HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission Study Session 1999-04-06BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session
April 6,1999
Commission:Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners William Baird, Joyce Kitchen,
Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, Al Sager and Dominick Taddonio
Attending: Commissioners Amos, Baird, Kitchen, Pettyjohn, Pohl, Sager and
Taddonio
Absent:None
TAC Members: Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorp and Bill Van Horn
Attending: Gamble, Hondius, Van Horn
Absent: Member Thorp
Also Attending
Town:Trustee Liaison Baudek, Town Attorney White, Director Stamey,
Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley
County: Commissioner Jim Disney, Chief Planner Russell Legg
Chair Amos called the Study Session to order at 3:30 p.m.
Chair Amos requested Commissioner Disney to report on the Larimer County Land Use
draft. The County’s schedule is to have their Planning Commission meetings in June, the
public hearings in August, and adoption of the new code in August.
Minutes of the February 24,1999 meeting were approved. Minutes of the March 24, 1999
meeting were presented to be voted on at a future meeting.
Chair Amos advised that he has requested information from the following:
Rick Spowart of the Colorado DOW regarding the Wildlife section;
Dr. Cooper for the Wetland section;
Dan Speedlin of Parks and Mike Babler of the Colorado State Forest Service on
Landscaping, Trees and Streets.
The Estes Valley hearing schedule and process was discussed. It was noted that the
initial code would not include every possible consideration, but additional sections could
be added in the future. Nothing will be added to the Code without a full public hearing
process. There will be a work session on the Commission’s role in the public hearing
process. There should be no vote taken on the Code draft until after the public hearings.
After the public hearings, the Commission will vote to recommend the Code to the two
boards. The County’s procedure was to vote on each section of the Code where
Commissioners could make suggestions. Byiaws will be presented.
EVDC REVIEW
CHAPTER 5
Page 11 - the reference to 5.3 should be 5.2.
when the revisions are completed.
All the cross references will be reviewed
Line 9 - Add the word “golf” in front of “clubhouses” as these are allowed only as an
accessory use to a golf course. Also allow in RE-1 districts.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - April 6,1999 Study Session Page 2
Line 25 - Accessory Dwelling Units must be attached to the primary residence and are
related to the size of the house rather than the lot. There was discussion regarding the
possibility of allowing detached accessory units; however, the purpose of accessory
dwelling units is to allow additional dwelling units in zoning that does not allow any
additional residential units on the lot. Maximum occupants cannot exceed the number for
a single household which is set at 8. Covenants for a subdivision may be more restrictive
than the Code.
Barns and stables are allowed to the extent their area does not exceed 2% of the gross
lot size (i.e. 800 square feet for one acre).
Guest houses are currently not allowed by the Town. The County does not allow
accessory dwelling units. Commissioner Disney reviewed the proposed change in the
County’s code. County changed their definition to guest quarters which allows kitchen
facilities. Staff will review to have a consistent definition and regulation for accessory
dwellings/guest quarters with the County.
Page 15 - Line 1, in regard to Home Occupations, delete the limitation of only one home
occupation on a site.
Line 31 - Delete the first “only."
Page 16 .
Line 17 - Change number of vehicles to two. Also (ii) and (b) seem too restrictive.
Page 17
Table 5.2, Line 5, include cafeterias as a permitted use in CD zoning district.
CHAPTER 6
Page 1 - Reword section C.1.
Page 2Line 3 - Revise sentence to read “Nonconformity as to off-street parking or loading
shall not subject the use to the conditions of this Chapter.’
Page 3 , , . .
Line 15 - Add “For structures built pursuant to...” at the beginning.
The meeting continued after a dinner break.
CHAPTER 7
PageI
Line 38 & 39 reword to 2 sentences.
Rill Van Horn discussed development restrictions on steep slopes and suggested that
the M on cut and ™ be increased, and that the sicpe/density formula not apply to the
2 % acJe Sistrid. and that the limit on building in areas of 30% slope or greater be
relaxed. Staff suggested that review of a site specific developrnent plan, for
construction on sites 30% slope and greater, could be one method to assist m
mitigating problems on steep slopes. Staff also distributed an outicne of development
criteria for steep slopes.
Line 18 - change 25 feet to 5 feet.
Line 15-18, modify to require a development plan review for developments on slopes
30% or greater.
Change formatting. Section B, "Density Calculation in Slopes in Excess of 12%", and
Section C, “Further Development Restriction on Steep Slopes.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - April 6,1999 Study Session Page 3
The slope/density formula does not apply to existing legal lots of record for single
family development.
Erosion control needs to be added to criteria on steep slopes.
Pages
Regarding Ridgeline Protection Standards, requiring a 100’ setback is too limiting.
Properly providing for color and type of materials, especially for the roof, can reduce
visual impacts. Section C.1. should make reference to the Ridgeline Protection map.
Development in the ridgeline protection area identified in the map shall trigger a site
specific review.
Line 29, add “Devil’s Gulch Road, Dry Gulch Road, Fish Creek Road, and Spur 66” to
public rights-of-way.
Ridgeline Protection Standards apply to existing lots. For clarification, an applicability
notation should be made before each section.
Page 4
Line 15 - Grading & Site Disturbance Standards, 8 foot limitation is too restrictive,
change to 10 feet. It was noted that the Staff could administratively adjust this by 10%
and the EVPC by 25%.
It is preferable to design the building to fit the site, rather than adjusting the site to fit
the building.
Line 47 - Add “accessory” before “structure or building.”
Pages
Line 21 - Change the height limitation of retaining walls to 6 feet.
Line 27 - Delete first sentence “In no case shall a retaining wall exceed 6 feet in
height.”
Page 6
In Restoration of Disturbed Areas, include management of noxious weeds.
Line 22 - Change “may” to “shall.”
Page 7
Change f. to “Floodways, flood fringes and flood hazards."
Page 8
Define significant vegetation — 8” DBH for conifers; 4” for deciduous trees.
Page 9
Line 9 - Single family residential is exempt.
Section 5 a-d, get recommendation from Colorado State Forest Service, i.e. 12 foot
trees are difficult to transplant.
Sd. _ exempt bond requirement for single family residential.
Line 34 - Section D, “TreeA/egetation Protection During Construction/Grading
Activities” is coming.
Page 11
Fees for parks and transportation will be discussed at the April 14 joint Board meeting.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - April 6,1999 Study Session Page 4
Impact fees go to capital improvement. Commissioner Disney made note that waiving
the fees still has a cost and has to be covered elsewhere. Incentives are better than
regulation. If you take away the development potential, there can’t be any tax benefit
for a conservation easement.
Page 14
Line 8 - Use bold format on “development plan.”
Page 15
Line 45 - change pervious area to “1.5 times the radius of the drip line of the tree.”
The next two meetings were set for Thursday, April 8, 1999, from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. and
Wednesday, April 14,1999,11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Chair Amos adjourned the Study Session at 8:35 p.m.
Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary