 7.8.G.1.a)-This buffer would beset at the time of the review process. The Colorado Department of Wildlife would be the professional consultant to the Commission regarding this issue. DOW will be asked to comment on the five specific areas noted. An applicant must present a case that he has responded to the recommendation by the DOW “to the maximum extent feasible.” If in the future the Planning Commission determines that the DOW is not providing the needed information, the Commission could select another consulting agency, such as the County wildlife consultant, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) that Section 7.8.G.1.c.(3) be revised to read “No fencing using barbed wire shali be aliowed.” This regulation relates to new developments only. Motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pettyjohn) that “and wetlands” be added after “Riparian areas” in Section 7.8.F.3.e. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Kitchen. 22 & 23. Offstreet Loading Requirements (Section 7.11.D and Section 7.14.C.5.C) - The proposed off-street loading requirements are minimal. The CD - Downtown district is exempt from off-street parking requirements. “Off-street loading” could be added for clarification. The 10%/25% variance allowance and Board of Adjustment application are permitted. It was moved and seconded (Pohl, Kitchen) to accept these sections with the addition of “and off-street loading” in Section 7.11 .A.2. after the words “off-street parking”. Motion passed unanimously. 24. Swimming Pools (Section 7.14.C.5.C.) - It was the consent of the Commission to add the word “may” before “include” for clarification. 25. Comprehensive Plan Consideration (Section 10.5. A.1) - County Attorney Haag stated at the hearing that the reference in the Code to the Comp Plan is BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 21,1999 Page 13 appropriate. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Sager) that this Section be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously. 26. Sidewalk Requirements (Section 10.5.D.2.b) - Sidewalks on both sides of the road may be required where the Planning Commission determines there will be significant pedestrian usage. Judgment will be made at the time of plan review. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) that this Section be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously. 27. Review of Condominium Maps (Section 10.5.H.5 and 6) - Review procedures are applicable for condominium developments. Staff reviewed development standards that should be adhered to in condo developments. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Taddonio) that this Section be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimousiy. 28. Warranty Period (Section 10.5.K.5) - It is not unreasonable to guarantee the construction of public improvements for a period of 2 years. County has been using 2 years and is trying to extend it to 3 years. Disagreements are handled in court. It was noted that reference is made only to the Town on Pages 175 and 176 and should reference both the Town and County. Staff confirmed that all such references in the Code which should address both Town and County will be corrected. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) that this Section be accepted as written with the corrected reference to Town and County. Motion passed unanimously. 29. Item 29 was discussed previously and is no longer applicable. 30. Enforcement (Section 12.4. A.1) - This section was prepared by legal council and it is their belief that enforcement is possible. The current code is inadequate in enforcement procedures. The Commission should retain all the enforcement provisions that are legally possible. There was some discussion whether to remove the word “serious” but referred it to legal counsel to determine, tt was moved and seconded (Sager/Taddonio) that this Section be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimousiy. 31. Off-site Employee Housing (Section 13, Definition #99) - This does not preclude employee housing being constructed as freestanding housing. The Code provides incentives for commercial and accommodation developments to develop employee housing for their employee on site. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pettyjohn) that this Definition be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously. 32. Land Disturbance (Section 13, Definition #131) - Exceptions were noted which covered Mr. Van Horn’s concerns. It could be inserted “See Definition 48, Clearing and Section 7.3.D exemptions.” It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) that this Definition be accepted with the added wording. Motion passed unanimousiy. Other Hearing Comments: 1. Household Size - Draft code defines household as a family unit related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or 8 or fewer unrelated individuals living together in a single dwelling unit. Other definitions used in the County and neighboring areas were noted. The provision could be used to provide employee housing. Clarion used the number 8 in order to comply with the Federal Fair Housing BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 21,1999 Page 14 Act. There was a consensus to postpone discussion until legal council was available. 2. Minimum Lot Width in E-1 District - A request had been made that the minimum lot width (street frontage) be increased to 200 ft. from the proposed 100 ft. Discussion followed which pointed out existing developments in the E-1 District that could not meet this requirement. Lot sizes are part of the approval process of the subdivision. A definition of flagpole lots is needed. Definition #148 for Lot Width was reviewed. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) that the minimum iot width in E-1 District remain at 100 ft. Motion passed unanimousiy. 3. Public Street Lighting - Staff agrees that street and subdivision lighting should be shielded. Discussion followed regarding the lighting in the Downtown being included as well. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pettyjohn) that Public Street Lighting should be shielded. Motion passed unanimousiy. 4. Ridgeiines - Public comments had been made that there should be no structures placed on ridgelines. Staff believes that the ridgeline protection provision allows construction to occur but modified in a way to reduce visual impacts. Commissioner Sager felt this was an unnecessary intrusion into property owner's rights. Staff waivers should be recognized as a strong possibility and should be highlighted in some way. Staff suggested adding language that would allow staff to do site specific determinations. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) that Section 7.1.C.1 be revised by adding “if staff determines by site anaiysis that the property shouid be subject to ridgeline protection standards.” (Legal council to adjust so that it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the development is not on a ridgeline, if the site contains an identified ridgeline.) Motion passed unanimously. Chair Amos recessed the meeting at 5:05 p.m. Chair Amos reconvened the meeting at 9:00 a.m., Friday, October 22,1999. 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 Also Attending Town:Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Discussion on Other Hearing Comments was resumed. 5. Minimum lot size for multi-family development - The 40,000 sq. ft. minimum is a standard that enables the impacts of a multi-family development to be addressed, i.e. traffic, parking, setbacks, buffering. It also encourages BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 15 redevelopment of older areas through lot consolidation, and thereby improving access, lot layout, and utility services. It was noted that the minimum lot area for a multi-family attainable development is 25,000 sq. ft. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to maintain this provision as recommended by staff. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Planning Area Boundary - The Planning Area Boundary is the historic planning area of the Estes Valley and is based on the boundaries of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District boundary, in which the Town of Estes Park can serve water. The Town is legally constrained from providing water to those areas outside the boundaries based on an agreement with the Conservancy District. Geographic considerations are also apparent. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) that staff’s explanation of the Planning Area Boundary be accepted. Motion passed unanimousiy. Return to #1. Since legal council was present, discussion returned to Household Size. Town Attorney White confirmed that the Federal standard is 8. There are Constitutional problems to limit the definition of “family”, besides the fact it is a difficult standard to enforce. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pettyjohn) that the definition of household size retain the “8 or fewer unrelated individuals”. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioners’ Discussion Items: Commissioner Baird - Steep Slope Regulation. • His letter distributed October 15,1999 outlines some possible variations to steep slope regulations. • The original draft of the Code prohibited construction on slopes over 30%; the current draft allows with review. • There are public safety considerations. • There needs to be an upper limit. Current draft contains two concepts: one is a limit on density on slopes above 12%, the second is a construction limitation on slopes above 30%. Staff reviewed GIS slope/topography maps for the Commission. Public services may be limited because of steep slope but cannot be refused. At least one dwelling unit must be allowed on a property. There are other development regulations to control building location if there is just one building allowed. Proposed Code provides for site disturbance and cut and fill regulations, and driveway grades of not more than 14%. Another control is that more restrictive zoning districts with larger lot area requirements were used in areas with steep slopes. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Amos) that development on slopes greater than 40% be prohibited except to inciude the provision to allow one single family dwelling on the parcel. Discussion regarding property owner's rights and required development standards followed. Motion failed. Those voting “yes” - Baird. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Sager, Kitchen, Taddonio. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Amos) that in the RE zoning district, the amount that minimum lot size is increased for each % point that the average slope exceeds 12% be increased from 1,000 sq. ft. to 2,000 sq. ft. This is a 25% density adjustment from the existing code. Approximately an additional Vz acre would be required for a building site in the RE district. Commissioner Baird noted that the Comprehensive Plan left properties south of Fish Creek as RE rather than changing to RE-1 because the steep slope would naturally limit the density. Reducing the number of lots may reduce the value of the total property; however, the larger lots would be of higher value. The County’s current approach to steep slope is silent as to reducing BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 16 density. The current draft Code parallels the Town’s current code. Prospect Highlands was cited as an example. Motion failed. Those voting “yes” - Baird, Sager. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Kitchen, Taddonio. Commissioner Pettyjohn - O-Office Zoning District. • Why a category limited to only office? The Office Zoning District was designed as a transition district between CO Commercial Outlying and Residential. Office is more compatible next to a residential district than some uses allowed under CO. A PUD is permitted in CO with O as a mixed use. Adding housing might be appropriate as an accessory use in O. Historically there has been a problem with residential use in commercial zoning. The proposed code now prohibits residential as an exclusive use in the CO and O. Neighborhood meetings were very protective of their residential status. It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/Kitchen) to add to the Office category to aiiow residential dwelling units on the second floor or above of an office building. Suggestion to reword the motion to read on the second floor and above. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Sager) to amend the motion to add provision for some ground floor residential use. Amendment to the Motion failed. Those voting “yes”- Kitchen, Sager. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Taddonio. Original motion passed unanimously. Staff will determine appropriate wording to express the intent of the motion. Commissioner Pettyjohn - • Why are entrances required to front the street? If the entrance to a building does not front the street, it often creates a blank wall along a ROW and is visually displeasing. There are variances for situations where this would not be appropriate. Staff suggested leaving in the requirement in the CD district, and review for the CO and O districts. It was determined to postpone this discussion until design standards were developed. Commissioner Kitchen - • Does the limitation on home occupations limit someone from doing an “amway- type” business? The home occupation standards were reviewed. Typically, in an “amway-type” business the sales are conducted outside the home, and customers do not travel to the home. Chair Amos - County has been more specific in its definition of the limitation of traffic for a home occupation. The proposed Code states it as “pedestrian, automobile or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal amount associated with residential uses in the district.” The County says it does not exceed 10 vehicle trips per day. For planners, the term “normal amount associated with residential uses” is 10 trips per day. It was a concensus to add “i.e. 10 trips per day.” Meeting was recessed at 11:10 a.m. for a lunch break. Meeting was reconvened at 12:55 p.m. Commissioner Sager - • We are no longer a small town. By population and the State of Colorado, we are a city • Hopes that in the very near future Estes Park has a unified Board of Adjustment. Town Attorney White confirmed that both Boards have indicated their intent to do that. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 17 Minimum fence height specified in Section 5.1.D.1 is too excessive. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to change this to 6 feet. Motion failed. Those voting “yes” - Sager. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, -KItGheBrTaddonio. In reference to the Table 4-5: Density & Dimensional Standards, Stanley Park and Fairgrounds would be nonconforming to many of these requirements. Feels the Town should lead by example. It was suggested that the County also be included. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Sager) to recommend to the Town and County that they lead by example and conform to the Code. Motion passed unanimously. In Section 7.11.0.3, parking stall dimensions seem too narrow. Staff should review for appropriate width of stalls and areas between parking spaces. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) that staff review and identify that parking staii dimensions wiil conform to the standards that currently exist and dimensions for handicap spaces be included. Motion passed unanimously. In Appendix B, Submittal Requirements, the Preliminary Plat provides for a vicinity map. The scale indicated (1 inch = 1,200 feet) is often not sufficient for accurate locating. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) that staff will determine an appropriate scale for vicinity maps. Motion passed unanimously. In Appendix B, under Development Plan Submittal Requirements, Item mm. refers to staking. Staking needs to be adequate enough that the Commissioners or general public can interpret the meaning. Preliminary and Final Plats should also provide staking. Staff confirmed that staking lot comers and other features as required by staff were listed under Preliminary Subdivision Plans. In Item m. on Page B-4, add staking for street center line and take out the parenthesis. Chair Amos - • In Section 4.3.B. Table 4-1, should the use classification of Group Living, Large be allowed in R zoning district? Staff reviewed the reasoning for not allowing it in the Code. The specification as written was accepted. • Why are Bed & Breakfast Inns not allowed in all zoning districts with Special Review? Historically B&B’s in residential districts have been contentious. The definition of nightly rentals also overlaps. This provision is based on staff’s experience with B&B’s in terms of operation and neighborhood comments. • It appears there is a conflict between the regulation In Section 5.1 .Q.4.f. where tanks containing fuel, oil, etc., be placed underground and Chapter 13 Use Classification under Item 48, a. where bulk storage is in above-ground structures. Staff noted the reference in Chapter 13 related to wholesale bulk storage. The standard in Section 5.1 .Q referred to service stations and quick lube services. The wholesale bulk storage description was only a use classification. • Table 5-1 will be revised due to having a single standard for accessory dwelling units and guest quarters. • In this same table, why do private schools have to be connected to a religious assembly? Staff noted that private schools in residential districts are allowed only as an accessory use. Public and private schools are allowed in CO as a principal use. Preschools are identified as day care centers. • In Table 5-2, why are Bams and Stables allowed in A-1 but not in A- Accommodations? Staff responded that barns and stables (horses) are an accessory for private use only. Commercial stables are allowed in A- Accommodations by Special Review. • In Section 6.2, objects to the policy urging that nonconformance become conforming. Town Attorney White confirmed that the Code takes no active steps to make nonconforming conforming. If this paragraph is confusing, it could be removed. It might help alleviate the fears of people regarding BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 18 nonconformance of their property. This is a purpose section and is only illustrative. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pettyjohn) to delete the sentence “However, it is also the general policy of this Code to bring as many aspects of such nonconformities into conformance Motion passed unanimousiy. • In Section 6.6, would like to allow a one year extension for completion of a restoration. Town Attorney White suggested requiring restoration started within 2 years and completed within 3. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Pettyjohn) that restoration begin within one year but completed within 3 years. Motion passed unanimousiy. All references made to Town or County in the Code that need to be changed will be corrected by staff. In Section 7.1 .A.2.b., 5,4000 should be corrected to 5,400. Table 7-1, Line 4 E Estate under Column 5,25%, amount should read 34,780 instead of 24,780. Chair Amos continued - • Drip Zone should be defined as the drip line plus half the distance between the drip line and trunkline. Discussion followed regarding the procedures that will be followed in the future for making revisions and correction to the Code. It is a living document. Code amendments are provided for in Section 3.3. The Commission is the recommending body, but the Boards will make the final approval of amendments to the Code. Future revisions or additions to the Development Code, such as Design Standards and Guidelines, will be adopted in the same manner as the Code. Procedures for voting on the entire Code were discussed. Town Attorney White suggested that the Code be voted on in its entirety. At 3 p.m., Commissioner Sager, acknowledging that the findings stiii remain that the possibility for amendments exist and is adequate for any unforeseeable circumstances, made the motion to recommend to the governing bodies to adopt the Code as it has been presented and exists at this moment, motion second^ by Com<ni»ironer folr\l> Commissioners’ comments included: (1) expressions of appreciation to other members of the Commission, Staff, the Technical Advisory Committee, the media and public participation; (2) belief that the Code is a great improvement over the existing Code and that it can be improved through the use of appropriate amendments as experience is _ gained. 10■' Code ctoe^ 'not ^c'cttHy Con■farol or^ _ <jvrowH\ a.-f^rd.a.tole. -for lou> intoMe. 4.net re/ftted earoioHv issite ffr TOt^K+ly rentals. totr\fr\ii,9toncr- Jehu - iiei>tr/a.-HOf7& 0.bcu.f fSrti, o-f Cbdc, Motion passed. Those voting “yes - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Kitchen. Those voting “no” - Taddonio. Zoning Map Considerations: Director Stamey reviewed the history of the Future Land Use Map and the development of the proposed Official Zoning Map. Chair Amos commended Town and County Staff on the tremendous effort taken to notify, talk with, and listen to the 6,000 property owners in the Estes Valley. It is significant that there are only a dozen or so properties to review. That is an indication that the Zoning Map has gone through an extensive review, through the public process and the individual process. 1. Little Valley - Commissioner Baird declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from the discussion and left the room. Staff recommends to make the change for those property owners who have requested to change from RE (2.5 acres) to RE-1 (10 acres). About 140 acres are involved. Every owner has requested the change to his specific piece of property. It was moved and BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 19 seconded (Pettyjohn/Sager) to accept the staff recommendation to make the change to the properties in Little Valley as per residents request. Motion passed unanimously (with Commissioner Baird in abstentia). Commissioner Baird rejoined the Commission. 2. Selig Property on Upper Broadview - Staff recommendation is to comply with the applicant’s request and leave the property zoned A-1. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Kitchen) to accept the staff recommendation. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Scoog Property - This property is currently zoned R-M, and was zoned E- Estate in error on the map. Staff recommends the correction to RM. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Pettyjohn) to accept the staff recommendation. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Homestead Condominiums-This property is zoned RM. It was shown as A-Accommodations on the proposed map. A representative from the condominium association pointed out that they were a residential condominium and the RM zoning should apply, ft was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Taddonio) to accept the staff recommendation to leave the Homestead Condominiums as RM and correct the map. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Baldpate Area - A parcel mapping error came out at the time of a new subdivision in the area. Certain parcels that had been shown as A- Accommodations were only part of larger 35-acre residential subdivisions. The intent here is to correct the incorrect lot lines and place the entire parcel in RE-1 District. The Baldpate Inn property will remain in the A-Accommodations District, ft was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to accept the corrections proposed by staff. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Bass Property - The Bass property consists of 5 separate lots on Highway 7. Three lots generally fronting Highway 7 were placed in the A-1 District. One larger parcel and one smaller parcel are proposed as RE-Estate (2.5 acres). This property is steep, with most of it exceeding 35% slope. The Bass family wish to maintain their A-Accommodations zoning for all five properties (approximately 71 acres) for possible future development. The A- Accommodations zoning would allow approximately 1700 units to be developed (assuming no slope adjustment) as opposed to 280 in the A-1 District. Since there is no specific development plan at present, staff recommends maintaining the proposed zoning, ft was moved and seconded (Baird/Sager) to accept the staff recommendation. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn, Kitchen. It was noted that Mr. Bass could apply at some future time for a rezonIng. 7. Duemig Property - This is located at 1360 Strong Avenue. It is currently zoned T-Tourist. At the Planning Commission Hearing, Mr. Duemig stated that an appraiser had given him an opinion on the value as E-Estate compared to T-Tourist and the commercial zoning provided a much higher value. The proposed zoning is A-1 Accommodations and his desired use would be allowed in A-1. Since his property is 1/2 acre, A-Accommodation uses would be limited, and CO zoning would not allow him residential use. It is Staffs recommendation to keep his property zoned A-1 Accommodations, ft was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) to accept the staff recommendation to maintain the proposed zoning. Motion passed unanimously. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 20 8. Clemens Property - This property is located at 1889 Fall River Road and is approximately 10.9 acres. It currently has a motel style building with 6 units, 9 rental cabins and 2 units connected by a meeting facility. The property is steep with most of it over 30% slope. It is currently zoned T-Touiist with a proposed zoning of A-1. Owner would prefer a zoning of A-Accommodations to allow additional uses such as curio shop, antiques, and food service. It was noted that food service was an allowed accessory use in the Hotel, Small category in A-1 Zoning. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Sager) to accept staff’s recommendation that zoning on this property remain A-1 Accommodations. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pohl, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Kitchen. Baird and Pettyjohn abstained. 9. Henry Property - This property is located at 401 Riverside Drive and is currently zoned C-0 Outlying Commercial. Existing use is two single-family dwellings, and a detached garage. There are wetlands and a pond on the property. Mr. Henry’s request for a commercial or accommodations zoning is based on a possible future use. Speculation on future use should not be a consideration for rezoning. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Taddonio) to zone this property as E-1 as proposed. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Kitchen. 10. Wright Property - A letter was submitted on behalf of Tim Wright requesting that the properties at 260,330 and 350 Stanley Avenue be placed in C-0, as opposed to the E-Estate District. These lots are currently zoned residential as part of a larger subdivision and are not appropriate for commercial development. No change is recommended. If a rezoning is desired, it could be presented with a development plan. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Sager) that the Wright property remain E-Estate. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Brown Property - This property is located at 1272 Giant Track Road and is 2.9 acres. The Brown’s have expressed a desire to develop underthe existing County A-Accommodations provisions. They have indicated a willingness to restrict density by a negotiated development agreement which would be attached to the land, not the property owner. Chief Planner Legg will attempt to define the agreement by the time of the Joint Boards’ Hearing. They currently have a County building permit for 8 additional units on this property. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) to accept staff recommendation that this property be changed to A-Accommodations, with a contract negotiated between Mr. Brown and staff, eliminating the potential for larger commercial uses, in accordance with existing uses. Motion passed unanimously. After a short break, discussion was resumed at 5:45 p.m. on rezoning requests. William Van Horn - Requested his office location be zoned R-M rather than the O Office category. After discussion, it was determined rezoning would be more appropriate based on a development plan. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to maintain proposed zoning of O-Office. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn and Kitchen. Cindy and Dick Schreiber - This property is located in the Giant Track study area and the owners desire A-1 zoning rather than the proposed E-1. They currently BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 21 have two dwelling units and want to keep the option of long and short term rentals. Their current uses are allowed in the proposed zoning. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Sager) to retain the proposed zoning of E-1. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Kitchen, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Pettyjohn. Crossroads Buiiding - Since their new building on Dry Gulch is being converted to all offices, it was suggested to rezone their property to O Office from the proposed CO. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) to rezone this property as O Office. Motion passed unanimously. John & Connie We^ey - From comments made at the public hearing, this family has two lots zoned differently on Fall River Lane, one CO and one RM. Staff will confirm with the applicant what will work for him. In the meantime, zoning should remain as proposed. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pettyjohn) to maintain the proposed zoning. Motion passed unanimously. Brad Dement - From a written comment at the public hearing, he had requested a rezoning of certain parcels adjacent to Windcliff, but since he was not the owner, it was considered inappropriate to rezone. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Taddonio) to maintain the proposed zoning. Motion passed unanimously. Bob & Kathy Mussman - Owners of Sunnyside Knoll. They had a concern with the ridgeline map. Senior Planner Joseph advised that he did a site inspection and revised the ridgeline designation to more accurately reflect the actual situation. The revised mapping shows a small portion of ridgeline on their property and does not render it undevelopable. Warren Clinton - Has requested that his Lots 96 and 27 be designated A-1. Lot 91 which is currently used for accommodations Is proposed A-1, but the other two vacant lots are proposed E-Estate to be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Pohl) to maintain the proposed zoning. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Kitchen. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) to recommend to the Boards the adoption of the Official Zoning Map with the changes made at this meeting. Motion passed. Those voting “yes” - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting “no” - Kitchen. Other comments received from the public: Louise Lindsey and Michael and Paula Frease - Why are there no PUD provisions in Residential? This is provided within the cluster subdivision allowance discussed yesterday. Margaret Clark - How do we address violations? Enforcement will be handled through stop work orders rather than going through lengthy court procedures. League of Women Voters - Have concerns about trails. A Trails Committee should prepare a master plan for the Valley. Response noted that there is a trails plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Code also provides for trails in subdivision regulations. The Youngs and Bill Van Horn - suggested neighborhood meetings such as the County requires. Staff recommends not having neighborhood meetings on BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 22 development proposals because of the longer review process time. Also staff and the Planning Commission are accessible during the review process for public input. It was confirmed that current policy provides that all adjacent property owners are notified as well as legal notices in the newspaper. It is not mandated but the Town has had meetings with neighbors and the developer in certain cases. The County requires the developer to hire a facilitator for their required neighborhood meetings. It was suggested to wait and see how the County’s policy works and review this again at a later date. E. H. Meyer and Patrick Cipolla - Both asked for notification of property owners. Staff and the Planning Commission have responded they are notified. EVIA - Suggested having a wildlife advisory committee. This is under the Boards’ purviews, not the Planning Commission’s. Glenn Speece - Requested a definition of cooking and kitchen facilities. He owns a B&B and is concerned about his property being nonconforming. The definition of kitchen facilities has been expanded to be more flexible for accommodations which allows for smaller appliances (a “mini” kitchen). This does not count as a dwelling unit when these are added to accommodation units. Keith Keenan - Asked not to defer to Federal Government regulations. Legally we have to defer to the Federal Government. League of Women Voters - Asked for a clarification on Special Review. They feel the current description is too vague. Town Attorney White noted the proposed definition is much more specific than the current one. Special Review under the proposed Code deals only with impacts on the neighborhood and how these are to be mitigated. Ralph Nicholas - Asked that density be closer to Town and less in the outskirts. Staff feels the draft Zoning Map does that. Bryan Michener - Questioned why the YMCA is not required to provide a master plan. Their current zoning has no limitation on density or uses. General agreements have been reached with the YMCA but they’re informal at this point. Director Stamey commented that future meetings are planned with the administration of the Y. Several issues need to be resolved. Lee Kundtz - Asked about covenants which have been previously covered, and what costs were included in the housing costs in affordable housing. It depends on the particular affordable housing program being used. John Heffley - Wanted the Code voted on by the people. Under the state statute that the Commission is operating under, there is no provision for voting by the people. Also wanted future zoning changes initiated by the owner, which under the Code is required. Bill Van Horn - Why is there an R-1? It has been applied on a couple of small lot subdivisions but it is also available for any future development that would be applicable. Scott Duemig - Asked when the Code would be approved and when would enforcement be applied. Approval is up to the Boards who will also set the enforcement date. Staff has recommended the first of the New Year. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 23 Chair Amos thanked the public who had expressed their appreciation to the Commission. Thanks also to staff who worked with Clarion to create the Code. Staff is requested to present a list to the Commission of what is left to do. The Technical Advisory Committee is dissolved for the time being. A special task group may be invited to work on specific issues in the future. No further meetings for the Estes Valley Planning Commission are scheduled at this time. Staff efforts will be concentrated on the upcoming hearing with the Joint Boards. The Estes Valley Planning Commission will be kept updated on the process. Commissioner Sager again expressed thanks to staff for their hard work, expertise and patience. Town Attorney White thanked the Commission for completing an historic first in the State of Colorado. There being no further discussion, Chair Amos adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Meribeth Wheatley, Recording ^cretary