HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-04-21n
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 21,2009,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Alan Fraundorf, John
Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and Ron Norris
Vice-Chair John Tucker; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull,
Steve Lane, and Ron Norris
Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board
Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Klink, Commissioner Amos, Planner Chilcott
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Vice-Chair Tucker called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
0 rnN«;ENT AGENDA
Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated March 17, 2009.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as
amended, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
3 STAFF REPORT - Accessory Dwelling Unit timeline for approval
Planner Shirk notified the Commission that the first reading of the Accessory Dwelling Unit
S rUlions by the Town Board will be April 28; and wil| allow puW.c oom-ent. The
Town Board public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, May 26 - 20°9- and
public hearing date before the Larimer County Commissioners has not been set.
A development plan 09-02 - SUNFIELD ESTATES - Metes and Bounds located
—ri"-
development
including the 50-foot river corridor setback.
exceeds the minimum requirements in terms of volume.
s.- stsrrrrr aws
recommends approval after compliance with the conditions listed below.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission ^
April 21,2009
Public Comment:
Mark Hollenbeck/Stonewood Properties, DJ Chasen/Stonewood Properties, Bryce Brady and
Rod Harr/Landmark Engineering were in attendance to explain the project and answer
questions.
Mr. Hollenbeck expressed genuine concern about building a quality development and wants
their first major project to be high quality. He hopes to have all site work completed this
summer. The proposed three units will average 3500 square feet, with a mountain style
architectural theme using native building materials.
Commissioner Lane questioned the decision to create a development plan Pr'or to
subdividing the lots. Hollenbeck replied the group of dfve|0Pers dec'ded to wait un I ^
proposed concept was approved before moving forward vyith subdividing the lots _ Director
Joseoh interjected that although rezoning is an option, single-family use is permitted in the A
Accomn^od" Agreements will need to be reached between the owners for shared
access, maintenance, etc.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to APPROVE Oevelopment Plan 09-02^
SUNFIELD ESTATES, with the following conditions recommended by Staff, and th
motion passed unanimously with two absent.
?0ncdom0D'lia:nce with approved development plan. Approval of Development Plan 08-
OsThanbecor^e null and void upon final approval of Development Plan 09-02
2 Priorto'fssua^re of any grading/building permits, the appl'cant shall:
9 Qiihmit final construction plans (including drainage/erosion control) for fevtwand Lpproval of utimy providers and Larimer County Engineenng;
b. Obtain a Development Construction Permit from the Larimer County
c. 5odatedcSoanaTLetter of Map Revisions-Fill shall be provided to Larimer
County Engineering for review and approval if necessary, and a copy
submitted to Community Development; -7 o ni; thP Estesd. Fence Limits of Disturbance, as required by Section 7.2.D5 of the Estes
Valley Development Code; . „ .
e Provide Restoration Landscaping Guarantee letter> c .. 7 q.
f ■ Provide lighting cut sheet to ensure compliance with Section 7.9,
g. Provide development agreement and letter of credit
3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall,
ab. Prov^deeen^neerce^ificIateasSverify^i^^grading ,and drainage compiles with
c. Provide as-buHt plans for review and approval of utility providers and Larimer
d Le0tte?ofMapnRe*ionS-Fill shall be provided to Urimer County Engineering,
‘ and a copy submitted to Community Development.
4- a.0Letter,from*Comm*unit™Development to Stonewood Properties dated April 8,
. f.om Estes Park Public Works and Utilities to Dave Shirk, Bob
GSng anI Scott Zurn dated March 25,2009 (except Note 9 regarding
Street lights); nicti-irt to Dave Shirk dated MarchC- 19|t2009O(Ilhis,wit|r|equke^inwachan^es^<fthetdteveU^ment plan to ensure
accessibility to the sewer mam).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 21,2009
5. AMENDED PLAT - ABUNDANT PROPERTIES OF THE ROCKIES, LLC - Lots 1 & 2,
Block 4, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, and Metes and Bounds Parcel
located at 240 E. Elkhorn Avenue, 230, 234, and 240 E. Elkhorn; Owner/Applicant
Abundant Properties of the Rockies, LLC, c/o Kevin Schwery; Request to combine two
existing lots into one lot and reduce the utility and access easement
Staff Report:
Director Joseph stated this is a request to adjust the property line between Lots 1 and 2 of
Block 4 of the Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park; vacate the property line
between Lot 1 and the metes-and-bounds parcel; and reduce the width of a public utility and
access easement on the metes-and-bounds parcel from nineteen feet to ten feet wide.
The proposed property line vacation eliminates a lot line, which runs through a building and is
not centered on a common wall. The lot line adjustment of .033 feet will center the lot line on
the common wall between Kirk’s Flyshop and the Shirt Shack. Additionally, the property
owner wants to narrow the public easement down the alleyway on the east side of the
property. This easement is currently used for access to a parking area behind building as well
as utility access.
Staff does not recommend vacating nine feet of the nineteen-foot wide public access and
utility easement on the metes-and-bounds parcel due to the responses received from the
Public Works and Utilities departments. Estes Light and Power and the Fire Department also
recommended against the vacation.
Director Joseph stated the location of this easement is valuable to the Town due to the
existing limitations. If this easement is reduced, emergency vehicles will not be able to get to
the riverwalk.
Public Comment:
Kevin Schwery, Owner/Applicant stated the reason behind the easement reduction was to
develop behind the building, but he understands the reasoning against the reduction.
It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Norris) to APPROVE the Amended Plat of
Lots 1 & 2, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, and Metes-and-Bounds Parcel
located at 240 E. Elkhorn Avenue with conditions recommended by Staff. The
motion passed unanimously with two absent.
Conditions:
1. Denial of the requested reduction in the width of a nineteen-foot wide public
access and utility easement and removal of the language vacating nine feet of
this easement from the plat.
2. All signs on the property shall be properly permitted prior to plat recordation.
Prior to plat recordation, the dumpster on the Abundant Properties, LLC
property should be animal proof and screened as described In the Estes Valley
Development Code. The proposed dumpster location and screening design
should be reviewed and approved by Staff.
The existing size for Lot 2 shall be provided on the plat.
The vicinity map shall be to scale with the scale noted.
Font sizes for the existing lot sizes shall be increased so as to be legible.
The dedication statement shall be revised to dedicate any new easement
proposed with this plat, and only those easements.
Kirk’s Flyshop, LLC shall be added to the dedication statement and signature
blocks for Kirk’s Flyshop shall be added.
The reception number or book and page shall be provided for the nineteen-foot
wide public access and utility easement.
lO.The month shall be added to the Board of Trustee’s Certificate.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 21,2009
6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK
12
a.SHORT-TERM RENTALS - revisions to vacation home regulations, including
revisions to the definition of accommodation use, guest room, guest quarter, household
living, and nightly rental in the Estes Valley Development Code Chapter 13, and
revisions to distinguish between Bed & Breakfasts and vacation home uses and the
districts in which these uses are permitted.
Staff Report:
Director Joseph stated Planner Chilcott has prepared Code revisions to address concerns
expressed by residents about the impacts of short-term rentals, such as vacation homes and
bed and breakfast inns, in residential neighborhoods. Staff did not want short-term rentals to
be more restrictive, but rather desired to tighten the language as to what constitutes a
business-related activity and what does not. It is important to clarify if you are using your
home as a short-term rental, you are not allowed to have a home occupation at the same
residence. It was also clarified in this proposal that B&Bs will be allowed only in RM, R-2
(multi-family residential) districts and in A and A-1 (commercial accommodations) districts.
The Town Board issued a directive that these zones were most appropriate for this use.
This proposed Code revision brings the Municipal Code into alignment with the current Land
Use Code. With this revision short-term rentals are elevated to a permitted principal use by
right in all residential zoning districts.
Commissioner and Staff Comments:
Commissioner Hull thinks the requirements of B&Bs being owner-occupied full time and
vacation homes requiring a local manager who is available 24/7 are positive code changes.
Commissioner Lane believes the maximum occupancy of eight is unrealistic and would like to
see it increased to 10. He also would like Staff to rethink how this proposed code relates to
nightly rentals in the commercial districts.
Commissioner Tucker agrees with the concept and thinks the proposed controls address
most issues. He believes that vacation homes should pay commercial water and electricity
rates.
Town Attorney White explained the current code limits on occupancy and the reasoning
behind limiting occupancy of vacation homes to eight individuals.
Public Comment: ,
Frank Theis/Town Resident - Questioned grandfathering of current B&Bs in residential
areas. Director Joseph indicated the grandfathering would stay in place only if the structure
was to remain a B&B and not a vacation home. Larimer County officials state that short-term
rentals in the county have never been an explicitly permitted principal use; therefore,
grandfathering of vacation homes does not come into play. Mr. Theis also suggested either
using the same language concerning occupancy as is in the current code, or changing the
language to eight adults instead of eight people, with a limit of four vehicles.
Jim Tawney/Town Resident - As a lodge owner, he does not agree with permitting short-term
rentals in residential zoning districts, due to the inequality of the playing field where property
taxes are concerned.
Closed public comment.
Commissioner Lane thinks the language in section 1 .d should be revised to say “except in the
CD district”. Commissioners Norris and Tucker agreed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
4
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
Aprii 21,2009
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Fraundorf) to CONTINUE the proposed Block 12
Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Short-Term Rentais
to the next reguiarly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. It was requested
this item be the first on the agenda. The motion passed unanimousiy with two
absent.
b. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION - proposed changes to §7.8 Wildlife Habitat
Protection, to provide review standards for land identified as critical wildlife habitat,
require preparation of a wildlife habitat conservation plan for land identified as critical
wildlife habitat, and provide for Planning Commission review of said conservation plan.
Staff Report:
Director Joseph gave a brief history of the code revision background. In todays proposed
Code revision, Staff has removed any references to setbacks from riparian vegetation and
kept language concerning setbacks from aquatic habitat, i.e. wetlands, streams, rivers, and
standing bodies of water, including seasonal.
Staff is proposing a 50-foot setback from the annual high water mark (not from riparian
vegetation) for undeveloped lots and a 30-foot setback for developed lots which were
developed prior to 2000. Different standards apply to downtown areas and also for parking
lots as opposed to buildings. The current Code operates as a two-tiered system, and todays
proposal abandons one of the tiers; the current 30-foot setback for smaller drainages would
be removed and all areas containing aquatic habitat would have a 50-foot setback. Wetlands
area setbacks are currently 50 feet and no changes are proposed. Studies show a
proportionate relationship between the amount of water flowing through a drainage and its
value as habitat. The current proposal works with a “one size fits all” concept.
If the proposed setbacks are adopted, the number of non-conforming properties will
approximately double, creating a lot of discussion and concern. Iri response. Staff has written
into the code whereas existing non-conforming developed properties that are set back at least
30-feet would be allowed to expand vertically and be exempt from the 50-foot setback. Any
horizontal expansion of these new non-conforming structures would be subject to the 50-foot
setback regulations.
Staff and Commission Discussion: ... . .
Director Joseph commented that a suggestion was made to add mitigation recommendations
following the habitat assessment. Also, the right to deny a development plan that does not
comply with the Code is clearly stated; however, Planning Commission will have the authority
to continue an agenda item if the development plan does not comply with the Code to allow
the developer time to make necessary modifications. Director Joseph clarified that in
urbanized areas, the value of the habitat has already been compromised and, therefore, those
areas will not be designated as severe winter range for deer and elk.
Commissioner Norris would like a better understanding of property owners rights and
guidance as to how to judge the setbacks.
Public Comment: . ^ .
Rick Spowart/Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) thinks the change in the Code language
helps the DOW act as an advisor rather than a decision-making body. DOW will become an
affected agency that will be allowed to comment on proposed developments. It is DOW’s
opinion that aquatic areas are the most important to protect, with raptor nesting areas and
bighorn sheep habitat also having major significance. Mr. Spowart believes smaller setbacks
can create loss of wildlife populations and species for those animals that are not very mobile.
Several species, like elk, are very adaptable and in some ways actually benefit from
development. He noted that various maps and other information is available on the Division of
Wildlife website.
Cheri Pettyjohn/Town Resident believes all affected property owners should be notified by
personal letter. She is against changing the setback from 30 to 50 feet. Ms. Pettyjohn also
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
II
Estes Valley Planning Commission b
April 21,2009
recommended an evening Planning Commission meeting in order to accommodate members
of the public that are unable to attend the afternoon meetings. Director Joseph noted that from
a legal standpoint, newspapers are adequate notification. While Staff is always striving to
improve the accessibilty to the public, a mass mailing such as this will lengthen the process as
well as be very time-consuming and costly. It is very difficult to determine how specific to
make your notification list.
Frank Theis/County Resident likes the two-tiered system that is currently in place, and worries
about unintended consequences. From a design standpoint, he is unsure about the allowance
to expand vertically and the potential for bureaucratic problems where building permits are
involved.
Rick Spowart/DOW responded to a question by Dave Albee/Town Resident and stated that if
the town were able to purchase land for open space, he would consider bighorn sheep habitat
to be important. Conservation easements and the Estes Valley Land Trust would also be good
options to acquire additional open space.
Eric Waples/Town Resident encouraged the Commissioners to keep the future in mind when
making decisions. His goal for Estes Park would be a more pedestrian-friendly community. He
believes significant adverse impact is usually cumulative.
Sandy Osterman/Town Resident has continuing concerns about how decisions will be made
in determining “maximum extent feasible” and “significant adverse impact”.
Mark Elrod/Town Resident reminded Commissioners that abuse of the Code rather than the
exercise of using the Code is where problems will lie. He is having difficulty with acceptable
definitions for “aquatic habitat” and “qualified bioiogist”. Also, he does not see language
allowing for changes in errors on adopted maps.
Sandy Lindquist/Town Resident thinks the Town should move quickly on establishing an open
space plan to incorporate into the Estes Valley Development Code.
Closed to public comment and called recess at 4:15 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 4:25.
Commissioners Norris and Huli supports the suggested addition to the code about the option
to expand vertically if the structure is non-conforming in the setback.
Commissioner Lane wants to understand the in’s and out’s of the proposed code before
approval. He is supportive of moving forward with the issues that are not controversiai. To this
point, he hasn’t heard of any specific quantitative benefits that would come with increasing the
setbacks. He believes the muiti-level tier approach makes more sense than a one-tier
approach.
Commissioner Tucker would like to see a caiendar that lists when the map will be updated. He
does not support the proposed 50-foot setback.
Commissioner Fraundorf thinks the two-tiered system seems very appropriate. He believes
the Commission couid go ahead and approve the proposal and make modifications as they
come up through the Board of Adjustments. He supports the 30-foot setback on developed
lots.
After discussion about pulling the setback portion of the proposed code out for further review
Director Joseph stated it is easier to defend broad legislative guidelines than specific ones. All
of the proposed wildlife habitat code revisions to date have created the expectation that
property adjacent to areas containing aquatic habitat is going to be held to a higher standard
of development. When setbacks are not changed, developments will possibly be subject to a
wildlife habitat assessment and it wili be this Commission’s duty, on a case-by-base basis, to
determine if the minimum setback standard is adequate. After more discussion among the
Commissioners, it was determined that Staff shouid revise the code to a level of completeness
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
n
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
Aprii 21,2009
in order for them to vote on the revisions without addressing the setack issues. This setback
issue will be addressed separately.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Lane) to CONTINUE the proposed Block 12
Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Wildlife Habitat
Protection to the next reguiariy scheduled Planning Commission meeting, and the
motion passed unanimousiy with two absent.
7. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT
It was moved and seconded (Hull /Lane) to CONTINUE the proposed 2008 Estes
Valley Habitat Assessment to the next reguiariy scheduled Planning Commission
meeting. The motion passed unanimously with two absent.
8. REPORTS
a. Burr Minor Special Review - Planner Shirk noted the Larimer County
Commissioners are hearing a minor special review for a detached Accessory
Dwelling Unit, located at 2978 Lory Lane, which is just outside of the Estes Valley
Zoning District towards Glen Haven.
b. Pre-Application Meetings that Staff has received this past month include one for an
amended plat, another for an amended Development Plan for Mary’s Meadow, a
Development Plant for the Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, and one application
for a minor subdivision.
c. Town Board and County Commission decisions on applications reviewed by
Planning Commission include a Supplemental Map ori the Stanley Avenue
Condominiums and the Final Plat for the Deer Ridge Subdivision.
d. The Board of Adjustment heard a variance request for a setback variance in the
Little Valley area.
Director Joseph noted a joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners, Town Board
and Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for June 4, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
Commissioner Tucker suggested commissioners attend the Town Board rrieeting on April 28,
2009 to hear the first reading and comments concerning the code revisions for Accessory
Dwelling Units.
Director Joseph announced a public forum to discuss regulations on wind turbines in
residential areas. This meeting will be held Thursday, April 30,2009 in ‘h® J°wncf0,fr^
This meeting is strictly to obtain public input before regulations are drafted by Staff. Staff will
be in attendance to facilitate discussion.
Finally Directly Joseph stated he has received direction from the Community Development
Committee to organize a task force to take a critical look at the current sign code. e
objective of this task force will be to critique the sign code. There will be seven (7) citizens on
this task force, with Staff available to facilitate discussion.
There being no further business, Vice-Chair Tucker adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
hn Tucker, Vice-Chair
aren Thompson,4:lecbrding Secretary