Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-06-21RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 21,2016 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 Carrie McCool, 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 15 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 None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes. May 17, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Hills) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Murphree recused himseif from the next agenda item. 3. LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 3, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISIONPLAT, REZONING, & DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-04; 995 Dry Gulch Road & 1950 Red Tail Hawk Drive; Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. She stated the applicant was Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley and Plan De Salud Del Valley. The application is three-fold: (1) request for a minor subdivision of Block 3, Lots 1 & 2, The Neighborhood Subdivision; (2) rezoning of the proposed Lots lA and IB from O-Office to R-l-Residential; (3) a development plan for additional parking for the Salud Clinic on the proposed Lot 2A and two single-famiiy dwellings for affordable housing on the proposed Lots lA and IB. Planner McCool stated The Neighborhood Subdivision was originally platted and approved in 2005, with the intent that housing would be developed to accommodate local affordable housing needs. The Salud Clinic opened in 2006, and mainly serves a low-income population. Portions of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3 have steep slopes, and replatting portions of the site would avoid steep siopes when developing the two residences to be buiit by Habitat for Humanity, whose mission is to work with volunteers and partner families to build efficient modest-sized homes for low-income families. Planner McCool stated the request to rezone the parcels from O-Office to R-1- Residential would place the two proposed single-family dwellings in the correct zone district for their use, while allowing the proposed Salud Clinic parking area to remain in the O-Office zone district. Planner McCool stated the entire application is compliant and consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and meets all the criteria necessary for approval. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. Planner McCool stated one written comment supporting the project was received before the staff report was finalized. Any additional public comments received following the Planning Commission meeting would be posted to the Town website's Current Applications page. Pianner McCool stated the applicant requested a minor modification regarding impervious iot coverage. Per the Estes Valley Development Code, the maximum coverage aliowed is 50%. The applicant proposed 56% lot coverage for proposed Lot 2A. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant this minor modification. Planner McCool stated the current lot coverage for Lot RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 June 21,2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 is 62%; therefore, the proposed development would become increasing compliant with this standard. In considering the minor modification, it would advance the goals and purposes of the EVDC, not exceed the maximum of 25% deviation from the zone district standards, result in less visual impact of parking adjacent to Red Tail Hawk Drive, and relieve practical difficulties in development the site. Regarding grading, the existing slope presents challenges for site design. Efforts have been made to avoid steep slope to the maximum extent feasible. Due to the topography. Planner McCool stated the development plan includes retaining walls on some portions of the site, particularly along the shared driveway for proposed Lots lA and IB. Planner McCool stated the EVDC sets for specific standards landscaping and buffering in areas where commercial and residential are adjacent to one another. These standards are typically met with a natural screen of evergreen trees and shrubs. The applicant has proposed using deciduous trees instead of evergreens, stating this type of tree would provide more sunshine on the south side of the Salud parking area, thus keeping the parking lot clearer of ice and snow in the winter. Not all the trees proposed are on the EVDC's preferred planting list and would provide less screening of the parking area in the winter. Staff set forth some conditions of approval regarding landscaping and screening, and the Commissioners can decide whether or not to apply them to the recommendation to the Town Board. Planner McCool stated the EVDC has specific standards for lighting to ensure it is fully cut off and fixtures are downcast to minimize glare and light trespass. The cut sheets submitted by the applicant were illegible, and staff has added a condition of approval for the applicant to provide some additional and legible information regarding lighting of the parking lot. Planner McCool stated the Salud Clinic parking lot currently has 49 parking spaces. The development plan proposes an additional 29 spaces, with the minimum total required spaces at 47. The higher number proposed is due to documented use as well as the projected visitation as services are expanded. Regarding the driveways for the two proposed single-family lots, a shared driveway is proposed due to the challenges of the steep slopes and lot configuration. A Declaration of Covenant and Restrictions was submitted, and there are some conflicts between that document and the EVDC with regard to the number of parking spaces required for single­ family dwelling units. A condition of approval has been added to ensure the conflict is resolved. The Public Works Department has requested the shared access and maintenance agreement be referenced on the plat prior to recording. Regarding drainage. Planner McCool stated the applicant proposed some private drainage easements. The Public Works Department requested a drainage plan to demonstrate compliance with the 2005 drainage report, as well as to evaluate the new drainage infrastructure. Staff and Commission Discussion There was one comment regarding drainage, and Planner McCool stated the Public Works Department requested additional information to ensure proper drainage of the site. Public Comment Amy Plummer/applicant representative stated the conditions of approval are reasonable and agreed upon by the applicant. She will contact the Public Works Department to get what they need regarding drainage. Plat notes requested will be taken care of. Regarding parking on Habitat for Humanity sites, in the past, neighbors have not wanted to see more than two parking spaces per lot. The covenants were trying to say each lot would have one parking space in the driveway and one under the carport. She stated the covenants will be changed to state there will be two parking spaces for each lot, which will make parking code compliant. The landscaping plan was initially proposed with deciduous trees because of the potential for ice to build up when evergreen trees create shade in the winter. The applicant would prefer to have some deciduous trees on the south side. Ms. Plummer suggested creating more flexibility in the EVDC regarding screening with evergreen trees. The requested lighting sheets have already been submitted to the Community Development Department. Judy Nystrom/Habitat for Humanity Board Member stated she was not pleased with the results of the Habitat community on Halbach Lane. The regulations for the next Habitat project on Kundtz RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 June 21, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Lane were revised and improved to blend in more with the surrounding neighborhood. Affordable housing is badly needed in the Estes Valley, and the families chosen for Habitat houses maintain a long-term relationship with the Habitat board. Bruce Brown/president of Salud Foundation stated the current parking situation at the clinic is grim. There are not enough spaces for the ciients served. A grant was recentiy awarded, which wili aiiow expansion of the services provided at the clinic, and the additional parking spaces would be greatly appreciated. Dennis Berg/resident of Vista Ridge Condominiums was concerned about how Habitat homes in his neighborhood would affect their property values. Other concerns were lack of maintenance and lack of landscaping by homeowners. He was opposed to the project. Joan Oison/resident of Vista Ridge Condominiums was opposed to the rezoning that would allow the Habitat homes, based on the future homeowners and past track records of what happens to the housing, parking, and landscaping with this type of housing. Dennis Sohocki/resident of The Neighborhood was concerned the graphics did not show the reality of the project. He recommended renovation of some of the older homes in the Estes Valey old housing projects instead of aiways building new. He was concerned about a drop in property values in his neighborhood if this project was approved. He was opposed to Habitat homes being built at the proposed location. He stated it was not fair to have a project imposed on them, when they purchased their property knowing it was zoned for office use. He stated there was no shortage of affordable housing in his area. He was opposed to the project. Art Messal/resident of Vista Ridge Condominiums was concerned about the quality and density of the project. He stated the area has very high density, and the impacts of this project would affect many more people than a single-family residential neighborhood. He stated the site was inappropriate for single-famiiy homes, and adding a parking lot would make things worse. He was not happy with past Habitat projects, and objected to every aspect of this project. Dena Sohocki/resident of The Neighborhood was opposed to the zoning change request and thought a zoning change sign should have been posted on the proposed site. She stated there were many neighbors that were not aware of the proposed project. She purchased her property thinking the parcei wouid always remain O-Office zoning. As a voiunteer with Habitat for Humanity in the Denver area, she stated the homes were not high quality and rapidly deteriorated in appearance. She stated the proposed lots are extremely small and narrow and the area would not be safe for families with children. If the project were approved, she recommended allowing only one single-family dwelling. Jenny Page/treasurer of local Habitat for Humanity organization stated the project would comply with landscaping and drainage standards. The covenants will spell out the parking restrictions, and no more than two cars wiii be allowed. Trailers, boats, etc. will not be allowed. She stated this area has the iast existing affordable lots in the vailey that Habitat can build on. Floor plans have not been chosen, as homes are designed to meet the family's needs. She stated the most recently completed Habitat home passed inspection, received a Certificate of Occupancy, and was very well-built. Steve Murphree/Habitat board member was surprised and disappointed by the stigma that people perceive about Habitat homes. The home under construction on Kundtz Lane wouid be a good one to visit in order to gain a better understanding of the materiai and craftsmanship. He is trying to do his part to bring affordabie housing to Estes Park and strongiy doubts the two proposed homes wouid affect property values in the area. He encouraged people with concerns to visit the project on Kundtz Lane (off of Riverside Drive). The homes are well-kept and maintained. He stated these proposed homes would most likely be the last ones in Estes Park, and encouraged the Planning Commission to support the project. He stated all funds have to be raised prior to commencement of construction. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 June 21, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali Dennis Berg returned to the podium to state only two families would be positively affected, and approximately 90 families would potentially be negatively affected. Joanna Barton/resident of Vista Ridge Condominiums stated she was concerned about the safety issue due to the slope of the proposed lots. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Chair Hull stated all Commissioners perform site visits of applications. It was confirmed that notices were sent to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the property and the information was posted on the town website. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. Comments included but were not limited to: concerns about the stabilization of the sloped lot; it seems like a lot of development on a small piece of land; signage is not required on proposed sites of development. Town Attorney White recommended and preferred one vote be taken for the entire project, as it would not make sense to approve the subdivision without approving the rezoning request. There was brief discussion regarding the Commission's decision-making authority on the separate pieces of the project (subdivision, rezoning, development plan). Attorney White reiterated the project should be taken to a single vote as a package rather than separate votes. Planner McCool once again explained the subdivision proposal, which includes an outlet for which the Public Works Department has requested additional information regarding drainage and maintenance. The applicant proposes to revegetate the outlet. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated May 2, 2016; b. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated May 26, 2016; c. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo March 7, 2016. 2. Prior to recordation, a Drainage Plan that demonstrates compliance with the 2005 report shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 3. Prior to recordation, a plat note indicating ownership and maintenance of said drainage easement shall be included on minor subdivision plat. 4. Prior to recordation of the minor subdivision plat, the Declaration of Covenant and Restrictions shall be revised to ensure conformance with the town parking regulations. 5. Prior to recordation, a plat note shall be included on the plat that references the shared access and maintenance agreement between lots lA and IB. 6. Prior to development plan approval, a revised landscape plan demonstrating conformance with §7.5, Subsection F, "Landscaping and Buffering" of the EVDC shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 7. Prior to development plan approval, lighting cutsheets and lighting pole details shall be included on the Development Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department. It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to recommend approval of the subdivision plat to the Town Board with the findings and recommended by staff and the motion passed 6-0 with Murphree recused. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Hull) to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Town Board, to rezone proposed Lots lA and IB from O-Office to R-1—Residential with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion failed 3-3. Commissioners Schneider, Hills, and Hull voted in favor. Commissioners White, Klink, and Moon voted against. Commissioner Murphree recused. The motion failed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 June 21, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail Attorney White stated because the rezoning motion failed, the development plan cannot be considered for a vote. A recommendation of approval was needed in order for the development plan to move forward. Single-family residential dwellings are not allowed in O-Office zone districts. 4. REPORTS A. Interim Director Cumbo reported the County Commissioners approved a Supplemental Condominium Map at Wonderview Condominiums B. Downtown Plan Update - Interim Director Cumbo reported staff met with the #2 finalist for the Downtown Plan. This consultant revised their scope of services with a significant increase in cost. The proposal is still under review and an agreement has yet to be agreed upon. This is tentatively set for action by the Town Board on July 26, 2016. C. Floodplain Mapping Update - Environmental Planner Kurtz reported a public meeting will be held at 10 a.m. on August 24, 2016 to announce the results of the recent hydrology study. The State has hired AECOM to conduct the floodplain mapping, and the downtown area should be completed in October. The Silver Jackets group will use that information to complete their report, hopefully in February, 2017. Other areas in the Estes Valley will be studied this spring and a public process will occur regarding the new floodplain maps. A tentative FEMA adoption date is 2020, which is when flood insurance requirements would commence. The process with FEMA is very extensive and time-consuming and the public will be included and have appeal rights. D. Interim Director Cumbo stated interviews for a new Community Development Director were conducted yesterday and she was optimistic a new director would be hired soon. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:41 p.m. Betty Hulilthair (aren Thdmps^,^cording Secretary