Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2013-10-01 continued from 9-17-13RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 1, 2013 - Continued from September 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Chair Betty Hull, Vice-Chair Bowers, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes Chair Hull, Commissioners Bowers, Klink, Hills, Murphree, and Sykes Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner Dickey The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 14 people in attendance. Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner introduced him/herself. This meeting was continued from the regularly scheduled meeting of September 17, 2013, which was delayed due to flooding in the Estes Valley. Chair Hull formally welcomed Commissioner Wendye Sykes as a County representative, replacing Commissioner Joe Wise. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Johanna Darden/Town resident was opposed to any development on Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. Chair Hull stated any proposed project at that location would be heard by the Town Board, and all comments should be directed to the Trustees. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, August 20, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Recording Secretary Thompson w.ll correct the minutes to reflect those Commissioners in a^ndance. Portionof .oteir « ntoer NOrth Parking LOt ExPanslon Pro)e«i All Hospital Addition, Lot 18, o^J th. ! r J Prospect Mountain Addition. Staff request to continue to a future date once the submitted application is complete. Development Plan 2013-02 & Zoning Amendment, Wildfire Development- Tract 2 Hillerv hTd^tmTor10" P,at' 1753 Wi,dfire ROad- APPliCant t0 *0 = Preliminary Subdivision Plat & Development Plan nc; c *Townhomes; Tract 59A, Amended Plat o^rcts"rei 62t 63 Palfr 11°" RiVer lWHcSnmp0aVs::da:l5nei::d:|d,(K,ink/B0WerS, t0 aPPr0Ue the a-Pda - P—d and the 3- Ml=“;:i“r3s?Kfo:aDDri:eELOPMENT PUN °6-01' MARYS MEAD0W- - Marys the owners ofthe property to desIrtthrreqVesrdrS^^ Market C°nditi0nS haV6 driVen application waarrouteddtoaa| affected Commissl0" would be the decision-making body. The received byThe Communiw D^vellmf," and adiaCen, Pr°PertV °wners' with thirty (30) davs from thn r ■ ■ ^ nt Department- ,f approved, the applicant would have rnirty (50) days from the Commission's approval to submit the final plan. croe:inr:nifsrb:hbUr^^^^^ B. C. D. _______RECORD OFWbCEEDINGS__________________ Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 October 1,2013 - Continued from September 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall utilities, and drainage improvements would not change with the proposed minor modification. With the proposed duplex, the lot coverage would be reduced by 2%, and the building footprint reduced by 5% when compared to the originally proposed common building. He stated the residential use was permitted in the A-Accommodations zone district, and the proposed plan met the dimensional standards as outlined in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Staff Findings 1. Legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette. 2. The plan complies with EVDC Section 3. 3. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Development Code. 4. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for this minor modification. Staff recommended approval of the proposed minor modification, with conditions listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion There was brief discussion concerning the finished height of the proposed duplex. Planner Shirk stated a height certificate would be required to ensure compliance with the EVDC. Public Comment Frank Theis/applicant stated the development area was not affected by the recent flooding. Jim Tawney/property owner stated the property was originally conceptualized as a co-housing project, similar to those in the Boulder area. The concept was unsuccessful in the Estes area, and it was determined a duplex would be better suited for the site. Conditions Compliance with the approved development plan; Provide, in writing, a detailed plan (including timeline) to address the presence of noxious weeds on Lot 4A for staff review and approval; and 3. Submit revised plans to address the following: a. Call out original grade at corners and roof lines of duplex Units 9 and 10 for the purpose of height verification; b. Replace Town of Estes Park Mayor and Clerk signature blocks with that of the Estes Valley Planning Commission Chair. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Bowers) to approve the Minor Modification 06-01C to Development Plan 06-01 with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVSION PLAT & DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2013-03, MOUNTAIN RIVER TOWNHOMES, Metes & Bounds parcel located at 650 Moraine Avenue Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The owner is B & L Development, LLC, and the applicant IS Dallman Construction. They desire to redevelop the former Telemark Cottages property into a proposed townhome subdivision project to include twenty-six (26) single-family units. Planner Shirk stated the parcel is zoned A-Accommodations, and single-family dwellings are permitted in that zone district. Properties to the west are zoned A-Accommodations, properties o the north and east are zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential, and the zoning to the south across e river is A-l-Accommodations. There is a large parcel across Moraine Avenue that is zoned RE- 1 Rural Estate and under a conservation easement. Planner Shirk stated the northeast quadrant of the property is currently undeveloped. The existing units are along the river and the west property line. The Planning Commission would be the decision-making body for the Development Plan, and the recommending body for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, with the final decision made by the Town Board. The applicant has 1. 2. RECORD OF=WbCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 October 1, 2013 - Continued from September 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall requested several modifications to the EVDC design standards which have not yet been approved by the Town Engineer. Of the eight (8) requested modifications, the Planning Commission would be able to grant two (sidewalk width and height of required trees). These were discussed later in the meeting. Planner Shirk stated the applicant made several revisions to the original plan in response to staff requests. The current plan aligns the entrance point with Cedar Ridge Circle on the opposite side of Moraine Avenue as well as creating an extension of Park River Place on the east side of the property. The most significant change is from duplex units to single-family units. The current plan would also allow a right-of-way connection to the Mountain Haven Condominiums on the west. Earlier discussions with the Public Works Department included a right-of-way connection to the south across the river; however, those plans were abandoned. Planner Shirk stated the development plan does not comply with the provisions of the EVDC. Areas of noncompliance are outlined in detail in the Statement of Intent as "Waivers Requested." For example, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has requested a modified Traffic Impact Analysis; no report has been received to date. He stated the project cannot move forward until this and other issues are resolved. Other areas of noncompliance include, but are not limited to the right-of-way and driveway, stormwater, and trail designs. In the staff report, the following requirements were briefly addressed: (1) Weed Management Plan, (2) Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan, (3) Revisions to the Homeowners Association declarations, and (4) Submittal of an approved amended floodplain map. There was extensive discussion about the areas of noncompliance. The modifications and subsequent decisions are not in the purview of the Planning Commission. A submittal to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment would be required. Of the eight requests, the Planning Commission was authorized by the EVDC to grant two, as follows: (1) Width of sidewalk along Park River Place reduced from eight (8) feet to six (6) feet. The A- Accommodations zone district requires eight foot sidewalks; and (2) Height of required trees reduced from 50% being six to eight (6-8) feet tall to allowing 50% being four to six (4-6) feet tall. Planner Shirk stated the neighboring property. Park River West Condominiums, has five-foot sidewalks. The difference between these two projects is the zone district. Park River West is zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential, which has a five-foot wide sidewalk standard. A- Accommodations standards require eight-foot wide sidewalks. He stated staff recommended continuance until the project can comply with the standards of development as listed in the EVDC. Staff Findings 1. The development plan does not comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC, as outlined in the staff report and Findings of Compliance dated September 11, 2013. 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Commission is the Decision-making Body for the development plan, and the Recommending Body for the subdivision, with the subdivision recommendation going to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees. There was discussion about the proper procedures concerning the Board of Adjustment. Other options would be to revise the plans to comply with the code, or present sufficient evidence to the Town Engineer to waive those code requirements. Town Attorney White stated the Town Board is currently considering amending the EVDC to prohibit any Board of Adjustment action until development plans or special reviews are completed. Staff may not allow a submittal to the Board of Adjustment until the Town Board and County Commission review that proposed amendment. RECORD OF+HbCEEDINGS i Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 October 1, 2013 - Continued from September 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall There was brief discussion about a soft-surface trail along the river versus a paved trail, and the difference in standards in different zone districts. Planner Shirk stated the property is not in the floodplain, as stated by an approved Letter of Map Correction issued by FEMA. Public Comment Jeff Moreau/applicant stated the property has been used for accommodations since 1930 and currently has 29 structures. The proposed plan calls for 26 townhomes distributed over more than seven acres, less than the density allowed in the existing A-Accommodations zone district. The planning for this project has included more than 30 meetings over a two-year period. The developers have worked with the neighbors and utility agencies to keep the project moving forward. Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering presented the applicant's view of the major areas of noncompliance with the EVDC. Because these items are not in the scope of the Planning Commission's decision-making authority, they are listed briefly and may not be inclusive of the entire list: CDOT modified traffic analysis, stormwater drainage plan, floodplain, wildlife habitat protection, trails and trail easements, right-of-way width, ADA accessibility, parking standards, street frontage buffer, and road design. Concerning those items within the purview of the Planning Commission, Mr. Sheldon stated smaller trees have a better chance of survival than larger trees. Although there is also a cost savings, survivability was the intent. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant's desire is to continue working on this proposed project, and would appreciate a motion to continue to the November Planning Commission meeting. Scott Zurn/Public Works Director, expressed his views on the requested modifications. Again, these items were not in the scope of the Planning Commission's decision-making authority. They mainly addressed right-of-way and ADA accessibility. Town Attorney White explained the legality of the modifications, stating this was uncharted territory for the Town and the developer. Typically, the Town departments and/or agencies have been able to work through their differences and reach satisfactory agreements. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to overrule decisions made by the Public Works Department, and the correct legal procedure for this situation has not been determined. Johanna Darden/town resident opposed the development, stating the Town would destroy itself by continuing to accommodate visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park. It seemed unreasonable to her to increase development and extensively promote Estes Park as a destination at the expense of the character of the town. She was also concerned about wildlife corridors in this proposed development. Van Mielke/town resident and Vice-President of Park River West Homeowners Association (PRWHOA), spoke on behalf of the PRWHOA. He stated they were pleased and impressed with the changes made to the development plan. They were disappointed Town staff and the developer could not reach agreement on the various issues. Mr. Mielke's comments were centered on the modifications that were not in the scope of the Planning Commission's decision­ making authority. His written comments are available for review on the Current Applications page of the Town website. Mr. Sheldon requested direction from staff to assist with additional information concerning the requested modifications. Mr. Moreau requested a motion for continuance to allow additional research, and asked for information regarding the process to resolve the issues. Town Attorney White stated some issues relate to Town policies that may be directed to the Town Board; the accessibility issues are spelled out in the ADA Code and a court system is in in place to resolve those issues. RECORD oH#)CEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 October 1, 2013 - Continued from September 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall It was moved and seconded (Klink/Sykes) to continue the Mountain River Townhomes Development Plan 2013-03 and Preliminary Subdivision Plat to the November 19,2013 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Murphree and Town Attorney White excused themselves from the remainder of the meeting. 5. Reports and Discussion Items 1. Staff Level Review a. Craftsmans Corner Staff-Level Development Plan. Planner Shirk reported conditional approval was granted in August, but the revised plan had not been submitted. The applicant may have found an alternate location for the proposed business venture and may be withdrawing the application. 2. Planning Commission Reviews a. North End Ranches Amended Plat will be heard at the October 15th meeting. Planner Shirk reported the lots were created prior to the adoption of subdivision standards but did not comply with zoning standards in place at the time. b. Al Fresco Place Amended Plat will be heard at the October 15th meeting. Planner Shirk reported this is a lot line adjustment. 3. Board of Adjustment Reviews a. 217 Big Horn Drive. Planner Shirk reported this variance request for an addition to a deck was approved on September 3, 2013. 4. Town Board Reviews a. The Meadows Supplemental Condominium Map #2 was approved August 27, 2013. b. Lake Pines Amended Plat was approved August 27, 2013. 5. Board of County Commission a. Stanley Heights Amended Plat was approved on September 16th. Planner Shirk reported County staff will be attending those meetings on our behalf until Fort Collins is more accessible from Estes Park. 6. Other a. Visitor Center Parking and Transit Facility Update. Planner Shirk reported this project will move forward with the design phase, but construction will be delayed until further notice. b. Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee for proposed Event Pavilion. Planner Shirk reported the Committee granted a heavily-conditioned approval. The final application packet has not been submitted to date. 7. Flood Update a. Planner Shirk stated the Town website contained the most recent updates. More than thirty (30) structures were "red-tagged," out of approximately 8000 structures in the Estes Valley. Planning and Building staff have put in many long days with mapping and building inspections (Town and County). Planner Kleisler has been using GPS units to determine the high water marks, which exceed the 500-year flood in many areas. Planner Shirk reported the impact on the EVDC is undetermined. There are many questions to be answered concerning setbacks, property lines, etc. Several agencies (governmental and private) are coming forward to offer assistance. 8. Comprehensive Plan Update a. Due to the priority shift created by the recent flood, modernization of the Comprehensive Plan have been suspended for the time being. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m. ---------------------------- Betty Hqj4 Chair Karen Thompson,ing Secretary