HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-04-10RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission-Special Meeting
April 10, 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, 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, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Russ Schneider, Robert Foster
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. There were approximately 15 people in
attendance.
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the agenda as presented and
the motion passed 5-0.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
. None
4. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
B. Large Vacation Home Review: 1881 Homestead Lane, 5-bedroom, 12-person
occupancy; Owner: Hartzog
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed 5-0.
5. 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 and 3/20/18 meetings
Director Hunt reviewed the criteria that “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” should
be allowable, under specified criteria, in all zoning districts within the EVDC Boundary
other than CD, Downtown Commercial. Establishing a Public School would be subject to
meeting State Statutory requirements. A Non-Public School would require review and
approval of an S2 Special Review. Schools are commonly allowed use in residentially-
zoned areas in most places. The EVDC would require, “Any Public School shall comply
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission-Special Meeting
April 10, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
with all applicable requirements per Colorado Revised Statutes.” This code amendment
would eliminate the Special Review and the Location and Extent Review requirements
currently in the EVDC for Schools. Staff finds this amendment necessary to address
changes in conditions in the area affected, which is to allow existing Schools that are
nonconforming uses be brought into zoning compliance, as well as provide more options
for Schools to locate in the Estes Valley. Staff recommends approval this amendment.
Commission and Staff Discussion:
Commissioner Hull asked if 2nd item on the agenda would limit Eagle Rock to only expand
one time, to which Director Hunt answered in the affirmative. Commissioner White asked
about Safe Routes to Schools and the time-line for that locally. Trustee Norris answered
that he thought that the state-level grant was to be implemented next year.
Commissioner Baker mentioned his appreciation on the adjustment and elaboration of the
amendment; however, he doesn’t feel it has much to do with the EVDC and justification is
weak for this change, questioning if anything would negatively impact the Estes valley if
this is not passed. Hunt referenced back to the 2000 development code.
Applicant Jeff Liddell, Eagle Rock School spoke on the history of Eagle Rock and the
current development plans, expressing the need for this text amendment, which is largely
due to the housing problem in the Estes Valley.
Public Comment:
None
Commissioner Leavitt stated that he likes the clarity and thoroughness of this newly
written text amendment and the explanation of the Special Review process. White is
comfortable with the standards of review, adding that a traffic impact study could help
improve the criteria and proposed adding that into the motion.
Baker reminded the commission that he and Commissioner Foster both expressed strong
opposition to this proposal, citing that it doesn’t meet necessary conditions for change and
it may be more in line with a comprehensive review on land use, not an ad-hoc code
amendment that could tie our hands. Leavitt agreed with the ad-hoc statement and that
we are perhaps operating in reactionary mode.
It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to recommend that the Estes Park Town
Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the
text amendment to the EVDC as presented in Exhibit A, as recommended by staff,
with the addition of a traffic impact study requirement added to the list of standards
for review. The motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Baker voting against.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission-Special Meeting
April 10, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
Commissioner Baker cited four reasons for his vote:
a) Proposal doesn’t meet essential EVDC requirements.
b) Insufficient consultation and opportunity to assess the justified needs relative to the
risk of unintended consequences.
c) Sufficient opportunity for organizations interested in establishing schools is already
allowed in the current code.
d) This type of ad-hoc code amendment is bad practice for the community and elected
officials to be following.
6. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 3.15,
ADDITION OF “EXTENSION, EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT OF A
NONCONFORMING USE”
Senior Planner Woeber reviewed that this amendment was requested by the Planning
Commission as a way to address changes in conditions in the area affected, which is to
provide a means for nonconforming uses to expand, as may be appropriate. Zoning was
changed in 2000 within the EVDC boundary area, causing situations where a conforming
use became nonconforming. In some situations, the zoning that was applied in 2000 was
not necessarily the best fit for a given use. Staff recommends approval of this text
amendment, as found in an attachment to Chapter 6; 6.9 A-H.
Commission and Staff Discussion:
Baker asked for an explanation as to why this would be an administrative decision rather
than a Special Review given the fact that it does make an exception to the code. He also
expressed concern about the wording of points 6A and 7 in the proposal regarding
Governing Body appeals and, if there is a solution to the Eagle Rock development from
the prior amendment, is it necessary to vote on this amendment. Woeber answered that it
would be applicable to anything in jurisdiction and is a good tool to have if this type of
situation comes up again. Attorney White clarified that conditions to approvals need to be
addressed, and that the administrative decision is a policy decision, not a legal decision.
Hunt added that the primary purpose for an administrative decision was to expedite the
process. Leavitt asked for clarification on the use of a Board of Adjustment Variance.
Hunt answered that the BOA cannot approve a use variance, as opposed to a land or
structure variance.
Public Comment:
John Phipps/town resident, expressed concerns related to neighbor comments being
ignored and that this amendment is too broad and too vague. There are hundreds of
nonconforming uses in the valley, and the unintended consequences could be great as
this is another swipe at our zoning. Please don’t recommend this.
Rebecca Urquhart/town resident, stated that she is troubled by the chipping away of the
zoning and ad-hoc amendments, public comments seem to mean nothing, transparency is
a problem and she would like to see a map made public regarding nonconformity.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission-Special Meeting
April 10, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
Commission and Staff Discussion:
Hunt stated that the non-conforming map determined that approximately 25% of the lot
size in the Estes Valley was nonconforming. Baker noted that the unintended
consequences can go both ways for both people applying and not applying. Leavitt stated
that having only an administrative review instead of S2 review is troubling adding that a
public hearing would be better. Hull agreed that the wording is too broad needs to be
looked at on a case by case basis. Hunt informed the Commission that there is a
Parliamentary device, known as Denial Without Prejudice, allowing the amendment to
come back at a later date.
It was moved and seconded (Baker/Hull) to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board
of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners Deny Without Prejudice
the text amendment to the EVDC as presented in Exhibit Red and recommended by
staff. The motion to deny passed 4-1 with Commissioner Murphree voting against.
7. REPORTS
a) Hunt showed the new Development Review Sign
b) Study Session on April 17 regarding the Comprehensive Plan at 10:30 a.m. was
announced.
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 12:42 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary