Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2017-10-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission; Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, and Doyle Baker Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. He explained the purpose of the Planning Commission. There were approximately 50 people in attendance. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Johanna Darden commented on the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of September 19, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Estes Park Resort - Applicant request to extend deadline for meeting conditions of approval related to the Development Plan approved June 20, 2017. Requested deadline is December 27, 2017 (60 additional days). C. Request by staff to continue the proposed EVDC amendment regarding Outdoor Food Vendors to the November 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as amended and the motion passed 7-0. 4. REZONING OF LOTS 1-4, MARYS LAKE ESTATES FROM RE-Rural Estate to A-l-Accommodations; 638, 650, 742, 565 LAKEWOOD COURT Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The subject property is in the unincorporated Estes Valley. Lots 1-4 make up the entire subdivision. The subdivision consists of one vacant lot, one lot with a single-family dwelling, and two lots with Bed & Breakfast inns (B&Bs). The existing B&Bs were built prior to the adoption of the EVDC in 2000, and were conforming at the time they were RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall built. The applicants stated they were not aware of the rezoning in 2000. The intention of the subdivision was to provide mixed uses (single-family and B&Bs), which is stated on the Final Plat. The proposed A-l-Accommodations zone district allows B&Bs and single-family dwellings. Staff has waived the development plan requirement due to the majority of the subdivision being built out. Adequate public services are already in place. The application was routed to affected agencies, with no significant issues. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There were no public comments received. Staff and Commission Discussion There was brief discussion regarding a previous attempt to rezone the property which was withdrawn before it went to a public hearing. Public Comment Matthew Gordon/Promontory Condominium Owner's Association (COA) representative stated the COA did not receive the adjacent property owner notice. He stated the Larimer County Assessor's Office does not have an address on file for this COA-owned property. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Baker stated if the current owners' issues can be addressed in a method other than rezoning, then he would recommend the alternative method. He did not see any justification to rezone the subdivision to A-l-Accommodations when there is a proposed amendment on today's agenda dealing specifically with B&Bs. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to recommend denial of the rezoning of Lots 1-4, Marys Lake Estates to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners, finding insufficient evidence to support the rezoning and the motion passed unanimously to deny. 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2017-07 & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK TOWNHOMES; TBD PROMONTORY DRIVE Chair Schneider disclosed he spoke with Ms. Darcy Tiglas, who performed the wetland study for this property. Planner Gonzales stated this item was continued from the September meeting. The Commission directed the applicant to provide additional information regarding drainage. The project proposes 19 duplex buildings with 38 individually-platted townhome lots. Ms. Tiglas is in attendance today to review the wetland study. Staff and Commission Discussion Director Hunt stated groundwater is regulated jurisdictionally by the State of Colorado, and local jurisdictions do not have the authority to regulate groundwater. Commissioner Baker inquired about the process of the pre-application meeting and whether or not the issues at hand had been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali discussed at that time. Planner Gonzales stated wildlife issues are not known until a study is done. The Town engineer was present at the pre-application meeting and provided the parameters for the traffic study. View corridors were not discussed, and are not part of the development code regulations. Planning and engineering concerns are revealed during the review process, not the pre-application meeting. A future trail is proposed for the other side of Marys Lake Road, and is not required for this project. Wildlife and conservation plans were provided by the applicant, though the conservation plan was not required. Additional studies are not required. Town Attorney White stated an environmental assessment (NEPA) was not required, as that is a Federal regulation, not a local one. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated an addendum to the preliminary drainage report was provided, specifically providing additional information regarding the channel and the outlet structure. Mr. Sheldon did not see any evidence of nesting on the small rocky outcropping adjacent to the property. His conclusion is the elk and deer will adapt to the development, as they have done in other areas of the Estes Valley. He addressed Mr. Conrad's public comment. Mr. Conrad stated in his written comment that multi-family housing would be better suited for this property. Mr. Sheldon stated multi-family housing would allow over 60 units on this property, where only 38 are proposed. Regarding the Arapahoe Meadow HOA request for the Raven Rock developer to improve a culvert in their subdivision, Mr. Sheldon stated that is a private issue of the HOA and will not be addressed by the applicant. Matthew Delich/traffic engineer stated he scoped out the project with the Town Engineer prior to conducting the study. He explained the details of the study, which can be viewed on the Town website. Traffic counts were done in July. Vacation rentals would actually create fewer numbers of vehicle trips than full-time residential use. The analyzation uses peak hours on the street. Mr. Delich stated this project would not have triggered a traffic study through CDOT if Marys Lake Road were a state highway. David Bangs/project engineer stated groundwater movement is very difficult to monitor. Soil samples can be used, and were included in the preliminary report. The adjacent property owner was provided with the addendum to the drainage report. Jim Mackey/property owner stated units 37 and 38 would have a lower profile and no walk-out lower level. He was confident the project was in compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. Darcy Tiglas/environmental consultant stated the only revision to the report was in the summary. There was one wetland community identified at the far south end of the property. The delineation is determined mainly by vegetation, then by soil. She did not have permission to access the neighbor's property, so the line of demarcation only goes to the property line. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Michael Keilty/town resident provided written comment that will be posted on the Town website. He sent the preliminary drainage report to his consultant. He requested the Raven Rock project be tabled by the Planning Commission until additional drainage studies can be completed. Barbara Keilty/town resident stated a safe drainage plan has yet to be submitted. Her concerns have not been adequately addressed, and she believes her home is in immediate danger if the current drainage plan is approved. She requested tabling the Raven Rock project, and also requested she have a minimum of 30 days to review any future drainage reports. Dawn James/town resident stated an environmental study should be conducted. She requested a 24-hour traffic assessment. She was concerned about the potential for vacation rentals. She requested other nearby intersections be included in the traffic study. She asked the walking path be extended to include the east side of Marys Lake Road. Matthew Gordon/Promontory COA representative stated the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan recommends lowering density as development moves from the city center. This project would not be in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Richard James/The Meadow Condominiums representative submitted written comments which will be posted on the Town website. He recommended redesigning the project to have less impact on the neighbors. Kevin Conrad/town resident was concerned about the quality of the stormwater. Claire Ray/town resident stated she hoped the Commission would consider some of the proposed revisions to the project. She disagreed with the traffic study. Ann Chandou/town resident read Danielle Wolf's letter that was submitted the morning of the meeting. The letter will be posted on the Town website. Beverly Wright/town resident stated the project could complement the area if it was revised. Johanna Darden/town resident was concerned about the project's effect on the wildlife, and was supportive of additional drainage studies. Mr. Sheldon explained how the traffic study was conducted. He stated the Final Drainage Report is very specific regarding the size of the underground pipes, etc., which the preliminary drainage report does not provide. David Bangs/project engineer stated the infrastructure is designed for maximum flow, and includes an additional one foot of freeboard that is not required. They have RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall gone over and beyond on several code requirements, and are proposing fewer units than allowed. The development meets or exceeds the EVDC. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion There was discussion among staff and Commissioners, with comments including but not limited to: concern about how the project met the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan is not a regulatory document; it is important the comprehensive plan be updated as soon as possible; some requests from the public were outside of the requirements; concern about lack of communication with adjacent property owners; visually sensitive areas and density should be addressed in the development plan; continued concern regarding drainage; the development plan complies with the EVDC; concern regarding impact on neighboring properties, traffic, drainage, and wildlife migration. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/White) to continue the Raven Rock Development Plan and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat to the November Planning Commission meeting, with the suggestion there be dialogue with adjacent property owners on the water and drainage issues, as well as issues related to how this intensive development is compatible with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan with relationship to issues such as wildlife migration, open space, and visually sensitive areas, and the motion passed unanimously. Director Hunt clarified with the Commission that any new information would be provided in the meeting materials and distributed prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Schneider called for a five minute recess at 3:52 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4 p.m. Chair Schneider was not in attendance for the remainder of the meeting due to a previously scheduled commitment. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2017-06; FISH CREEK STORAGE; 1901 FISH CREEK ROAD Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The proposed project consists of 86 storage units (15,000 total square feet) in two buildings. The property is zoned \-l-lndustrial, and is currently developed with multiple buildings and one single-family dwelling. The proposal includes razing all buildings except the single-family dwelling. A paved loop driveway would circulate vehicles through the property and allow fire truck access. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the parking lot lighting requirement, as no parking lot lighting is proposed. Additionally, the west side of the property has a 20-foot cliff, which staff has approved as a landscape buffer. The cliff serves as a natural screen to the west. The project would trigger at least 15 trees, and the applicant has requested a waiver to this requirement. A gate is proposed for the south side, which would allow fire truck access to the property. The existing culverts on Fish Creek are not being replaced. The Larimer County Engineering Department reviewed the submitted drainage plan and provided RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall preliminary approval, pending submittal of the Final Drainage Plan. A right-of-way of an additional 20 feet will be dedicated and recorded. A variance has been applied for regarding the cliff on the west side. The variance is triggered because the existing cliff cut is more than 12 feet. The applicant has also requested waivers to parking and loading area requirements, stating requiring eight additional parking spaces and a designated loading area is impractical because the scope of the project is drive-in accessible storage units. Planner Gonzales stated the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for this application. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, and the application was routed to affected agencies. Adjacent property owners were notified by mail. Staff recommends approval of the development plan, with two conditions of approval, listed below. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/project engineer described how the stormwater drainage will function. Chris Eshelman/applicant stated he will continue to live on site, and expects the proposed project will have less noise impact to the neighbors than what is currently there. He understands the project approval depends on the right-of-way dedication and the approval of the variance. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion None. ' ! 7. Conditions of Approval 1. An approved variance to lower original grade more than 12-feet is required and shall be approved prior to Planning Commission signatures on the Development Plan. 2. A 20-foot right-of-way dedication for Fish Creek Road by separate instrument shall be recorded and a copy with recordation notation shall be submitted to Community Development staff within 60-days of Development Plan approval date. It was moved (Foster/Murphree) to approve the Fish Creek Storage Development Plan according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 6- 0 with one absent. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BED AND BREAKFAST INNS Planner McCool stated this item was continued from the September Planning Commission meeting. This amendment would set forth an administration review process for B&Bs with eight and under occupants. The proposed amendment states B&Bs with nine or more occupants would be permitted by special review in all residential zone districts with the exception of the RM- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Residential Multi-Family district where it would be permitted by right. B&Bs are currently prohibited in all residential zone districts except RM. Staff reviewed the occupancy framework for Vacation Homes to establish regulations for B&Bs, and are proposing B&Bs be permitted by right in all residential zone districts for eight and fewer occupants. An on-site manager is required. Regarding occupancy requirements for the manager, the two guests per bedroom plus two would apply, with one of the rooms being for the manager. The extensive staff report and draft code language can be viewed in full on the Town website. Staff and Commission Discussion It was noted B&Bs would not be subject to the Vacation Home cap. The B&Bs would most likely be monitored by Host Compliance, and an annual registration would be required. They are comparable to home occupations. Comments included but were not limited to: clarification in the code regarding what will be monitored; B&Bs will have better control than Vacation Homes because the operator will live on site; multiple parties can stay on one property. Director Hunt stated there will need to be conversation with the Town and County building departments regarding applicable building, health and fire code regulations. There was discussion regarding an unintended consequence regarding the number of bedrooms allowed to be rented with on-site owners. The change in the code language could be made in the motion. Staff will do additional research to make sure all intentions are clear. Special review applications would allow the review of parking, lighting, etc. Public Comment Johanna Darden/town resident was opposed to allowing B&Bs in residential zone districts, saying it was unfair to full-time residents. Kristi Christopher/town resident stated the requirement of an on-site owner will keep guests under control. Jeff Robbins/town resident agreed with Ms. Christopher's comment. B&Bs are a vital part of vacation communities and will add a lot to the Estes Valley. He commended Planning staff for their hard work on this amendment. Bob Welch/county resident was supportive of B&Bs, and questioned if a property owner could have both a B&B and a Vacation Home license. Tony Schetzsie/town resident was opposed to having business operations in residential neighborhoods, stating this was de facto rezoning. Public comment closed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff and Commission Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Baker/Foster) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A as recommended by staff, with the following two revisions: 2.a.