Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-06-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 19, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Schneider, Hull, Foster, Murphree and Baker Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Commissioner White Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 200 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions Director Hunt announced that future Planning Commission Study Sessions will be recorded and streamed on YouTube starting July 17. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Robert Ellis/1707 Ptarmigan Trail, spoke on the Mountain Coaster plan questioning the parking and zoning and requested that it be brought before the Planning Commission. Linda Langer/1861 Raven Ave, expressed that the coaster as planned exceeds the intent of zoning requirements, and traffic, speeding, wildlife disruption, noise and light pollution will all be factors. This project should have a more in depth review. Pamela Henderick/1861 Raven Ave, stated the Mountain Coaster is in a wildlife corridor, causing a dangerous situation with traffic, speeding, noise, and disrupting the natural setting. The Town has responsibility to protect citizens who border on a county road. She presented a letter to Chair Leavitt, which can be found on the town website. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of May 15, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hull) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 19, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 4. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 3153 Fish Creek Road. 4-bedroom, 10-person occupancy. Owner: William and Linda Warne Code Compliance Officer (CCO) Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .46-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size, with 25 foot setbacks, there is a 15 foot setback on the east side which causes no concern to neighboring properties. There have been no public comments received. Commissioner Baker asked about the East and West buffers of the property. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to approve the vacation home at 3153 Fish Creek Road to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants according to facts and findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-1 with Baker voting no. 5. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) TEXT AMENDMENT Review of the current conditions with regard to the vacation home cap. CCO Hardin stated that the current cap of 588 vacation home registrations had been reached in May, with a current waiting list of 13. She explained how the cap was derived and that without any history to look back on, there is no way of knowing how those numbers may change. Staff recommended leaving the current code unchanged with a cap of 588. Committee and Staff Discussion: Some of the 40 homes being processed may not complete the registration, therefore opening up spaces. Leavitt noted that there are a substantial number of citizens that think the cap should be lowered, it does need to be reviewed every year, and that many of the vacation homes in residential districts are in single family neighborhoods which has an impact on affordable workforce housing. Public Comment: None It was moved and seconded (Hull/Murphree) to recommend denial of any change to the cap per Exhibit A. The motion passed 5-0 with Foster recusing himself. 6. EVDC TEXT AMENDMENT Review and revise Section §13.2.C.15 to amend definition of “Cultural Institutions” Director Hunt stated that this Code Amendment is related to the Special Review that will be discussed in the July Planning Commission meeting, and asked permission for “blended” discussion on both projects. Chair Leavitt granted permission. Hunt then reviewed the proposed Text Amendment regarding removal of the uses “art galleries” and “libraries”, and a revised Table 4-1, Permitted Uses in Residential Zoning Districts to extend Special Review Use (S2) in Residential Zoning Districts to allow for review and approval procedures for Cultural Institutions on a case by case basis. An amendment was brought up in the Study Session, recommend by a town citizen, which Staff thought was a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 19, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 reasonable and appropriate change, defining the Cultural Institutions definition in Code to read as follows: Nonprofit Institutions displaying or preserving objects of interest in one or more of the arts or sciences, to allow for nonprofit institutions that educate, display or preserve objects of interest that are connected to the history of that property. Staff recommended approval of the Code Amendment, specifically the current definition’s inclusion of art galleries and libraries. This text amendment is not just a one time or one property issue but could be used with other institutions such as The Dunraven House and MacGregor Ranch in the future. Staff and Commission comment: Director Hunt answered in the affirmative to Commissioner Foster’s question, referring to page 2 of staff report memo, that the Town is withdrawing its justification that limits the definition of Cultural Institutions to those areas that are connected to the real property, adding that Staff believes there is adequate coverage elsewhere in Code for art galleries, libraries and other institutions. Making terms more specific in new Comprehensive Plan with definitions and adding rows to the table for permitted and special uses will provide further distinction and appropriate context. Public Comment: (comments are condensed, meeting can be viewed on the Town of Estes Park website for 12 months from this date) • The following people commented in favor of the proposal: Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, representing applicant, commended Randy and Staff on the long process to get to this point. Tom Shamburg/625 Steamer Drive, Director of the Historic Stanley Home Group, gave a brief history of the grass roots organization begun two years ago. There is a list of citizens stating they approve and recommend project, which currently has 538 signatures, 38 supporters present today. Bill Pinkham/760 Meadow Circle, project is good for the community, with neighbor issues able to be resolved. Charlie Dickey/265 Steamer Court, spoke in favor of individual merit of a Special Review Curtis Kelly/2850 Fall River Road requested adoption of this amendment as a special review mechanism for future options. • The following people commented against the proposal: Paul, Ellen Romig/411 Big Horn Drive, expressed concerns about a 5 month, 7 day a week operation, noise, traffic and crowd control. Ross Maxwell/503 Big Horn Drive, stated that the House could have been placed on Historic Register or a conservation easement applied for, neither of which was done. This being a residential neighborhood, E1 zoning should be preserved. Dave Shirk/301 Far View Drive, referenced the Hydro Plant on Fish Hatchery Road and that may be a solution that is already out there. Connie Phipps/585 Wonderview Avenue, would like to see respect for the neighbors and neighborhood and not base the decision on the good response to the foundation letter, noting that other home museums are not operated 7 days a week and have controlled hours. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 19, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Sue Maxwell/503 Big Horn Drive, 100 percent opposed to allowing Cultural Institutions in residential districts, and it is not better than having 4 homes on the property. With a gift shop, and possibly food items this could open the door to other commercial business which will begin “creeping” along Wonderview Avenue going west. Commissioner/Staff Discussion: Hull asked Tom Shamburg if the Foundation would be willing to adjust hours to be the same as the EP Museum to which he answered that the demand for visits and financial model are needed to help sustain and maintain the home. The numbers come out to 12 visitors, once per hour, via shuttle. A meeting to address the neighbor’s concerns was set for June 21. Foster counter-proposed to keep the published definition of Cultural Institution and not have any connection to the phrase Important Real Estate with respect to what is allowed in a residential neighborhood, limiting it to Cultural Institutions, which do have a connection to the real estate, adding the real estate comment to Table 4.1, rather than adding it to the definition of Cultural Institutions. Baker supported this and stated he will not vote for this amendment as proposed for the following reasons: 1) The definition of Cultural Institutions, either as written or modified, has nothing to do with a normal definition of Cultural Institutions and a single town shouldn’t refine what the concept is. 2) The comments today make it clear that this Code Amendment is to accommodate a particular proposal and it is inappropriate to continue to make ad hoc changes to our Code in order to accommodate specific proposals as opposed to looking at our community as a whole. 3) A Code should not pre-judge which type of culture is acceptable or not. 4) We shouldn’t restrict or limit an opportunity to establish Cultural Institutions and if we do, we should allow all to be considered. Hunt stated that either way is feasible and could be done. After further discussion, it was decided to continue the item to the next meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to continue the Code Amendment request of the EVDC to the due to questions yet to be answered and an agreement yet to be reached. The motion passed 5-0, with Schneider recusing himself. A 10 minute break was taken from 2:45-2:55 7. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED AT 1041 SOUTH SAINT VRAIN AVE, KNOW AS WIND RIVER APARTMENTS. Planner Woeber noted that this application was initially scheduled for the May 15 Planning Commission Meeting. Staff recommended the application be continued in order to clarify and revise some parts of the application. Woeber then reviewed the waivers requested and the overall development plan for the property which will consist of four multi-family structures, 78 units with two bedrooms, 16 units with one bedroom. Applicant will be using the EVDC incentive for a density bonus allowing 38’ height. The Covenant Agreement was recently revised and drafted. The Day Care proposal will be reviewed in July. Affected agencies were consulted and reviewed the project, giving RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 19, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 recommendations. Public input is high. Staff recommend approval of the Wind River Apartments Development Plan and approval of the associated waiver request with conditions. Staff and Commission Discussion: (Director Hunt recused himself from the discussion as he is an adjacent neighbor to the property) Schneider questioned the minimum lot area for a day care, which could reduce the total area, thus taking away from the housing numbers, arguing that the area required is greater than area available and the numbers don’t add up. Woeber answered that density is based on full 5.7 acres, combining the 2 lots. Child care would be open to public making it an economic incentive. Applicant Discussion: Paul Pewterbaugh, owner/applicant, introduced himself and described his connection to the town and his reasons for this Development Plan, referring to the Estes Valley Housing Needs study. Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, discussed the history of RM zoning and density bonus noting that zero private development plans were applied for in 16 years with 1.5 density bonus. In 2016 town increased bonus to 200% and height increases in 2017 for RM specifically to encourage this type of project. He stated that in the Estes Valley, there are 18 vacant lots, 7 are open space, only 3 over 1 acre, 2 of which are on this property. He gave a slide presentation of early and current plans, showing view corridors with proposed building drawings Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering, reviewed the utilities, reporting the convenience of having the sewer, water, gas, fiber, phone and electric right next to the property. Lonnie Shelton, Van Horn Engineering, responded to the letter submitted by Ascent Planning Solutions, stating that he believes this project meets all Code requirements and conditions of approval. The question was again raised on how the density bonus numbers were calculated, with disagreement on the total square foot figure. Matt Delich, Delich and Associates, spoke on the amount of parking spaces proposed, reviewing the town standards and how he conducted his alternate traffic and parking studies on this proposal. Considerable discussion on traffic safety was had. Public Comment: (comments are summarized, meeting can be viewed on the Town of Estes Park website for 12 months from this date) ) Dave Shirk, Ascent Planning Solutions, gave his planning background and presented his Code Analysis to the Recording Secretary for submittal. He reviewed the study findings in detail. • The following citizens spoke against the project, with each speaker reviewing different concerns. Adam Bensman/1085 Lexington Lane, read a letter explaining the concerns of the surrounding neighbors, all living within the Lexington Lane, Eagles Landing, Eagle View, Fairway Club Condos and The Pines neighborhoods. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 19, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 6 Josh Weaver/1031 Lexington Lane: Safety, traffic control. Lisbeth Lord/President of Eagles Landing Condo Association: Storm runoff situation on east side of Highway 7. Chris Hill/919 Lexington Lane: Density Bonus determinations Karen Nicholson/905 Village Green Lane: Staff report leaves holes, missing documents, plan prematurely presented to Planning Commission. Mitch Mitchell/1015 Lexington Lane: Project must adheres to Town Codes on this plot of land making sure safeguards are applied. Brookie Gallagher/1030 Lexington Lane: Untested height increases and density bonuses, alternative parking study, open space calculations, lack of clarity as to who is responsible for traffic safety studies and who will fund them. Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Drive: Original owner wanted property to be maintained as open space, wildlife use this property as their natural habitat, and wildlife viewing for tourists will be diminished. He also requested the speed limit be reduced from 45 to 35 mph on Highway 7. Sundee Pietsch/1023 Lexington Lane: Height of buildings impacting views, 6 month lease, up to 8 unrelated people living in one unit. Chris Harris/1061 Baily Lane: Variances are the killers of neighborhoods. • Those speaking in favor Charlie Dickey/265 Steamer Court: Estes Valley Partners for Commerce, spoke in favor of the project, siting the housing shortage as the main reason. James Poppitz/650 Devon Drive: work force housing is needed, we’ve been talking about if for a decade, what is getting done and when are we going to approve a project. Kent Smith/661 Big Horn Drive: The job of the Planning Commission is to protect individual property rights, both the neighbors and developers. Other Comments: Director Hunt explained the density calculation process: divide number of square feet into number of units. CDOT did not require dedication of right-of-way. Attorney W hite noted that inside the development is not a private street, but a driveway. Lonnie Shelton summarized that this was submitted as two proposals, a Development Plan and a Special Use for the Day Care, going hand in hand together, requesting a continuation to July in order to submit a complete plan. Hunt stated we should expect better performance from the State Department of Transportation than we have seen on this, and many other projects, he is disappointed and will do what he can to work with CDOT. Commissioner comments: After extensive analysis, Commissioners supported the request to continue the action item in order to hear the final package due to the amount of information and complicated nature of project and questions to be addressed, requesting that future information be given to the Commission as it is received, not 5 days before the next meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 19, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 7 It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to continue the Development Plan and associated waiver requests to the next Planning Commission Meeting and the motion passed 6-0. 8. REPORTS Due to the length of meeting there were no reports given. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary