The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission Study Session 1998-12-10BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session December 10,1998 Commission: Absent: Chair A1 Sager, Commissioners Wendell Amos, William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl and Dominick Taddonio Attending: All None TAC Members: Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorp and Bill Van Horn Attending: Gamble, Van Horn Absent: Members Hondius and Thorp Also Attending Town:Trustee Liaison Baudek Attorney White, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Recording Secretary Botic County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Chair Sager called the Study Session to order at 3:01 p.m. Correspondence received 1) Letter from Ponderosa Realty. Letter from John Phipps, request to delay public meetings. EVIA Petitions opposing short-term rentals in Estate zoned area. Letter from Anderson Realty and Management, Cold well Banker - Estes Village Properties, Ponderosa Management, Range Realty, Windcliff Properties regarding Vacation Rentals Comments from TAC Member Van Horn regarding Chapter 7 Comments from Rowland Retrum regarding Second Dwellings on Residential Lots in the Estes Valley 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Vacation Rental Proposal Withdrawn Commissioner Amos withdrew the vacation rental proposal he presented at the 11/24/98 Meeting. After speaking with the County Attorney, he has been advised this proposal would be illegal. Mr. Amos requested all references to Vacation Rentals be removed from the EVDC and a Task Force be formed after the Code is adopted. New Recording Secretary Chair Sager introduced Meribeth Wheatley who wiU be the EVPC Recording Secretary for subsequent meetings. Review of Chapter 7, General Development Standards Director Stamey noted his Memo dated 12/07/98 which outlines the major points of discussion regarding Chapter 7. Draft 7.1/Slope Protection Standards, pages 1-3 1. Modify table on 7-2. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session, December 10,1998 Page 2 2. 3. 4. 5. Ridgeline protection standards - TAC Member Gamble has offered assistance with “Ridgeline Analysis”. Commissioner Pohl suggested using ridgelines seen from the major arteries defined on the Study Area and Public Lands Map in the Comprehensive Plan. Delete 7-4, Paragraph #3, “Notwithstanding its discretion...” TAC Member Van Horn stated the Memo from Consultant Duerksen prompted his letter dated 12/3/98 and attached pictures. He reviewed his comments (see below), offered illustrations and suggested a field trip to the Windcliff area. 7.1. B.1 30% building site, measurement. This is not a realistic requirement and the method of measurement will eliminate some of the most desirable sites (Arapaho Meadows photo). 7.1 .B .5 Average slope should not be the criteria. Rather, it should be impact mitigation (Salt Lake County photos). 7.1. B.6 With slope being measured as prescribed, it will be difficult to have only 90% of a footprint on slopes less than 30% when by definition the whole site is more than 30%. 7.1 .D The “Decision-Making-Body” will be very busy. Other comments on 7.1: Amos 7-1, B, pages 1 and 3, governing boards Pohl 7-1, lines 22-26, 25-26, footprint Baird Don’t discourage innovation, keep balance with a minimum standard Gamble Maps can assist slope with a tree overlay Draft 7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance Standards, pages 4-9 Director Stamey explained the intent of this section is to avoid site disturbance and change prior to a development approval. This Section also addresses a number of land alteration principles and practices and a number of sensitive land issues. Mr. Van Horn had comments as noted in his Memo dated 12/03/98. Other conunents: cost considerations, utilize good judgment in site disturbance, erosion. Staff will follow-up. 7-7-3.f - suggestion to use same language as County. Draft 7.3/Tree & Vegetation Protection, pages 9-12 The intent is to protect existing vegetation. Additional purposes are set forth on page 9. Trustee Baudek suggested a penalty for violations. Commissioner Amos requested a qualified forester be consulted. Attorney White noted this section pertains to a subdivision planning stage. Modifications to Draft 7.3 1. Move Section 3, Wildfire Hazards... to page 42, which addresses wildfire standards. The ■ Wildfire Hazard Standards would be limited to areas identified as “High- Trees.” 2. Move Section D. 1. to LOD section. 3. Consider eliminating 7-11-5.d. - lines 24-31. 4. Move the planting guideline/standards (how-to things) D.2 through D.7 to an Appendix for Construction Standards. Draft 7.4/General Site Access (pages 12-15) and Draft 7.5 Streets and Roads, pages 15- 17) These sections propose standards for access. 7-12-A.2. -Lines 39-42 - delete. Chief Planner Legg noted the County requires two access points; one may be private. Mr. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission - Study Session, December 10,1998 Page 3 Van Horn prefers cul-de-sacs which mitigate site disturbance. Staff concerns with public safety. How to balance public safety with disturbance and cost. 7-13-2 (2) - line 12 delete line 14, #5, use Town information, encourage shared driveways Modifications to Draft 7.4 and 7.5 It is proposed all street construction and design standards be incorporated into a separate (appendix) Street Construction Standards Document. Town and Larimer County staffs will meet to prepare this document. Larimer County has developed a document for the County, which is a Technical Supplement for the Larimer County Land Use Code. Draft 7.6/Open Space and Trails, pages 18-24 The primary purpose for open space provisions is to preserve open space and natural areas and provide for pedestrian/bike trails. The term “open space” will be changed to “open areas.” Town Attorney White reviewed the concept of public open area/fee in lieu of. It was noted that Larimer County currently collects an open space (park) fee in the Estes Valley. The County has updated the fee in lieu of study. Russell Legg explained the County’s current system, and proposed modifications. Discussion regarding defining terminology. Open space fee (impact fee) currently collected in County. Mr. Van Horn suggested this be exempted for affordable housing. Mr. Legg explained how this is working in the County. He would like to see this adopted by the Estes Valley as well. The idea is for new growth to pay its own way. Concerns with this fee in addition to Recreation District taxes, tax ramifications. Mr. Legg offered to give a presentation to the Town Board. Modifications 50 7.6: 1. Pages 18-21 establish the legal framework for a fee in-lieu system. 2. There is essentially no requirement for actual dedication of public open space, except for trails, the fee in-lieu. Any land dedicated for trails would reduce the fee. 3. Continue the County fee in-lieu of provision. 4. Extend fee in-lieu to the Town. 5. Disbursement of fees would be subject to a Town/County IGA. 6. This is applied at a subdivision stage (existing lots in Town would be exempt). 7. Refer to open space as open “areas”. Draft 7.7/Landscaping and Buffers, pages 17-37 Both the Town and County have landscaping requirements. Modifications to 7.7 1. Based on staff discussions, it is proposed that Town staff revise this section to more closely follow current Town landscaping requirements, and address problems or shortcomings in those requirements. 2. The technical requirements for installation of the landscaping would be placed in a Construction Standards appendix. At 5:15 The Study Session was recessed for a dinner break. The Study Session resumed at 6:30. Chair Sager was excused and Vice-Chair Amos facihtated the Study Session discussion. Draft 7.8/Wetlands and Riparian Corridor Protection, pages 38-41 The purpose of this section is to establish appropriate development criteria for stream BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session, December 10,1998 Page 4 corridors and associate areas. Streams and wetlands in the Estes Valley represent one of the most important environmental features in the valley. Chief Planner Legg noted the County has worked with Dr. Cooper of CSU who has completed a wetlands survey. The County uses two wetlands classifications. Larimer County will provide more information regarding their wetland requirements. Modifications to 7.8 and Follow-up 1. Change title to Wetlands, Stream Corridor and Drainage Way Protection. 2. Provide that wetlands shall not be included as part of a platted development lot. (Open space credit would be provided. Draft 7.9/GeoIogic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, pages 41-43 Concerns: 7-42, line 2, Mr. Legg to follow-up on terms “duly qualified person” i.e. engineer and geologist. Mr. Gamble noted the importance of balancing ascetics and wildfire mitigation. Modifications to 7.9 1. 7-42-D. 2. Wildfire Hazard Areas - modify to just refer to the Estes Valley map. 2. 7-42, line 31, remove the word “final” 5. 7-43, E.2. Wildlife Hazard Areas - Required Building Materials, move to Building Code Draft 7.10/ Wildlife Habitat Protection, pages 44-52 Mr. Legg noted the County has had more discussion and involvement in wildlife protection than the Town. He explained the information in this section is to assist DOW. Commissioner Pohl requested a definition of ‘domestic pet’. Commissioner Amos requested a review of this section by Rick Spowart, DOW. Mr. Gamble stated this section is too involved and needs to be simplified, and to rely on DOW comments. Recognizing the need for standards. Trustee Baudekexpressed costs incurred by developers. Commissioner Baird expressed concerns for the eco-system. Rick Spowart will be requested to review this section and give input. Does DOW have the ability and time to provide a level of review for meaningful change? Draft 7.11/Exterior Lighting 7-53- D, there is no required exterior lighting, except for safety at intersections. Is Commission willing to address new single-family lighting, lights, alarms? Other 7-54 - Noise, need to adopt a Town version of Larimer County’s existing regulation. Parking 7-55 - parking, loading zones, vehicle stacking area 7-56 - C - Planner Joseph: useful to have information readily available 7-59 - line 15, correct to “Interment” Amos: combine information, shorten list or place in Appendix C 7-62 - D. Move this section to beginning of table? (Taddonio) BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session, December 10,1998 7-67 - line 31, change handicap to disabled 7-70 - lines 16 and 17, who is the source? Page 5 7-70-2.C. - rework paragraph Public Facilities 7-71 - lines 17-20, delete 7-73 - Sewage Disposal, Staff will review and speak with UTSD and EPSD 7-75 - lines 42-46, delete 42-45 (this relates to subdivisions) 7-76 - line 32, after lA add “mile” - line 37, change de minimis to the minimal Draft 7.18/Mobile Home Parks Discussion of mobile home vs. manufactured homes. 7-82, line 3 - use County information, change to 2 female and 1 male FINAL COMMENTS The next meeting will be after the first of the new year and will be future meetings will be held as often as needed. The remaining chapters will be completed prior to the end of the year. Commissioner Taddonio made comments regarding Vacation Rentals. Mr. Taddonio is opposed to vacation rentals. Director Stamey thanked everyone for their time, interest and attendance. There being no further business, the Study Session was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary