Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2013-12-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission; Attending; Also Attending; Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes Chair Hull, Commissioners Dickey, Bowers, Hills, Murphree, Klink and Sykes Director Chilcott, Planner Kleisler, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Thompson, Larimer County Community Development Director Terry Gilbert Absent;Town Board Liaison Elrod 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 30 people in attendance. Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner was introduced. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, November 19,2013 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Sykes/Bowers) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2013-05 AND PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT, THE SANCTUARY ON FALL RIVER TOWNHOMES, Tract 59A, Amended Plat of Tracts 59, 61, 62, & 63, Fall River Addition Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to develop Tract 59A, Fall River Addition, within the town limits. The application includes both a development plan and a preliminary plat. The applicant is The Sanctuary, LLC (Mark Theiss). The overall property is approximately 12 acres, zoned A-Accommodations. The applicant proposes to develop four free-standing units on the developable portion of the parcel, which is approximately 1.75 acres. Single-family dwellings are permitted in the A-Accommodations zone district, and the applicant's intent is to use the dwellings for accommodations use; therefore, the project was designed for accommodations use (e.g. wider sidewalks, level streets, etc.). The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the Development Plan, and the recommending body for the Preliminary Plat and subsequent Final Plat, with the Town Board making the final decision. The property was part of a 2003 amended plat, which established the limits of disturbance to restrict development activity to the lower portion of the property and created a platted 50-foot river setback. The proposed development would comply with the platted setback requirement. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. An access agreement between the applicant and the owners of Streamside Condominiums is being prepared, so the proposed development could be legally accessed through the Streamside property. Depending on the outcome of the application, the agreement will be finalized. The sewer design has been finalized, and Estes Park Sanitation is supportive of the application. Redesign of the road to the property, agreed upon by both the applicant and the Public Works Department, would widen the bridge and create a two-lane access. The Public Works Department has approved the sidewalk design, which will be ADA compliant. At least one new fire hydrant would be installed, increasing fire protection in the area. The application also included a wildfire mitigation plan, which would benefit the neighborhood. The proposed project would include a centrally located cul de sac to be named RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 2. Estes Valley Planning Commission I December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Sanctuary River Court, with four lots radiating outward, two of which would front Fall River. A very short cul de sac through Streamside condominiums would be renamed Streamside Cabin Lane, and would be improved with a sidewalk and a curb system to manage stormwater. Planner Shirk stated one neighbor, Ken Arnold (Deer Crest Chalets), suggested that when the stormwater culvert on his property is repaired, it also be relocated. He has discussed his request with the appropriate departments. This is not a condition that can be imposed on this application, but it should be noted that the property owner discussed the issue with staff. The development would improve sanitary sewer and electrical systems for the surrounding neighborhood, and would increase wildfire mitigation and Fire District access to the south side of Fall River. Nearby electric lines would be buried, the full extent not to be determined until construction plans are submitted. Planner Shirk suggested the applicant review the HOA declarations where the accommodations use is concerned. He stated staff recommended approval of the proposed development, with conditions listed below. Staff Findings 1. With the exception of approved Minor Modifications outlined in the staff report, if revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the development plan and preliminary subdivision plat will comply with the EVDC. The app||cat|on is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive 3' 19DPoaf !hBepunrh'i?el!t ',?t0 ,he eXlStine Platted riVer Setbaclt is “"distent with Section 1.9D of the EVDC, which allows such setbacks. 4. The owner of Deer Crest Lot 1 has requested the applicant discuss relocating the storm sewer crossing his property. 5. This IS a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. 6‘ Ihrinrfh1106 Tith SeCti0n 3 2 D' a revised aPPlication shal1 be a condition precendent to p acing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the January 28th Town board ciert-::rpspraovJaTuary 8 submittai of a revised appiication iJ Conditions of Approval ^ r3116 “"'I' Sha" aPPlV f°r addreSS change “"^"rrent with Right-of-way permit application to reconfigure the street. y 2' Secborfl.glD^atS ' and 2 Sha" C°mPlV Wi*h 50■fOO, riVer Se,back: patios sha" comP|y 3. Compliance with: a. Wildfire Mitigation Plan dated August 28, 2013. b. Wildfire Habitat Evaluation and Impact Analysis dated July 24,2013 4. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Community Development dated December 11, 2013. This includes requirements for tco°r r :pre:;tXra;igh,ing'and outdoor storag"as wai1 as -isippa Pubiic Works dated December 2, 2013, modified per meeting with appiicant on December 6, 2013. The road shali be redesigned with curb/gutter to carry storm flow Wh ! ' m Fal1 RiVer Road t0 River Court, and the sidewaik shaii be redesigned to meet ADA standards to the maximum extent possibie. Estes Park Sanitation District dated November 27, 2013. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated November 27, 2013. Water Department dated November 20, 2013. b. c. d. e. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission j December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Shirk stated he expects the revised plans to be submitted in January. They will be routed to all affected agencies to ensure compliance with conditions. Following approval by affected agencies, the application will be placed on the Town Board agenda. Staff & Commission Discussion General discussion revolved around garages, fire truck parking, and the allowed density in the A-Accommodations district. It was noted the development will need to comply with the fire code. Public Comment Joe Coop/applicant representative provided a brief history of the parcel. Several different developments have been proposed, but none have come to fruition. Proposed density with this application is lower than previous proposals, and the single-family homes would not be in competition with the surrounding motels/accommodations units. He stated the neighbors were willing to participate in cost-sharing with burying electric lines, improving the sewer system, etc. The Sanctuary, Streamside Condominiums, and Riverview Pines Condominiums reached an agreement to proceed with one river crossing of the sewer line instead of three. Several property owners will participate in cost-sharing to bury the electric lines. Mr. Coop stated the HOA declarations will be revised to state the development will be used for accommodations. Kevin Ash/Town Engineer stated Mr. Coop requested a minor modification for a 20-foot wide r0^<-i,a?T 8'f00t Sldewalk- Mr-Ash stated an engineer needs to design a 24-foot wide driveway width Town standard) from Fall River Road to the entrance to the project. Mr. Coop stated seven large ponderosa pine trees would be compromised if the road was required to be 24 l! ; would confnue negotiations with the Public Works Department on the road width. Mr. Coop stated the grade for the sidewalk was going to be brought from the current 13% to 9/a. He stated the Public Works Department was willing to work with them to accomplish a satisfactory result. Mr. Ash stated he would be comfortable with allowing the project to move forward with the project and would work with the applicant on the unresolved issues. Jt-sm^ar^dseconded (Klink/Hills) to approved The Sanctuary Development Plan 2013- with the fmdmgs and conditions recommended by staff, with the road width being signe o 4-feet but adjusted as much as possible to accommodate saving the large trees on the property and the motion passed unanimously. PreTminTi hHd ““"0?“ (Dickey/Bowers) to recommend approval of The Sanctuary eliminary Subdivision Plat to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. . WAPITI MINOR SUBDIVISION, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. This is a request by Lexington Lane, LLC to subdivide I 'I !|Cre parcelLint0 two separate lots sized approximately 4.8 and 1.0 acres. The property is located within the Town limits, is zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential, borders S. St Vrain Avenue on the east and Lexington Lane on the south. There is an existing cabin on the proposed Lot 2. There is no development planned for proposed Lot 1. The separation of the 'th parcels wi11 stl11 allow the separate parcels to comply with the minimum lot size for the RM zone district. Planner Kleisler stated the Planning Commission would be the recommending body, with the Town Board making the final decision. Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to all affected agencies. No significant concerns were raised. The Estes Park Sanitation District recommended connecting to their sewer system, removing the current septic system. Colorado Department of Transportation stated future development on proposed Lot 1 may require a new permit. The Public Works epartment requested 7.5 feet of additional right-of-way along Lexington Lane to better align RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission i December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall the driveway/crosswalk to the east across S. St. Vrain. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant proposes to construct a five-foot sidewalk along the north edge of the property along the Lexington Lane right-of-way, which would align with the existing sidewalk on the east side of S. St. Vrain. Staff supports this proposal. The applicant requested to delay the landscaping requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code until a plan is submitted to develop the lot(s). Staff supports this request. Findings 1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 3.9Er Standards for Review” and 10.3 "Review Procedures.; 2. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 3. Within sixty (60) days of the Board's approval of the minor subdivision, the developer shall submit the plat for recording. If the plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. 4. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval with conditions listed below. Staff & Commission Discussion There was brief discussion concerning the sewer connection. Public Comment Jes Reetz/Cornerstone Engineering representing the applicant. He stated the applicant was not proposing any development with this application. The desire is to split off a portion of the property in an attempt to sell the smaller lot and recoup some of his expenses. Landscaping requirements would be put into place when the properties are developed. Conditions 1. Compliance with affected agency comments: a. Estes Park Sanitation District email dated November 27,2013. b. Estes Park Public Works memo dated December 2, 2013. c. Colorado Department of Transportation email dated November 24,2013. d. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated November 12, 2013. 2. The proposed sidewalk along Lexington Lane shall be installed or guaranteed prior to plat recordation. k <■« kmol Sewer infrastructure to the existing cabin on proposed Lot 2 shall be installed or guaranteed prior to plat recordation. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements). C '^a.s.nioved and seconded (Hills/Bowers) to recommend approval of the Wapiti Minor Subdiwsion to the Town Board of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 5' .ESJ^tP^R.K MED,CAL CENTER NORTH PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT, All Hospital Addition Lot 18 Little Prospect Mountain Addition, Portion of Lot 17, Little Prospect Mountain Addition,' 555 Prospect Avenue, 161 163, & 165 Stanley Circle Drive Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The application submitted included the Special Review of a Development Plan requiring Town Board approval, a Location & Extent Review because the hospital is considered a governmental agency. This review included a code analysis on the property to determine if the proposed development complied with the Estes Valley Development Code. Planner Shirk stated state law governing medical facilities allows the hospital board to exempt themselves from compliance with the development code, and 3. 4. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Town Attorney White was in attendance to answer questions from the Commission. Additionally, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Rezoning of the two proposed outlets of the subdivision plat would be reviewed. Planner Shirk stated the location of the proposed parking lot would be on the north side of the hospital, in between the existing parking lot and the dwellings that front on Stanley Circle Drive. The development area is approximately 1.4 acres and is zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential. The hospital owns the Stanley Circle Drive homes involved in the application, which are in the E-Estate zone district. The current uses of the homes are 1) long-term hospital employee housing, 2) paramedic uses, and 3) living quarters for visiting doctors. The paramedic use and short-term use by visiting doctors do not comply with the current zoning regulations for single-family zone districts; therefore, the hospital board would need to exempt themselves from those regulations. Planner Shirk stated the right-of-way does not have a zoning designation. An amended right-of-way agreement will be presented to the Town Board by the Public Works Department. The hospital property is adjacent to mostly undeveloped parcels on the west, multi-family directly east, and single-family dwellings on the north. Planner Shirk explained the proposed development would include some sidewalks, including a connection to Stanley Circle Drive, and tying into the overall sidewalk system on the hospital campus. Landscaping would be provided as a buffer from the parking lot. Emergency access through Stanley Circle Drive would be maintained. The proposed outlets would also be designated emergency access easements. A stormwater swale would be located between the two parking lots, which would help treat and slow the movement of stormwater. A stormwater pond would be built to assist with drainage to the sewer system. Planner Shirk stated the vast majority of the proposed parking lot would be on hospital property, with a very small portion being located in the Town public right-of-way. He stated the subdivision plat would create Outlets A and B, to be "carved out" of existing Lots 1, 2, & 3. Lots 1, 2 & 3 would remain E-Estate zoned, due to neighbor concerns. Proposed Lot 2 would be reduced below the /2-acre minimum lot size established for the E-Estate zone district. The proposed lot size requires the Planning Commission approve a Minor Modification to lots size. This modification falls within the 25% modification authority of the Planning Commission. Lot 3 would be also be reduced below the %-acre minimum requirement, with a modification of greater than 25%. The applicant has applied for a variance from the code, which will be heard by the Board of Adjustment in February, 2014. The Board of Adjustment will also be reviewing a setback variance for the parking lot to be close in to the property lines. The Planning Commission is the recommending body for the subdivision plat, with the Town Board making the final decision, scheduled for January 28, 2014. Planner Shirk stated a Special Review of the Development Plan is required for hospitals. The Town Board will be the decision-making body for the Special review, and will need to find the applicant mitigates to the maximum extent feasible potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Planner Shirk stated the EVDC requires Location and Extent reviews for public uses, including the hospital. This review is "intended to provide an opportunity for review of the location and extent of the specified public facilities and uses sought to be constructed or authorized within the Estes Valley, especially as to whether such public use is consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the EVDC." Following this review, the hospital district board can exempt itself from local zoning regulations by a majority vote. Planner Shirk stated the hospital desires to comply with the EVDC by requesting to rezone Outlets A & B from E-Estate to RM-Multi-Family Residential. Lots 1, 2 and 3 would remain for single-family use, which would be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to the minor modifications listed above, the applicant has requested a minor modification to the 10-foot minimum setback in the E-Estate zone district. The proposed south lot line for Lot 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall would provide a setback of 8.25 feet to the existing dwelling unit. This request falls within the 25% modification the Planning Commission is authorized to approve. Planner Shirk stated staff found the approval of the proposed project would result in less visual impact and more effective environmental or open space preservation, while leaving the mountainside to the west of the hospital intact. Planner Shirk stated the applicant has requested a fee waiver for the development review fees, which will go before the Community Development/Community Services Committee on January 23, 2014. A Right-of-Way agreement will need to be modified, and will be handled by the Public Works Department. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No significant issues from affected agencies were raised. The stormwater plan will require minor revisions, and a staff is working with the applicant to create a lighting plan for the entire campus to reduce the overall light level. The adjacent property owners have had ongoing concerns about the proposed project. The hospital held meetings with the neighbors in an attempt to work out the issues. Findings 1. With the exception of the requested variances and Minor Modifications, the application complies with applicable development/operational standards set forth in the EVDC. This finding assumes compliance with staff recommendation regarding exterior storage and mechanical equipment. 2. Use. The proposed use of Lots 1 and 2 (on-call staff housing; Paramedic use) are not allowed uses in the E-Estate zone district. Such uses require a majority EPMC Board vote to overrule local zoning regulations to allow these hospital-associated uses (Paramedic) in the single-family zone district. 3. The use of Lot 3 (single-family residence) is allowed in the E-Estate zone district. 4. The application mitigates to the maximum extent feasible potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. 5. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The Minor Modifications (Lot 2 lot size. Lot 3 building setback) results in less visual impact and more effective environmental or open space preservation, and relieves practical deifficulties in developing a site, thereby advances the goals and purposes of Section 7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance. 7. The Planning Commission is the recommending body for this application;p the recommendation is 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 Town Board agenda. This means a revised application demonstrating compliance with conditions must be submitted before the application can move forward to the Town Board, but no later than 30- days after Planning Commission meeting date. Staff recommends approval, with conditions listed below. Staff & Commission Discussion Brief discussion occurred regarding traffic. Planner Shirk stated a traffic impact analysis was not triggered, and the Public Works Department determined the additional parking would not create a significant increase in traffic. Public Comment Jes Reetz/Cornerstone Engineering applicant representative stated the primary concern from the neighbors was the original plan to rezone the single-family homes to RM-Multi-Family Residential. By subdividing the three lots and keeping the single-family zoning intact, the 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission : December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall hospital believed this was a workable solution. The expansion project includes 66 parking stalls, and the applicant is confident this will meet their parking needs for quite some time. The homes will provide housing for on-call doctors, who will be parking in the new parking lot, minimizing traffic on Stanley Circle Drive. Mark Igel/Town resident submitted written public comment which was posted on the Town website. He stated there was intent to create a training classroom in one of the homes, and the proposed and current uses of the property as staff housing are not allowed in E-Estate zone districts. He stated one of the homes was being used for vehicle and material storage, and another was basically a vacation home not being managed like a vacation rental. He stated the hospital has made structural modifications to create multi-tenant housing for staff, is using the properties for storage, which is creating a commercial feel to a residential property. He was opposed to the probable overruling of the non-compliant use of the homes, although he understands the hospital's authority to do so. He stated the Right-of-Way agreement was clearly the only part of the project the Town had clear control over, and encouraged the Planning Commission to consider adding conditions to that agreement. He encouraged the Commission to table the application until they had all the information needed to make a good recommendation. Ray Sahm/Town resident stated the neighborhood meetings were productive, with the understanding the zoning would remain E-Estate. He suggested tabling the item under review until another meeting could take place between the hospital and the neighbors to review the final plan. Floyd Nielson/Town resident was especially concerned about the ingress/egress from Stanley Circle Drive to the proposed hospital parking lot. Fire access design is very important. He hoped the neighbors would have been able to meet with the hospital to review the final plans. Vicki Tesar/Town resident concurred with previous comments. Property owners that live out of state have expressed concerns about the "multi-family use" that is currently taking place. She was concerned about depreciating property values, and added that not all those concerned were represented at today's meeting. Vicky Holler/Town resident agreed with previous comments. She stated property right should e preserved, and this project would have a major impact on the existing property owners in this subdivision. She believed the adjacent property owners needed to have the opportunity to review the latest revisions to the plans prior to any decision being made. Mike Kinpwood/Town resident stated there were alternatives for additional parking needs at t^he hospital. The transit hub and/or future parking garage would be possibilities, with small buses used to shuttle employees to and from work. He agreed with Mr. Igel's comments. Kathleen Case/Town resident agreed with Mr. Igel's comments. Yvonne Bickford/Town resident was concerned about the rezoning request. She hoped the hospital would honor their agreement with the neighbors. The noise and lighting is extensive. Small trees planted to diminish the lighting issues have died, and traffic on Stanley Circle has increased significantly. Rick Zuba/Town resident agreed with Mr. Igel's comments, and his largest concern was the increased traffic and the improper use of the homes on Stanley Circle Drive. Mark Robinson/Estes Valley Fire District explained the two points of access have been in place for many years, and the plan is to improve the second access. Planner Shirk explained access to the neighborhood would not change. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Mark Igel, invited back to the podium, explained the reasonable solution by the hospital was to focus parking for the three homes towards the back of the homes facing the hospital. The current problem is the transient overnight traffic from people staying in the homes on Stanley Circle Drive. A previous plan showed the addition of sidewalks from the backs of the homes to the hospital, and the current plan and current use has people using Stanley Circle Drive as the main access to the homes. During the past several months he has frequently counted the number of open spaces in the existing parking lot, and discovered there were always at least 20 spaces available at various times during the day. At one point, additional spaces became available when the hospital offered incentives to employees parking off-campus. Again, he encouraged the Planning Commission to table the item to allow time for additional neighborhood meetings to reach an acceptable agreement between them and the hospital (e.g. manage the homes better, be responsible neighbors, etc.). Jes Reetz/applicant representative admitted traffic is an issue. Once the parking lot is completed, the traffic will be rerouted to the parking lot and not coming from Stanley circle Drive. He agreed the free lunch program for off-campus parking was successful. The applicant proposes light poles shorter than the existing poles would be installed, and added some of the current exterior lights were incorrectly tilted and LED fixtures would be used in the new lighting. He stated the Right-of-Way agreement would only allow parking lot us, and no buildings would be constructed in the right-of-way. Commissioner Klink stated he disagreed with Finding #5. The Comprehensive Plan includes verbiage as to the importance of neighborhoods, and keeping residential areas separate from commercial areas. Planner Shirk clarified his interpretation with Finding #5 dealt with the Comprehensive Plan's guide to support infill and the protection of the undeveloped natural areas (the mountainous area to the west of the hospital). Planner Shirk's focus was on the parking lot and its design, not on the use of the properties on Stanley Circle Drive, because the hospital has the ability to use those properties for however they feel appropriate. Town Attorney White stated many of today's comments should be directed to the Park Hospital District Board, as the Planning Commission does not have the right to determine the use of the property. Two other public hearings will be held concerning this application: the own Board for the Special Review determination, and the Hospital District Board to rn/rrcmI-ne whether °r not they wiH comP|V with the recommendations. Also, the PUP and CD/CS Committees will meet regarding the Right-of-Way agreement and the fee waiver respectively. ' Brief discussion occurred concerning the hospital's authority to overrule the Development ode regulations, and the Planning Commission's frustration because of it. Conditions The following conditions apply to the Special Review. 1. Board of Adjustment approval of variances for parking lot setback and minimum lot size. 2. Approval of the subdivision and rezoning. 3. Town board approval of the revised right-of-way agreement. 4' buMng8en St0rage tank n0rth 0f the main bUilding Sha" be Painted t0 ma,Ch the h0Spital 5. Areas of vehicle storage shall be delineated on the site plan. 6. Compliance with the following affected agency comments: a. Community Development memo dated December 6, 2013. This includes requirements for construction plans, exterior lighting, and outdoor storage. b. Public Works memo dated December 2,2013. c. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated November 27, 2013. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission J December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall It was moved and seconded (Dickey/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Sykes) to recommend approval of Rezoning Outlots A and B from E-Estate to RM-Multi-Family Residential with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to recommend disapproval of Special Review 2013-03 to the Town Board with the findings and recommendations by staff due to the proposed uses of Lots 1 and 2, which do not comply with the use standards of the E-Estate zone district, and the motion pass unanimously. Mr. Igel complimented the Commission on their decision, stating it was a strong statement to the hospital board. The neighbors will continue to work with the hospital. 6.ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING CONCURRENT REVIEW AND PROMULGATING PROCESSING SCHEDULES Town Attorney White stated the Town Board directed staff to draft an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code requiring concurrent submittal of development applications. Town Board directed staff to apply the amendment in all cases, so the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment would review the applications after the Town Board and County Commission had reviewed and made decisions on applications. After discussion at the study session, it was determined it was a very complex amendment, would not address all the problems, but would prevent Board of Adjustment approval of a proposed project prior to going to the Planning Commission, Town Board, and/or County Commission. There was brief discussion concerning unintended consequences the amended would bring. Director Chilcott stated the Town Board was clear in their direction, and typically applications for large projects requiring multiple reviews are submitted at the same time allowing a review schedule to be determined. In one particular case, the only application submitted for a proposed complex development was for a height variance, which went to the Board of Adjustment without major sharing of information about the project. Commissioner Hills was supportive of concurrent review. Commissioner Klink was supportive of some flexibility. Director Chilcott stated the Town Board desired to have no flexibility in the amendment, so in all cases the Board of Adjustment would have the final review. The Commission's consensus was to revise the draft amendment, removing the last three words "and/or Boards." The proposed draft amendment is as follows: Section 3.1.E Concurrent Review At the election of the applicant and with the concurrence of the Staff, applications for different types of development approvals may be processed concurrently whenever possible to expedite total review and processing time for a project. The Community Development Director may require concurrent submittal of related development applications. However, in alj_cases a related.BOA application shall be reviewed after final action of related development application by EVPC and/or Boards. Section 3.1.F Application Processing Schedule The staff may promulgate a processing schedule for each application. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Murphree) to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as described in Exhibit A to the Estes Park Town Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with a slight RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 17, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 10 change, removing "and/or Boards" from the last sentence in Section 3.1.E. and the motion passed unanimously. 7. REPORTS A. Director Chilcott reported the Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure, originally on a fast-track schedule has been slowed down due to the flood. The tentative Planning Commission review schedule is February, 2014 depending on details of the review process. B. Director Chilcott reported the Anschutz Wellness Center at the Stanley Hotel special Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 9, 2013 was cancelled when the applicant withdrew the application. Plans are being revised, and we are anticipating a new submittal with a possible February review. The new application review process would not be expedited, and would be completed by staff. C. Planner Shirk reported the Wildfire Development Plan applicant has requested a continuance. The property owner has ceased the use of the saw mill. Staff continues to communicate with the applicant to determine the future status of the application. D. Planner Shirk reported the Town Board approved the Al Fresco Place Amended Plat and Supplemental Map #4 for Stonebridge Estates Condominiums were approved in November. E. Planner Shirk reported he will begin meeting with the County Commissioners again, now that Hwy 34 has reopened. F. Planner Shirk reported going on a site visit to view monopine cell towers. These towers can be placed in forested areas, and resemble pine trees. Cell tower reviews are conducted at staff level. G. Planner Shirk reported the Board of Adjustment would be reviewing a variance for the fire truck turnaround would be heard on January 7,2014. H. Planner Kleisler reported the modernization of the Comprehensive Plan was put on hold following the flood. An amended timeline was distributed to the Planning Commission at the study session. Staff is ready to begin again with work on the modernization, with a completion date targeted for July, 2014. The changes would require review by the Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission. I. Director Chilcott stated the Town applied for and received funding for a Fall River Master Plan, $94,000 from the Natural Resource Conservation Service and $50,000 from the Community Foundation. The Town is hoping to obtain grants to produce new floodplain maps. Funds to restore Fish Creek have been applied for. Several meetings are planned with property owners to inform them as to what resources are available. Shellie Tressell has been assisting the department with grant writing. J. Planner Shirk reported the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District was the recipient of a $35,000 GoCo grant to update the trails plan in the Estes Valley. K. Chair Hull stated she was proud of how the Planning Commission handled the review process for the Hospital Parking Lot Expansion. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m. BettyTlull^hair SecretaryKaren Thompson, Re