Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-02-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve Murphree, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker Attending: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Hull, Murphree, Schneider, Foster, and Baker Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner I Robin Becker, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, and Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW: 961 Old Ranger Road-Owner Talsma It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 1907 MALL ROAD; OWNER STEPHEN THOMAS-5 BEDROOM, OCCUPANCY OF 12 Code Compliance Office Hardin stated that the setback requirements are 50 feet on all sides for this RE zone. This home sits on 28 feet from the rear property line and 38 feet on the east side. No record of violations. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 1907 Mall Road to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants. The motion passed 7-0. Public Comment None. 6. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.3.D REGARDING ATTAINABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING COVENANTS Continued from 1/16/18 meeting Planner Woeber stated that currently, the only available mechanism to assure that attainable and workforce housing units allowed through the EVDC’s provision for a “density bonus” is limited to qualified persons through a deed restriction. This amendment would add an additional option for a Restrictive Covenant and Agreement. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 Attainable housing includes renters or owner-occupied housing, where qualified households must meet specific income requirements. Workforce housing is where a qualified resident must meet specific residency requirements. Allowing this project is in the best interests of the Estes Valley community due to the need for more attainable and workforce housing. Staff researched various other communities and found that this is a viable alternative to deed restrictions. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Baker and Hull questioned the 50 year deed restriction and covenants. Planner Woeber explained that a time frame needs to be in place in order to keep the work force housing projects from being short term when long term is what is desired. Public Comment None Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Baker again stated that he hasn’t heard anything of substance about the inclusion of the 50 year time frame. Town Attorney White noted that there are 20 year deed restrictions already in place but this particular code is 50 years. Governing bodies can change that if they choose. One option would be replace the time frame with “subsequent owners”. Commissioner Foster stated that he doesn’t understand the need for this change or what the amendment adds to the current status quo. Conditions of Approval (as recommended by the Planning Commission) 1. Approve the text amendment with provision that the 50 year time period for both deed restriction and attainable housing be dropped. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Baker) to recommend the EVDC Amendment be adopted with the stated condition. The motion was approved 6-1 with Commissioner Foster voting against. 7. GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS: DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY MINOR SUBDIVISION 507 GRAND ESTATES DRIVE Continued from 1/16/18 meeting Planner Woeber described the plan and plat as development of 4 multi-family structures, each on an individual lot and each having four units (16 total). Applicant will use an incentive within the EVDC for a density bonus. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Minor Modification waiver to reduce the side set back distance to 7.5 feet in lieu of the required 10 foot minimum. Staff further recommends approval of the Grand Estates Apartments Development Plan and Subdivision Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the Minor Subdivision being taken to the Town Board for review, the applicant shall revise the Preliminary and Final Plat to provide for an easement for access to all lots. The easement for the trash enclosure must also be revised and clarified. 2. A 20 year restriction for workforce housing occupancy would be inserted into the agreement Staff and Commission Discussion None Applicant: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering confirmed that he had read new comments from concerned neighbors. Mr. Reetz provided these answers to questions raised: 1) Construction traffic will not be a problem. 2) Original rezone from CO to RM was approved in an EVPC meeting on January 17, 2017, which was done anticipation of a future multi-family development proposal. 3) Owner will be the property manager. They have experience and live in the Estes Valley, however not on site. 4) More parking would be good, but project is meeting EVDC requirements. 5) 24 feet is a typical driveway entry width (Original plan was for 30 feet due to semi-truck RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 parking proposal). 6) Developer does not want to sell immediately after construction. 7) Minimum width for fire separation is 10 fee. This proposal retains 15 foot fire separation between buildings. 8) Violations will be on a case by case basis. 9) Lease agreements will be strictly enforced (2 vehicles per unit, no parking on Grand Estates Drive). Commissioner White asked if the lease agreement addresses the number of occupants per unit. Commissioner Leavitt asked how parking and lease restrictions will be enforced. Jes Reetz answered that it would be by the property manager and that neighbors would have access to owners. Attorney White noted that restrictive covenants would be enforced by homeowners association, the town, or the owner. Covenants could provide for a maximum of 4 people per unit, but there is no requirement of that. The lease agreement would limit residents to 2 cars per unit (a total of 32 cars). Reetz answered Commissioner Schneider’s question regarding the narrowness of Grand Estates Drive, stating that it is the Town’s responsibility to make the street wider. Director Hunt agreed and noted that there is a long term expectation of the town to provide safe, conforming streets, with regard to both current and proposed new streets. However, to his knowledge, there is no specific improvement plan for Grand Estates Drive. Public Comment The following town citizens spoke against the project stating reasons such as parking and traffic issues, density bonus and other neighborhood concerns: Ester Cenac, Patricia Kuschel, Jane Rudtledge, Gordon Slack and Ray Young. Joh Nicholas/EDC/ Spoke in favor the project stating that Ranch Meadows itself was not designed well from the onset. The Planning Commission’s job is to decide if this is code compliant. This is a good proposal and addresses the housing shortage in this community. Think about the big picture. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Hull questioned several aspects of the project including why only two lots involve workforce housing and suggested a maximum of 12 units. A parking demand for as many as 64 cars was mentioned as a concern. With workforce housing many of the residents will be adults. Each adult will need a car to go to work. With 4 adults per unit and 16 units, there could be a need for as many as 64 parking spaces. Since the workforce housing is for local residents they will tend to be in town much of the time rather than traveling out of town. Their use of the parking spaces will be more intense than a typical apartment complex. Also, when residents have visitors they will need a place to park. There is no place for the overflow parking other than on the narrow Grand Estates Drive. Commissioner Baker agreed that this was a bridge too far and risked setting a bad precedent. The double density bonus is too open to abuse. Approval of the proposed setback waivers is the only way to make this project work. It is not in the best interest of the community to approve the waiver, particularly in light of the number of people expressing legitimate concerns about the parking and traffic. Commissioner White expressed that she is concerned about parking; however it meets code, which is the commission’s job. She continued that she is not sure that dividing the property into four separate lots meets the spirit and intent of density bonus. Commissioner Schneider stated that there is more to the code than if it meets setbacks and parking spaces and questioned if we are truly addressing the true meanings of density bonus and how it is intended to be utilized. Commissioner Leavitt answered that this is a difficult issue because we want to support work force housing but issues raised today, including parking and inadequacy of Grand Estates Drive to support the growing traffic load, make it a dilemma to know what to do. Commissioner Hull agreed with Jon Nicholas that we do need workforce housing, but this location is best suited for only 8 units. There are other places in town which are better located. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Commissioner Leavitt summarized that he can go along with the premise that a reduced cost of construction per housing unit comes with the density bonus. That being said, this is still a difficult decision for all the issues mentioned previously. It was moved and seconded (Baker/Hull) to deny the Development Plan finding that there are potential significant traffic and parking risks, extreme neighbor concerns, and the establishment of a precedent of unknown consequences of being able to achieve bonus densities on properties to be divided and sold without restriction. The motion passed 5-2 with Commissioners Foster, Hull, Schneider, White and Baker voting in favor and Murphree and Leavitt voting against. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Baker) to deny the Preliminary Minor Subdivision based on the same rationale as the Development Plan and the motion passed 5-2 with Commissioners Foster, Hull, Schneider, White and Baker voting in favor and Murphree and Leavitt voting against. 8. FISH CREEK STORAGE MINOR SUBDIVISION 1901 FISH CREEK ROAD Planner Becker stated that the proposal entails creating two legal lots from one lot with continued industrial/commercial use. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat. Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering spoke on the subdivision plat and how it has met all requirements. Discussion was had regarding Annexation between the Town and County, with Attorney White summarizing the IGA and annexation processes and procedures explaining that it is the County that is requiring this procedure. The Town still has authority to deny the petition and the subdivision itself is scheduled for a March 19 hearing at the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to recommend approval of the Fish Creek Storage Minor Subdivision to the Board of County Commissioners and the motion passed 7-0. 9. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT: TO ADD “PUBLIC SCHOOLS” AND “NON- PUBLIC SCHOOLS” AS USES ALLOWABLE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ALSO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF SCHOOLS. Planner Woeber explained that the objective is to have the uses “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” be allowed, under specified criteria, in all zoning districts within the EVDC Boundary. Establishing a Public School would be subject to meeting State Statutory requirements. A Non- Public School would require approval of an S2 Special Review. Staff recommended continuing this code amendment to the March 20 meeting in order to do more research on the findings of the 500 foot separation distance between an issued liquor license and a school. Commission asked staff to bring a stronger justification of why schools are needed in all zoning districts, have a better definition of schools and bring a master list of schools in Estes Park for the next meeting. Public Comment: Jeff Winston/Eagle Rock School, gave a brief explanation of the reasons this Code Amendment was applied for. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 It was moved and seconded (Schneider/White) to continue the proposed code amendment to the March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 7-0. 10. REPORTS A. Karin Swanlund is the new administrative assistant in Community Development Department B. Planning Commission emails will become public as of February 22, 2018 C. Planner II position has been advertised and first review deadline will start Friday, February 23, 2018. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary