Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Joint Town Board and County Commissioners 1999-11-03Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado,November 3,1999 Minutes of a Joint Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park and Board of County Commissioners of the County of Larimer,Colorado.Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 3td day of November, 1 999.Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L.Dekker. Town:Robert Dekker,Mayor,Trustees Sue Doyten,Jeff Barker,John Baudek,Stephen Gillette,George Hix,Lori Jeffrey County Commissioners:Cheryl Olson,Chair,Commissioners Jim Disney,Kathay Rennels Also Attending —Town:Town Administrator Rich Widmer,Town Attorney White,Director Steve Stamey,Senior Planner Bob Joseph,Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom County:Attorney Jeannine Haag,Chief Planner Russell Legg Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.and introduced the Trustees,County Commissioners,Town and County Staff,and Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Wendell Amos,Chair,Biff Baird,Joyce Kitchen,Cherie Peftyjohn,Edward PohI,Al Sager,Dominick Taddonio.Mayor Dekker and County Commissioner Olsen expressed appreciation for the efforts of all individuals responsible for development of the proposed Code. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing and those wishing to speak were asked to sign in and observe the 3-minute time limitation.Cards were distributed to those who wished to make written comments.Director Stamey presented a slide commentary on the evolution of public sentiment that reflected a need for development guidelines in the Estes Valley.The major aspects of the proposed Estes Valley Development Code and the key points of each chapter were explained. Public comments: Kathleen M.Casey,representing John and Marcia Henry,401 Riverside Drive.Comments included: •The proposed zoning is inconsistent with the zoning of the remaining land on the north side of Riverside Drive. •If the proposed rezoning is carried out,all the rezoned lots would be non-conforming. •The Henry’s are willing to accept either A or CO and amenable to contractually restricting the possible uses of the property. Sarah Rhodes,3505 St.Francis Way.Comments included: •In favor of short-term rentals. •Short-term rentals have been very successful with no complaints received. Roland Retrum,650 Freeland Court.Comments included: •The proposed Code contains a number of provisions that invite downgrading development.Those include establishment of an Ri residential zone that doubles density,allows attached accessory dwellings,invites developments of 10 or more acres,provides dispensation for long rows of townhouses,and offers a 50%density bonus for affordable housing that does not serve the needy. •Requested that room rentals to lower income individuals not be prevented. •Noted that a majority of respondents to the Talmey/Drake Survey rated affordable housing as the second most important problem facing Estes Park. Eb Meyer,450 Bluebird Lane.Comments included: •Should have been notified of proposed zoning changes to his property. •Updated draft document was not available at the Library for public review. Joint Meeting -Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3,1999-Page 2 •Document should be organized and characterized by zoning district. •Public was not given a reasonable opportunity to examine the document. Ima Maffhies,1637 Black Squirrel.Comments included: •Requested variance requests be presented to the Little Valley Owners’Association prior to presentation to the County. •Little Valley homeowners have established a General Improvement District (G.l.D.#14 of Larimer County). Karen Zipser,675C Steamer Drive.Comments included: •Nightly rentals are for transients. •Residential zoning fosters a sense of community and security. •Nightly rentals violate the tranquility rights of property owners’. •Requested that short-term rentals be removed from all residential areas. •Very disappointed in the density bonuses. James S.Bass,2177 Baker Drive.Comments included: •Questioned the reason for “downzoning”his property. •Asked County Commissioners if the County had plans to condemn his property so that it could be purchased at a reduced price for open space. George Hockman,1625 Prospect Estates Drive.Comments included: •Proposal for slope protection is reasonable and necessary. •Mitigation plan for hazards should require developers to be responsible for the mitigation rather than allowing the developer to pass that responsibility to buyers. •Shielded lighting is very important and exceptions should not be allowed for aesthetics and other reasons. Louise Olson,450 Pioneer Lane.Comments included: •The Code does not adequately address the affordable housing issue. •Expressed appreciation for overall work on the Code. •Requested the creation of a separate Estes Park Housing Authority. Frank Haggard,1561 St.Moritz Trail.Comments included: •Complimented the reasonableness and accommodation given to short-term rental policy. •Short-term rental income provides the financial means necessary for some individuals to purchase retirement homes in Estes Park. •Expressed concern regarding the lack of tolerance for short-term renters. •Expressed appreciation for the clarity of the documents produced by Steve Stamey and Bob Joseph. Don Cheley,3960 Fish Creek Road.Comments included: •The Cheley organization has acquired additional lands for open space. •Some of his properties have been downzoned and devalued. •Made a commitment to maintain their open space lands in a pristine manner. Linda Moudry,1631 Avalon.Comments included: •Representing the working poor. •The Code is beyond insulting.It does not include the working poor and does not respect their civil rights. Bill Van Horn,2101 McGraw Ranch Road.Comments included: •Representing his father,Paul Van Horn. •Father’s property on Fish Creek Road is improperly rezoned from Outlying Commercial to Office and was not informed of the change. •Requested change from Office zoning to RM zoning. Joint Meeting -Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3,1999 -Page 3 Jaqueline Oldham,1591 Jacob Road.Comments included: •Representing League of Women Voters. •Set backs and wetlands/streams should not be encroached upon. •The League does not support the density bonus for attainable housing. •The League does support more open space and having units placed on smaller lots.It is inappropriate,however,to provide density bonuses for open space. Patrick Cipolla,632 Aspen Avenue.Comments included: •Need to enforce the laws and ordinances currently in place. •Nothing was done to the individuals responsible for the recent fish kill in Fall River and the same thing is occurring in the Hwy.34/36 project.The wetlands are being covered with dirt.Stated that a permit had not been issued to perform the work. Per Greg White,Public Service does have a permit from the Corps of Engineers and the wetlands have not been disturbed. John Hefley,1380 Devils Gulch Road.Comments included: •Uncomfortable with how the process has proceeded and expressed a desire to have a petition circulated to bring the proposed Code to a citizen vote. Per Greg White,the Town does have a right of referendum,but the County does not. Each individual board is voting on its portion of the Code. Presentation by Bill Van Horn: •Adoption of the proposed Code will reduce the valley’s potential from 30,000 to 20,000. •The citizens that have developed their property have maintained their rights.The citizens that have not developed their property have lost their rights. •Identified existing developments that would have been mote costly and adversely affected under the proposed Code (i.e.,the Intermediate School,Larimer County Office building,Wiest Drive parking lot,Moraine Avenue parking lot). •The proposed Code will not allow for mitigation for wetlands.Federal law does allow for mitigation currently. Written comments by card received by: John Spooner,527 Hondius Circle.Comments included: •The revised Code and Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes were not available at the Library for public review prior to the joint Town/County meeting. Patricia Kayne,3000 Puma Drive.Comments included: •The revised Code was not available at the Library. •No one in their neighborhood was notified of the changes affecting their property. Mayor Dekker recessed the public hearing until 7:00 p.m. Prior to comments and deliberations by Town and County staff,Mayor Dekker recessed the meeting for a 10-minute break at 2:58 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 3:10 p.m.Deliberation of the proposed Code proceeded as Town and County staff discussed the following: River Setbacks —The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended that the setbacks remain at 50’.Staff recommended a further modification that developments currently meeting the 30’setback not become a non-conforming issue.Development requests from existing properties will be examined when a building permit is requested.The setback provision for the downtown area is different.The initial setback is 20’that can be reduced to 10’if there is a public access/walkway provided to the property. Joint Meeting -Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3,1999 -Page 4 Comments: Trustee Baudek — •If the setback is reduced from 50’to 30’,staff should not be allowed to decrease it another 10%and the EVPC up to 25%.The variance would not be allowed. Commissioner Disney — •The setback issue was debated thoroughly and the compromise of 50’is fair. Chief Planner Legg — •Procedurally,Trustees and Commissioners can make a motion to adopt the proposed Code with the Estes Valley Planning Commission’s recommendations and then pull out the issues that warrant further discussion.For instance,the wetland proposal would go forward with the Estes Valley Planning Commission’s recommendation and the language on non-conformities could be reviewed and voted separately. Trustee Hix — •Questioned whether amendments to the Code could be made once the proposed Code is adopted? Per Attorney White —The Code can be amended at any time.The provision for amendment states that upon a request by either a Trustee,County Commissioner,or the Estes Valley Planning Commission,the Estes Valley Planning Commission can consider amending the Code. Staff stated that the Estes Valley Planning Commission will compile and make available a list of issues raised during the hearing process by County Commissioners,Town Trustees,and the public.Items on the list will be further reviewed and discussed during Estes Valley Planning Commission work sessions in the coming year. Grade Proposals —The proposed Code states that the natural grade should not be changed more than 10’(or 12’with the use of retaining walls)to maintain the integrity of the natural terrain. Comments: Director Stamey — •Costs to develop sites could be increased depending on building methods. •New parking lots would be subject to the new grading standards. Commissioner Disney — •Variances for hardship cases can be requested through the Board of Adjustment. Trustee Doylen — •Requests for variances are not guaranteed. Wetlands —Wetlands comprise approximately 1.3%of the Valley planning area.They are unique and limited in location.They should be preserved and protected.The Code does provide for possible mitigation.The National Wetlands Inventory map used as a resource is not complete and should be used in conjunction with other resources.The presence of water is not always an indicator of wetlands.Vegetation,soil,and the biologic community also factor into determining wetlands. Comments: Chief Planner Legg — •The proposed Code does not specifically allow mitigation.There is one paragraph from the County’s Code that could be added to the proposed Code that would allow the possibility of mitigation.Staff was directed to prepare mitigation language to be added to the proposed Code. Joint Meeting -Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3,1999 -Page 5 Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes —Issues in the Minutes and/or proposed Code requiring clarification or consideration included the following: •Consider revising the R-1 single family residential district designating it as a district for attainable housing development only with no nightly rentals. •Consider changing the affordable housing bonus to 1 unit for 7 guestrooms and not include the owner’s residence in the number. •Discussed uses permitted regarding accessory dwellings (pg.178,lines 6-8)and requested clarification and inclusion of the definition of “vegetative buffer”in the proposed Code (pg.178,line 45). •Homeowners’Associations are required to maintain open areas.Covenants contain provisions to allow the Town,on notice to the homeowners when open areas are not being maintained,to tend the weeds and assess the property owners for the cost.A management plan is not required.Upon approval of the proposed Code,the requirements will be the same for the County.(Pg.179,lines 13-20). •Add the management plan concept to the Estes Valley Planning Commission work program list for further study. •If a citizen believes a mistake was made in this legislative zoning process,he/she will have a year to apply for rezoning.A development plan may not be required.The development plan requirement can also be waived in certain circumstances and the Code does provide for extensions. •A mechanism should be developed to monitor any unintended consequences.This mechanism can be addressed during the Intergovernmental Agreement development discussions. Mayor Dekker recessed the meeting at 3:56 p.m.The meeting will reconvene at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.and reopened the public hearing. Public comments: Carol Bissill,1884 Devils Gulch Road.Comments included: •Does not want Estes Park to become just another tourist destination. •The two main issues threatening the valley are density and lack of design standards. Mary Bower,251 Mountain View Lane.Comments included: •Expressed concern that the proposed Code does not take care of low-income housing. •Stated that density bonuses sound good,but they don’t do the job that they are intended to do. •Expressed appreciation for the time spent developing the proposed Code. Jim Richter,1150W.Elkhorn.Comments included: •The proposed river set back will be a hardship for his business. •The existing cabins located on his property are considered non-conforming under the proposed Code and additional cabins will require a variance that will be difficult to receive. Doffie Brockway,621 MacGregor Avenue.Comments included: •Requested that short-term rentals not be allowed because they are unmanaged motels. Ralph Nicholas,1660 North Ridge Lane.Comments included: •The 1994-1996 Comprehensive Plan started with public input and the will of the people was observed. •The proposed Code began in 1998 with no public input allowed. •The motion to drop all density bonuses was defeated with no attempt to reach a compromise solution. Joint Meeting -Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3,1999 -Page 6 •The desires of the public should be seriously considered prior to adoption of the proposed Code. David Habecker,221 Big Horn Drive.Comments included: •Short-term rental properties should be identified as commercial accommodations and be treated the same as other accommodations properties. •Senior housing and daycare facilities should be expanded into different zones. •Expressed concern that under the proposed Code,guest houses located in the County must be attached to the dwelling and are limited to 800 square feet. Peter Ingersoll,507 Riverrock Circle.Comments included: •Affordable housing units can not be developed with subsidies. •Affordable housing is a concern across the country and this must be addressed as a joint effort between the state,county,and local municipality. •Density bonuses are required to encourage affordable housing units. Ricki Ingersoll,507 Riverrock Circle.Comments included: •Town Board should take a stand on decent affordable housing and should locate land for development of such housing. •No special districts have been created. •There is no active housing authority. •A crisis has developed white density is debated. Bob Clements,Amberwood Lodge,1889 Fall River Road.Comments included: •Property has been placed in A-I zone that limits its use.The existing buildings will be considered non-conforming. •Requested that his property be zoned A instead of A-I. Mayor Dekker closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Deliberation of the proposed Code proceeded as Town and County staff discussed the following with the Boards: •River setbacks •Guest houses •Density bonuses and affordable housing •Design standards •Establishment of a separate housing authority •Cut and fill standards Comments: Commissioner Disney — •The proposed Code will not solve the problem of affordable housing.The Code is a piece to the puzzle.There are many factors involved in solving this issue. Trustee Baudek — •Density bonuses may not ensure low income housing,but conversely if you do not have density bonuses you can almost be assured that you will not have affordable housing. This is a critical piece to the puzzle. Mayor Dekker recessed the meeting for a 10-minute break at 7:50 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.and reopened the public hearing. Joint Meeting -Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3,1999 -Page 7 Public comments: Helen Taddonio,2720 Eagle Cliff Drive.Comments included: •Housing needs of citizens who provide the services necessary to keep the tourist economy viable are not being met. •Those who live in residential zoned areas have a property right to a residential lifestyle, which means long-term neighbors and friends rather than short-term transients and strangers.Provisions for short-term nightly rentals should be deleted from the proposed Code. Mayor Dekker closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Staff distributed a list of recommendations that included the following: 1.Planning Commission recommendations as set forth in the minutes should be incorporated into the draft Code under consideration. 2.Stream Setback:Section 7.6.E.1 .(a)should be modified as follows:“(3)All development which is in conformity with the applicable river or stream corridor setback provisions prior to the adoption of this Code,shall not be rendered non conforming if the sole non-conformity is the violation of the stream or river corridor setback set forth in Paragraph (1)above.The property may be further developed including remodeling,redevetopment,alternations and extensions of the structures and uses on the property so long as said activities meet the prior stream or river corridor setback and are otherwise in conformance with all applicable terms and conditions of this Code.The provisions of Section 3.7 of this Code shall not be allowed to modify the prior setback.” 3.Wetlands Mitigation:Section 7.6 —Wetlands Mitigation should be modified as follows: “All approved alterations of wetlands must be mitigated by replacement or enhancement on the site or within the same drainage basin on a one-to-one basis with equivalent or better biologic and hydrologic functions. 4.R-1 Single Family Residential District. 1.Page 37. 6.R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District.This district is established to provide opportunities for attainable single-family residential development within the Town of Estes Park and in close proximity to services. Accordingly,district regulations will allow densities of up to 8 dwelling units per acre,with a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet,subject to attainable housing limitations in Section 17 .4.C.,of this Code. 2.Page 36,Table 4-1,Lines 10,11. Additional regulations.Insert D.4. 3.Page 43;add paragraph 4 to Section D. 4.Attainable housing.All development in the R-7 District shall be subject to the attainable housing limitations for owner and rental occupancy,as set forth in Section 1 1 .4.C. 4.Page 121,Maximum Permitted Density Bonus. Paragraph D.,add:Except in the R-J District,subject to the standards.... 5.Remove fee amount ($)from Table in Section 7.4.E.2.Said fee to be administratively determined by joint resolution of the Boards. Joint Meeting -Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3,1999 -Page 8 6.Appendix D shall be amended by the addition of the County Road Standards for County developments. 7.Unresolved Code Violations.Section 12.4.A.1 should be modified as follows:“Where the Community Development Director determines that an Applicant or Property Owner has an outstanding violation or violations of this Code,the Community Development Director shall be authorized to deny or withhold all permits,certificates or other forms of authorization for any use or development activity undertaken by such person until the outstanding violation is corrected.The Community Development Director may also refuse to process any application by the Property Owner or Applicant until the outstanding violation is corrected.This provision shall apply whether or not the property for which the permit,application or other approval is sought is the property in violation.The Property Owner or Applicant shall have the right to appeal the Community Development Director’s determination that a violation of this Code exists to the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners,whichever is applicable.The Board shall hold a hearing on the Appeal as soon as practical and either uphold,reverse or modify the determination of the Community Development Director as the Board deems appropriate.” 8.Employee housing for accommodations.The draft Code recommends there be 1 unit per 10 guest units or rooms.Staff recommended modifying the number to 1 unit per 7 guestrooms. Comments: Trustee Doylen: •Expressed concern that the changes to the proposed Code were not available to the public prior to this public meeting.Per Town Attorney White —staff made every attempt to have proposed changes available for public review. Trustee Barker: •Requested further discussion and explanation on nightly rentals.Per Town Attorney White:The Town Board established a procedure for nightly rentals that addressed noise and property concerns.Based on the Town Board action,staff recommended inclusion of the provision to allow nightly rentals in residential areas. Chief Planner Legg: •The County does not notify specific homeowners’associations regarding improvements. However,the surrounding property owners are notified of proposed improvements.The Town of Estes Park does not have any General Improvement Districts. Trustee Jeffrey: •Requested that an acknowledgement be sent to all letters received. Trustee Doylen: •Confirmed that citizens will have an opportunity for redress after the Code is adopted. After completion of deliberations and comments,Mayor Dekker explained that the proposed Code and zoning map would be voted separately. Town Attorney White read the ordinance adopting the Estes Valley Development Code as recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission with the recommendations presented above.It was moved and seconded (Hix/Baudek)to approve the ordinance as presented,and it passed unanimously. Commissioner Disney moved to adopt the Estes Valley Development Code with modifications recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and further modified by staff comments contained in the Memorandum dated November 3,1999 with Joint Meeting -Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3,1999 -Page 9 the Code to be effective February 1,2000 and further directed the County Attorney to prepare a written resolution reflecting this motion and vote,and it passed unanimously. Zoning map changes included the following: 1.Henry property,401 Riverside Drive —Proposed E-1 Estate.The property owner has requested A or C-C.It was moved and seconded (Jeffrey/Barker)that the property located at 401 Riverside Drive be changed to A zoning,and it passed with a 5-1 vote. 2.Van Horn property,Fish Creek Road —Proposed 0-Office.The property owner requested that the property be changed to R-M.The Office designation would allow for a transition from a neighborhood to a commercial area.It was moved and seconded (Barker/Gillette)that the Van Horn property be rezoned from Office to R-M,and it passed unanimously. 3.Meyer property,450 Bluebird Lane —Currently in the County Estate 2.5-acre zoning district.It is proposed that the property remain in the RE 2.5-acre district.Mr.Meyer’s concern related to the requirement that accessory dwellings/guest houses would now be required to be attached to the main dwelling.No action by the Board. 4.Bass property -Currently zoned County A-Accommodations.The Estes Valley Planning Commission proposed that the northern portion will be zoned A-i and the larger parcel will be zoned RE Estate.The property owner has requested that he remain A- Accommodations.Commissioner Disney moved that Estes Valley Planning Commission’s recommendation for the Bass property presented above be approved,and it passed unanimously. 5.Cheley Camp property (PID #34114-06-001)—Proposed as RE-I,currently A- Accommodations and E-Estate (the 160-acre parcel that includes the Cheley Camp headquarters).Commissioner Disney moved that PID #34114-06-001 be rezoned to A-Accommodations as presented above,and it passed unanimously. 6.Clements property,Fall River Road —The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended that the Clements property remain zoned A-i.Since conditions cannot be placed on zoning,perhaps a remedy for the property owner would be to utilize the i-year review request option.At the time of the review,Mr.Clements would provide the Estes Valley Planning Commission with a specific development plan.Commissioner Rennels moved that the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommendation be approved as presented,and it passed unanimously. 7.Graetzer property,310 Riverside Drive.Staff recommended that the property be rezoned to A-I.Commissioner Rennels moved that the Graetzer property be rezoned to A-I,and it unanimously passed. 8.Brown property,1272 Giant Track Road.The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended that the Brown property be rezoned A-Accommodations with a contract being negotiated with limiting conditions.In light of the determination that conditions cannot be placed on zoning,this rezoning to A-Accommodations with limiting conditions is not appropriate.Mr.Brown should direct his rezoning request to the Estes Valley Planning Commission for further review.Staff recommended that the Brown proper be rezoned to A-I.Commissioner Disney moved that the Brown property be rezoned to A-I,and it passed unanimously. 9.Little Valley,petition request —rezoned to RE-I. Selig property,neighbor request —not rezoned. Baldpate Area —corrected map errors. Duemig property,owner request —not rezoned,remain at A-I. Schreiber property,owner request —not rezoned,remain at E-I. Joint Meeting -Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3,1999 -Page 10 10.Fall River Study Area meeting —Discussed future land use category and future land use for that area.The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended a revised map for the study area.The Younglund property change (PID #35164-00-077)was inadvertently excluded from zoning map.Staff requested that the map be revised to include the Younglund property within the A-Accommodations zone.Commissioner Disney moved that the zoning map be corrected to include the Younglund property as presented above,and it passed unanimously. 11.Crossroads Building,Dry Gulch Road —The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended that the zoning be changed to 0-Office. 12.Clinton property,Fall River Road —The Estes Valley Planning Commission zoned part of the Clinton property (south side of Highway 34)A-I Accommodations and the remainder was zoned E-Estate.Mr.Clinton also owns two adjacent parcels.The Estes Valley Planning Commission did not recommend that the two adjacent lots be rezoned at the present time. County Commissioner Olson directed County Attorney Haag to read the following motion:It was moved to approve the zoning map as prepared with the exception of the Cheley property,Graetzer property,and Brown property,and it passed unanimously. Town Attorney White read the ordinance accepting the zoning map as presented with the following two changes —the Henry property will be zoned A-Accommodations and the Van Horn property will be zoned RM-Multiple Family.The zoning map will be effective February 1,2000. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Baudek)to approve the zoning map with the changes as presented above,and it passed unanimously. Mayor Dekker expressed appreciation for the efforts of everyone involved in the development of the Code.Town Attorney White stated that staff would begin drafting the Intergovernmental Agreement immediately. There being no further business,Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. R ert L.Dekker,Mayor v Rebecca van Deutekom,Deputy Town Clerk