The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-03-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 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 Hull, Schneider, Foster, 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: Steve Murphree Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 10 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 6-0. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Dick Speilman/ Town Citizen, questioned why the town can’t find money to redo the comprehensive plan. Pat Newsom/Town Citizen, shared thoughts and concerns about town and revision of the comprehensive plan taking into account single family housing. Johanna Darden/Town Citizen, spoke in regard to the EVCP and questioned how it may relate to the Larimer County plan. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Approval of February 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. C. Large Vacation Home Review: 2745 Eaglecliff Drive, 6-bedroom, 14-person occupancy; Owner: Talsma It was moved and seconded (Hull/Baker) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. 5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 1060 Otis Lane. 6-bedroom, 14-person occupancy. Owners: Leslie Peng/Eric Neeb, Lotis LLC RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 Code Compliance Office Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .96-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size. There have been no public comments received. It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 1060 Otis Lane and to allow a maximum of fourteen (14) occupants. The motion passed 6-0. 6. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW - 1004 Rambling Drive. 4-bedroom, 10-person occupancy. Owner: Gordon Coakley CCO Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .45-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. Public Comment: Johanna Darden/town citizen, stated that the property should not be allowed to be a Large Vacation Home and should adhere to the codes that are in place. Commission Discussion: Commission asked if the neighbors were notified, and if new property owners would be able to object to the Large Vacation Home. CCO Hardin answered in the negative to both questions. It was moved and seconded (Hull/White) to approve the vacation home at 1004 Rambling Drive and to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants. The motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Baker voting against and Commissioner Leavitt recusing himself. 7. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW - 1901 Silversage Court. 5-bedroom, 12-person occupancy. Owner: Jim Rasmuson CCO Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .34-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size; setback on three sides is 15 feet, which is less than the 25-foot requirement. There have been no public comments received. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 1901 Silversage Court and to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants. The motion passed 6-0. 8. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD “PUBLIC SCHOOLS” AND “NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS” AS USES ALLOWABLE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS AND REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF SCHOOLS. Continued from 2/20/18 meeting Senior Planner Woeber discussed that due to Colorado liquor licensing laws there were potential issues regarding allowing schools in certain areas. Staff is now not proposing RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 allowing any non-public school use in the CD, Downtown Commercial Zoning District. The Town is also exploring eliminating the 500-foot separation distance requirement partially or entirely, within the Estes Park Town limits. Staff is also adding “Parochial Schools” to be included within the “Non-Public Schools” use. Staff recommended approval of this Amendment. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Foster questioned the definition of public schools in this amendment compared to the Colorado Revised Statute definition; what standards would be used if a S2 Special Review would come before the Planning Commission, since the EVDC, Section 5 doesn’t reflect standards for schools, making this premature; what attempt has staff made to tailor this amendment to Eagle Rock, rather than applying to all schools; and what evidence is there for a need of this amendment. Planner Woeber answered that the standards are more general in nature and it was staff’s decision to broaden the amendment. Director Hunt explained the history of pedagogical school sites and noted that we are rectifying a mistake made years ago by passing this amendment. Attorney White stated that there is no effect on existing public schools in the Estes Valley. Commissioner Baker questioned the necessity of the amendment, relating to changes and conditions, noting that owners in all Residential Zoning areas are potentially affected, taking away some people’s rights while giving rights to others. Hunt stated that the changing condition is that there was a poorly written Development Code in 2000 which now needs to be rectified in a more rational approach to this matter. Commissioner Hull stated that she does not see that the amendment is taking away rights from other residential areas. Commissioner White expressed her concern that a couple of small non- public schools have sprung up in the past and given that they could be placed in residential areas, under this proposal, we need standards for review. The Commission is in agreement that they want to help Eagle Rock. Public Comment: Johanna Darden/Town Citizen, objects to zone changes that will affect her and her neighborhood, recommending that the Planning Commission should vote this amendment down and come up with a new amendment that helps Eagle Rock. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Foster gave four reasons for voting against this amendment: 1) it is not adequately (narrowly) tailored to Eagle Rock, 2) there hasn’t been an adequate analysis of consequences, 3) the amendment doesn’t meet the Development Code standards, and 4) there is no existing standard of review in Section 5. Table’s 5.1 and 5.2 of the Development Code need to be reviewed regarding Accessory Uses. Commissioner Baker agreed with Foster adding that schools are already allowed by special review in R2 and RM, and by right in CO and A. He stated that for him it’s an issue of putting them in single family neighborhoods, pushing them everywhere in the Valley, when there are plenty of other opportunities for private schools within the Estes Valley. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Commissioner Schneider stated that we are in a situation of trying to create code revision for just one specific site and that the amendment needs greater review and questioned if there might be an easier way of doing this, perhaps by amending the specific site use or a Special Review. Director Hunt answered that a “spot zone”, or a Code Amendment Alternative for dealing with nonconforming uses and how they can expand are the only available options. Commissioner Hull asked how Eagle Rock can become legally conforming - what would be the fastest way for Eagle Rock to be allowed to continue with their expansion plan. Michael Whitley explained that Larimer County has a special review procedure of nonconforming use done on a case by case basis, up to a fifty percent (50%) expansion. This procedure is called an Expansion of Nonconforming Use. Trustee Norris expressed his personal concern with moving ahead and not delaying Eagle Rock, asking how quickly could staff look at the Larimer County process, and plan a special meeting. It was noted that a 15 day published legal notice is needed. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to continue the EVDC Amendment relating to Schools, pending a Special Meeting in April. The motion was approved 6-0. 9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 3.15 GENERAL NOTICE PROVISIONS. Director Hunt explained the objective of the proposed Code Amendment is to change the format in which mailed public notifications are sent, expand the property perimeter within which mailed public notices are sent, and require posting of “Development Under Review” public-notice signage for applicable properties. A fee increase would have to be built into this Amendment. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Foster thanked Community Development staff for coming up with this proposal with Commissioner White agreeing. Commissioner Leavitt questioned the sentence regarding failure to give appropriate notice. Attorney White stated that is a standard legal disclaimer. Commissioner Schneider suggested changing the words “meeting” to “hearing”. It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to approve the Text Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A with changed verbiage. The motion passed 6-0 10. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF MOUNTAIN VIEW TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT. Proposed four townhome lots in Windcliff Estates on 0.574 acre lot, each with single family residence. The current Subdivision/PUD is a recorded plat, with E-1 Zoning, which allows this proposal to be applied. Staff recommended approval with the following RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 condition: Owner shall submit an Improvement Guarantee which will be reviewed by town and Larimer County staff. Staff and Commission Discussion Questions were raised on whether or not there were other waivers besides those relating to access and if the drainage plan is in final plat. Both were answered in the affirmative by Planner Woeber. Applicant Discussion: David Bangs from Van Horn Engineering was available for questions. It was moved and seconded (Baker/Foster) to approve the Mountain View Townhome Subdivision Plat according to findings of fact, including findings and conditions recommend by staff and the motion passed 6-0. 11. REPORTS A) Planner II interviews going along well, with a lead candidate identified. B) Staff asked the Commission to think about the following changes: Increase Planning Commission Meetings to twice a month and change meeting time to 4:30. C) Study Session’s will need to be held in the Board Room for the next few months due to the sound system in Room 202/203. Study Sessions will possibly be recorded going forward. D) Application reviews 1. Wind River Development Plan (no longer pre-app as of 3/14, now ex parte) 2. Jimmy John’s/Donuts/Urgent Care/Housing: Steamer Drive 3. Habitat for Humanity pre-app 4. Stanley Historic Home Museum 5. Amended Plats, Supplemental Condo Maps 6. McDonalds: subdivision of property pre app 7. 920 Dunraven Street: Rezone from CH to CO for Microbrewery with back-in diagonal parking (no longer pre-app as of 3/14, now ex parte) 8. Cheley Camp High Ropes Course: height variance and amended plat 9. Twin Owls Development Plan: Rezone and Amended Plat (no longer pre-app as of 3/14, now ex parte). E) Plans of posting “current project spreadsheet” on Town web site. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary