Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2017-09-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Aiso 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 Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, 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 45 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 Tom Gootz/town resident suggested someone at Town Hall let the public know who was putting the Comprehensive Plan together. He recommended a press release on the topic. Pat Newsom/town resident is opposed to change in Estes Park. She is concerned about several proposed code changes. Betty Hull/Planning Commissioner requested an explanation about "floating" zoning. She was confused about all the attention the nonconforming lots were getting. She was opposed to changes in single-family zone districts. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Request to continue to the October 17, 2017 meeting an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to add a definition for the term "Single-Family Use". C. Request to continue to the October 17, 2017 meeting an amendment to the EVDC to eliminate applicability and use of the Attainable Housing Density Bonus in the RE-1, RE, E- 1, E, R, and R-2 zone districts. It was moved and seconded Leavitt/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner Baker abstaining. 4. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW - 152 STANLEY CIRCLE DRIVE; MIKE & CINDY KINGSWOOD, OWNERS -12 OCCUPANTS Code Compliance Officer (CCO) Hardin stated the lot size is less than one-acre minimum requirement. Commissioner Baker pointed out that the county records shows one less bedroom than the application. Director Hardin clarified the update to the county records has not yet been made. The home inspection was approved. Public Comment None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 152 Stanley Circle Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously. 5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW - 410 RIVERSIDE DRIVE; ANN MISEL (STANLEY KRAUS LIVING TRUST), OWNER; 12 OCCUPANTS CCO Hardin stated the lot size is less than one-acre minimum requirement, and the setback on the east side is six feet less than the required 25 feet. Public Comment None. It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the vacation home at 410 Riverside Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously. 6. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW - 3430 EAGLECLIFF CIRCLE DRIVE; JEFFREY HYLER, OWNER; 12 OCCUPANTS CCO Hardin stated the lot size is less than one-acre minimum requirement, and the front setback is ten feet and the rear setback is 20 feet, where 25 feet is required on all sides. Public Comment None. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to approve the vacation home at 3430 Eagiecliff Circle Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously. 7. SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN; ESTES PARK BAPTIST CHURCH EXPANSION; 2200 MALL ROAD Continued from August EVPC meeting. Planner Gonzales stated this project was continued from the August meeting to allow the applicant to be present, as he was absent last month. There were lingering questions from the public regarding landscaping, use of the buiiding, and future intentions. The application is a request to expand the existing church with a 9,000 square foot addition. Written permission has been provided by the Federal government regarding access to the property from Mall Road. Additional parking will be added to the south, with the addition being to the west of the existing building. Landscaping on the west property line was an issue in the last meeting, and the applicant is now proposing to add two additional trees in that area. Applicant is now proposing a two-phased approach; finishing out a portion of the addition with classrooms, but not the entire buiiding. A future single-famiiy home is aliowed by right on the property, and is not part of the special review; however, the applicant provided the plans for the benefit of the public. The total structure count will be two parsonages, one future maintenance shed (20 x 30), one office building, and the existing church with the addition. The proposed office building will not have a kitchen. Planner Gonzales stated no additional public comment was received since the last meeting. Staff and commission Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: there are no design standards in the EVDC; the landscape buffer that is required is around the boundaries; landscaping of the parking area or around the new addition is not required; no interior landscaping is required. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/project engineer introduced members of the engineering team. Paui Logue/Pastor of the church apologized for any issues that he has caused that may have been offensive. He stated the security lights on the parsonage will remain. He stated he spoke with one of the neighbors regarding the relocation of the modular, and understood they were in agreement about the placement. He stated the church often houses volunteers that come to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall area to do various types of work for the community, and they often bring their RVs and park them at the church. Ralph Nations/project manager with the church stated there were several incorrect statements made by the public last month. He stated the waiver request was for landscape buffering so they would not have to landscape the entire south side of the property. The change was not discussed with the neighbors. Commissioner White stated parking RVs on the property was not allowed, and recommended the applicant have a conversation with the Community Development Department regarding allowable uses on the property. After a brief discussion. Planner Gonzales stated the proposal calls for the planting of eight more trees around the parking area, and twelve additional shrubs. Joy Harvey/county resident stated the neighbors would like to have transparency from the church representatives. The neighbors have no issues with the various church ministries, but they do have issues with the potential impact of the proposed development to the neighbors. She requested the Commission deny the landscaping waiver. Laura Case/county resident was concerned about additional exterior lighting. She requested there be no construction traffic on Joel Estes Drive if the project was approved, and was opposed to the landscape waiver. Jeremy CoHinette/county resident was concerned about how they were really going to use the additional 9,000 square feet, wondering if it would become housing. Ralph Nations stated the new addition will be used for classrooms for children and youth. He stated they would not be housing people there, except for occasional overnight volunteers. He was working with Planner Gonzales regarding Temporary Use Permits for this use. Lonnie Sheldon stated a neighborhood meeting was not required. The applicant is not required to pave the gravel road. Chris Lee/Kennedy Architecture Group stated each level of the addition would be 4,500 square feet, and would include a warming kitchen. The upper level will allow easier access to the second floor via two bridges, while the lower level will have natural light to the south. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Gonzales reminded the Commissioners to include any additional conditions of approval in the motion. Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: Temporary Use Permits may solve the issue of the overnight RVs; a landscaping plan was requested to ensure all required landscaping would be installed; request to have all exterior lighting be code compliant. Lonnie Sheldon stated the church is willing to install code compliant interior and perimeter landscaping as part of the building permit set, which would need to be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. They will also comply with the dark sky ordinance for all buildings on the property. Conditions of Approvai (as recommended by the Planning Commission) 1. The landscape waiver will not be granted as requested on the south and west property boundaries. 2. Entire site will be compliant with the dark sky ordinance. It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to recommend approval of the Estes Park Baptist Church Special Review to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners according to the findings RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall of fact and the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Schneider requested a five minute recess at 3:09 p.m. 8. DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK TOWNHOMES; TRBD PROMONTORY DRIVE Planner Gonzales stated the subject property is zoned A-Accommodations, and is approximately 10 acres in size. It was annexed into the town limits earlier this year. The applicants, James & Susan Mackey, propose to develop the property with 38 units in 19 duplexes, including three outlets and three detention ponds. Three utility easements would also to be dedicated on the plat, along with a dedicated town Right-of-Way. A private circle drive is proposed, with additional private drives that front the individual duplex buildings. The applicant has proposed an alternative landscaping plan that will disperse the landscaping among the property. They have added additional trees, and the buffering on the east side is considered adequate by staff. The three outlets would protect the existing wetland areas. One of the proposed wetlands is in the setback, and a variance application has been submitted that will be heard by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. A preliminary stormwater drainage plan was also submitted and reviewed by the Town Engineer. This plan provides for three detention ponds to collect and discharge stormwater. There have been neighbor concerns with the preliminary drainage report. The final drainage plan will go with the Final Plat. Regarding access, the entrance to the subdivision will align with Promontory Drive. A wildlife study was submitted, with no mitigation efforts being recommended. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan for Future Land Use indicates accommodations would be appropriate for this property. No major issues were identified by reviewing staff. There were several public comments received. The application was routed to all affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the Development Plan, and the recommending body for the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat. Staff recommended two conditions of approval, listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Gonzales clarified inquiries regarding the annexation of this property into the town limits earlier this year. There was discussion as to whether or not the Final Townhome Subdivision Plat should be approved prior to the approval of the Development Plan. It was noted the Planning Commission would not be reviewing the Final Plat; however, the approval of this plat is conditional to the approval of the Development Plan. Public Comment David Bangs/project engineer prepared the preliminary drainage report. The adjacent property owners are concerned about groundwater. It was his professional opinion the amount of groundwater flowing onto the neighbor's property would be the same or less with the proposed development. The surrounding existing wetlands and associated groundwater could also affect their property. In the preliminary design, all the detention ponds are built to meet the 100-year event (1% annual chance). The ponds will be grass-lined, pervious, and would hold the water for hours, not days. The detention ponds are typically maintained by the HOA. There are no standards for regulating groundwater, and Mr. Bangs assured the Commission there would not be any additional groundwater caused by this development affecting the neighbors. He explained where the discharge areas are on the property, stating one of the drainage areas may need to be redesigned depending on the outcome of the variance application. Historic discharge locations will be maintained. Joe Coop/project engineer stated the proposed duplexes would meet all height and setback requirements. Floor plans are still in the design phase, and will have main floor living. The sewer manhole is located in the utility easement. There is an existing fence in the easement, which will be replaced by the applicant. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall James Mackey/applicant and property owner purchased the property in 1995 with the intention of developing it. He has been working on the various parts of this project since 2014. The review has been thorough and all issues are being addressed adequately. He met briefly with the neighbors to introduce himself. He has had several conversations with Ms. Ray, but not with the Keiltys. More than the required landscaping will be installed, to screen the buildings from the neighbors. Units 35-38 will not be right up against the property line. Drainage plan will comply with the required regulations. He is aware of Mr. Keilty's ongoing groundwater issue. He originally met with Rita KureIJa of the Estes Park Housing Authority regarding a possible affordable housing project, but after meeting with various people decided not to pursue it. Michael Keilty/town resident was concerned the project would create a groundwater problem on his property, and had a private engineer review the drainage plan. He was also concerned about the potential for trespassing. He stated the postcard he received in the mail was not adequate notice. Barbara Keilty/town resident was concerned about what might happen in the future. Based on the report from their third-party engineer, their home is in imminent danger. Claire Ray/town resident was concerned about construction phase, and requested construction vehicles be limited to Marys Lake Road and not be allowed to use Arapahoe Road. She was concerned about her privacy and view corridor, and water runoff during construction. She has had a couple of phone conversations with Mr. Mackey prior to today's meeting. Dawn James/town resident submitted a document for the record regarding her environmental and traffic concerns. Her comment will be posted on the Town website. She was concerned about wildlife migration, increase in traffic, vehicle speeds, and pedestrian safety. She stated Marys Lake Road is becoming used more and more as a route to get to Rocky Mountain National Park. Larry Murphy/town resident was concerned about the density of the project, the wildlife, and the view obstruction. Kevin Conrad/town resident complained about the notification process. He stated the maintenance of the detention ponds will be critical, and was looking forward to reviewing the Final Drainage Report. Tom Gootz/town resident commented on whether or not the comprehensive plan would address areas such as this. He was opposed to the property being zoned A-Accommodations. He had comments related to the International Building Codes that were not in the purview of the Planning Commission. Richard James/town resident was concerned about traffic and the possibility of having 38 new vacation rentals in the neighborhood. Bev Wright/town resident stated the lead planner should explain both the pros and cons of projects. She was concerned about density, the short-term rental possibility, wildlife, and view corridor obstruction. Mike Gould/town resident and Promontory HOA stated this project will block their view. He was concerned that the project would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and traffic would be too congested. He requested additional traffic studies on other nearby intersections nearby. He was concerned about the drainage impacts to the nearby neighbors. He stated notifying property owners only within 100 feet is too small an area. Michael Keilty/requested a continuance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Carly Lober/county resident stated the high density of the area was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Lonnie Sheldon stated the difference between the preliminary and final drainage report is small. There is one-foot of freeboard proposed in the report, which will be more than enough to contain high flows. If ponds are lined, they can be punctured by animal hooves, and bubbles can form underneath and decrease the volume as designed. The preliminary report complies with the state stormwater regulations. Regarding the traffic study, the parameters of the study were directed by former town engineer Kevin Ash. Joe Coop provided additional information about the proposed drainage channel along the east side of the property. Trees will be placed on either side of the channel. The stormwater management plan has to be approved by the county health department prior to commencing construction. The development plan complies with the EVDC and the drainage plan complies with the drainage requirements. The property owner has the right to develop his property in accordance to the EVDC. The wetlands are not jurisdictional. It was noted the wetland study was approved by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). The property owner is aware of the new building code requirements. James Mackey appreciated the comments. He is wiliing to be transparent with neighbors. He is open to addressing the issues and would support a continuance. Public Comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Baker was opposed to a continuance, stating if the design met the requirements of the EVDC, there was no point in delaying the decision. The only comment that pertains to the Commission was the one about being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and furthering the goals of the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Leavitt requested additional comments from drainage experts on both sides of the issue. Conversation regarding this issue can occur outside of the Planning Commission meeting, with results presented next month if the meeting is continued. Commissioner Hull supported a continuance, and reminded those in attendance that Marys Lake Lodge is also in the A-Accommodations zone district. Conditions of Approval 1. A Final Townhome Subdivision Plat shall be approved by Town Board within 120 days of Planning Commission decision date. The Final Plat shall be submitted with a Final Drainage Study and all associated infrastructure construction plans/financial guarantees. The Final Plat shall be recorded within 60 days of Town Board approval. 2. An approved Variance to locate the detention pond within the 50-foot wetland setback is required. It was moved and seconded (FosterLeavitt) to continue the Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision to the October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Murphree voting against. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to continue the Raven Rock Deveiopment Plan to the October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Murphree voting against. Note: At this point in the meeting, the order of the agenda was changed, and various items wili be continued to future meetings. 9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDiNG FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) AND AMEND THE DENSITY CALCULATION STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii Planner Gonzales stated the proposed amendment would eliminate FAR from the EVDC, and eliminate the requirement to use FAR in the employee housing density calculation. The proposed amendment evolved from discussions with Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission, on streamlining the EVDC and removing redundancies. FAR regulates the dimensional aspects of lots, and there are many of these in the code. FAR is the relationship between square footage of a building and how it relates to lot size, and is an outdated planning mechanism. Regarding the employee housing piece of the amendment. Planner Gonzales stated we now allow employee housing in commercial zone districts, and the number of units is dependent on the FAR on the property. If we remove FAR, we will need to recalculate how we establish density in commercial zone district. Planning staff has proposed tying the accessory use unit amount to being no more than the square footage of the principle use. Parking for employee housing units shall not exceed the required parking for the principle use. Removing FAR would make the EVDC easier to understand. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to recommend approval of the text amendment to the Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of Commissioners as presented in Exhibit Red, including findings, and as recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimousiy. 10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR STEEPLY SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES Planner Becker stated the proposed amendment would place an upper height limit for steeply sloped roofs (A-frames, in most instances). The recently approved height limit increase applied only to gabled roofs. If the existing calculation was used on an a-frame structure, it could exceed 30 feet quite easily. This issue was raised by the Town Board during the building-measurement discussion. Following discussion among the Commission, it was decided to continue this item to the October meeting in order for Director Hunt to provide a visual regarding the calculations. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to continue the proposed code amendment regarding maximum ridgeline height for steeply sloped roofs to the October 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously. 11. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BED AND BREAKFAST INNS It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to continue the proposed amendment regarding Bed and Breakfast Inns to the October 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously. 12. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.66 - SIGNS It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to continue the proposed amendment regarding Signs to the November 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously. 13. REPORTS There were no comments regarding the report items listed on the agenda. There being no further business. Chair Schneider a^urn^ the meeting at 5:45 p.m. Russ Schneider, Chair Karen Thompson, Recofoiding Secretary