Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-11-131 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners, Foster, Murphree. Smith and Theis Also Attending: Acting Director Travis Machalek, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Planner I Robin Becker, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Commissioners Schneider, White Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commission/Staff Introductions. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to change item 6 (Ferguson) with item 5 (Black Canyon) on the agenda as presented and the motion passed 5-0. 3. Public Comment: Tom Gootz, 2855 Grey Fox Drive, Chapter 4, Table 4.1 has been intercepted/distributed to many people, and the dramatic proposals for residential areas are wrong for Estes Park. He asked that the PC take them seriously. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of the October 16, 2018 Study Session Minutes. Approval of the October 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Approval of the October 30, 2018 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Smith) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 5-0. 5. MINOR SUBDIVISION, FERGUSON TOWNHOMES 3 AND 4 1581, 1583, 1587, 1589 Mary’s Lake Road Commissioner Theis recused himself and took a seat in the audience. Planner Becker reviewed the Minor Subdivision proposing the creation of two townhome subdivisions. Each would consist of two townhome lots, two out-lots and a townhome 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall building. Staff recommended approval of proposed Preliminary Townhome Subdivisions with the following conditions: 1) Detailed grading and drainage plan for both shall be submitted with the Final Plat applications. 2) Shared drainage and maintenance easements between Ferguson Townhome 3 and 4 shall be shown on the Preliminary and Final Plats. 3) A Road Maintenance Agreement shall be submitted with Final Plat applications. Commission/Staff Discussion: None Applicant Discussion: Seth Hanson, applicant, stated that he has previously done a similar project, approved by the PC. The townhomes are under construction, and the goal is to sell them individually rather than have one ownership. The county engineer requires a detention basin, thus the conditions of approval. The downhill neighbors are not impacted by the development drainage. Public Comment: Trudy Ester, 1070 Griffith Court, explained the massive concrete “lego” blocks that were installed to address the drainage from the applicant’s first project. She has spent thousands of dollars on landscaping to cover them up. She showed the PC photos, requesting that the applicant finish the first project before being allowed to do another. Applicant: Hanson noted that what Ms. Ester was referring to was a completely separate property and project. He did not want the concrete wall, however it was required of him by County Engineers at that height, with that material. He was not allowed to have any water drain onto her property including historical flow. He confirmed that Conditional Items 2 and 3 have been satisfied, item 1 is waiting for approval from the County Engineer. Commission Comments/Questions: None It was moved and seconded (Foster/Smith) to approve the Ferguson 3 and 4 Preliminary Townhome Subdivision according to findings of fact, including findings and conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed 4-0. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, BLACK CANYON INN 800 MacGregor Avenue Planner Becker reviewed the proposal of a 150 seat wedding venue, a motel-style accommodations building and 8 condo-style accommodation units. A variance is scheduled for review by the Board of Adjustment on December 4. Staff recommended approval of the 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Development Plan with the condition that the applicant receives the variance. Commission/Staff Discussion: Theis clarified that the PC was being asked to review this project prior to the variance on the size of the building. Attorney White explained that there is no code requirement for percentage of accessory use to overall use. If the Board of Adjustment doesn’t grant the variance, a new development plan will be required. Applicant Discussion: Justin Spodek, applicant, spoke on the process of the plan, remarking that the business is driven by hospitality, and because of that they have proceeded with empathy and consideration. They been in close contact with neighbors and generously agreed to remove the entire 3rd floor of the proposed accommodations building. The wedding venue is being built down slope and facing north to mitigate noise for neighbors. Outdoor Deck and patio space will be used as intermittent space between the ceremony and the reception. The upper level will be where ceremonies will be held, ground level will be for receptions and after parties. Hours of operation have not been decided. The wedding venue will be rented out to non-staying guests as well as paying overnight guests. If parking were to become a problem, a shuttle service would be used, which would be an acceptable condition for the PC to add to the proposal. Theis suggested developing an overflow parking plan. Steve Lane, Bas1s Architecture, presented slides on the proposal showing the layout and location of the venue. In regard to the variance request, Chapter 5 of the Development Code states that a banquet hall is allowed as accessory use and buildings can be detached in this (A) zoning district. Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering, discussed traffic flows and impact. Delich and Associates did the traffic analysis study. There will be an ‘emergency access only’ drive on the south exit, sharing an easement with the Stanley Hotel property. There is an overflow parking area already constructed at the south entrance to the property. This area cannot be paved due to stormwater considerations. Public Comment: Anna Claassen, 370 Homesteader Lane, thanked the developers for their excellent communication and willingness to work with neighbors. She expressed concerns with vehicle noise and lights from the parking lot on properties to the south and east. The owners are open to a berm and landscaping, and she requested that the landscaping be irrigated for 3 years to ensure it does not die. JR Davis, 375 Prospector Lane, agreed with Claassen’s comments and concerns. He suggested that the commitments and proposals by the neighbors be put in writing. Applicant Response: Reetz explained the 4 foot retaining wall being proposed on the eastern edge of the parking 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall lot. It is approximately 10 feet off the property line, with a berm and landscaping behind, which should block headlights. Landscaping code requires 8 trees and 11 shrubs per 100 feet of linear property line. There is the possibility of adding a split-rail fence to keep people from trespassing. Theis mentioned that a solid fence or wall would block noise and light better than landscaping alone. The applicant is open to continued work with neighbors on the concerns of noise and lights. Lane asked why the 1,000 sq. foot variance mechanism didn’t go before the BOA for previous, more recent projects. White answered that the PC can grant a modification up to 25%. Machalek answered that the planning staff did a search of previous variances and determined that it was overlooked in the past, but that doesn’t mean we can overlook it now when we know it is a requirement. Commissioner Discussion: All agreed that this is a well done project, complementing the applicants on the way they followed the rules and terms of communication with the community and neighbors. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Foster) to approve the Black Canyon Wedding Venue Development Plan with the condition of a Parking Plan for overflow parking, and according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. The motion passed 5-0. 10 minute break from 2:55-3:05 7. CODE AMENDMENT, ALLOW OFFICE USE IN RM- ZONING Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): §5.2 Table 5.1 and EVDC §5.2.B.2.i Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal to amend EVDC Accessory Uses permitted in Residential Districts and additional requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures permitted in Residential Zoning Districts. Staff recommended approval of the language in “Exhibit A” stating that this text amendment is in response to a shortage of adequate and affordable office space for small businesses and non-profit agencies. Commission/Staff Discussion: None Public Comment: None Applicant Discussion: Laurie Dale Marshall, Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center (EPNRC) Director, read a letter giving the history of EPNRC and the reason for the proposed Code Amendment and Special Review. She noted that the EPNRC office space is budgeted at $1,000/month and in her search she found two spaces in that price range with most office rentals being between 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall $1200-$1750/month and not large enough. Affordable office space is hard for all nonprofits in the Estes Valley. The additional, but not exclusive, access within the church makes the space more desirable. Michael Moore, Pastor of the Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies, stated that as a church, they are not allowed to profit from use of space. The church is able to partner with and recoup costs with a nonprofit making it a win/win situation. Commission Comments: Commissioner Murphree thanked the pastor for his allowance of the use of the church by the community. Leavitt and Foster expressed concern that this will open up RM zoned area to excessive office use but felt comfortable with the restrictions and the S2 process. The temporary use permit is only available for one year, and this Code Amendment is the only way, per Code, to allow this type of office use. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Leavitt) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners of the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, finding that the amendment is in accord with Section 3.3 of the EVDC. The motion passed 5-0. 8. SPECIAL REVIEW, ESTES PARK NONPROFIT RECOURSE CENTER, OFFICE USE IN RM-MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 1700 BRODIE AVENUE Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal of the Special Review Use (S2) to permit an accessory office use within the RM-Residential Multi-Family zoning district at the PCCR. Staff recommended approval of the S2 Special Review with findings and conditions as stated. Commission/Staff Discussion: Highest amount of square feet the EPNRC could go up to at this location is 1400, from the current 800. This is a good reciprocal use for the church and EPNRC. Public Comment: None It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Murphree) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees the Special Review Use proposal, including findings and conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0. 9. CODE AMENDMENT, CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Amendment to the EVDC to remove inappropriate regulatory cross-references between the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. Planner Woeber reviewed the request. The current Code requires Comprehensive Plan “consistency” as a criterion in decision-making for various types of applications and actions. The removal of such regulatory requirements restores the Comprehensive Plan to its 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall appropriate status as a visioning and goal setting document. Commission/Staff Discussion: Foster asked what the Comprehensive Plan’s role is in future changes to the EVDC. Removing the Comprehensive Plan from Development Proposals is a terrible mistake. PC should have a clear understanding of what the effect of these amendments would be to the Development Code. Leavitt mentioned the unintended consequences and need for a thorough review before taking any action. PC has had short time to review and digest this amendment and the public needs time to look at it. White noted that the State mandates that we have a Comprehensive Plan, and State Statutes require Municipalities adopt it. PC is not required to use Comprehensive Plan as criteria for making approvals by State Statute. One of the main problems is the use of the terms shall be consistent and compatible. Many aspects of the Comprehensive Plan can be used for or against in the justification process. One of the main concerns is with regard to Development Plan approval with use of the Comprehensive Plan (density, height, land use, etc.) to make sure those boxes are checked. This is not just removing the linkage between the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, it is clarifying how, where, and when. This subject needs more discussion and review. Trustee Norris recalled that the concerns and issues of the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners almost exclusively related to Development Plans. There is value in using the Comprehensive Plan for zoning and general Valley-wide development. The 1999 plan is still what needs to be used to bridge the two subjects. Public Comment: Fred Barber, 2190 Devils Gulch Road, provided written comments to the PC and staff regarding the proposal, and asked that they be entered into the record (attached). He spoke on keeping the current wording and not updating the Code, which is applicable under the law. Jay Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive, remarked that the PC is the citizen’s voice for the Estes Valley. He referenced recent Code Amendments, stating that this Code Amendment would be detrimental to the community and requested approval only with careful analysis and citizen input. Kevin Conrad, 2240 Arapahoe Road, commended the PC on the thoughtful deliberation they are putting into the current Code Amendments, warning of the serious consequences. Decoupling requires the need of a mechanism to incorporate the concepts of the Comprehensive Plan into enforceable code. He encouraged the PC to go slowly down this road and find a way to make individual decisions on developments. Commission Comments: Foster would like more time and a better solution on this subject. Machalek stated that he understands what the PC is looking for: clarity on what the Comprehensive Plan can and should be used for regarding Code Amendments and the need to take a more surgical approach in extracting the Comprehensive Plan from the Development Code. Theis believes that zoning and land use decisions need to be left connected to the Comprehensive Plan. There is no rush in approving this Code Amendment. Updating the current plan to roll 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall into the new plan is necessary. Directive from elected boards is needed on how the Comprehensive Plan relates to zoning and code amendments. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Theis) to continue the amendment as stated in Exhibit A to the December 18 PC meeting. Reasons given were: more time needed to review and discuss the issues raised; no time constraints; the need to retain some connection between Comprehensive Plan and Development Code in code changes and zoning; need for public input. The motion passed 5-0. 10. CODE AMENDMENT, PARK AND RECREATION DEFINITION Planner Woeber requested a continuance of the proposed Amendment to the EVDC to revise the definition of Park and Recreation Facilities to the December 18 PC meeting due to the current drafts not being sufficiently complete for the PC to review. A continuance of the moratorium will be needed due to this continuance. Public Comment: Fred Barber, 2190 Devils Gulch Road, provided written comments to the PC and staff. He requested that they be entered into the record (attached). He suggested vacating the moratorium and rolling back the wording on the Code Change on an interim basis which will take away the “time frame schedule”. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Theis) to continue the Park and Recreation Code Amendment to the December 18, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed 5-0. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m. Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary