Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-10-30 - special meeting on Mountain CoasterRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 PC: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree Attending: Leavitt, White, Foster, Murphree, Smith, Theis, Schneider Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. There were approximately 55 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commission/Staff Introductions. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the agenda and the motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Foster recused himself from the appeal and took a seat in the audience. Chair Leavitt stated that today’s hearing is an appeal of the Development Plan of the Estes Mountain Coaster. The question of Use Classification and whether or not the project was properly reviewed were decided in previous hearings. Attorney White summarized the appeal processes to date. On October 24 a complaint pursuant to Rule 106 was filed asking the court to review the decision of the Use Classification by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The status of that review is unknown at this time. Filing of that lawsuit does not affect this meeting. The Board of Adjustment (BOA) upheld the staff determination by a vote of 3-1. That decision is subject to an appeal to the district court. Today’s Planning Commission (PC) decision is subject to an appeal, which would go to the BOCC for a review of the Development Plan. 3. APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP 2018-04, ESTES MOUNTAIN COASTER Director Hunt reviewed the Mountain Coaster Development Plan and the appeal. Among items mentioned in the report were the project outline, lot descriptions, traffic flow, shuttle details, and staff’s decision that the Plan complies with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Staff recommended that the PC approve the Development Plan on appeal, with five (5) conditions as specified by staff (listed below) in the August 6 letter of approval. 1) Public Works will need to grant a Right-of-Way permit 2) Floodplain/Stormwater permits required 3) Construction shall be consistent with the plans RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 4) Any additional development shall require submittal of a new Development Plan 5) Development of any additional recreation facilities shall require consideration of Use Classification appropriateness prior to approval. Discussion on Use Classification was had, including changes that will be prepared for the EVDC. PC/Staff Discussion and Questions: Director Hunt answered questions from the PC. Landscaping regulations were alternative, not required. There is room for more parking at site, however, the EVDC has language encouraging shuttle use. Floodplain permit is enforced by following standard county protocol of the Flood Review Board and county engineering, which is subject to final approval by the BOCC. FEMA map issuance is still pending, final approval of project is contingent on that. A Certificate of Completion would not be available until FEMA permitting is in place. A parking study 3 months after completion will take place jointly by Community Development staff, town/county Engineering, and possibly CDOT. Parking expansion always requires a permit and some sort of review, not necessarily a PC review. There is shared parking with Lake View Plaza in place. The noise study was discussed, and the impact was not determined to be a problem. Clarity on hours is needed from the applicant. Attorney White stated that a Location and Extent review applies only to government/public facilities, not private property and is not part of this Commission’s decision. He also stated that no conditions can be added to the plan due to this being an appeal. Appellant Comments: Rebecca Urquhart, standing in as counsel for appellants, submitted a handout of alternative motions and findings for the PC to review. She discussed the details of the 40 page appeal, recommending denial of the development outright. Specific Code and Comprehensive Plan revisions were given. A Location and Extent review is legally required, without exception. If Code includes specific references to the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan is binding and must be followed, not just used for guidance. It is in the purview of the PC to make sure the Development Plan matches the Comprehensive Plan. This project is not compatible with the zoning. Diana Van Der Ploeg requested the PC deny the Development Plan, despite the applicant’s attempt to circumvent them from the process. She cited problems with the traffic study stating it is inadequate and incomplete. You can’t change the data to fit the needs in regard to traffic. Other requests: access point be from owner’s road on property rather than Dry Gulch Road, no parking be allowed on site, open at noon on Sundays, closed by 7 p.m. all days, full environmental assessment, floodplain review, no landscaping waiver and a wildlife protection study. Noise will be an issue. Neighbors feel that their property rights have been taken away. Alan Miller stated that the project does not comply with Comprehensive Plan, decisions reflect lack of impartiality, and it will not be an economic benefit to the community. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 Owner/Applicant Comments: Lawrence Myers, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the letter he submitted to the PC and reminded them to consider only the matters specified in the written notice of appeal. Location and Extent does not apply to a private facility. Property is already being used as commercial use by way of the stables. Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering, noted that the project was intentionally designed consistently with Code, with guidance and reviews by town staff. All requested studies have been completed and approved. The parking plan is to keep the majority of customers off site for security and safety reasons. The estimates of 100-350 customers per day during peak hours, 15,000-60,000 per year, are based on numbers from other coasters. Tentative hours are to be open at 10:00 a.m. and to close at dusk. Summer would be 7 days a week, with weekends only likely in spring and fall. The landscaping required was minimal and it was decided to screen the parking and building rather than landscaping by the road, which was the reason for the alternate landscaping plan. In depth discussion ensued on slopes. A geological report is planned but has not been done. Required culverts will be installed for flood mitigation to handle a 10-year event. Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, provided further information and noted that the road will be removed to a subgrade level and re-compacted back up. The Flood Review Board has approved the project. Standard property maintenance in regard to flooding will be addressed by the owner. He pointed out six favorable elements that the traffic study didn’t take into account. A 2% growth per year over 20 years was used for calculating traffic thresholds. Gregg Hecker, Operations Manager for the applicant, Yakutat, noted that there will be three parking lots, one at the base of the coaster site, and two auxiliary sites. Wayfinding and signage on Dry Gulch/Highway 34 will point people in the direction of the base lot then redirect to the auxiliary lots once the base lot is full. Parking attendants will be on duty at all three spots throughout the day communicating by radio. The current plan is for the owner to purchase shuttles, which will be stored on existing space on the Sombrero property. due 10 minute break at 5:50 Public Comment: Those speaking against the Mountain Coaster, stating concerns with the traffic study, noise, lack of environmental assessments, parking, RE1 Zoning included: Pete Langer, Faith Zimmerman, Scott Schneider, Nancy Hills, Lyle Zimmerman, Maggie Stark, Julie Lee, Biff Baird, Gwenda Purdy, Michelle Hiland, Beverly Briggs, Ron Backhaus, Randy Phillips. Greg Cenac spoke in favor of the project, stating property use as a right. Jon Nicholas stated that the system and process are broken, and that Location and Extent rules need to be reviewed. He urged the PC to focus on the appeal. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Applicant Responses: Myers stressed that all studies have been conducted and approved. The quasi-judicial capacity that the PC is sitting in calls for a fair application of the Code as it is drafted and a denial of the appeal. He confirmed that the applicant is willing to stipulate that he will not add piecemeal spaces (9 spaces at a time) until the PC has amended the Development Code to create a better procedure for adding such spaces or unless and until a full Development Plan number of spaces is required. Moving the parking off- site is not being considered due to the requirement of ADA spots. Cody Walker, applicant, stated that he has no plans to add additional attractions. Appellant Responses: Urquhart asked that Codes be followed, not rewritten. Decide if the Location and Extent review makes sense or not. The property rights are understood but this project does not fit in residential zoning. The residents along Dry Gulch bought their property assuming the Walker property would be low family residential. The laws are clear; deny the development application. PC Discussion: This is not a review of an original development plan, it is an appeal. Schneider stated that this did go before the BOCC and BOA and the IGA clearly states that the PC shall be part of the decision making process, which has been ignored. Theis stated that he doesn’t agree with the argument of existing use, the stables represent a commercial use. The 19 parking spaces was used to avoid a public hearing, and he doesn’t like the loop-holes but that doesn’t make it illegal. RE1 was clearly intended for low density use and this isn’t that. White stated that the focus is narrow and even though clearly flawed, the plan meets Code. Smith stated that there appears to be ample parking space to accommodate the entire project, expressing concerns with Use Classification, parking, and lack of landscaping. Murphree stated that this property is clearly designated for low impact residential housing. Simply put, when Code is written, it is written with a reasonable interpretation, and it is our duty to look at the overall intention of the Code and why it was adopted. This fits in the category of a commercial endeavor. Leavitt agreed that there are holes in the Code, that this was an attempt to bypass the PC and that this is a commercial operation. He questioned the Location and Extent review, and the Use Classification review. This is an appeal, not a review. Theis referred to the statement that the elected officials and legal counsel from both the Town and County spoke to the PC earlier this year: they shouldn’t base a decision solely on the Comprehensive Plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree) to deny Development Plan DP 2018-04 (Estes Park Mountain Coaster), due to the numerous questions and concerns raised by the PC, reversing staff’s decision on appeal finding that the proposed project is a commercial endeavor and does not comply with the comprehensive plan in keeping with the RE1 zoning. The motion failed 2-4 with White, Leavitt, Smith and Theis voting against. Attorney White suggested it would be better to have an additional motion. It was moved to continue the appeal (Smith) to January, 2019, which was not seconded. It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to uphold the staff’s decision on appeal according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff with the parking stipulation by the applicant. The motion tied 3-3 with Theis, White and Leavitt voting yes and Schneider, Smith and Murphee voting no. A tie motion fails. Attorney White stated that the earlier motion to not overturn the appeal is sufficient to uphold the staff decision. The appeal was denied. Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary