Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-02-17RECORD 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, County Liaison Michael Whitley 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. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, January 6, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 5-0 with one absent and one vacancy. 3. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-04, AT&T MONOPOLE, 1435 Prospect Mountain Drive Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant proposes to install a 100-foot telecommunications monopole to allow antenna additions, new technology and greater cell phone coverage in the Estes Valley. New antennas would provide additional data capacity. The tower would allow two future carriers to co-locate on the tower, helping minimize the overall number of structures on Prospect Mountain. The site is where approximately twelve existing antennas are already located. In summer of 2014, Staff approved a 70-foot tall monopine in approximately the same location as the proposed 100-foot tower. In the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), towers are not allowed. A monopine simulates a pine tree and does a good job of concealing the antenna. It was determined by staff that a 100-foot monopine would be more visible than a monopole of the same height. Officials at Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) agreed with staff. The applicant submitted a photo simulation, which was included in the meeting materials and posted on the Town website. Planner Shirk explained there would be very few changes around the perimeter due to the mountains, but coverage would improve near the base of Prospect Mountain. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Shirk stated a special review requires the application mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No comments were received from adjacent property owners. Planner Shirk stated one of the potential adverse impacts could be a view disruption, and he has been discussing the issue with the officials at RMNP to determine their preferences. A historic resources survey completed, which found no historical or archaeological resources would be affected. Comments provided by the Fire Marshall can be addressed in the building permit process. The Larimer County Commercial Radio Mobile Service regulations are adopted by reference in the EVDC, and states the most preferred alternatives must be used. He briefly reviewed all the criteria used for preferred alternatives. He stated the proposed tower would hold three carriers, eliminating the need for additional towers, and would be camouflaged in a manner appropriate to the site’s context and surrounding environment. He stated the tower must be painted or coated in a color that blends with surrounding buildings and the natural environment. Staff recommends the tower be painted a dark green color to help minimize visual impact. The applicant proposes to leave it unpainted. This issue will need to be discussed by the Planning Commissioners. Planner Shirk stated the applicant will need to comply with all required FCC regulations concerning cell towers. Staff Findings 1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the County Commission for the proposed Special Review application. 2. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. The proposed tower will allow for future antennas to co-locate and help minimize the total number of towers on Prospect Mountain. 4. The proposed monopole satisfies the purpose and intent of a concealed antenna. Staff recommended approval of the Special Review application, with conditions of approval listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion There was brief discussion concerning the spacing requirement in the Larimer County Land Use Code. Staff determined putting the tower close to others would reduce the visual impact. The applicant will need to comply with FCC regulations concerning interference. Public Comment Rick Holpp/applicant and consultant for AT&T Wireless, stated he preferred a dull galvanized color and thinks it would be less visible than dark green. Galvanized metal is dull and non- reflective. Commissioner Schneider suggested the applicant revise the document that states the tower would not be seen from the Stanley Hotel. It was his opinion that it would be seen from that location. Mr. Holpp stated the FAA would not require this tower to be lit. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Alan Fraundorf/Town IT Manager suggested receiving a positive response from the FCC to ensure this proposed tower would not have any effect on the existing towers that are already there (emergency services, etc.). He recommended receiving written approval from the FCC that there would be no impacts to existing antennas. Mr. Holpp stated the FCC regulates the existing frequencies to ensure to interference, and the proposed tower must comply with those regulations. Frank Theis/town resident was concerned the FAA would require a light on top after the project was approved. Planner Shirk stated the application could be continued to allow time to receive confirmation concerning lighting and interference. Commissioner Klink made a motion to continue the application until a written response is received by the FCC and the FAA concerning compliance with their regulations, including but not limited to affirmation that no lighting is required, and there will be no interference with other frequencies. The motion failed to receive a second and died. Town Attorney White stated the FCC and FAA are Federal agencies, and they may not provide letters, or any other communication, especially within 30 days. He suggested requesting information from the applicant concerning those issues. Rick Holpp stated the height limit for requiring lighting of an antenna is 200 feet, and the proposed tower is 100 feet. He stated AT&T is operating a tower now on top of Prospect Mountain with no interference. He assured the Commission of compliance with all rules and regulations. He stated interference is measureable and it is the job of the radio frequency engineers to make it all work. He requested to not continue the application, as the development window is short and time is of the essence. Planner Shirk suggested adding a condition of approval to have the information prior to the County Commission meeting, which is the decision- making body. There was further discussion concerning the final color of the structure, and Mr. Holpp stated the galvanized color is very dull, and would not be very reflective. He encouraged the Commission to allow the galvanized color rather than dark green. Following that discussion, Commissioner Klink withdrew his motion to continue. Conditions of Approval 1. Prior to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioner’s hearing, applicant shall provide letter from a radio frequency engineer verifying that the proposed tower would not interfere with existing structures/antennas, and a written explanation from the applicant referencing the specific FAA regulation concerning the lighting of towers. 2. Tower, antennas, and appurtenant structures and equipment shall be galvanized to minimize reflected light; final color shall be subject to review and approval by Community Development staff. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3. Shall comply with Larimer County Land Use Code Section 16 “Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CRMS) Facilities”, including requirement to allow additional carriers to co-locate and requirement to remove abandoned towers. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend approval of Special Review 2014-04, as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 4. 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. 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, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 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 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 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 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 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; (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. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5. 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, 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 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 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 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. 6. REPORTS A. Planner Kleisler reported on the Comprehensive Plan modernization. Over the last two months, priorities have shifted to flood recovery as well as heavy research on short-term vacation rentals. Staff will likely bring some raw data on economics and transportation to the Commission next month. The economic piece will require a full rewrite. Planner Kleisler will be meeting with DOLA and getting feedback on the economic piece as to where we are thus far, including a population projection. These two sections have been very time consuming. B. Planning Commission Reviews, March, 2015 1. Amendment to an approved Special Review for the Stanley/EPMC Wellness Center. 2. Rezoning and Amended Plat at the Silver Moon Inn. 3. Development Plan at Riverview Pines. 4. Rezoning request for 1650 Avalon Drive C. Town Board 5. A Sign Code consultant will be attending the Town Board Study Session to provide an overview of upcoming sign code revisions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 February 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall D. Board of Appeals 6. Chief Building Official Birchfield is working on the process to adopt the 2015 International Building Codes with Local Amendments. The Board of Appeals is actively involved, as well as other agencies and districts. E. County Commission 7. The County Commissioners are hearing the Hornbein Lot Consolidation application today. Michael Whitley is presenting the staff report. F. Board of Adjustment Reviews 1. Variance request at 1418 Narcissus was continued from February to March. 2. Variance request concerning the containment provision will be heard in March for an applicant who desires to open a beer garden on the slab at the former Park Theatre Mall location. G. Staff Level Reviews 1. Coyote Mountain Lodge Staff Level Development Plan to convert an existing event center building into motel units. H. Flood Recovery - Director Chilcott reported the Town Board unanimously supported the Fall River Master Plan, as did the Fall River Coalition. The Fish Creek Master Plan is still being revised to address the Scott Ponds. Grant applications continue to be submitted to mitigate future flooding in the downtown area. One of the goals is to upsize the bridges to allow the river to hold the potential water volumes. More applications are due in the next couple of months. I. Chair Hull reported she will be participating on the interview team for the Planning Commission vacancy, along with Trustees Phipps and Nelson. A new Commissioner should be on board in March. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:06 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary