Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-07-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 20, 2010,1 ;30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Ron Norris, Commissioners Doug Klink, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Chair Norris, Commissioners Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, and Poggenpohl Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Commissioner Klink The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. There were 13 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Mares/Town resident thanked the Planning Commissioners for attending last week’s Town Board meeting and clearing up communications on the wind turbine subject. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the June 15, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. REPORTS There were no staff-level reviews nor pre-application meetings since the last meeting. Planner Shirk reported the McCreery-Thompson Amended Plat and the Greeley- Boulder Colony Subdivision Lot Consolidation were approved by the County Commissioners on June 21, 2010. The Little Valley Lot Consolidation was approved by the County Commissioners on July 19, 2010. This was not presented to the Planning Commission because it was a lot consolidation. Director Joseph reported a development plan was approved at staff-level in July, 2009 for a fueling facility owned by Safeway to be located at the intersection of Steamer Drive and Highway 34, former site of Silver Lane Stables. The building permit is nearing completion and should be issued in the near future. Safeway is poised tCLbegin construction as soon as the permit is received. The Town Board remanded Wind Turbine code amendments to the Planning Commission at the July 13, 2010 meeting. Code amendments will be heard by the Planning Commission on August 17, 2010, with the intent of review by Town Board in September. Chair Norris stated the Town Board voted to reconsider regulations for small wind turbines that include a public review process and reduced setbacks to allow more properties the right to have a wind turbine. The Commission discussed a Conditional Use Permit and Special Review processes, debated the merits of both, and received clarification from Town Attorney White on the differences between the two processes. The presumption with the Special Review process is there is no use- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 20, 2010 by-right. Special Review applications are heard by the Planning Commission, which recommends approval or disapproval to the Town Board or the Board of County Commissioners, depending on location. Any appeals go through the District Court. With the Conditional Use Permit, there is a presumption of use-by- right if certain requirements are met. Appeals would first go to the Town Board or the County Commissioners. Commissioner Fraundorf would support the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, but would not support a small setback. Commissioner Lane would be supportive of a CUP with an adjoining component that would waive the public review process if more restrictive requirements were met. Commissioner Hull agreed with Commissioner Fraundorf. Commissioner Tucker was fundamentally against both the Special Review process and the CUP, stating that it should be possible to write code language that satisfies the majority of the community. He was open to further conversations about setbacks, and would support larger turbines being allowed on larger lots and the micro-turbines being allowed on smaller lots. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that Special Review processes and Conditional Use Permits are to be avoided unless you are dealing with something other than objective criteria or standards. He thought objective standards could be written for wind turbines. Chair Norris directed staff to revisit the number of lots that would meet the requirement for setbacks of three times the height, two and one-half times the height, and two times the height for the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bill Darden/Town Resident questioned the appeals process for a Special Review for properties in the County. He suggested offering the Town Board a variety of setback possibilities, or having ongoing conversation with the Town Board prior to making a recommendation Bob Clements/Town Resident questioned the use of a CUP in other areas of the EVDC besides wind turbines. He suggested using a structure setback instead of a lot-line setback. This would be more considerate of neighboring structures. Johanna Darden/Town Resident strongly opposed wind turbines. She asked the Planning Commission to consider a restriction on small wind turbines so that neither visible movement nor flicker could be seen from them. STAFF AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Town Attorney White stated Special Reviews are for uses of property, not the locations of structures, which would be the difference between a Special Review and the CUP as currently drafted and discussed. Town Attorney White gave the example of commercial recreation uses in the CO-Outlying Commercial being subject to special review because it has been determined that such uses may have certain adverse impacts on the land. Wind turbines would be an accessory use to the principal use of residential property, and an accessory structure on that property. Chair Norris stated there was no objection from the Town Board on the draft, except for the absence of a public review process. Staff was directed to insert the CUP language back into the draft code amendment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 20,2010 4. GATE HOUSE REZONING REQUEST AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, Metes and Bounds parcels located at 2220 Windcliff Drive Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this request is to adjust the configuration of three existing lots and rezone from RE-Rural Estate zone district, where the minimum lot size is 2.5 acres, to the E-1-Estate zone district, where the minimum lot size is one acre. The property is located near the end of Spur 66. If approved, all Windcliff accessory structures would be on one lot owned by the Windcliff Property Owners Association. Planner Shirk stated the purpose of the boundary line adjustment is to reconfigure the internal lot line between the “road” parcel and the “Gate House” parcel. The third, easternmost lot is included to change the legal description from a long metes-and- bounds description to “Parcel 1 of the Gate House Boundary Line Adjustment.” The configuration of this lot would not change, but the zoning would change from RE- Rural Estate to E-1-Estate. The current lot configuration is such that the trash compactor is on the Gate House lot, and the entry sign, mailboxes, newspaper boxes, and drainage facility are on the “road” parcel. It is proposed to create one “Outlet A” to contain all of these accessory uses. Planner Shirk stated the proposed “Parcel 1” is undeveloped, and was determined to be a legal lot through a separate lot determination process in June, 2009. The proposed “Parcel 2” is the Gate House property, where the Windcliff office is located. There was some discussion at the pre- application stage to rezone this lot to O-Office, but it was decided that because the iitespan of the office may be ending in several years it would be best to keep the current zoning as R-Residential. Because this lot is non-conforming, it has been SfTJr.r!hd t0 PUt f n0te 0n the plat statin9 the adjustment of these lot lines will not fvfHnto-th! ?Urrent non-conforming uses. A plat note explaining that Outlet A is exclusively for accessory uses has also been requested. Planner Shirk stated the application also contains a request for Plannino Commission approva for a minor modification to the minimum lot size requirement Two of the lots are just less than one acre; one is .98 acres and the other is 82 Teres. rnlnner Stated this recluest has been submitted to all applicable reviewino COnSlderati0n and comment- No si9n*ficant issues orwr^em^Twere ter^Zs StyaffeVseuWDnorfSc!taff relatiVe t0wC°de comP|iance or the provisions of public services, staff supports recommending approval to the Board of ro..ntw rezTnTngSIOnerS °f thS proposed Gatehouse Boundary Line Adjustment Plat and PUBLIC COMMENT: None. STAFF AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION: moren?SonLTUCker S‘ated 'hiS Pr0p0Sal would make the P™Perty lines cleaner and Gatehouse'Rezr^ngllequesf^and'Smndaivl0' rerm.end approva' •ha County Commissioner<% anH ^me Adjustment to the Board of to the minimum lot size with the^n'If thG request for a mlnor modification motion passed unanta“s,;d:;itthheon,;tns3atre“-a’-^ed by Staff, and the 5- --lS^nEy^ -A. -ey. ,his a-dkeo,ura, firm has RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 20, 2010 Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to redevelop an accommodations-zoned property from three existing cabins to a resort development with eleven accommodation units and a private recreation facility, located at 2123 Moraine Avenue. The applicant also applied for a lot consolidation plat, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 21, 2010. The purpose of the lot consolidation was to combine several existing parcels into one lot of record, to dedicate right-of-way and utility easements, and to identify existing access easements. The property currently contains three cabins. The applicant proposes to retain two of the existing structures; one would serve as a private recreational facility and another would be used for accommodations. The third would be removed. Two quadplex units and one duplex would be constructed. The proposal includes a total of eleven units utilizing the existing drives as much as possible. All new construction would occur on the uphill side of the driveway. Planner Shirk stated the property was zoned A-1 Accommodations, which provides for low-intensity accommodations and very limited accessory uses. The proposed private recreational facility would be only for residents, employees, or guests. The proposal includes a provision for 5-foot-wide sidewalks, which would be distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of pavers. There was enough land area available to comply with the proposed density calculations of 2.8 units per acre. Planner Shirk explained how the density was calculated, accounting for the steep slope, dedicated right-of-way, and existing driveway. The proposed impervious coverage amt^nts and setback distances were in compliance with the code requirements. The applicant set tight limits of disturbance. Road disturbance would e m'mmal, except to flatten out an area at the entrance for safety reasons. The limits disturbance comply with the provisions and standards of the Estes Valley we^e^no'p^anjfw ^^n'l^'2e^he^lighthigtk^a^. There I-.... |£SWQ|P,. for "9htl[]9 In the parking areas, minimal lighting on the buildinas and bottom of the dSay entlo Mom °mP"™ Wlth the slope standarts a‘ 'he no longer a state Slrso the^fa o „ f.Ue.Puanner Shi* noted ,hat SPU^ 66 is entrance meets the EVDC standards n s ato highway requirements. The driveway about additional parking, and also inouired ahorHtS(h°ner P099enpohl had Questions the long-range plan of creatino an adriiiio b.oul ,the Proxlmlty of this development to Park. Dkector Joseph steTedThaUoS^i*1”"31 en,:ance .R°oKy Mountain National Director Joseph stated the existino drh/o 38 n0t M P th,S proP°sed development. Moraine Avenue. Planner Shirk staged V W' bG al,gned appropriately with reduce parking from 2 spaces oer unS tn ? S m,n°r modification request was to modification primarily to^educe the qit^ Jof spaces p®r un,t- staff supported this regarded driveway width where the annr stu[bance- The final mi'nor modification instead of the stand^rTi4 fee^ On th^ reTSteCl 22 feet of paved width applicant requested a 20-foot width inh|6 uppe.'^ portlon of Eagle’s Crest Lane, the shortstretchofthedrtve Tlie^u^oernnJinn °f tbeKstandard 24-fo°t width for a very small area at the top of the upper looo wh^pUth b6 3 °ne_way loop- There was one shoulders alongside a narrow tiprtinn’ 6 ^be app*,cant preferred to add gravel gravel shoulders. The fire department dwh^ntT111' Staff recommended against driveway widths. not express anY concerns about the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 20, 2010 Planner Shirk reviewed the adequate public facilities, and stated the water main would need to be extended from a nearby development, including a road crossing. He complimented the engineer on the completeness and thoughtfulness of the stormwater management plan. Rather than building one large detention pond at the bottom of the development, several detention basins have been designed throughout the development, with the intention that the stormwater will be dispersed over a larger area and infiltrate into the ground. Planner Shirk stated some of the power would be placed underground, but the existing main line would remain above ground. Planner Shirk stated there would be two new hydrants installed, and the two quadplexes would be sprinkled. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicated no off-site improvements would be necessary. Two neighboring property owners submitted comments. One was concerned about exterior lighting and the potential for trespassing via guest foot traffic. The other was a neighbor in the process of building a single-family dwelling, who requested additional landscaping close to the adjoining property line. Planner Shirk stated that assuming the applicant complies with the staff recommendations, the landscaping was adequate. The applicant had no issues with any new landscaping. Commissioner Tucker questioned the availability of ADA compliant units and parking. Planner Shirk stated the EVDC does not require a certain number of accessible units, and referred those questions to the applicant, p'rector Joseph clarified that some of these issues would be addressed in the buildmg code stage. There may be discussion about the route from the handicapped route0 the reCreatlon buildin9- 't was stated that driving is an acceptable method of a Chair Norris was appreciative of the complete application and reports. Public Comment: Matthew Heiser/Basis Architecture represented the applicant He stated thp aS'terctur® f,rm was 9|ven very specific directions to redevelop the existina the amounts of concrete. There would ha ^ K materi^ls wou,d be used> with minimal used for sidewalks While the EVDP mm • h af- and s^one pavers would be of the Size Of the buWng Wid,h’ ind®Pendent =fo: svkSS Sf oouid remain in place. One of fhe public comments LSTis™ Vcmcre^Sel66 intact to minimize'impart on th^rest6^!1 tL3'9'1'''0rf1* ^rtion of the infrastructure intact to help maintain the htstonc ^harart^ n0fUtbuildin9S would remail1 The exterior design would include the u«;p nf i10^ Uti2ed for maintenance supplies. The quadplexon the uphni Sde wouW bP i P ,S,d,n.9’ ,0gS’ timbers- and stone, limit on the downhill side. Exterior liahtino on thi p6 ’ hnd W,thm the thirty-fo°t height eaves, and sidewalk lighting would be low to tho nmChHSM 0lild be located under the some concern from neighbor Lout he^d^ approximately thirty vertical feet between tLd nm Shrlne' exP|ained there was not anticipate any problems with headliohthLinp and thu ne|9hbor’s. and did the recreational Lility wL exS th'mf th6 ne,ghbor- He clarified that requirements would be necessarv thp’ rJhe-re?rAU n° add|tional accessibility although not all would pertain to tWc d G ^equired ADA guidelines would be met the buildings, nighCenlTsvI^^^^^^^^^ ^r. H^ser explained the use of by the ADA. S ,on9er-term rentals, changed the requirements RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 20,2010 Jes Reetz/Cornerstone Engineering stated the project was designed to reduce the site disturbance by reducing the parking. The resort planned to market to families travelling in one car. Mr. Reetz was not concerned about the limited parking spaces, and stated if additional parking was needed, the area at the bottom of the loop could possibly hold two more spaces. The other parking areas could also be extended, but would possibly involve removing some of the rock outcroppings. Mr. Reetz stated the entrance was designed per Larimer County road standards. All proposed electric lines would be underground, including the service line to Glacier Lodge. A dedicated easement would be created for the utilities. When asked by Commissioner Hull about the neighbor concerns, Mr. Reetz replied the developers have tried unsuccessfully to contact one neighbor, but have been in contact with the other neighbor to work through any concerns. Mr. Heiser reiterated that the recreation center would be available only to guests staying on the property. The resort would include 22 parking spaces for 11 units, being only four spaces short of the code requirement. There were also plans to construct a bear-proof trash enclosure. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. STAFF AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Tucker thought the Estes Valley would be seeing more of this type of redevelopment in the future. He complimented the developer on this project, stating that it retained the Estes Park image to the property. He was pleased they were willing to work with the neighbors. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Poggenpohl) to approve Development Plan 2010-02, Eagle’s Crest Resort, with the findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Klink was absent and Commissioner Lane had recused himself prior to discussion. Mr. Heiser asked the Planning Commission to consider a vote to address two issues: the construction of four-foot-wide sidewalks in lieu of the five-foot-wide sidewalks recommended by staff, and the placing of a gravel berm on the driveway at the top of the upper loop in lieu of a wider paved driveway area. Planner Shirk stated the EVDC requires a five-foot sidewalk, independent of the size of the building. Planner Shirk supported the paving of the entire upper loop section of the driveway. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Poggenpohl) to allow four-foot-wide sidewalks in lieu of the standard five-foot width, and to allow gravel berms where appropriate in order to avoid tree removal due to paving in Development Plan 2010-02, Eagle’s Crest Resort, and the motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Klink was absent and Commissioner Lane had recused himself prior to discussion. Commissioner Lane rejoined the group. 6. REPORTS Director Joseph reviewed a memo on the ongoing discussion of how the PUD provisions in the EVDC could be examined. This memo is aimed at two approaches that could be taken to the PUD regulations. One approach is to address the PUDs from a regulatory standpoint, e.g. address the development standards such as bulk, density, parking, sustainability, and architectural design standards. These are all common features that are found in many PUD regulations, but are arguably missing from our PUD regulations. Another approach is to look at the desired outcomes and then adjust the regulatory structure to produce or allow the desired outcome. Staff provided some excerpts from a three-year-old blight study performed by EPURA to use this as a guide to some neighborhoods that are ready for redevelopment. We RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 20, 2010 could start a process of visioning what a built environment might look like, what the mix of uses might be, and how that would fit into the existing fabric of the neighborhoods. In the Planning Commission study session. Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with the visioning approach. There was a discussion about possibly focusing on the downtown. Next month, staff will provide some additional graphics to feed the thought process of the Planning Commissioners and engage the public. Graphics are a better communication tool to engage the public than technical language. PUBLIC COMMENT: Fred Mares/Town resident liked what he heard about the approach to PUDs. He stated the case studies are very valuable, and would encourage the Commission and staff to view these potential PUDs as building blocks for the future of the entire Estes Valley. He commented that the bigger plan has been missing for some time. There could be certain developments may or may not fit with what the rest of the valley looks like. He hoped that as new development and redevelopment occurred, there would be an opportunity for the entire valley to be able to plug in these uses to reach a cohesive picture. Chair Norris stated it would be interesting to see if the PUD code could tie in with the Comprehensive Plan and an open space plan. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m. :on Norris, Chair 'aren Thompson, R^cerfding Secretary