Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2013-06-18RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Joe Wise, Kathy Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, one vacancy Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Wise, Bowers, Murphree, and Hills Director Chilcott, Senior Planner Shirk, Code Compliance Officer/Planner Kleisler, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Town Attorney White The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Vice-Chair Huil caiied the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m., after problems with the sound system were resolved. There were approximately thirty-six people in attendance. Vice-Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner introduced him/herself. 1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Klink) to elected Commissioner Hull to serve as Chair, and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to elect Commissioner Bowers to serve as Vice-Chair, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes. May 21, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to approve the consent agenda as amended, with a minor correction to paragraph two, item #4, and the motion passed unanimously (6-0) with one vacancy. 4. LOT 45, THE RESERVE - WAIVER FROM EVDC SECION 4.3.C.3 Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The subject property is located at 1080 North Lane. The applicant requested to allow a second dwelling be built on Lot 45 of the Reserve subdivision. This would be a waiver of Section 4.3.C.3. regulating the 'Maximum Number of Principle Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel.' He stated the property is currently developed with four structures; a 1937 square foot residence building in 1897, a bunkhouse without plumbing, a barn, and an 8 x 12 woodshed. This property is the homestead of the former Storer Ranch, which used to encompass the entire north end of the Estes Valley. Years ago, the property was zoned for commercial use. Staff Findings 1. The property is currently developed with an historic structure built in 1897, which the applicant proposes to retain for summer guests. 2. The applicant proposes to build a modern year-round dwelling in addition to the existing historic structure. 3. The proposal would comply with density standards: a. The property is approximately eight (8) acres in size; b. The property is zoned E-l-fstote, a 1-acre single-family designation; and c. The proposed density would be .25 units/acre. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4.A purpose of subdivision review is to 'secure adequate provisions for water supply, electric service, drainage, sewers and other facilities and services for the health and safety of the residents of the Estes Valley (Section lO.l.D)/ 5. Adequate public facilities exist to serve a second dwelling unit. 6. The property is not within a geologic or wildfire hazard area and does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat. 7. Approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code. 8. 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. 9. If approved, the property would be subject to a Use Restriction Covenant that would prohibit subdivision of the property or separate rental of the dwellings. 10. The proposed Use Restriction Covenant would function in similar fashion to a conservation easement. 11. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. Planner Shirk stated several years ago there was a petition to waive this standard for a property in unincorporated Larimer County. The County Commission approved the waiver and there have been no issues to date. He stated the applicant has no intentions of selling the property and, therefore, does not care to subdivide the property. Public Comment Cindy Buggs/property owner stated she and her husband have owned property for 15 years. Their desire is to retain the historic ranch and build a year-round dwelling that would be very similar in architectural design to the existing home. They have no intentions of building a new barn, but would have an attached garage. She explained the bunkhouse is in disrepair, and they may use the wood from that structure for building purposes with the new home. She stated the proposed barn on the site plan was incorrect. Commissioner Wise questioned the inaccuracy of the site plan. He stated the same objective could be obtained with a minor subdivision. Commissioner Klink stated approval of the waiver would create a detached accessory dwelling unit, which the Town Board and County Commission soundly rejected after years of discussion. Director Chilcott stated the option for a subdivision was discussed with the Buggs' attorney. The attorney told her the desired goal was to maintain what was left of the historic homestead on one lot. Planner Shirk clarified the condition of approval states the covenant would be subject to final review and approval by the Town Attorney. He ensured the Commission that adequate public facilities and the issue with the barn would be addressed. Tom Dority, official representative for The Reserve HOA, spoke on behalf of the HOA in support of the proposed waiver. One of his neighbors, George Carr, also gave him the authority to speak on his behalf in support of the waiver. Mr. Dorit/s reason for support was two-fold: (1) The terms of the covenant were such that the historic value of the property would remain, which would benefit all adjacent property owners and the Estes Valley; (2) The covenant would not allow rental of the accessory dwelling. He stated the property was nearly eight acres and could support several other parcels and homes, and was very supportive of the waiver request due to the building restrictions. He stated there was a recorded access easement on the southwest corner of the lot adjacent to The Reserve. The Reserve would desire to have that easement vacated. If there was a minor subdivision instead of the waiver, it would be a possibility the easement may remain in place. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Klink stated the historic homestead had already been subdivided and this was the last remaining parcel. Zoning for that parcel is E-1—Esfote, with a minimum one acre lot size, so RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall subdividing the property would not be out of character with the neighborhood. He did not see any public benefit to approving the waiver, except for private historic preservation. Commissioner Wise stated both the Town Board and the County Commission voted against allowing detached accessory dwelling units in the Estes Valley. He would support a minor subdivision, and the family could choose to keep all of the lots or sell them. The applicant would need to further review the subdivision option prior to deciding whether or not to pursue that option. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Wise) to recommend disapproval to the Town Board of the waiver from EVDC Section 4.3.C.3 and the motion passed (6-0) unanimously, with one vacancy. Comments following the vote included recommending the minor subdivision option. Objections were to the process proposed. There was brief discussion concerning accessory dwelling units. 5. WILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2013-02 & REZONING REQUEST Senior Planner Shirk stated the applicant submitted a rezoning request and development plan. The current zoning, CH-Commercial Heavy, has operational restrictions on the property, and the applicant has requested these restrictions be removed. The property is located in unincorporated Larimer County, and the restrictions were imposed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners several years ago. Furthermore, the property is subject to a pending annexation hearing in front of the Town Board, tentatively scheduled for August, 2013. Planner Shirk noted the intergovernmental agreement between the Town and Larimer County states the Town Board consider annexations of land being rezoned. He stated staff was recommending continuance of this hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to work out some issues addressed by staff and affected agencies. Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The property is located at 1753 Wildfire Road, in unincorporated Larimer County. The area is an enclave in the county, surrounded by property within the town limits. Annexation would absorb this lot into the Town. The neighborhood is predominately zoned for residential use; R-1 to the north. The Neighborhood subdivision, platted approximately 2005. Property to the east is zoned CH—Commercial Heavy and contains a self­ storage development developed in 2005-2007. The property to the west is zoned and used for single-family residential use, and the property to the south is undeveloped and zoned for one-half acre single-family development. Planner Shirk stated the applicant is Nathan Kinley of Wildfire Development, LLC, and the design engineer is Van Horn Engineering. The property in question is just under two acres in size. Mark Westover, representing the property owner, was in attendance and prepared to answer questions. Planner Shirk gave the history of the property. It was initially zoned in 1963 by Larimer County as C-Commercial. In 1978, the Hillery Parrack Exemption Plat was approved by the County Commissioners. Exemption plats are fairly plentiful in Larimer County, and are exempt from the subdivision standards. At the time of the exemption, property owners would receive approval to subdivide their property without having to comply with road standards, utility standards, etc. This is no longer a common practice in Larimer County. In 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved a use variance on this property to allow construction of a single-family dwelling on property zoned C-Commercial. At the time, single-family dwellings were not an allowed use for that zone district. The use variance was allowed, while the commercial zoning remained in place. In 2000, the Estes Valley Development Code became effective, rezoned all parcels within the Estes Valley, and this parcel was rezoned from the county's C-Commercial zoning to the EVDC's E-Estate zoning, based on the use of the property at the time. The property changed hands sometime between 1998 and 2000. In 2004, the Community Development Department cited the property owner with violating the zoning codes for E-Estate zoning. The property owner at the time was using the property for outdoor storage, with heavy trucks/equipment frequenting the site. The County Commissioners found the violation was valid. Shortly thereafter, the property RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall owner challenged the 2000 zoning change from commercial to residential, claiming the property was rezoned incorrectly in 2000. At the time of the adoption of the EVDC, code provided a one- year dispute period for property owners to contact staff and request a zoning change. Although the new property owner's request to rezone was past the dispute period, the County Commissioners agreed to rezoned the property from E-Estate to CH-Commercial Heavy. At that time and under those special circumstances, a development plan was not required (which would have addressed adequate public facilities, screening, landscaping, etc). However, the County Commissioners imposed some zoning restrictions. The current owner. Wildfire Development, LLC, purchased the property in 2009, and requests to remove those zoning restrictions put in place in 2005. At this time. Commissioners Murphree and Wise recused themselves from the remainder of the review. Both left the dais. Planner Shirk stated there were a few restrictions imposed by the County Commissioners in 2005. One addressed permitted uses, which were limited to the single-family dwelling (could also be used for employee housing), and other restricted uses were for maintenance and repair services associated with the prior owner's quarry business on Elm Road, and with the shop building as shown on the site plan. Planner Shirk stated the quarry business shut down several years ago. He stated one reason why staff would recommend a continuance was so Town Attorney Greg White could be in attendance to offer legal advise on several conflicting items. Planner Shirk explained other limitations on the property included storage of only those items on the "equipment list," which is actually a photo taken in 2005 showing equipment on the property. Specifics about the equipment list were undefined. No outside storage of business or construction materials was allowed, nor was outside maintenance of vehicles. The shop building was to remain an earth-tone color to lessen the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Planner Shirk stated some of the operational performance standards suggested in the staff report address these particular restrictions (Examples: screening outdoor storage, compliance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan on design standards for the proposed pole barns). Planner Shirk stated there are several areas of the submitted development plan that do not comply with the EVDC. Issues needing to be resolved include but are not limited to: building height, sidewalks, bike racks, storage within building setbacks, and driveway openings. He was confident all the issues could be resolved with revised plans. Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed uses for the property, including an Office, Construction Storage Yard, and Industry Custom (allowed use in CH zone district). The Planning Commission and Town Board would need to determine and decide if the proposed use of the small-scale saw mill complies with the definition of Industry Custom. He stated the applicant has proposed a phasing plan to provide compliance with the overall development code. For example, the applicant proposes delaying the paving of the road. Planner Shirk stated the applicant has applied for the following waivers and modifications to the EVDC requirements. He explained the Planning Commission was not authorized to grant such waivers, as that was a Town Board decision. 1. Water. The applicant requests a waiver to Section 7.12.E 'Water' to allow the building to remain on a well system. The well permit issued by the State specifies the 'well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside a single-family dwelling. The ground water shall not be used for irrigation or other purposes." Staff recommends the requirement to connect to the Town water system be upheld. (Note: the applicant has plans to extend the water main in order to install a fire hydrant.) 2. Sewer. The applicant requests a waiver to Section 7.12.D 'Sanitary Sewer' to allow the office to remain on the existing septic system 'until the septic system fails or additional capacity is needed for future development.' Staff recommends the requirement to connect to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District be upheld and accounted for in the phasing plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Shirk stated the staff recommendations to hook up to water and sewer are based on development plan requirements to provide adequate public facilities in association with rezoning. Other waivers requested do not apply: A) There is no requirement to upgrade the electric system; B) The road paving request is not a waiver but a request to delay full installation; and C) Street design modification has been approved by the Public Works Department. Landscaping Modifications. The applicant requests modification to landscaping requirements to allow 50% reduction in the amount of district buffer landscaping along the north, west, and south property lines (which adjoin single-family residentially zoned property). The applicant also requests modification to allow installation of four- to five-foot-tall trees instead of the six- to eight-foot-tall trees required by the EVDC. Planner Shirk stated landscaping is required to create a district buffer to help mitigate the physical, visual, and environmental impacts created by development on adjacent properties. Buffering and screening creates a visual buffer between incompatible or differing land uses. Because of that use conflict, staff recommended the numbers of trees required by the EVDC be installed along the north and west property lines. The south property line would contain the fence buffer, and the east side also contains a buffer that was put in place when the storage units were built next door. As for the height of the trees to be planted. Planner Shirk stated smaller trees have a better chance of survival, and the Commission would be the decision-making body on that issue. Regarding the rezoning request. Planner Shirk stated there are three specific review criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected Staff Finding: The application is not technically a rezoning, but a request to remove conditions placed on the 2005 rezoning. The request would not amend the Official Zoning Map, but instead is a text amendment. The neighborhood has changed significantly since the adoption of the Land Use Plan in the year 2000. These changes include development of the Good Samaritan subdivision. The Neighborhood Subdivision, the Vista Ridge complex, and the self­ storage units to the east. Additionally, the parcel in question was granted CH-Commercial Heavy zoning in 2005. 2. The development plan is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Valley Staff Finding: If revised to account for operations! performance and development code standards outlined below, the development plan would comply with policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities. Staff Finding: The Fire District has noted 'at this time the Fire District cannot determine fire protection system requirements due to unknown building occupancy classification, use, size of fire areas and storage arrangements.' This issue must be resolved before the plan can be approved. The applicant requests waivers from Adequate Public Facilities standards regarding water and sanitary sewer, which conflicts with this standard for review. Regarding the Development Plan application , Planner Shirk stated there were two specific review criteria: 1. The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC Staff Finding: The development plan does not comply with applicable standards. Areas of deficiency are outlined in staff findings dated June 6,2013. 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The development plan does not comply with applicable standards. Areas of deficiency are outlined in staff findings dated June 6, 2013. Regarding one of the proposed uses as a Construction Storage Yard (§5.1.D), staff found the plan needs to be revised such that outdoor storage areas cannot be located within the required setback areas. This means the fence location needs to be revised. For the proposed planned use RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 June 18,2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall of an Outdoor Storage Area (§7.13), staff found the truck parking/loading area would be screened, trash collection would be located in the rear yard, and conduits/meters/vents/etc would be painted to match the building. The development plan complies with this section of the EVDC. Regarding Operational Performance Standards concerning noise and operation/physical compatibility, staff recommends the site plan be modified to address neighborhood compatibility with the following: (1) Add note stating all materials processing will occur inside the shop building with doors closed; (2) Add note stating hours of operation should be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (these times align with the noise ordinance regarding reduced decibel levels); (3) Add note stating the manufacturing uses are Limited Industrial and the wood mill is not for the general public or contractors; (4) Pole barns should be kept to one story in height (15-feet); (5) Existing light on workshop should be changed to a compliant fixture; and (6) Building design should comply with Community Design standards outlined in Chapter 6 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (roofing materials, building colors, facades). Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from various agencies. The Fire District would require additional information. Staff also received several comments from adjacent property owners concerned about the impact on view and increased truck traffic. Staff Findings 1. The development plan does not comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. Areas of non-compliance are outlined in the Findings of Compliance dated June 6, 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 recommending body for the zoning decision. The Town Board will make final determination on the zoning request. 4. In accordance with §3.2.D.2, 'a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board's agenda.' The required revisions are due within thirty (30) days of Planning Commission recommendation, and require review/approval of the development review team. Staff Recommendation Planner Shirk stated staff recommends continuance of the review to the July Planning Commission meeting to allow resolution of multiple items outlined in the staff report and staff findings, and to allow submittal of a development agreement to address the requested phasing plan. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/Project Engineer stated he would accept the continuance to next month. He stated the applicant wants to build two pole barns to accommodate inside storage. The applicant 1) wants the specific zoning restrictions changed to align with the EVDC requirements; 2) purchased the property knowing about the restrictions on the CH zoning; 3) is willing to comply with the landscaping requirements on the north and west side; 4) is willing to comply with the 15- foot height restriction (Note: Storing construction materials higher than 12 feet would trigger a fire sprinkler system. Although the limit is 30 feet, they would build only 15-feet high); 5) is willing to conduct a noise study along property lines and will have the results prior to the next meeting; 6) is willing to connect to water and sewer, but would prefer it be phased in at a later date. The applicant has no plans to increase the density on the property, and, therefore, the use of the septic system would not increase. He stated the septic system currently functions well and is not a burden; 7) would provide a detailed phasing plan and development agreement as requested. He stated, per the traffic analysis, there are currently 76 trips per day. In comparison, Vista Ridge handles several hundred trips per day. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Corinne Dyer/HOA president at Vista Ridge stated the HOA had concerns about noise, pollution, traffic, safety, potential future uses of the property, and maintaining a family-oriented environment. The area already experiences noise and traffic from the business. They support keeping the current zoning restrictions in place. She provided written comment that will be included in the public comment link on the Town website. Art Messal/Town resident was concerned about the limited options to removing the restrictions, stating the Vista Ridge residents could be adversely impacted depending on future use of the property. He was opposed to removing the zoning restrictions, and added the current truck traffic is loud and frequent. Steven Smersh/Town resident was concerned about noise abatement. He was opposed to a lumber mill in a residential area, which is the underlying philosophy for that area. Julie Klett/Town resident agreed with Mr. Smersh. She was concerned about the negative impact on property values. She appreciated the applicant's willingness to work with the neighbors on a compromise. Tom Montelbano/Town resident was concerned about the future widening of Wildfire Road. Barbara Hiney/Town resident was concerned about the proposed height that could greatly impact view corridors. She was also concerned about negative impact to property values and views. Gayle Tietjens/Town resident was concerned about the current and future land use and was opposed to both the development plan and the rezoning request. The surrounding area is residential (approximately 300 residences). She was opposed to having a lumber mill in a residential area, and would prefer an alternate location. She was concerned about what might happen if the current owner sold the property. Bev Bachman/Town resident agreed with those opposing the project. She stated this particular property is an anomaly to its surroundings. She would support keeping like properties together. Christine Esterly/Town resident was concerning about noise levels, and having a lumber mill co­ exist with a residential neighborhood. She suggested a study to determine impact on the adjacent property owners. Mark Shaw/Town resident lives directly behind the proposed pole barn and was concerned about his view corridor. He stated noise levels and traffic would most likely increase, and property values would drop Diona Patterson/Town resident agreed with Mr. Shaw, and was also concerned that the sawdust could be a health hazard. Jim Deister/Town resident lives directly south of the proposed project, and was concerned about noise levels. He would be supportive of landscaping on the south side of the property. Mark Westover/property owner purchased the property several years ago and has made a conscious effort to clean up the property. Numerous people have stopped by to thank them for cleaning up the property. He stated not everyone is against the development plan and rezoning. He clarified the lumber mill would consist of a band saw used to trim beetle-kill wood for his construction business, and considered it nothing more than a large shop. The wood produced is used in the construction of homes in the area. Public comment closed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 8Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff and Commission Discussion Chair Hull stated if the hearing was continued to next month, public comment would be allowed only on revisions to the plan. Director Chilcott would converse with Town Attorney White to address the recusal of Commissioners Murphree and Wise. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommend continuance of the proposed Development Plan and Rezoning Request to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the motion passed (4-0) with Commissioners Wise and Murphree recusing themselves, and one vacancy. 6. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODERNIZATION Director Chilcott reviewed the Comprehensive Plan modernization, stating the most recent draft updates could be viewed on the Town website. She presented these updates to the County Commissioners and there were no concerns on their part. The Comprehensive Plan webpage now has a user-friendly address: www.estes.org/comprehensiveplan. Director Chilcott stated the general timeline has been completed, and the majority of the plan should be completely modernized by the end of 2013. In the near future. Planning Commissioners and staff will be working on a letter of introduction. Staff has had conversations with BBC Consulting to bring the 2010 Census population analysis into the plan. Director Chilcott showed a sample of the document thus far, in draft form. She explained staff are now working on the neighborhood plans, and have been working with GIS consultant Jill Fischer to get neighborhood overlays onto the Estes Valley map. Key photos and updated land use information will be used. The language used in the text is almost word-for-word from the current plan. 'Tourist' and 'visitor' have been changed to 'guest' to align with Visit Estes Park's branding. Items that were key issues in the 1996 plan and completed since then will be removed. The Trails section will be updated due to the development of the trail system around the valley. Dates and specifics will be used as little as possible to keep the document current for many years. Chair Hull stated there was lengthy discussion on the Comprehensive Plan during today's study session. The Commission was pleased with the current draft, and appreciated the user- friendliness. Director Chilcott stated staff was committed to showing new visuals to the Commission each month. 7. REPORTS A. Pre-applications 1. Lake Pines Amended Plat, 625 Community Drive. Planner Shirk stated the plat was created with a specific building envelope to keep dwellings separated. Many years ago, a deck that extended outside that building envelope was installed without a building permit. The property has a new owner, and he desires to amend the plat to include the deck. The building permit issue has been taken care of by the Division of Building Safety. 2. Mountain River Townhomes Development Plan on Moraine Avenue is on schedule for review at the July meeting. B. Board of Adjustment Reviews 1. Black Squirrel Drive variance was approved May 7, 2013. 2. Courtyard Shops variance was approved May 7, 2013. 3. A variance request to enclose and extend a deck in Dunraven Heights will be heard by the Board on July 2, 2013. Planner Shirk stated the entire building lies in the setback. 4. Staff denied a minor modification that would have allowed a detached garage in the front corner of a lot on Stanley Circle. The applicant has the right to appeal to the Board of Adjustment. C. Town Board Reviews 1. Harmony Master Concept Plan & Lot Consolidation was approved May 28, 2013, and included the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall E. F. 3. 4. 2. Stonebridge Estates Townhomes Preliminary Subdivision Plat was approved May 28, 2013. The Final Plat is tentatively scheduled for the July 23, 2013 Town Board meeting. Wapiti Crossing Development Plan & Vested Rights Time Extension was disapproved by Town Board on May 28,2013. Woodland Heights Fire Resolution will be heard by the Town Board on June 25, 2013. Legal Lot Determinations. Planner Shirk reported there has been an increase in requests for these determinations. Typically, these requests are for properties that were created prior to 1950 and not formally subdivided. These require extensive research and staff time. Determinations by staff can be appealed to either Town Board or County Commission, depending on the location. Staff expects to see an appeal application in the near future for a subdivision in the north end. County Commission Reviews 1. Woodland Heights Fire Resolution was a consent item on their agenda, and was approved on June 17, 2013. Public Guide to Planning Commission Meetings. Director Chilcott reported this guide was produced to keep public comment effective and make those that may not be familiar with the meeting process to gain awareness of the process. After additional revisions, the guide will be available on the website and at meetings. G. Planning Commission Vacancies. Director Chilcott reported there are currently two vacancies on the Commission, one to replace the Town-appointed position formally held by John Tucker. Mr. Tucker recently resigned, effective immediately. Commissioner Wise has submitted his resignation, but has agreed to remain on the Commission under a successor is named. Closing application dates are mid-June. H. Director Chilcott reported there was a pre-application meeting on June 14th for the proposed performing arts center. The meeting was organized by Thorp Associates and included several of their designers and builders, such as those involved with the construction staging and building over a river. It was very informative, and staff is now more aware of what will be needed for the formal application submittal. The application would involve Planning Commission and Town Board review. It would include an amended plat to combine the two lots into one, along with the portion of the river that is currently unplatted. Most likely, another height variance request would be submitted and reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. The height variance approved in October, 2012, becomes null and void twelve months after approval if no building permit has been issued and construction has not commenced within that time. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m. Betty Hulbxhair aren Thofipson, Recording Secretary