Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-09-21RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission September 21, 2010,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Ron Norris, Vice-Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners John Tucker, Alan Fraundorf, Doug Klink, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Chair Norris, Commissioners Tucker, Fraundorf, Klink, Lane, and Poggenpohl Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Thompson Vice-Chair Hull, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Elrod The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were 21 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Johanna Darden/Town resident commented about the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan as it relates open space and the funding of improvements at Bond Park. She also disagreed with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) revisions pertaining to. elk and deer preservation. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from August 17, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. 3. It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Klink) that the consent agenda approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. be MARYS LAKE LODGE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 00-07D, Lot 3, Marys Lake Lodge Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. He pointed out a typographical error on page 3 of the staff report. The report should read “Per the submitted Parking and Circulation Management Plan, the Upper Lot will be reserved for the Lodge Haus and the condominiums in this area, and will not be available for those attending events and staying in the Reunion House.” Director Joseph stated this project was continued from the June Planning Commission meeting, and now includes revisions and enhancements to the parking management plan and the site plan. Director Joseph reviewed the staff findings and recommendations as listed in the staff report. He stated the Building Division has made substantial progress in closing out open building permits that were a point of discussion at the June meeting. The vast majority of open permits have been finalized and closed, with only three high-level permits and several miscellaneous permits still being unresolved. Town Attorney White clarified that the Estes Valley Development Code allows the Community Development Department to withhold issuance of building permit applications when there are open and unresolved permits on a property. Director Joseph expects to have all open permits finalized before any new permits are issued. He stated the stormwater drainage project and the shared parking agreement have both been approved. Director Joseph stated the Community Development Department received additional public comment since the last public hearing on this matter. A correction to condition #8 should read the mylars are due October 30, 2010. Staff recommends approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for this application. Staff and Commission Discussion: Director Joseph stated the revised parking plan is adequate, meets Town requirements, and has addressed the points and concerns that came up in earlier discussions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 September 21, 2010 Commissioner Poggenpohl disagreed with the condition involving the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, stating it was the Building Division’s responsibility, and would be in favor of striking that condition of approval. Director Joseph stated the condition of approval was included to emphasize the importance of getting the outstanding permits closed out. Commissioner Fraundorf questioned the acceptance of using a golf cart for transportation from the off-site parking area. Public Comment: Frank Theis/Applicant’s representative stated the applicant had no issues with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Mr. Theis stated because this was the last building in a rather large development, it was appropriate to be required to clear up any unfinished items. Commissioner Poggenpohl withdrew his objection to the condition of approval addressing unresolved building permits. Mr. Theis clarified that all of the parking in the Marys Meadow area was designated employee parking. In the event that space goes away, all employees would be required to park in the most-distant section of the off­ site parking area. It was anticipated that many of the guests attending an event at the Reunion House would also be condominium renters; therefore, not taking up additional parking spaces. If guests were coming from off-site, the managers would require that parking areas be provided with a shuttle service. Mr. Theis clarified the applicant was not requesting a variance, but asking for a waiver from the maximum distance that off-site parking can be located in relation to the primary entrance. Don Debey/Applicant has been working with the HOA to address the unpaved parking area. Due to the summer traffic, the asphalt work was postponed. The asphalt work has now been completed and the stop blocks and striping are in the process of being completed. The current unpaved area is designated for the permeable pavers. He stated this summer was his busiest ever, and the extra parking spaces now designated for employee parking were not needed for customers. There were parking spaces utilized at Rocky Mountain Church in accordance with an existing agreement. Commissioner Lane was concerned about the credited amount of pervious coverage from the pavers compared to the actual pervious coverage of the pavers. Commissioner Klink suggested a code revision be made to establish permeable coverage standards. Chair Norris directed staff to proceed with a problem statement for a code revision. After a brief discussion, Mr. Theis stated the applicant was willing to acquire a street-legal vehicle for the shuttle service. Johanna Darden/Town resident did not support this amendment to the development plan, specifically the term of the parking agreement with the church and employee parking. Peter Scott/Marys Lake property owner stated the parking would be inadequate. Referring to the addition of a stairway off the deck of the ballroom, he did not think this would change the perception that the main entrance was located on the east side of the building. He stated the architecture and design of the west side would continue to lead guests to believe that was the main entrance. He spoke at length about on- and off-site parking issues that occur throughout the year, the requirement of a shuttle “bus", and the unresolved building permits. He was concerned about overlapping times of peak-usage and how that would affect parking. Mr. Scott stated approval of the use of permeable pavers to comply with lot coverage requirements would set a precedent for future developers to be able to use permeable pavers instead of creating open space. He was concerned about guest safety on unpaved paths in the area of the wedding platform. Mr. Scott questioned the load capacity of the pavers, stating the HOA would ultimately be responsible for repairs and maintenance. Mr. Scott would be supportive of a financial guarantee to ensure the project will be completed. He did not support the approval of this amendment to the development plan. Carol Hadley/Marys Lake property owner stated she has a vested interest in this development and wants it to be successful. She was concerned about the enforcement of unresolved building permits and what, if any, recourse the property owners would have with the unresolved issues. She questioned the use of pavers with multiple uses in one RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 September 21, 2010 location: parking areas, green areas, and drainage areas. She disagreed with the approval of the drainage plan “in concept” by the Town Engineer, stating the specifics should be finalized prior to approval. Lauren Scott/Marys Lake property owner did not support the number of waivers requested, and thought the building was too big for the site. As a homeowner, she wanted the project to be successful, but also wanted to be able to park at and enjoy her unit. She stated the agreement with the church indicates no overnight parking is allowed, and was concerned about where she would park if she could not find parking close to her unit late at night. Chair Norris closed public comment. Staff, Commission, and Applicant Discussion: There was extensive discussion concerning the weight capacities of the pavers, adequate sub-grade preparation and drainage in the paver area, contractor certification for paver installation, off-site parking, and the enforcement of the Parking and Circulation Plan. Director Joseph stated the aggregate numbers of parking spaces complied with the minimum parking requirements in the EVDC. Mr. Theis stated there were more than enough spaces allotted for the property, and the restricted parking areas for guests would prevent problems. Director Joseph stated if the Town was faced with an enforcement situation. Staff would have the authority to enforce the Development Plan’s Conditions of Approval. If a new owner were to purchase the property, he would be obligated to comply with the conditions of approval, or apply for a revision that would require a Planning Commission hearing. There was discussion among Staff, Commissioners, Town Attorney White, and the applicant about the operation of the home owner’s association (HOA). Mr. Theis stated a body elected by the homeowners controls the management of the HOA. Mr. Debey owns several units and, therefore, has a number of votes. Town Attorney White stated a Marys Lake Lodge HOA representative will be required to sign the signature block on the development plan. Mr. Debey, a non-voting member of the HOA board, stated he met with the HOA several times concerning this project did not think a vote by the HOA was required. He shared that no one from the HOA Board of Directors was in attendance nor has voiced an opinion against the project. Commissioner Lane stated his concerns about the permeable pavers qualifying for 100% credit of the lot coverage requirement. Commissioner Klink agreed with his concerns. Mr. Theis stated the applicant would be willing to comply with the manufacturer’s specified permeability and make sure it meets the 50% lot coverage requirement for the entire development plan; however, he would not agree to making any of these changes retroactive to previously approved plans. Commissioner Poggenpohl suggested the contractor certify the pavers were installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and that the load capacity was adequate for the types of vehicles using the area. Chair Norris stated he reviewed Sections 1.3.A and 1.3.H of the EVDC to assist with his decision for this project. / It was moved and seconded (Lane/Poggenpohl) to approve the Amendment to Development Plan 00-07D with the following conditions, and the motion passed 5-1, with Commissioner Klink voting against the motion, and Commissioner Hull absent. Conditions: 1. Compliance with: a. Estes Valley Development Code; b. Approved Development Plan DP 00-07D; c. Approved architectural plans; 2. Construction plans shall be subject to review and approval of Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Town of Estes Park Public Works, Light and Power, and Town of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 September 21, 2010 Estes Park Water. Construction plans shall be approved prior to application for any permits. 3. Construction plans shall bear an engineer’s stamp and include detailed drainage information, including the proposed under-drain system. Permeable paver design shall be included on the required construction plans, and shall have a loading rate equal to local road construction standards or alternative approved by Town Engineer. Construction plans shall include sub-base drainage collection system. 4. Prior to application for any new building permits: a. The developer shall meet with Community Development Staff to discuss development processes such as permitting, grading, fencing of limits of disturbance, issuance of certificates of occupancy, revegetation, landscaping, and post development requirements such as as-built plans and warranty periods. b. The standard development agreement and form of credit shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by Staff. This development agreement shall account for landscaping of the entire Marys Lake Lodge (Lots 3, 3A, and 3B), for tree replacement as outlined in Section 7.5.J, and for restoration as required by Section 7.2.C. c. An attested form of the parking agreement, and associated filing fee, shall be submitted to staff for recordation. d. All outstanding building permits shall be finalized. e. The compactor and loading space shall be included on the site plan and relocated and the loading space marked as “no parking loading zone." 5. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (including temporary), the following issues must be addressed: a. Parking Lot Markings shall comply with requirements set forth in the development code. b. Wheel stops shall be installed in all locations where curbs are lacking. c. Conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impacts. This applies to the entire site, not just this building. d. ADA parking spaces shall be marked and signed in accordance with Section 7.11 .J4. This applies to the entire site, not just this building. e. Engineer’s certificate verifying the stormwater management plan for the entire Marys Lake Lodge site (Lots 3, 3A, and 3B) has been fully implemented shall be submitted. f. Engineer’s certificate verifying the permeable pavers have been installed per the approved construction plans. g. Verification the shuttle service vehicle(s) are legal for operation on public streets. 6. Compliance with the following memos from reviewing agencies, and filed with the application: a. From Public Works/Utilities to Community Development, dated June 1,2010. b. From Greg White to Community Development, dated June 7, 2010. c. From Xcel Energy to Community Development, dated May 18, 2010. d. From Fire District to Community Development, dated May 10, 2010. 7. The development plan shall be revised as follows: a. The trash compactor and loading space locations shall be clearly delineated on the development plan. b. The sidewalk shall be included in the Legend, and the “section” include sidewalk/curb material (concrete). c. The Impervious Coverage calculation on page one shall be updated to include itemized (per area) and cumulative square footage of the permeable pavers area. Impervious coverage calculation shall account for the impervious area of the pavers to be installed with the final phase. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 September 21, 2010 8. Pursuant to Section 3.2.D, the revised development plan shall be submitted in mylar form, with appropriate signatures, no later than October 21,2010. 4. REPORTS a. Director Joseph reported there were no staff-level reviews nor pre-application meetings since the last Planning Commission meeting. b. Director Joseph reported the County Commissioners approved the amendments to the EVDC concerning A-1 Density Clarification. c. Director Joseph reported the County Commissions voted to continue the rezoning request for Aspen Brook PUD to another meeting. d. Director Joseph reported the Town Board reviewed the EVDC amendments concerning small wind turbines. The Town Board voted to continue the item to the September 28, 2010 Town Board meeting. Once approved, it will move forward to the County Commissioners. e. Director Joseph reviewed the problem statement for duplex subdivisions. This would be considered a clarification of the EVDC, to remove the current restriction for common-wall land ownership product to three or more units. He stated this common-wall land ownership should also be an option for duplexes, and that the issue was largely an unintended consequence derived from the terminology used in the EVDC. From a planning standpoint, it makes sense to have a fee-simple property line sitting under a common wall between two adjoining units, whether it is a duplex, triplex, or something larger. Staff was looking for direction on how to proceed with the problem statement. It was the general consensus of the Commission to provide this problem statement to the Town Board for approval. f. Planner Chilcott reviewed the problem statement for PUDs that was approved by Planning Commission and Town Board earlier this year. The problem statement included the consideration for PUDs on lots smaller than three (3) acres. Planner Chilcott reviewed the purpose of the problem statement; to allow creative approaches to development to meet multiple community needs such as affordable housing, open space, etc. and to investigate how the PUD regulations could be revised to make them more flexible. Staff and the Planning Commission reviewed numerous PUD ordinances from other communities to assist in determining what elements might be included in the code revisions. The next steps would be to look in more detail at the benefits and unintended consequences of making no change, major change, or targeted changes to the existing code. Engaging the public would be another major step in the process. The problem statement directed Staff and the Planning Commission to complete these next steps by the third quarter of 2010, and review the findings with the Town Board. The desired outcome would be an analysis of the current PUD regulations compared to other communities, a summary of public comment, and general recommendations for changes. In May, 2010, there was discussion about what achievements the Planning Commission wanted to see pertaining to PUD regulations. In July, 2010, the Planning Commission directed staff to recommend a process to help articulate the desired outcomes and ways to actively engage the public. Planner Chilcott reviewed several tools available to help communities identify the desired outcome: visual preference studies (VPS) to help visualize a particular area; public participatory GIS using three dimensional modeling and virtual reality: simple hand-made box city models to visualize bulk or types of uses. Staff recommends using visual preference studies as a way to help generate discussion about the desired outcomes for particular areas. They can engage the public by using photos of existing development and potential development or redevelopment that could occur. The design of the study would be flexible and could be tailored to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 September 21, 2010 fit our needs. The VPS would not require additional resources, whereas the GIS method would require more technical experience at a higher cost. Planner Chilcott reviewed a study done in New Castle, Colorado that looked at the layout of the community and surveyed the public for preferences. The public was allowed to comment on each layout sample. Denver also used this model for the redevelopment of the downtown area. The studies could be completed in stages. Planner Chilcott reviewed another study from Hughesville Village, Maryland, that used building types as drawings in order the review design standards. In any VPS, a goal would be to eliminate as much bias as possible. Planning Commission requested that complete copies of the studies be placed on the Town website. Planner Chilcott stated public participation could take many forms: public hearings, online surveys, committees including members of the public, charettes, etc. Commissioner Poggenpohl suggested beginning by using methods that would reach the largest number of people. Director Joseph clarified that in the sample neighborhoods listed in the report for possible consideration, the school/fairgrounds area itself would not be considered, but the neighborhood surrounding the schools and fairgrounds could be a potential area of study. There was discussion among staff and the Commission as to the size and specifics of any potential areas of consideration, and comments were made concerning the importance to refer to any areas as “examples” and “hypothetical” in order to not give citizens the wrong impression of how PUDs might develop. Planner Chilcott explained that property owners would continue to have the right following the “standard” development code regulations and that development under the PUD regulations would be optional. This would not place additional burdens on businesses; merely provide another option for development or redevelopment. Some areas have potential for mixed uses, a change in floor-area ratios, a change in height limits, etc., and the intent would not be to make it more difficult for property owners. Director Joseph stated the idea was to start small and iron out the process so the citizens are comfortable with it before expanding the process to other neighborhoods. Consensus from the Planning Commission and elected officials would be required. He stated the point of a PUD would be to layer it over the existing use by right, with new possibilities. Commissioner Klink was concerned about the expense to property owners and/or their tenants. Care should be given to not eliminate heavy commercial areas. Commissioner Tucker stated that using real examples would bring out more public comment. After extensive discussion, the Planning Commission suggested beginning with a study of Cleave Street and a portion of Moraine Avenue that contains a mixture of zoning districts. Staff could present information on a sample VPS, possible community outreach methods, etc. Director Joseph explained this was a way to discover what the public preferences are, but was not an effort to try to narrow the realm of possibilities. It was an effort to expand the realm of possibilities. Commissioner Klink was excused from the meeting at 3:50 p.m. g. Chair Norris stated the key item coming out of the August 30, 2010 meeting with the Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commissioners was the recognition that any contentious topics should be discussed jointly with all groups in attendance. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary