Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-05-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 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, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Schneider, Foster, and Baker Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Planner I Robin Becker, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve Murphree Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 60 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the agenda, striking Item 4b, Large Vacation Home, as presented and the motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT None 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of April 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Large Vacation Home-REMOVED It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 4-0 with Foster abstaining. 4. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 557 Landers Street. 4-bedroom, 10-person occupancy. Owner: Linda Small Code Compliance Office Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .56-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size, there is also a 10 foot setback on the west side which causes no concern to neighboring properties. There have been no public comments received. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to approve the vacation home at 557 Landers Street and to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants. The motion passed 5-0. 5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 1091 Marys Lake Road: 4-bedroom, 10- person occupancy. Owner: Bruce Stotts and Blaine Moats CCO Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .69-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size. Setback on one side is 9 feet, which is less than the 25-foot requirement. There have been no public comments received. It was moved and seconded (Baker/White) to approve the vacation home at 1091 Marys Lake Road and to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants. The motion passed 5-0. 6. REZONE PROPERTY AT 920 DUNRAVEN FROM CH-COMMERCIAL HEAVY TO CO- COMMERICAL OUTLYING. Planner Becker read the proposal to rezone the entire lot to CO. The purpose is to build a microbrewery/tasting room. The existing building has 2700 square feet of which 1200 is basement. The existing building would require little modification and no additional buildings would be needed. The microbrewery is envisioned to be a 5 bbl. brew system and the tasting room would occupy approximately 2000 sf. of indoor and outdoor seating area. Staff recommended approval of the proposed zoning change. Committee and Staff Question: The proposed 19 parking spaces are surrounding the property. Baker asked what the changing conditions for this rezone were. Director Hunt answered that when the EVDC was written in 2000 microbreweries were not on the radar and microbreweries are not allowed in CH zones, thus the need for either a Code Amendment to add CH or rezone to CO. This property is adjacent to existing CO and the area is transitional to CO. Leavitt and White noted that the applicants Statement of Intent was very valuable and served its purpose of clarifying what the plans are. Public Comment: None It was moved and seconded (Baker/Schneider) to approve the Zoning Map Amendment request from CH to CO to the Town Board of Trustees according to findings of fact with findings recommended by staff and taking in to account the further clarification of the town policy to accommodate the growth of microbreweries. The motion passed 5-0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 Baker comment for the record: Future similar motions should take the requirement for changing conditions more seriously. 7. REZONE TBD STANLEY AVENUE FROM E-ESTATE TO RM-RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY. Planner Becker stated that the area to be rezoned is comprised of one lot totaling 0.07 acres and is currently owned by the Town of Estes Park. The existing zoning of the property is E. This lot is for a retention pond, not additional housing. The adjacent 0.50 acre lot to the south is owned by Mike and Cindy Kingswood and is zoned RM. There is currently an existing single family house on the property. Staff recommended approval of the proposed zoning change. Director Hunt reviewed how rezoning is a discretionary legislative matter and different from development plans which are ministerial and not discretionary. The Comprehensive Plan is an appropriate criterion in discretionary reviews, such as rezonings. Staff and Commission comment: This lot will be used for a retention pond, not additional housing. The plan is well buffered from other zoning in the neighborhood. Applicant comment: None It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to approve the Zoning Map Amendment request from E to RM to the Town Board of Trustees according to findings of fact with findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0. 8. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF DANNY WEST PRELIMIMARY MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT . Becker reported that the proposal entails creating two legal lots from the existing one undeveloped lot. The resulting lots will be approximately .68 and .68 acres in size, with residential use and access from Stanley Circle Drive. The proposed lots meet the E- Estate minimum lot size. There were no written public comments received. Adequate public facilities are available. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat. Staff and Commission Discussion None Applicant Discussion None RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Foster) to recommend approval of the Danny West Minor Subdivision Plat to the Town Board of Trustees according to findings of fact, including findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-0. 9. REZONE 700 N SAINT VRAIN AVENUE FROM A-ACCOMMODATIONS AND R-2- RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY TO A-ACCOMMODATIONS AND RM-RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY Planner Woeber summarized the applicant proposal to continue using the motel in its current location. The A-zoned portion of the property would be reconfigured with a replat and decreased, from 4.6 to 2.16 acres. A portion of the property now zoned A, along with the portion currently zoned R-2 would be rezoned to RM. This would be 4.57 acres. Applicant intends to develop the RM property with a multi-family project. Details of the project are in the planning stages. The rezoning has been submitted with an Amended Plat, which reconfigures the two existing lots. Staff emphasizes the plat amendment is not subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission; it goes only to the Town Board. There are no outstanding concerns or comments from reviewing agency staff. Written comments have been reviewed and are posted to the Town Website at www.estes.org/currentapplications. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, with the following comment: Staff has some reservations regarding the proposed RM zoned site, where safe and adequate access to a multi-family development would require careful planning. Staff and Commission discussion: Schneider questioned the lack of a submitted Development Plan. Leavitt asked how it is that zoning doesn’t follow lot lines. Hunt stated that Split Zoning on a lot is not best planning practice, however there are times it does show up. Applicant Discussion Paul Brown, Concept Design Build, reviewed the history of neighborhood, motel and zoning of the Little Prospect Sub Division. The current owner’s vision is to create a Boundary Line Adjustment and a work force housing development. Daniel Chung, owner’s son, gave background information on his family, community ties and the purchase of two motels in Estes Park. Lonnie Shelton, Van Horn Engineering, cited how many zoning districts this property has been over the years. He stated that a Preliminary Concept Sketch Plan was submitted in November to get information on what would be needed from affected agencies. This process of “testing the water” makes sense from a cost perspective. The Development Plan will come later if the rezone is approved. Utilities show sewer, water and power are all adequately available based on an arbitrary 70 unit development. Public W orks recommended additional right of way and drainage easements. Paul Brown gave 8 responses to the Neighborhood letter received: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 1) Code Requirements in Section 7.5.F.2.a.3.c mandate buffering in addition to the existing landscaping and road separation. 2) Waiting for Comprehensive Plan review is not necessary according to the Planners expert opinion. This lot is a prime location for RM zoning. 3) Each rezone application is a case by case submittal. Since 2017, RM is the only zoning district for increased density and height allotment. 2% of land in the Estes Valley is zoned RM. This location makes practical sense given the size and location. 4) The Development Plan requirement was waived by the Community Development Director. 5) Most of the 22 RM uses are by Special Review which would require a public hearing process. 6) The two most likely uses for this property after the rezone are development or sale for development. 7) Safety items will have to be addressed with the forthcoming development plan, including traffic, parking, pedestrians, bicycles and intersection safety. 8) Proper buffering and a well-designed Development Plan will minimize impact on the neighbors. Commission Comment: Leavitt noted that this was the first time the Planning Commission has heard or seen anything about the Preliminary Concept Development Plan. Hunt responded that it was submitted under the Preapplication process, not the Application process therefore not made public. Paul Brown answered the questions raised by commissioners that neighbors have not been met with, but it would be in best practice to meet with them and all town folk at some point, here will be a traffic study if requested and that the safest access entrance would be off of Stanley Avenue, not Stanley Circle. Public Comment: Peggy West, Richard Mulhern, Don Silar, Kreg Leymaster, Bob Ernst, Patty Bartlett/Stanley Circle residents, all spoke in opposition to the rezone, stating the following concerns and suggestions: History of a neighborhood agreement; departure from original property owners plans; affected property values; lack of long term planning; assurance that R2 is the buffer zone between A and E; RM comes with 22 possible uses; 7 of which are highly possible, mainly multi-family; improper to waive a development plan; rezoning would drastically change the character of the neighborhood; 80+ households are affected; traffic impacts; and a request to place rezoning on hold for 5 years in order to update the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. Applicant Discussion: Lonnie Shelton rebutted the public comments stating that the Planning Staff recommended this and reiterated the expense of providing a full Development Plan prior to approval of a rezone. Many of the 22 uses would be by Special Review. Traffic impact studies look at number of trips, not number of cars to determine use. There are six things we can agree on: rezone is logical next step for this property in creating potential affordable or attainable RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 6 housing close to down town; the parcel is one of the few vacant parcels close to town and can provide needed housing; the town needs affordable housing; adequate utilities are present, and things could be done to make traffic and drainage better; support for rezoning by the Planning Department and this Commission allows team to move forward to design something in an RM zone which would come back to this Commission and involve a public meeting; the Planning Commission is the proper approval authority. Staff and Commission Discussion: Foster commented on the number of projects on RM/workforce housing since last July, noting that neighbors have uniformly opposed them, emphasizing the large juxtaposition between neighbors and town concerns and will be voting against the rezone, despite it having some potential benefit to the town. The only way to allocate rezoning to RM is to do it comprehensively and fairly, not on a first come first serve basis. Spot zoning is being done on an ad hoc basis. Buffer zones in the Comp Plan are consistent between single family and higher density, with higher density use having a disadvantageous effect on neighborhoods. Schneider echoed Fosters comments, and questioned what alternatives have been considered besides rezoning. While he supports need for additional housing, his concern is the unintended consequences impacting 80 households, with traffic increase and safety concerns and would like to see development plan prior to approving a rezone of this size. White quoted from Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan section, 5.1: encourage of a variety of housing types and price ranges, stating that she believes there is a market for duplexes. Section 5.3: establish a balanced program to encourage R2 zone development, stating that visual buffering is required with R2 Zoning and ending with the comment that RM is not appropriate here and she cannot support a change to RM. Baker noted that public comment is hard to ignore. The context is insufficiently formulated in the comp plan to be a factor in consideration. The potential impact is too great, with a possible 500% density increase, he declared that he can’t see changing code without any development plan with that high of an increase and we need to vote no. Leavitt mentioned Chapter 6, 5.2 in the Comp Plan does state that this neighborhood is required to have a visual buffer zone, and commercial property should not be extended, arguing that RM is borderline to CO zoning. RM is not a good fit for this property, R2 is. A Statement of Intent would have helped the process. We don’t have any good guidelines for what to do with upzoning at this point. He would like the applicants to see what can be done with R2 zoning as this is a good transition zone into the neighborhood. The property rights of the 80+ residents in the area need to be taken into account, adding that with the other two recently approved projects close to this property, traffic and safety is also a concern. It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to deny the 700 N Saint Vrain Avenue Zoning Map Amendment application finding that it is incompatible with Chapter 6, 5.1, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 7 5.2 of the Comprehensive Plan and FC5* requiring future developments provide a visual buffering between adjacent residential uses, it represents spot zoning at a time we haven’t done a comprehensive plan review of RM zoning, negative impacts of significant density increase of nearly 500 % does not justify the rezoning for purpose of affordable housing. The motion passed 5-0 to deny the rezone. There was a 5 minute break at 3:39pm, meeting resumed at 3:44 11: SPECIAL REVIEW: EAGLE ROCK SCHOOL, ALLOWING A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL IN AN RE-1, RURUAL ESTATE ZONING DISTRICT Planner Woeber described the Special Review criteria and the history behind it. The applicant is proposing expansion of facility primarily to begin establishing more faculty/staff housing. Staff recommended the school and related facilities be allowed as an approved Special Review use, as well as allowing for planned expansions and upgrades in the future. Special Review would allow the use within the identified 140-acre school area. Staff and Commission comments: Baker asked if all future projects would be covered by this special review or would it come back to the Planning Commission at some point. Woeber answered that it would be at the Community Development Director’s discretion, depending on the scope of the project. Hunt added that minor additions would not, but anything that increases the intensity of use would trigger a future Special Review, with a fairly low threshold by which it would be brought before the Commission. Applicant Discussion: Cole Gaylor, MIG Consultants, described the need for this Special Review, stating that there are 14 families on staff at Eagle Rock and the intent is to offer housing and reduce commutes for the employees in this 5-10 year plan. Jeff Liddle, Head of School, reviewed the functional and practical reasons. Eagle Rock is a boarding school and has been understaffed for 20 years due to their need for 24/7 staffing. Intention is to satisfy needs and hire and retain staff. Funding has been secured to build a triplex this summer. Public comment: None Staff and commission discussion: It was noted that Eagle Rock has excellent track record It was moved and seconded (Baker/White) to approve the Special Review Use for a Non-Public School to the Board of Larimer County Commissioners with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 8 findings and conditions of approval as recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-0. 12: WIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Staff recommended continuance to June 19, 2018 to resolve issues for applicant and staff. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Baker/Foster) to continue the Wind River Development Plan to June 19, 2018 and the motion passed 5-0. Baker asked for the following comment be on record: The practice of automatically waiving a Development Plan in association with a zoning request has proven problematic and should be on case by case basis as opposed to a standard practice. 13: REPORTS Introduction of new staff member Brittany Hathaway, Planner II, from Houston area. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary *reference FC5 should be 5.3 per motion by Sharry White