HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2019-01-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 15, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith,
Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree
Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners, White, Foster, Smith, Murphree and Theis
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, Code
Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: none
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in
attendance.
1. OPEN MEETING
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Murphree) to approve the agenda as presented
and the motion passed 6-0.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Kevin Conrad, Arapaho Road, encouraged more Commissioner/Trustee dialog or even a
town hall forum for verbal exchange between public and the officials who make decisions,
and also suggested a 3 minute time limit per topic, not per person.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of December 18, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
Approval of December 18, 2018 Study Session minutes
It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed 6-0.
5. PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS
Planner Becker stated that due to the earlier Study Session discussion, this item will be
continued to a later meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to continue the item and the motion
passed 6-0.
6. ESTABLISH START TIME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND STUDY
SESSION
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 15, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/White) to continue the item and the motion
passed 6-0.
7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1551 S. SAINT VRAIN AVENUE, Owner, ESTES PARK
HOUSING AUTHORITY
Planner Becker reviewed the Development Plan. The property is 1.6 acres and is
currently developed with a four-unit apartment building. The applicant is proposing the
development of two multi-family residential buildings, having 26 workforce housing units.
A lot consolidation was approved and an alternative parking study has been requested.
Staff recommended approval of the Peakview Apartment Development Plan with no
conditions.
Applicant Comments
Naomi Hawf, Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority, gave the history of
the project and reviewed the income criteria and Restrictive Covenants associated with
the project; employed a minimum of 30 weeks/year, minimum one year leases, occupancy
of no more than two per bedroom plus one. The hope is to begin construction this year.
Steve Lane, Bas1s Architecture, reviewed the site plan for the property including fencing,
landscaping, street access, fire department access, lighting and the addition of a bike
storage building. The parking study showed that 2.25 spots per unit is likely too high,
hence the alternative parking request of 52 spaces rather than 56. Data doesn’t exist
regarding school age tenants. There are school bus stops on either side of the property
along Highway 7. The nearest crosswalk is 3/10 of a mile away. CDOT can be asked
about installing a cross walk near the project property. Landscaping buffers were
discussed and an alternate landscape plan was requested. Staff agreed with the analysis
of the alternate landscaping plan.
Public Comments
Richard Ralph, 395 Parkview Lane, requested the PC reject the parking variation and
address the issue on whether this is compliant and following the Development Code.
Hal Irvine, Pastor of Mountain View Bible Fellowship, expressed that the congregation
plans on being a good neighbor and is in favor of the development.
Cliff Baker, 1062 Tranquil Lane, asked if there are any options to the placement of the
building on the north side due to it being the only side that has residences. He also
questioned why the Footprint Rule was not used.
Applicant Response:
Lane stated that the parking is not a variance, it is an alternate parking schedule and staff
has the authority to approve that, per chapter 7 of the EVDC. Fewer parking spaces
provides more green space. There are landscaping buffers on the north property line, and
the living space and decks of the apartments are on the south side of those apartments.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 15, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
Commissioner Discussion
Director Hunt explained the Footprint Rule and that it does not apply to a nonconforming
structure. Four fewer parking spaces does not seem to be too much of an issue.
Concerns were raised about parking in the church lot. The church does have posted
signs stating Parking Only for Church Sponsored Events. It was noted that the comment
on parking waivers is taken seriously and there are too many waivers being requested.
The repeated density bonus requests are getting frustrating. Applicants who are already
getting a density bonus should not be asking for additional requests. Putting resources
toward getting people across the highway to the bike path instead of a sidewalk to
nowhere was suggested. It was recommended that someone from Public Works be on
hand for comments any time there is a Development Review. The Housing Authority was
commended for the diversity of their plan and the openness with neighbors. Hawf stated
that the Housing Authority and the architect will commit to meeting with anyone wanting to
discuss any further issues.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Murphree) to approve the Peakview
Development Plan according to findings of fact. The motion passed 6-0.
8. LOCATION AND EXTENT, 543 Elm Road, Larimer County Maintenance Facility
Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the Location and Extent Review for the redevelopment
of the existing County Road and Bridge Department Satellite Maintenance Facility. The
lot will be reconfigured for the redesign of the facilities and to enable CDOT to take
ownership of their own property. The redevelopment of the County and CDOT facilities,
the Boundary Line Adjustment and realignment of Range View Road will all be separate
applications. Staff recommend approval of the Location and Extent Review.
Applicant Comments
Jennifer Johnson, Larimer County Planning and Real Estate Manager, presented a power
point of the current location and the planned development of the Location and Extent
proposal. Larimer County owns two lots, one of which is leased to CDOT. Combining the
lots will make for a 10 acre site. The current facility is 62 years old and is in dire need of
replacement. 5 neighbors attended the meeting held on December 20. The County has
offered to pave a portion of Range View Road. The applicant is not aware of any required
soil testing.
Public Comments
Bill Brown, 340 Elm Road, expressed concerns with realigning Elm Road and Range View
and how the grading is going to be addressed.
Ryan Leahy, 398 Elm Road, asked what improvements would be made to Elm Road.
Applicant Response
Todd Juergens, Larimer County Road and Bridge Director, explained that Elm Road and
Range View will be realigned from a Y intersection to a 90 degree intersection, with
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 15, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
Larimer County’s design criteria used to address the grading issue. These roads are not
currently publicly maintained, but County would take over maintenance of Elm Road up to
Range View and CDOT has committed to pave Range View. The roads will not have curb
and gutter, but a road side ditch.
Commissioner Discussion
Theis inquired about old plans from Elm Road connecting to Elkhorn Lodge and if future
impacts might interfere with realignment.
It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the application for a Location
and Extend Review for the property at 543 Elm Road with staff findings. The motion
passed 6-0.
9. DISCUSSION ON FUTURE CODE AMENDMENTS
Park and Recreation facilities/Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Diane Ernst, 147 Stanley Circle Drive, stated there is extensive interest in the community
and people are keeping an eye on things. Residents don’t want commercial development,
allowed by right, in residential zones. She asked in what residential zoning areas the low
intensity commercial development will be allowed.
Kevin Conrad, 2240 Arapaho Road, reiterated that there is a lot of concern about the
quality of residential areas around town. As a homeowner there are expectations of
activities residential in nature, not commercial in nature. Reviewing one development at a
time, in a checklist format, may result in losing the overall vision of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Commission comments:
Make sure discretionary reviews are not being recast as ministerial.
Points will still be made in Development Proposals referring to the Comp Plan.
Adjustments may be made by way of a Code Amendment rather than specific
outcome on a Development Plan.
Changes are being made to give a clearer guideline. The Comp Plan should
not be used as a basis for denial.
Currently, there is a requirement for the Development Plan to meet goals of
Comp Plan, which is legally indefensible, per Attorney White.
The rearrangement, not an uncoupling, is more of a pragmatic use to help make
a point and keep on track.
County acknowledges their Development Plan is out of sync, but they “don’t go
there” with any of their development plans.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 15, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:23 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary