HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-02-17 ExcerptsRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 1
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree,
Wendye Sykes, Russ Schneider and one vacant position
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Hills, Klink, Murphree, and Schneider
Also Attending: Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk,
Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, and Recording Secretary
Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Sykes
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were nine people in attendance. Each
Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. 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.
EXCERPTS OF THE MINUTES COMPLETED FOR TOWN BOARD MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 2015.
SPECIAL REVIEW 2014‐05, BACKBONE ADVENTURES, 1851 North Lake Avenue
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The application requests approval to operate a scooter,
motorcycle, and jeep rental business at 1851 North Lake Avenue. The applicant is Kenneth Hitch, and
the owner of the proposed location is Vansteenburgh Engineering Laboratory, Inc. The applicant
desires to expand into the southern building on North Lake Avenue. The business, Backbone
Adventure Rentals, is currently operating out of a building adjacent to Coyote Mountain Lodge atr
1360 Big Thompson Avenue. Planner Kleisler stated adjacent lots at the proposed location are zoned
for Accommodations, Commercial and Residential uses. Sombrero Horse Stables are across Dry Gulch
Road to the east, and they use the area immediately to the east of the subject building for overflow
parking. The Lot in question is zoned CO–Commercial Outlying.
Planner Kleisler stated the business is classified as Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals, and is
permitted by Special Review in the CO–Commercial Outlying zone district. Special Review requires
applicants mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses,
public facilities and services, and the environment. The Planning Commission is the recommending
body, with the Town Board making the final decision. This project is on the Town Board agenda for
the February 24, 2015 meeting. Affected agencies and adjacent property owners were notified, and a
legal notice was published in the local newspaper. Staff received one comment from a neighbor
adjacent to the existing location, stating the issues he had with scooters going down his street,
running stop signs, using horns.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant requested minor modifications to three sections in the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC): Section 5.1.R.2, which state the “Front yard setback areas shall be
landscaped to provide a buffer between the right‐of‐way.” Given the existing building location to the
property line and right‐of‐way, there is no space for this landscaping. Staff supports the request given
the site constraints would force any landscaping on to the public right‐of‐way. The second minor
modification request is to Section 7.5.G.3.C.1, which requires that one tree be included in each
landscaped island. Staff supports the plan to not include a tree in the proposed island because it
would interfere with the existing tree and would create site visibility issues near the intersection.
Planner Kleisler stated irrigating the proposed island would be difficult, and there is also an existing
overhead power line nearby.
Planner Kleisler stated staff had some concerns about parking and vehicle circulation. A shared
parking agreement with Sombrero Stables for the area to the east of the project would help with
parking and circulation. The area directly in front of the garage doors would be used for parking, with
wheel stops installed for safety. The existing awning is in public right‐of‐way, and the applicant is
aware it needs to be removed. The building is very close to the southern property line, meaning
parking and landscaping will not be feasible there. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has
requested a minor modification to the minimum parking requirement. A total of nine spaces are
required for the proposed use. The initial request was for eight spaces; however, one of those (the
ADA space) would have been located in the right‐of‐way. Therefore, staff supports allowing the
applicant to have seven spaces in order to be keep the accessible space out of the right‐of‐way.
Planner Kleisler stated staff requested the applicant to address issues such as noise, hours of
operation, and routing details. The applicant submitted documents outlining peak months (March –
October) and hours (8 a.m. – 6 p.m., seven days a week). During off peak months, hours would be 9
a.m. – 5 p.m., seven days a week. The applicant has indicated he would install noise reducers on both
the scooters and motorcycles, when possible. Planner Kleisler stated all vehicle storage would be
inside the building, or screened to comply with the EVDC. At staff’s request, the applicant provided a
very specific (and EVDC compliant) area where rental vehicles would be parked.
Staff Findings
1. The Special Review application complies with EVDC Section 3.5 Standards for Review,
provided that the application is revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval
by staff and affected agencies.
2. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit or commence operation with regard to
the special review use approval within three (3) years of the approval shall automatically
render the decision null and void. Additionally, if the legally established special review use is
abandoned or discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years or more, then the
decision originally approved such special review shall automatically lapse and render the
decision null and void.
3. The requested Minor Modification to Section 4.4.C.4 Density and Dimensional Standards,
regarding the existing structure’s awning that protrudes into the public right‐of‐way, does not
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
advance the goals and purposes of thie Code nor relieves practical difficulties in developing
the site;
4. The requested Minor Modification to landscaping and buffering requirements, as described in
the staff report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site;
5. The requested Minor Modification to minimum parking requirements, as described in the staff
report, relieves practical difficulties in developing the site; and
6. This is a recommendation to the Estes Park Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is the
Decision‐making Body for the proposed Special Review application.
Staff recommended approval with conditions, listed below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Town Attorney White commented the existing business near Coyote Mountain Lodge is legally
nonconforming. If the number of vehicles increased, it would constitute an increase in the
nonconforming use, which would be a code violation and could require the use to be abandoned. He
stated the Planning Commissioners could decide if there should be a maximum number of vehicles at
the proposed site. Commissioner comments included: the number of rental vehicles should be
relative to the number of parking spaces, care should be taken to ensure no one parked in the right‐
of‐way, concern that customers/employees of Sombrero Stables would encroach onto their property;
if the applicant wanted to add more paved parking, they would need to meet the impervious
coverage standards. Planner Kleisler stated an additional condition of approval could be added if the
Commission decided additional signage for no parking areas would be beneficial.
Public Comment
Jes Reetz/Applicant representative stated applicant’s desire was to mitigate impacts as best as
possible with the limitations on the property. Because there is no parking in the front of the building,
they tried to maximize the parking in other areas on the lot. North Lake Avenue can be used by
customers to get a feel of the vehicles, and the landscaping at the back will buffer the business from
the residential properties. A landscaped area on the east corner will help delineate the entryway, and
the applicant hopes to use that area as a display for rental vehicles. Large portable planters are
planned for the south side to discourage customers from parking there, and would be moveable for
Town work in the right‐of‐way. The south side would not be used as a display area.
Kenneth Hitch/business owner stated they now have 6 Jeeps, 4 motorcycles, and are proposing to
bring over some scooters from the other location. He stated there would be approximately 15 total
vehicles, most to be stored indoors. Due to the tight parking issue, there may be times when a
customer will be asked to park their personal vehicle off‐site. A Shared Maintenance Agreement with
Sombrero Stables will allow communication between the two business owners concerning the area
east of the proposed site. Mr. Hitch stated the existing trailer on the site belongs to the property
owner. If it was moved, it would not open up any additional parking spaces.
Public Comment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Todd Jirsa/Town resident was concerned about the scooters at the current location. His concerns
included: concern about mitigating to the maximum extent feasible; disagreement with the “Routing
Past Issues” letter from the applicant; believes there are two separate businesses being run off of one
business license; concerned with scooter drivers not following traffic laws. He showed video of
scooters on Lakefront Street to support his concerns. Mr. Jirsa and Steve Lamar (scooter business
owner) attempted a mediation without success. He understood the public has the right to use the
road, but asked the Commissioners to decide if the issues have been mitigated to the maximum
extent feasible.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Staff and Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: If number of vehicles being
rented is a concern, the Commission can discuss limiting it; is the problem being transferred to
another location; does the Police Department have the ability to enforce the laws; law enforcement is
not a land use issue; you cannot regulate tourists having fun, and tourism is our main industry;
putting limits on the number of rentals is like telling Sombrero Ranch they can only have a certain
number of horses; the proposed location is more commercial; model traffic code violations are
administered by the Police Department; noise baffling devices on all vehicles could be a condition of
approval (if they are made for scooters). Planner Kleisler stated this was the first Special Review
application of this type for the EVDC area. Town Attorney White stated the traffic may be an issue,
but it is an issue with every business. All businesses have an impact on vehicle traffic, and limiting the
use on public roads would be a problem.
Conditions of Approval
1. Revise the site plan to note that the Jeep display area to the west of the building as “Possible
future Jeep display location. This Jeep display requires a setback variance from the Estes
Valley Board of Adjustment”;
2. Amend the site plan to reflect the following:
a. Any additional proposed outdoor display area(s);
b. Add a note stating that vehicle display shall only take place on the subject’s property in
designated areas;
3. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 13, 2015; and
b. Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated January 23, 2015; and
c. Town of Estes Park Public Works memo dated January 30, 2015’
4. The following shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
a. All site improvements shall be installed or guaranteed;
b. Review and approval of the existing septic system by the Larimer County Health
Department; and
c. Written letter shall be submitted to the Community Development Department stating;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
(i). The exact number of rentals that will remain at current business location of 1360 Big
Thompson Avenue. The number of vehicles shall not exceed current land use approval for
the property.
(ii). Acknowledgement that any increase in the number of vehicles at 1360 Big Thompson
Avenue after that point will constitute an increase in the non‐conforming use and
consequently, the use shall be abandoned
5. Recordation of the proposed Share Maintenance Agreement prior to issuance of building
permit or change of use permit; and
6. Should the Shared Maintenance Agreement be revoked, the Applicant shall provide adequate
parking and access to the site.
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of Special Review 2014‐05,
Backbone Adventure Rentals to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by
staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy.
AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MARYS LAKE SUBDIVISION REPLAT, TBD Kiowa Court
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant for this amended development agreement is
Marys Lake Development, Inc., and consultant is CMS Planning and Development (Frank Theis). The
applicant proposes to amend a 2005 Development Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and
Marys Meadow Development Inc. to allow a single‐family dwelling on Lot 7. This lot is located up the
hill to the south of Marys Lake Lodge, is very steep, and several acres in size. James Tawney was the
property owner in 2005, and intended to place a conservation easement on Lot 7. However, the
Estes Valley Land Trust refused to accept the lot into a conservation easement. The current
agreement states that “Lot 7 cannot be developed as a single‐family lot unless the plat and
development agreements are amended.” The applicant is proposing to not amend the plat, but
instead amend the development agreement requirement to amend the plat. There would be several
exhibits attached to the amended development agreement that would outline the lot, show a
building envelope, and also include a site specific survey that details the slope. Planner Shirk stated
the Development Agreement Amendment, if approved, would be recorded and show up during a title
search. This is a way to alert potential buyers of specific requirements for that lot.
Planner Shirk stated staff reviewed the application according to the EVDC zoning standards. Affected
agencies and adjacent property owners (500 foot radius) were notified, and a legal notice was
published in the local newspaper. No providers expressed concern about the proposed amendment
to allow a single‐family residence. As of February 10th, no comments were received from adjacent
property owners. Town Attorney White provided a list of recommended revisions to the agreement,
which are included as suggested conditions of approval.
Planner Shirk stated Lot 7 was originally not intended for development due to the steepness of the
lot. The original intent was open space. Because Lot 7 was not contemplated for development, it was
not reviewed for compliance with the following development standards: Sanitary Sewer Systems,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes, Grading and Site Disturbance, Limits of Disturbance,
Geologic and Wildlife Hazard Areas, Sewage Disposal, Fire Protection, Drainage, Water, Electricity,
and General Site Access. However, it is Attorney White’s legal opinion that the Town must allow at
least one unit on the lot to avoid this being considered a taking of property rights. Planner Shirk
stated, if approved, the lot could be developed with a single‐family dwelling, subject to compliance
with the Estes Valley Development Code. While the preferred access is from the south, there are no
easements in place to allow for that access. The applicant is requesting allowance of a septic system
instead of connecting to the public sewer. According to the Larimer County Health Department, the
criteria for a septic system have been met. Planner Shirk stated the least steep slope on this lot is
35%; any lots with a slope greater than 30% require staff review and approval of a development plan.
Staff would review any proposed dwelling for design, placement, and driveway placement. Wildfire
mitigation would be required, as well as an engineered driveway to ensure proper drainage and
erosion control. As the intent of the applicant is to sell the lot, recording all documents would make
potential purchasers aware of the requirement of a development plan application and review
process, which is not typical for a single‐family dwelling on a residential‐zoned lot.
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, including §3.9.E Subdivision
Standards for Review, §7.1 Slope Protection Standards, §7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance,
§7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection, §7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, and §7.12
Adequate Public Facilities.
2. The site complies with criteria to allow on‐site sewage treatment.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply
with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the amended development
agreement. The Town Board is the Decision‐making Body.
Staff recommended approval with conditions, listed below.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Town Attorney White stated one of the notes on the existing plat of record deals with access, which is
not adequate as it now stands. He suggested adding a statement in the amendment to change the
plat note to read “Access to Lot 7 is currently restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance
agreement.” He would also add “Any other future access requires approved by the Community
Development Department.” Planner Shirk stated the only legal right of access is through Marys Lake
Subdivision. There was discussion as to whether or not an amended plat would be required in
addition to the amendment to the development agreement.
Public Comment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Frank Theis/applicant stated Jim Tawney passed away, and the development is currently owned by
the estate. Mr. Tawney’s daughter will be receiving title to the property within the year. She intends
to sell the property.
Jim Sneary /Town resident was concerned about the decline of property values at the adjacent
Promontory Condominiums, as the open space was one of the selling aspects for the neighborhood.
He was concerned about future development on the lot, in addition to the one single‐family dwelling.
Soil erosion was also a concern – three existing homes have added retaining walls because of
concerns and issues with erosion and runoff. He stated the area could be difficult to engineer due to
the type of soil and rock on the lot.
Public comment closed.
Staff and commission Discussion
Commissioner Schneider expressed concern about ensuring the potential buyers were made aware of
all the conditions. Attorney White clarified the documents would be recorded, and would be included
in the title policy. Commissioner Klink added potential buyers have a certain responsibility to do their
due diligence prior to making a purchase.
Conditions of Approval
1. The development agreement shall be revised as follows:
a. Paragraph 5 there is a typographical error in the Lot 7 description, and an addition. It shall
be corrected as follows:
“…improvements on Lot 7 is shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto. All development on Lot
7 shall be reviewed and comply with all applicable conditions of the Estes Valley
Development Code including, but not limited to:
1) §7.1 slope Protection Standards, including Development Plan Review;
2) §7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance Standards;
3) §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection;
4) §7.7 Geologic and Wildfire Hazards;
6) Appendix D.III General Site Access.
7) Access to Lot 7 is restricted to an unimproved access and maintenance easement.”
b. Paragraph 7 shall be deleted in its entirety.
2. The development agreement shall include an attachment that delineates site contours; the
contours provided for the original preliminary plat may be used to satisfy this requirement.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend approval of the amended development
agreement for Lot 7 of the Marys Lake Replat of Lots 2, 4, 5 and Outlot A, Marys Lake Subdivision,
to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, with a modification to
Condition 1.a.(7), to read: “Access to Lot 7 is currently restricted to an unimproved access and
maintenance easement. Any other future access requires approval of the Community Development
Department.” The motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 8
February 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall