Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2019-04-16 The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Prepared: April 9, 2019 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION April 16, 2019 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Study Session Minutes: March 16, 2019 Meeting Minutes: March 16, 2019 Large Vacation Home: 664 Castle Mountain Road 5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW: 2501 Carriage Drive CCO Hardin 6. THEISS REZONE, 1593 DRY GULCH ROAD Planner II Hathaway Owner: The Sanctuary, LLC, Mark Theiss Applicant: David Bangs, Trail Ridge Engineering Request: Rezone 10 acre lot from RE-1 to RE, creating 4 lots at 2.5 acres 7. CODE AMENDMENT: Update to Neighborhood and Community Meetings Planner I Becker 8. CODE AMENDMENT: Update to Table 3.3, Parking Space Threshold Planner I Becker 9. CODE AMENDMENT: Event Facilities Director Hunt 10. CODE AMENDMENT : Removal of PUD restrictions Director Hunt 11. REPORTS Change in meeting times beginning May 21, 2019 12. ADJOURN Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado March 19, 2019 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Estes Valley, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Rooms 202/203 of Town Hall. Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice Chair White, Commissioners, Foster, Murphree, Smith, Theis Attending: Leavitt, Theis, Murphree, Smith, White, Foster Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Hunt, Senior Planner Woeber, Planner I Becker, and Recording Secretary Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. There were 2 people in attendance. This study session was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. Code Amendment: Vacation Homes & Bed and Breakfast Inns Town Clerk Jackie Williamson spoke in the absence of CCO Hardin. The main changes to the vacation homes draft exhibit are: 1) the local property manager must reside in the Estes Valley Rec and Park District boundary. It was suggested to change the boundary to the Local Marketing District or the School District. 2) Vacation homes must be rented a minimum of 15 days, if registration has been held for a full calendar year. Laserfiche will be used for work-flow management. Code Amendment: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Director Hunt stated that staff will recommend this code amendment be withdrawn without prejudice at the regular meeting. There is no harm in waiting on this amendment. Code Amendment: Park and Recreation Facilities Planner Woeber summarized the Code Amendment, which will include replacing the existing definition and distinguishing between public and private, rather than commercial and noncommercial, and stating what is permitted in residential zones per table 4.4. New section, 5.1.w, further describes recreational facilities and what their uses would be. Hunt expressed concerns with legally nonconforming status for some properties in town (ex: Cheley Camp). Attorney White noted that governmental entities can do what they want with a location and extent review. Allowing these entities in A zoning is another topic for discussion. It was recommended to remove the last sentence and add “passive open space is allowed in residential zoning districts.” Event Facilities in A Zoning Planner Woeber reviewed the upcoming code amendment to allow event facilities in A zoning district. These would be an S-1, Special Review. Limits on parking can be done through the parking table. Planning Commission Study Session March 19, 2019 – Page 2 PUD reversion Planner Woeber summarized the upcoming code amendment to allow PUD’s in zones other than CO. Windcliff is a prime example of this problem. New PUD’s would be overlays, not reversions. Developer input would be helpful. Continued conversation on this subject will take place at the next study session. Ayres Associates Parking update: Planner Woeber referred to the handout from the consultants. There is not much information on the density bonus parking, but he will ask Ayers to address this before the next meeting. Lunch 12:10-12:30 Parking Thresholds in Development: Planner Becker explained the update to table 4.4, applying a broader scope to nonresidential parking space requirements, dropping the number from 10 spaces to 3 for a development review. Staff findings should state that is addressing a defect in the code. This will be on the April 16 meeting agenda. Neighborhood meetings update: Planner Becker noted the corrections and clarifications for displaying signs and an update of which projects need a community meeting. This will be on the agenda for the April 16 meeting. Estes Park Shuttle Special Review Planner Becker discussed the status of the temporary use permit of the Estes Park Shuttles. It was noted that the lot is abutted by R zoning on two sides, and it is located on a state scenic byway. The Highway 7 corridor, specifically, needs to be a comp plan issue. It was noted that CDOT has not done a great job with design aesthetics on their projects and upkeep. Questions/Discussion/Future Items o Contract with CDOT to repave East Elkhorn from 36 to Moraine by Memorial Day. o There is a provision in the nonconforming section of code that a nonconforming lot can be built on. Variances may be required. o Planning Magazine Article on public meetings could be used for public input me etings. o Possibly having “planning commission talks” with commissioners and a planner to allow for 2- way c ommunication with the public. These can’t be quasi-judicial, only legislative. o IGA public dialog progress to be facilitated by Martin Carcasson, CSU Center for Public Deliberation. o Later meeting times will start in May. Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m. _____________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Robert Foster, Steve Murphree, Frank Theis Attending: Leavitt, White, Smith, Foster, Murphree, Theis Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: None Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Theis/Murphree) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Justus Drake, 1615 Upper Broadview Road, questions, concerns and suggestions on development of Upper Broadview and Griffith court. Comments attached. El eanor Roehl, 503 Levings Way, wants a picture of what the Mountain Coaster would look like. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of February 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Approval of February 19, 2019 Study Session minutes It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the minutes with one change and the motion passed 5-0 with Foster abstaining. 5. REZONE: 1573 DRY GULCH ROAD, Mark Theiss, owner Continued to April per staff request It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Foster) to continue the rezone to April 16, 2019 and the motion passed 6-0. 6. CODE AMENDMENT: VACATION HOMES AND BED AND BREAKFAST INNS Director Hunt reviewed the recommended amendments to the EVDC as outlined. Staff recommend approval of the amendments. Town Clerk Jackie Williamson was available to answer questions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 Stipulate that only the property owner can apply for a vacation home registration; To add better defined timelines for vacation home owners to complete their registrations; Remove unnecessary language with regard to the original transition period (which has now expired); Clarify that the registration stays with the property and is non-transferable to another location;  Add a requirement that vacation homes must be rented for a specified period of time to maintain the registration;  Expand the reach for property managers to reside within the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District boundaries, versus requiring they reside in the Estes Valley;  Requiring the new owners submit the transfer application within fifteen (15) days from acquiring the property;  Removed the requirement of including local representative or property manager information be included in the neighbor notifications;  Update the number of allowed vehicles parked on the property to align with the number of bedrooms in the home;  Add references to both the Sign Codes and Wildlife Ordinances to accommodate stronger enforcement through the EVDC. Public Comment: Brookie Gallagher, Lexington Lane, asked for clarification on the geographic boundaries and supported living one hour away for property managers. Blake Robertson, 471 MacGregor Avenue, requested red line strikeouts and searchable pdf documents be available to the public. Commissioner Comments: Theis noted that he was sympathetic to owners who are also property managers who are having their one-hour boundary taken away. White thanked the Clerks office and Community Development for all the work that has been done to take out the kinks. There was a request for an inventory of property managers living outside the Estes Valley. Foster opposed the 15-day rental requirement due to it being burdensome and unnecessary. Theis and Leavitt agreed. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Vacation Home Amendments as stated in the findings of fact by staff, removing paragraph B.1.a.(9), and changing paragraph B.1.a.(12) to include the Park R-3 School District boundary. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to recommend approval the Bed and Breakfast Code Amendments as stated in the findings of fact by staff. The motion passed 6-0. 7. CODE AMENDMENT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY It was requested by staff to withdrawl the Code Amendment without prejudice. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 Public Comment: Blake Robertson, 471 MacGregor Ave, asked for clarification of the meaning without prejudice. Director Hunt answered that there is no time frame for a resubmittal. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to withdraw without prejudice the Code Amendment of Comprehensive Plan Consistency. The motion passed 6-0. 8. CODE AMENDMENT: PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the revision to Park and Recreation Facilities use in the EVDC to address issues and concerns that have recently been raised, primarily with how the use is currently defined and regulated. This amend ment would revise and expand the definition by separating it into “Public” and “Private”. Commissioner Questions: Director Hunt answered Fosters question that this amendment will reduce the amount of allowable private recreational facilities in residential areas. Considerable discussion was had regarding zoning districts, including Cheley Camp, which could become legally nonconforming, and uses in Accommodation Zones. Public Comment: Jay Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive, recommended not allowing commercial recreation facilities in A zoning. Johanna Darden, 501 MacGregor Avenue, asked if a Bed and Breakfast is able to put in a basketball court. Bob Sweeny, 2661 Eagle Rock Drive, impressed with the Code Amendment and in support of it. Randy Vavrina, 2811 Dunraven Lane, opposed to Commercial Development in residential properties. Commissioner Comments: Commissioners have read the public comments, the majority being against commercial development in residential zones. This amendment addresses the public concerns the best way possible. A stand-alone commercial operation should not be allowed in A or A1 zoning. The code may need modifying. It was moved and seconded (White/Theis) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners of the text amendment, striking the last sentence in 5.1.w.(2) and rep lacing it with “Passive Open Space is allowed in Residential Districts”. The motion passed 6-0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 19, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 9.DISCUSSION ITEM: PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF REPRESENTATION RESOLUTION Chair Leavitt reviewed that this was an attempt to modify code to remove the Staff level reviews of high impact projects, having all projects brought to the Planning Commission. It was requested to continue the discussion to the next Study Session meeting. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Theis) to withdraw the discussion item without prejudice, with the understanding that there will be future input from the Community Development Department. T he motion passed 6-0. 10. REPORTS:Director Hunt A)CSU Center for Public Deliberation staff may begin public sessions this summer to discuss the IGA and Comprehensive Plan. B)Chief Building Official will be starting in April. Planning Technician applicants have been interviewed and should be in place before summer. C)Planning Commission still has an opening. D)Meetings will be at 6:00 p.m. starting in May. T here being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair _________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary UpperBroadview/GlacierViewResidentsrequestforreviewandconsiderationofimpactsofdevelopmentalongMary’slakeRoad.ItisourunderstandingseveralhomeswillbebuiltonthevacantlandsouthofUpperBroadviewandtothenorthofGriffithCourt.Theeffectsofconstruction,accesstoMary’slakeRoadandwaterflowarematterswhichwillaffectresidentsoftheUpperBroadview/GlacierViewneighborhood.Thereareover50householdsaccessingMary’sLakeRoadfromUpperBroadview.AlltheseusersenterMary’sLakeRoadatapointwithpoorvisibilitytothesouth.Theheavytraffic,includingheavytruckuse,would,withadditionalhouseholdsmakefortroubleinthefuture.Mary’sLakeRoadhasalreadybeenthesitefornumerousaccidents,includingwithbicycles.Bicyclesareimpossibletoseecomingfastfromthesouth.EnteringMary’sLakeroadfromUpperBroadviewistrickyforthoseunfamiliarwiththeroadespeciallyinwinter.TherearethreeroadsthatconvergeonUpperBroadviewwithinabout50yardsofeachothernearthejunctionwithMary’sLakeRoad.Thisisinthesameproximityofpotentialaccesstothepropertytothesouthbeingdeveloped.TheadditionofanotherroadenteringUpperBroadviewinproximityotherjunctionswouldaddconsiderablytocongestion,rightofwayconflictandwearandteartoaroadmaintainedvoluntarilybytheUpperBroadviewIGlacierViewroadAssociation.OurRoadAssociationmembershavespentthousandsofdollarsinrecentyearsmaintainingandupgradingtheentranceareatoourroad.WhowillstandthecostofconstructiondamageandaddedusagetoourroadifthenewhomesconnectthroughUpperBroadview?Wealreadyhaveschoolbusses,fasttraffic,bicyclesathighspeed,walkersandicyconditionsaffectingthesafetyofmotoristsandbicyclesonMary’sLakeRoad.Thereisnoshoulderforwalkersnorabikelane.Anotherconsiderationwouldbecongestionduringaforestfireemergencywhenfolkswouldbetryingtoleaveandfirefighterstryingtoentertheneighborhood.Addedcongestionwouldnothelpthesituation.Wewantedtoencourageyou,fortheabovereasons,toconsiderusingGriffithCourtoraplacebetweenGriffithCourtandUpperBroadViewtoaccessMary’sLakeroadforthenewhomeowners.ThereisaflatspotonMary’sLakeroadatandthenorthofGriffithCourtwithmuchbettervisibilityfortraffic. Thenewconstructionwillcreatemanythousandsofsquarefeetofareaimpervioustorain,snowandstormwaters.Driveways,roofsandroadwayswillallneedtodraintothenorth,(downhill).Mary’sLakeroadisbuiltessentiallyinagullywithpoorornoplanningforstormwatermanagement.AlreadystormandsnowmeltwateraffecttheusersoftheUpperBroadviewRoadsystemwhichrequiresannualremediation.ThenewdevelopmentwillbedirectlysouthoftheexistingresidencesonKinnikinicCourtmeaningrunoffwilllikelyaffectthepropertiesinthatstreet.Weunderstand waterflowsdownhill.Countyroadbuildingcodecallsfordirectingwaterflowthroughnaturaldrainagesratherthanusingroadwaystocarrywater.Wherewillallthiswatergo?IsthereacomprehensivestormwaterplanfortheMary’sLakeRoaddrainage?IftherunofffromthenewdevelopmentisroutedtodrainintoMary’sLakeRoad,howwillthatbehandled?Willthecountyordevelopercreateamethodof carryingwater underUpperBroadviewwhereitmeetsMary’sLakeroad?Wepresentthesematters,asearlyconsiderations,tomaketheplannersaware ofthingsthatmaynothavebeenaddressedsofarandtorequestyoutakethemunderconsideration.From: Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>Date: Thu, Apr 11, 019 at 9:28 AMSubject: Re: Justus Drake Letter Follow UpTo: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Brittany Hathaway <bhathaway@estes.org>I called Justus in the last week and discussed answers to his questions related to the parcel directly south of Upper Boradview. The high level summary of our discussion is as follows: I informed him that this parcel still appears to be owned by Mr. Switzer and we have not seen development plans for that site yet. I mentioned that the level of review by Town Planning and County Engineering will depend on what they propose. They may come in with just building permits, they may need to do an amended plat first to adjust lot lines for better lots for building, or they may come in with a development plan and applicability of the Code requirements differs based on each scenario. He asked where access will be. I mentioned that there is newly dedicated access easement off of Mary's Lake Road ( dedicated with Alpaca farm AP) on the south boundary of this lot that was intended to be shared with this parcel and Alpaca. Likely this access will be used and they may also desire access off of Upper Boradview, which is a public local road so they can do so. He mentioned poor visibility at upper at Mary'sLake Road and Upper Broadview is poor. That the review of an established access point such as this would not be triggered with residential building permits on existing legal lots. He wants to make sure that the new lots share in the road maintenance of Upper Broad view. I told him that the road association would need to negotiate with new owners and that the County and Town would not get involved in the amount, etc. If a development plan occurs, we could condition the plan that the need to participate their fair share but we would not have this mechanism to put this condition in place if they just pull residential building permits. I suggested that he may want to work with the current owner to perhaps include the requirement to share in maintenance within the lot sale documents. He was concerned with drainage. I mentioned that new access points off of Upper Boradview would need to consider a roadside drainage swale and culverts to covey flows to the existing culvert under Upper Broadview along Mary's Lake Road. Traci From: Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us> Date: Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 9:28 AM Subject: Re: Justus Drake Letter Follow Up To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Cc: Brittany Hathaway <bhathaway@estes.org> I called Justus in the last week and discussed answers to his questions related to the parcel directly south of Upper Boradview. The high level summary of our discussion is as follows: •I informed him that this parcel still appears to be owned by Mr. Switzer and we have not seen development plans for that site yet. •I mentioned that the level of review by Town Planning and County Engineering will depend on what they propose. They may come in with just building permits, they may need to do an amended plat first to adjust lot lines for better lots for building, or they may come in with a development plan and applicability of the Code requirements differs based on each scenario. •He asked where access will be. I mentioned that there is newly dedicated access easement off of Mary's Lake Road ( dedicated with Alpaca farm AP) on the south boundary of this lot that was intended to be shared with this parcel and Alpaca. Likely this access will be used and they may also desire access off of Upper Boradview, which is a public local road so they can do so. •He mentioned poor visibility at upper at Mary'sLake Road and Upper Broadview is poor. That the review of an established access point such as this would not be triggered with residential building permits on existing legal lots. •He wants to make sure that the new lots share in the road maintenance of Upper Broad view. I told him that the road association would need to negotiate with new owners and that the County and Town would not get involved in the amount, etc. If a development plan occurs, we could condition the plan that the need to participate their fair share but we would not have this mechanism to put this condition in place if they just pull residential building permits. I suggested that he may want to work with the current owner to perhaps include the requirement to share in maintenance within the lot sale documents. •He was concerned with drainage. I mentioned that new access points off of Upper Boradview would need to consider a roadside drainage swale and culverts to covey flows to the existing culvert under Upper Broadview along Mary's Lake Road. Traci Effecthe201704011,-a—.SubmittalDate:Lj2—i‘1OwnerInfonnationVacationHome(VH)AddressHomeownersNameBusinessNameMailingAddressPhoneNumberEmailAddressLocalPropertyManagerContactInformationNamePhysicalAddressMailingAddressPhoneNumberEmailAddressAttachments/$150Fee(TownANDCounty)_________Copyofpropertysiteplan,ifavailableOwnerCertificationAsOwner,IcertifytheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandIamtherecordowneroftheproperlyDateRecordOwnerX4wL42i4n_piD35-2-)—c?FO(YILotSizea.ICcRequiredSetbacks:_____Frontc35Side6‘RearExistingSetbacks:j7)FrontCiide1?0RearStatementofIntentRequired?YESQO)ComplieswithEVDC(ES)NOZoneDistrictE—2(JOWN)COUNTYMaximumNumberofOccupantsAllowedINumberofApprovedParkingSpaces__________StaffRecommendation:APPROVALDENIALScheduledNearingDate31)f/c/—//6c’DalePIannlnsConlntssbnChairDateAPPROVEDDENIEDESTESVALLEYLARGEVACATIONHOMEREVIEWU1DL4r:.1\LF_20!9JClfaj[T7jj’ri..IIt4cs4esgjCas’t\PSF-3Pcr\c,CcgO’S1?S\cp\1t,sc’)3gtiin‘L(ttden,Cosogoi301-Qcc.-01tsflcy@CcA.,.aSiteInformationa&z.1tk:.:;p:•*VHCertificate#____________________________NumberofBedroomsreareA+Opcjc,%\5Ifregistrationisstillinprocess,providedatesubmittedtoTown________________________________________________________________NumberofExistingOff-StreetParkingSpaces6NumberofOccupantsProposed(Maximumallowedis2perbedroompIus2)I.t-e.t’mna.(—Rtyr’t6)scH71yeDrC)O)(L(c,qEc-?cS’jCc)>ocI?970-5_so-99’,’Scoj+QCOfficeUseC:\users\LindaHardin\Downloads\LvHRAppI1Cat10nDRAFT MemoTo:EstesValleyPlanningCommissionFrom:Date:April16,2019RE:ILTOWNOFESTESPARKCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTLindaHardin,CodeComplianceOfficerLARGEVACATIONHOMEREVIEW,2501CarriageDrive;Lessthanoneacrelot(.92acres)ORDINANCE#5.1.B.3.c.(3)PlanningCommissiontomakeafindingthatthebufferingorscreeningfromadjacentandnearbypropertiesissuchthatthelotsizeoflessthanone(1)acreiscommensuratewithLargeVacationHomeuse.DanandVeronicaSparling/ApplicantsObiective:ConductareviewtoconsiderapprovalofaLargeVacationHomeReviewcompliantwiththeEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC).PresentSituation:Thevacationhomeat2501CarriageDriveisinthe“ElEstate”zoningdistrict.Thelotsizeis.92acres.TheEVDCcallsforaone(1)acrelotforaLargeVacationHomeunlessalternativebufferingcriteriaaredemonstrated.Setbackrequirementsare25’onallsides.Thishomeexceedsthesetbackrequirementsonallsides.Thispropertyhasnorecordofanyviolationsconcerningthisuse.Thehomehasfour(4)bedroomswhichwouldallowforten(10)occupants.Thepropertyissituatedinthecenterofanearlyoneacrelot.Theclosestneighboringhomeistothenorthisapproximately85’fromthishome,andisseparatedbyfending.Allotherhomessurroundingthepropertyaremorethan140’away,mostover200’.Proposl:TherequestistopermitaLargeVacationHomeuseonthislot,allowingforten(10)occupantsbasedonthetwoperbedroom,plustwoformula.Advantages:1.Exceedsrequiredsetbacksfrompropertylinesonallsides.2.Neighboringhomesaremorethan85’fromthishome.3.Lotsizeoflessthanoneacreisoffsetbytheplacementofthishomeonthepropertyanddistancefromneighboringhomes. Disadvantages:None.ActionRecommended:TheCommunityDevelopmentstaffrecommendsapprovalofthisapplicationfortheLargeVacationHomepermit.Thefollowingfindingsoffactarerecommended:1.Noreportsorcomplaintshavebeensubmittedbyneighbors.2.Thisusewouldnotchangetheresidentialcharacterofthisneighborhood.3.Thehomeprovidesampleparkingforuptofourvehicles.LevelofPublicInterest:Low:Vacationhomesingeneralhavegeneratedpublicinterestinthepast,however,therehavebeennoconcernsvoicedforthisparticularproperty.SampleMotions:BelowarethePlanningCommission’soptionsrelatedtoapprovalordenialofthisapplication:1.Ifindthattheapplicationmeetsthereviewcriteriawiththedemonstrationofnoimpacttotheneighborsregardingthelessthanoneacrelot,andmovetoAPPROVEtheapplicationallowingpermissiontooperateasaLargeVacationHomeincludingfindingsoffactasrecommendedbystaff.2.Ifindthattheapplicationdoesnotmeetthereviewcriteriaandhasnotdemonstratedthattherewouldbenoimpacttotheneighbors,andmovetoDENYtheapplicationallowingpermissiontooperateasaLargeVacationHome,includingfindingsoffactthat[statefindingsfordenial].3.IfindthattheapplicanthasnotprovidedsufficientinformationtoreviewtheapplicationandmovetoCONTINUETHEHEARINGtoprovideadequatetimetoreviewtheproperty.Attachments:1.Application2.StatementofIntent3.SitePlan [!Vir*!cu(]\VJHR‘LE\3’..5thIJ\JLE51-rrJJJLHbrcieaflO4Otid;1BiYDEVLOPMENTOwnerInformationVacationHome(VH)AddressHomeownersNameBusinessNameMailingAddressPhoneNumberEmaiiAddressPIDLotSizeRequiredSetbacks:Front.a42‘SideExistingSetbacks:/P&Frontt4.t3GlieStatemenioftotemRequired7CompiieswthEVoC?YESZoneDistrict-/TOWNCOUNTYMaximumNumberofOccupantsAllowedICNumberofApprovedParkingSpaces___________StaffRecommer.da:io9:VALDENIALScheduledHearrgDate-P[armIngcommissionChairDateAPPRO\’EDDENIEDESTESVALLEYLARGEVACATIONHOMEREVIEWsOI6ttflcopDrC4im-aSihIf}/rDrWrTh/1)WT&70f-t7-27Q/SiteIntortnationVHCerLficate#NumberofBedroomsIfregistrationisstiliinprocess.pCov.dedatesubmittedtoTownc/o—2NumberofExistingOff-StreetParkingSpacesNumberofOccupantsProposed(Maximumallowedis2perbedroomplus2)LocalPropertyManagerContactInformationNameicJ16unt\iisjicrPhysicalAddress±LD4kr(1rc/c)CoMailingAddress-Sap-,—-PhoneNurnber(31EmailAddress‘VI5It*koc,COAttachmentsI5150Fee(TownANDCounty)OwnerCertificationAsOwner,Icertifyth’,rdownerofcordh________Copyofpropertysiteplan.ifavaitablewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandIamtheDate_______-as_ago‘RearNO2c:\users\LindaHardin\Downloads\LVHRApplicationDRAFT ‘Ifi-[‘4’-I.1IS2a,--•1’ESTESPARKmlflRAflnI4—.TownofEstesParkCommunityDevelopmentPrinted:4/3/2017CreatedBy:LindaHardinIi2501CarriageDr.ApproximatePropertyBoundaryLines:11in=65ft03060FeetThisdraftdocumentwaspreparedforinternalusebytheTownofEstesPark,CO.Thetownmakesnoclaimastotheaccuracyorcompletenessofthedatacontainedhoreon.Ouetosecurityconcerns,TheTownrequeststhatyoudonotpostthisdocumentontheinternetorotherwissmakeitavailablesooersonsunknowntoyou. ToEstesParkPlanningCommitteeconcerningourhouseat2501CarriageDrive:Ourhouseandtheneighbors’housesarenotincloseproximity.Ourhouseandeachofourneighbors’housesareallatdifferentelevationsfromoneanotherduetobeingonthemountain.Thismakesitfeellikeourlotismuchmorethan.92acresofland.Thehousesofourneighborsarealsosetinpositionsontheirlotssotheydonotfeelatallclosetous.Theonlyhousethatisclosetousistheoneneighbortothenorthofusandthereisaprivacyfenceonthatside.Thepositioningofourhomesallowsallofustoappreciatethebeautifulvistasallaround.Thankyou,VeronicaSparling COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Brittany Hathaway – Planner II Date: April 16, 2019 RE: Rezoning of Tract 2 of the Amended Plat of Lot 3 of Fox Ridge Estates from (RE-1) Rural Estate to (RE) Rural Estate Planning Commission Objectives: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; and 2. Provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on a request to rezone property currently zoned RE-1, Rural Estate, to RE, Rural Estate. Location: Subject property is located north of US 34 and south of Ridge Road, addressed 1593 Dry Gulch Road in unincorporated Larimer County. The property is 10 acres in size and is located within a portion of the south half of Section 17, Township 5 North, Range 72, West of the 6th P.M. Owner/Applicant: The Sanctuary LLC - Owner Mark Theiss – Applicant Project Description: Present Situation: This 10 acre parcel is currently developed with one single family home. Proposal: The proposal entails rezoning the subject property from (RE-1) Rural Estate with a 10 acre minimum lot size to (RE) Rural Estate with a 2.5 acre minimum lot size. The owner intends to subdivide the property into approximately 4 lots, each containing 2.5 acres. See Attachment #4-“Sketch Plan” for the proposed layout. The current single family home is proposed to be located on its own 2.5 acre lot and would conform to base density and dimensional standards of the RE zoning district. The proposed number of lots and layout are subject to change upon agency and staff review of the subsequent subdivision application. Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 1593 Dry Gulch Road – Rezone Page 2 of 5 Surrounding Area: As depicted in Attachment #1-“Vicinity Map”, despite surrounding zoning being RE-1, the general character of the immediately adjacent properties to the north and southwest conform to the proposed RE zoning district standards, with the exception of one un- platted 11.62 acre lot directly south and Lot 3A of the Amended Plat of Fox Ridge Estates, a 10.42 acre lot to the west. Within 1,000 feet of the subject property 27 out of 38 (71%) RE-1 zoned parcels range from 2.5 acres to 3.74 acres despite the RE-1 zoning district requiring lot sizes of no less than 10 acres. Staff does not have history on the decision to zone this area with a 10-acre minimum considering the existing subdivision lot sizes at the time of adoption. It is typically not best planning practice to rezone lots to non-conforming sizes on purpose, unless the intent is to require re-subdivision or lot consolidation. This proposal conforms to the surrounding density patterns and general neighborhood character. Site Data Table: Engineer: David Bangs - Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers Parcel Number: 251730013 Development Area: 10 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential Proposed Land Use: Single Family Residential Zoning Designation: RE-1 Rural Estate Proposed Zoning Designation: RE Rural Estate Adjacent Zoning: East: RE-1 Rural Estate North: RE-1 Rural Estate West: RE-1 Rural Estate South: RE-1 Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses: East: Single-Family Residential North: Single-Family Residential West: Single-Family Residential South: Single-Family Residential and undeveloped land Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District Review Criteria: All applications for Official Zoning Map Amendments shall be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 1593 Dry Gulch Road – Rezone Page 3 of 5 In accordance with Section 3.3.D. “Standards for Review”, all applications for rezoning shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria as follows: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Staff Finding: There are no recent changes in conditions in the affected area. However, there is a recognition by the Town and County that having opportunities, including but not limited to, workforce and attainable housing, are limited in Estes Valley and the region. 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with the existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Staff Finding: Staff has waived the development plan requirement as it is not necessary to determine whether a rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a development plan is not required for single-family residential development. A sketch plan has been provided showing the proposed lot layouts. This proposal adheres to Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 5.0 Housing “Community Wide Land Use Policies” includes the following: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges; and 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning would allow for the creation of additional lots and potential single-family housing in an area where similar lot sizes and development exist. Chapter 6 also recognizes the North End Planning Area as primarily single-family residential with lot sizes ranging from less than 1 acre to over 40 acres. It states that despite a large area being zoned for residential development with a minimum lot size of 10 acres, much of the area has been previously subdivided into smaller lots with many enclaves less than 1 acre in the northern portion. The plan calls for the maintenance of the low density character. As much of the surrounding land uses are similar to that proposed, this recommendation is met. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Finding: Staff finds that service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities to this location. The applicant will be required to meet agency requirements at time of subdivision and development. Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 1593 Dry Gulch Road – Rezone Page 4 of 5 Reviewing Agency Comments: This application has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All comments have been addressed. Public Notice: Written notice has been mailed to properties in accordance with EVDC §3.15 General Notice Provisions. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette and the application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The applicant has also posted a “Development Proposal under Review” sign on the property. As of April 3, 2019, one written public comment has been received for this application package. All written comments are posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications. The provided comment expressed concern that this application would allow an “illegal” spot-zoning. It should be noted that in the State of Colorado, it is not illegal to spot- zone, nor does the proposed rezone entail a detrimental land use conflict. There are no specific uses allowed in the RE zoning district that are not allowed in the RE-1 zoning district. This proposal is to rezone a parcel from a rural estate designation to another rural estate designation that mirrors the character and development patterns of adjacent properties. Level of Public Interest: Low: Staff has only received one public comment to date for this specific application. Staff Findings: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The rezone request complies with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. 2. The rezone request complies with the applicable goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the rezone request. 4. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed projects. 5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request to rezone Tract 2 of the Amended Plat of Lot 3 of Fox Ridge Estates from (RE-1) Rural Estate to (RE) Rural Estate. Sample Motion: Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 1593 Dry Gulch Road – Rezone Page 5 of 5 1. I move to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the rezone request according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by Staff. 2. I move to continue the rezone request to a date certain, in order to ... [state reasons for continuance]. 3. I move to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the rezone request, finding that ….[state reasons for denial]. Attachments: 1. Application 2. Statement of Intent 3. Vicinity Map 4. Sketch Plan PAGE 1 OF 5 December 18, 2018 Brittany Hathaway Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 RE: Statement of Intent for the 1593 Dry Gulch Code Amendment (Re-Zoning) Dear Brittany: Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, LLC is pleased to submit this Application for Code Amendment (Re- Zoning) Review on behalf of the owners of the Theiss Construction. This letter is to serve as the Statement of Intent for the proposed project and will provide general descriptions regarding compliance with the key applicable standards for review as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code-Chapter 3.3.D. Please refer to the Conceptual Development Plan submitted herewith for specific details regarding the proposed project. Project Information The subject property is located at 1593 Dry Gulch Road with approximately 10 acres of land area. The parcel is previously developed with one single family home. The property is zoned RE-1 (Rural Estate, 10 acre minimum) per the Estes Valley Zoning District Maps. The proposed project is for the re-zoning of the property from RE-1 to RE (Rural Estate 2.5 acre minimum). The project will create 4 lots at 2.5 acres each per single family home. Please refer to Image 1. Estes Park Zoning Map- 1593 Dry Gulch Property. “Section 3.3.D - Code Amendments Standards for Review: All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. PAGE 2 OF 5 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” 1. The re-zoning amendment of the property is necessary to remain compatible with the adjacent property use to the north and south of the property. The existing surrounding properties are zoned RE-1, however they are non-compliant with the current zoning regulations for the statistical information. A more appropriate zoning district of these properties would be RE- Zone, single family homes on 2.5 acre lots. When the current EVDC was adopted, many parcels in the area were re-zoned creating many non-conforming uses per the adopted zoning districts. The re-zone proposed for this property would create additional building lots that both fit the character of the area and allow code compliance for the “applicable” zone district of the surrounding areas. 2. The conceptual development plan is compatible and consistent with the polices and intent of the comprehensive plan. The re-zoning of this property will match the actual surrounding land use, while maintaining the low-density single-family residential characteristic of the North End. 3. Relevent services, facilities and utilities for any future development are currently available on the property, with providers readily able to install and connect to the services. (Please see “Compliance with General Development Standards” below) PAGE 3 OF 5 Image 1. Estes Park Zoning Map- 1593 Dry Gulch Property Subject’s property PAGE 4 OF 5 Compliance with General Development Standards Zoning District Standards: The proposed re-zoning will permit “relatively low-density single-family residential development.” All potential development will incorporate rural residential conservation designs, and open space preservation techniques to preserve the existing rural character and match the surrounding single- family homes on adjacent properties. The prosed re-zoning does not alter set-back or height standards. Grading/Slope Protection Standards: The average slope of the project area is 10%. Grading and Slope protection standards will be followed in any future development. Transportation/Parking: The proposed re-zoning and potential future development does not reach the limit of 50 peak hour trips requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis for the project. Access is readily available off of an existing public road. Rivers and Wetlands: The proposed property includes a wetland area on the west side of the property. Detailed mapping of wetland areas is contingent on re-zoning approval. Utilities/Adequate Public Facilities: The subject property is in an area to be serviced by the following utilities: Electric- Town of Estes Park Water- Town of Estes Park Sewer- can be provided through Septic or connecting to Upper Thompson Sanitation District Natural Gas- Xcel Energy Communications/Broadband- TDS or Century Link Proposed Utilities for any future development are currently available on the property, with service providers readily able to install and connect to the above utilities. PAGE 5 OF 5 Storm Drainage- Future development would consider existing natural drainage ways and water storage areas. Mapped Hazard Areas: The subject property is not within any mapped hazard areas for fire, flood and geologic hazard. We thank you for time and consideration of the proposed Code Amendment request. If there are any questions about the project or items discussed above, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 970-308- 8221. Sincerely, David Bangs, P.E. Principal Engineer Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, LLC A CH E R-1 RE RE-1 CO R-2 E-1 O RM Big Thomp s o n Rive r RA V E N A VE DEVILSGULCHRDDRY GULCH RDHIGH PINE DR BIGTHOMPSONAVE LONEPINEDRNORTH RIDGE L N WILDFIRERD P INE LN WH IG H W A Y 3 4LAKEFRONTST STONEGATE DR COYOTERUN G EMLAKETRLGRANDESTATESDRGRAY HAWK CT EAGLEROCKDRCHASM DRNORTHLAKEAVEELKTRAILCTRED TAIL HAWK DR C O YOTE R U NMCCREERY LNC R A BAPPL E LNSO ARING C IR P T A R M IGAN TRL RAVEN CIRRAVEN CIR GRANDE S T A T E S D R DEER PAT H CTOLYMPIAN LN HAYBARN HILL RD RIDG E R D R ID G E R D LITTLE B E A V E R DR This draft document was prepared for internal use by the Town of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that you do not post this document on the internet or otherwise make it available to persons unknown to you. 0430860 Feet 1 in = 770 ft±Town of Estes Park Community Development Zoning Districts Printed: 1/15/2019 Created By: Brittany Hathaway Fox Ridge EstatesAvg. 2.5 Acre Lots Hillcrest Estates2.7 Acre - 3.74 Acre Lots Subject Property 1593 Dry Gulch Rd. PROPOSED LOT 42.50 ACRESPROPOSED LOT 32.50 ACRESPROPOSED LOT 2 2.50ACRESPROPOSED LOT 12.50 ACRESPRELIMINARY PLAN FOR REZONESKETCH PLAN INFORMATIONLEGAL DESCRIPTION (TAKEN FROM THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT LOT 3 OF THE PLAT OF FOX RIDGE ESTATES AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OFSECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. LOCATED AT RECEPTION #20180045658)A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH 12 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THESOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 17, THENCE NORTH 1 DEGREE 00 MINUTES EAST 661.6 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 25 MINUTES EAST 1332.8FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1 DEGREE 48 MINUTES EAST 668.3 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 34 MINUTES EAST 1323 FEET TOTHE EAST SIDE OF DRY CREEK ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF SAID ROAD SOUTH 21 DEGREES 58 MINUTES WEST 130 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 13DEGREES 26 MINUTES WEST TO A POINT ON THE EAST SIDE OF DRY CREEK ROAD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89 DEGREES 25 MINUTES WEST TO THE POINT OFBEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.2191 LARKSPUR AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517www.trailridgece.com * 970-308-8221 * dbangs@trailridgece.com© 2018DABAPPLICANT/OWNERMARK THEISSENGINEER/CONTACT PERSONTRAIL RIDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC1191 WOODSTOCK DRIVEESTES PARK, CO 80517ZONING INFORMATIONSUBJECT PROPERTY ZONINGCLASSIFICATION: RE-1 (RURAL ESTATE, 10ACRE MIN)SURROUNDING PROPERTY ZONINGCLASSIFICATION: RE-1 (RURAL ESTATE, 10ACRE MIN)PROPOSED SUBJECT PROPERTY ZONINGCLASSIFICATION: RE (2.5 ACRE MIN)STATISTICAL INFORMATIONNET PROJECT AREA: 435,602 SFAVERAGE SLOPE: 10%POTENTIAL ALLOWABLE DENSITY: 108,900POTENTIAL ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF LOTS: 4EXISTING LOTS: 1POTENTIAL TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS: 4MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: PER EVDCLEGENDSCALE: 1" = 100'200'100'0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Robin Becker, Planner I Date: April 16, 2019 RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: EVDC §3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure B.1.b Neighborhood and Community Meeting Applicability, B.1.c.2 Notification, and §3.2.G. Summary Table Standard Development Review Process by Application Type Planning Commission Objective: Review and Recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding the inclusion of a change to EVDC §3.2 Standard Development Review Procedure B.1.b Neighborhood and Community Meeting Applicability, B.1.c.2 Notification, and §3.2.G. Summary Table Standard Development Review Process by Application Type . Code Amendment Objectives: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the following: • Provide an opportunity to clarify the applicability section in “Step 2 Neighborhood and Community Meeting”. • Provide a clear interpretation of when and where sign postings for neighborhood and community meetings shall occur. • Update “Table G Summary Table” to clarify which development plans based on either Staff or EVPC Review will require neighborhood and community meetings. • Correct a defect in the code. Proposal: Amend EVDC Section §3.2. Standard Development Review Procedure B.1.b Neighborhood and Community Meeting Applicability, B.1 .c.2 Notification , and §3.2.G. Summary Table Standard Development Review Process by Application Type , as stated in Exhib it B [“PC Draft”], dated April 16, 2019 attached. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in Exhibit B to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion: Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Currently the neighborhood and community meeting code language is vague and unclear on the applicability of when and what projects require a neighborhood and community meeting. Amending this section will provide more guidance for both applicants and the community. By adding language that refers back to the “Summary Table G”, it clearly delineates what projects are voluntary and mandatory for neighborhood and community meetings. For example, if a development review is a staff level approval the neighborhood and community meeting would be voluntary. If the development review goes to a review board for approval, such a Planning Commission and/or Town Board, the neighborhood and community meeting is mandatory. This is based solely on the complexity of projects that need board action usually requiring more review and approval compared to the staff level projects. The second amendment to this section in code is adding language to address applicable signage for neighborhood and community meetings. By adding language that refers back to procedural aspects in Section §3.15.C General Notice Requirements, the code remains consistent and provides clear guidance on required sign posting. It is staff’s recommendation that including this update to the neighborhood and community meeting code in the EVDC would address some clarity issues in this code section, address sign posting requirements not previously provided for , and correct a defect in the code. Staff Findings of Fact: The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected;” Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address continuing changes in neighborhood and community engagement in the Estes Valley. Changes in conditions as of late can be described as: more complex development proposals are being proposed in the Estes Valley; Thus, more clarity is needed on meeting requirements. This change also allows for the provision of a more streamlined method to allow for community members to communicate with the developer/ applicant on projects that may occur in their neighborhood. This code amendment seeks to clarify signage requirements, mandatory/ voluntary language and applicability of meetings. Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 Page 3 of 4 2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;” Staff Finding: The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. This code amendment meets the specific preferred direction referenced in chapter two, the “preferred direction” being the desire for balanced growth, sustainable development, harmonious co-existence, and social well-being. This code amendment allows the neighborhood and community members to promote not only social well-being by being involved in the development process but also allow for harmonious co-existence between current and future residents. 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment in principle. Furthermore, this code amendment will not impact the provision of adequate services and or facilities. Advantages: • Provides an opportunity for the open flow of communication and information between developers/applicants and neighborhood and community members. • Provides a larger venue for public involvement and engagement. • Less confusion on what is permitted in local neighborhoods. • Clarification of mandatory/voluntary in development review language. • Provides signage guidance and requirements. Disadvantages: • Applicant/consultant might have more financial impact in regards to development costs. • Longer time for development review applications due to need for neighborhood and community meeting requirements being met. Action Recommended: Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC ) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Level of Public Interest High: Previous and current ongoing projects are involving more and more public engagement and neighborhood communication. Low: This particular code amendment. Sample Motions: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, according to findings of fact and as recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move to continue this agenda item to the next regularly schedules Planning Commission meeting because (state reason (s) for continuance –findings). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Board of Larimer County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Val ley Development Code, finding that …(state reasons for denial). Attachments: 1. Exhibit B: (April 16, 2019). Exhibit B [PC Draft] April 16, 2019 § 3.2 - Standard Development Review Procedure All development applications are subject to the following [six]-step "standard" review procedure, unless variations or exceptions to the standard procedure are expressly provided for in the particular development application requirements set forth in this Chapter. Standard Development Review Process Step 1 Pre-Application Conference Step 2 Neighborhood and Community Meeting Step 3 Application/Completeness Certification Step 4 Staff Review and Report Step 5 Estes Valley Planning Commission Action or Recommendation Step 6 Board of Trustees/Board of County Commissioners Review and Action (Ord. 15-18 , §1(Exh. A)) A. Step 1: Pre-Application Conference. 1. Purpose. The purposes of the pre-application conference are to provide an opportunity for the Applicant and the Staff to discuss the review process schedule and submittal requirements, the scope of the project and compliance with this Code. 2. Applicability. A pre-application conference is mandatory for the following applications: a. Special review uses; b. Development plans; c. Rezoning applications; d. Preliminary subdivision plat; e. Preliminary PUD plans; f. Variances; g. Minor subdivisions; and h. Annexations. Staff may waive the pre-application conference on the ground that the proposed development is not complex and will not have any significant impacts on services, roads, natural resources or adjacent property. (Ord. 18-02 #2) 3. Scheduling. The pre-application conference shall be scheduled by the Applicant with Staff at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of submission of any related application. 4. Submittal Requirements. All Applicants shall submit a sketch plan to the Staff for review no later than five (5) days prior to the scheduled pre-application conference. See Appendix B to this Code for sketch plan submittal requirements. B. Step 2: Neighborhood and Community Meeting. 1. [Purpose.] The purpose of the neighborhood and community meeting is to educate occupants and owners of nearby lands about the proposed development and application, receive comments, address concerns about the development proposal, and resolve conflicts and outstandi ng issues, where possible. a. Favored Practice. Neighborhood and community meetings are encouraged as opportunities for informal communication between owners and occupants of nearby lands, applicants and other residents who may be affected by development proposals. b. Applicability. Except as statedprovided otherwise in this Code§3.2.G (Summary Table- Standard Development Review Process by Application Type), neighborhood and community meetings shall be mandatory for zoning and planning projects that require a public hearing as specified in this Code. . Except as provided otherwise in S 3.2.G (Summary Table- Standard Development Review Process by Application Type), Neighborhood meetings shall be voluntary for zoning and planning projects that do not require a public hearing as specified in this Code. c. Procedure. If a neighborhood and community meeting is held by the applicant, it shall generally comply with the following procedures: (1) Time and Place. The neighborhood and community meeting shall be held at a place that is generally accessible to neighbors that own and/or reside in the notification area to the land subject to the application. It shall be scheduled after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday or at any time on a weekend day. (2) Written Notification. The applicant shall provide notification of the neighborhood and community meeting a minimum of ten (10) business days in advance of the meeting by placing notice in a newspaper or display advertising of general circulation in the Estes Valley and by mailing notice to all owners and occupants within the notification boundary of the land subject to the application. The list of owners within the notification area of the affected property shall be obtained by the applicant from the most recent version of the property owners of record provided by The Town of Estes Park. The notification shall state the time and place of the meeting. (3) Posted Notices of Neighborhood and Community Meeting. Required posted notice requirements shall be on a standard sign with format and material as determined by the Planning Department. The following additional requirements shall apply to posted notices pursuant to this Section: a) Any posted notice shall be legible from a public street or public right -of-way in clear weather conditions. "Legible" is defined as meeting the legibility requirements in Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.66 (Signs). b) Projects abutting more than one public street or public right -of-way shall be required to post one (1) additional sign for each abutting public street or public right-of-way. c) Posting of all notice(s) required by this Section shall take place no later than ten (10) days prior to any given neighborhood and community meeting for which the posting is required, and the posted signage shall remain until the close of any such neighborhood and community meeting, including the closing dates of any neighborhood and community meeting that may be continued or postponed. d) Proof that the required signage was posted in accord with this Section shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to the opening of any neighborhood and community meeting. A date-stamped photograph of the posted notice in context\shall be deemed adequate proof for purposes of this Section. e) Removal, damage or destruction of a properly posted notice by weather or other natural occurrence shall not be construed as failure to comply with the publi c- notice provisions of this Code. (4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of the process for review, and respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about the application and propose ways to resolve conflicts. (45) Staff Attendance. Town staff may attend the neighborhood and community meeting for the purpose of advising the attendees regarding applicable provisions of the Development Code, but shall not serve as facilitators or become involved in negotiations at the neighborhood meeting. (56) Written Summary of Neighborhood and Community Record of Meeting. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department a written summary of the neighborhood and community meeting. The written summary shall include a list of those in attendance, a summary of the issues related to the development pro posal discussed, comments by those in attendance about the development proposal, and any other information the applicant deems appropriate. The written summary of the neighborhood and community meeting shall be included with the application materials, and be made available to the public for inspection. (67) Response to Summary. Any party in attendance at the neighborhood and community meeting may submit an additional written summary indicating their understanding of the issues related to the development proposal discussed, comments by those in attendance about the development proposal, and any other information they deem appropriate. This written summary may include a response to the applicant'sapplicant’s written summary of the neighborhood meeting. Neighborhood and community meetings are optional for any other applications not requiring a public hearing. (Ord. 15-18 , §1(Exh. A)) C. Step 3: Application Timing and Certification of Completeness. 1. Except for variances, all development applications shall be submitted to Staff a minimum of fifty- five (55) days prior to the next regularly scheduled EVPC meeting at which the application will be reviewed. See §3.6 regarding variances. Staff shall have the discretion to shorten submittal time frames. (Ord. 8-05 #1) 2. Within eight (8) working days of submittal, the Staff shall either certify the application as complete and in compliance with all submittal requirements or reject it as incomplete and notify the Applicant of any deficiencies. See §3.1.C above. (Ord. 8-05 #1; Ord. 15-18 , §1(Exh. A)) D. Step 4: Staff Review and Report. No later than fourteen (14) days prior to EVPC meeting, Staff shall refer the development application to the appropriate review agencies, review the development application and prepare a staff report. No changes to the development application or any accompanying plans or information shall be permitted after submittal, except for any changes or additional information requested by the Staff during their review. (Ord. 8-05 #1; Ord. 15-18 , §1(Exh. A)) E. Step 5: Estes Valley Planning Commission Action or Recommendation. 1. Public Hearings or Meetings Required. a. General Rule . Except as provided in subsection 1.b below, within forty-five (45) days from the date that a submitted application is certified as complete, the EVPC shall review the application at a public meeting or hearing as required by this Code or applicable law. b. Authority to Hold Application for Later EVPC Review . Notwithstanding the time for action requirements set forth in subsection 1.a above, whenever an extraordinary number of applications are submitted, such that the Staff is unable to complete their review adequately prior to the next regularly scheduled EVPC meeting, the Staff shall be authorized to hold an application until the next subsequent processing period for EVPC review. Once the application is placed on the official agenda for a public meeting or hearing before the EVPC, all other time requirements for review pursuant to this Section and Chapter shall apply. 2. Compliance with EVPC's Conditional Approvals. a. EVPC Final Actions . When the EVPC is the Decision-Making Body, approval of an application shall not become final and appealable until all conditions of approval have b een complied with. (See Chapter 2 above.) Acceptance of all conditions of approval and compliance, where feasible (e.g., required revisions to plans and drawings), shall be completed by the Applicant within thirty (30) days of the EVPC's action. b. EVPC Recommended Actions . 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. (See Chapter 2 above.) A revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board's agenda. (See Step 5 below.) (Ord. 15-18 , §1(Exh. A)) F. Step 6: Board Review and Action. 1. Board Action Required. Within thirty (30) days from the date that the Board receives the application, including any revisions, the Board shall hold a public hearing and consider the development application, the staff report, the Planning Commission's recommendation and the evidence from any public meeting. The Board shall take final action by either approving, approving with conditions or denying the development or land use applications based on its compliance with the appropriate review standards. 2. Compliance with Board's Conditions. Board approval of an application shall not become final and appealable until the Applicant complies with or accepts all conditions of approval. Compliance with conditions of approval ( e.g. , required revisions to plans and drawings), shall be completed by the Applicant and submitted to the Staff within thirty (30) days of the Board's action, unless a longer time is requested by the Applicant and agreed to by Staff. (Ord. 15-18 , §1(Exh. A)) G. Summary Table—Standard Development Review Process by Application Type. Step 1 Pre- Application Conference Step 2 Neighborhood & Community Meeting Step 3 Application/ Completeness Certification Step 4 Staff Review & Report Step 5 EVPC Action Step 6 Board Action Code Amendments- Text/Map M M A A A A Preliminary Subdivision M M A A A A Final Subdivision V M A A N/A A PUD-Preliminary Plan M M A A A A PUD-Final Plan V M A A N/A A Special Review Use S1 M M A A N/A A Special Review Use S2 M M A A A A Variances (Ord. 18-01 #5) M V A A N/A BOA Minor Modifications V V A A-SR A-SR N/A Development Plan Review , Public Hearing M M A A-SR A-SR APP Development Plan Review, Staff Level V V A A N/A N/A Use Classification (Ord. 8-05 #1) V V A A N/A APP Separate Lot Determinations (Ord. 8-05 #1) V N/A A A N/A APP Temporary Use Permits V N/A A A N/A N/A Minor Subdivision (Ord. 18-01 #5) M V A A A A Location and Extent Review (Ord. 21-10 §1) M V A A A APP Conditional Use Permit (Ord. 21-10 §1) M N/A A A A APP Annexations (Ord. 18-01 #5) M M A A N/A A "V" = Voluntary "M" = Mandatory "A" = Applicable "N/A" = Not Applicable "APP" = Appeals "BOA" = Board of Adjustment "SR" = Special Requirements (Refer to Text) (Ord. 17-17, §1; Ord. 15-18 , §1(Exh. A)) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Robin Becker, Planner I Date: April 16, 2019 RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: EVDC §3.8 Development Plan Review Table 3-3 Development Plan Review Requirements Planning Commission Objective: Review and Recommendation on proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding the inclusion of a minor change to Table 3-3 Development Plan Review Requirements. Code Amendment Objectives: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the following: • Provide a clear interpretation of how development applications are reviewed. • Allow a broader scope of review for projects with small parkin g requirements, through lowering the threshold for review for projects with less parking. Proposal: Amend EVDC Section §3.8 Standard Development Review Table 3-3 Development Plan Review Requirements. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in Exhibit A [“PC Draft”] to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion: Currently, Development Review projects that are submitted to the Planning Department have two methods of being reviewed and approved. The first is a staff level review and the second (both reviews based on square footage added and increase in parking spaces) is approval through Estes Valley Planning Commission/Board approval. There is a missing large scale review process for projects that occur with 10 or less parking spaces. This can result in projects that have no development review process at all and ultimately have an impact on an area long term. It should be noted that building permits for these types of projects do get reviewed. Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 Page 2 of 4 It is staff’s recommendation that including this Table 3-3 code amendment in the EVDC would clean up a section of Code and provide a more detailed and in-depth review projects for those in the 10 and under parking space requirement. Amend EVDC Section §3.8 Development Plan Review Table 3 -3 Development Plan Review Requirements, as stated in Exhibit A [“PC Draft”], dated April 16, 2019 attached. Staff Findings of Fact: The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezoning’s and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected;” Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the Estes Valley. Changes in conditions as of late can be described as development proposals are being proposed in the Estes Valley that have had no in-depth review from both planning staff and Estes valley Planning Commission. This change in conditions has caused projects to develop with limited community involvement and less review. This code amendment would provide for a more detailed review method. 2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;” Staff Finding: The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and develop ment patterns in the Estes Valley. 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 Page 3 of 4 Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment in principle. Furthermore, this code amendment will not impact the provision of adequate services and or facilities. Advantages: • Provide a clear interpretation of how development applications are reviewed. • Allow a broader scope of review for projects with small parking requirements, through lowering threshold for review for projects with less pa rking. • Prevent projects from being built without proper affected agency review and allow community engagement in the process. Disadvantages: • Applicant/consultant might have more financial impact in regards to development review costs. • Longer timeframe for project review as a result of more projects requiring review. Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Level of Public Interest High: Projects have been proposed or developed that were not within the requirements of the table and this has caused concern for local community members. Low: This particular Code Amendment Sample Motions: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, according to findings of fact and as recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE Planning Commission, April 16, 2019 Page 4 of 4 I move to continue this agenda item to the next regularly schedules Planning Commission meeting because (state reason (s) for continuance –findings). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Board of Larimer County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, finding that …(state reasons for denial). Attachments: 1. Exhibit A: (April 16, 2019). Exhibit A [PC Draft] April 16, 2019 § 3.8 - Development Plan Review A. Purpose. The purpose of the development plan review process is to ensure compliance with the zoning standards and provisions of this Code, while encouraging quality developmen t in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Applicability. All development set forth in Table 3-3 below shall be required to submit a development plan for review pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this Section. See also §7.1.B, which requires development plans for all new development on land with slopes steeper than thirty percent (30%) or on land containing ridgeline protection areas. No development, excavation, site preparation or construction activity, including tree/vegetation removal or grading, shall occur on property subject to this Section until a development plan has been approved. Table 3-3 Development Plan Review Requirements Determining Factor Staff Review EVPC Review All Nonresidential Development, Except Accommodations Development, in any Zoning District (Ord. 8- 05 #1) Number of Parking Spaces 3 10 - 20 21 or more Construction of Gross Floor Area 2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. More than 10,000 sq. ft. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Major alterations that also entail alteration to the number of parking spaces, the configuration of parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage or lighting on the premises (Ord. 8-05 #1) 2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. More than 10,000 sq. ft. (Ord. 8-05 #1) All Residential or Accommodations Development (Ord. 8-05 #1) Number of New Dwellings, Guest Units and/or RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8-05 #1) 3 - 10 11 or more Major alterations that also entail alteration to the number of parking spaces, the configuration of parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage or lighting on the premises (Ord 18-01 #7; Ord. 8-05 #1) 3-10 dwellings, guest units and/or RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8- 05 #1) 11 or more dwellings, guest units and/or RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8-05 #1) Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: April 16, 2019 RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code Adding an “Event Facility” Use to the A (Accommodations) and the CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning Districts and a Definition of the Same Planning Commission Objective: Add an “Event Facility” use to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) as an S-1 Special Review in the A (Accommodations) Zoning District and as a use-by-right in the CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning District. A definition of “Event Facility” would be added to Chapter 13, Definitions. Code Amendment Objective: Currently the EVDC does not specify or define an “Event Facility” use. This would add the use to the A and CO Zoning Districts and provide additional options for a use that has been fairly common in the Estes Valley. Exhibit Red is attached, detailing the specific amendments. Staff recommends the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in the Code Amendment Exhibits to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Background, Discussion: As a popular destination for weddings, anniversaries, reunions and the like, the Estes Valley area has numerous existing venues and facilities in place to serve these types of functions and events. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) currently does not address this type of use directly, which staff will refer to as an “Event Facility.” That use, aka “Wedding Venue” or similar, is not specifically defined in the EVDC, and not listed in the EVDC’s Permitted Uses Tables (4-1 or 4-4). Staff has researched what type of zoning approvals have been required to establish these existing uses, and found that some were established prior to the EVDC adoption in 2000, and some were established as a “Religious Assembly” use. These were predominantly identified as “Wedding Venues,” or “Wedding Event Venues.” There is also an accessory use allowed in the A (Accommodations), CD (Commercial Downtown), and the CO (Commercial Outlying) nonresidential zoning districts that might have APRIL 16, 2019 EVPC CODE AMENDMENT, EVENT FACILITY PAGE 2 OF 3 been applicable in some cases. This accessory use, listed in Table 5-2 of the EVDC, is “Meeting rooms, banquet halls and similar group gathering spaces and uses.” However, the vast majority of the existing Event Facility uses should appropriately be defined as a principal use. It is common, in many zoning codes for commercial properties to have more than one principal use. A shopping center would be a classic example. “Accessory,” per the EVDC, is “…customarily and clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use…” This is a fairly standard and accepted zoning practice. It has become clear, in light of a recent review of a Development Plan application, and also discussion of another possible upcoming application, that the EVDC needs to be amended to address this use. Permitting these uses as has been done in past years is potentially problematic. First, the “Religious Assembly” use in the EVDC is defined as “A place of assembly for religious worship.” There are weddings that do not involve any religious worship. It is also not uncommon for a “Wedding Venue” type facility to be made available for other types of events, parties and functions, few of which are likely to involve religious worship. As mentioned above, determining that a proposed “Event Facility” is always accessory to a hotel, lodge, etc. is also an unsuitable approach. Staff Findings: The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;” Staff Finding: Although this finding is to be made for a proposed Code Amendment, staff notes it is more applicable to a rezoning (zoning map amendment). The subject Code Amendment is essentially applicable to all A and CO-zoned areas in the Estes Valley planning area. No specific area or areas have been, or will be affected. 2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley:” Staff Finding: There is no “development plan” associated with this, or any Code Amendment per se. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, under Chapter 6, Community Wide Policies, does have various sections with recommendations regarding, for example, “Economics.” Within Chapter 6, Section 7.0, Economics, there are recommendations supporting an Event Facility type of use, including 7.3, “Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs,” and 7.7, “Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate.” Staff finds revising the EVDC as proposed is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. APRIL 16, 2019 EVPC CODE AMENDMENT, EVENT FACILITY PAGE 3 OF 3 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: Town, County or other relevant service providers would not be significantly impacted regarding their respective services and facilities, if this Code Amendment is approved. Advantages: • Generally complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Clarifies and defines a long-established type of use that is not currently adequately addressed within the EVDC, and provides for a special review approval process for that use. Disadvantages: • Adds slightly to Code length and complexity. Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners for a final decision to approve. Level of Public Interest Low. Any written comments for this proposal will be posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motion: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners APPROVE the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in text amendment Exhibit Red as recommended by staff, with findings as recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because…. (state reason(s) for continuance). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners DENY the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in text amendment Exhibit Red, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). Attachments: Attachment, “Exhibit Red”: EVDC, Section 13.3, 100.5 EVDC, Section 4.4, Table 4-4 (Excerpt from Table) Exhibit Red CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS § 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: 100.5 Event Facility shall mean a building or portion of a building, outdoor area(s), and related parking which is rented, leased, or otherwise made available for individuals or groups to accommodate episodic or discrete functions involving participation by multiple individuals, including but not limited to weddings, banquets, anniversaries and other similar events. Such use may include kitchen facilities for the preparation or catering of food, or the sale and/or serving of appropriately permitted alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Food service shall occur only during scheduled events and shall not be open to the general public. An Event Facility may be operated in conjunction with other uses, subject to all applicable provisions of the EVDC. § 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC & PUBLIC USES Event Facility S1 — — P — — — Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: April 16, 2019 RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to Remove Restrictions that Limit Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to the CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning District Planning Commission Objective: Revise the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Chapter 9, Planned Unit Developments, where Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) would no longer be limited to only the CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning District. Code Amendment Objective: Currently the EVDC has a limitation where “PUDs (are) Allowed in the CO District Only.” This Code Amendment would eliminate this restriction, and allow PUDs in any zoning district as appropriate. Staff emphasizes any PUD approval is a rezoning process, and requires a full review process requiring public notice, a neighborhood meeting, and Planning Commission and governing body approval at a public hearing. Exhibit Red is attached, detailing the specific amendments. Staff recommends the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in the Code Amendment Exhibit Red to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Background, Discussion: The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Chapter 13 Definitions, defines a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as follows: 184. Planned Unit Development shall mean a development of a property as a single entity for mixed residential/commercial purposes, when the zoning regulations that would normally apply may be superseded by controls specific to the project that allow a more sensitive and more economical arrangement of buildings and streets on the site. The EVDC Chapter 9, Planned Unit Developments, has a limitation on PUDs stating that they are allowed only in the CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning District. This limitation apparently has resulted in very few PUDs being proposed or approved in the Estes Valley, since the EVDC adoption in 2000. There simply are not many areas in CO District zoning where it has applicability or benefits. Undeveloped, privately owned land zoned CO is generally very scarce. APRIL 16, 2019 EVPC CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 9 PUD PAGE 2 OF 3 Note, the following Windcliff discussion is for background and context. A Windcliff PUD approval process would be separate and apart from this Code Amendment. Recently, the Homeowner’s Association for Windcliff Estates, located in the far southwest part of the EVDC planning area, has approached Community Development to explore the possibility of re-establishing a PUD in that area. Various filings of Windcliff Estates were approved and recorded as PUDs through Larimer County, beginning around the mid-1970s. Then, with adoption of the EVDC in 2000, Windcliff Estates was zoned to E-1 (Estate). Adoption of the EVCD and new Official Zoning Map, without reconfirming the Windcliff PUD zoning, in effect erased the Larimer County PUD zoning from the map. Minimum setback requirements in E-1 have led to numerous Windcliff variances being required over the last 19 years, most of which would have been unnecessary prior to 2000. Many of the residences in Windcliff were, or are longtime vacation rentals, and were built as such. This has been somewhat problematic, as there is a cap on the maximum number of vacation rentals allowed. Establishing a PUD overlay in Windcliff may allow some additional vacation rentals, as appropriate. With that, there is a requirement in Chapter 9, where a PUD overlay must be a “Planned Mixed- Use District.” “Mixed-Use” is defined, in Chapter 13, Definitions, as development “…with two (2) or more different principal uses…” In keeping with this requirement, Windcliff would need to propose two principal uses: 1) Single Family Dwelling. 2) Vacation Home. Both of these are uses allowed in the E-1 (Estate) zoning, and both have existed in Windcliff for many years. Per the EVDC Chapter 3, Review Procedures and Standards, any Planned Unit Development would require a PUD Preliminary Plan, which requires Estes Valley Planning Commission and Board action, and then a PUD Final Plan, requiring Board action only. Some PUDs would also entail subdivision plats, which typically run concurrently with PUD Plans. Staff Findings: The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;” Staff Finding: Although this finding is to be made for a proposed Code Amendment, staff notes it is more applicable to a rezoning (zoning map amendment). The subject Code Amendment is essentially applicable to the entire Estes Valley planning area. No specific area or areas have been, or will be affected. 2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley:” APRIL 16, 2019 EVPC CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 9 PUD PAGE 3 OF 3 Staff Finding: There is no “development plan” associated with this, or any Code Amendment per se. In staff’s judgement, the proposed Code Amendment does not conflict with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: Town, County or other relevant service providers would not be significantly impacted regarding their respective services and facilities, if this Code Amendment is approved. Advantages: • Generally complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • This Code Amendment allows for increased PUD options, which can be a very valuable and useful zoning tool for various areas and situations as appropriate. Disadvantages: • None identified to date. Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners for a final decision to approve. Level of Public Interest Low. Any written comments for this proposal received by staff will be posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motion: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners APPROVE the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in text amendment Exhibit Red as recommended by staff, with findings as recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because…. (state reason(s) for continuance). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners DENY the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in text amendment Exhibit Red, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). Attachments: Attachment, “Exhibit Red”: EVDC, Chapter 9, Planned Unit Developments 1 EXHIBIT A [RED] ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 9, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS § 9.1 - PURPOSES In order that the public health, safety and general welfare may be furthered in an era of increasing urbanization, commercial and industrial development, and growing demand for housing of all types and design, this Chapter is designed to encourage planned unit developments (PUDs) in the Estes Valley for the following purposes: A. To encourage innovations in residential and commercial development and renewal so that the growing demands of the population may be met by greater variety in type, design and layout of buildings and by the conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to such buildings; B. To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services and to reflect changes in the technology of land development so that resulting economies may inure to the benefit of those who need homes; C. To provide a process that can relate the type, design and layout of residential and commercial development to the particular site, thereby encouraging the preservation of the site's natural characteristics, and to encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the purposes of this Chapter; D. To provide for well-located, commercial sites and well-designed residential developments while minimizing the impact on roads, streets and other transportation facilities; and E. To conserve the value of the land. § 9.2 - APPLICABILITY AND TYPES OF PUDS ALLOWED A. PUDs Allowed in the CO District Only. Application for a planned unit development may be made for land located in the CO Outlying Commercial Zoning District. Applicability. A PUD may be established by overlaying a PUD development plan over the existing CO zoning district. All PUDs shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter and the procedures set forth in Chapter 3 of this Code. B. Types of PUDs Allowed. A Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (PUD-M) shall be the only permitted PUD overlay. in the CO zoning district. § 9.3 - PUD-M, PLANNED MIXED-USE DISTRICT The PUD-M, Planned Mixed-Use District, is created to provide for the development of planned mixed-use commercial and residential developments. It is intended to promote developments with a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses that provide services and employment opportunities in close proximity to residents of the district. The PUD-M, Planned Mixed-Use District, may be permitted as an overlay only in the CO Outlying Commercial District. Within a PUD-M District, the following standards shall be applied and uses and densities may be permitted subject to the approval of the Decision-Making Body, depending on the location of the proposed PUD. A. Permitted Uses. Within a PUD-M district, the following uses may be permitted subject to the approval of the Decision-Making Body: 1. Uses permitted by-right or by special review in the underlying zoning district; 2. Residential uses; or 3. Accommodation uses. 2 B. Minimum Parcel Size. The minimum parcel size of a mixed-use PUD shall be three (3) acres. C. Number of Units Allowed/Density. 1. Residential Uses in a Mixed-Use PUD. The maximum number of units allowed (density) shall be determined by applying the maximum permitted net density allowed in the RM Multi-Family Residential Zoning District (see §4.3.C.5 above). 2. Accommodation Uses in a Mixed-Use PUD. The maximum number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by applying the minimum developable land area per accommodations unit requirement allowed in the A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District (see §4.4.C above). Any unit that is less than or equal to eight hundred (800) square feet in size shall be considered a guest unit, regardless of kitchen configuration, for purposes of density calculations of a commercial accommodations use in a Mixed-Use PUD. 3. Land Area Requirements Not Cumulative. The density allowances set forth in this Section are not cumulative, but shall be calculated independently for each residential and/or accommodations use proposed in a mixed-use PUD. Each independently calculated land area shall be deducted from the total land area available for development to determine the permitted density on a site. D. Applicable Development Standards. 1. Yard, Bulk and Dimensional Requirements. Yard, bulk and dimensional requirements set forth in Chapter 4, including but not limited to minimum lot area, shall not apply to interior lots or building sites within a PUD-M that do not abut land uses located outside the PUD-M development parcel. 2. All Other Zoning Requirements. All other zoning development and design standards shall apply to all PUD-M's unless otherwise specifically exempted, modified or varied pursuant to this Chapter or to §3.6, "Variances." 3. Subdivision Regulations. The requirements of Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards," shall apply to all PUD-M's unless otherwise specifically exempted, modified or varied pursuant to this Chapter or to §3.6, "Variances." 4. Private Open Areas. a. At a minimum, a PUD-M development shall set aside thirty percent (30%) of the site's total gross area for open areas, plazas, courtyards, sitting areas and other similar public- accessible spaces. b. At its discretion, the Decision-Making Body may require additional private open areas or public trail dedications based on a review of the following factors: (1) The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; (2) Unique drainage, topographic, vegetation or other such physical conditions; (3) Type and density of development; or (4) Overall need for open space and recreational facilities. c. All open areas or trails provided in a PUD shall be owned and maintained as common (private) open areas by the developer, owner of the property or an organization established for the ownership and maintenance of common open areas, unless the relevant Board accepts public dedication of the open areas. d. Open areas or trails dedicated for public use shall comply with all applicable dedication requirements set forth in §7.4 of this Code.