Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2013-03-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2013 - 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair John Tucker, Commissioners Doug Klink, Betty Hull, Joe Wise, Kathy Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree Chair Tucker, Commissioners Klink, Hull, Wise, Bowers, and Murphree Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Code Compliance Officer/Planner Kleisler, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Thompson Commissioner Hills, Town Board Liaison Elrod The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Tucker called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Greg Rosener, representative from the Estes Valley Economic Development Task Force, gave a brief overview of the history and goals of the taskforce. He stated there were no plans to change the economic base of the Estes Valley (tourism and retirement community), but they would be addressing retention of existing businesses and business recruitment. He stated the recruitment would probably not include big box retail businesses. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, January 15,2013 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Bowers) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. SPECIAL REVIEW 2013-01, Open Air Adventure Park, Lot 4, Prospect Village Subdivision, 470 Prospect Village Drive Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report, stating Planning Commission would be the recommending body for this application, with the Town Board making the final decision. The proposed Open Air Adventure Park would be located on the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Prospect Village Drive (adjacent to and south of the Estes Park Brewery). The property owner, Sherri Rodgers, has leased the property to Tim Kreutzer to develop an outdoor challenge course, similar to a high-ropes course. The course would consist of a series of raised platforms connected by various ropes challenges. A small office building, 18-space paved parking lot, sidewalks (perimeter and internal), and landscaping would complete the project. The property is zoned CO- Commercial Outlying, and is undersized for this zone district. Planner Shirk stated there are minor groundwater issues on the lot, and this type of proposed use would not be affected by those issues. He stated the applicant requested a modification to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) parking lot standards due to the lot size. The 18-space parking area will be as far away as possible from Riverside Drive, but the standard of 150 feet from the intersection could not be met because the property is only 90-feet deep. The Public Works Department expressed concern about the design of the parking area, stating vehicles may have difficulty leaving the parking lot without backing into a public right-of-way. An additional request for modification from the EVDC involved placing the front door of the office building towards the parking lot instead of the required orientation to the front property line. The applicant would install sidewalk and landscape buffer along Riverside Drive, as well as internal sidewalks on the property. The applicant has indicated there would be a maximum of 50 people on site at any given time. Hours of operation would not be earlier than 9:00 a.m. or later than 6:30 p.m. The planned absence of exterior lighting would limit the operation to daylight hours. Planner Shirk stated neighbors were initially concerned about nighttime lighting. One neighbor commented this development would have less noise impact than the nearby go-cart track. Planner Shirk shared another concern expressed by RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 March 19, 2013 the Public Works Department involving stormwater flow. It has been determined the issue would be addressed at the construction stage. Staff recommends approval with the following findings and conditions: Staff Findings 1. With the exception of the requested minor modifications (building entrance location, driveway spacing), the development plan complies with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC (§3.8.D). 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan (§3.8.D). 3. The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment (§3.5B). For example, business hours would end in the early evening, which means there would be no exterior lighting. 4. The requested modifications advance the goals and purposes of the EVDC and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site (§3.7.A.2.b). For example, the lot is not big enough to allow for compliance with the 150-foot driveway spacing requirement and the property could not be developed without a modification to this waiver. 5. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. 6. 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 days of Planning Commission recommendation. Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with affected agency memos: a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 12, 2013 b. Water Department (Jeff Boles) memo dated February 21,2013 c. Public Works (Kevin Ash) email dated February 22, 2013 (Note: the recommendation of denial has been retracted based on revised plans submitted March 13, 2013) d. Planning Division (Dave Shirk) Development Code Analysis dated March 14, 2013 2. Submittal of a revised development plan addressing the following: a. Correct the Planning Commissioner Chair signature block (John Tucker is Chair) b. Remove concrete sidewalk cross section, trail cross-section, detention cross-section, cross pan cross-section, sign details, and curb/gutter details. These items were necessary during initial review, but now should be removed from the development plan and shown on the construction plans. , ^ ^ a c. Sidewalk widths must be eight (8) feet wide, and all sidewalks are to be hard-surfaced. d. Parking lot design shall be modified to ensure vehicles to not have to back into public right-of-way. Public Comment • j-Tim Kreutzer/applicant explained the proposed adventure park would be an individu , recreational ropes course experience. The twelve poles would be 30 feet high, with platforms for guests to rest between maneuvers. The area would contain 40 different elements for guests to attempt, with varying degrees of difficulty. Mr. Kreutzer stated noise was not typically an issue at this type of facility, and he was excited to bring something new to Estes Park. Customers wou d be limited to those eight years of age and older, and those less than five feet tall would need a taller individual to assist with clipping on to the ropes. Access will be locked off when the business is closed. David Bangs/project manager with Van Horn Engineering stated he compieted the site work design, iayout, stormwater design, and traffic study. Any questions pertammg to those areas shouid be directed to him. He thanked staff for their cooperation m getting tl;rou8^ appiication process quickiy. He is stiii working on revising the parking area to ailow a turnaround area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2013 Staff and Commission Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Wise/Murphree) to recommend Approval to the Town Board for Special Review 2013-01, Open Air Adventure Park, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. SPECIAL REVIEW 2013-02, Elkhorn Tubing Hill, All of Elkhorn Addition (Less Elkhorn Plaza Lodges, less a portion of a metes & bounds parcel) Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the Planning Commission would be the recommending body, with the Town Board making the final decision on the application. The property owner is Zahourek Conservatory, and the applicant is Frank Theis with CMS Planning. Planner Shirk stated the request was to construct a year-round tubing hill using an artificial surface and hard-bottomed tubes designed to slide on that surface. The applicant has stated the operation would only be open during daylight hours. Planner Shirk explained the location of the tubing hill would be west of the Elkhorn Lodge, nestled between the lodge and a proposed smaller horse corral than what currently exists. A surface lift, AKA Magic Carpet, would take customers to the top of the hill. This lift would be slightly elevated from grade. Planner Shirk explained the Elkhorn Lodge was developed prior to any zoning regulations being in place. The lot is non-conforming to many development standards. Examples include but are not limited to: unpaved parking, development in river setback, horses without permits, unpermitted livestock such as pigs, roosters and donkeys, exterior lighting, and ADA accessibility. Additionally, the property is out of compliance with the Estes Park Municipal Code prohibition of keeping of waste materials. Examples include multiple piles of horse manure and areas of concentrated waste accumulation, such as near the top of the proposed tubing hill. This development plan could be a phase toward compliance with the current Estes Valley Development Code. Staff found if the following issues were successfully addressed, the proposed use and development would be a move toward overall conformity and would comply with Section 6.4.D of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): 1) The horse corral east of the horse barn was removed from the floodplain, and the area successfully revegetated, 2) The number of horses and area of the horse corral was reduced, 3) Waste accumulation and junk vehicles removed, and 4) Incremental move toward animal-resistant trash enclosures. Planner Shirk stated the applicant has requested waivers to the following EVDC standards: 1) Section 7.5 Landscaping, with the pertinent issues being district buffer screening for the residential properties to the west and northwest of this commercially zoned property. A determine needs to be made as to whether the existing landscaping and topography is adequate to provide the required screening; 2) Section 7.11 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards specifically paving requirements and curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot; an ) Appendix D.III.B.9 regarding paving of parking lots and paving/curbing of driveways serving more than eight parking spaces. Planner Shirk stated the Statement of Intent did not mention a waiver to the paving of pedestrian walkways. Sidewalks from the parking area to the tubing hill were not shown on the submitted site plan, and are listed below as a condition of approval. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent pr°Perty owners The Public Works Department commented on drainage, requesting additiona information as to the direction of drainage at the bottom of the site. They deferred their traffic concerns to the Colorado Department of Transportation, who controls West Elkhorn Avenue. Director Chilcott stated the Elkhorn Lodge property is unique, and staff has worked with the applicant to make some improvements to the proposed site, while not requiring extensive improvements to the remainder of the property. It has been a balancing act and a joint effort between the applicant and the various affected agencies. Planner Shirk stated the Larimer County Health Department would need to verify the allowance of port-o-lets. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 March 19, 2013 Staff Findings The development does not comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC (§3.8.D). Areas of non-compliance are outlined in the Findings of Compliance with EVDC memo dated February 22, 2013. This includes adequate public facilities such as drainage and pedestrian access. 1. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan (§3.8.D). 2. The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment (§3.5.B). For example, business hours would end in the early evening. 3. It is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate the requested modifications advance the goals and purposes of the EVDC and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site (§3.7.A.2.b). 4. The tubing hill is a change to the existing nonconforming use. If the conditions recommended by staff regarding (1) river restoration, (2) reduction in number of horses to no more than twenty, (3) removal of trash and debris, and (4) move toward animal-resistant trash enclosures are met, the change of use would comply with §6.4 Change of Use. 5. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. 6. 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. Suggested Conditions of Approval 1 Prior to final approval of the Special Review Use, Applicant shall: a. Demonstrate compliance with §7.08 Livestock of the Estes Park Municipal Code (per Town Board finding, up to twenty horses allowed). b Demonstrate compliance with the Larimer County Health code regarding port-o-lets. c. Demonstrate compliance with CDOT requirements. This may require a new access permit. 2. Compliance with affected agency memos: a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo, February 12,2013. b. Water Department (Jeff Boles) memo, February 21, 2013. 3. Submittal of a revised development plan addressing the following, a. Restoration of the floodplain. b Outline area of horse operations and number of horses (not to exceed twenty). c. ' Las of trash accumulation to be removed, with note to be completed prior to operation d. LmaWesiLn, trash enclosures: outline where existing trash »e“S| Will be converted to animal-resistant enclosures (and how), and what trash collectio e CompLTc^wThthe Estes Valley Development Code, including but not limited to §7.12.F 'Drainage', §7.12.H 'Transportation', and sections regarding pedestrian access, including ADA access. Planner Shirk stated staff was recommending approval. Staff recognizes the property Is distressed and clean ; of the property would be a condition of approval. A time frame for compHance would be necessary to ensure the clean-up occurs in a timely manner. on the complexity of the compliance issues, a Development Agreement may be good id . cUb'kC Th^^anLant and property owner representative briefly reviewed the past history of proposedeimpr^ementatcfthe<E?kho^n Lodge property. He stated the owners were the year-round tubing hill, knowing funds would need to be allocated to cleaning p P RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 March 19, 2013 Mr. Theis stated the existing bath house has adequate restroom facilities for the proposed tubing hill, and the horse operation may have a port-o-let. He stated the horse operation was a completely separate business from the tubing hill, in terms of management. If a Development Agreement was drawn up, he would like to review the draft version prior to any parties entering into the agreement. Todd Jirsa/partner in the tubing hill operations stated a "magic carpet" lift would be installed to transfer customers and inflatable tubes up the hill. Storage of the tubes was planned for the ticketing building. He addressed concerns about noise, stating the closest house was 425 feet away. He stated the existing trees and a rock ridge would create a natural sound barrier, and distance between the proposed tubing hill and the neighbors would reduce the noise level. He stated the plan included purchasing 70 tubes for customer use. Mr. Jirsa stated it would take two full months to get the property in proper condition for installation of the tubing hill, and six to seven weeks for the delivery of the equipment once it was ordered. Mr. Theis would coordinate the clean-up effort, while Mr. Jirsa would manage the tubing hill. It was understood the area would need to be cleaned prior to the installation of the equipment. John Spahnie/adjacent property owner stated the property in its existing state was blighted. He was concerned about the public safety of the area, handicap accessibility (federal regulations, not the development code), and a would suggest a health department inspection (the Planning Commission cannot direct this inspection). Marie Steinbrecher/adjacent property owner stated the proposed tubing hill would be two hundred feet from her bedroom window. She was opposed to the project and the noise it would create. She stated the property could be developed with the support of the neighbors, with a different use. Winnie Spahnie/adjacent property owner was concerned about irrigation of the proposed vegetation and a possible decrease in property values in the surrounding neighborhood. She stated the proposed tubing hill was not an appropriate activity for the historic property. She was opposed to the project. Edward O'Farrell/adjacent property owner was opposed to the project. He stated noise was a current issue, which would get worse if the project was approved. He was also concerned about the condition of the ticketing building. Bonnie Watson/adjacent property owner was concerned about the potential blight. Director Chilcott pointed out that there are zoning code compliance issues, however, the has not adopted the Property Maintenance Code for existing buildings, and some n^ncSlrming issues are lePga|VMs. Watson was also concerned about an adequate number of restrooms. Aileen Allbritten/adjacent property owner was concerned about the quality of life in the neighborhood, as well as fire danger and the detrimental impact to wildlife in the area. Curt Gleaves/town resident agreed the property was blighted. He stated the applicant has the potential to bring some value to the property that might assist with obtaining historical preservat . Mr. Gleaves visited the tubing hill at Keystone and did not think noise was an issue. Comr^ent^rorthTtommi'“oners Included, but were not limited toi Noise may be an issue bndscaping and buffering would be essential; opposed to landscaping and buffering "aivers' P=rk'"® nepdfto be configured and graveled. Planner Shirk stated the daytime decibel levels from the property line are 60 db, while the nighttime levels are 55 db. There was discussion as to w e er or nonhe noise from the tubing hill operation would comply with the local noise ordinanc . Planner Shirk stated the horses on the property were an allowed Rnth u/nuld fall under the 'commercial outdoor entertainment section of the EVDC. Alt g us^ Te Iwed the proposed tubing hill is considered a change of use. Therefore, the IManning Sr^mLsioleeds'to determine if the reduction of the horse use and change of use to the tubing hill RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 March 19, 2013 is phasing towards bringing the property into compliance with the EVDC. The Special Review process requires the use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. For example, a noise study could be requested to determine potential noise levels; more information concerning landscaping could be requested, etc. The Special Review use has some subjectivity that could be considered prior to approval or denial. Commissioner Wise stated he was not prepared to make a decision without more information concerning the potential noise from the operation. He supported improvement of the property, but not at the expense of the adjacent property owners. He suggested requesting a noise study. Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering stated an option for the applicant would be setting up a noise measuring device near the tubing hill in Frisco to determine the decibel level for their tubing hill. Director Chilcott stated the submittal of a noise study could be listed as a condition of approval. Discussion occurred among staff and the Commissioners concerning a continuance of the application Mr Theis stated he would support a continuance. Comments included, but were not limited to, 1) A continuance would allow time for staff and Town Attorney White to draft a development agreement, which should address the drainage issue at the bottom of the property; 2) Allow for a no;s^ study to be conducted and submitted. If the decibel level at the property line is m excess allowed by code, then the applicant would need to present a proposal to abate the no se^ 3) Anticioated comments from CDOT would be received before the next meeting, and 4) Time is of the essT ce a the slmer season is quickly approaching. Mr. Jirsa was opposed to a “=ce and 3^0^“he request for a noise study. Town Attorney White stated there was no requ.rennent for the applicant to agree with a continuance. lt was moved and seconded (Ki.k/Mu^hreeltoreccmmendapp^^^^^^^^^^ with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, including aao t development agreement shall be recorded prior to site work on the project. The motion failed ,3-Z-T, with Commissioners Bowers, Hull, and Tucker voting against. Commissioner Wise abstaining, 5. REPORTS ^ p[anner'Shirk 'reported staff is expecting an aPf C;ht;0nst7n;;yd;7rlk°Pstta^" BlTand616!!^ Zs h°ave been submitted and the building permit is 2. p^nneVshirkVeported there have been no variance requests submitted. toenue 3. Planner Shirk reported the Town Board aJ)Pro;"^.t',;thS°request for the Witt Condominium Supplemental Maps. The Town oar d they take the Planning n:::rn.sDrmrn:;r^^^^^^^^ ----- a project to be heard by the Planning Commission. aoproved the Kenwood Industrial 5. Planner Shirk reported the Board of County Co—ner= J^The Coumv Commissioners Park, and the applicant is close to oon-P'etmg con trurtmn p>^ens;itrancetotheYMcA e. DhertOTVwkotrreport^thVre0!!!!!! bTtwo"ineettigs^acilltaKd by Lyn raVc^srur:nZVT^ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 March 19, 2013 7. Director Chilcott reported the recent census data indicating the median age in the Estes Valley is increasing significantly. She complimented Partners for Commerce for their document "The Path Forward", and hopes to be able to use some of the information in the update of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. There being no further business, Chair Tucker adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m. ohn Tucker, Chair Karen Thompson, Recofding Secretary