Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-07-21RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 21,2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Hills, Murphree, White and Moon Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Commissioner Schneider Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 15 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today's meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, April 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-01D, MARYS MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS, TBD Kiowa Trail and TBD Bemish Court Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He provided a brief history of the development and stated this was the fourth amendment to this plan. The property is zone A-Accommodations, with areas to the south zoned E-l-fstote. Areas to the west, north, and east are zoned A- Accommodations, and includes some undeveloped property. The initial plan had a co-housing concept, which was not attractive to buyers, so the plan was amended to include duplexes. The applicant, Frank Theis, is now wrapping up the first phase, and ready to begin future phases. He now wishes to move towards a more traditional model including duplexes and single family dwellings. The proposed amendment reduces the density from 35 approved units to 24 proposed units. Planner Kleisler stated the original development plan established Kiowa Trail, which is maintained by the property owner. The site plan from the previously approved amended development plan is being used for this project; however, there are some pedestrian circulation and vehicle access changes. Bemish Court would come off of the northwest end of Kiowa Trail, and would be the roadway for the single family dwellings. Both the duplexes on Kiowa Trail and the homes on Bemish Court would have garages, allowing the removal of street parking on Kiowa Trail. Planner Kleisler stated fairly significant changes have been made to the architecture of the proposed duplexes, as compared to the previously approved plan. The changes include, but are not limited to, the inclusion of single-car garages. Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to all affected agencies for review and notice was sent to the local newspaper and adjacent property owners. The Planning Commission received public comment relating to the location of the proposed sewer line. The proposed sewer line consists of a main extension between the Phase li and Phase Ml units. Upper Thompson Sanitation District supports the concept, with minor changes involving moving the line to allow better access, as well as prohibiting landscaping in the sewer easement. The current proposal attempts to keep the natural flow of drainage throughout the site, which is why no curb and gutter is proposed. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has requested a minor modification regarding the minimum number of spaces for bicycle parking. The requirement is four (4) spaces. In accordance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 3.7, the Planning Commission may grant a minor modification of up to a maximum of 25% from certain zone district standards. In this case, the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 Juiy 21, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail Commission could lower the requirement of four spaces to three spaces. The applicant is proposing some surface parking and primarily single-car garages. Because of the limited garage space, staff assumes future residents and guests would utilize bicycle racks. If the Commission decides to approve the minor modification request, they would need to make one of the following findings: (1) The modification advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC; (2) The modification results in less visual impact; (3) The modification results in more effective environmental and open space preservation; or (4) The modification relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. Public comment issues involve a no-build easement, which is shown on the plat. There was no town involvement with the creation of the easement. Because it is a recorded easement, it is required to be shown on the plat. Staff has reviewed this document with Town Attorney White, and the legal opinion is the enforcement power of this easement rests with the developer and the HOA. It is staff opinion the amended development plan complies with the easement. The Easement states, in part, "...shall not build any buildings or structures within the area...to preserve the view of condominium units over and across the portion of the property shown in Exhibit A." Planner Kleisler stated the other key issue with this proposal is the grading for units 19 and 20 on Bemish Court. A substantial amount of cut and fill was planned, and staff determined it did not comply with the building standards in the EVDC. The applicant revised the plan by designing a slightly steeper road that will eliminate most of the cut and fill. If those steps are taken, the property would be in compliance with that standard. A condition of approval addresses this issue. Staff Findings 1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. 4. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for this application. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Kleisler clarified the duplexes are proposed to have single-car garages, with the single­ family dwelling having double-car garages. Public Comment Frank Theis/applicant stated the project includes a construction site maintenance agreement to ensure the area will be kept clean during construction. After discussion with the property owner, he stated Unit 24 will be removed from the plan to satisfy owners of the nearest existing unit who were concerned about that unit blocking their view. After this change, there would be a total of 23 units in the development. Sabina McWhinney/town resident was one of the first residents in Phase I. She stated the HOA requested the no-build easement, as a way to ensure the open space would remain as such in order to maintain the view corridor. She stated the intent of the easement was housing units would be limited to Kiowa Trail, and that the detention ponds would be constructed in a natural manner. She was opposed to the single-family dwellings on Bemish Court. She was supportive of the construction site maintenance agreement. John Crone/attorney representing Marys Meadow Development clarified the No-Build Easement is a private matter between the developer and the HOA, and is outside the purview of the Planning Commission. Beverly Wright/town resident was one of the original owners in phase I. She understood there would be one more row of homes on Kiowa Trail (Phase II), and the developer never alluded to a Phase III. She was opposed to the proposed development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 21, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Frank Theis/applicant stated it was not his intent to mislead the property owners, and he is willing to make concessions to satisfy them. His intent with the no-build easement was to prevent the neighbors from seeing any buildings in the open space. Mia Tawney/property owner stated Phase I was under construction at the time her father, Jim Tawney, passed away. As the new property owner, her intentions are to keep the commitment that her father wanted. Jim was a futurist and cared strongly about community. She explained the concept behind the original co-housing development. Sabina McWhinney/town resident stated the intent of the easement was to keep the area in its natural state. Richard James/town resident stated his unit was going to be directly impacted by proposed Unit 24, and sees the removal of that unit as a positive. His main concern with this proposal is the height of the buildings. He purchased his unit in 2013, and Mr. Theis presented a plan similar to what is being presented with this application. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Town Attorney White clarified the easement was recorded with Larimer County. It is an easement agreement between Marys Meadow LLC and Marys Meadow Condominium HOA. The Town is not involved. The recording puts it on record so it will be found during a title search. He advised the Planning Commission that it is not their responsibility to react to this easement. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated June 25, 2015; Town of Estes Park Utilities Division memo dated June 25, 2015; Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated June 29, 2015; Town of Estes Park Public Works memo dated July 13, 2015; Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated July 15, 2015. The site plan shall be amended to accurately show the existing grade and drainage flow along Kiowa Trail, including how off-site drainage flows through the area near the existing traffic island. The slope of parking stalls shall be decreased to provide for safe vehicle access. The site plan shall be amended to reflect the proposed adjustments detailed in the memo from the applicant dated July 10, 2015. Such changes require the review and approval of applicable reviewing agencies. Utility pedestals and boxes north of Unit 18 shall be moved to the west to accommodate 20-foot clearance for utility truck access. HOA Declarations shall be amended to prohibit any landscaping within the sewer and electric easement area in Phase II and III, with the exception of small shrubs within three (3) feet of units. The site plan shall be amended to remove Unit 24. 3. 4. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to approve the Amended Development Plan 06-01D, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. UPDATE ON VACATION HOMES REGULATIONS Planner Kleisler stated the purpose of this presentation is to provide the Commission with an update as to where staff and the Town Board are concerning vacation homes. Discussion has occurred concerning changes to processes and policies throughout the Estes Valley. Vacation homes are becoming an issue nationwide. A major report, the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) Report, addresses vacation homes and will be forwarded to the Commissioners as soon as possible. The Town Board and County Commissioners requested staff review RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission ^ July 21, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall processes and policies to ensure enforceability and meet the goals that they were initially intended to do. He stated this information was shared at a Town Board Study Session, and the Trustees wanted to make sure the Planning Commissioners were included in any conversation concerning vacation homes. Planner Kleisler provided a recap of the schedule, stating June through September would include refining the regulations and processes, with possible adoption and implementation occurring before the end of 2015. In the spring of 2015, a public meeting on this topic was held, and approximately 100 people attended and had the opportunity to provide comments and share ideas about how vacation homes should or should not be regulated in the Estes Valley. There will be an additional meeting in mid- September to allow further discussion. Planner Kleisler provided a summary of the trends. Legally permitted vacation homes have increased by roughly 25% since 2010, and staff assumes this number will continue to rise. The Larimer County attorney is reviewing the addition of licensing fees for vacation homes in the Estes Valley, outside of Town limits. The main concerns coming out of the meeting included, but were not limited to: enforceability, including fair fees and applications; clearly defined expectations, signed by owners, posted for renters; property managers, or equivalent, held responsible to "act"; flexibility in the regulations, recognizing differences of needs based on location, lot size, proximity, and number of rooms. Occupancy limits were discussed, and flexibility was encouraged. More specific comments/ideas were as follows: Property managers should have clear expectations and processes for grievances; need not be a full-time resident of Estes Park but must be easily reachable; residents in neighborhood and visitors to rental have clear knowledge of who to contact for what; does not have to be property manager but has to have clear access and accountability in the process. Town and County Fees should be enforced with fines for violators; fees should be commiserate with occupancy limits and enforcement time; fees need to be clear and concise and known by all. Location of vacation homes should preserve the character of long-term neighborhoods, and more code enforcement would be supported; Vehicles parked at vacation homes should be proportionate with the size of the home. Attendees at the public meeting said they would like to see more of the following: compliance, enforcement, clarity in the regulations, encouragement of long­ term rentals, and owner-signed statements stating they understand the regulations. They would like to see less overlap of regulations between residents and rentals, and less unenforced regulations. During a brainstorming session, attendees said the most important considerations were: enforce, define and clarify; flexibility; clear lines of accountability for owner/property manager; preserve neighborhood character; expand occupancy limits based on size, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, lot location and size. Planner Kleisler stated the project scope includes: Occupancy Limits, Vehicles and Parking, Fire Protection, Workforce Housing Impact, Highway Development, Fees, Licensing, and Property Management. There is now a trend occurring that the most dense zone districts for accommodation uses have less dense developments being built. Consequences for violations have been rolled into the licensing and enforceability. The Town has one code compliance officer, and vacation home regulations are a small part of her duties. Commissioner White recommended the Commissioners read the CAST report when they receive it. She thinks our community can learn a lot about this issue from other communities. 5. DISCUSSION CONCERNING ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODERNIZATION Planner Kleisler stated this chapter. Planning the Valley's Future, sets the stage for the next update of the Comprehensive Plan. The goal is to have a final draft of this chapter next month. Planning the Valley's Future provides a primer on some key upcoming issues facing the community. Much of this narrative is conceptual and policy related. As such, staff has primarily updated the statistical information, and would welcome feedback to learn if they are going in the right direction. Visit Estes Park has completed a study, and staff would like to review that information and possibly add some of that information to the Plan. Commissioner Moon stated he saw this chapter not as a code issue but a directional chapter. There are many changes in the socio-economic aspect of our visitor base as well as residential base. Workforce housing should be addressed. What do we want to be in 10 years? He urged the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS b. c. Estes Valley Planning Commission I July 21, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission to be visionary in the document. He is willing to participate in the editing process of this chapter. Planner Kleisler stated this chapter has a lot of gray areas, and it may be a good idea to take it to Town Board and the County Commission in the near future to get their feedback. Commissioner Klink explained the reason behind the modernization versus an overhaui of the entire plan, where funding was an issue. Director Chilcott stated it would be best to have the Downtown Neighborhood Plan concluded before pursuing additionai funding to fully update the Comprehensive Plan. She stated it was within the scope of the modernization to accurate reflect the trends being seen by the town, county, state, and country. However, there are some gray areas and we need to be cautious about being biased about what trends we choose to include in the modernization of the plan. She would recommend allowing staff to continue to work on this chapter, adding some additionai language. Staff could give the Planning Commission the original language and the proposed language. Commissioner Hiils recommended having each Commissioner provide written comments to staff. Additional information will be provided at the next Planning Commission meeting. 6. REPORTS a. Director Chilcott reported the Board of Adjustment approved a variance request for a storage shed on Pinewood Lane. Director Chilcott reported the Riverview Pines Deveiopment Plan was withdrawn by the applicant. Staff expects to see a revised plan in the next few months. Director Chilcott reported the Town Board and County Commission approved the amendment to the EVDC allowing pet grooming in the CD-Commercial Downtown zone district. She stated the business owner requesting the amendment has since closed her business. Director Chilcott reported the Town Board approved the Amended Plat for Silver Moon Inn. Director Chilcott reported the Marys Lake Replat Amended Development Agreement was withdrawn by the applicant. She stated there was a steep lot in the Marys Lake Subdivision that the property owner hoped to place in a conservation easement. That did not occur, and the property owner desired to make the lot available for a single­ family dwelling. A request was processes, but there were some legal issues and the application was withdrawn pending resolution of the legal issues. Director Chilcott reported staff would like to have a plan in place for public outreach and education to inform the public of the risks of flooding. By flood standards, the 2013 flood was not a big flood for the local rivers involved. Staff expects FEMA to require remapping of the floodplains using accurate information. Estes Park is in a high risk area, and the cost of flood insurance will be extremely high. Staff is especially concerned about the impacts of risk and the cost of insurance in the downtown area and other areas near river corridors. Additional hydrology studies are being completed. It is important that the Town have a good strategy to engage the public on next steps for mitigation. Staff is working with Slate Communications to assist with a successful public engagement process. The Town has contracted with Brian Varrelia from Olsson & Associates to perform our floodplain management duties for the immediate future. Brian is the former floodplain manager for the City of Fort Collins, and the past-president of the Colorado Association of Stormwater and Floodplain Managers. Director Chilcott reported staff is reviewing a possible change in the code to allow for an extended re-build time, simiiar to what was done following the Woodland Heights Fire. The eiected officials have directed staff to put an amended re-build process in place. The August agenda will include a draft EVDC amendment on this topic. Director Chilcott reported the Downtown Plan Request for Proposal (RFP) will be released tomorrow. Consultants will have 21 days to submit proposals. A selection committee wili be created to select the consultant. Chair Huli stated Commissioner White would be willing to serve on the selection committee if aiiowed the opportunity. Director Chilcott stated she would need to submit an application. f. g. h. There being no further business. Chair Huii adjourned the meeting at 3:04 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 21,2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 'Em: Betty HullyChair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary