Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-07-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Aiso 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 Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Carrie McCool, Senior Planner Alison Chilcott, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson, and Town Trustee Walker Absent:None Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately eight 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. Chair Hull welcomed Director Hunt, who comes to Estes Park from Laramie, Wyoming, where he served the City as the Community Development Director. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Johanna Darden/Town resident suggested the Commissioners consider making sure a developer has all funds available to take a project to completion prior to approving the projects. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, June 21,2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 650 COMMUNITY DRIVE; ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER LOCATION & EXTENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-06 & MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT Tom Carosello/Executive Director of the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District (EVRPD) presented the application. The owner's representative. Chuck Jordan, was in attendance, along with Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Engineer David Bangs. He stated this project comes about as the result of a ballot item passed in November of 2015. The development review is for an approximate 65,000 square foot multi-generational community center on approximately 6 49 acres. The site is being conveyed to the EVRPD from the Estes Park School District. Since the election, consultants and architects were hired, and they have been in collaboration with Town and School District staff on designing the facility. The original square-foot cost of the center was approximately $290. The current costs are $412 per square foot, which has forced the EVRPD to put limitations on the original designs. The EVRPD will be staying within their budget to construct the proposed community center. Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The site is located on the Estes Park Schools campus, surrounded by Stanley Park. The entire site is 43.5 areas. The applicant would like to create two lots to accommodate the proposed community center and the existing school building site. Proposed Lot 1 would accommodate the existing schools (37.86 acres), and Lot 2 would accommodate the Community Center (6.49 acres). Access to the site is from Manford Avenue and Community Drive. This is a Location and Extent Development Plan review, which gives the Commissioners the location and scope of the development plan. Key review criteria is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Additionally, a Minor Subdivision Plat is requested to create two parcels of record from one existing parcel. Staff and the applicant have worked closely together to work through issues. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. All agency comments have been addressed by the applicant and can be taken care of during the building permit process. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner McCool stated there are three key issues: • Maximum lot coverage, where 71.7% is proposed, and the maximum allowed is 65%. The applicant is requesting a minor modification from the EVDC to allow the 71.7%. The Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) has the authority to grant a minor modification to allow the proposed increase in lot coverage percentage. The Commission must find that the modification advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC, or relieve some practical difficulty in deveioping the site. Staff finds that aliowing the 6.7% over the allowable limit would relieve difficulties and promote a more environmentaily sustainable project. Planner McCool stated there were many design challenges, including but not limited to incorporating the existing aquatic facility into the design of the structure. • Building site, orientation, and materials requirements, where the applicant is requesting a minor modification to allow the main entrance of the community center front Manford Avenue. The EVDC requires the main entrance of all buildings in the CO-Commercial Outlying zone district be oriented to the front property line and to the maximum extent feasible long, flat or blank walls facing the street should be avoided. The front property line is along Community Drive, and the applicant prefers the main entrance front Manford Avenue. The applicant has proposed enhanced treatment to the building along Community Drive which would result in less visual impact (building materials, fagade changes, windows, etc.). The existing aquatic center does not front Community Drive. • Screening and minimizing visual impact of rooftop mechanical equipment. The applicant mentioned design changes throughout the review process, and the final design for the rooftop mechanical equipment and screening of such has not been finalized. The applicant requested to defer that submittal to a later date to be determined. Therefore, staff has included a condition of approval for the rooftop screening. Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-wide policies, including community design, growth management, mobility and circulation, as weil as economics.' Planner McCool discussed the subdivision design standards. The EVDC states sidewalks on both sides of the street may be required if it is determined there are significant pedestrian uses, unless there are unusual topographical conditions. Sidewalks in this area get heavy use, as the schools are located nearby. It was important to look at code requirements and design challenges and how the applicant has addressed those challenges. The Commissioners can determine if sidewalks are required on both sides. The application has proposed sidewalks along Community Drive, but not on Manford Avenue. There are crosswaiks directing pedestrian traffic to the north side of Manford Avenue, where sidewalks already exist. Planner McCool stated the drainage structure is proposed for the northwest corner of the site along Community Drive, which limits space for a sidewalk on Manford Avenue. The applicant is requesting more internal parking lot configurations to provide pedestrian access. Again, the design challenges of incorporating the existing aquatic center make it unfeasible to construct a sidewalk along Manford. Planner McCool stated adequate public services and facilities are available to serve the development. Approval of the minor subdivision would not be detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other properties in the neighborhood, nor in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the EVDC. Planner McCool stated staff is recommending approval of the Location and Extent Development Plan, with the condition regarding the rooftop screening of mechanical equipment. Staff is requesting the condition be met within 30 days of the Planning Commission decision. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Moon was concerned about the sidewalk issue. As a member of the Police Auxiliary Unit, he assists students crossing the streets and is concerned for their safety. He stated a better effort should have been made to relocate the detention pond in order to create sidewalks on Manford Avenue. Applicant and Staff Discussion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall David Bangs/applicant engineer stated there are three main connection points to the existing public infrastructure: (1) on the west side of the proposed community center that crosses at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Community Drive, where an upgraded crosswalk will be constructed; (2) at the northwest corner of the site which crosses Manford Avenue to existing sidewalk on the north side, heading west; (3) to the east, existing connections with the schools will be improved along the north side of Manford Avenue. The applicant feels these measures are adequate to getting pedestrians to existing sidewalks. There is no sidewalk proposed along the south side of Manford Avenue. The improved crosswalk at Graves Avenue and Community Drive will make the crosswalks line up perpendicular with the intersection, rather than the current angled design. Vehicular congestion will be greatly reduced with the reconfiguration of vehicle access routes. Mr. Bangs stated it would not be practical to relocate the drainage structure as there is a large vault in that area containing the mechanical equipment for the school's sprinkler systems. Commissioner Hills stated the peak traffic time for the community center will be between 5:30 and 9 a.m., which is the same time students will be arriving to the schools. Many residents visit the existing health clubs during these early morning hours. She, too, was concerned about student safety as it related to sidewalks and traffic. Mr. Bangs stated the traffic study conducted by Delich Associates was valid and credible. Commissioner Klink stated the EVDC requires sidewalks and trails in places where there is very little pedestrian traffic, and now they are being asked to waive the standard for sidewalks in a very high traffic area. Chuck Jordan/project architect explained the school district has been a part of the design process, and did not request a sidewalk be placed on the south side of Manford Avenue. Commissioner Moon stated the situation at Graves and Community Drive would be much better, but thought asking students to cross an intersection twice is not acceptable when the addition of a sidewalk would eliminate one of the crossings. Other Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: concern that the ballot stated the proposed community center could be used as an evacuation center during emergencies, but would be deficient in that area with the current plans to have only a caterer's kitchen; while a commercial kitchen is not part of the current plan, there are commercial kitchens located within the schools; impervious coverage is less than originally planned because the footprint has been slightly reduced, and some landscape islands in the parking lots have been redesigned to increase the amount of parking available; the development review pertains to the footprint of the building and the minor subdivision plat, not the specific uses of the proposed building. Mr. Bangs requested to reserve the right to provide closing comments, if needed. Public Comment Johanna Darden/Town resident stated the project does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan or the needs of the community. What was presented to the community prior to the vote for the bond IS quite different than what is being proposed. A community center should be more than a recreation center. The senior center services that were proposed earlier have been reduced. She attended many meetings regarding this community center, and the current proposal is nothing like what the people voted for. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Hills reiterated her concern regarding the vehicle traffic early in the morning, and the safety concern for students. She was in favor of requiring sidewalks along Manford Avenue. It y^s moved (White) to continue the application to allow the applicant time to work on the traffic and sidewalk issues. The motion did not receive a second. Director Carosello stated the sidewalk could be worked in to the design without continuing the meeting and delaying the EVPC decision. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Town Attorney White stated conditions could be placed regarding sidewalks and parking. The applicant is under a very fast track and is up against some very tight deadlines. If the review of the application is continued there is a very good chance the project would die. Staff Findings 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development, if revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval. If revised to comply with the recommended condition of approval, the applications will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. The requested Minor Modification to Maximum Lot Coverage requirements in §4.4, Table 4-5 of the EVDC relieves practical difficulties in developing the site. 5. The requested Minor Modification to the Building Orientation requirement in §4.4D, Additional Zoning District Standards of the EVDC relieves practical difficulties in developing the site and results in less visual impact while ensuring the character of the area is maintained. 6. Approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the Location and Extent Development Plan and the Recommending Body for the Minor Subdivision Plat application. Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Minor Subdivision Plat application. 2. 3. 4. 7. 8. 2. Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall submit an amended Elevation Plan that identifies the final location of rooftop mechanical equipment and screening pursuant to EVDC §7.13 within thirty (30) days of Planning Commission approval. The applicant shall install sidewalks on the south side of Manford Avenue from the intersection of Community Drive and Manford Avenue at the east end, to the intersection of Community Drive and Manford Avenue at the west end of the property. It was moved and seconded (Moon/Schneider) to recommend approval with the findings and condition recommended by staff, with the addition of Condition #2 by the Commission and the motion passed 6-1 with Chair Hull voting against. Commissioner comments included: most traffic will be between 5:30 and 9 a.m.; adding the sidewalk would reduce the number of crossings required from the middle and high schools from three to one; eliminating multiple crossings would improve student safety. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING CONCURRENT REVIEW - TIMING OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVIEW Senior Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated in 2014 the Town Board and County Commission amended the EVDC to require that in all cases, variance approvals must be the last entitlement approval obtained. Specifically, the code states "The Community Development Director shall require that BOA review occur after final action on related development applications by the Decision-Making Body..." This amendment was put in place in direct response to a specific development application. At that time. Trustees directed staff to revisit the code amendment during the next 18-24 months. In that time. Staff has found the code amendment to have more disadvantages than advantages. Specifically, the requirement creates longer review times for non-complex or non-controversial projects. For complex projects, there is additional financial burden on the applicant for engineering and design expenses that could be reduced if the BOA review occurred earlier on in the review process. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Senior Planner Chilcott stated staff recommends the current code be revised to allow the applicant to request a particular processing schedule for their application, and for the Community Development Director to have the authority to review and approved said schedule. This would provide more flexibility for the Director in regards to scheduling application reviews. This direction was brought forward at the direction Interim Director Karen Cumbo. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to both the Town Board and County Commission. Staff and Commission Discussion There was discussion about whether certain application processes could be circumvented if this code amendment passed. There was additional discussion about the definition of "concurrent". It was stated there are considerable costs involved in the design of projects, and if the BOA is the last of the review processes and the variance is denied, the applicant would have spent a significant amount on the project without a positive outcome. If the BOA could be one of first to review the project, those expenses could be minimized. Other comments included: this would be putting the code back the way it was; there is no problem with giving authority to the Community Development Director, but would like to see criteria that defines when the Community Development Director makes the decision for which process. This explanation of authority could be through a written policy. Director Hunt suggested having a known quantity for the applicant, e.g. a standard process with a calendar that allows the public, staff, and Board members to know if an application is filed on a certain date and is complete, it will reach certain milestones on certain dates. He would like to make sure that is transparent for the public and applicants. A calendar could be provided to Commissioners for review. A situation where this process would be relevant is when a potential buyer has a contract on a property, and the ability to have the variance heard at the beginning of the process would assist in determining whether or not the property could be developed as planned. Commissioner Klink suggested removing the text "whenever possible" from the proposed code language to add clarity to the amendment. Public Comment Johanna Darden/town resident stated the reason the BOA was asked to make their decision after the Planning Commission was for a very good reason, when the proposed performing arts center height variance was being determined. She was uncomfortable with having the BOA being the first decision-making body on a major project. All the facts should be considered on the project. She suggested not making a recommendation on this item today to allow time for additional thought on timing. She stated projects in the Estes Valley tend to be pushed through very fast. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment to the Town Board and County Commission as presented by staff, with the removai of the text "whenever possibie" in addition to the other proposed text deletions and the motion passed unanimousiy. 5. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Planner Chilcott reported the Maxwell Inn and Newberg Residence variances were approved July 12, 2016 B. Estes Park Town Board 1. Planner Chilcott reported the Annexation Request for Mountain Meadow Subdivision was continued to August 9, 2016 to allow staff and the applicant to work out an agreement for phasing the infrastructure improvements. C. Larimer County Board of Commissioners 1. Commissioner White stated the Planning Commissioners received a letter from Town Administrator Lancaster on July 1, 2016 regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). It was brought to the attention of the Larimer County Board of Commissioners that workforce housing was needed due to the anticipated closing of Highway 34 between Loveland and Estes Park. Commissioner Donnelly and Commissioner Johnson did not support pursuing the topic of ADUs at this time. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 July 19, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated there is hope to meet with the County Commissioners to discuss ADUs and workforce housing in regards to the highway closure. There has not been any formal discussion about proposed code amendments. Administrator Lancaster provided advance information to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner White stated she was concerned about the County Commissioner's comments regarding the Housing Summit and ADUs and processes. ATA Machalek stated at some point, there will be a public meeting regarding these items, and they will be noticed so the public is aware of them. Town Board Liaison Ron Norris thanked Commissioner White for bringing up the issue. This is a case where some concurrent review and communication would be prudent, and recommended ATA Machalek provide some background information to Town Trustees in his week-end report to help the Trustees get up to speed on this issue. D. Senior Planner Chilcott reported staff is continuing to work on an agreement with Winter and Associates to perform the Downtown Plan. Staff received a revised scope and budget late last week and will determine how to move forward. E. Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz reported she is now the Floodplain Manager for the Town of Estes Park. Regarding floodplain mapping, we are waiting for peer reviews of the hydrology study to be completed. As of today, no dates have changed. There was brief discussion about how mapping is related to bridge replacement. Ms. Kurtz stated the map creators will base their maps on existing conditions. Any projects taking place after those initial mapping studies can be addressed as needed. Changes can also be made after floodplain maps are formally adopted. The state has control over the mapping process. If approved projects are completed after the mapping is done, changes can be made to the maps to incorporate the changes. Town Attorney White stated the Environmental Assessment for the Loop project included the area from Riverside Drive downstream to Highway 36. This area may be further studied for possible channel widening. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:53 p.m. Betty Hufl^hair Karen Thofn^qfC Recording Secretary