Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-05-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 17, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: 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 Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson 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 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, April 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Moon/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. PORTION OF TRACT B, THE KEEP MINOR LAND DIVISION; ROBISON CABINS DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-03,1220 Griffith Court Planner Gonzales'stated the applicant requested the public hearing be continued ti) the June 21, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Hull stated public comment would be taken, but it would be better to provide the public comment at the June public hearing so those comments could be heard by the applicant. Public Comment Ned Sequin/County resident stated he thought there was going to be a special study session today on this agenda item. Interim Director Cumbo was not aware of a special study session. She stated the application was not fully processed and was not ready to take to a public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to continue Development Plan 2016-03 to the June 21, 2016 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously. 4. SPECIAL REVIEW 2016-01, LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS, 1665 Spur 66 Chair Hull stated this item was continued at the April meeting, at the request of the Planning Commission. Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. Because this meeting was continued, he would not provide the full staff report again. He stated the proposed site is a 5-acre portion of the 30+ acre parcel that currently contains the Elk Meadow RV Park, and is within the town limits. The proposed use is a chuckwagon dinner and live performance in a facility just under 18,000 square feet. 192 parking spaces and landscaping are also part of the development plan. The project would be completed in three phases. The use for this special review is categorized in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) as Indoor Entertainment Event, Major, which is permitted by Special Review as a principal use in the k-Accommodations zone district. At the April meeting, the Commission requested additional information pertaining to the Special Review Development Plan for the chuckwagon dinner and performance facility. Requested information included additional details on the temporary use classification (mainly regarding the tent) and Colorado Department of Transportation's (CDOT) input on the Spur 66 and Highway 36 intersection. The Commission desired to give the applicant additional time to address parking concerns with the adjacent business. Rock Inn Mountain Tavern. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 May 17, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Regarding the tent, Planner Gonzales stated the application proposal falls under the use classification Indoor Entertainment Event, Major. Phase 1 of the proposal includes a temporary tent. The Planning Commission questioned whether or not the use of a temporary tent was considered "indoor." The Estes Valley Fire Protection District and the Town of Estes Park Division of Building Safety classify this tent as a structure. The Division of Building Safety would also require buiiding permits for use of a tent over 180 days. Therefore, staff determined the use would take place within a structure, making it an indoor use. Regarding the Spur 66 & Highway 36 intersection. Planner Gonzales stated CDOT felt the development proposal did not pose a major impact on the overall traffic situation at this location. CDOT commented they are opposed to a four-way stop sign at this intersection at this time. They stated future traffic conditions may warrant reconsidering their position on traffic mitigation at this intersection. Regarding the Rock Inn parking concerns. Planner Gonzales stated the Commissioners can ask the applicant about any discussions that may have occurred. Planner Gonzales provided additional information regarding the temporary use. He stated the Temporary Use Permit was approved in February, 2016, for events occurring from May 15 through September 30, 2016. Operating hours are 5:30 - 8:00 p.m. daily. Staff used the provisions found in the EVDC to allow a Temporary Use Permit for longer than 30 days for this type of use. The approved permit aiiows up to 250 people in the existing lodge building at the RV Park. Planner Gonzales stated this is the third consecutive year the Lazy B has been issued a temporary use permit at this location. Parking associated with the temporary use will occur in the overflow portion of the RV site located along Mills Drive. Temporary use permits are reviewed by staff, and further discussion at this meeting is outside the purview of the Commission. Planner Gonzales invited those with questions to call or visit the Community Development Department. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner White was concerned about possible wildlife issues if the temporary tent was being used for dining. She spoke with Police Chief Kufeld, who told Commissioner White he would like to meet with the applicant to discuss the new wildlife ordinance. Other comments included but were not limited to: (1) The western portion of the existing pond is considered a wetland, which requires a 50-foot setback. The applicant requested a minor modification to encroach 2.6 feet into the wetland setback. Staff approved this minor modification, as the amount of the encroachment was within staff's authority to do so. There is also another wetland area on the site, which has a 50-foot setback and will not be encroached upon. Historically, stormwater has drained into the existing pond, and that will not change. The method the stormwater drains into the pond will be changed to drain through piping rather than sheet flow. The drainage report was approved by Town Engineer Kevin Ash; (2) There were concerns of conflicts in the EVDC's Special Review provisions regarding principal and accessory uses. Under the "indoor use" provision, there are no additional provisions stating it must be an accessory use; therefore, it was interpreted as a principal use permitted by Speciai Review. The EVDC cleariy allows several uses as principal uses unless there are additional regulations. It was suggested the code conflicts be identified and amended to clarify and eliminate unintended consequences on future projects. Public comment Troy Krening/attorney representing applicant stated his assignment was to meet with the owners of the Rock inn. He errored and did not meet at the scheduied time. He took full responsibility for not attending the meeting. Chair Huii stated the Planning Commission is tightly bound by the Estes Valley Development Code. If a person commented at the last meeting, it is not necessary to speak again today, as those comments are a part of the public record. Public comments today will be limited to three minutes. Ed Grueff/county resident stated when the former Lazy B was here, he always took his guests there and it was a positive experience. He has no stake in this application. He offered his RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 May 17, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali volunteer assistance to the applicant to assist with their food service. There are procedures in place for food cleanup and storage to not attract wildlife, including animal-resistant trash containers. He believes this project is an opportunity to get people to invest in the community without having to come up with any more money. He thinks people will stay in Estes Park longer when they have this type of event to attend. He did not think light pollution would be an issue, since it would still be fairly light when the show ended. Food is already being cooked at many of the camp sites in the Elk Meadow RV Park, so he did not see food service as an issue. He has heard many rumors about this project, and was disappointed in the immaturity of many involved against the proposal. Mr. Grueff stated the Lazy B would be good, healthy entertainment for the town and he was supportive of the project. Charley Dickey/town resident stated the Planning Commission decision today would be a testament to the ability to find a balance between property rights of land owners and adjacent property owners and business development in the Estes Valley. He stated it did not appear this issue would be resolved by compromise and the recommendation by the Planning Commission would only satisfy one side. Michelle Oliver and her business partners have the right to use the property as allowed in the EVDC. He had a similar experience with a construction project near his home. Attorneys became involved, and the result was not in favor of the HOA. Another development project at the Elkhorn Lodge did not come to fruition due to local opposition and lack of support. Mr. Dickey conducted an unofficial survey regarding the Lazy B project and submitted the comments received as public comment. Paul Fishman/town resident stated a big issue at last month's meeting was traffic. He stated the developer would not incur the added expense for a turn lane if CDOT or Larimer County didn't require one. The proposed turn lane would be located in a right-of-way area, not on the Rock Inn's property. According to the developer, there are plans to subdivide the property, which would require a Separate entrance off of Mills Drive. The applicant has met the requitements of the EVDC. He supported the project, and encouraged the Commissioners to recommend approval to the Town Board. Alec Hodges/Estes Valley resident stated close attention should be paid to how development is guided in the Estes Valley. He was concerned about wildlife entering the tent, and stated the live music in the tent would violate the codes. He questioned the "indoor use" classification. He stated the local economy could not support a business such as the Lazy B, especially with the proposed performing arts center and the event center at the fairgrounds. However, he was supportive of a sidewalk along Mills drive to reduce risk to pedestrians. He stated although the Lazy B offered to allow Rock Inn patrons to use Lazy B's parking lot before 5:30 and after 8:00, it would not be a workable solution since their busiest time is 5-8 p.m. Ned Sequin/county resident stated traffic coming out of Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) following an afternoon rain shower is very heavy and would create gridlock. He Is not opposed to the project, but does not think the proposed location is the appropriate place. Art Messal/town resident stated he was not associated with the drama or organizations involved in this proposal. He stated this project is in conflict with uses in the /^-Accommodations zone district. He did not agree with the classification as Indoor Entertainment Event, Major. He stated this project was irresponsible, as traffic is already heavy at this time of day. He stated the tourism mentality worked when he was in middle school, but now there is a "tourism at all costs" approach. Mr. Messal stated there is a time period each summer when "Estes is simply full." He was opposed to the type of tourism that affects many and benefits few. He stated this project would lower the quality of life for Estes Park residents. He stated the project does not meet the EVDC requirements, did not comply with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and he was opposed to it. Michelle Hiland/town resident stated she was concerned the zoning regulations had not been interpreted correctly. She was concerned about traffic and the timing of the Lazy B's operating hours. She was concerned about the temporary structure attracting bears. She was opposed to taking away parking from neighboring businesses; however, stated a sidewalk should be built RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 May 17, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali along Mills Drive to increase pedestrian safety. She did not think the benefits of an additional tourist attraction would benefit the area. She was opposed to the project. Marcia Rothschild/town resident stated she was a part of the Barleen family, who ran a similar business in Estes Park for decades. Eventually, the business moved out of Estes Park because it was not sustainable. She was concerned about the success of the proposed Lazy B venture. She stated the Rock Inn was listed as one of the top five historical places to visit in Estes Park. She was opposed to the project and the negative affect it would have on the Rock Inn. Bryan Gillam/Rock Inn business partner stated what friends of the Rock Inn have done or written is not the Rock Inn's responsibility and the Rock Inn has not directly told them what to do; therefore, the Rock Inn cannot be held responsible for those actions. He stated they were willing to listen to the Lazy B, but felt disrespected when Mr. Krening did not attend the meeting and did not apologize. He has begun taking video recordings to be able to set the record straight. He did not think this project fit within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. He was opposed to the project. John Vernon/county resident stated traffic would be a big issue because people would be coming to the Lazy B at the same time many people are leaving RMNP. He stated a commercial enterprise this close to the RMNP boundary was irresponsible. This proposal represents predatory business practices at its worst, meaning it would hurt the historic Rock Inn. He felt the code contradicts itself, and wondered why is staff supporting the project instead of supporting the spirit of the zoning code. Ann Vernon/county resident was disappointed the Lazy B's attorney did not attend the meeting with the owners of the Rock Inn. She was opposed to staff's interpretation of the EVDC relating to zoning. She was doncerned about the crowds, traffic, noise, etc. related to this-proJect.'She stated both the Planning Commissioners and Staff should be unbiased to both the developer and the citizens. She encouraged the developer to find a different location for this project. Mike Bilos/town resident stated he thinks there were more people that signed "the petition" than the number of people that voted in the last election.(NOTE: Petition referred to was submitted by Bryan Gillam, business partner of the Rock Inn.) He was opposed to the project at the proposed location. He thought the Town should consider subsidizing the project at a different location, and it would be in the Town's best interest to help the developer find a different location. Meryl Noyes/county resident stated the widening of Mills Drive will take away the parking space in front of her house. Kaci Yoh/town resident finished Alec Hodges' comments. She was concerned about the intersection of Hwy 66 and Hwy 36, and wondered who the responsible party would be if the intersection was to be rated as "F" by CDOT. She thinks the Town Board and Planning Staff would be responsible for any future intersection rating. She was opposed to a project that would have a negative effect on a year-round business. She thought the media was biased and pushed the big business agenda without considering the quality of life for residents. In the coming years we will have many decisions to make regarding development in Estes Park. Johanna Darden/town resident was concerned that Colorado Parks and Wildlife was not consulted about this proposed development. She stated the review of the proposal shows an unmapped wetlands, and she questioned the qualifications of the person selected to conduct the wetland delineation study. She stated the noise could be disturbing to the campers at Elk Meadow RV Park. Troy Krening/applicant representative stated on May 12, 2016 RMNP provided a comment regarding the project, stating the Park took a neutral stand on the project. There have been comments about the success of the business, which is not in the purview of the Planning Commission. The parking problem at the Rock Inn (parking in the right of way) is not the Lazy B's RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 May 17, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall problem. He stated the town is now aware of the problem at the Rock Inn. Mr. Krening stated Larimer County is requiring the turn lane, not the Lazy B developers. Elk Meadow RV Park (130 spaces) guests will most likely be attending the Lazy B dinner and show, which will reduce the amount of traffic. Mr. Krening reminded the Commissioners that COOT did not see this development proposal as negatively affecting the traffic flow at the intersection of Hwy 36 and Hwy 66pur 66. This proposed project is about whether or not the applicant meets the code and whether or not staff has provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make an informed decision. He encouraged the Commissioners to recommend approval of the proposed project. He stated the viciousness, personal attacks, and disrespect directed to Ms. Oliver and Mr. Jackson are unconscionable. He stated a harmonious relationship between the Lazy B and the Rock Inn will probably not happen, and reminded the Planning Commissioners that a compromise with the Rock inn is not part of the decision being made today. He urged the Commission to recommend approval of the Lazy B project. Public Comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner White stated the Commission cannot base their decisions on community surveys, popularity contests, parking conflicts, or behavior. There were over 250 pages of public comment posted to the Town website and read by the Commissioners. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on whether the applicant mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Commissioner White stated she would not be supportive of this project because she did not think the applicant mitigated those impacts to the maximum extent feasible. She referred to the comment issued by RMNP regarding this project. Estes Park is a gateway communfty to RMNP, and that is the primary reason people visit this area. We heed to'be mindful of the Park and the relationship we have with them. Commissioner Schneider stated he still had concerns regarding the wetland area and potential runoff from the impervious surfaces. He stated the environment we have to protect includes not only the wildlife and vegetation, but also the human environment. Commissioner Hills appreciated all those citizens that provided public comment for and against the project. She had concerns about the traffic and the proposed turn lane. There are other areas in town where people back out from parking spaces directly into traffic. The Rock Inn does not have to be negatively impacted by the turn lane. Overall, her concerns have been addressed. Commissioner Klink stated this recommendation was a difficult one. He stated parking at the Rock Inn does not seem to be a real issue. He was bothered by the impression that it was the government's job to determine if a competitive business moves in next door. Competition is part of running a business. According to the EVDC, the applicant is responsible for mitigating traffic for one-quarter mile (1800 feet) from the proposed site. The intersection discussed today is more than 1800 feet from the site, so the Planning Commission cannot use that intersection as part of their recommendation. He stated the fundamental issue is the interpretation of the zoning code for a project like this. Integrity demands we interpret the code in a balanced manner, and if we error, we error on the side of impacts to our residents and visitors. When the Supreme Court looks as cases, they look at the intent of the people that were writing the code. There are lots of things that conflict. He thinks this application is an accessory use to true accommodations, and he struggles with making a recommendation where he believes the code has been misinterpreted. Commissioner Klink stated if the Commission recommends approval, he would like to see the sidewalk along Mills Drive be required, based on the testimony of public comments. Chair Hull stated the Commission is tightly bound by the parameters of the EVDC. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan is used as a guide. She agreed with Planner Gonzales that there are some gray areas of the EVDC. With that in mind. Accommodations zoning allows for a variety of commercial uses as accessory uses located inside the same structure as the principal use. She quoted from the EVDC, Entertainment Event, Major. She did not see this provision as applying to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 May 17, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall an event that occurs every day in the summer. She would not support the project for these reasons. Commissioners Moon and Murphree had no comments. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Schneider) to recommend disapproval of the Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers Special Review to the Town Board and the motion passed 4-3. Commissioners Schneider, White, Klink, and Hull voted in favor, with Commissioners Hills, Murphree, and Moon opposed. REPORTS 1. Interim Director Cumbo reported the Town hopes to have a contract awarded at the next Town Board meeting for a new consultant for the Downtown Plan. 2. Interim Director Cumbo reported the Voeks Appeal, Boundary Line Adjustment and Rezoning, as well as the Mountain Meadow Final Subdivision Plat were approved at the May 16th County Commission meeting. Planner Gonzales added a fee waiver request for the Voeks Rezoning request was denied by the County Commissioners. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Betty HulH-Chair Karen Thomps^, Recording Secretary