The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission Study Session 1998-06-16BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session June 16,1998 Commission: Attending: Absent: TAC Members: Attending: Absent: Also Attending Town: Chair A1 Sager, Commissioners Wendell Amos, William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl and Dominick Taddonio Commissioners Amos, Baird, Kitchen, Pettyjohn, Pohl, Taddonio Commissioner Sager Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorp and Bill Van Horn Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius and Bill Van Horn Member Thorp Trustee Liaison Baudek and Doylen, Town Attorney White, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Recording Secretary Botic County: None The Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Vice-Chair Amos. INTRODUCTION Director Stamey explained the Annotated Code (AC) is an outline, combining the Town and County codes into one unified approach. This draft is similar to a term paper submitted to a professor stating here are my ideas and asking are these the right areas to discuss. Director Stamey explained he would discuss the major sections, with Chair Amos stating Commissioners may comment/question as appropriate during the following discussion. Public Comments may be heard at the June 17th Meeting. 1. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION ON ANNOTATED CODE (AC) LED BY DIRECTOR STAMEY Article I General Provisions - Director Stamey reviewed the legal framework and organization and administration structure of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). There will also be text illustrations and transitional provisions. Attorney White clarified that if a building permit is issued under the current code, construction will be in accordance with current rules (page 5, item 2.). Director Stamey reviewed the section Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (pages 6 - 9), stating that EVPC will try to parallel this Code process with Larimer County. TownandCountystaffwiUbeinvolvedinCodeprocesses. The central contact point for applicants will be in Estes Park. Larimer County will be a source for wildfire and geologic standards. Article m - Development Review and Administration Procedures (page 10). Mr. Stamey noted “an overall goal in drafting these development procedures is to grant as much decision-making authority to the Estes VaDey Planning Commission or Stafi-as legally and practically possible.” ‘Parties in interest” will be defined. Attorney White explained the goal is to streamline the process. Pre-Application Conference (page 13) - is an attempt to parallel with the County, this wiU be required. Chair Amos concurred noting this has made a distinct change in submittals to Larimer County. Attorney White noted that this will facilitate streamlining the process utilizing Town and County referral lists. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission - Study Session June 16,1998 Page 2 Submittal of Application and Development Plan/Subdivision Plat (pages 13-14)-a30 day time frame is being considered utilizing an official filing date calendar. Code Amendments/Official Zoning Map Amendments (Rezoning) (page 15) - Text amendments to this Code shall be approved by both the Town Trustees and the county Board of Commissioners. Map amendments may be finally approved either, depending in which jurisdictions the subject property is located. Attorney White clarified the ultimate legislative authority must remain in the appropriate jurisdiction. Special Review Uses (page 16) - one of the goals is to reduce the number of special reviews by converting them to permitted uses subject to specific conditions. Overlay zones will be helpful. Project Development Plan Review (pages 17-18) - will define to determine distinguishing ‘minor and major’ developments. Consultants will propose thresholds. Preliminary Plat (page 18) - this section will give decision-making authority on preliminary plats to the Boards, after review and recommendation by the EVPC. Final Plat (page 18) - final plats shall be reviewed and approved by the EVPC, and shall be placed on the consent agenda.... Variances (page 19) - to be created pursuant to state law recently adopted in the 1998 session. Appeals, Temporary Use Permits,BuildingPennits (page 20) - all building permit applications shall be required to submit a detailed construction plan for the site which will help avoid potential problems such as grading, drainage, driveway elevations. Article IV Zoning Districts (page 22) - Mr. Stamey reviewed how zoning districts will work, addition of ‘overlay’ design standards along highway corridors (to be discussed at June 23r Meetmg). Items either missing from the current list of permitted uses or incompletely regulated mclude assisted living facilities for seniors and short-term vacation rentals, group homes and helicopter pads. Official ZoningDistrictMap (page 23) - an official zoning district map (including study areas) wiU need to be prepared which will be adopted after public hearings. Zoning Districts, Single-Family Residential Zones (page 24) - some single family zones arebemg diluted, staff has heard public comments that this needs to be more restrictive regardmg accessory us^ and home occupations to protect existing residential character. Existmg legal uses will be grandfathered with amortization options. The future land use plan has identified five residential zoning options Chair Amos requested consideration be given to TDUs (County is currently domg this) an to notgiveawayanydensity.Itis recommended thatshort-termvacationrentals be allowedonlym two areas (R-2: Two-Family Residential and RM: Multi-Family Residential (page 25). Accommodations/Tourist Zones, A: Accommodations-Highway Corridor and A-1: Accommodations-Low Density/Intensity (pages 26-27) - currently adefimtionquuk ( kitchen). Re-consider definitions of accessory uses (size of unit, not only if there is a kitchen). Commercial Zones- (pages 28-29) - Commercial downtown will be under separate standards. A distinction between indoor and outdoor commercial amusement uses will be made, propane distributors/gas suppliers will be a prohibited use in the CD zone district. Pemutted office uses may be limited on Elkhom Avenue to encourage pedestrian-oriented visitor-and resident-serving retail on the ground floor. Chair Amos opposes the proposed parking requirement for downtown housmg. Commissioner T addonio expressed concern that inclusion of infill in the downtown a^emme housing forservices workers and suggested usingthe term‘employeehousing’rather than affordablehousing. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission - Study Session June 16,1998 Page 3 Consider retain le 16,1998 Modify past thinking - the Fall River area design and scale is difference from Highway 34. placement of commercial campgrounds and recreational vehicles. C-H: Heavy Conunercial Zone District and I-l: Restricted Industrial (pages 31-32) - reuuii current commercial areas ((such as area south of Holiday Inn). Residential uses not to be permitted in Restricted Industrial area. Commissioner Pettyjohn suggested addressing expansion of commercial areas. Floodplain Overiay Zones (page 33) - Mr. Stamey explained this and defined floodplain and floodway. Commissioner Taddonio questioned why we don’t’ distinguish between condomimums and apartments. Attorney White responded. Article V Use Regulations, Nonconforming Uses (page 35) - this Article will set I"ore sPecl[1^ standardsforreviewinguses. Commissioners and AttomeyWhitediscussedpossiblelengthsofan amortization period, arbitrary vs. capricious with regards to short-term vacation rentals. Damages or Destruction of Structure Containing a Nonconforming Use (page 38) - Mr Stamey explained the recommendation to not re-establish a nonconformmg use if Aere k more than 50% damage. Commissioner Pettyjohn noted the time frame may need to be lengthened. Nonconforming Lots of Record (page 38) - this section will not be pursued. Article Vn Zoning Development Standards (page 40) - one key revision wiUbe toaUtow a “master signage plan” for larger commercialdevelopments, suchas shopping cen uses housed in a single building. Director Stamey continued reviewing Protection Standards. CracHng ^andards A icu"sion Mowed on Open Driveways, Open Space and Trails (pages 4U Space/Clustering (page 43). Tree and Vegetation Protection (page 44) - recomment^e<^woids “all existing vegetation” be removed from paragraph 3. Section U. Park area. Off-Street Parldng and Loading (page 47) - Commissioner Pohl questioned if this will apply to residential areas. Director Stamey continued reviewing pages49-50 stating county recommendations will be adopted regarding Adult Uses. AT.id.VIIl InMViv*,(,,SBs51'’D!|*^S^^^^^,SSd!ow™ddcoiKvdfeiral>svf. Types of PUDS Allowed (page 54) - Town does not have, Larimer County for open space. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session June 16,1998 Page 4 Enforcement & Penalties (page 59) - include use of tickets and fines, efficient, effective time frame. 2. COMMENTS FROM TAC - ANNOTATED CODE (AC) Helen Hondius: • ‘parties of interest’ - what about issues of general concern to the public at large? Suggested broadening this definition. • Page 23 - helicopters, landing pads, can these areas be eliminated? • Page 25 - how can affordable housing be supervised and continued, is this density without the benefit long term? • Pages 32-34 - believes it is too late for floodplains, riparian is critical for wildlife. • Page 34 - Design overlay zones - hoping for consideration for design in other areas, minimize intrusiveness, design elements, appearance and placement on land. Possibly suggesting design standards be extended to include higher density areas. Attorney White suggested using the term multi-family housing in place of condominiums. • Enforcement concerns appear to be addressed in Draft. Bill Van Horn: * There may be criticism if‘To wn Staff” is approval authority for minor approvals; Attorney White noted this will be dealt with outside the Code administratively between the County and Town. Definition needed for standards vs. exceptions He strongly supports preliminary plats being approved by the Commission with final plats be a compliance and endorsement matter. Concerned with overlay zones, not have arbitrary boundaries Not in favor of floating zones. Supportive of small single family lots. There is a need for a mobile home park with high standards. Downtown housing will be utilized by service workers and employees. Condominiums - develop specific condo criteria Amortization: Sign Code did withstand a legal challenge as it allowed depreciation of their sign. With regards to short-term rental, this would amount to depreciating an accommodation. Don’t force consolidation of lots. Slopes - arbitrary numbers will not work, utilize mitigation, sliding scale is more defensible, have standards address ‘cut only’ sections, separate lanes of traffic, obtain machinery to matchroad s, innovative on slopes (give direction and show how). Larry Gamble: • 99% supportive of Code • Has written a letter which he distributed and requested that Commissioners read before June IIth meeting. GENERAL COMMENT Chair Amos invited all present to the June 17th meeting at 10:00 a.m. 4. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m. L^Otic_) Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary