Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission Study Session 2018-11-13Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado November 13, 2018 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held Rooms 202/203 of Town Hall. Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice Chair White, Commissioners Schneider, Foster, Murphree, Smith, Theis Attending: Leavitt, Foster, Theis, Murphree, Smith Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Acting Director Machalek, Senior Planner Woeber, Planner II Hathaway, Planner I Becker, Town Board Liaison Norris, Code Compliance Officer Hardin and Recording Secretary Swanlund Absent: White, Schneider Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. There were approximately 6 people in attendance. This study session was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. EVPC By-laws update Planner Becker reviewed by-law amendment changing one word: Start no later than 5:00 rather than the current word end no later than 5:00. This would allow more citizens to attend the meeting. Leavitt’s initial reaction uncertain due to the length of PC meetings. TB and BOCC approval would be needed. A December resolution is what is being requested. Smith, speaking as an active business owner, thinks it would be better to start later, drawing more public attendance, giving them a chance to participate rather than just stream or watch meetings. Implications to staff could be beneficial because the office would be staffed all day, rather than closing at 11:00. Norris suggested trying the later meetings for 6 months to see how it goes. A required meeting motion to extend past a certain time should be put into the by-laws. Issue a public statement/press release to let public know. Ferguson Minor Subdivision Planner Becker reviewed the 2 subdivision plats. Drainage impact on neighboring properties will be asked of the applicant during the PC meeting. Black Canyon Development Plan Planner Becker reviewed the amendment to build a wedding venue and additional accommodations. She discussed the variance that has been applied for. Applicant originally proposed a 3 story accommodation building, but due to neighbor meetings, dropped it down to 2 stories. Parking issues should be kept to their property, not spilling into the adjacent properties. Landscaping is not required on southern boundary. Theis requested to change the order of the meeting agenda, switching Ferguson (item 6), with Black Canyon (item 5). Code Amendment-Office use in RM/Special Review EPNRC Planning Commission Study Session October 16, 2018 – Page 2 Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposed Code Amendment using RM zoning for office space as a Special Review use. Day care is already allowed in churches, which are allowed in RM. Accessory use is defined in the Development Code, chapter 13.3.5. The primary use should be at least 51% of the site, accessory use is a portion of that, either incorporated or detached. Foster expressed concerns of engaging in a pattern of changing Code for a particular, single “relationship”. The main reason for this Code change is due to availability and affordability of office space in Estes Park. The definition of office (in Code) is basically the exclusion of things that are of a retail nature (banks/storefronts). Focus is needed on the effects of office use, not what the office is. SR will allow discussion on issues, and conditions can be added and are subject to code amendment limitations. EPNRC has been located at the Church over one year with no problems. Code Amendment-Parks and Recreation in Residential Districts Planner Woeber reviewed that the purpose of this Code Amendment is to revise the definition of Parks and Recreation. Director Hunt wrote a lengthy report prior to his leaving. The county planning staff determined that it was too complex and submitted a revised definition. After consideration by staff, it was determined that the item should be continued to December to find a solution to this which will require the extension of the moratorium by both elected Boards. What is needed is well thought out proposals to prevent unintended consequences. Norris advised not rushing through this and get input from the community, with consideration of a Special PC meeting with public input just for this subject. First steps are to get both Town and County staff on the same page, and then see if both elected Boards are in agreement. A draft is needed to do it right and keep us on track. Public comment will be allowed at today’s meeting even though the item is being continued. Code Amendment-Consistency with Comp Plan Planner Woeber reviewed the proposal to remove references in the EVDC where there are requirements for consistency with the Comp Plan, which has been problematic and confusing for quite a long time. Development Code is to be used for making land use decisions. The Comp Plan is to be used as a reference. At the February, 2018 meeting between TB, PC, and BOCC, the elected officials expressed a clear wish that the practice of using the Comp Plan as regulation cease and also that the EVDC be amended to remove references that seemed to invoke the Comp Plan as a regulatory document. It was asked in February to clarify the language, not necessarily uncouple it. It could look suspicious to the public if we do this quickly. The Comp Plan can be cited, referenced, used, but not in decision making. Machalek stated how he understands the amendment is that the plan is an advisory document when doing policy versus reviewing specific projects that have been proposed that are in accordance with the development code. He stated that specifics were needed from the PC in terms of what they wanted changed or brought back for review. Reducing the level of confusion is time well spent. White noted that the Comp Plan, not the EVDC, is used as regulatory document for opposing a project every time a development plan is approved. The elected officials want this continuing confusion solved, sooner rather than later, alluding that the EVDC takes priority over the Comp Plan. It was noted that this proposal has very little relation with the EVCPAC. EVCPAC18 Update: Planning Commission Study Session November 13, 2018 – Page 3 Town Liaison Norris recapped what the Committee was asked to do: write table of contents, draft an RFP for consultants to bid on, and provide recommendations of stakeholder groups. Drafts for all of three are in the process of getting comments from members of the task force and other members of the public. The original intent was to present and discuss this before the end of the year. He suggested, however, to leave them out for comment through the end of year and not process anything until the new County Commissioner has been seated and Director Hunt is back. Lunch break from 12:10-12:25 Location and Extent review Attorney White explained the topic, which was raised from Mountain Coaster project. Put simply, governments equal in status can’t control other governments. This is also know as Doctrine of Comity, which is adopted by Colorado Legislature. It does not involve private property. The Mountain Coaster is not a public park, it is a park and rec facility. Reports Acting Director Machalek discussed issues with how the density bonus interacts with Code, stating that consultants Ayers and Associates are working on the density calculation modifications. The new sign for neighborhood meetings, which is now required for any public hearing projects, was displayed. There will be TB study session on roundabouts on January 8, PC is invited to attend this meeting. Public Works is in constant contact with CDOT, which does have an Oversight Board but unsure if there is an appeal process. Greg Muhonen could give the PC an overview of the relationship with CDOT at some point in time. Investigate if the Colorado Municipal League (CML) or Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST-tourism-based economies) have any efforts afoot with regard appeals to CDOT. Vacation Homes Discussion See attached sheet regarding Code Changes. Discussion included the following topics: 1) 90 days to complete application, extension granted by staff. 2) Use it or lose it, sign affidavit on renewal. All correspondence will be electronic moving forward so there will be no hard signature. Disclosure stating they acknowledge and agree to terms. This would apply to 2020 renewals, residential properties only. 3) Bear resistant trash containers required, which is already in Larimer County and Municipal code. Enforcement is an issue. This is to be effective immediately. 4) Neighbor notifications only when license is originally issued. 5) Publish a list online (updated daily once Laserfishe is in effect). 6) Amount of cars regarding large vacation homes should equal number of bedrooms, no maximum needed as long as it is not illegal (or a nuisance). 7) April review of the cap and waiting list to see if there are any VH that can be dropped. 8) Review the definition of ADU to distinguish from rooms for rent and short term rentals. Hold off from VH context. Clerk would like a clear definition due to numerous calls they receive. Revisit this in the December meeting: what is allowed and what is not. 9) Notice of fire restrictions and ways to inform renters: Town Clerk or CCO or PIO.. Jackie Williamson stated the need for a better definition in Code that the property owner of record is the only one who can apply for a VH, and the fact that the license runs with property needs to be made clearer. Future Study Session Items Planning Commission Study Session October 16, 2018 – Page 4 Parks and Recreation use Consistency with Comp Plan CDOT ADU’s related to vacation homes. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 1:22 p.m. _____________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary