Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-08-16RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hiils, 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, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent:None Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 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, July 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Murphree recused himself for the Habitat for Humanity agenda item. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-04, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY & SALUD CLINIC Carrie McCool reviewed the staff report. The subject property is in the Neighborhood Subdivision, which had the intent to provide affordable housing in the community. The local Salud Clinic is located on the corner of Dry Gulch Road and Red Tail Hawk Drive. This application had three parts: the Rezoning of two lots from O-Office to R-l-Residential; a Minor Subdivision Plat to replat two existing lots to accommodate Lots lA and IB for single-family use, and create Lot 2A to allow for the expansion of the Salud Clinic's parking lot; the Development Plan review scope includes 29 additional spaced in the newly created Salud parking lot, and the plan for the single­ family dwellings. Planner McCool stated a legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. The application was routed to all affected agencies for review and comment. The application being reviewed today is only the Development Plan. On June 21, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended to approve the minor subdivision. This was forwarded to and approved by the Town Board, with one condition. Concerning the motion to rezone the property, the Planning Commission had a tie vote, so the motion failed. Because the rezoning was directly related to the Development Plan, the Planning Commission did not review or act on the Development Plan application at the June meeting. The Town Board heard and approved the Rezoning application, conditional to the approval of the Development Plan by the Planning Commission. Planner McCool stated the applicant requested a minor modification to increase the maximum impervious lot coverage standards from 50% to 56%. Current coverage is 62%. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant the minor modification. Approval of this minor modification would increase compliance with coverage. Due to site challenges with the area, staff supported the minor modification. Regarding the Landscaping and Buffering standard in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Planner McCool stated a buffer is needed due to the very different land uses (Office & Residential) that are adjacent to each other. Staff recommended the dedication of a landscape easement on Lot IB to ensure the installation and maintenance of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii required landscape buffering be the responsibility of the owners of Lot 2A (parking lot). Planner McCool stated the goal for exterior lighting is to ensure any proposed lighting is of the fully cut-off and downcast-type to minimize glare and light trespass. Staff recommended a revision to a note on the Development Plan to ensure complete compliance with the EVDC exterior lighting standards. Planner McCool stated the applicant submitted a Stormwater Management memo, which was required to help understand the new drainage infrastructure with no negative impacts. This memo relates to the 2005 Drainage Plan for The Neighborhood Subdivision. Finally, the Planning Commission must consider compliance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Planner McCool stated there are a number of community-wide policies that would be advanced through this proposed project, including encouraging a variety of housing types and price ranges; encouraging housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community; establishing a link between new development and the provision of affordable housing; and locating and designing buildings to fit the land. Staff Findings 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 3. The minor modification to exceed the maximum lot coverage standards from 50% to 56% on Lot 2A would advance the goals and purposes of this Code, not exceed the maximum of twenty-five percent (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. 4. 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. 5. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the proposed Development Plan. Planner McCool stated staff recommended approval of the Development Plan, with conditions of approval listed below. Public Comment Amy Plummer/project engineer stated the Development Plan complies with the EVDC requirements regarding slope and the distance of the driveway from the intersection. The lot areas are nearly two and one-half size the minimum lot size for the R-l-Residential zone district. All utility mains are already in place, so the limits of disturbance at the site will be minimized. Ms. Plummer explained the density is similar to surrounding areas, and less dense than nearby Vista Ridge. The two proposed single-family dwellings will add an insignificant percentage of new homes in this area regarding traffic and impacts to the neighborhood. There will be a challenge due to the slope; however, architect Steve Lane is very capable of making the houses fit the lot. Also, Habitat for Humanity homes are typically smaller than average. She stated the rezoning of the property to R-1 is a down-zoning, and will most likely have less building than if it would have been used as O-Office. Commissioner Moon prefaced his comments by saying they had nothing to do with Habitat for Humanity. He is a supporter of Habitat for Humanity, and also has confidence in the chosen contractor. He was concerned with the slope and the proposed construction on Lot IB. Ms. Plummer stated homes in the Estes Valley are often built on lots with slope greater than this. The proposed home will be a garden-level style that will contain the drop in slope. Town Engineer Kevin Ash stated there is room for a drainage swale at the northeast corner of the property. The finished floors of the two proposed dwellings are within two feet of each other. He stated the local designers and contractors are very capable of building a home on the sloped lot. Town Attorney White stated if the EVDC standards are met, the lot sizes are correct, and the lots are buildable, it is not in the Planning Commissioner's purview to determine the buildability of a lot. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Sally Brackman/town resident was concerned about the slope of the driveway, and anticipated the residents would be parking on the street during the winter. She was concerned that the proposed homes would not fit in the rest of the neighborhood, as no other homes have carports and sheds. Bruce Brackman/town resident read the Habitat for Humanity Mission statement, and wondered if these two homes would be "decent" as stated in the statement. He did not think all the Planning Commissioners visited the site. Art Messal/town resident stated the process confuses him, and he thinks the development plan was ill-defined. He disagreed that the application complied with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he lives in an "affordable" neighborhood, but was concerned about the density and property values if these two new homes were built. He encouraged the Commissioners to make the property in question designated open space. Joan Knowiton/town resident agreed with Art Messal. Corrine Dyer/town resident thanked the Estes Park Housing Authority for the Vista Ridge development. She was able to discuss the project with Ms. Plummer, and although she understood it, she disagreed with it. She learned the structure and design of the homes are dictated by the families that will be chosen by Habitat for Humanity. The new homes will be deed restricted, and allowed only two cars. Habitat for Humanity encourages neighbors to keep a close eye on each other and speak out if things seem out of hand. She asked the Planning Commission to add a provision for a select few community members of Vista Ridge and The Neighborhood to be allowed to participate in the design process of the new homes, as this would allow them to be involved and accountable for the structures. Ms. Dyer also met with Steve Lane, who stated he would follow the established Habitat for Humanity process. She was concerned that people in her neighborhood would be humiliated again, as they had been following the Town Board meeting where the minor subdivision and rezoning were approved. Dennis Sohaki/town resident appreciated those Commissioners that visited the site. He stated this is not currently a residential lot, and opposed the rezoning. He stated the subject property is a Brownfield Site with underground waste that has not been excavated. He claimed there is risk in the underlying soil and the site is not safe. He was concerned about various safety issues (traffic, slope, underground waste, etc), and was opposed to the project. Deana Sohaki/town resident stated she knew the lot was zoned O-Office, and never imagined two single-family dwellings could be built there. She was told the lots were unbuildable for residential use. She was concerned about parking and the Brownfield Site designation. She stated the Town Trustees were anxious to approve the proposal because it was for affordable housing, and did not think they read the public comment or the Brownfield report. She was opposed to having a Habitat for Humanity project in the proposed location. Patsy Neville/town resident stated she was concerned about the safety of the children that may live in the new homes, as the proposed yard areas were not appropriate for children. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner and Applicant comments included, but were not limited to: Planning staff has had discussions with the Chief Building Official regarding the Brownfield report, and if there were issues, they would be addressed at the time the building permit application was submitted and routed to affected agencies; the main reason the parking lot and residential lots weren't switched is because the lower portion is nearly the same as the existing Salud Clinic parking lot, and the proposed layout helps with the soil containment, as there will be very little grading and the area will be covered with asphalt and become impervious; all the Commissioners visited the site; many of the concerns raised are not in the purview of the Planning Commission; the Planning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission has very specific guidelines they are required to follow; the new minor subdivision will create two new residential lots addressed on Gray Hawk Court; each residential lot will have two parking spaces, and the shared driveway and two carports will be able to accommodate four vehicles; there are other specific limitations in the covenants regarding the number of vehicles at the site. Commissioner Moon requested the vote for the Minor Modification be separate from the vote for the Development Plan. Attorney White stated that would be acceptable. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the following affected agency comment: 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 dated March 7, 2016 2. Prior to recordation of the Development Plan, a Drainage Plan that demonstrates compliance with the 2005 report shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 3. Prior to recordation of the Development Plan, all landscaping shall demonstrate compliance with Section 7.5, Landscaping and Buffers, including the required landscaped buffer consisting of eight (8) evergreen trees and eleven (11) shrubs per every 100 feet of the northern portion of Lot IB shall be included in a landscape easement wherein installation and maintenance of the required landscaping shall be the responsibility of the owners of Lot 2A. 4. Prior to Development Plan approval, the lighting note #7 on Sheet 1 shall be revised to state "All lighting shall comply with the EVDC lighting requirements." It was moved and seconded (Moon /Hills) to approve the Minor Modification to allow lot coverage of 56% for the Development Plan in lieu of the 50% maximum allowed and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Klink) to approve Development Plan 2016-04 with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 4-2 with Commissioners Hull and Moon voting against and Commissioner Murphree recused. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Planner Chilcott stated the objective of the proposed amendment was to revise the EVDC to allow long-term rentals of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to increase the supply of rental housing for the local workforce. During the August 9, 2016 Town Board Study Session, the Trustees directed staff to draft a code amendment to remove the 1.33 multiplier of lot size that currently establishes the minimum lot size for an ADU in residential zone districts. Staff was also directed to draft a code amendment to eliminate the 800 square-foot maximum size for an ADU. Current regulations state an ADU can be no more than 33% of the size of the principal dwelling, or 800 square feet, whichever is less. Finally, the Trustees directed staff to draft a code regarding the regulation of ADUs only within the Town limits, to be adopted if the Larimer County Board of Commissioners did not wish to approve the proposed amendments. Planner Chilcott stated the following questions needed to be addressed by the Planning Commission: (1) Should long-term rental of ADUs be allowed? (2) If allowed, should the provisions sunset? If so, when? (3) Should the minimum lot size and structure size be removed? She stated the Commission can move to recommend approval, continue the discussion, or recommend denial. Staff published a press release regarding this matter and published a legal notice in the local newspaper. The draft regulations were posted on the Town website on August 4th. Public comment is currently being accepted. It is anticipated for the amendment process to last at least three months. Additional information regarding proposed dates, etc., can be viewed in the staff report on the EVDC Proposed Amendments web page. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail Planner Chilcott stated the Town Board Study Session included a discussion on the Housing Study. With the upcoming closure of Highway 34 for flood repairs, housing for employees who commute to Estes Park from the valley will be directly affected. The closure is expected to last from October, 2016 through June, 2017. This proposed amendment could make additional units available for rent for those individuals. Planner Chilcott stated whether or not the long-term rental of ADUs will make a difference is very difficult to quantify. There are very rough estimates of possibly 300 +/- attached ADUs in the Estes Valiey. This number was derived by reviewing the Larimer County Assessor records for single-family dwellings with two or more kitchen sinks. Some of those dwellings may not be available or desired for long-term rentals. She stated ADUs are a small part of a larger issue for workforce housing within the Estes Valley. Public Comment Patricia Newsom/town resident stated the staff report and draft amendment were very confusing. She provided a definition of "zoning." There were parts of Exhibit A she did not understand: Does this apply to ADUs that are contained within one structure or detached units? Does this mean people could rent one bedroom in a home? She requested ciarification as to how many peopie could actually stay in the home and the ADU. She stated zoning of residential lots was eroding away, and thought permanent residents were being placed second behind visitors. She disagreed with the number of housing units needed that was shown in the housing study. Art Messal/town resident stated the biggest issue was rushing this through the process. He stated a strong unified vision for Estes Park is needed. There is very little data, which adds potential problems for neighborhoods that are already suffering. He recommended the Commissioners deny the proposed amendment, or at least continue for additional discussion. Bob Leavitt/county resident stated the complaint basis would be problematic, as this pushes the enforcement on to the neighbors. He encouraged a permit process, similar to short-term rentals. He stated there is a perceived crisis that housing is needed due to the highway closure. He thought the proposed amendment was moving too fast. He wondered whether safety inspections would occur, and whether or not the proposed amendment would include detached ADUs. He was concerned about pressure put on utilities if ADUs were allowed. Home Owner Associations (HOAs) would be forced to use enforcement if their covenants did not allow ADUs. He stated clarification was needed regarding the difference between accessory kitchens and ADUs. He was opposed to the sunset provision. He stated the proposed amendment would definitely affect the Carriage Hills Subdivision. Eric Blackhurst/representative of the Estes Park Housing Authority stated the proposed amendment was not being rushed through, and the Housing Authority has been trying to address workforce housing for years. This just happens to coincide with the pending closure of Highway 34. He stated long-term rentals are for stays longer than 30 days. The vacancy rate of rentals in the Estes Valley is approximately 1%. The Housing Study indicated a need for many units. Historicaliy, Carriage Hills was first deveioped with many homes having attached ADUs, so what is currently being discussed is not unique to today's situation. Other areas in Estes Park were built the same way. He stated workforce housing issues began with the recession in 2007, when construction stopped and workforce employees moved out of the Estes Valley. Mr. Blackhurst stated the Housing Authority desires to help the housing issue along in small increments. There was an amendment earlier this year that allowed employees living in workforce housing to not have to be employed on site in order to live there. The Estes Valley workforce includes retail employees, accommodations employees, etc. He stated the proposed amendment was a reasonable solution for the community. Mary Murphy/county resident stated it is difficult to keep young families in town. The real estate market has high prices that the workforce is unable to afford. If those people leave we will not have a well-rounded community. Fred Mares/town resident stated the Planning Commissioners had an in-depth study session discussion with intelligent questions, and he appreciated that. From the Housing Needs RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Assessment and the Housing Summit, participants prioritized the 11 action items that were recommended in the assessment. ADUs was prioritized as #6. #1 was a strategic plan, #2 was to establish a workforce housing fund. He respectfully disagreed with Director Hunt and Trustee Norris that some data is better than no data. It's difficult to have a comprehensive view of data if the survey is vague. He saw three major issues: (1) Should ADUs be rentable? (2) Should perceived zoning be changed from single-family to duplex? (3) Should the lot size and square footage requirement be changed? He was opposed to deregulating the lot size and square footage requirements. He would support a permit system and safety inspection. What prevents ADUs from becoming short-term rentals? Who keeps the records regarding ADUs? Before decisions are made, a data collection system should be implemented, along with an enforcement/penalty system. If workforce housing during the Highway 34 closure is a true concern, notice could be provided to current vacation home owners that they could rent their homes long-term during the highway closure. Dick Spielman/town resident agreed with Mr. Mares statement regarding the long-term rentability of existing short-term vacation homes, as needed during the highway closure. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Klink was disturbed the Trustees requested staff draft an amendment that included language that would allow the Town and County to work under different regulations regarding ADUs. It is concerning there is no data as to how many units are really available. There is nothing in the draft amendment stating any of these ADUs will go to the workforce and not Just retirees. Until we have a plan in place to guarantee that these units will be rented by workforce, he would have a hard time supporting it. Chair Hull stated she understood Mr. Blackhurst's comments. There are non-workforce residents living at Talons Point and Falcon Ridge. If it is so important to find workforce housing, why are people not in the workforce allowed to live in those places? Commissioner Hills stated she did not feel comfortable in making a decision on something that needs more information. Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Klink. Commissioner Moon stated this conversation is no different than the Vacation Rental discussion. If we require permits for vacation rentals, then ADUs should be permitted, too. Those that are operating illegally need to be brought into compliance. There is a significant enforcement issue that needs to be taken into account before we can amended the code to basically be a duplex community. It was moved and seconded (White/Hills) to continue the proposed code amendment to the September Planning Commission meeting to allow additional public Input and staff time to consider drafting code language to include controlled implementation of the ADU concept, issuance of temporary permits for ADUs, establishment and implementation of an enforcement plan and sunset provision, and to provide additional time for Planning Commission discussion and the motion passed unanimously. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Director Hunt reported the variance application for the Temple residence was continued to the September 13th meeting 2. Director Hunt reported the height variance for the Community Center was approved. We are expecting submittal of construction plans soon. The Inter-Governmental Agreement will be discussed by the Town Board at a meeting in the near future. B. Estes Park Town Board RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii 1. Director Hunt reported the Annexation Request for Mountain Meadow Subdivision was approved August 9, 2016 2. Director Hunt reported the Habitat for Humanity fee waiver request will be addressed at the next Town Board meeting. C. Larimer County Board of Commissioners 1. Director Hunt reported a joint work session is scheduled for August 30, 2016 to discuss the results of the County-led Vacation Rental Task Force. The meeting time has been changed to 8-10 p.m. in order to accommodate County staff's late afternoon meeting with state and federal officials. D. Downtown Plan Update 1. Director Hunt stated there have been some minor challenges, but the Town and the chosen consultant are close to reaching a consensus with the contracted price. E. Floodplain Mapping Update 1. Floodplain Administrator Tina Kurtz reported the public meeting on the hydrology study will be October 26, 2016 from 8-10 a.m. FEMA and one other firm will be conducting peer reviews. The Town Board will have the hydrology study on their study session agenda on October 25th. She reported the Big Thompson study (below Olympus Dam) will be completed around the end of December, 2016. The Big Thompson Coalition will be working on getting a master plan created, which will accelerate the mapping for that area. The rest of the mapping for the Estes Valley will be done Spring, 2017. The area being studied by the Silver Jackets program should be done late this fall. Ms. Kurtz clarified anything below the Olympus Dam is outside the Estes Park Jurisdiction. F. Other 1. Director Hunt reported after four weeks as Director, he has noticed the Estes Valley community has a great level of public participation, and of that he was appreciative. Democracy is a slow process, but it is nice to have a high level of interest and good questions raised by the Commission. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:37 p.m. Be^ Hull, Karen Thomfjs ihg Secretary