The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commission 2021-11-16Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 16, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held VIRTUALLY in said Town of Estes Park on the 16 day of November 2021. Committee: Attending: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice -Chair Matthew Heiser, Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Janene Centurione. Chair Comstock, Vice -Chair Heiser, Commissioner Elkins, Commissioner Hanson, Director Jessica Garner, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison Barbara MacAlpine Absent: Commissioner Elkins joined the meeting at 1:40 p.m. Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Also attending was Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates consultant. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 4-0. PUBLIC COMMENT none CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser) to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 4-0. ACTION ITEMS 1. RE-1 Code Amendment RMNP will move forward with a disconnection request (aka "de -annexation") for lots zoned RE-1. Director Garner requested a continuance of the Code Amendment to December or January. Only one parcel will be affected by this change following the disconnection; it is Town -owned and contains a water tank. It will be rezoned to R-2. It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Heiser) to continue this item to a date uncertain. The motion passed 4-0. 2. Minor Subdivision, 325 James St. This plat is for a three -lot subdivision (two developed, one vacant). The owner/ developer is currently ironing out water and sewer hookup details. Staff requested a continuance to December 21, 2021. It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to continue this item to December 21. The motion passed 4-0. 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Code Amendment Planner II Bergeron explained that in response to increasing housing needs, the proposed code amendment enables the development of new residential units through a free-market approach in which property owners seeking to build an ADU on their property would more likely be able to. This change is part of a greater range of housing solutions proposed to address the local housing shortage. ADU's are currently allowed in all but one single-family zone district. After providing a detailed overview of the proposed changes to the Code, Planner Bergeron addressed some of the public comments received and sought to clarify some of the concems. He emphasized that realistically the impacts on density and parking are expected to be much less significant RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission — November 16, 2021 — Page 2 than some in the community fear. He argued that this code change does not constitute a rezoning (single-family use and accessory uses [including ADUs] are uses by right). Furthermore, ADUs are expensive to develop, so further development will likely not be as significant as some community members fear. He noted that some HOAs have covenants that prohibit the development of an ADU. Discussion on ADUs • Chair Comstock asked Planner Bergeron to walk through home occupancy changes once more. • Trustee MacAlpine asked for a ballpark of the number of ADUs in Estes Park. No specific estimate was provided, though Director Garner said that the Chief Building Official had not seen any permits for ADUs in the last few years. • Trustee MacAlpine asked if building permits are required, which they are. • Trustee MacAlpine asked about street width in Estes Park and whether most streets allow for on -street parking. No specifics were given, but it was noted that Public Works is the resource for this data, and there are no proposals to restrict street parking where it is allowed now with ADUs or expand it to new areas. • Commissioner Hanson asked if ADU owners will have to register as having built one (no -that is tracked through the building permit process), or if there is a specific permit for ADUs (no, though Planner Bergeron screens all building permits to identify if interior remodels constitute an ADU, for example). Planner Bergeron also discussed the second kitchen affidavit already in place. • Vice -Chair Heiser asked for clarification about off-street parking regulations, pointing to 5.2.a.3 and 7.11 parking standards. Planner Bergeron responded that since ADUs are accessory uses, they do not require the two off-street parking spots. Two is the total requirement per residentially zoned lot as associated with the primary use. Further discussion was had, with Commissioner Hanson mentioning that four off-street parking spaces are not necessarily desirable. • Chair Comstock asked Attorney Kramer's input about code interpretations regarding parking. Attorney Kramer said that it is up to Community Development Director to make code interpretations and that he is happy to help clarify the code if needed. He noted that if the Commission has an opinion on off-street parking, it should be made part of the recommended conditions for approval. • Finally, Vice -Chair Heiser noted that this had been an initiative twice in recent history before the EVDC. He emphasized that not all comments have been in opposition, that this split is around 75-25. He takes his responsibility seriously and listens to the community's words. Public Comment Rick Ralph, 395 Parkview Lane, urged the Commission to vote no, as the code amendment doesn't address the community's objections, He emphasized that while overall impacts on density will be minor, neighbors will significantly feel it. He notes "overwhelming opposition." It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins) to recommend approval of the ADU code amendment to the Town Board, citing staff findings. In the motion, the Planning Commission recommended staff consider adding code language to Chapter 5, which requires one off-street parking spot per ADU, in addition to the two off-street parking spots per residential lot. The motion passed 5-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates, discussed "Missing Middle Housing." This subject promotes medium -density residential housing by blending with single-family housing. Form -Based code was discussed, explaining it as a regulation, not a mere guideline, that offers flexibility and alternatives to conventional zoning regulation. This could be integrated into the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Commission expressed interest in researching this further. Director Garner stated that applying RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission — November 16, 2021 — Page 3 hybridized zoning districts now allows for tweaking at the Development Code update stage. Pictures and stories will help the public understand this new format. A 5-minute break was taken at 3:48 The Comprehensive Plan is moving along, with numerous public speaking engagements and "Meeting in a Box" materials available for hosting a visioning session. Director Garner reviewed the Strategic Plan for the Town. Included in this plan is interest in Solar Incentives, which will be a priority in the future. Chair Comstock stated that it is vital that the Planning Commission reinforces what the Strategic Plan encompasses. Director Garner suggested a quarterly review of the Strategic Plan to keep on track. Planner II Bergeron gave an update on the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW). Headwaters Economics reviews model code language relating to landscaping, adaptation and mitigation priorities, and an updated wildfire map. Draft recommendations will be available soon. There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjo ;rnee neeting at 4:10 p.m. Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary