Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2013-04-23RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission April 23, 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 Vice Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Wise, Bowers, Hills, and Murphree Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Code Compliance Officer/Planner Kleisler, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Thompson Commissioner Tucker The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Vice Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 12 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Greg Rosener, with the Economic Task Force, gave an overview of how the task force has evolved, stating it was important to the group to not change the fabric of what was already in place. The basis of the economy in the Estes Valley is tourism, which can be a building block for future economic development. He reviewed "The Path Forward" charts, including: Current Economic World of Estes Valley, Internal/External Threats, Business Retention, Business Attraction, Primary Goals, and Action Plan. The taskforce's recent focus has been on Internal/External Threats: Competition from Ski Resort Communities, Wildfires & Other Natural Events, Unfunded Infrastructure Needs, Federal/State Budget Cuts (including RMNP), Known Demographic Trends, Unanticipated Events, and Seasonality of our Economy. He stated the population of the Estes Valley has changed, and fewer families with young children are living here. One goal is to keep current businesses healthy and thriving. He stated certain primary jobs that would fit in the Estes Valley would include software engineering. Information from the task force will be ongoing. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, March 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion was approved 5-1, with one absent and Commissioner Hills abstaining. 3. STONEBRIDGE ESTATES TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This was a request to convert the existing Stonebridge Estates Condominiums (ownership is airspace only) to Townhomes (ownership is structure and underlying land). The project is located on Fish Creek Road, and is within the Town limits. The condominium project was approved approximately six years ago. The development complies with the townhome standards in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). An 'outlet' would be created around the individual units, and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association; this land would be comprised of the driveways, post office cluster box, etc. Planner Shirk stated no additional development rights were requested with this application, only the conversion from condominiums to townhomes. This application was for the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the Town Board, which would review this item and the Final Plat at a future meeting date. STAFF FINDINGS 1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 3.9.E "Standards for Review" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2013 3. 4. 5. 6. Per Section 10.5.K.1, the street buffer landscaping shall either be installed or guaranteed prior to recordation of plat. 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. Applicant proposes to address refuse disposal with the HOA declarations. If garbage is stored inside garages until the morning of trash pick-up, containers are returned to garages that same day, and garages kept closed and locked, this concept will satisfy the requirements of Section 7.8.G. Per Section 3.2.D.2a, 'when the EVPC is a reviewing body only, conditions of EVPC- recommended approval that require revisions to the submitted application, plans or drawings shall be completed by the Applicant within thirty (30) days of the EVPC's action. A revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Town Board's agenda.' This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board. Planner Shirk stated staff recommends approval of the proposed amended plat to the Town Board. Staff has begun to include the agency findings with the packet information, itemizing compliance and non-compliance with the EVDC. The existing HOA for the condominiums would be dissolved and replaced with an HOAforthe townhomes. PUBLIC COMMENT Amy Plummer/applicant representative stated this was a clean project, where all the details were completed during the development plan for the condominiums. She stated the applicant was aware of and accepted the conditions of approval. STAFF & COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. CONDITIONS 1. Compliance with memos from: a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District (March 14 and 26, 2013) b. Community Development Department dated February 28, 2013. c. Water Department dated March 21,2013 It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Hills) to recommend approval to the Town Board for the Preliminary Plat of Stonebridge Estates Townhome Subdivision with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. HARMONY FOUNDATION, INC. MASTER CONCEPT PLAN (DP 2013-01) AND SUBDIVISION PLAT Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the request was for a development plan and subdivision plat to facilitate the redevelopment and future expansion of the Harmony Foundation treatment facility. The Harmony Foundation facility is located towards the west end of Fish Hatchery Road. The land is currently outside the Town limits, and the applicant has applied for annexation into the Town limits, which will be heard by the Town Board in May. Planner Shirk stated the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the Development Plan, and the recommending body for the Subdivision Plat. Planner Shirk stated the area in review is approximately 42 acres, and much of it is too steep for development. The intent of the Subdivision Plat would be to create one parcel (with a concise legal description) out of three existing metes and bounds parcels, and include right-of- way vacation and dedications and utility easements as necessary. The Development Plan would consist of a phasing plan. Phase I would include development of a lecture hall, new admissions building, new medical building, and new dining hall. The intent is to begin construction in the fall of 2013. Future phases would include an addition to the family center, men's chapel, gymnasium, replacement of some men's housing units, and some additional women's housing units. Time frame for construction of future phases is dependent on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 April 23, 2013 fundraising. Planner Shirk stated the applicant would be requesting a 20-year vesting period for the future phases, which would be addressed through the annexation ordinance. Planner Shirk explained the annexation proposal. The Town has a long history with annexing property in the Fish Hatchery Road area, and further west on Fall River Road. The intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County supports this type of annexation. Planner Shirk stated there are currently about 80 beds, and at complete build-out there would be approximately 120 beds, evenly divided between men's and women's units. The applicant applied for several minor modifications, and staff determined the modifications were not required and could be addressed through the EVDC. Setbacks, curbing, and stormwater were all addressed, and there are currently no items out of compliance with the EVDC. Planner Shirk stated the main access to the property was via the intersection of Fall River Road and Fish Hatchery Road. Fall River Road is a state highway (Hwy 34). Based on the existing traffic levels that pass through the intersection on a daily basis, a left-turn lane is warranted, per Colorado Department of Transporation (CDOT) standards. Staff agrees a left-turn lane is needed at that intersection. Planner Shirk stated the EVDC only gives authority to require off­ site improvements up to one-quarter mile. The intersection in question is approximately one- half mile from the property, and is therefore outside the bounds established by the EVDC for off-site improvements. Staff recommended the issue be discussed with CDOT, the applicant, and the Public Works Department. Planner Shirk explained the review criteria, stating the plan complied with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. Section 4.4.D.4 Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements would need to be reviewed more closely. The Planning Commission must find that the proposed trail provides for interconnection with existing or planned pedestrian, bikeway, or trail systems on adjoining properties, unless the Planning commission determines that such interconnection would have adverse impacts on open space, wetlands, sensitive environmental areas, or other significant natural areas. Planner Shirk stated the applicant proposed to locate the trail on the north side of Fish Hatchery Road, and the following points are important to know prior to making a decision for the trail location: • An easement was dedicated several years ago with the development of the condominiums on the north side of Fish Hatchery Road as a location for a future trail. • The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan does not specify the location of the trail. • A completed portion of the Fall River Trail is located near David Drive, on the south side of Fall River Road. • Cornerstone Engineering drafted a preliminary trail design approximately ten years ago for the Fall River Trail, showing the trail in that area on the south side of the road. It is important to note this plan was never finalized nor adopted. • The applicant provided written explanation as to why they want to locate the trail on the north side of the road, citing Federal privacy regulations for treatment facilities. • The Public Works Department recommends the trail be located on the south side of the road, to eliminate the need for road crossings and associated traffic hazards. • The south side of the road presents fewer engineering obstacles in trail design and construction. The Public Works Department would accept cash-in-lieu of trail development. The applicant would provide a fee to the Town instead of developing the trail themselves. When the time came to complete the trail through that area, the Town would allocate the cash-in-lieu to that specific area. Staff drafted a condition of approval to address the issue, listed below. The cost estimate would be based on the preliminary plans that were prepared by Cornerstone Engineering. There is not a set date for the trail to be completed. Cost estimate would not be 100% accurate, but would provide a good estimate. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 April 23, 2013 Planner Shirk stated the applicant prepared a wildfire mitigation plan and an evacuation plan, which were routed to the Larimer County Wildfire Coordinator and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, who were supportive of the plans. Due to the slope on the south portion of the property, the development plan includes limits of disturbance, which would keep development off of the hillside. This made it easier for the applicant to address wildfire issues. No comments were received from adjacent property owners concerning the development of the property. However, several neighbors inquired about the proposed annexation. STAFF FINDINGS 1. The development plan complies with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC, as outlined in the staff report and Findings of Compliance dated April 10, 2013. 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. 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 the Estes Valley Development Code. 4. The structures are compatible in terms of building mass, scale and design with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The proposed trail provides for interconnection with planned trail systems on adjoining properties as required by §4.4.D.4 Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements. 6. The proposed 20-year vesting period will provide for the coordinated, harmonious development of the site and will best promote health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development (Section 1.3 Purpose and Intent) 7. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the development plan, and the Recommending Body for the subdivision; the recommendation is to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. In accordance with Section 3.2.D.2, 'a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Town Board’s agenda.’ The required revisions are due within thirty (30) days of Planning Commission recommendation. 8 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All development shall comply with the Harmony Foundation Master Plan Fire Mitigation Plan. Phases II and III shall submit development plans for staff-level review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Such development plan review shall verify the proposed development complies with the Harmony Foundation Master Plan and applicable regulations of the Estes Valley Development Code. Street signs shall be installed prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase I, including street name, one-way, "do not enter", and stop signs. The Harmony Subdivision Plat shall be submitted for recording prior to site work, but no later than November 29, 2013. The plat shall include easements for utilities to be installed with Phase I. Easement locations shall be approved by utility providers prior to recording the plat. Trail design and easement on east and west ends of property should be contained in the right-of-way on the south side of Fish Hatchery Road to the maximum extent feasible. Compliance with the following memos from reviewing agencies: a. Estes Park Public Works Department dates March 21, 2013. b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated March 19, 2013 c. Estes Park Utilities Department dates January 21,2013. d. Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated March 15, 2013. Prior to Town Board hearing, the applicant shall meet with Town of Est-es-Park Public Works Department and Colorado Dopartmont of Transportation staff to discuss traffic Impact at-Pall Rivor'Road/Fish Hatchery Road-intersection; Fee-in-lieu shall be provided 5. 6. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 April 23, 2013 for the required trail. Fee shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department, and shall be based on the preliminary plans prepared by Cornerstone Engineering in the early 2000s. 7. The development plan shall be revised to: a. Include a street name, subject to review and approval of the Town of Estes Park Chief Building Official. The main drive shall be titled "Circle", and the eastern branch shall be titled "Court". Indicate the trail will be built with Phase I. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include additional buffering west of the admissions/medical and dining hall buildings. b. c. PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Lane, Basis Architecture/applicant representative briefly reviewed the history of the master plan concept. The applicant wants to preserve the natural setting and serenity of the site, be flexible, and retain small scale of living facilities. Separation of gender is important, and additional beds are needed to maintain the health and safety of the clients. The construction would allow staff and clients to spread out and have more efficient use of the campus. Mr. Lane stated he met with the Public Works Department and CDOT. CDOT prefers to have the left-turn lane, but does not have the funding to construct it. The applicant is willing to comply with the EVDC, but does not support being required to install the left-turn lane. The applicant requested the condition regarding the turn-lane be removed. Concerning the trail, the applicant would prefer the trail be located on the north side of the road to maintain privacy for the clients. Mr. Lane stated if the trail could be located in the right-of-way on the south side of the road, the applicant would have the opportunity to add landscaping and buffering to shield the property from the public. He showed architectural drawings of the proposed redeveloped areas. Commissioner Hills asked for specific information relating to 42CFR. Harmony CEO Dot Dorman stated 42CFR was a regulation for treatment centers to protect the privacy of the clients being treated. The intent is to do everything possible to de-stigmatize the disease of substance abuse and any fear or concerns about people afflicted with that illness by protecting their privacy. It is a law the treatment center must follow, not the Town of Estes Park. Harmony is posted "Not Open to the Public", and they would rather not have the public in such close proximity. Ms. Dorman stated they would support adding landscaping/berming, etc. to shield the facility from the trail, stating it would be designed to discourage contraband from being brought onto campus. There was discussion among the Commissioners concerning the road, easements, degree of slope on the north side, and right-of-way. Mr. Lane requested, for construction purposes, the easements be determined at the development plan stage. Town Engineer Kevin Ash stated he would prefer the trail be located on the south side. He understood the privacy issues, and would support having the easement in the right-of-way. His concern was public safety on the trail. Road crossings should be kept to a minimum. He would support receiving cash in lieu of building the trail in Phase I. Planner Shirk showed the right-of-way exhibit to indicate the distance between the right-of-way and the property line. Public comment closed. COMMISSION AND STAFF DISCUSSION Commissioner Klink stated a 20-year vesting period was a long time, and was concerned about the opportunity for public comment many years down the road. Town Attorney White stated vesting does not mean the public would not be made aware of development in the area. It was moved and seconded (Bowers/ Murphree) to approve the Harmony Foundation Master Plan, replacing Condition #6 with information about "fee-in-lieu" and adding to Condition #4 concerning the proposed trail being constructed in the right-of-way and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2013 Planner Shirk stated the plat revisions would be completed and sent to Community Development prior to the Town Board meeting. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommend approval to the Town Board for the Harmony Foundation Subdivision with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Planner Shirk thanked the Planning Commission for coming up with an acceptable decision on the trail issue. Commissioner Klink stated the Harmony facility is important and should be supported. 5. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY, Rita Kureija Ms. Rita Kureija, Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority, presented a concept to the Planning Commission to amend the Attainable Housing section of the EVDC, Section 11.4, which currently allows up to a 50% increase in density if attainable housing is incorporated into the development. The change she would like to see would be in the definition of "Attainable", to include income limits for both rental and home ownership to 125% of the Larimer County Area Median Income. The median income is always adjusted for household size. The current definition for renter occupied attainable housing units states the income qualifications are 60% of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below, and owner occupied housing units qualify with 80% or less of the Larimer County Area Median Income. She explained the use of the Larimer County Area Median Income statistics was a HUD decision, not a local one. Ms. Kureija would like to propose both the 60% and the 80% be increased to 125%. The reasoning behind the change included: 1) To address lack of housing for middle income households; 2) Middle income households earn too much money for typical Housing Authority properties; 3) It is difficult for the Estes Valley to retain young families due to the long-term housing shortage. Real estate prices in the Estes Valley are high, and as they continue to increase, so does the affordability gap and the even greater need for attainable housing. Ms. Kureija explained the current density bonus has been used only by the Housing Authority and Habitat for Humanity. The increase in density bonus could potentially help smaller developments. Attainable housing units would be deed restricted. The resale element would need to be clearly defined and allow for some appreciation. The goal is to incentivize private developers to encourage attainable housing development. Currently, the only private development that was built specifically for attainable housing is The Neighborhood. Ms. Kureija stated the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan briefly addresses attainable housing. Any units deemed attainable housing must have enforcement tools, deed restrictions, resale provisions, etc. Ms. Kureija stated there was a huge backlog for long-term rentals, and the Housing Authority has seen a large number of inquiries for single-family dwellings from people whose income is too high to qualify. For home ownership, buyers cannot spend more than 40% of their income for housing costs, with the qualification for rentals being 30% of income. She stated other resort communities allow more than 100% median income, and gave Telluride as an example. Developers would still need to look at income limits to determine who would qualify. Discussion ensued concerning the successes and failures of affordable housing in the Estes Valley. Comments included, but were not limited to: concern about density bonus that are currently built-in to the zone districts; housing is not the only reason young families are leaving the area or not moving to the area; affordable housing should be addressed by private enterprise and not by government regulation; limited number of employment opportunities in the Estes Valley; once a deed restriction is in place, it would always be an attainable housing unit. Director Chilcott stated the Town Board directed staff to move forward with addressing affordable housing in the EVDC. Commissioner Hull recommended polling the Commission for RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 April 23, 2013 support of a proposed code amendment, with the following results: Commissioner Wise supported affordable housing if it was limited to rentals, not ownership. He would be willing to increase the median income (staying under 100%) for multi-family rentals. Commissioners Klink and Bowers concurred with Commissioner Wise. Commissioner Murphree stated it would be difficult to build a "low-priced" home in Estes Park, even with the density bonus. The density bonus would help, but would come with its own set of problems. Land prices and construction costs make the efforts for affordable housing prohibitive. Commissioner Hills clarified the EVDC was very specific about density. Commissioner Klink stated multi-family units would be much more efficient than single-family dwellings. Mr. Kureija stated the highest inquiries are for single-family dwellings. 6. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planner Kleisler stated staff has reviewed options for a new layout and design for the Comprehensive Plan. He stated they would work on the easiest chapters first, making sure users would be able to get information quickly and efficiently. Staff reached out to Visit Estes Park for permission to use some of their photos of town. The current land use plan will be updated with better use of graphics, while keeping the number of pages of text to a minimum. The goal is to make it user-friendly for developers and potential business owners. The Commissioners were please with the proposed layout. 7. REPORTS A. Planner Shirk reported on the following pre-application meetings: 1. Estes Park Medical Center parking lot expansion (3rd in 5 years). Staff is in discussion with the hospital about adding parking to north side of the existing parking lot. The application will be a Special Review, with the Town Board being the decision-making body. 2. Craftman's Corner, behind Park Flooring, proposes to construction a building for storage and rent space to contractors. 3. Bank of Colorado has proposed to divide their lot into two separate lots. 4. Wildfire Development has proposed a development plan and rezoning. There are specific zoning constraints currently applied to this parcel that the property owner desires to have removed. B. Planner Shirk reported on the following Board of Adjustment reviews: 1. Variance request for a new home on Black Squirrel Drive in Little Valley. 2. A minor modification for a home in the High Drive area was processed at staff level. C. Planner Shirk reported on the following Town Board reviews: 1. Stonebridge Estates Supplemental Condominium Map #2 - April 23, 2013 2. Open Air Adventure Park Special Review - Approved March 26, 2013 5. Elkhorn Tubing Hill Special Review - Continued to April 23, 2013 D. Director Chilcott apologized to the Commission for not getting the Partners for Commerce information into the packets. Her desire is to keep the Commissioners informed about the Economic Development Task Force meetings. E. Electronic meeting packets should be available for the May Planning Commission meeting. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:09 p.m. Betty Hull,be-Chair Karen Thompson, Rerofding Secretary