HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1986-09-16BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
7Planning Commission
September 16, 1986
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners David
Barker, Duane Blair, Mark Brown, Mike
Dickinson, George Hix, Steve Komito
Chairman Sager, Commissioners Barker, Brown,
Dickinson, Hix and Komito
Town Administrator Hill, Town Attorney White,
Town Planner Stamey, Town Engineer Widraer,
Secretary O'Connor
Commissioner Blair
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held August 19,
1986 were submitted and approved.
DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
2.a. Site Development Plan #5 - Fairway Condominiums, Phase
IIi Mr. Tom Brown, representing Browns on the Green Develop
ment Company, presented the aforementioned site development
plan. Mr. Brown stated potential clients have expressed a
dislike to the courtyard concept, therefore, the owners were
requesting authorization to revise the building configura
tion. Development Plan #5 was approved by the Town in 1983.
Buildings were generally arranged to enable a driveway to
serve a number of units; garages were accessed from a central
court. Currently, one driveway serves three dwelling units.
The applicant is proposing to alter the building and driveway
location and provide a separate driveway for each unit. In a
letter dated August 25, 1986, the applicant also addressed
parking; however, the applicant will address on/off-street
parking in an additional submittal which will be forthcoming.
Planner Stamey summarized the staff report. There were no
persons present speaking in "opposition" to the request.
Commissioner Brown moved the request to revise the building
configuration for Site Development Plan #5 containing Units
36, 37, 38, 39 and 40, Fairway Condominiums Phase II be
approved. Commissioner Barker seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
ESTES VALLEY MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC. - Request Town approval
to submit a subdivision application and Use Variance Petition
to Larimer County to allow cemetery in T-Tourist Zoning
District. Mr. Tom Brown, representing Estes Valley Memorial
Gardens (EVMG), reported EVMG is prepared to proceed with the
use variance plus an application for division of the property
(6 acres). As property owner, the Town would become the
applicant. The Real Estate Contract between EVMG and the
Town stated six 1-acre parcels would be created; however, Mr.
Brown stated he is experiencing difficulty in the methodology
stated in the contract. There were no persons speaking in
"opposition" to the request. Following submittal to the
Larimer County Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission
should receive the application as a "county referral" for
further consideration. Commissioner Hix moved (1) the Use
Variance be executed and submitted to Larimer County and (2)
the Subdivision Exemption Application also be submitted to
Larimer County. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - September 16, 1986 - Page two
4. PUBLIC HEARING;
4.a. Residential Zoning Ordinance Revisions (continuation of
public hearing from August 19, 1986; Planner Stamey reviewed
events following the Planning Commission Meeting held August
19, 1986. Public comment was evaluated and most concerns
were addressed in revisions which were available to the
public September 2, 1986. The following sections were
revised:
Section 17.08.030 Definitions
Definitions were clarified for:
Dwelling unit
Family
Floor area, habitable
Home Occupation
Room and Board
Section 17.16.010 Basic Requirements
Clarification that Development Plan applicability can be
found in Section 17.36.010, Subsection 8.
Section 17.16.020 Use Regulation Schedule
2.4 Club, fraternal organization, community building -
revised to allow in R-S and R-M Zoning Districts by
Special Review.
2.5 Day care center - revised to allow in R-S Zoning
District by Special Review.
Section 17.030 Special Use Limitations
5.3 Room and Board - Revised paragraph.
Section 17.16.040 Non-conforming Uses
4. Restoration - Revised paragraph - clarification.
Section 17.20.010 Application
1. Lot Area Reduction - Revised paragraph - clarifica
tion.
Section 17.20.020 Lot Area Requirements
1. Land Quality Limitations - Revised paragraph
deleted penalty for sites with slopes over 30%. In
creased the credit for lands within floodplain and above
the Town's water service elevation.
2. E, R-S, R-M and I-l Districts; Residential and
Commercial Accommodations Uses in C-0 District - Revised
Paragraph 2) - 40,000 square feet minimum lot area for
septic use.
Paragraph 3) - Added 1,000 square feet of land area for
each percent by which average slope exceeds 12%.
Revised paragraph 2.d. Commercial
Revised density computation.
Accommodations
Paragraph e. Flexible Development - Clarified open space.
Revised paragraphs f.l), f.2), f.3), and f.4). These
paragraphs were revised to delete "Planning Commission"
determination; and, to reflect that the number of
"bonused" units are calculated based upon the type of
development being proposed.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - September 16, 1986 - Page four
gested all projects not be judged by only the Comprehensive
Plan); expressed concern on the Use Regulation Schedule
pertaining to uses allowed in the R-M District and 2.3
Municipal Use (questioned appropriateness - the Town should
be subject to Special Review in residential areas); Section
17.20.020 Lot Area Requirements, Paragraph 2.c. Multi-Family
Requirements (conflict ?) ; Section 17.20.040 Setbacks,
Paragraph e. Zero Lot Line Development (applied to R-M
District?); Section 17.20.070 Impervious Coverage (requested
revision to state not over than 24% in lieu of calculation);
Section 17.20.080 Nonconforming Lots, Paragraph 1 (b), second
sentence (clarification on the word Current); Section
17.24.020 Planting Requirements, Paragraph 2. Plantings
(clarification of planting area frontage); Section 17.24.030
Pedestrian Access, Paragraph 2. Arterial Streets (questioned
continuous walkway shall be provided); Section 17.24.040
Disturbances, Paragraph 1. Standard (clarification on word
"flashing"); Section 17.24.050 Drainage, Paragraph 3. De
tention (does not allow room for variance); Section 17.36.030
Special Review Procedures, Paragraph 1 (cannot rely on
zoning; questioned statement "...may be allowed..."). Para
graph 6 Board of Trustees Action, subparagraph c(3) pertain
ing to views and vistas (questioned appropriateness of
statement); and Section 17.36.040 Concept and Development
Plans, Paragraph 3. Development Plan, subparagraph a(2) floor
plans (questioned public interest in floor plans).
Rowland Retrum: Stated fourteen major concerns expressed
earlier still had not been addressed. Since the latest
revision, five additional concerns were found. Notification
of the adjacent property owner and zero lot lines were of
utmost importance. Mr. Retrum requested deferral of a
decision to adopt the ordinance to allow all interested
parties an opportunity to revievi? the revisions and allow the
Planning Commission to address the aforementioned points of
interest.
Chuck Perry: Clarified concerns expressed with regard to
zero lot line.
Seymour Graham: Expressed concern regarding the zero lot
line concept which creates a greater density in the use of
land.
Pat Wanek: Requested clarification on the number of people
allowed in a "Bed and Breakfast."
Rex Miller: Requested an interpretation on the percent of
slope exceeding 12% and a clarification of "site."
Dave Habecker: Questioned the revision of uses allowed in
the regulation schedule pertaining to Day care centers and
"places of worship" should be more clearly defined. Section
17.20.010 Application, Paragraph 2. Multiple Buildings -
questioned yard area requirements. Mr. Habecker also ques
tioned the appropriateness of "impervious coverage."
Louise Lindsay: Urged Day care centers and Clubs (fraternal
organizations, etc.) not be allowed in R-S and R-M Zoning
Districts. Ms. Lindsay also requested the word "roads" be
added to Section 17.20.020 Lot Area Requirements, Paragraph
2, subparagraph f(l).
Following no further testimony. Chairman Sager declared said
public hearing closed. Discussion followed. Commissioner
Brown moved:
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Coiranission - September 16, 1986 - Page five
Section 17.16.020 Use Regulation Schedule, 2.3 Municipal Use
be revised to require special review in E, R-S, and R-M
Zoning Districts. Commissioner Hix seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hix moved:
the word "eaves" be deleted from the definition of Front
building line (Page 5) . Commissioner Brown seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
Chairman Sager moved:
and RV stands also be numbered be added to Section 17.32.050
Other Development Requirements, Paragraph 5. Commissioner
Brown seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Commissioner Barker moved:
Section 17.36.030 Special Review Procedures, Paragraph 6,
subparagraph c(3) pertaining to views and vistas be deleted
in its entirety. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion and
it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commis
sioners Barker, Brown, Dickinson, Hix, and Komito. Those
voting "No" Chairman Sager.
The Commission and staff responded to questions and clarified
issues raised in the hearing pertaining to arterial streets,
RV setbacks, special review procedures in the R-M District,
the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan, special circumstances
which create "unique features" which could be dealt by the
Board of Adjustment, planting area frontage and bed and
breakfast.
Planner Stamey stated he would review the following: pedes
trian access v/ith respect to a continuous walkway, detention,
and the commercial accommodations definition.
Commissioner Barker moved an "Independent Review Panel" be
appointed at the appropriate time to report on the workings
of the zoning ordinance following adoption. Commissioner
Brown seconded the motion and it was defeated by the follow
ing votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Barker and
Brown. Those voting "No" Commissioners Dickinson, Hix,
Komito and Sager.
Commissioner Hix moved a special Planning Commission meeting
be held October 7, 1986 at 9:00 A.M. to review the final
draft and forward a recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
Commissioner Dickinson seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
5. REPORTS:
5. a. 1987 Budget Requests: The Commission reviewed and
discussed the follov/ing items included in the first draft of
the 1987 Budget: conferences, intern, transportation plan,
aerial map update. The Planning Commission recommends
revising the number of attendees at both In-State and
Out-of-state Conferences and budgeting funds for the Town's
share of a proposed Transportation Plan, authorizing Planner
Stamey to submit the revisions in writing to Budget Officer
Hill.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Vickie O'Connor, Secretary