HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commission 2024-09-17 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 17, 2024
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting was held in said Town of Estes
Park on September 17, 2024.
Commission: Vice Chair Charles Cooper, Chris Pawson, David Arterburn,
Dick Mulhern, Jeff Robbins
Attending: Commissioners Cooper, Pawson, Arterburn, Mulhern,
Robbins, Senior Planner Hornbeck, Recording Secretary
Karin Swanlund, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board
Liaison Frank Lancaster
Absent: None
Vice-Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
INTRODUCTIONS
New Commissioner Jeff Robbins was introduced. Jeff will fill the remaining term vacated
by Matt Comstock. There were five people in attendance.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Mulhern) to approve the agenda with the
addition of adding an item to the end of the meeting, discussing moving the time
and day of the Planning Commission meetings. The motion passed 5-0
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Pawson) to approve the consent
agenda. The motion passed 5-0.
ELECTION OF CHAIR and VICE CHAIR
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Pawson) to appoint Chuck Cooper Chair and
David Arterburn Vice-Chair for the remainder of the year. The motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
ACTION ITEMS Text Amendment to the Development Code
1. Public Notice and Submittal Requirements Senior Planner Hornbeck
The current Code requires some public notice requirements to occur a certain number
of business days before a public meeting or hearing, while business is not used in
other instances. Some public notice requirements are 15 days in advance, while
others are 10 days. The text amendment will require all public notice to occur 15 days
in advance of meetings/hearings without using business days.
The current Code requires written notice of public hearings to be sent to adjacent
property owners. The methodology dictated by the Code for determining which
property owners receive notice is unusual, results in inconsistencies from project to
project, and is difficult to administer. It requires notification to all abutting properties
and all properties directly across a public street or right-of-way, plus all properties
within 100 feet of either of those properties. The text amendment will simplify these
requirements to all properties within a 300-foot radius of the subject property.
Discussion: Arterburn questioned using the word radius, suggesting the word buffer
instead.
Staff primarily initiates Text Code Amendments. Private parties can apply for
rezonings via a Zoning Map Amendment, which differs from a text amendment.
Planning Commission – September 17, 2024 – Page 2
Pawson questioned the removal of “business days.” Hornbeck explained that the
number is increasing from 10 to 15 days, and quantifying a business day can get
confusing. Changing the field staking from 10 to 15 days could be considered, but
that requirement is not a “notice” item. Pawson suggested keeping the business
days clause and changing the staking to 15 days. Robbins felt that the 300-foot
buffer was more than adequate.
Public Comment:
Kristine Poppitz, 650 Devon Dr, would like a 15-business-day notice and thinks text
amendments should have a neighborhood meeting. She also suggested that the
Commission consider a 500-foot buffer for mailings.
John Guffey, 561 Chapin Ln, agreed with Kristine’s comments and expressed
concerns about neighbor awareness.
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Pawson) to recommend approval of the
revisions to the Development Code to the Town Board with the additions of
Changing the buffer to 500 feet, adding the word Business Days and adding 15
business days to the Field Staking requirement. The motion passed 4-1, with
Robbins voting against.
2. Residential Occupancy Limits Senior Planner Hornbeck
A new Colorado State Statute (C.R.S. 29-20-111) concerning residential occupancy
limits was approved on April 15, 2024. The Statute prohibits local governments from
limiting the number of people who may live together in a single dwelling, unless such
occupancy limits are based on demonstrated health and safety standards, such as
those established in building and fire codes or water and wastewater environmental
quality standards, or if based on affordable housing program guidelines. The
restrictions became effective July 1, 2024, and are applicable to the Town of Estes
Park. Staff has determined that the occupancy restrictions within the Development
Code are inconsistent with the newly enacted State Statute. As such, staff is
proposing a text amendment to remove all references to specific occupancy limits
from the Code.
Discussion: There have not been widespread complaints regarding this. Pawson
disagreed with the Statute. Robbins asked what would happen if there was an
overcrowding hazard. It was explained that this can be regulated through the
International Property Code. Health and Safety standards can still be enforced. This
Statute removes an arbitrary number. Attorney Kramer stated that he does not believe
this has any applicability to H.O.A.s.
Public comment:
John Guffey, 561 Chapin Ln, noted that parking becomes an issue when so many
people live in a home.
Frank Lancaster, Town Board Liaison, noted that we are a statutory town and can’t
take on authority that has not been granted to us. The State Legislature made this
decision, and we have no option but to change the language in the Code.
It was moved and seconded (Mulhern/Arterburn) to recommend approval of the
revisions on Residential Occupancy Limits to the Development Code to the
Town Board. The motion passed 4-1, with Pawson voting against.
Planning Commission – September 17, 2024 – Page 3
3. Planned Unit Developments Senior Planner Hornbeck
The impetus for considering a text amendment is some recent development
proposals and concepts that have illustrated shortcomings in the Development Code
that can be addressed before the more extensive code update planned for 2024-
2026. The enclosed text amendment includes the following changes:
• Eliminates preliminary/final P.U.D. process in lieu of a single application;
• Allows P.U.D.s in any non-residential zone rather than only the C.O. zone;
• Reduces minimum size to 2 acres rather than 3 acres or property of any size with
five or more units;
• Reduces minimum open space requirements for smaller properties using a tiered
system;
• Allows modifications of building heights up to 42’ with corresponding standards;
• Allows modification of parking requirements with supporting parking study;
• Prohibits variances for density of accommodations uses in-lieu of P.U.D.
process;
• Adds standards for compatibility;
• Requires public benefits as a condition of P.U.D. approval
• Other minor modifications and clarifications; and
• Updates application submittal standards to reflect the above changes.
Discussion:
This is essentially a rezoning, and rezonings are not required to do a two-step process,
Staff reviews the applications to determine if the P.U.D. benefits the community, and the
Planning Commission makes recommendations to the Town Board.
There are currently three or four P.U.D. s in the Valley.
This amendment hopes to address interested properties in the business corridors. The
current CO-only restriction limits this.
The proposed amendments do not allow for any higher density in Residential areas. A
PUD can, however, utilize the attainable housing density bonus.
Public input would be during rezoning and the P.U.D. stage rather than the Development
Plan stage. The Planning Commission and the Town Board will still review all
applications; public comment is allowed at all points, including neighborhood meetings.
Public Comment:
John Guffey, 561 Chapin Lane, expressed concerns with implying that the human
community trumps the earth community. Greater density gives less recognition to the
original environmental community.
Kristine Poppitz, 650 Devon Dr, would like consistency with the number of meetings for
land use applications, stating that letting citizens be heard is valuable. She would like to
be involved in the Development Code rewrite. She would like explanations of workforce,
attainable, and affordable housing instead of referring to everything as workforce.
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Robbins) to recommend approval of the
revisions to the Development Code pertaining to Planned Unit Developments to the
Town Board of Trustees. The motion passed 4-1, with Pawson voting against.
Planning Commission – September 17, 2024 – Page 4
DISCUSSION:
Due to conflicting work schedules, it was suggested that the Planning Commission
meetings be moved from Tuesdays at 1:30 to Monday afternoon. Staff will review this
request and revisit it at the next meeting.
Three consultants will be interviewed for the Development Code rewrite. Interviews are
scheduled for October 7 and 8.
Pawson again requested a Wildlife Corridor/Habitat map update.
There being no further business, Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
_______________________________
Chair Chuck Cooper
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary