Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2013-01-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 15, 2013 - 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners John Tucker, Betty Hull, Joe Wise, Kathy Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree Chair Klink, Commissioners Tucker, Hull, Wise, Bowers, Hills, and Murphree Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Thompson, Town Board Liaison Elrod None The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 25 people in attendance. Chair Klink introduced newly appointed Commissioner Steve Murphree, a Town representative who will be serving a four-year term. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Klink stated the new Chair must be a representative living within the Town limits. The vice-chair must be a representative living outside the Town limits, and within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) area. Commissioner Hull nominated Commissioner Tucker (seconded by Commissioner Bowers) to serve as Chair. As no other nominations were received, it was declared by acclamation that Commissioner Tucker would serve as the Chair of the Estes Valley Planning Commission for 2013-2014 (two-year term). Commissioner Tucker nominated Commission Hull (seconded by Commissioner Bowers) for the position of Vice-Chair. As no other nominations were received, it was declared by acclamation that Commissioner Hull would serve as Vice-Chair of the Estes Valley Planning Commission for 2013-2014 (two-year term). 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, December 18, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hills) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 4. LOTS 1 & 2, WITT SUBDIVISION, REZONE FROM A-1 ACCOMMODATIONS TO A- ACCOMMODATIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOTS 1 & 2, 900 W. Elkhorn Ave (Fall River Lodge) Bob Fixter, applicant, presented a slide show. He explained the current A-1 zone regulations do not allow day use of the property by those not staying overnight. It was his desire to allow daytime meetings for community organizations and other small celebrations to be held on the property, attended by guests who may or may not be overnight guests, with a limit of up to 80 people per event. Mr. Fixter reviewed the types of events and numbers of guests expected for the upcoming year, and stated there are house rules guests are expected to follow. He stated his willingness to construct a landscape buffer for the neighbors, if needed. Mr. Fixter addressed the written public comment in opposition of the rezoning: He explained there would not be multiple events scheduled on the same date, limiting the amount of traffic coming in and out of the property. He stated the proposed development agreement would address parking and allow the use of Lot 2 without creating an amended RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 15, 2013 plat of Lots 1 and 2, and is working with Attorney White on the document. Mr. Fixter reviewed the zoning history of the property, stating he requested and received a zone change in 2011 from CO-Commercial Outlying to A-1 -Accommodations. With that rezoning, he did not realize the exclusion of guests not staying on the property. The buildirig change of use (from a B & B to a small hotel) resulted in the requirement of compliance with the fire code, and sprinklers were added. Mr. Fixter stated it was important to maintain the property so it would continue to attract wildlife. He stated the proximity of the property to downtown made it attractive for small gatherings, and believed there was a definite need in the area for accommodations of that size. Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated there were two components to the application: 1) rezoning of Lots 1 & 2, Witt Subdivision from A-1-Accommodations (low intensity) to A-Accommodations (highway corridor); and 2) to enter into a development agreernent to allow Lots 1 and 2 to function as one lot (instead of combining the lots through an amended plat); establish allowed uses, location, and intensity of uses on both ots; and a^^low the pathways that were constructed on Lot 2 to remain outside the platted limits of disturbance. Director Chilcott stated the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed the pathways as a whole on October 2, 2012, and approved the request to allow mem to remain. Director Chilcott stated staff supported the request to rezoning from A-1 to A, provided the ir^DL<t^r!lnntthp9reHementtaddressed the uses> location, and intensity of uses to minimize Slot 2 of IplfhnH QPrhHPert,eS- She Stated in 2003’ the lot was a 3-5 acre parent P 2 f Seybold Subdivision, zoned CO since 1973. The property was devdooed m 1994-95 as a single-family dwelling and used as a Bed & Breakfast lny2003 there was a subdiv'sion that divideri the 3.5 acre parcel into four lots, named wt Subdiv^ion LoTs 1 ?HS ba,Sed 0n ,he ES,eS Va,teV Sub-Area, more specifically resiLntiri and develoPment in the Fall River commercial and residential zone di^triptc Th °mniodations uses as a buffer between land use to minimize impacts with thp ph- G devalaPment a9reennent would limit the there was exTSf pubi^^ctoi^^^enMhp^^ neighborhood. Director Chilcott stated compatibility and adverse impacts Somp r>MhreSSed concern about the neighborhood development agreemenT 36 COnCemS C0Uld be addressed in the the development agmemenUoTealfha?ized nAftpdr^ °f the request t0 allow approval of the rezoning request with thP mndTadtd,tl°nf thought, staff recommended being listed as a conS of So^a I thp p? Cat,°o °f the develoPnient agreement request, staff recommenSed a Sul- T n,n9 Co?mission voted to continue the development agreement modifications would dp!If m°nt.h- Direct°r Chilcott stated the would be applied to minimize impacts on thpdpde °nftrate exactly how the limitations need to include, but would not be limited to- etShPthpPep,||,nS' Ih6 agreement would maximum number of people allowed intpnc'itw of h th/ allowed uses and locations, operation, describe the Ise of the patio Idf 1 J'n5: ud,ng Pathways), hours of commercial use). Although the locationP i<; on pd hh°h tUb ^cu,!rent,y n°t approved for Accommodations zoning, staff recommendPd h,ghwaV corr,dor and suitable for A- neighborhood impact. ’ scaling back the use due to the potential for Director Chilcott elaborated on the uso of i ot o ■ undeveloped. According to the Estes Valley DevellLnt Se fEVDCI T3 COnSidered Create a" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 15, 2013 which would create a development agreement itemizing the uses for Lot 2. With a development agreement, the property owners could dissolve the development agreement in order to sell or develop the lot. Director Chilcott stated the current development agreement submitted by the applicant needs revisions. Jes Reetz/Cornerstone Engineering spoke to the Planning Commission about the design of the parking area. Director Chilcott stated the parking area on Lot 2 would need to be paved. Comments from Commissioners to Mr. Fixter included concerns about parking, noise, number of guests, full use of property, risk of fires by guests who smoke, control of guests, etc. Public Comment Ken Wynstra/adjacent property owner spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He stated he would have opposed the original rezoning if he had known the applicant wanted to have large groups/weddings there. His concerns were: no other businesses along that stretch of the highway, crowd noise, fire danger, enforcement of regulations, neighborhood impact. Jacqueline Love/adjacent property owner opposed the rezoning and development agreement. She stated A—Accommodations zoning was primarily for highways, and most of the properties on West Elkhorn are residential. Her concerns were: temporary tents for large groups, noise, exterior lighting, ingress and egress of vehicles, potential use every day of the week, enforcement of regulations. She stated the development code was designed to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. Johanna Darden/Town resident was opposed to allowing access to the river area for 80 people. Ray Betk^own resident spoke in favor of the rezoning. He stated the applicant has improved the property. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to make decisions ased on fact, not emotion. He stated the economic impact of allowing small groups would be good for Estes Park. an John Edy/adjacent property owner was opposed to the rezoning. He purchased his property beliewng it would remain a residential neighborhood. He would be more supportive of the rezoning if all guests stayed inside L building. His Tncerns Tere proximity of the proposed parking area to his home, use of the river by guests and noise “ope^;aesn0a0Sng,s«eCOmmiSSi0nerS t0 ,ake n°te 0f 'he pe,iti0n a9ains,t usin9 ,he Larry Wuellner/adjacent property owner opposed the rezoning. He appreciated Mr Edv’<i comments, statmg this was a human rights issue for the neighboringTesWente H s main grpTSH?statermoTpri0np°lPeaCe the nei9hb°^'ood, and" ce ^ large groups. He stated most Estes Park residents choose to live here because of tho surroundings, and was opposed to the change the rezoning would create. Kathleen Baker/Town resident was opposed to the rezoning. She was unaware of the poss^ility of the rezoning when she sold property to the adjacent property owners She stated ,t was unfa.r to enhance the vaiue of one pemon’s property aUhe'^^^en^e oTmany Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion suppCort aIlilCu0nimSDroverimnLWOrk WaS nx!ded °n ,he parkin9 plan' as sta,, would n0' PP unimproved parking area. There was discussion amonq staff and thprp<THantSI?n’ ^°mments induding, but not limited to: property % located in a Hnac ne,9h^orh°od> Impact on adjacent properties and their value could be severe does not rneet threshold for Planning Commission to consider a zonin^ranoe noise traveling along the river could be detrimental to neighbors, A-1 zone ditrict uL’d as a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 15, 2013 buffering mechanism between high density and residential use. Commissioners Wise and Tucker would not support the rezoning request. It was moved and seconded (Wise/Klink) to recommend to the Town Board DISAPPROVAL of the proposed rezoning and development agreement for Lots 1 and 2, Witt Subdivision from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A- Accommodations/Highway Corridor with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed 6-1. Commissioner Murphree voted against the disapproval. Chair Tucker declared a 10-minute recess at 3:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:42 p.m. Commissioner Klink recused himself from reviewing the next item on the agenda. He is the owner/applicant of the project. Commissioner Klink left the dais. 5. SPECIAL REVIEW 2012-07, KENWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 2A OF LARIMER TERMINALS AMENDED PLAT, 1000 AND 1050 Kenwood Lane and 444 Elm Road. Senior Planner Shirk introduced Traci Shambo and Clint Jones from the Larimer County Engineering, who toured the property last week and would be providing comments on drainage and paving. Plariner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He explained the request fell under the Special Review guidelines because of outdoor storage. Planning Commission would be the recommending body, with the final decision made by the Board of County Commissioners. Pianner Sh'rk stated the request was to twofold: 1) to allow storage of the bus fleet used in the National Park, and 2) to provide general warehouse/storage space for public use. He stated nearby properties are zoned \-1-Restricted Industrial. Large lots to the east are single-family residential, while vacant land to the north is in conservation easement Planner Sh'rk stated the stormwater drainage would be located on the southeast portion stomwJterrunodffd'Cated dra'na9e easemenl wouW be required to account for the Stnuertothj(A LOt ,1,A c“rrent|y developed and contained a propane storage facility. Lot 3A was currently undeveloped and would contain the stormwater quality Dond lttemruilSnaea 50'xTo'mri rt865' PhaSe 1 W°Uld include oonsSHe wesiern ouiiding, a 50 X 170 metal building containing four units Prooosed uses for thi^; building would include a bus maintenance facility and additional mntel space for ocal contractors and other local “back-door operations for equipment Sqe T The buj wonl,7|3nHdrfe St0re.d near the east Pr°Perty line. north of proposed buildfng two Phase l usei to Phase l,0n UCtl0n 0f 'he eaStern bUildin9, 3 4°’ X 150’ metal build^n9 with siniilar ron.Tr ihlrk °lJ,Nned the review ortteria for Special Review applications This review on nlafoy fondPi2s'ouM?farTk^ maXimU,n eXtent feasible’ P°tential adverse '"'Poots mhim'iT^ne^borhood impact. C0*°r eXten0r Pamt t0 blend in With the surroundin9s and Planner Shirk stated the proposed use of bus storage would require screenino from adjacent properties. In this case, the applicant owns the adjacent property and scrLnino so0uth BeoausfoqfUthedn Fu,l;re. buildin9‘“O woold be the soreefong mLanism to the outh. Because of the project phasing. Planner Shirk suggested the Planninq Commission rnake specific findings to accounting for interim screening. The proposed use of vehicle adoptton ofThe EVDa" 'hiS nei9hbo,hood’»bich were developed prior to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 15, 2013 Planner Shirk stated the I-1 zone district has a maximum lot coverage requirement of 80%. Based on that standard, the EVDC would require extensive landscaping involving trees, shrubs, and underground irrigation. The applicant requested an alternative landscaping plan due to the difficulty in planting and maintaining live plants in the area. To date, the Community Development Department had not received the detailed landscaping plan. The applicant would have the opportunity to show the Board of County Commissioners the detailed landscaping plan, if the Planning Commission recommended moving forward with the project. Planner Shirk stated the applicant requested waivers to road paving standards. The road to the property is privately maintained with public access dedication. There is no road maintenance association. The applicant also requested waivers to paving the parking area within the site. Planner Shirk stated the EVDC paving standards include curb and gutter, engineered drainage swales, etc. Current construction plans do not address paving. Pinner Shirk stated staff found six findings, and suggested the Planning Commission show additional findings to address screening, landscaping, and outdoor storage to be resolved prior to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff also recommended six conditions of approval, listed below. Public Comment Trad Shambo/Larimer County Engineering explained the paving standards for industrial areas. She stated industrial areas with road use by heavy equipment commonly have paved roads, and the paving of such roads required drainage retention, paved parking areas, etc. These impervious coverage requirements are a standard development practice. Discussion between Ms. Shambo and the Commissioners occurred concerninq pavmg standards in the EVDC and the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards. wSh pbm.h|XP| aHe^-1 tP5Ved:thf road Would continue t0 be a privately maintained road Pi b V d®dlcated r,9ht-of-way, and a maintenance agreement would need to be in place. Larimer County Engineering supported paving Kenwood Lane and the onsite tPhaerkan^aflrra’r S tl?ese .were an EVDC requirement. Larimer County was not supportive of thkS ?h c t,n9 on9‘term maintenance, dust suppression, and trips per day. Specific to this site, the applicant owns the three lots closest to the nearest paved road. The Countv was concerned that allowing this waiver would set a precedent for any other new development that comes to this area. y Il’tomevaWhiKUS«naa^h0.U,pie P0SSibJ!ity 0f Waivin9,he Pav'n9 requirements, with Town norney White stating the Planning Commission could recommend the waiver to the County Comm,ss,on. The finai decision wouid be made by the County Commfesionem use MrShaSmho h"t Hh?hr0ar? W°Uld n0' be 3 lon9-tem resoiution with this type of waiver Lmhn^b fl?d ,he Coun,V Engineering Department wouid not support a aryer from paving requirements. She recommended the road paving and parkino lot paving be two separate findings. Ms. Shambo stated the County Engineering Deoartment :eerrrdrn WaS,based °n the pr0pen^ not bein9 ame»ed in”ol and S not many options to get the road paved except with development-related requirements. While the applicant proposed creating a public improvement district for the0 Ke r0adS’ :he[?ounty Engineering Department would norbeTupp^ve o1 such a request because the Engineering Department was not Inclined to administer an improvement district for a commercial industrial park that has roads not meeting the minimum criteria for roads as stated in the EVDC. She explained there are other op9tions Fnnr0ad .mai^tenance* the Planning Commission supported the waiver, the County mPplMheJln?hDePai1ment W0Uld request a condition of approval requiring the applicant to F\/nrthr ?6r 'T1inimurT1.road specification requirements as stated in Appendix D of the qhi?kCit,TtaHSthrfaCe’ W ’ draina9e) fr°m Elm Road up to and through Lot 2. Planner exDlained the CoMnh/eFUirementS nh0Uld b6 'iSted 33 findin9s- Ms. Shambo further explained the County Engineering Department was not supportive of the waiver of the amas9forthai’sStvnp9Jhe typ,cal .efPeStation of tha County was to have paved parking dSrnagtandsLryrssueT"16"'31 mdUS,rial USe' PaVed l0tS minimiZe --'-ance9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 15, 2013 Comments made by the Commissioners included, but are not limited to: rock requires little maintenance, and the road would require more maintenance if it was paved; the County Commissioners need to be aware of the existing surface; staff and Commission recommendations would be made clear to the Board of County Commissioners; support for landscaping requirement waiver, support for screening waiver. Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative was in favor of waiving the paving requirement, stating other businesses in the area are unpaved. The applicant proposed signage for individual parking spaces in the parking area, and stated the handicap accessible spaces would be paved and labeled. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant was willing to commit to lay down road base across Lots 1 and 2. Positive drainage would be created alongside the road. Additionally, the same type of surface would cover the parking area. A detention pond sufficient to county standards would be built. The neighbors are supportive of the waivers. Doug Klink/applicant stated the drainage pond would be a huge improvement for downhill property owners. Not having to pave the road and parking areas would make the project economically feasible. He stated a portion of the building permit fees are added to a county improvement fund that would specifically allocate those funds to the district containing the Estes Valley. He shared information about the road leading to the County shops and how it was constructed and maintained, stating it does not meet County standards. He was appreciative of the County Engineering Department’s attendance at the meeting. Johanna Darden/Town resident was in support of the project as lonq as dust was controlled. Ed Kitchen/adjacent property owner stated the project would be a definite improvement to the area. He stated paving the road would be impractical. He agreed the area could use dust control applications. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion There was discussion regarding the wording of the findings and conditions. Findings After review, staff and the Planning Commission found- 1. This proposal complies with requirement to pave the road. The applicam requests a waiver to road paving standards. This waiver is justified in the Larimer Terminals industrial neighborhood due to minimal public use of the road, use of the property, lack of road association to maintain a paved road, and the fact the existing road is granite bedrock. The road_ should meet design standards, except for the paving requirements (e q width, drainage). r- » ^ v a- The applicant requests waiver to parking lot paving, which the Planning Commission supports. The parking lot should have all-weather surface. Waiver to parking lot paving does not affect ADA parking space requirements, which must comply with Federal standards. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The Larimer County Engineering Department does not support the request to waive road paving standards. The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services and the environment. 7. Neighborhood conditions provide screening of stored vehicles. 8. The proposed rock garden satisfies the intent of landscaping requirements based on watering, soil conditions, and neighborhood conditions. The Board of County applicable sections of the EVDC, except for the 2. 3. 5. 6. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 15, 2013 9. Commissioners may approve this xeriscape plan in lieu of the standards landscaping typically required (60 trees and 180 shrubs). This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Conditions 1. Compliance with memos from: a. Larimer County Engineering dated December 29, 2012. b. Larimer County Building dated December 14, 2012 c. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated December 26, 2012. d. Town of Estes Park Utilities and Public Works dated December 28, 2012. 2. Prior to site work, a drainage easement to account for the proposed stormwater detention facility on Lot 3A must be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk. This easement shall be subject to review and approval of the Estes Park Community Development Department. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Development Construction Permit is required from the Larimer County Engineering Department. Construction plans must be approved by the Larimer County Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the Development Construction Permit. (The Development Construction Permit is issued at a pre-construction meeting, which shall be coordinated through the Estes Park Community Development Department.) 4. A culvert will be required below Kenwood Lane to account for drainage. Culvert shall be included in the construction plans and the drainage report. Construction plans must account for project phasing. 5. Buildings shall be a matte finish neutral color that will blend into the reclaimed quarry north of the structure. 6. Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan two weeks prior to the County Commission hearing. 7. Maintenance agreement shall be submitted for Kenwood Lane, from the eastern limits of Lot 2A west to Elm Road, and shall include a specific maintenance schedule (e.g. frequency of blading, dust control, etc.) 8. Formatting changes: a. Add signature blocks to the development plan page (Owner, Board of County Commission). b. Rock and sculpture garden for building one to be installed with phase (currently references phase two). c. Ensure page number is correct. one It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hills) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed Kenwood Industrial Park Special Review 2012-07 to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and Planning Commission, and the motion passed 6-0, with Commissioner Klink absent from the dais. Commissioner Klink returned to the dais. REPORTS Planner Shirk and Director Chilcott reported on the following pre-application conferences: 1. Outdoor Adventure Park with a proposed location just south of the Estes Park Brewery. 2. Proposed 30-unit townhome development on Moraine Avenue. The applicant is a local developer. 3. Proposed Elkhorn Tubing Hill on the Elkhorn Lodge property. Tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission review in March. Planner Shirk reported O’Reilly Auto Parts would be submitting a development plan, with construction likely to begin the winter of 2013. Planner Shirk reported no applications have been received for review by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 15, 2013 8 Planner Shirk reported the Stanley Meadows Amended Plat would be heard by the Town Board on January 22, 2013. The access easement agreement has been resolved and completed. Planner Shirk reported the Community Development Department received a referral for proposed land use. The Larimer County Planning Department received an application for trailhead provisions at the Longs Peak Trailhead. Proposed provisions would be adjacent to the parking lot, on private property, located just outside Rocky Mountain National Park boundaries. There being no further business, Chair Tucker adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m. J;^n Tucker, Chair Karen Thompson, Receding Secretary