Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission Study Session 1998-04-28BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission - Study Session April 28,1998 Commission: Attending: Absent: Chair A1 Sager, Commissioners Wendell Amos, William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl and Dominick Taddonio All None TAC Members: Attending: Absent: Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorp and Bill Van Horn All None Also Attending: Trustee Liaison Doylen, Town Attorney White, Town Administrator Klaphake, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Recording Secretary Botic The Meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Chair Sager. ANNOUNCEMENT Chair Sager explained the purpose of the Study Session (discussion, no action or voting). Due to Town Board meeting at 7:30 p.m., the study session will need to be completed by 5:30 p.m. 1. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION - ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE“TOP TEN” KEY ISSUE LIST A. Should the new code rely on mandatory building and site design standards vs. advisory guidelines? What should these cover? Recommendation. * Mandatory design standards along the highway corridors (34, 36, 7) and central business district. * Standards should not focus on detailed architectural review, but rather address issues such as overall building scale, mass, height, materials, and color. * Design review be done by staff applying specific standards. Decisions appealable to the planning commission. Comments/Concems: Should Highway 7 also be included? (Currently not in Work Program.) Central Business District to be addressed - EPURA has separate contract with RNL Size, height, color intensity/chroma Important for applicant to have some choices Overall directions to consultant team, then back to EVPC for their review Facade, how to make breaks Franchise architecture Appeal process Administrative flexibiUty BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session, April 28,1998 Page 2 B. What are the preferred tools for open space preservation? Recommendation • Provide for voluntary and mandatory techniques. • Mandatory open space set aside percentages for all new residential subdivisions. (County requires this in PUDs) • Clustering provided for and encouraged, but not mandatory. Density bonuses up to a maximum cap be provided, subject to specific criteria. • Transfer of development units be explored and considered. • Rural Land Use Process be provided for. (Larimer County system). • Provide for fee in lieu of open space. Comments/Concems: The way Larimer County is handling open space is positive Density bonus - need to be justified Residential development - defacto clustering Pubhc input has stated priority of open space Voluntary/ Mandatory concerns (open space in new subdivisions) Topography - flexibibty to address decisions for a specific site Use/legabty of fees, may be applied to supplement open space in another area Density issues Keep growth in 20,000 - 21,000 range Compensation to unaffected areas Impact Utilize TDUs C. Should new code provide for mandatory standards for preserving sensitive environmental areas? Which areas should be covered? Recommendation • Adopt minimum standards to protect key sensitive areas and resources • Scope • Riparian corridors (flood plains, wetlands, streams) • Steep slopes • Night lighting • Vegetation protection • Critical wildlife habitat • Provide for flexibility to modify standards • Wildfire • Ridgelines Conunents/Concems: • Wildfire hazards Danger to adjoining property Roofing Classification County: Class B (fireproof, treated wood shake) and Class C (wood shingles) Importance of defining Roofing • Add Geologic hazards to scope • Emphasize/underline “minimum”, “critical” • Ridgeline (how high, where on promontory, to whom is silhouette objectionable?) D. Should the new Code provide mandatory requirements and incentives for construction of affordable housing? Recommendation • Include mandatory requirements for the provision of affordable housing. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session, April 28,1998 Page 3 Provide for fee in lieu of providing housing. Provide for long term availability/affordability. Provide for a variety of approaches. Provide for incentives (floor area exemption, second floor, accessory dwellings). Comments/Concems: With regards to 21,000 keep in mind bonuses, TDUs Do everything to provide affordable housing (forego fees, require certain percentage to be affordable, long term availability) Reduce density immediately E. Should short term visitor rentals in residential districts be allowed? Recommendation • Provide for use in some districts, but not all. • Provide for grandfathering of existing uses. • Provide for standards. Comments/Concems: This will address 1999/forward. Recognize this is controversial issue. With regards to grandfathering, add “legal” Issues regarding licensing, taxes, commercial utility rates Some rentals allowed on arterial streets Ordinance doesn’t reflect original intent Legality of current rentals Grandfathering status F. Should the new code include revisions to make the review/development process more efficient and expeditious? Recommendation • Wherever permitted under Colorado law, push decision-making authority to the staff and planning commission, with the right of appeal by parties in interest. (For example, special reviews might be decided by the Planning Commission.) • Place more emphasis on preliminary plat approval - planning commission and town board (final plats are approved by staff as ministerial decisions, or consent). • Define a limited authority to enable staff to make minor modifications (eliminate need to seek some variances). • The scope of appeals made from the Planning Commission to the elected bodies be limited to a review of the record compiled at the planning commission public hearing. Comments/Concems: • This also relates to Item I, public process identified subjective vs. objective (special review) • More emphasis on EVPC, no rehearing by Town Board • May not be legalfor County to shorten process as noted in item F. 1., “where permitted by Colorado law, unified process, compromise • As more emphasis is placed on preliminary plat, this will necessitate more information placed on plat. May be major and minor subdivisions. On the day that the new code becomes effective, should developments/projects that are in the “pipeline” but not yet finally approved be subject to the new code’s requirements? Should projects with final approvals, but which have not started constraction or been BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session, April 28,1998 Page 4 completed be exempt from the new code? (Effective date of the new code). Should short term visitor rentals in residential districts be allowed? Recommendation • Projects with final approval be exempt from provisions of new code. • Projects for which a complete application has been submitted and accepted be exempt from complying from later adopted land use regulations. • Possible exception for pipeline projects that have not received final approval might be for building and site design standards, and significant environmental resources with safety valve provisions. • Provide for an application freeze period, during which applications are not accepted until the new code is adopted. Comments/Concems: • In favor of processing complete applications, no exceptions • Clarification given for difference of G. 1 and 2. • “Pipeline” defined. H. Should site and parking lot landscaping requirements be modified for commercial and multi-family projects? Recommendation • Adopt stronger landscaping requirements that focus on quality, not quantity. • Consider reducing the amount of landscaping required, but increasing the size of individual plantings. • Mandatory irrigation of landscaping. • Landscaping designed to be more wildlife resistant. • Consider the Town contribute landscaping materials for certain projects in highway corridors. Comments/Concems: • Don’t use inferior materials • Importance of maintenance/replacement • Clustering; placement on site, electric fence? I. Should the special review process be revamped to provide more certainty by including more specific review criteria and conditions in the code? Recommendation * Place final decision-making authority for special review uses with the planning commission, subject to an appeal. * Develop more specific criteria to guide decision-making. • Reduce the number of special review uses, by making certain ones permitted uses, subject to specific conditions. Comments/Concems: • Discussed previously in meeting under ‘Item F.” J. Should the process of creating condominiums be included in the code’s definition of subdivision, and that such a division of property be subject to subdivision standards and review? Recommendation • The use of land for condominiums be included in the code’s definition of subdivision, and that such division of property be subject to subdivision standards and review. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Conunission - Study Session, April 28,1998 Page 5 Conunents/Concems: • Currently created by filing a map of record with the County. • Building envelopes, lot areas, access issues, separate ownerships. 2. COMMENTS FROM TAC The following comments were offered from a technical standpoint. (Bolded letters refer to Items noted previously in Minutes.) A. In favor of uniform mandatory standards Don’t discriminate RMNP buffers TDUs - will this be utilized, receptor may receive opposition, practical? B. Rural Land Use - this is good and is working Fee not meaningful C. Supportive of minimum standards Adopt design standards to address steep slopes Night Lighting - problematic, difficult issue Vegetative protection - favorable toward mitigation Always have flexibility to modify RidgeUnes - only one left is Prospect Mountain How to handle slopes D. Supportive of mandatory requirements E. No comment F. Preliminary Plat - supportive of this going to Town Board and County Commissioners Agree that Special Reviews should be more specific G. Protect applications in “pipeline”, supportive of application freeze H. Landscaping ideas are possible I. No comment J. Implement separate standards process OTHER TAC COMMENTS: Encouraged by directions and issues being addressed. Environmental maps as a result of 2-year RMNP Study presented and displayed. Concerns with visual sensitivity from within RMNP and to YMCA and Windcliff area. Mandatory building and site design standards have strong community support as there are concerns regarding corridors and overall effect of appearance. Have ‘political will’ to address. Consider the visual impact condominiums have had in the Vail Valley. Utilize specific standards, no long roof lines, utilize ideas to break up and the use of landscaping. Architectural heritage can be developed in this community. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Study Session, April 28,1998 Page 6 ADJOURN Chair Sager reviewed the Agenda for the EVPC Meeting of April 29,1998,9:00 a.m. There being no further business, the Study Session was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary