HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2001-10-22BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code Revisions
October 22,2001,1:30 p.m.
Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton,
Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio
Chair Kitchen, Commissioners Amos, McKinney, Pettyjohn, Pohl, and
Taddonio
Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording
Secretary Wheatley
Absent:Commissioner Hampton
Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT - (regarding those items not on the agenda)
David Habecker - requested the Board to reconsider the FAR calculation for commercial
accommodations properties.
Director Joseph advised that there have been informal discussions regarding this issue. The
Staff will be making a recommendation in the future and he suggested that the Staff be allowed
to take a more comprehensive look at the standards for all categories. The Town Board,
however, has the prerogative to make suggestions to the Planning Commission. There will be
an item regarding this for the November 15, 2001 Planning Commission hearing on Code
revisions. Staff sets the structure for Code revision review, but the public has the opportunity to
voice different opinions and suggestions at the public hearings.
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS
Director Joseph reviewed the proposed revisions in Block 2 for discussion.
Item 1. §1.9.C. Density Calculation
The proposed revision is based on deducting private open areas from net land
area density calculation. Staff has been instructed to take a look at the language
to provide a system where the allowable units per acre is not reduced for setting
aside the open space. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to wait
until the next meeting when Staff will draft an alternative option for excluding the
Private Open Area from the net land area calculation.
Item 2. Density/Dimensional Standards will be continued with Item 1.
Item 3. Barns and Stables. ‘The cumulative total ground floor area of all barns or stables
shall not exceed two percent (2%) of the gross area of the lot or parcel or 2,400
square feet whichever is less.”
Chair Kitchen noted that this provision would make MacGregor Ranch non-
conforming. Bill Van Horn, speaking as a representative of MacGregor Ranch,
advised that they will probably be needing a variance because of a need for
additional hay storage. Director Joseph noted that the Board of Adjustrnent is
designed to handle these special exceptions. The Code is the general guideline
and the Commissioners should not attempt to deal with all special situations.
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Taddonio) to recommend acceptance to
Town Board and Board of County Commissioners of the amendment to
§5.2.B.2.b. of the Estes Valley Development Code, as Identified as Item 3,
Block 2 In the Staff Report. Motion passed with one absent. Those voting
yes: McKinney, Pohl, Kitchen, Amos and Taddonio. Those voting no:
Pettyjohn.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 2001 Page 2
Items 4-7. These proposed revisions deal with Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection. A
Stream and River Corridor Resource Map is being created to help illustrate these
regulations. The Resource Map is not ready for adoption into the Code. Director
Joseph reviewed the proposed changes, but recommended deferring action until
the map was finalized. It was noted that there were additional rivers delineated on
the working map not listed in the text.
Bill Van Horn recommended leaving the parcels on the map for future
identification of stream locations as the intermittent streams may not have a well-
defined channel and suggested using the ‘Ihread” of a stream if a high water mark
is not identifiable.
After some discussion, it was determined that the term “minor drainage” should be
used instead of “intermittent stream.”
Item 8. Director Joseph asked to table the Chapter 10 revision on Monuments until the
County Engineer can be present to explain his recommendations.
Item 9. The proposed revisions to Section 11.4, Attainable Housing Density Bonus, raises
the qualifying maximum family income from 50% to 60% of the Larimer County
Area Median Income for rental housing. It was suggested changing the phrase “or
below” to “or less.” Housing costs for owner occupied attainable housing is
revised up to 40% from 30%. These standards are used more universally with
Federal and state financial aid programs. Sam Betters has reviewed the language
for compatibility with the industry standard.
Rowland Retrum, 650 Freeland Court, urged the Planning Commission to redirect
the affordable housing program toward the lower income applicants and keep the
percentage at 50%.
Director Joseph advised the revision does not exclude the lower income
applicants and does not mandate expenditures of any taxpayer money.
Town Attorney White noted that programs such as Section 8 and Tax Credit
Financing are programs used by privately financed projects. If we wish to attract
these private developers, the Code must not be too restrictive. Director Joseph
noted there needs to be a balance between having rents too high for anyone to
afford and allowing enough incentives to encourage development.
Commissioner McKinney noted the Code should not discourage low income
participants from increasing the income level.
Commissioner Taddonio commented that the focus has shifted from lower end
(service industry) to more median income earners (i.e., nurses, teachers,
firemen).
Town Attorney White noted that lower income applicants are often taken care of
by special incentives within specific projects.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKiinney) to recommend acceptance to
Town Board and Board of County Commissioners of the amendment to
§11.4 of the Estes Valley Development Code, as Identified as Item 9, Block 2
in the Staff Report. Motion passed unanimousiy with one absent.
Commissioner Taddonio noted for the record that it was a misuse of the term
“attainable” by definition.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 2001 Page 3
Item 10. Definition of Bed and Breakfast Inn is clarified regarding use of accessory
buildings. Accessory buildings are not a part of the B&B use which is in itself an
accessory use. Revision includes the statement, “Accessory buildings shall not be
used for guest quarters.”
It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommend acceptance to
Town Board and Board of County Commissioners of the amendment to
§13.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code, as identified as Item 10, Block
2 of the Staff Report. Motion passed with one absent. Those voting yes:
McKinney, Pohi, Pettyjohn, Amos and Taddonio. Those voting no: Kitchen.
Item 11. The definitions of “Renter Occupied Attainable Housing Units” and “Owner
Occupied Attainable Housing Units” are revised to reflect the higher percentages
as noted above.
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Pettyjohn) to recommend acceptance to
Town Board and Board of County Commissioners of the amendment to
§13.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code, as identified as Item 11, a and
b. Block 2 of the Staff Report. Motion passed unanimously with one absent.
Director Joseph reviewed the proposed revision to the Gross Floor Area definition.
Because of the difficulty in interpretation and consistency in the application of the
“below grade” exclusion, staff is recommending deletion of the exclusion. Staff will
also review the present percentages for the Floor Area Ratios in the Code and will
suggest changes if warranted.
Bill Van Horn spoke against removing the exclusion and suggested it should be
applied to commercial as well as residential. Commercial buildings are in need of
storage, and it would be worthwhile to encourage having these areas below grade.
The exclusion would still encourage people to bury some of the bulk.
The Planning Commission consensus was to postpone a vote until Staff reviewed
the entire FAR provision. Commissioner Amos requested a vote now since the
Board of Adjustment interpretation shall stand until this exclusion is eliminated. A
developer could come in tomorrow and double their floor area based on this
exclusion.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommend acceptance to
Town Board and Board of County Commissioners of the amendment to
§13.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code, as identified as item 11, c.
Block 2 of the Staff Report.
Since the change would not take effect until a substantial number of other Code
revisions are prepared and then approved by the Town Board and County
Commissioners which would include further discussion of the FAR, the motion
was withdrawn.
Director Joseph asked to continue the discussion on the definition of “Arterial
Street” to the next meeting when a map will be available for illustration purposes.
Bill Van Horn noted that other regulations besides setbacks are applied with the
arterial street designation that are not appropriate to “connector streets.”
Town Attorney White reviewed the proposed revision to the definition of
“Household Unit” under the General Definition of Household Living. The term
‘lamily unit” should be replaced with “household unit” in both Definitions 28
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 2001 Page 4
(Household Living) and 125 (Household) for consistency. The following sentence
shall be added to Definition 28, a. “A household unit shall not include more than
one person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to §18-3-412.5
C.R.S., as amended.”
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Taddonio) to recommend acceptance to
Town Board and Board of County Commissioners of the amendment to the
General Definition of Household Living and the change to “Household Unit”
in both Definition 28 and 125 in §13.3 of the Estes Vaiiey Deveiopment Code,
as identified in Item 11, Block 2 of the Staff Report. Motion passed
unanimously with one absent.
The next scheduled meeting for Code revision review will be November 15,2001, at 10 a.m. for
the Study Session and 1:30 p.m. for the Public Hearing.
There followed a discussion regarding ways to inform the Planning Commission earlier of major
upcoming submittals in order to give the Commissioners more time for study and review.
Meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Kitcnen, Chair
Meribeth Wheatley, Record|in^ Secretary