Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission Study Session 1998-10-21BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session October 21,1998 Commission:Chair A1 Sager, Commissioners Wendell Amos, William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl and Dominick Taddonio Attending: All Absent: None TAC Members: Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorp and Bill Van Horn Attending: Gamble, Hondius and Van Horn Absent: Member Thorp Also Attending Town: Trustee Liaison Baudek Attorney White, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Recording Secretary Botic County: County Commissioner Liaison Disney, Chief Planner Russell Legg Chair Sager called the Study Session to order at 3:15 p.m. Chair Sager welcomed everyone to the Study Session and clarified there would be no public participation. There will be a time for verbal and written comments in the future. Director Stamey explained the Study Session is scheduled for two hours for the Commissioners to review/refine the ‘working draff of Chapters 4 and 5. A draft is available to the public for check-out from the Community Development Office. Stamey has a master copy of all comments from Commissioners and TAC Members for toe two chapters with some editing proposed. Mr. Stamey reviewed the Major Summary Points (listed below) of the EVDC, Chapters 4 & 5. MAJOR SUMMARY POINTS, EVDC - CHAPTERS 4& 5 1. Preparation of EVDC is directive Staff and EVPC has been given. 2. Combines Town and County Zoning District Categories, as set forth in EVCP. . Draws from current Town and County regulations, and adds new or modified provisions. Also incorporates material and standards from Larimer County’s new draft code 4. Intent is to reduce Special Review. Therefore, Code is longer - lists more uses, describes more use standards, more definitions, and specificity. 5. This IS a “working draft” for the Commission. After review and modifications a proposed draft” will be prepared, for public comment and review. 6‘ s®fsuionsiwij11 focus on discussions among Planning Commission members. The 1 AC will be asked to provide written input for EVPC consideration 7. Several major concepts for EVPC direction. Discussion was held on the following. CHAPTER 4 - ZONING DISTRICTS USE TABLES - Chapter 4, Page 5 1. P-Permitted. S-Special Review. • Add SF to R-2 • Delete 2 family from R-1 • Expand Religious Assembly? Chapter 5, page 34 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session -October 21,1998 Page 2 Discussion on: parking/traffic as ‘these facilities operate more than once a week,’ compatibility with neighborhood area, times of day, size, no definitions available at this time, many uses such as child care, shelters, soup kitchens, social service providers as done in metro area • Trail Head - add location/extent standards • Delete Boarding/Rooming House - Chapter 4, Page 7, corresponding section in Chapter 5 will also be deleted. Discussion followed on what areas would trigger Special Review for B and Bs. • Impacts/intrusions to neighborhoods, caution to not intrude new use on existing zone • Protect RE and RE-1, not currently allowed • Implement Master Plan, ‘think in the future’ • Locational standards, arterial street, direct access • Parking, limit of 3 cars • Additional beds exacerbate traffic issues 2. Additional development standards referenced. • Density and dimensional standards reflect existing minimum lot areas, and new districts added. • Setbacks - same (measured form property line) • Maximum lot coverage added for RM and proposed R-2 • Would propose adding FAR for MF development or unit type approach • Townhome option added for RM district. • Mechanics for multi-family development and townhome development need to be refined. DISTRICTS Residential 1. Generally reflects current districts. New small lot Single Family - 5,000 sq. ft. 2. Minimum Open Space requirements for each residential development. (Table 4-3). • Need to define open space, and identify min sizes/groupings 3. Table 4-4 reflects pedestrian and street circulation linkages, now practiced. • Maximum Extent Feasible - Burden on applicant to demonstrate why standard cannot be met. In a sense adds flexibility. • Add “X” means required. • Add requirement for E-1 and E Non-Residential 1. Two distinct accommodation districts. Page 10-11. • A-Large, franchise (Holiday Inn, Motel 6) • A-1 - Small, low density, residential in character, lodge • 4 units per acre. Increase? 6-87, with good design? Comimssioner Disney cautioned if everything remains the same, this is a futile exercise. Discussion on A and A-1. Director Stamey distributed correspondence received from the following: TAG Members Larry Gamble and Bill Van Horn, Citizens Rowland Rowland, Ralph Nicholas. t hite tha°ked1^he Public for their interest and attendance. Chair Sager stated the next Study Session wiU take place October 28, 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room 0ner i fated he W0Uld be Unable t0 attend the next session. Commissioner Taddonio requested future meeting dates. There being no further business, the Study Session was adjourned at 5:08 p.m. Roxanne S. BoticT Recording Secretary