Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2014-06-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes Chair Hull, Commissioners Bowers, Dickey, Hills and Sykes Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Commissioner Murphree Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 50 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today's meeting. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes. May 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Dickey/Bowers) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. FALCON RIDGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PACKAGE, Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commission will be reviewing and voting on a proposed Minor Subdivision Plat and a Development Plan, and will be hearing public comment and commenting on the proposed amendment to the Good Samaritan Annexation Agreement in order to provide the Town Board with the Planning Commission's perspective on the project. It should be understood that the Planning Commission's role in the annexation agreement is only to provide comments; no vote will be taken concerning this item. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has submitted an application to construct a two phases, 66-unit multi-family attainable housing project located off of Red Tail Hawk Drive. The project will include a mixture of four- and six-plexes, a community building, park with playground, and a sports court. The applicant has requested a fee waiver for development review and building permit fees. This request will be heard by the Community Development/Community Services Committee on June 26, 2014. Planner Kleisler stated Lot 4 of the Good Samaritan Subdivision borders platted wetlands to the north, multi-family housing to the east, single-family housing (with a mix of attainable units) to the south, and Town-owned open space to the west. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has requested an amendment to the Good Samaritan Annexation Agreement to allow a total of 66 units. This proposal would include an increase in density as outlined in that agreement, which includes a 92-unit maximum. According to the Estes Valley Development Code's density bonus for attainable housing, the 66-unit project would comply. The maximum density allowed with this bonus is 12 units per acre. Planner Kleisler stated while the Annexation Agreement states if Lot 4 is not developed within 10 years (document was signed in 2001), the Town Board would have the right to convert the zone district back to the original RE-1 Rural Estate zoning (single-family residential). The conversion was a right, not a requirement. Planner Kleisler stated the minor subdivision plat would consist of creating an internal lot line to allow specific phases coordinated with the two proposed lots. The first phase would include 45 proposed townhome-style units, the community building, park, and sports court. The second phase would include the build-out of the remaining 21 townhomes. The proposed lot split would create one 4.2 acre lot and one 1.4 acre lot, zoned RM-Multi-Family RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Residential. He stated the final plat may be slightly revised to align access and utility easements for infrastructure installation. Any changes would be minor. Planner Kleisler stated several comments were received by neighboring property owners, who were mainly concerned about density, height, and the distance of the proposed townhomes on the south side of the property from the adjacent property lines. Planner Kleisler stated the Floor Area Ratio is in compliance with the EVDC for both phases. All proposed buildings comply with the 30-foot height limit, although a few will be close enough to the limit to require height certificates to ensure compliance. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant requested several minor modifications. The first, lot coverage, allows lots in the RM zone district to have 50% impervious coverage. The applicant has requested 51.31% lot coverage on proposed Lot 1. Overall, the site will comply with the lot coverage standards at 49.59%. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant this minor modification. Staff supports this request. Planner Kleisler stated a minor modification has been requested to allow 135 parking spaces in lieu of the 137 required. This modification would allow the project to comply with the overall impervious lot coverage standard. Staff supported this request. The applicant proposes a five foot wide sidewalk along Red Tail Hawk Drive and throughout the site. Once built out, the internal sidewalks will be shortened by vehicle overhangs by roughly 1-2 feet. The applicant has agreed to adjust the site design to reduce vehicle overhang and thus provide wider internal pedestrian sidewalks (six feet). The other modifications are concerning the driveway openings in non-residential zone districts. The Town Engineer is working with the applicant on these requests. Planner Kleisler stated the proposed drainage plan complies with the EVDC. Some areas of the grading plan show potential for ponding, and the applicant has made revisions to correct the potential issue. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant provided a Wildlife Habitat Protection report, which indicated an on-site osprey nest. Staff recommends construction activity not be initiated between April 1st and July 15th during nesting and calving season. Proposed trash containers would be animal resistant. The exterior lighting would comply with the EVDC lighting standards. The proposed parking lot light poles are 17.5 feet tall, and the allowed height would be 25 feet tall. Planner Kleisler stated the affected agencies have reviewed the project and commented accordingly. Their comments can be seen in the staff report. The parking lot includes pedestrian crossings, and the landscape plan exceeds the minimum requirements for trees and shrubs. It was determined no additional modifications to Dry Gulch Road or Red Tail Hawk Drive would be required for the increased traffic. Staff Findings. 1. The Development Plan application complies with EVDC Section 3.8.D Development Plan Standards for Review, provided that the application is revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval by staff and affected agencies. The Minor Subdivision application complies with EVDC 3.9.E Subdivision Standards for Review. The Planning Commission is the Decision-making body for the proposed Development Plan and the Recommending body to the Town Board for the proposed Minor Subdivision. 2. 3. Staff and commission Discussion Discussion occurred concerning the wildlife assessment and the number of trees between the buildings. Comments-were made concerning the platted wetlands on the north, where the setback is 100 feet, compared to the ten foot setback on the south. Planner Kleisler stated the wildlife report is part of the application package and the Commission has the authority to request changes. David Lingle/project designer stated this design came about during a design charrette as a statewide housing conference. He explained the reason for the location of the parking lots, stating they will align with the existing water main running through the property. One of the directives in the charrette was to not make Falcon Ridge feel like an extension of Talons Point. The curb cuts already exist, and the northern cut aligns with the cut across the street. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission ; June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall complying with the street standards for intersections. As a group, the designers are equally concerned about safety. The design team went through a lot of different designs, and it was a challenged to design to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for access and adaptable units. Tight turns and on-street parking is the safest parking lot layout to keep traffic slow. He stated there would be an open community green space in the center of the project, with a sports court over to the side. Adjustments have been made to allow an approximate 15 foot setback and a varied roof line, in response to neighbor concerns. There will be no second floor decks on the southernmost townhomes. The architectural character is to look like a large single-family home. Proposed Lot 1 has all the components to be a complete project. Rita Kurelja/Director, EPHA stated some of the funding was coming from a Colorado Housing and Finance Authority grant, while other grants have been applied for but not awarded. She clarified that low income housing is not subsidized, and the units will be rented long-term. She explained how the median income determination was made. The project was not started earlier because the EPHA did not want to begin another project before Vista Ridge was completed (2007). Vista Ridge was completed just as the economy began the downturn. The plan is to build phase one and have it rented to capacity before beginning phase two. Ms Kureija showed a PowerPoint presentation that is available upon request to the Community Development Department. She shared information about the market study for rental units and the number of units available in the Estes Valley, which has an extremely low vacancy rate. The majority of people served by attainable housing are the local work force of the Estes alley. She concluded by stating there was a clear community need for affordable housing in the Estes Valley. Janna Allerheiligan/Town Resident currently lives in attainable housing. She stated there is a arge P°Pulation that works in the various service industries. There are many Help Wanted ads t^ffZI r 1 aUSe Pe0ple haVe n0 Place t0 live and cannot afford t0 from the Front Range. She was in support of the project. Catheri„e JeHseiAow" resident stated 1/3 of national households live in rental housing She has lived here, in substandard housing, several years and has had to work two jobs to make ends meet. She was supportive of allowing 66 units to be built. Jeff Letchworth/County resident was concerned about the threat of wildfire at the nroDOsed development, as radiant heat from burning homes is detrimental when homerJJlZt close proximity to each other. He was opposed to the project lUitsSHewfnete'![rn reside"|.was aware the housin8 =“‘hority had the option to build 44 Claudia Frazier/Town resident stated there is a dire need for rental housing not onlv for the "" - “» Louise Olson /Town resident supported building 66 units. She stated there are working people in the Estes Valley that make less than the established U.S. poverty level. 8 Eric Blackhurst/Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) board member stated the Planning Sro'rent caoSde'S ‘a deH rmine if 'he Pr°ieCt meeB the ret'uireme''ts °f Estes Valley Development Code. According to a market study, the project meets the needs of thp community. Planning staff has clearly identified the basis for the decision on this review. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Sue Doylen/former Town Trustee stated she has watched new development out price what the local workforce can afford. As a Trustee several years ago, the Board made the decision to allow police officers to live outside the Estes Valley because of housing needs. She stated the recession took out a lot of the work force, which included volunteer firefighters. She supported the proposed development, stating the community needed the diversity to be viable. Judy Nystrom/local realtor stated the rental pool is scarce at all levels of income. Randy Davis/Director, Good Samaritan Society stated a committee of citizens asked the Good Samaritan Society to come consider building a facility in Estes Park. The parcel for sale was larger than what was needed, so they sold off portions of it. He stated the facility is just as much of a service provider for the elderly as it is a housing provider. By having housing locally for work force, those people would also spend their money in Estes Park. He stated that concerning the Falcon Ridge project, when the Good Samaritan Society sold the property to the Estes Park Housing Authority, all obligations were transferred. Cliff Noll/Town resident stated staff has done an excellent job to ensure compliance. He stated that the project is pushing the codes to the limit where setbacks, height, and density are concerned. He was supportive of building 44 units. He encouraged the commissioners to use their best judgment and recommended the EPHA and designers come up with a better design. Matthew Heiser/EPHA Board Member stated density can create many positives, including but not limited to more open space and less infrastructure. EPHA is asking the Commission to support the project. Gray Hawk Circle Drive was rezoned from single-family to multi-family, with increased density from 3 to 30 units. He encouraged the Commissioners to agree with staff findings that indicate the project complies with the EVDC. Steve Kruger/Town resident stated he purchased his home with the understanding any development to the north would be limited to 44 units. He encouraged the Commission to honor the annexation agreement for density and vote against the plan as presented. Alex Kostadinov/Town resident received the annexation agreement at the time he purchased his property and understood there may be 48 units built to the north. They would not have purchased their property if they would have known there would be 66 units. The original sketch plan showed three on the south side, where five are now proposed. He is concerned this will block the entire view of Lumpy Ridge for him and his neighbors, which would devalue their properties. He was supportive of the project in principle, just not the density. He stated the Town accepted the annexation agreement in good faith, and should not go back on their word by amending it. He also stated neither he nor his neighbors received information in the mail about the design charrette. He suggested continuing the item to allow the neighbors more time to study the project. Paul Kochevar/Town resident was supportive of affordable housing. He stated he worked on a code analysis for this project, and was confused about whether or not the paved area was considered a street or a driveway. It was his opinion the roadway through the project was a street, and therefore did not meet the development standards. Diane Muno/President Estes Valley Partners for Commerce sent a survey to its members. Of the 19% that returned the survey, the majority were in favor of the increased density of the project. Ken Brin/Town resident lives in an attainable housing unit. He stated after the flood, many employers realized just how many employees do not live in the Estes Valley, because they were unable to get to work. Estes Valley employees live elsewhere, most of their money is also spent elsewhere. He supported the project RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission f June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Chair Hull called a ten minute recess at 4:10 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 4:20 p.m. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Klink addressed Mr. Kochevar's comments concerning the paved area of the project. After several minutes of discussion, it was staffs decision that although the physical design of the parking area is not typical for Estes Park, the function of the area is more in line with a parking lot than a driveway. Design features that make it a parking include but are not limited to: no garages, so cars are stored in the parking lot; interior landscape islands and curbing similar to those in a parking lot. Planner Shirk stated the standards applied to the Talon's Point parking area were the same standards applied to this project. This parking area also complies with other national parking lot standards. Addressing a previous comment. Planner Kleisler stated all proposed buildings would have automatic fire sprinkler systems, which would alleviate some of the concerns about fire. Planner Kleisler stated the Town Trustees requested comments from Planning Commissioners concerning the annexation agreement. Attorney White stated the annexation agreement was written to remove the Good Samaritan Society from any liability if the property was sold, which it was. The Annexation Agreement took effect in 2001, and complied with the EVDC at that time. He did not believe at any time Good Samaritan had any agreements with the EPHA that would have determined what the plans were for that parcel. He explained that 48 units were based only on Good Samaritan's submittal for annexation. In the end, they developed their portion and sold parts of the land to others. The EPHA was not a part of the original annexation agreement; however, when they purchased the land, they accepted the annexation agreement. Chair Hull polled the Commission for comments on the annexation: Commissioner Dickey commented arguments could be made either way. He understood there was an agreement put in place, which is now expired, and the annexation is still in place. He would recommend against the amendment and continue forward. There is a gray area as to whether they can build 48 units per the annexation agreement, of 66 units per the EVDC. Commissioner Hills did not see a need to amend the agreement. All parties involved entered into the agreement in good faith and should follow the original contract. If an amendment would occur, it would set a precedent for future agreements. Commissioner Klink commented it was not proper to change an agreement just because it meets other community needs. He was not supportive of amending the agreement. Commissioner Bowers commented if the agreement has basically expired, then elements are up for grabs for the Town Board to decide. She was surprised so many proposed units were only one-bedroom. If available space for attainable housing is so tight, it would make sense to have more units. She suggested some of the one bedroom units would be rented by people who could not afford to live at Good Sam's, but may be able to use the services that facility provides. She was supportive of the amendment to the annexation agreement. Chair Hull read item #33 in the agreement, "The Town is entering into this Agreement in good faith and with the present intention, on the part of the present Town board, that this Agreement will be complied with." She commented good faith carries a lot of weight, and she would not support the amendment. Commissioner Sykes commented she has always been a strong advocate for the housing authority. As a resort owner, she knows first-hand how difficult it is for her employees to find housing. However, she does not support the amendment. She would support an amendment to the EVDC where affordable housing is concerned. She would have preferred to have the amendment and project clarified early on, as the 48-unit number is what people believed was the limit. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff Comments on the Development Plan Chair Hull stated while the application was consistent with the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, she was very concerned about the safety of children in the area because of the road design. She suggested revising the design to have the parking area around the outside of the complex. She considered making a motion to continue the application. Commissioner Klink asked "What happens to the Development Plan if we approve it, but then Town Board does not approve the modification to the annexation agreement?" Planner Kleisler stated the additional conditions of approval for the Development Plan and Minor Subdivision package would be as follows: 1) Town Board approval of the First Amendment to the Annexation Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society; and 2) Should the Estes Park Board of Trustees deny the proposed amendments to the 2001 Annexation agreement, the Applicant shall resubmit an amended Development Plan and Subdivision Plat that complies with the Agreement and the Estes Valley Development Code. The applicant shall submit the amended plans for staff review within thirty (30) days of the Town Board's decision. As stated in the EVDC, staff may be able to review the changes as a minor modification to the approved Development Plan. Commissioner Klink asked "If the Development Plan was approved but the Town Board did not approve the amendment to the annexation agreement, the applicant would have thirty (30) days to come back. How would the 48 units be split up between the two lots if they pass the Minor Subdivision and what are the density requirements? Would they be able to leave all 48 units on Lot 1 as currently designed, or something very similar?" Planner Kleisler stated, from communication with the Housing Authority, there would most likely be a couple of units on Lot 2. If the changes trigger Planning Commission review, it would come back to Planning Commission for review. An example of a plan changing mid-stream was The Meadow Development Plan, where a plan for co-housing was changed to townhomes. If the level of development changed enough. Planning Commission would need to review it again. Planner Kleisler stated 48 units could be built on Lot 1 if the Amendment to the Annexation Agreement was not approved for 66 units. Commissioner Klink stated he thought it would take longer than thirty (30) days to make the changes if it required changing the density. Director Chilcott stated the alternative, if the applicant does not submit within thirty (30) days, is to resubmit a new application. The 48 units, as currently designed, are a use by right, either with or without a subdivision. Planner Kleisler stated if the Annexation Agreement is not amended and the cap of 48 units still applies, the maximum density would be addressed in the Development Agreement drafted by Town Attorney White. The Development Agreement runs with the land. Town Attorney White did his best to clarify Commissioner Klink's question for staff. He worded it as such: How many units could you build on the proposed Lot 1 under the current density without transferring any density from Lot 2 to Lot 1? Commissioner Klink stated that was exactly what he wanted to know. Planner Shirk stated proposed Lot 1 would be sized to allow 50 units per the EVDC, which is greater than what would be allowed in the Development Agreement. If the applicant moves forward with the Minor Subdivision they would still be able to keep 48 units on proposed Lot 1. Planner Shirk stated it was possible the applicant could withdraw the minor subdivision application and build the proposed development on Lot 4. Subdividing Lot 4 would not make the annexation agreement issue disappear. Commissioner Dickey stated lower roof lines would be more appropriate on the south end for less adverse impact on the adjacent neighbors. He also commented on the grading diagrams. He stated he was obligated to vote to approve the minor subdivision because it complied with the EVDC. Commissioner Klink supported property rights that align with the EVDC. The Planning Commission's job is to decide whether this application meets the code requirements. The Commissioners accepted public comment and provided their own comments concerning the annexation agreement. It is up to the Town Board to make the final decision. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 3. 4. 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Conditions of Approval (1) Minor Subdivision application - Minor Subdivision of Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision; (2) Development Plan application DP 2014-03; All subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Development Plan application DP 2014-03. 2. Compliance with the following affected agency memos: a. Two Community Development memos dated May 23, 2014 b. Public Works Department memo dated May 23, 2014 c. Water Division memo dated May 20,2014 d. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated May 23, 2014 e. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated April 30, 2014 Provide the following with construction plans: a. Building Addressing Scheme: Description of proposed addressing and identification scheme. b. Entry sign requires engineering (due to height) and an approved sign permit at construction phase. Add landscaping note: "All required improvements shall be completed or guaranteed in accordance with EVDC Section 7.13 and Section 10.5.K." Town Board approval of the First Amendment to the Annexation Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. ou the Estes Park Board of Trustees deny the proposed amendments to the 2001 Annexation agreement, the Applicant shall resubmit an amended Development Plan and Su d,v,s on Plat that connplies with the Agreement and the Estes Valley Devetopment of the tT aPR S^al1 submit the amended Plans for staff review within thirty (30) days the Town Board s decision. If possible, staff will review this as a minor modification to the approved Development Plan (depending on the changes). modification to It was moved and seconded (Klink/Dickey) to recommend approval of the Falcon Ridee r«°arndUthtZn t0 ,he :0W" BOard Wi,h ,he findin®s Editions icoZZTby staff and the motion passed 5-1 with Hull voting against and Murphree absent. Commission and Staff Discussion ^ZZiZKWh^s'lZT5 at.pr0p0sed l^evel°Pment Plan containing 66 units, approving the AmlZent tZe a " t0 aPPr°Ve- That iS Subiect ,0 the Board Annexation AgreZmTsZappZdZThrZn'ZrdirBr6 ■rendment “ thP Kilnk stated he could not hnd a fLuai rennrinnheZZno0:::: Cp^oZ"15510"" rhZZinTanTctrfrmZ^^^^^^^^ Ridf Blan aTseent K'ink' B°WerS'and SykeS in favor; Hills and Hull voting aXranltrprree 4' BR?w3Et-UNE™ElEAnD^DV|SmERC|ErL0PMENT ,EVDC) C°NCERNING wnTdexrnir:ewe,-eV'^^ire:- aHdst dte?i:he proposed ama"dmapt “tba districts. Small scale alcohol production (AKA craft llrTV" Certa'n non'residential tone Colorado ranks #5 in the US with craft h ■ ■ 6r 35 Brown a *ot 'n recent times,few vears staff Z? 7 craft-breweries, -wineries, and -distilleries. Over the last Town staff has follow^ throushblll’d551510 all°hW tb'S tVPe °f business in the Estes Valley, community De„el!Zent Deoartme^^^^ item 31 3 T°Wn Board StudV Session, 2) oTeraffo'nsnThe ^oftc ir''"'^' and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall operation as it relates to land use. He stated most interested parties are in favor of the square footage approach rather than the barrels per year method. At their May 27, 2014 meeting, the Town Board directed the Planning Commission to review and recommend a code amendment that 1) allows for both "micro" and "conventional" breweries/distilleries/wineries; 2) utilizes a square footage requirement as opposed to a production limit to separate "micro" from "conventional" businesses; 3) provides language that is clear, concise, and not onerous on prospective businesses, and 4) relies on existing regulations to address issues relating to noise and odor. The current code allows a brew pub as an accessory use to an eating establishment (Section 5). Staff has proposed moving from Chapter 5 to Chapter 4. Chapter 4 deals lists the zone districts and their respective allowed uses. Use classifications and specific use definitions would also be added to the EVDC for 1) Brewpub: This definition aligns with the State Liquor Code language and requirements. While brewpubs are currently permitted in the Estes Valley, there is no definition; 2) Micro- brewery/Micro-winery/Micro-distillery: Keeping with the intent to retain retail establishments m the Commercial Downtown (CD) and Commercial Outlying (CO) zone districts, this definition requires an on-site tasting/tap room; 3) Tasting/Tap Room: The proposed definition does not limit the number of such uses as described above. The Town Board also wanted to ensure that we do not unnecessarily limit "other beverages" in which patrons may consume; and 4) reweiy/Wmery/Distillery: Tasting/Tap rooms are optional with these uses, but are limited in size. This IS consistent with other municipalities' definitions such as the City of Boulder CDpnH'mH T St+ated^h! TrWn Tmstees were most Comfortable allowing these uses in the CO districts, and clarified that businesses would also have to comply with state liquor rogulat'ons. Most areas allowing this use would be along Elkhorn Avenue, S. St. Vrain (Hw^ 7) and Mora|ne Avenue, order to preserve the retail areas, proposed operations exce^ing Thk wn H M 6f ,n e CD-Commercial Downtown district would require a Special Review This would allow for a public hearing, neighbor notification, etc. Planner Kleisler received no negative comments from the Commissioners concerning the proposed definitions. tPastning/trDeiSrooTrhSted feedbaC,Vr0m the Commissi°n concerning limits on the number of tast ng/tap rooms a business could operate. Some business owners may desire to havp a Hi:iga;070m,°hffSlte fr0m ,he bre-'v/distillerv. For example, the " may be o Avenurfoc™edU?c rorre"1,' 3,1 addit'°nal taS,in8 ro°m C°Uld be '0Cated on Elkhomwhile others do no! FeedbarfromTe ™n'ciPalities limit ™ntber of tasting rooms, general consensus among the Commissioners roTnormStiXadstingromCs!ated’ There WaS bmeansuySri?oS SpedaTSew: '''Thns OOO s'puarel"65'''"areahohuVsber'sda“^^ consistency for Special Review requirements. qUare °0t tr'geer W°Uld mamtain EVDC Commissioner Klink stated there was a minimal amount of CH toned propertv in the Fstes CH anH 1-1 -t 1 ft b manufacturing. Also, there are areas zones There was general cronLrnsSuseanmonrtehaeS maV 56 SenS'tiVe t0 that type of development, the CH-Commerc/o/ Hr^tonersWa COmm'SSIOnerS “ "0t allt>» conventional brewing in Town Attorney White reiterated all proposed businesses would be required to follow the state liquor laws including obtaining a license. Federal ATF laws and th^fircodes 2 cle n o P^ay Wit this industry. The Planning Commission's portion of the whole pertains only to land RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public Comment Joe Elkins/Fort Collins resident stated he was interested in opening a distillery in Estes Park. He attended the community meetings. He stated the Town Board has been very transparent and eager to learn about this industry, as has the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce and the Economic Development Corporation. He supported the 15,000 square foot Special Review trigger, which would allow smaller business to operate by right in some zone districts. He also supported separating brew pubs from restaurants, which would allow these businesses to operate in the commercial areas. He was in favor of allowing multiple tasting rooms in order to have a successful retail business. The downtown area would not be very conducive to manufacturing and distribution, but would be an excellent place for tasting rooms and retail outlets. He appreciated the consideration of craft brewing in the Estes Valley. Diane Muno/Estes Valley Partners for Commerce stated a survey was sent to all members. Of the 41% of members who completed the survey, 100% were supportive of the code amendment. Jim Pickering/Economic Development Corporation stated the Commission received a document listing the economic benefits of allowing this type of business in the Estes Valley. The benefits were based on a series of standards that were adopted by the group for all projects. Planner Kleisler added he and Town Attorney White contemplated allowing b re we ri es/wi n e ri es/d ist i I le ri es in the O-Office zone district. Restaurants are currently a use y right in this zone district. There was general consensus by the Commissioners to allow breweries/wineries/distilleries in the O-Office zone district. 5. REPORTS A. Planner Shirk reported next month's meeting will include the following- 1. AneAn'ended Plat in the Fort Morgan Colony Addition to move an internal property 2- Xxistgdr:c;nu;ehse stanlev Hms subdi',ision to chanse=p,atted “> “^p'v 3. A Development Plan for the Estes Park Sanitation District to add a new headworks ^tmnure to comply with future regulations, as well as covering one of the sediment 4' Mountam. ReV*ew for a that AT&T desires to construct on Prospect B. Planner Shirk reported the Town Board approved the following- coLenncedSUbdiViSi0n P'at f°r M°Un,ain RiVer Construction has 2. The Amended Plat for Comfort Inn C- Wl1.' 'o the Larimer County Board E PlanlereiShi yananCe f°r 3 des'gn chanee near the silo at the Multi-Purpose Event Center F' cZTe7Zlm7lnTc ,he COmmiSSi°nerS lhat ,he Fal“" project Is still (and amongst themselves) concemTng this project°U d refra'n fr°m SPeaking With °,herS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 10 There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Karen Tho ding Secretary