Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-04-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, Klink, White, Schneider, and Hills Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Planner Audem Gonzales, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz, Senior Planner Alison Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent:None Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 60 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today's meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Charley Dickey commented on today's study session. He asked the Commission to consider having the same discussion in the regular meeting. The discussion was relevant, and the public in attendance at the regular meeting today deserve to hear the same discussion. He also asked the Commission to be more involved in planning. There are items coming up in the community that could be assisted by the Commission's involvement. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, March 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. REZONING & BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND RE-ZONING, TBD Little Prospect Road Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Stephanie Rauk, desires to adjust the common property line between two parcels as well as rezone both properties to E-Estate. The owner of both parcels is the George H Voeks Trust, and Ms. Rauk is the Trustee. In 2010, a separate legal lot determination was requested of Community Development staff, and it was determined the north parcel was not considered a legal not for the purposes of development. In August, 2015, another legal lot determination was requested, and again the lot was determined not legal for purposes of development. The applicant has since filed an appeal of the staff decision to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, which was initially heard at the December 21, 2015 County Commission meeting. The result of that hearing was a request by the County Commissioners to the applicant to come forward with the appropriate applications to accomplish the goal of creating two equally-sized lots. It was implied if the applicant completed these steps, then the County Commissioners would be inclined to overturn staff's decision, which would make the north parcel a legal lot and eligible for a boundary line adjustment (BLA). Therefore, the applicant has applied for a BLA and Rezoning, of which the Planning Commission is the recommending body to the County Commissioners. A hearing on the appeal, BLA, and rezoning is scheduled for May 16, 2016. Planner Gonzales stated the proposed BLA would reconfigure the lots, although neither would be conforming to minimum lot size for the proposed rezoning to E-Estate (0.5 acre minimum). Both lots would be 0.437 acres in size. Adjusting the boundary line would result in the smaller parcel coming closer into conformance with the zone district standards. A minor modification would be required to reduce the minimum lot size to the proposed 0.437 acres. The proposal also includes granting direct access to the two new lots via Little Prospect Drive, accessed from Peak View Drive. The applicant requested a waiver from establishing limits of disturbance and vegetation protection standards, and staff approved the request. He stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Water supply to the proposed two parcels could RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall be by connecting to the Town system or drilling a well. New utility easements will be dedicated with the Final Plat. Planner Gonzales stated the rezoning request is essentially a corrective rezoning. The south parcel was zoned E-l-Estate when the Estes Valley Development Code was adopted in 2000, and the north lot was zone E-Estate. The E-1 zoning is not consistent with the remainder of the subdivision. In order to avoid split zoning if the BLA is approved, staff supports the rezoning request. The site is located within the Beaver Point planning area of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Staff evaluated the proposed development for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and found no issues or conflicts with this proposal. Staff Findings 1. The Boundary Line Adjustment application and Rezoning request do not fall within the parameters of staff-level review, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners is the Decision-Making Body. 2. The Minor Modification request does not fall within the parameters of staff-level review, and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing staff, referred to in the staff report, are incorporated as staff findings. 4. Adjusting the boundary line and changing the configuration of the parcels would not compromise the intent of the original subdivision. It would bring the two parcels into further conformance in regards to lot area dimensions. 5. The rezoning would reflect the new lot configuration. 6. Utility easements on the newly created lots will be recorded with the final plat. 7. Existing easements will remain to be dedicated on the final plat. Staff listed several motion samples for the Commissioners to consider, which can be viewed in the staff report. Each has various conditions of approval. The conditions of approval chosen by the Planning Commission are listed below. Public comment Joe Coop/applicant representative stated the property owners are in agreement with all staff findings and conditions of approval. When asked about the option for drilling a well on the property, Mr. Coop stated he understands lots created prior to 1972 are eligible to apply for a water well with the State of Colorado Water Division. There is documentation the lot was created before 1972. Conditions of Approval 1. Board of County Commissioners granting the Separate Lot Determination Appeal, therefore designating the north parcel a legal lot making it eligible for a Boundary Line Adjustment. 2. Approval of the Rezoning request from E-l-Estate to E-Estate. 3. Label setbacks on Preliminary Plat. 4. Add note to plat map that owner of Lot 1 or Lot 2 shall abide by any local road association or homeowners association maintenance regulations for Little Prospect Drive. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Klink) to recommend approval of the application to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. REZONING OF 475 FALL RIVER LANE FROM CO-COMMERCIAL OUTYUNG TO R-2-TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The applicants, Dennis and Katie Lovell, desire to rezone the subject property in order to allow an existing two-family dwelling to be used as such. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall A rezoning request was submitted in 2004 by the previous property owners, but the request was withdrawn before the public hearing. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No neighbor comments were received. The Planning Commission is the recommending body for this application, with the Town Board being the decision-making body. Planner McCool reviewed the following: Staff Findings 1. Staff found the previous rezoning request from 2004 was generated due to updates to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) completed in 2000 which removed language permitting single-family and duplex uses within the "CO" zone district as uses by right. Therefore, the 2000 EVDC updates created a nonconforming use of this property. This proposed amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected since the quilting business previously located within the structure was relocated many years ago, hence, the long-standing uses on the parcel have been primarily residential. The Division of Building Safety reviewed a building permit to bring the property into compliance with current building codes since the conversion of the commercial space to residential use was never reviewed by the building officials at the time. A condition required by the Division of Building Safety is that a rezoning is approved prior to issuance of a Letter of Completion. Approval of the rezoning will bring the property into compliance with the existing uses on the property and improve the safety of the building through required upgrades to the structure. 2. Staff found that given the nature of the current land use and existing developed parcel. Staff has waived the requirement for a development plan, since no new development is proposed in conjunction with this rezoning request. The configuration of the existing development has been evaluated by Staff and will conform to the proposed zoning designation of R-2-Two-Family Residential. 3. Staff found the property is fully developed and already served by the public utilities and the fire district. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District reviewed the submitted materials and had no comments or concerns regarding those plans. The EVFPD provided their standard condition of approval that all construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2009), the International Building Code (2009) and the Town of Estes Park Codes and Standards. Public Comment Katie Lovell/applicant stated she and her husband were working with the Division of Building Safety to bring the structure into compliance as a residential duplex. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion None. Conditions of Approval 1. 2. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2009), the International Building Code (2009), and the Town of Estes Park Codes and Standards. Property owner will comply with all requirements of the Division of Building Safety to ensure the converted commercial space is safe for habitation as a second dwelling unit. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Town Board of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. AMENDED PLAT AND REZONING REQUEST FOR LOT 5, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant, Paul Pewterbaugh, was requesting to remove the common property line between two illegally subdivided lots, and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall rezone the proposed Lot 5A to RM-Multi-Family Residential. He stated a previous property owner illegally subdivided Lot 5, Sunny Acres Subdivision in the 1980s, and they were subsequently zoned R-2-Two-Famlly Residential and E-l-Estate with the established of the new zone districts in 2000 when the EVDC was adopted. The zoning of the two lots was determined by the uses of the properties at the time. In 2006, and Amended Plat and Rezoning applications were approved for the subject property. However, the applicant failed to record the final plat, therefore nullifying the approved Amended Plat and Rezoning. The current application is essentially a duplicate of the 2006 requests. Planner Gonzales stated the existing lots are sized 0.11 acres (zoned R-2) and 1.06 acres (zoned E-1), making the proposed Lot 5A 1.17 acres, meeting the requirements for minimum lot size in the RM-Multi-Family Residential zone district. The smaller parcel currently contains a duplex which does not meet setback or dimensional requirements, and the larger lot also contains a duplex that does not meet setback requirements on the west side. Planner Gonzales stated the plat was reviewed for grading and site disturbance standards. There are existing gravel drives, and these standards are not applicable at this time. The requirements for adequate public facilities were not triggered with this application. There is a proposed 10-foot utility easement along all property lines, and a new private 10-foot utility and access easement through the center of the property is proposed to be dedicated to allow for utilities and access to properties to the east. Planner Gonzales stated this application is for a corrective rezone. This property would have remained zoned for multi-family residential development with the adoption of the EVDC if the Larimer County Tax Assessor's map had shown this property as one lot containing four units. However, the Larimer county map reflected the 1982 illegal subdivision with one duplex on each of the two parcels. Staff was not aware of the illegal subdivision at the time of the rezoning when the EVDC was adopted in 2000. Planner Gonzales stated the site is located within the Fall River planning area of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which includes a mix of single-family and multi-family development. Although the rezoning request does not align with the Comprehensive Plan, it reflects what is currently built. Staff Findings 1. This Amended Plat application and Rezoning request do not fall within the parameters of staff-level review, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is the recommending body, with the Town Board of Trustees being the decision-making body. 2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing staff, referred to in the staff report, are incorporated as staff findings. 3. Adjusting the common property line and creating one legal lot does not affect the original intent of the subdivision. It would bring the existing property into conformance in regards to lot area dimensions and permitted uses. 4. The rezoning would reflect how the subject area is developed. 5. New utility easements and private access easements on the newly created lot will be recorded with the final plat. Staff recommended approval of the Amended Plat and Rezoning request with conditions of approval listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Gonzales clarified the setback on the west side of the larger lot does not currently meet all setback requirements. However, the amended plat would bring both lots into compliance with setback requirements in the RM-Multi-Family Residential zone district. Public Comment Joe Coop/applicant representative stated a proposed covered entry would extend into the current setback. However, this will be corrected with the amended plat. The applicant was in agreement with the findings and conditions reflected in the staff report. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Aprii 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public comment closed. Condition of Approval 1. Approved Amended Plat shall be submitted for recording within 60 days of Town Board approval of the application. It was moved and seconded (Hiils/Klink) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat and Rezoning to the Town Board of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016-01, LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS, 1665 HIGHWAY 66 Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The request is to develop a 750-person capacity Chuckwagon Dinner and Live Entertainment facility on a five-acre site located at 1665 Spur 66, within the Estes Park town limits. The site is adjacent to the existing Elk Meadow RV Resort. The proposal includes a 17,910 square foot building, 192 space parking lot, widening of Mills Drive on the south of the site, and installation of a right turn lane on Spur 66. The development would occur in three phases over three years, unless funding allows the phasing to be completed sooner. The parcel is zoned k-Accommodations, allowing for higher intensity/higher density projects. The proposed site currently serves as a storage area for the RV Park. Surrounding the site are various land uses including Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) facilities and offices, single-family dwellings, a restaurant/tavern, and an RV park. Mills Drive is currently a 20-foot wide asphalt private drive. Planner Gonzales stated the application was determined to be reviewed as an indoor Entertainment Event, Major. Major entertainment event uses are characterized by activities and structures that attract people to specific (often large-scale) events or shows. Activities are generally of spectator nature. Accessory uses may include restaurants, bars, concessions, parking and maintenance facilities. A Special Review is required for this type of development in the A- Accommodations, CO-Commercial Outlying, and CD-Commercial Downtown zone districts, and requires the applicant to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Planner Gonzales stated the Planning Commission is the recommending body for this application, with the Town Board being the decision-making body. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. Staff received many public comments regarding this application. These comments can be viewed at www.estes.org/currentapplications. Planner Gonzales stated the application complies with the density standards, minimum lot size requirement, building height and setback requirements. Impervious lot coverage allowed is 50%, and this project proposes 15% coverage. The proposed plan complies with the general grading and site disturbance standards. There is currently very little landscaping on the site, and additional landscaping has been proposed to meet or exceed the requirements of the code for a development of this size. Concerning wetlands and stream corridor protection, there are no delineated rivers or streams on or near the subject area. Two potential wetland habitat areas have been identified and conservatively mapped for this application. A formal delineation study will be conducted once the site thaws. The proposal includes an encroachment by 2.6 feet into one of the potential wetland setbacks (50-foot required setback), for which a minor modification would be required, with staff having authority to grant or deny the modification (10% or less). Staff will recommend a condition of approval be the submittal of the Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation results to the Community Development Department for review. A wildlife habitat evaluation and impact analysis was provided and found no critical habitat or threatened/endangered species habitat on the site. The proposed development does not propose any obstructions to critical wildlife movement corridors. Exterior lighting as proposed will comply with the EVDC. The proposal calls for reducing exterior lighting after 10 p.m. Approval of exterior building lighting will be address during the building permit process. Planner Gonzales stated a photometric study will be required during the design of the paved parking lot. Regarding Operational Performance Standards, Planner Gonzales stated the maximum noise level shall not RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 Aprii 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii exceed 55 decibels during the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., with the level being reduced to 50 decibels between the hours of 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. Staff will recommend a condition of approval requiring the applicant to perform a noise level study at the property line prior to the first show in the temporary tent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Off-Street parking and loading requirements were reviewed. A Traffic Impact Study was conducted, and it was determined 200 vehicles would be maximum number of passenger vehicles with an attendance of 750 guests. The applicant has requested additional parking studies during phases one and two to determine a final parking space number. In the meantime, staff reviewed the project considering the full build­ out of 192 parking spaces. The proposed parking area includes handicap-accessible spaces, parking for large buses, and a bicycle rack. Planner Gonzales stated the EVDC has requirements for distances from property lines in regards to loading areas. The applicant will be applying for a variance from this requirement to allow encroachment into the setback for the street-side loading area. Planner Gonzales stated adequate services and facilities are available to serve the proposed development, as follows: • Connection to the existing Upper Thompson Sanitation District sewer system; • Extension of a 12-inch water main and a 20-foot utility easement on the north side of Mills Drive; • Existing overhead electric lines will be buried within the 20-foot utility easement; • On-site stormwater will be handled through streets/curb and gutter, overland flow, catch basins, and in storm sewer pipes; • Estes Valley Fire Protection District provided comments that are referred to in the conditions of approval; • A southbound right-turn lane will be required at the intersection of Spur 66 and Mills Drive as determined by the traffic study, of which there is sufficient Larimer County right-of-way to accommodate such turn lane; • Recommendation of a limited all-way stop sign at the intersection of Larimer County Road 69B and Spur 66 (also known as Hwy 36 and Spur 66 intersection), which would require approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation • Requirement by Public Works for Mills Drive (private drive) be widened to meet local street standards with 45 feet of dedicated right-of-way, 24 feet of asphalt and curb and gutter on both sides up to the entrance of the proposed development. The proposal would dedicate an additional 15 feet on the north side of Mills Drive to be added to the existing 30 feet of right-of-way on the south side of Mills Drive. • The proposal triggers construction of a sidewalk along Mills Drive. The applicant and staff do not feel construction of a sidewalk at this time is reasonable as it would only extend to the property line to the east of this proposed development. Public Works has requested a cost estimate to allow the applicant to provide cash in lieu of the sidewalk construction. • The proposed expansion of Mills drive occurs within the property boundaries of the parcel in question. Planner Gonzales stated the project was reviewed against the guidelines in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the establishment of the Estes Valley Development Code and valley-wide rezoning in 2000, this property was zoned for multi-family use. In 2000, the property was rezoned to A-Accommodations, which allows chuckwagon dinner use with Special Review. Staff found this proposal is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: • The proposed commercial project is in an area that currently allows commercial uses; • The proposed location of the building is setback 240 feet from the east property line along Spur 66; • The proposal greatly reduces the land availability for campground utilization and expansion, and the applicant is interested in possibly subdividing the parcel from the existing campground. Planner Gonzales stated the proposal does not support the Comprehensive Plan guideline that the commercial campground should evolve into housing, as follows: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall • The campground property is roughly 31 acres, and this project would use less than five acres of that total. There is adequate land to re-develop the entire site with various land uses. Planner Gonzales stated staff found the proposed development advances several adopted Community-Wide Policies, including: • Community Design o Construction plans would include light-colored roofing materials o Natural colors for building exteriors o Windows, doors, or other architectural features to provide visual relief o Lighting that is shielded and directed downward • Growth Management o Encourages infill of older core areas to reduce infrastructure costs. The undeveloped portion of this property is considered an infill site. • Mobility & Circulation o Implements access control improvements as development occurs. This proposal would widen Mills Drive and add a right-turn lane. o Encourages movement toward alternative modes of transportation. This proposal would utilize tour buses and the free shuttle system. • Economics o Maintain a unique blend of businesses, resident and visitor, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. The proposal is a business that has history in the Estes Valley. The area would benefit by having power lines placed underground, adding additional landscaping along Mills Drive to buffer between the commercial and residential uses to the south, o Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs. Staff found this project fills a niche in Estes Park for a very popular tourist attraction all across the western United States. o Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate. • Intergovernmental Coordination o The Town and County will encourage redevelopment and infill as a primary tool to create a compact community and to prevent sprawl. The proposal is within the Town limits, and aligns with the community-wide policy. Planner Gonzales reviewed the criteria for Special Review, stating a traffic study was provided, resulting in the determination that Mills Drive should be widened, with the entrance coming off of Mills Drive. This entrance would be required should the property be subdivided. The property owner also requested the separate entrance from the RV Park. The applicant has proposed the hiring of a traffic control officer during peak periods, and contracting with bus tour companies as an alternative mode of transportation. The Town shuttle service has a proposed stop at the site for guest and employee use. Limited employee housing may be provided on site. Environmental impacts, noise impacts, and hours of operation were discussed earlier in the meeting. Other potential impacts include light pollution from headlights, which should be mitigated by the extensive landscape buffer along Mill Drive. The view shed to the north from residents south of Mills Drive will be improved because the area will be cleaned up, power lines will be buried, and Mills Drive will have improved landscaping. Dust from the dirt parking lot will be mitigated prior to events or during high wind events. Planner Gonzales stated officials at RMNP expressed concern about potential air quality issues presented by grilling beef and chicken, and that pollutants from food preparation would enter the Park when the wind blows from east to west. This concern was routed to the Larimer County Health Department, whose opinion was there would be no negative impact requiring an air emissions permit unless the char-broiler or wood- fired cooker exceeded the threshold amount of 17 tons of wood per year. Planner Gonzales stated the minor modification, discussed earlier in the meeting, to allow an encroachment of 2.6 feet into the 50-foot wetland and stream corridor protection buffer/setback is within the authority of staff to grant, and staff approved this minor modification. Another variance for the off-street loading requirement mentioned earlier in the meeting would be heard RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment following the final decision by the Town Board, as required by the EVDC. Planner Gonzales explained the phasing process. For the 2016 season, a temporary use permit has been approved by staff, allowing operation of the dinner and entertainment event in an 8700 square foot tent with 63 tables, a 200 square foot indoor stage, dirt parking lot, installed landscape buffer on Mills Drive, where the entrance would be located. This is the third temporary use permit to be issued in as many years at this location. The biggest change for this year is the entrance coming off of Mills Drive instead of using the Elk Meadow RV Park entrance on Spur 66. Phase 1, planned for 2017 and in addition to the current facilities, would include permanent kitchen and restroom facilities, ADA compliant sidewalks, paved ADA compliant parking spaces, the water main extension and sanitary sewer service line, and a soft-surface trail from the temporary tent to the shuttle stop location on Spur 66. Phase 2, planned for 2018, would include construction of the dining/performance hall (12,200 square feet) being added to the permanent kitchen and restrooms, additional landscape buffer along Mills Drive, and installation of the right- turn lane. Phase 3, planned for 2019, would finish the development with construction of the parking lot (including curb and gutter), storm sewer installation, and parking lot landscaping. Planner Gonzales stated the Planning Commission should consider the entire development in their recommendation to the Town Board. Planner Gonzales stated there has been an extensive amount of public interest in this project, mainly from adjacent property owners. There are concerns about how this project will affect parking at the nearby Rock Inn. He stated the County Engineering Department has determined the parking area in front of the Rock Inn is actually in the County right-of-way, and has not been approved for use as a parking area. Additionally, it was determined that residents living on Mills Drive and parking across the street from their homes are actually parking on the Elk Meadow RV Park's property. Mills Drive is a private road located on the Elk Meadow RV Park property. Staff Findings 1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. 2. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, and the Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Special Review application. Staff recommended approval of the Special Review application with the conditions of approval listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: • The new noise ordinance increases the daytime decibel level from 55 to 80, with quiet time from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. These changes will impact this proposal. • The water main extension was requested by a private citizen. RMNP will also have the option to tie into this extension. This proposal only requires a small segment to be connected to the Town water system. • A limited stop sign means not permanent, and either way it would have to be approved by CDOT. It would be in effect for certain hours. • Is there a possibility that Mills Drive could become a town street? (Public Works would need to discuss this with the property owner). • There was brief discussion regarding a second ingress/egress to the proposed parking lot. The temporary use permit allows for the entrance to be on Mills Drive. Previous temporary use permits had the entrance from the Elk Meadow RV Park. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall • There was brief discussion regarding the stormwater discharge. The applicant's representative will discuss this in more detail. • The approved temporary use permit allows 200 people and a maximum of 60 cars in a temporary tent from May 15 through September 30, 2016. • Lessons can be learned from temporary uses regarding traffic, dust, noise, etc. • When the turn lane is installed, only parallel parking in front of the Rock Inn would be allowed. The Rock Inn's parking issue would need to be addressed by the owners of the Rock Inn to the County Engineers. It is not part of the application presented today. Chair Hull called a five-minute recess at 2:56. The meeting reconvened at 3:01. Public Comment Troy Krening/attorney representing applicant addressed the concerns regarding two entrances, stating while only one was required, the applicant would be willing to look into establishing two areas for ingress and egress. The temporary use permit allows for one access point from Mills Drive. He explained there would be two separate business on the property, each having its own specific entrance, and it was never intended to use the Elk Meadow RV Park entrance for the Lazy B's entrance. The peak traffic time for the Elk Meadow RV Park is 5-7 p.m., and if the Spur 66 entrance was used for Lazy B traffic, the two would be competing, which is not considered a workabie solution. At some point, the property owner intends to subdivide the Lazy B portion of the parcel (five acres) from the larger parcel. For the 2016 season, the Lazy B applicant and the property owners have signed a lease agreement to allow the use and operation of this 5-acre proposed deveiopment area. Traffic officers wili be hired by the applicant, with their location to be determined by the police department. Lazy B wili encumber the expense necessary to ensure safe passage to and from Spur 66. According to Mr. Krening, Milis Drive is a private road belonging to the property owners of the parcel proposed to be developed. It has been maintained by RMNP, which has had this unwritten agreement for many years. Mills Drive is vital to RMNP, as the headquarters and operational buildings are located off of Mills Drive (and can also be accessed from Hwy 36.) There was discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Krening regarding exterior lighting in the parking area and whether or not it would be turned off when not in use. There was discussion between the Commissioners and staff regarding hours of operation, and whether or not a condition of approval could be placed limiting the hours and extent of the operation. Michelle Oliver/applicant stated she is a full-time resident of Estes Park, whose desire is to carry on the western heritage tradition of a chuckwagon dinner theater in the Estes Valley. The proposed development was modeled after the chuckwagon dinner theater by the same name that operated in Estes Park for more than 40 years. The operation will be a family-oriented early evening event, held seven nights a week from May through October, once the permanent building is in place. Addressing earlier comments, she stated the lights could be turned off when the building is not in use. If financing allows, she would hope to complete the phasing earlier than planned. She is seeking support from the Town of Estes Park to allow economic growth in the community. Ms. Oliver stated she held two public meetings to address concerns with those that attended. She initially offered an area for the Rock Inn customers to park, and has a few other unexplored parking ideas, but nothing has been completely resolved. Ms. Oliver stated she initially met with the met with two of the owners or managers of the Rock Inn in September, 2015, and also has a trail of several email exchanges between them. She met with Tim Roemer, one of the business partners of the Rock Inn, but has been unsuccessful in attempts to meet with Kerry Egan, the other business partner. Ms. Oliver and Mr. Roemer met with one of the land owners, Randy Jackson, to discuss parking alternatives suggested by Van Horn Engineering that could have provided additional parking for the Rock Inn. Ms. Egan was invited to this meeting, but did not attend, so no decisions were made. Ms. Oliver stated it was made known at that meeting that Ms. Egan would not be willing to look at any of the parking proposals. Regarding the concern regarding air pollution from cooking, Ms. Oliver stated they are hoping to smoke their meat, but grilling was also an option they would consider. She will comply with whatever the health department requires. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 10 Celine LeBeau/project leader from Van Horn Engineering explained the parking situation for the Rock Inn, stating their customers are parking on the Rock Inn property, but are backing out of the spaces into the right-of-way where the turn lane is proposed. There was brief discussion about whether or not the parked cars at the Rock Inn would extend into the turn lane, and whether the proposed situation would be any different than other nonconforming parking lots in Estes Park. Ms. LeBeau stated the proposed plan does not include curb and gutter, which would allow parallel parking in front of the Rock Inn. She stated curb and gutter is typically required. The intersection of Mills Drive and Spur 66 would be slightly altered, with the road being moved to the south to meet the grading standards. She stated an effort was made to mitigate adverse impacts for the neighbor's parking area on Mills Drive by adjusting the location of the improved drive. She reminded the Commission that Mills Drive is actually on Elk Meadow RV Park's property. Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering clarified drainage questions by stating the existing pond is on private property. The depth has been measured and has the capacity for water quality purposes and stormwater detention and runoff. Matt Delich/traffic engineer was available to answer questions. He developed traffic forecasts for the area, stating the heaviest traffic would be between 5-6 p.m., due to traffic coming into town from RMNP at that time of day. He anticipated traffic delays at Highway 36 and Spur 66 coming from town heading to destinations on Spur 66. He explained the grading scale or level of service, with "A" being best and "F" being worst. Grades are determined by the amount of vehicle delay. An acceptable level of service is a "C" or better. "D" grades are tolerated in cities larger than Estes Park. Mr. Delich stated a level of service "E" would be present at that intersection from 5-6 p.m. during the high tourist season. One way to mitigate this "event condition" would be manual traffic control, or a temporary stop sign on Hwy 36. The functionality would be similar to a four way stop. Adding a temporary stop sign or using a manual traffic control system would improve the level of service to "C". Chair Hull provided some parameters for public comment, which will be limited to three minutes. She reminded those in attendance that audience reactions are not appropriate. Tony Goss/County resident stated the traffic at the intersection of Highway 36 and Spur 66 is bad. Ron Thomas/Town resident stated the plans posted on the Town website were not readable. He questioned the location of the property corners and the validity of the schematic maps. He disagreed with the survey completed by Van Horn, based on the legal description. He wanted to know the exact legal boundaries of the rights-of-way. He questioned whether the right-of-way was purchased by the County, and thought there should be documentation stating such. He suggested the applicant have their plans redone and resubmitted correctly. Jay Vetter/County resident stated his front porch will be approximately 100 feet from the front of the building. He is opposed to the development. He stated the public comments were mostly opposed to the project, relating concerns about parking and noise. He was concerned that he received incorrect information from staff regarding the Spur 66 Management Plan. He did not think the proposed project complied with the Spur 66 Management Plan or the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. He asked the Commission to consider an alternate entrance other than Mills Drive. He questioned the validity of the temporary use permit and the Spur 66 Management Plan, and wondered if staff had reviewed everything requiring review. He thought there should be conditions of approval for exterior lighting, dust mitigation, etc. Mr. Vetter was not confident a shuttle stop at the proposed location was realistic. Mike Egan/County resident stated he was a part-owner of the Rock Inn and an adjacent residential rental property. He was concerned about the proposed turn lane, stating it would eliminate 16 parking spaces at the Rock Inn. He felt his concerns have been ignored, as have those concerns of others. He disagreed with the classification of this project as an "accessory use" for RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall the RV Park. He suggested the Commission evaluate the impact the project will have on adjacent properties, as required by both the EVDC and the State Highway Access Code. Mr. Egan stated if this project is approved, it would be surrounded by people that are opposed to it. Mark Donahue/County resident stated the Town Board, as the decision-making body for this project, would be making a decision affecting adjacent property owners that live outside the Town limits. Those opposed are locals that would have to deal with this business on a daily basis. As a long-time local resident, he was opposed to additional development in Estes Park that would bring in more tourists. This proposal would not be a fair and equitable outcome for everyone. He thought the Rock Inn should be gifted some parking areas to make up for parking spaces being lost. Tim Roemer/business partner at the Rock Inn disputed whether alternative parking solutions were suggested by Van Horn Engineering. He stated there was a brief discussion with Randy Jackson about the small area between the Rock Inn and the proposed location of the Lazy B. Colt Weber/County resident was concerned about the risks imposed to the public with the proposed turn lane and additional traffic. He is visually impaired, and the improvements proposed on Mills Drive and Spur 66 would make it more dangerous for him to get around without assistance, as he does now. He stated that due to the removal of the parking spaces in front of the Rock Inn, people will be parking along Mills Drive, which will make the area more dangerous for pedestrians, thereby bringing the traffic on Mills Drive to an unreasonable level. John Vernon/County resident was on the board that created the Spur 66 Management Plan, and to his knowledge it was not obsolete. Planner Gonzales stated the plan was recognized by the Planning Commission and County Commissioners, but was not a formally adopted plan. Mr. Vernon stated there were several reasons commercial businesses were discouraged near the intersection of Highway 36 and Spur 66; the close proximity to RMNP, the congestion at Beaver Point (Moraine Avenue & Marys Lake Road), etc. This proposed development would create a bottleneck that could not be mitigated with traffic control. He was opposed to the project. Ann Vernon/County resident stated she has worked with the YMCA of the Rockies and Federal land developers to keep open space in their area, since it is close to RMNP. She was supportive of the success of the Rock Inn and was concerned about a larger project going in nearby. She recommended the Planning Commissioners not allow the entrance on Mills Drive, but instead use the Elk Meadow RV Resort entrance. She was opposed to the project being so close to RMNP. She stated the Mills Drive entrance is the reasoning behind a lot of the anger with this project. She thought there would be too much noise for the campground, residents of the High Drive area, etc. She was opposed to the project. Sherrie Durris/County resident commented on the wildlife study, stating Mills Drive has a lot of wildlife, including bear, deer, bobcat, weasel, and elk. She was concerned about the noise, light pollution, traffic, impact on wildlife, etc. She wondered if the Commissioners would be in favor of this if it were in their backyard. Jill Schladweiler/County resident stated she lives on Mills Drive and is part of Estes Park's working class. She stated if Mills drive was going to be widened, a sidewalk should be required, and thinks the food at the Lazy B will attract bears. She was concerned about what would happen to the property if the business did not succeed. She is not opposed to growth and understands Estes Park is a tourist town, but she needs to believe in where she lives in order to stay. She was opposed to the project. Jenna Melissa/County resident stated tourists that do not understand the environmental impacts to wildlife will have a negative impact on the area. She caters to visitors to Estes Park that come to enjoy the open space. She was concerned about the traffic delays at the intersection of Highway 36 and Spur 66, and how it could impact her business as a fly fishing and hiking guide. She stated the light pollution could attract bugs that would not normally be in the area, impacting RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Aprii 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 12 the aquatic wildlife. She was concerned about whether the business would be successful, when there are several other events in Estes Park that are offered at no charge. Deborah VanTaessel/ County resident understands the impact that tourists have on traffic in the area of the proposed project. She was concerned about the possibility of the population living on Spur 66 needing to be evacuated due to an emergency. She stated she did not know about the project until just a few days ago, and thought there should be more publicity about it. She was opposed to the project. Susan Wolfe/County resident was concerned about the air pollution from tour busses, meat smokers, etc. She was concerned about attracting bears to the area. If the pond is a natural pond, she would be concerned about it being used for stormwater runoff. Public comment closed. Commissioner and Staff Discussion Addressing Mr. Thomas' concern about inaccurate survey information. Commission Klink requested Lonnie Sheldon to explain. Mr. Sheldon stated the surveys meet state statutes, and the right-of-way information was found in the title search. Mr. Sheldon would like to meet with Mr. Thomas to resolve any disputes. Regarding the temporary use permit. Planner Gonzales stated staff has the authority to approve temporary use permits, and can limit the use to what is appropriate. The temporary use permit for the Lazy B allows operation from May 15, 2016 to September 30, 2016. The temporary use is not part of Phase 1, and is not part of the application presented today. There was discussion regarding Estes Park traffic in general, and who was accountable for making it work properly. Comments included but were not limited to: why is there not already a light at that intersection?; CDOT should not have allowed the creation of that intersection the way it is; a condition of approval could be to have the temporary stop sign at that intersection; whether or not a temporary stop sign would be required is determined by CDOT; traffic is a concern from the majority of the people that commented today; there is no easy answer. Kevin Ash/Town engineer stated the Town recently received authorization from the Town Board to apply for a grant to make improvements around the intersection of Moraine and Marys Lake Road. He stated there are steps being put into place to be proactive with making improvements to the Moraine Avenue corridor, which would directly impact the area being discussed. Commissioner Schneider expressed his concern about parking availability for the Rock Inn, and the desire to see more discussion between the applicant, the owners of the Rock Inn, and others heavily impacted by the proposed project to work out a solution. Commissioner Hills agreed. Commissioner White stated the people that spoke today are the workers in Estes Park. The impact on Mills Drive will have a big impact on that neighborhood. She was not a big fan of allowing the tent on a temporary basis. She suggested trying to work with the property owners to have the entrance for Lazy B and the Elk Meadow RV Resort use the same entrance. Commissioner Hull agreed. Planner Gonzales stated whether or not a tent is considered an indoor or outdoor activity was a determination made by staff. Commissioner Klink was concerned about the proposed project being expanded to include additional performances, and the impact it would have on traffic. Commissioner Murphree stated he did not think the Lazy B would add daytime shows, as people that visit the area are typically outside during the day, and past history with the Former Lazy B and the Barleen's evening shows are preferred. He stated the traffic to the area would be from people that are already in town, not additional visitors. He was concerned about bears getting into the tents. He stated this recommendation to the Town Board would be a very difficult one. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Aprii 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 13 Commissioner Moon stated he was disturbed by the lack of willingness between the parties involved to communicate on the issues. There needs to be some consensus on the parking and access issues. The owner and the lessee need to work together to arrive at a solution. The risk to pedestrians as it relates to the increase in traffic and parking is another issue that needs to be worked out. It seems like there is a lot of opportunity for compromise that has been squelched due to the emotions of those involved. Commission Murphree added he thought the parking issue was very fixable, if the parties would communicate and be willing to compromise. He would like to see the application continued to allow additional communication between the parties involved. Town Attorney White stated the applicant has submitted a plan for review, and has a right for the Planning Commission to recommend approval or denial of that plan. It is not in the Commission's purview to recommend ideas that would improve the plan. Placing a condition of approval on the project regarding communication with other parties is not appropriate, as the applicant has no control over a third party. Attorney White stated continuing the meeting is an option, to allow the applicant time to address the concerns presented today. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with affected agency emails and memos: a. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated January 25, 2016 b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 27, 2016 c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 1, 2016 d. Town of Este Park Public Works Department memo dated February 19, 2016 e. Larimer County Engineering emails dated March 2, 2016 & April 6, 2016 2. The applicant shall submit an amended road design plan set addressing the comments from Larimer County Engineering in regards to the right turn lane being extended. 3. The applicant shall amended the development plan set as follows: a. Change 125PPL/Bus to 50PPL/Bus b. Remove installation of right turn from Phase 1 and include in Phase 2 plan c. Under required parking, change 3.5 people/vehicle to 3.75 people/vehicle, per traffic study analysis d. Change required 215 spaced to 200 spaces, per traffic study analysis e. Change water main extension distance from building from 525 feet to 250 feet. 4. Variance approval by the Board of Adjustment is required for off-street loading area location. 5. A noise reading shall be performed prior to the first show in the temporary tent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Noise study results shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. 6. Dust mitigation efforts shall be performed by the applicant as proposed in the Statement of Intent for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dirt parking lot prior to every phone and during high wind storm events. 7. A JWD (Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation) shall be conducted on the site to formally delineate the potential wetland areas. Results shall be submitted to staff prior to the Board of Trustee meeting. 8. Plans for the food service operations shall be approved by the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. A photometric study shall be submitted to staff before construction of the final parking lot design. 10. A 15-foot utility easement shall be recorded separately from the development plan. 11. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. It was moved and seconded (Moon/Hills) to continue the review of the Special Review application to the next meeting, and requesting staff to initiate a discussion with CDOT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 14Estes Valley Planning Commission April 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall regarding the signalization at the intersection of Highway 36 and Spur 66, and the motion passed unanimously. REPORTS 1. Interim Director Cumbo reported the first meeting of the County's Vacation Home Task Force for vacation rentals with occupancies of nine and over will be meeting April 27th from 1-5 p.m. During the joint meeting between the County Commissioners and the Town Trustees, they agreed on most of the regulations except the cap, and because of that no amendments to the current regulations have been finalized. We are currently functioning under the current regulations that have been in effect, and will have additional discussions/study sessions with the new Trustees. Interim Director Cumbo reported the amendments to the EVDC regarding density calculations and employee housing were approved by the Town Board and the County Commission. Interim Director Cumbo reported two candidates for the Community Development Director were interviewed. One was offered the position but declined the offer. The search continues. Interim Director Cumbo reported the vacant Planner position has been posted. Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz reported a public meeting on the technical aspects of how the hydrology study was being conducted was held this morning. The results will be available in June, and another public meeting will be held to announce and discuss the results. Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz reported the US Army Corps of Engineers will be in town the week of May 9th to gather data for a non-structural floodproofing study of the downtown area. There will be a public meeting on May 9th to discuss the process. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. There being no further business. Chair Huli adjourned the meeting at 5:32 P-m- Karen Thompson,<Rer:tSrding Secretary