HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2001-11-15BRADFORD PUBLISH[NG CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code Revisions
November 15,2001,1:30 p.m.
Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton,
Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio
Chair Kitchen, Commissioners Amos, McKinney, Pettyjohn, and Pohl
Town Liaison Habecker, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner
Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Wheatley
Commissioners Hampton and Taddonio
Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT - (regarding those items not on the agenda) ____iu_
Rich Wille, 1401 Raven Circle - Had concerns regarding condo maps going through the
subdivision review process. Suggested engineer’s certified verification of foundation loeation
and elevaton and the plans turned in for building permits be enough to prove what was built
was whafwas' approved at the development plan review. Staff couid approve before a CO was
issued.
Planning Commission.
Director Joseph reviewed a letter received from Kenneth and Ca^Dahigren,e575 Chapin Une^
regarding a disturbance of the peace (n°'s® f"J0^u®t0fr° operate within®50 ft from the
re^s9per?v«^
with as a police ordinance rather than a zoning ordinance.
pCTF^ VALLEY nFVELQPMENT CODE REVISIONS
Director Joseph reviewed the proposed revisions in bFock 2 for discussion.
InceXes Ser. The item was continued to the December meeting.
Item 2. §4.3 C. Stream and Corridor Setbacks streams and mjnor
dSnages°wrth L'exLjng 50 foot fSd.
meeting. Prior public input from such og . m be soijCited by public
ScfeAdmte1eSL^^^^^^
meeting.
Item 3. §13.3 Definition of GrossthF'°°rc^!®ant exciUSi0n would read: “The lowest floor
The proposed change for the basement ex enclosing exterior wall is
of a nonresidential building where no P0.*! . d that jjogg not have direct
exposed more than three (3) feet above finish QJ^ade and ha doe
access to the exterior through a door^e thyo^l floor arean ot arass fioQr
areS^eMatthew Heiser com^^ tha?irilthe Code the definition of finish grade
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 15, 2001 Page 2
was 6 feet from the building. This might have an effect on a steep slope.
Table 4-5 was proposed to change the standards for 3 of the zoning districts.
Maximum FAR in the A zoning district would change from .25 to .30. RM is a use
by right in the A District and therefore should be consistent with the RM zoning
district which has .30 FAR maximum. Since the A-1 zoning district is a lower
density, the maximum FAR is proposed to go from .25 to .20. In the CO District,
the maximum lot coverage is proposed to change from 50 to 65%. Planner Shirk
reviewed an example demonstrating that 50% is too restrictive for parking spaces
for the allowable square footage of a commercial building. These 3 are
corrections to the original intent of the Code, not changes in policy. Policy
changes (major changes in the numbers to this table) should be a direction from
the Boards.
Item 4. §13.3 Revision to Definition of Arteriai Street
Director Joseph requested that this be deferred until the next meeting or after the
first of the year. The Town is in the process of a major transportation study. The
map from the Comp Plan is dated and a new updated one will most likely be
produced from this study. It would be best to wait for the result of the new study
before making proposed changes.
Director Joseph reviewed the Net Density Calcuiation examples in the Staff report.
First example: Open Space not subtracted from net density would allow for a
reduction in minimum lot size. All the language in the Code refers to nef density
when caiculating the maximum number of lots allowed. The alternative of allowing
a conservation easement rather than an outlet is less desirable because it would
be quite difficult to administer. Example 2 is the current interpretation of the Code.
Example 3A does not work since the minimum lot size (in the table) Is 2.5 which
invalidates the incentive section of the Code. Carriage Hills 7th Filing and The
Reserve were given as examples for clustering.
Director Joseph reviewed the Floor Area Ratios table, which gave examples in the
Ranch Meadow Subdivision, North Ridge Meadow Condos, Stanitz Apartments
and Elk Ridge development. The FAR is the only control of the appearance of
bulk. Staff will have some suggestions for proposed changes in the commercial
and accommodation zoning districts.
Next meeting for Code Revisions wiil be December >T^ 2001.
Meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
JbyjEf^itch^/ Chair
Meribeth Wheatley, Recording secretary