(2) add to the end of the first full sentence "in residential zone districts except the RM-Residential Multi-Family zone district"; 2.a(3) replace "subtracted from" with "added to", and the motion passed 6-0 with one absent. 8. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD A DEFINITION IN CHAPTER 13 FOR THE TERM "SINGLE-FAMILY USE", AND TO AMEND TABLE 4-1 TO MATCH THE DEFINED USE Director Hunt stated there is no definition in the code for single-family use. The proposed amendment brings clarity to the code. There was discussion about the history behind limiting a single-family use to eight unrelated individuals. Director Hunt suggested additional discussion regarding the number of unrelated individuals at the November study session. It was moved (Foster/Hull) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit Red as recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-1 with one absent and Commissioner Baker voting against. Commissioner Baker disagreed with the definition of single-family use being limited to eight persons, stating it was not common language and could result in future problems. 8. AMENDMENT TO THE EVDC CODE SECTIONS 11.4.b AND 11.4.d TO ELIMINATE APPLICABILITY AND USE OF THE ATTAINBLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS IN THE RE-l-Rural Estate, E-l-Estate, E-Estate, R-Residential, &. R-2-Two-Family Residential ZONE DISTRICTS Director Hunt stated this text amendment would restrict the attainable housing density bonus to the RW\-Residential Multi-Family zone district. The idea is approached with caution because it does take some potential properties off the table for workforce or attainable housing. There have been genuine concerns to keep single-family neighborhoods as such. This amendment would restrict the density bonus to only the RM zone district. Planning is about predictability, and this amendment would accomplish that goal for those residents owning property in single-family zone districts. Staff and Commission Discussion There was discussion regarding deed restrictions on multi-family units, and the mention that alternative mechanisms might be used in the future. EVDC Chapter 11 (Density Bonus) will need to be looked at more carefully to allow maximum flexibility with attainable/workforce versus market rate units. 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public Comment Johanna Darden/town resident asked for clarification on the amendment. Director Hunt explained it would the owner's discretion as to whether or not a deed restriction would be placed on the property. Tony Schetzsie/town resident would support the code amendment. He was concerned about the changes in the code affecting the single-family neighborhoods. Justification was ironic. Public comment closed. It was moved (Hull/Murphree) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit Gamma Red as recommended by staff and the motion passed 6-0 with one absent. 10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR STEEPLY SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES Director Hunt stated this was continued from the September 19th Planning Commission meeting. He stated the reason for continuance was to provide a better description as to where the measurements were initiated. It was requested to have more understanding of some of the construction terms that would directly affect the measurements. Charlie Phillips, residential plans ' examiner, was in attendance to answer questions. Illustrations were provided as part of the meeting materials. Staff and Commission Discussion There was discussion about how the measurements would apply. The Estes Valley has a lot of custom-built homes, but there had to be a line drawn somewhere. Director Hunt stated there was discussion with the Commission and local architects several months ago, where the recommendation was made to use averages. The past method of measuring height was confusing to developers. Director Hunt stated using a mean average was a classical approach for building height. Public Comment None. It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed code amendment as presented in Exhibit Red and the motion passed unanimously 6-0 with one absent. 11. REPORTS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall A. Director Hunt stated the Town Board Study Session on December 12, 2017 will include a presentation by the Downtown Plan consultants, Winter and Company. Commissioners were encouraged to attend. The meeting location has yet to be determined. B. The December 12, 2017 Town Board Study Session will also include the strategic goals for 2018. Many of these goals concern planning and community development matters. C. Senior Planner Woeber reported the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) will be offering a Planning Commissioner refresher workshop in Estes Park on Wednesday, November 29th from 4 - 6:30 p.m. in the Town Board Room. Other jurisdictions will be invited to this free training, and all Estes Valley Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend. D. Commissioner White reported the one-year time period for vacation home review was coming up in December. She would like to revisit the provision, or absence of, the requirement for the property manager to respond to any complaints within thirty minutes. Director Hunt stated there are some minor amendments to propose, now that we have been working with the new regulations for one year. E. Director Hunt reported the County Commissioners are very interested in updating the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and he saw no reason it could not be made a priority. There being no further business. Vice Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m. Russ Schneider, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 10