The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2019-04-16RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Robert Foster, Steve Murphree, Frank Theis Attending: Leavitt, White, Smith, Foster, Murphree, Theis Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Planner I Robin Becker, 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 25 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT none 4. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of March 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Approval of March 19, 2019 Study Session minutes Large Vacation Home, 664 Castle Mountain Road It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. 5. LARGE VACATION HOME, 2501 CARRAIGE DRIVE CCO Hardin CCO Hardin reviewed the request to permit the four bedroom Large Vacation Home use allowing for 10 occupants based on the two per bedroom, plus two formula. The property is in the center of a nearly one acre lot. The nearest home is 85 feet. There have been no neighbor complaints. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the application allowing permission to operate as a Large Vacation Home including findings of fact as recommended by staff. The motion passed 6-0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 6. REZONE: 1573 DRY GULCH ROAD, Mark Theiss, owner Planner II Hathaway Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal that entails the property to be rezoned from RE- 1, Rural Estate with a ten acre minimum lot size to RE, Rural Estate with a 2.5 acre minimum lot size. The owner intends to subdivide the property into four lots, 2.5 acres each. Commissioner Questions: The current home is on septic, the four lots would have the choice of septic or public sewer service. This is not a work-force housing project. Applicant Comment: Owner Mark Theiss introduced himself and gave a brief history of how he came to request this zoning change proposal. David Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting and Engineering, summarized project and the number of nonconforming use lots surrounding the property. Chapters 3, 4 and 6 in the Comprehensive Plan all have applicable reasons for approval of this rezoning. In 2005 the Kendall Canyon Minor Sub Division was created without rezoning. It is unclear how this was done. Public Comment: Phil Edwards, Dry Gulch Road. The best way to stabilize the area during the 2000 rezone was to keep the lots at 10 acres. If this change is allowed, all north end properties should be allowed to rezone. Craig Ellsworth, Devils Gulch Road, opposes the rezoning request. Town does not need more million dollar homes. Beware the domino effect. Geoff Letchworth, Devils Gulch Road, opposes the rezone. Forcing the elk to live closer together is increasing Chronic Wasting Disease, which should be considered in all land use decisions. Greg Cenak, Ridge Road, supports the rezone stating it is a perfect location for RE zoning. Applicant Response: What is being proposed is fair, considering the surrounding nonconforming lots. Commissioner Discussion: Foster stated that if whole north end wanted to rezone to RE, he would be all for it but piece meal zoning is not the way to go, questioning if there is any benefit to maintaining large acreage lots. Hunt answered that 10 acre lots are considered sprawl zoning, 2.5 acres is compatible with low density residential concepts and that true open space zoning would be lots of 50 to 80 acres. Another way to measure proportionality is not by number of acres but by number of lots, which is well over 50 percent in the north end. Other comments included: this is a small-area decision with long term implications; there is an obligation to respect the current Comp Plan; the [possible] intent of the 2000 rezone was to designate this area as low density/low growth; wildlife migration study happens at subdivision level, not rezone level; the lot size is consistent and compatible with what is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 already there; this is the natural progression of the town. Whatever is decided here does not predispose other decisions. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Murphree) to recommend that the Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the rezone request, according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-1 with Foster voting against. 7. CODE AMENDMENT: UPDATE TO NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUINITY MEETINGS Planner Becker reviewed the Amendment to the EVDC Standard Development Review Procedures, which would clarify the applicability of neighborhood and community meetings and provide a clear interpretation of when and where sign postings shall occur. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to recommend approval of the text amendment to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners according to findings of fact and as recommended by staff. The motion passed 6-0. 8. CODE AMENDMENT: UPDATE TO TABLE 3-3, PARKING THRESHOLDS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Planner Becker described the Code for Table 3-3. Currently, projects with ten or less parking spaces do not require a review by staff or the EVDC. This Code Amendment would require a review for projects with three or more parking spaces. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners. The motion passed 6-0 9. CODE AMENDMENT: EVENT FACILITIES Director Hunt Due to the absence of Senior Planner Woeber, Director Hunt explained the proposed Code Amendment to add a definition of “Event Facility” to Chapter 13. Currently the EVDC does not specify or define Event Facility use. This would add the use definition to the A, Accommodations and CO, Commercial Outlying Zoning Districts with an S1 Special Review for the A Accommodations use. This regulation would go into Table 4-4. Commission Discussion: Special Reviews should take care of most concerns, including events occurring in accessory facilities within A zoning and parking issues. Public Comment: None RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Smith) to recommend approval of the Text Amendment as presented to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners. The motion passed 6-0 10. CODE AMENDMENT: CHANGE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING USES Director Hunt reviewed the proposed Code Amendment to remove restrictions that limit Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to the CO, Commercial Outlying, Zoning Districts. This limitation has resulted in very few PUDs being proposed since the EVDC adoption in 2000. PUDs are not a use by right, every proposal would have a public hearing and a rezoning process approval. Any proposed PUD would require two use classifications to qualify for the Mixed-use PUD requirement. Public Comment: David Gale, St. Moritz Trail, asked if the office in Windcliff would qualify as mixed use. Hunt answered in the affirmative. Rick Ralph, Park View Lane, opposed to the amendment, stating that applying this global change is to help the Vacation Home situation. Concerns with the fact there were no disadvantages identified in the staff report. Commission Discussion: Attorney White clarified that this amendment has no connection to the Vacation Home cap, PUDs can’t override the cap. Every PUD will go through at least two public hearings and be judged on particular circumstances. A three-acre minimum district will be required. PUD Amendments would be allowed. It was moved and seconded (White/Theis) to recommend approval of the Code Amendment as presented to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners. The motion passed 4-1 with Murphree voting against and Foster recusing himself. 11. REPORTS: Director Hunt A) New Planning Technician Claire Kreycik began April 8. B) Planning Commission still has an opening for a town appointee. C) Meetings will be at 6:00 p.m. starting in May. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair _________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary