Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-03-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes, Russ Schneider, Sharry White Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Hills, Murphree, Schneider, White Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Commissioners Sykes and Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 55 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Sharry White was welcomed as the recent appointee by the Town Board to fill the vacancy on the Commission. 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 A. Approval of minutes, February 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Schneider) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. REZONING REQUEST, LOT 4, TWIN VIEW SUBDIVISION, 1650 Avalon Drive Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicants, Robert Liddell and Cindy Youngland- Liddell, requested to rezone their property from E-Estate to R-2-Two-Family Residential. The property was zoned E-Estate as part of the overall rezoning process with the 1996 adoption of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the property had been zoned for two-family development since at least 1974. The change to E-Estate zoning occurred due to the existing single-family dwelling on the property. Other parcels in the area were kept as two-family zoning because they contained existing duplexes. Planner Shirk stated in 1993, the applicant pulled a building permit for an interior remodel, including a bedroom, toilet, small living area, and kitchenette. The use was designated as mother- in-law living quarters, and did not qualify as an accessory dwelling unit due to the design. Thus, when the rezoning occurred, the home was considered a single-family dwelling. Planner Shirk stated if the rezoning is approved by the Town Board, and the applicant opts to convert this remodeled area into a full dwelling unit, additional utility fees and building permits will be required. Staff is recommending disapproval. Planning Commission is the recommending body, with Town Board being the decision-making body, scheduled to be heard on April 28, 2015. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Compliance with agency comments will be conditions of approval. Staff received three letters of support for the rezoning. Planner Shirk stated according to the Estes Valley Development (EVDC), the rezoning request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Town Board for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria as follows: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Staff Finding: The neighborhood includes a mix of zoning districts. The applicant considers this application a corrective rezoning to restore the previous two-family designation. Staff considered the following in the review for a corrective rezoning: a. The dwelling is a single-family dwelling unit, not a duplex. Building permit applications to convert the dwelling to a duplex were not received; water tap fees for a duplex have RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall not been paid, and the Larimer County Assessor lists the property as a single-family dwelling unit. b. The property was rezoned from R-S residential to E-Estate in 2000, as part of the overall rezoning of the Estes Valley. Because of the single-family dwelling features, this property was assigned a single-family zoning designation. Nearby multi-family or duplex properties were assigned the appropriate multi-family or duplex zoning designations. c. EVDC Section 3.3.B.3 states that 'within one year from the effective date of [the EVDC], any property owner may apply for rezoning on the basis that an error in the original zoning was made.' This one year timeframe expired in 2001. Planner Shirk stated because of these factors, staff did not consider this a corrective rezoning. 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to the EVDC would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; Staff Finding: Based on the small-scale of the rezoning request, staff waived the requirement for a development plan. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved; Staff Finding: Utility providers have not expressed significant concerns about the rezoning request. Upper Thompson Sanitation District noted additional plan investment fees would be required for an additional dwelling unit or conversion of the existing accessory dwelling area into a separate unit. Staff Findings 1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board. 2. The proposed rezoning conflicts with the land use plan described in Chapter 4 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 3. Approval would be in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the EVDC. 4. The request is not a corrective rezoning. 5. Use of the structure as a two-family dwelling, including use of the accessory living area as a vacation home, shall require compliance with applicable building codes. 6. Approval of the rezoning will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. 7. The amendment is not necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. 8. The Town and other relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application is approved. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning. Staff and Commission Discussion None. Public Comment Robert Liddell and Cindy Younglund-Liddell/applicants have lived in the area since the 1950s. The two-family zone district appealed to them when they purchased the property. She stated the remodel included a back entrance. In the winter, they remove "partitions" to open up the mother-in-law quarters as part of the main home, and in the summer they put them up and use the space as a rental. They were unaware of the rezoning until this past summer. She stated she did not receive notice in the mail concerning the rezoning that occurred in 2000. The Liddell's have been using back portion of the home as a rental since 1994. She is requesting the two-family zoning be re-established in order to continue renting the mother-in-law quarters. Johanna Darden/Town resident has known the Liddells since 2006. She stated they have always been very careful, law-abiding citizens, and are an asset to the community. Public Comment closed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Shirk stated if approved, the applicants would be required to pay additional water and sewer fees if they use the mother-in-law quarters as a second dwelling. Additionally, building permits and associated fees would be required to comply with the building codes for a two-family dwelling. Town Attorney White stated the process to adopt the zoning changes began in 1992, with notices being sent to all affected property owners. The mailing lists used were from the Larimer County Tax Assessor's database (still used today). While the system is not perfect, it is the best they have. There were many public meetings and newspaper articles concerning the rezoning, and the public had the opportunity to voice their opinion at that time. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1996, which detailed the land-use planning process used to rezone properties. In late 1999, the Estes Valley Development Code was adopted. Prior to the zoning changes, there were opportunities for property owners of proposed rezonings to meet with Town staff and/or the Mayor to request the zoning not be changed. Additionally, property owners had one year following the zoning changes to challenge the decision. In this case, the Liddells did not come forward to request the zoning remain two-family residential. Staff commented many properties in the immediate area were down-zoned from two family to single­ family, and the Liddell property was not singled out. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with memos from: a. Estes Park Community Development memo dated March 5, 2015 b. Upper Thompson Sanitation District email dated February 20, 2015 c. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated January 27, 2015. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Schneider) to recommend approval to the Town Board of the Rezoning request of Lot 4, Twin View Subdivision with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 4. LOT CONSOLIDATION PLAT AND REZONING REQUEST, Portions of Lots 7, 8, 24, and 25, Block 10, Town of Estes Park, 175 Spruce Drive and an adjacent undeveloped property. Silver Moon Inn Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant proposed to adjust the property line between Mountain Gate Condominiums and the Silver Moon Inn. Both parcels are owned by the applicant. Silver Moon LLC, and have different zoning designations; the Silver Moon property is zoned CD-Commercial Downtown, and the adjacent undeveloped property is zoned RM-Multi- Family Residential. Planner Shirk stated no development is proposed at this time. In order to mitigate potential impact of the rezoning on adjacent properties, the owner has submitted a development agreement that would require Special Review for any development on the portion of Mountain Gate being incorporated in the Silver Moon property. This Special Review would be heard by the Planning Commission, who would make a recommendation to the Town Board for the final decision. Planner Shirk stated the request is to rezone the undeveloped property from RM to CD, then .consolidate the Silver Moon Inn property with the undeveloped property, with a CD zone district. Planner Shirk stated the applicant has mitigated some rockfall to protect the Silver Moon Inn. In the past, rocks have fallen and caused damage and a safety hazard. The undeveloped lot is fairly steep, with quite limited access. Any additional access would require abandonment of one of the entryways into the Silver Moon Inn, and a variance to the EVDC to allow driveway access. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Staff received one letter from the Mountain Gate Condominiums Homeowner Association opposing the rezoning. They had concerns about potential uses. Planner Shirk reminded the Commission of the requirement to go before the Planning Commission for any development proposals. The undeveloped property was previously part of the Mountain Gate Condominiums. Removal of this property still allows Mountain Gate Condominiums to meet the density requirement in the EVDC. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Shirk stated the Standards for Review were as follows: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Staff Finding: In the past, rocks from the cliff behind the Silver Moon Inn have fallen onto the Silver Moon Inn causing damage and a safety hazard. In November 2014, the owner of the Silver Moon Inn purchased the undeveloped portion of the Mountain Gate Condos to facilitate rockfall mitigation. The property owner desires to combine his property into a single parcel. Section 1.7.C specified that zoning district boundaries should be lot lines, and makes no provision for mixed-zoning districts on a lot. 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to the EVDC would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; Staff Finding: Because no development is proposed at this time, staff has waived the requirement for a development plan. The proposed development agreement requiring Special Review will require a development plan for review and approval. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Finding: Utility providers have not expressed any significant concerns about the requested rezoning. Any future development will need to demonstrate compliance with EVDC Section 7.12 Adequate Public Facilities. Staff Findings 1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board. The requested rezoning is generally consistent with the land use plan described in Chapter 4 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. Approval of the amended plat and rezoning 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 amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. The Town and other relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application is approved. 2. 4. 5. 6. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the Lot Consolidation Plat and Rezoning, with conditions listed below. He noted approval will not affect non-conforming uses. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated he had no comments at this time, but would like the opportunity to reply to other public comments. Dan Herlihey/Mountain Gate Condominiums HOA President stated six of the fifteen buildings directly abut and overlook the subject property. There were originally 19 units planned, but the final phase was never developed and the development rights expired. He stated commercial zoning was not appropriate for that parcel, based upon the slope, natural undisturbed nature of the hillside, lack of access, and adjacency of that property to the Mountain Gate residential units and other adjacent residential parcels. If the rezoning request was approved, the HOA requested a restriction to the undeveloped parcel to residential use. This would ease their concerns about the potential for commercial development on that parcel. Rene Krahn/Town resident was concerned about future development on such a steep lot. He agreed with Mr. Herlihe/s comments. Staff and Commission Discussion None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Conditions of Approval 1. The following notes shall be included on the plat: a. Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be considered an addition to, shall become part of, and shall be conveyed together with, each lot as shown. b. Approval of this plat does not affect the nonconformity of any structures. 2. Compliance with memos from: a. Estes Park Community Development memo dated March 5, 2015 b. Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 16, 2015 c. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 20, 2015 d. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated January 29, 2015 It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Lot Consolidation Plat with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hills) to recommend approval of Rezoning from RM- Multi-Family Residential to CD-Commerciai Downtown with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, while limiting development on the currently undeveloped property to only residential use, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 5. ASPIRE WELLNESS COMPLEX AT THE STANLEY; AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-01; TBD Steamer Drive Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant received approval by Town Board of Special Review 2014-01 in February, 2014. The site is Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District, and is zoned A-Accommodations. Stanley Village Shopping Center is located to the south, and public open space is on the west, Stanley Hotel complex to the northwest, and a mix of single-family residential and outlets to the northeast. The original approval included an Accommodations-1 building, a Wellness Center, and the Accommodations-2 building. The original development plan proposed building the Wellness Center and the Accommodations-1 buildings as separate buildings, along with the infrastructure that included the parking lots. The Accommodations-2 building was only a conceptual footprint, with an undetermined construction date (part of a future phase). The applicant is now requesting approval to construct the Accommodations-2 building first, with the Wellness Center and Accommodations-1 building to follow once the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) obtains necessary funding. When EPMC realized the original separate buildings were not the ideal layout for day-to-day operations, they approached the applicant about "fusing" the Wellness Center and the Accommodations-1 building together, allowing clients easier accessibility to both buildings. Planner Kleisler displayed a diagram of the approved plan, and overlayed the proposed changes to allow a better visual for the Commissioners and public in attendance. He stated because the Accommodations-2 building was only a concept with the first approval, the application being reviewed today includes an architectural review and analysis. The changes include a slightly larger footprint for the fused buildings, and a shift of the Accommodations-2 building approximately five (5) feet to the northwest. The original construction phases would be reversed. Planner Kleisler stated the process and review criteria included the following: consistency with the goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (this parcel is part of the Downtown Neighborhood); compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and compliance with the Stanley Historic District guidelines, which are located in the Estes Park Municipal Code. The Stanley Historic District Master Plan does not apply to this specific lot. The Planning Commission is the recommending body, with the Town Board hearing the item on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 for a final decision. Planner Kleisler stated the Special Review criteria RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall requires applications mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The application should accomplish these in order to receive a positive recommendation by the Planning Commission. Planner Kleisler stated the Stanley Historic District guidelines include view corridors from the Stanley Hotel. The Accommodations-2 building is proposed to lie just outside a view corridor, and the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Center (Phase II) would lie within a view corridor. Additional analysis would need to occur for the approval of Phase II, which would include a hearing before the Planning Commission and Town Board. Planner Kleisler stated the Statement of Intent portion of the application lists a number of efforts made on their behalf to comply with the Special Review criteria, such as limited grading and pedestrian connectivity. The applicant has recorded an easement for public access throughout the site. The social trail from the Stanley Hotel to Stanley Village Shopping Center has been solidified legaily through a public access easement. The applicant has also committed to working with the adjacent property owners on final landscaping designs, including placement of trees and shrubs. Exterior lighting will be limited; no parking lot lighting was proposed, but staff requested bollard lighting be provided along the pedestrian ways to ensure safe access throughout the site at night. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant provided photo simulations of the proposed Accommodations-2 building. The northwest side complies with the 30-foot height limit. As the site slopes down, the building exceeds the allowable height by Just under five (5) feet on the south edge, after slope adjustment provided in the EVDC. The applicant provided additional photo simulations today, including "Option 2", which changes the design of the roof to comply with the 30-foot height limit. The applicant desires to receive a height variance to construct the Accommodations-2 building as planned (over the height limit); however. Option 2 could be an alternative. Planner Kleisler stated the portion of the building that would be over the height limit faces south towards Stanley Village Shopping Center. There has been considerable public comment and neighbor concern opposed to the height variance. Some comments also addressed the location of the building and the parking lot as a way to reduce the height of the Accommodations-2 building. During the original review process, staff recommended the parking lot be located behind the building in order to screen the parking from the public street. Planner Kleisler stated the site design does not show the proposed sidewalk along Steamer Drive. The applicant has had difficulty obtaining the necessary easements through the Stanley Hills Subdivision. If the Commission recommends approval, one of the conditions for Phase II would require the applicant to gain all necessary easements to construct the sidewalk in this area. If the easements are not obtained, the sidewalk should be constructed fully on the applicant's property, which will be fairly disconnected from the road. Planner Kleisler stated staff also requested the issue of any proposed outdoor activity on the site be addressed with Phase II, as the note from the original plan was not carried forward to the amended plan. Staff had three concerns pertaining to the amended site plan: • Proposed outdoor activity on the eastern side of the site: Through internal discussions, the applicant proposed small-scale wedding receptions take place on the eastern side of the site plan. Given this proposal was not initiated earlier in the application process, staff requested and the owner agreed to remove the allowance of that activity from the plan. A condition of approval will be added to ensure removal of that statement prior to Town Board review on March 24th. • Potential for outdoor use on deck located at the southwest corner of the Accommodations-2 building: Staff requested additional information as to whether any outdoor uses would be conducted in this area. The applicant stated the deck is directly connected to one of the accommodations units, and no organized outdoor uses would be conducted on the deck. • A pedestrian connection and patio on the western edge of the site is not on the amended plans: The applicant explained that feature was deleted from the current proposal. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff Findings 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report. The application for the proposed amendment to the Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. The application complies with the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development regarding: view corridors, open space, site design, pedestrian circulation, and signs. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building height of 30-feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. 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 Review Discussion in the staff report. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the board agenda. Placement on the March 24 Town Board agenda requires a March 18 submittal or a revised application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the amendment to the approved Special Review 2014-01, with conditions of approval listed below. Director Chilcott stated there may be additional conditions to Condition of Approval #8, which will require additional discussion between Planner Kleisler and herself. Chair Hull called a ten-minute recess at 2:35. The meeting reconvened at 2:45 p.m. Public Comment Lucia Liley/applicant representative briefly explained the issue concerning the name of the complex. She stated there has been no change in relationships since the beginning of the concept. In March, 2015, EPMC entered into a formal contract with the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (Anschutz Medical Center) for licensing and use of their proprietary wellness programs. These programs will be implemented as part of the Wellness Center project in Estes Park. A lease between Grand Heritage Hotels and EPMC is intact. She stated because of the complexity of the redesign of Phase I, the process will take additional time and another special review process will be forthcoming. Grand Heritage Hotels has funding in place and is prepared to begin construction as soon as possible, so it made sense to reverse the phasing and build the Accommodations-2 building first. Because that building had not been designed prior to the original review process, the height and architecture required review by Staff, Planning Commission, and Town Board. She stated it was important to note that the major categories of the project remain in place: the uses have not changed; the amount of open space exceeds the requirement; the building to lot coverage ratio is under what is allowed; native landscaping and wildlife mitigation techniques are in place. She stated a large amount of work was done on the stormwater drainage plan, which was revised following concerns and questions from some of the downstream property owners, and some of which was related to drainage of Lot 1. Engineers spent more time analyzing the drainage plan, and the current design would put some of the water into a pond system on Lot 4 and have the water recede from there. She stated the building envelope was approved during the original approval process, as was the parking lot placement. The building has been shifted five feet to accommodate some pedestrian connections. She stated it is generally considered a superior planning technique to screen parking by putting is at the rear of the building. In the Stanley Historic District standards, parking should be placed behind the building. Once room sizes were determined, parking requirements increased. A few more spaces were added on site, and eight more were added off-site, which Town code allows. Those off-site RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall spaces will be located at the Stanley Hotel, but because the distance is more than 300 feet from the proposed development, transportation must be provided. The Stanley Hotel purchased a London taxi to run on demand between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. to provide access to the overflow parking spaces. The use of those eight spaces would assume 100% occupancy of the accommodations buildings, and all rooms larger than 750 square feet would have two cars. That situation is not likely to occur. The Town Board, during the approval of the original plan, made some clarifications and changes to the architectural standards of the Stanley Historic District. Ms. Liley stated a letter from the Colorado Historical Society recognized the site for the building is likely the best placement, and is not anticipated to have an adverse affect on the Stanley Hotel. The third-party architect hired by the hotel suggested a few minor changes, all of which the applicant has agreed to do. The height issue has been studied extensively. Another potential way to design the Accommodations-2 building to comply with the height requirement has been submitted. The architecture of the roof would be altered. The pros and cons of each option would need to be weighed as to what you would gain or lose. Tim Lego/applicant's architect stated the proposed Accommodations-2 building would maintain the Stanley cohesiveness while creating its own set of modifications. Window trims are complementary but slightly different; trims, deck railings, and columns are similar; there will be a stone base to the building, and colors will comply with the Stanley Historic District requirements. Don Burnholtz/applicant's architect stated throughout the process, the photo simulations have been challenged for accuracy. The most recent photo simulations are available on the Town website for this project, titled View Corridor Presentation. He used GPS to ensure accuracy. After reviewing the slides, he stated there are grave sacrifices to the architectural integrity of the building when using Option 2. The roof pitch would be altered, and the dormers would be flattened on top. The applicant's team did not think Option 2 would complement the architectural standards of the Stanley Hotel complex. There was brief discussion between Chair Hull and Ms. Liley concerning the letter from the State Historical Society. It was ultimately concluded by the society there would be no adverse affect from this project. It was understood the project would be required to meet the Town design standards. David Bangs/applicant's engineer stated the building floor could not be lowered due to the complex pipe system flowing underneath the building. Making it lower would require waivers to other standards of the EVDC. He stated the main reason for the shift of the Accommodations-2 building is to accommodate the required pedestrian walkways alongside the building. There was brief discussion between Commissioner Schneider and Mr. Burnholtz concerning the room sizes. It was noted the proposed building will have 40 units and 48 beds. Due to the larger size of a few of the units, additional parking spaces were required. John Cullen/applicant stated the eight corner units will be larger, to accommodate families with children and be ADA compliant. ADA rules have changed and additional restrictions now apply. He stated he is celebrating his 20th anniversary of owning the Stanley Hotel, and does not consider himself a "foreigner". He stated the original plan for the Accommodations-2 building called for larger rooms; however, the market is for individual rooms, so although the footprint has not changed, the number of rooms has. The Town requested only short-term rentals (less than 30 days) in the Accommodations-2 building, and they will comply with that request. The Wellness Center will have doctors, nurses, therapists, etc. staying in this building, and rotations will typically be two to three weeks each. The rooms will have kitchenettes. The clients at the Wellness Center may stay as long as six weeks, and they will stay in the Accommodations-1 building, which will not have cooking facilities in the rooms. There was brief discussion between Mr. Cullen and Commissioner Schneider concerning the completion of the entire project. Mr. Cullen welcomes the partnership with EPMC. If EPMC does not raise the funds, Mr. Cullen will build it himself. It is in his best interest to encourage EPMC to raise the funds and build the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii Wellness Center. Mr. Cullen stated he also has wellness center projects planned for Japan, China, and England. The Estes Park facility would be the flagship wellness center. Planner Kleisler stated after consulting with the Town Attorney, staff would like to amend Staff Finding #5, removing "and complies with Section 1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes." This was a finding during the original development plan approval process. The current application does not comply with the height limit; therefore, this portion of the finding must be removed. Condition of Approval #1 will be deleted, as reference to the contract does not apply to this application. During the recess. Community Development staff had a brief conversation with the applicant and staff is recommending the use of the eastern drainage facilities for outdoor activities (including outdoor recreation) be reviewed with Phase II. Staff has some concerns with that area of the site. While the wedding reception note will be removed from the plans, staff wants to ensure any outdoor uses associated with the project are provided the public review process, which can happen during review of Phase II. David Bangs stated the shape of the pond on the landscape plan has morphed from the original plan. The proposed pond will be a retention pond, in that it will store water permanently. It will have aesthetic value and minimize visual impacts of stormwater facilities on neighboring properties and surrounding areas. Typically, retention ponds are heavily landscaped, and also require a substantial amount of maintenance. As for use for outdoor activities, the applicant agrees with staff that this area would not be used in that manner with this application. Public Comment Ann Finley/Town resident stated was imperative that the project be done correctly. The new proposal was not what the voters approved, and she wondered if the vote would have passed if the proposal presented today were the original plans (accommodations being built prior to the Wellness Center). She urged Commissioners to hold the project to the same standards as everyone else in the Estes Valley; not to show favoritism or waive fees. She did not support the amended plan. Christie Smith/representative for Doug Warner/Town resident stated he was opposed to the project if it did not comply with the height limit. Christie Smith/Town resident stated she lived nearby, and was concerned her property value and quality of life would be negatively impacted by the project. There are people in her neighborhood that voted for the project. Others are not being vindictive because "they lost the election," They are just concerned about their property values and quality of life issues. Marlene Hayek/Town resident stated prior to purchasing her home, she learned the Stanley Historic District Master Plan limited commercial development to 35,000 square feet (the proposed project is over 100,000 square feet). She was upset when Lot 4 was excluded from the Master Plan due to the expiration of such plan. She believed the Town made changes and ignored comments in order to accommodate the sale of Lot 4 and pave the way for development. She was opposed to the request to build the Accommodations-2 building prior to the Wellness Center, to the request for a height variance, and encouraged the Commissioners to disapprove the application. Ed Hayek/Town resident and President of Stanley View Homeowners Association supported denial of the application. The HOA has serious concerns about declining property values. The neighbors had to comply with regulations when their homes were built, and the Stanley Hotel should have to comply as well. He stated the proposed building could be stepped down to lower the height. He was opposed to the project being rushed through the process, stating that was when errors were made and opportunities missed. He disagreed with the accuracy of the photo simulations. He did not agree the applicant had mitigated to the maximum amount feasible. Judy Schrieber/Town resident stated while she voted in favor of the sale of Lot 4, she was opposed to flipping the phases and building the Accommodations-2 building first. She encouraged RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 10Estes Valley Planning Commission March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali the Town to move the parking lot so the building can be moved further down the hill. A view of Longs Peak is very important to those in the Estes Park Community, and it has emotional significance. Dana Small/Town resident lives in Estes Park because the views are outstanding. The codes were adopted for a reason, and should be complied with. He was opposed to the height variance request. Johanna Darden/Town resident stated the approval of the sale of Lot 4 also approved the proposed use. She stated the application presented violates the approval that was passed with the vote. She stated the Accommodations-1 building and the Wellness Center should be constructed first. She stated the photo simulations from Barb Davis' property were misleading. Susan Wolf/County resident agreed with Marlene and Ed Hayek's comments. She was opposed to the height variance. She read additional comments from Barb Davis, who was unable to attend the meeting. These comments will be posted to the web once received by staff. She was concerned about the negative impacts of the Accommodations-2 building on the Stanley Hills neighborhood. She recommended parking be behind the building or screened. If parking was allowed north of the building, the viewscape for the neighbors would improve. She had concerns about the proposed drainage plan and the "grand ditch" that runs through her property without easements. Her written comments went into detail concerning the photo settings used for the photo simulations. She did not believe all concerns had been fully addressed. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments included, but were not limited to: the building could be spread out and would still comply with lot coverage requirements and would lower the height; the voters took the ballot question seriously; part of the ballot question was read, concerning the allowance of lodging for staff physicians; the Wellness Center is still a concept, and it was questioned who the building would be accommodating; the will of the voters may not be for more motel rooms; has a problem with the height variance request; if the building were redesigned and parking lot moved, it may solve the height problem; architecturally, it could be done differently. Ms. Liley stated with the original plan, there was a special finding by the Town Board to increase the height limit of 30 feet with the Phase I building. The architects were able to meet the EVDC slope requirements, but unable to meeting the 30-foot height limit. On the table today, the proposed height variance still requires a finding by the Town Board. Option 1 would not comply with the height limit, while Option 2 would comply. Mr. Cullen stated Option 2 is in full compliance with the height limits. It doesn't drop height of the northwest corner, but will drop the rest of the building. He stated he was willing and prepared to withdraw Option 1 and continue with Option 2 to please the Commission and the Town. He added the proposed project includes major landscaping and retention ponds that will solve drainage issues for the entire neighborhood, including an area that has been in litigation for several years. If EPMC does not raise the funds to construct the Wellness Center, he stated he would face a $650,000 penalty and also be required to build the center without assistance from EPMC. Ms. Liley stated specifics about buildings were not specified in the contract to sell Lot 4, as was implied by some of the public comments. She reviewed and clarified portions of the contract for the Commission. She stated the purpose of the building is to accommodate guests and employees of the EPMC program, and nothing was being proposed that is different from the contract. Mr. Cullen explained he had every intention to construct first the Accommodations-1 building adjacent to the Wellness Center, with the Accommodations-2 building to follow at a later date. When EPMC requested to attach the Accommodations-1 building to the Wellness Center, it changed the entire design and building process. Once the design changes were made, it was RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail 11 determined both buildings would need to be built at the same time. Because EPMC is funding the Wellness Center and the Stanley Hotel is funding the Accommodations-1 building, it only made sense to delay that portion of the project until EPMC acquires the necessary funding. Because funds were already in place for an accommodations building, he would like to get started on the Accommodations-2 building while EPMC continues to raise funds for the Wellness Center. Commissioner Hills moved to recommend approval of the amendment to Special Review 2014-01 application as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended and amended by staff with Option 2 used as the design for the Accommodations-2 building. Town Attorney White requested a five minute recess at 4:22 p.m. to allow staff time to reflect the accurate conditions of using Option 2 prior to seconding the motion and the vote. The meeting reconvened at 4:29 p.m. Planner Kleisler clarified an additional condition of approval would be added to relate directly to using the Option 2 design. See condition #10. The reason behind the added condition is to have a third-party architect review the plans for compliance with the architectural standards. The Community Development Department would complete the final height verification to ensure compliance. Approval of Option 2 at the Town Board level would be conditional to compliance with agency comments. He stated staff feels comfortable with the application moving forward as scheduled. Additional conditions could be imposed at the Town Board level. Mr. Cullen concurred with the additional condition of approval. Conditions of Approval 1. Continued compliance with January 10, 2014 real estate contract between Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC and the Town of Estes Park. 2. All improvements and public facilities necessary for Phase I uses shall be installed with Phase I. 3. MUTCD wildlife crossing signs are required on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-Willows. Design and location shall be determined by staff during Construction Plan approval. 4. Landscaping Plan: a. Landscaping plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (with irrigation). ' b. Compliance with Section 7.8.G.l.b Non-Native Vegetation. 5. Staff review and approval shall be required for any future parking lot lighting. Unless more information is requested by staff, the Applicant shall submit a photometric plan 7 irnToMWi /r'Tcl0'1615' height and l0Cati0n 0f pr0p0Sed nghting- Compliance with 17.44.060(d)(ll) and EVDC 7.11 is required. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated January 29, 2015; Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 11, 2015; Town of Estes Park Water Division memo dated February 19, 2015; Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division memo dated February 19, 2015; Town of Estes Park Community Development Department memo dated February 20, Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 20, 2015; Colorado Historical Society memo dated February 20, 2015; RBB Architects, Inc. memo dated February 25, 2015. Should necessary easements not be granted for the proposed sidewalk along Steamer rive, the applicant shall construct such sidewalk along their property during Phase II construction. The Applicant shall delete Note #24 from the site plan, relating to outdoor wedding receptions. 6. b. c. d. e. f. g- h. 7. 8. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 12 7. 9. Use of the eastern drainage facilities for outdoor activities, including outdoor recreation, shall be reviewed with Phase II. 10. Option 2, as presented in the Estes Valley Planning Commission hearing on March 17, 2015, reducing the height of the building to comply with EVDC 1.9.E.2, shall be reviewed by affected agencies, including: a. Architectural review through a licensed, third party architect; b. Estes Park Community Deveiopment Department It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Amendment to Special Review 2014-01 to the Town Board as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended and amended by staff, using Option 2 as the design for the Accommodations-2 buiiding, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. RIVERVIEW PINES DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2015-02 AND AMENDED PLAT, Tract 56B, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deercrest Subdivision, 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue Planner Kleisler stated the applicant, Fred Kropp, has requested a continuance of the Riverview Pines application. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Schneider) to continue the Riverview Pines Development Plan and Amended Plat application to the April Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SMALL-SCALE PET GROOMING IN THE CD-COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICT Planner Kleisler stated he was approached by a downtown business owner requesting to amend the EVDC to allow small-scale pet grooming in the CD zone district. The Town Board has expressed interest in this code amendment, and has asked the Planning Commission to review the amendment and make a recommendation. Planner Kleisler requested feedback from the Commission prior to proceeding with draft code language. He stated public outreach would take place in the form of a press release and mailed notices to all property owners in the CD zone district. He will have draft code language at the April meeting. Planner Kleisler stated noise issues and abatement on neighboring properties, boarding, parking, and loading zones will be considered in the review. Chair Hull stated this item was discussed at the Planning Commission Study Session. Commissioner White stated there was some discussion about limiting the number of animals on site at one time. Planner Kleisler stated the business owner s intent is to provide a fast and efficient grooming service, not a dog sitting service. There could be a limit to the hours of operation. 8. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODERNIZATION It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hills) to continue this item to the Aprii Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 9. REPORTS A. Director Chilcott reported the Board of Adjustment recently heard three variance requests: 1. Proposed attached garage at 1418 Narcissus Dr. denied March 3, 2015 2. Decrease in minimum lot width at 660 Larkspur Rd. approved March 3, 2015 3. Allowance of outdoor activity in the CD zone district at 116 E. Elkhorn Ave. approved March 3, 2015 B. Director Chilcott reported the Town Board heard the following items: 1. Marys Lake Replat Amended Development Agreement continued to April 24, 2015 2. Backbone Adventures Special Review approved February 24, 2015. C. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners 1. High Drive Heights Amended Plat approved February 17, 2015 D. Flood Mitigation/Recovery 1. Director Chilcott reported there will be a request for a Letter of Support from the Town Board on the Fish Creek Plan for Resiliency at a Town Board meeting in the near future RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 17, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail 13 E. Commissioner Klink stated he will be absent in April, Chair Hull stated she will be absent in June, and Commissioner Sykes will be back in town for the April meeting. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:38 p.m. n/4tecording Secretary!aren Th