Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-11-13
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Prepared: November 7, 2018 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2018 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: October 16, 2018 Minutes: October 16, 2018 Mountain Coaster Special Meeting Minutes: October 30, 2018 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BLACK CANYON INN 800 MacGregor Avenue Planner Becker 6. MINOR SUBDIVISION, FERGUSON TOWNHOMES 3 & 4 1581, 1583, 1587, 1589 Marys Lake Road Planner Becker 7. CODE AMENDMENT, OFFICE USE IN RM-MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Planner II Hathaway 8. SPECIAL REVIEW, OFFICE USE IN RM ZONING Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center, 1700 Brodie Avenue Planner II Hathaway 9. CODE AMENDMENT, CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Senior Planner Woeber 10. CODE AMENDMENT, PARK AND RECREATION DEFINITION Senior Planner Woeber 11. REPORTS 12. ADJOURN Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado October 16, 2018 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held Rooms 202/203 of Town Hall. Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice Chair White, Commissioners Schneider, Foster, Murphree, Smith, Theis Attending: Leavitt, Foster, White, Theis, Murphree, Smith Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Hunt, Senior Planner Woeber, Planner II Hathaway, County Liaison Whitley, Town Board Liaison Norris, and Recording Secretary Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m. There were approximately 8 people in attendance. This study session was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. Beaver Point Minor Subdivision Planner Hathaway described the subdivision, making three lots from one on the 2.85 acre property. Single family homes and up to 4 units in a single structure are allowed in accommodations zoning. Alarado Business Park Development Plan Planner Hathaway reviewed the mixed use commercial proposal. It has a 20 year restrictive employee housing covenant. A Variance was given for the residential footprint to be larger than the commercial footprint and for 3240 residential square footage as opposed to 800 sf. The applicant hosted two neighborhood meetings. The history of 800 sf residential requirement was originally a concept for employee housing on the same site as the business (caretaker). Traffic discussion: Eastbound extension on Hwy 34 has been preliminarily approved by CDOT. CDOT controls the highway with 2018 statewide standards. The question was raised if there are exception or appeal policies available from CDOT. It was suggested having Public Works Director Greg Muhonen attend a study session to explain CDOT interactions and processes. Attorney White explained that to approve a plan with a condition that is impossible for the applicant to meet is considered a denial. Fall River Rezone Planner Woeber reviewed the rezoning plan proposed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. Sale of property is contingent on it being rezoned to RM. A conceptual development plan has been submitted. There are other RM properties close to this lot and lack of vacant RM property and employee housing makes this a desired project. No opposition from neighbors. RMNP, having adjacent property, was notified but has not responded. It was noted that RM zoning can be used to the full extent if the rezone is approved, re: height and density bonus, especially given the amount of acreage on this lot. Planning Commission Study Session October 16, 2018 – Page 2 Town Board Update: Moratorium on Commercial in Residential Town Board member Norris reported on the two action items passed at the town board meeting on October 9: A 90-day moratorium on Parks and Recreation development in residential districts, which will give staff time to clarify and reword the 2017 code amendment, and the passing of the Code Amendment requiring applicants of a project with public review must have public meeting prior to submittal. Larimer County is on board with passing a similar moratorium which could be passed as early as Tuesday, October 23. Moratoriums can be ended early or extended if need be. Code Amendment Discussion: Parks and Recreation in Residential Districts Director Hunt explained the draft EVDC Code Amendment. This will be an action item for Planning Commission in November. The work should be completed by January, which falls into the 90 day moratorium approved by the Town Board. The Amendment has reconfigured definitions for three categories of land uses, making a 3-level hierarchy: Parks and Rec; Commercial Level (indoor and outdoor); Entertainment Events, major. He is attempting to use definitions to define rather than regulate. There is no legal or regulatory scope specifying that a label that says Residential as the name of the category means residential and only residential. Table 4-1 will clear that up. Table 4.2 defines S1 and S2 added in uses. Specific use should always have a use identified in it. All parks and rec use in residential districts will be S2 reviews which guarantees a community meeting and a public meeting. Single take away: A Residential District wanting Park and Rec use at any level of intensity will go to a public hearing. Traffic impact analysis will come at the Special Review stage. If a park and rec wants to do a commercial use in a residential zone, it will require a minimum lot size of 5 acres. The suggestion of reversing the Code Amendment from 2017 was not supported by staff. The Planning Commission, as well as the public, will be asked to read this Code Amendment and give input and Kate will be asked to do a press release. Further discussion on Special Review vs Land Use was had. Commissioner Theis mentioned that Special Reviews open up doors that have conditions which often get “forgotten” by developers or are never followed up on. Permitted Use does not mean unregulated or allowed use. Lunch break from 12:20-12:40 Guidelines for Findings Discussion Norris discussed “Findings” in motions, with the help of a handout (attached). Findings help the Town Board better understand the project before them. When Planning Commission is the final decision making body, it becomes more important to have the wording correct and accurate. Taking a recess is advisable at times, just to get your thoughts together and to give staff time to get the wording correct. Adding comments after the vote is appropriate. The PC speaks as a whole, not individually. He requested that the commissioners, both town and county, read the handout and email him suggestions/comments/questions. Vacation Home Discussion: Priority Issues Commissioners Leavitt discussed numerous vacation home issues (attached). These items were introduced for a future, more lengthy discussion. The town clerk will be mailing out renewals on December 17 so any changes would have to be prior to that date. A reasonable time frame for registration completion could help those on the waiting list. The possibility of a use it or lose it rule was discussed, as the purpose of opening up vacation homes in residential areas was increased Planning Commission Study Session September 18, 2018 – Page 3 revenue to the community. Wildlife Ordinance needs to be valley wide in the development code, not just in the municipal code. The county has a near identical code with wildlife for unincorporated areas. Bob will email handout to commissioners, town clerk and Linda for individual comments and this subject will be revisited at a later meeting. Future Study Session Items CDOT explanations/appeals-Public Works Vacation Home discussion Parks and Rec Code Amendment There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 1:20 p.m. _____________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary “Findings” – Thoughts for Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Ron Norris- October 16, 2018 • Findings are facts, not opinions. Used to support decisions. • Findings should be verifiable and supportable, referring to things like: o Specific EVDC code sections o Staff reports o Information provided by applicants: text, drawings, testimony o Public input: text, testimony • Used in motions to help hearing participants and elected officials understand the basis for the motion • The effort to identify clear, specific findings helps everyone better understand the rationale for a particular motion. This can take time, but can lead to better, more defensible decisions. • Examples: o Move to approve based on “findings and conditions recommended by Staff.” o Move to continue item based on “additional time needed to get input from CDOT on Highway 7 design.” o Move to deny based on “project exceeds maximum allowable impermeable surface standard described in Section xxx of the EVDC.” o Move to approve with “additional conditions:” Better definition of Limits of Disturbance Increased landscaping on West side of property Complete additional drainage analysis by (date) Specify how project will meet dark skies lighting standard. o Reasons for additional conditions may need additional explanation. If the motion is complex, consider a short recess while wording is worked out with staff. Vacation Rental Code Change Topics Some of the following items may be handled with administrative procedures rather than code changes. 1. Allowing additional large VR’s by conversion of existing VR licenses/permits to large VR. 2. Requiring a VR application to be completed in a certain amount of time after the initial filing of the application. 3. Use it or lose it for existing VR licenses and permits. VR owner must demonstrate that their property has been rented a certain number of days during the preceding year when the license/permit is renewed. 4. Require bear resistant trash containers. Add to EVDC to be consistent with Town of Estes Municipal Code (Wildlife Ordinance) 5. Mail VR notices to adjacent properties on an annual basis and whenever ownership or local contact changes as required in EVDC 5.1.d.5.b 6. Publish a list of licensed/permitted VRs online. The list would be updated quarterly. 7. Publish the VR complaint phone number online (Host Compliance). 8. Set a minimum number of parking spaces for large VRs based on the number of bedrooms. 9. Email notifications shall be sent to VR property owners and their local contacts whenever fire restrictions are in place and when other health and safety alerts are issued for all Estes Valley residents and visitors. It is the responsibility of VR property owners and their local contacts to convey this information to VR renters. 10. Exterior lighting, whether for new or existing structures, shall strictly conform to the EVDC lighting standard for new development in Section 7.9. EVDC 5.1.2.i 11. Prior to the annual review of the vacation rental cap Community Development will review the list of registrations in progress and in those on the waiting list to determine how many are still current (active) registrations and requests on the waiting list. CD will adjust these lists to reflect the revised data. 12. Strictly enforce EVDC 5.1.h (Accessory Dwelling Units) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners, White, Foster, Murphree. Smith and Theis, Schneider Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commission/Staff Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to change the order of the agenda as presented moving item number 6 Castle Ridge Rezone to item number 5. The motion passed 6-0, with Murphree not voting. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of August 21, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN: Beaver Point Subdivision, 1281 High Drive Planner Hathaway reviewed the project. It is located to the east of Heinz Parkway and north of Moraine Avenue, within Town limits. The property is zoned A-Accommodations. The land area is 2.85 acres and is currently developed with a single family home and garage. The proposal is to create 3 legal lots. There have been no public comments. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat. Owner/Applicant Discussion: Dave Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, was available to answer questions. There was compliance with county regulations pertaining to fire. There were no agency comments of significance found. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 Commission Comments: No concerns were observed in walking the property. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Beaver Point Minor Subdivision Plat according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, Fall River Road, northwest of West Elkhorn Avenue. Planner Woeber reviewed that the applicant, Estes Park Housing Authority, is contracting to purchase this property contingent on approval of rezoning from RE-Rural Estate to RM- Multi Family Residential. The parcel is just under 7 acres in size. A conceptual development plan was submitted. Legal notices were published and letters mailed to adjacent property owners. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. Applicant Discussion: Current property owner Bill Van Horn stated that it is an appropriate change of zoning for this property. Estes Park Housing Authority Executive Director Naomi Hawf spoke on the needs of work force housing and the plans for the lot. Thomas Beck, Architect, added that this is adequate zoning for this lot and it is possible to develop this as multi family as long as it is kept to the bottom 1/3 of the lot. Public Comment: Jon Nicholas, Estes Park Economic Development Committee, was not asked by his board to endorse this, but the location is ideal with the Fall River corridor being commercial, and the closeness to Elkhorn Avenue. Commission Comments: Proximity to downtown and the natural zoning buffer make this a desirable project. There is no guarantee that the housing authority will buy the property, and once it is rezoned, it is rezoned with all uses that come with RM zoning. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Zoning Map Amendment application for Lot 2 of the Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, according to findings of fact recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Alarado Business Park, 800 Big Thompson Avenue (new address pending), Lot 1 of Stanley Hills Subdivision. Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal of a mixed-use commercial and residential building including an urgent care facility, sandwich shop and employee housing. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners, a legal notice was published and the applicant posted signs on the property. Public interest is medium, both in support of and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 opposed to the project. Staff recommended approval of the Alarado Business Park Development plan with the following conditions: The proposed eastbound through lane on US 34 is subject to final approval by Public Works and CDOT, and any future change in use will require a new Traffic Impact Study and associated mitigation. Commissioner/Staff discussion: Residential use is classified as employee housing as an accessory use which is allowed in CO zoning. No housing for the general public will be allowed. Owner/Applicant discussion: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, reviewed the timeline and details of the project with a PowerPoint presentation. A neighborhood meeting was held, which was well attended. All code requirements have been met, including the Variances approved by the Board of Adjustment on October 2. Maximum occupancy would be limited to 8 unrelated people per unit. The land has at this lot has always been zoned commercial, one of the few vacant CO lots left in town. A buffer of dedicated open space exists on north and west sides of the lot. Drainage and utilities have not been controversial. 20 year deed restrictions for employee housing have been drafted. This development meets the code of CO zoning and land use by right as well as meeting community needs. Ryan Wells, owner/developer, reviewed his background and reasoning behind the project. The property was originally planned for just a Jimmy Johns, but through numerous public conversations, it evolved into the current design. Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant, spoke at length on the traffic studies conducted, both in low and high season. Adding the Eastbound through lane meets the criteria for the Town of Estes Park and CDOT. Larry Leaming, CEO of Estes Park Health (EPH), spoke on the interest the hospital has and the importance of Urgent Care, especially after business hours. The Emergency Room should not be the only option for medical care. The traveling public are use to looking for Urgent Care. This will be available and visible for all, with x-rays, lab and pharmacy on site. Ambulances will be taking people to the ER, not urgent care. Hours will be tracked and decided based on demand. Associated expenses will not strain the Hospital or Family Medical Clinic due to revenues gained from the urgent care. Phil Heinrichs, owner/developer, stated his commitment to the long term success of the project. The on-site Jimmy John’s manager will also act as the property manager. Eight business have made commitments for leasing residences. Public Comment: Those speaking against the Development Plan, citing reasons of the disproportional residential footage ratio to the commercial footage, delivery vehicles for Jimmy Johns not calculated into the traffic study, pedestrian and automobile traffic, and not enough parking: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 David Courtes, Janet Jones, Shaun Jones, Deb Seick, Kris Adams, Pete Maxwell. Those speaking in favor of the Development Plan stating the huge need for housing and meeting community needs: Tim Cashman, Randy Brigham, David Batey, Gerald Mayo, Ryan Leahy, Charlie Dickey, Bill Van Horn, John Nicholas, Guy Beesley, Naomi Hawf. Applicant Comments: Pedestrian traffic will be mostly on the north side of Highway 34, with residents going to work at Stanley Village and downtown. The unallocated space in the building is a basement, which Estes Park Health has agreed to lease. EPH and Jimmy Johns will have two units each. Leases to J-1 visa holders generate enough income to cover the whole year. Added landscaping on the eastern property line is acceptable. CDOT will not make any commitments until a full plan set is submitted. Commissioner concerns/discussion: o Impressed with the interactions with neighborhood community. o Parking restrictions would be included in the lease. 69 spaces total, 11 for employee housing, 44 for businesses. Spaces were calculated at 1.3 per unit. If parking becomes a problem, it is up to the owner to correct. o Rentals will be strictly to businesses with contracts for a unit, and inhabitants must be employed in the Estes Valley, not leased to the general public. o EPH stated that they are renting the entire 12,000 sf. 3000 for urgent care, the extra 9,000 sf will be determined as needs arise. o Traffic study does not meet peek hour needs for a light. o The risks involved will fall on the developer, not the town. o Traffic light, cross-walk or roundabout installation discussions with CDOT. o One building will not make a huge difference in traffic compared to the benefit the project will provide. o Mixed use is a creative and thoughtful design. o Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the Board of Adjustment’s decision. o Request for an additional traffic and pedestrian study when project is complete. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Alarado Business Park Development Plan with the following conditions: Additional landscaping shall be installed along the eastern property line, including trees and shrubs, to provide adequate screening from the neighboring property, with the landscaping to be designed and installed outside the dedicated public utility easement. The motion passed 7-0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 Due to time constraints, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:18 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 PC: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree Attending: Leavitt, White, Foster, Murphree, Smith, Theis, Schneider 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 4:00 p.m. There were approximately 55 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commission/Staff Introductions. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the agenda and the motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Foster recused himself from the appeal and took a seat in the audience. Chair Leavitt stated that today’s hearing is an appeal of the Development Plan of the Estes Mountain Coaster. The question of Use Classification and whether or not the project was properly reviewed were decided in previous hearings. Attorney White summarized the appeal processes to date. On October 24 a complaint pursuant to Rule 106 was filed asking the court to review the decision of the Use Classification by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The status of that review is unknown at this time. Filing of that lawsuit does not affect this meeting. The Board of Adjustment (BOA) upheld the staff determination by a vote of 3-1. That decision is subject to an appeal to the district court. Today’s Planning Commission (PC) decision is subject to an appeal, which would go to the BOCC for a review of the Development Plan. 3. APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP 2018-04, ESTES MOUNTAIN COASTER Director Hunt reviewed the Mountain Coaster Development Plan and the appeal. Among items mentioned in the report were the project outline, lot descriptions, traffic flow, shuttle details, and staff’s decision that the Plan complies with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Staff recommended that the PC approve the Development Plan on appeal, with five (5) conditions as specified by staff (listed below) in the August 6 letter of approval. 1) Public Works will need to grant a Right-of-Way permit 2) Floodplain/Stormwater permits required 3) Construction shall be consistent with the plans RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 4) Any additional development shall require submittal of a new Development Plan 5) Development of any additional recreation facilities shall require consideration of Use Classification appropriateness prior to approval. Discussion on Use Classification was had, including changes that will be prepared for the EVDC. PC/Staff Discussion and Questions: Director Hunt answered questions from the PC. Landscaping regulations were alternative, not required. There is room for more parking at site, however, the EVDC has language encouraging shuttle use. Floodplain permit is enforced by following standard county protocol of the Flood Review Board and county engineering, which is subject to final approval by the BOCC. FEMA map issuance is still pending, final approval of project is contingent on that. A Certificate of Completion would not be available until FEMA permitting is in place. A parking study 3 months after completion will take place jointly by Community Development staff, town/county Engineering, and possibly CDOT. Parking expansion always requires a permit and some sort of review, not necessarily a PC review. There is shared parking with Lake View Plaza in place. The noise study was discussed, and the impact was not determined to be a problem. Clarity on hours is needed from the applicant. Attorney White stated that a Location and Extent review applies only to government/public facilities, not private property and is not part of this Commission’s decision. He also stated that no conditions can be added to the plan due to this being an appeal. Appellant Comments: Rebecca Urquhart, standing in as counsel for appellants, submitted a handout of alternative motions and findings for the PC to review. She discussed the details of the 40 page appeal, recommending denial of the development outright. Specific Code and Comprehensive Plan revisions were given. A Location and Extent review is legally required, without exception. If Code includes specific references to the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan is binding and must be followed, not just used for guidance. It is in the purview of the PC to make sure the Development Plan matches the Comprehensive Plan. This project is not compatible with the zoning. Diana Van Der Ploeg requested the PC deny the Development Plan, despite the applicant’s attempt to circumvent them from the process. She cited problems with the traffic study stating it is inadequate and incomplete. You can’t change the data to fit the needs in regard to traffic. Other requests: access point be from owner’s road on property rather than Dry Gulch Road, no parking be allowed on site, open at noon on Sundays, closed by 7 p.m. all days, full environmental assessment, floodplain review, no landscaping waiver and a wildlife protection study. Noise will be an issue. Neighbors feel that their property rights have been taken away. Alan Miller stated that the project does not comply with Comprehensive Plan, decisions reflect lack of impartiality, and it will not be an economic benefit to the community. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 Owner/Applicant Comments: Lawrence Myers, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the letter he submitted to the PC and reminded them to consider only the matters specified in the written notice of appeal. Location and Extent does not apply to a private facility. Property is already being used as commercial use by way of the stables. Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering, noted that the project was intentionally designed consistently with Code, with guidance and reviews by town staff. All requested studies have been completed and approved. The parking plan is to keep the majority of customers off site for security and safety reasons. The estimates of 100-350 customers per day during peak hours, 15,000-60,000 per year, are based on numbers from other coasters. Tentative hours are to be open at 10:00 a.m. and to close at dusk. Summer would be 7 days a week, with weekends only likely in spring and fall. The landscaping required was minimal and it was decided to screen the parking and building rather than landscaping by the road, which was the reason for the alternate landscaping plan. In depth discussion ensued on slopes. A geological report is planned but has not been done. Required culverts will be installed for flood mitigation to handle a 10-year event. Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, provided further information and noted that the road will be removed to a subgrade level and re-compacted back up. The Flood Review Board has approved the project. Standard property maintenance in regard to flooding will be addressed by the owner. He pointed out six favorable elements that the traffic study didn’t take into account. A 2% growth per year over 20 years was used for calculating traffic thresholds. Gregg Hecker, Operations Manager for the applicant, Yakutat, noted that there will be three parking lots, one at the base of the coaster site, and two auxiliary sites. Wayfinding and signage on Dry Gulch/Highway 34 will point people in the direction of the base lot then redirect to the auxiliary lots once the base lot is full. Parking attendants will be on duty at all three spots throughout the day communicating by radio. The current plan is for the owner to purchase shuttles, which will be stored on existing space on the Sombrero property. due 10 minute break at 5:50 Public Comment: Those speaking against the Mountain Coaster, stating concerns with the traffic study, noise, lack of environmental assessments, parking, RE1 Zoning included: Pete Langer, Faith Zimmerman, Scott Schneider, Nancy Hills, Lyle Zimmerman, Maggie Stark, Julie Lee, Biff Baird, Gwenda Purdy, Michelle Hiland, Beverly Briggs, Ron Backhaus, Randy Phillips. Greg Cenac spoke in favor of the project, stating property use as a right. Jon Nicholas stated that the system and process are broken, and that Location and Extent rules need to be reviewed. He urged the PC to focus on the appeal. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Applicant Responses: Myers stressed that all studies have been conducted and approved. The quasi-judicial capacity that the PC is sitting in calls for a fair application of the Code as it is drafted and a denial of the appeal. He confirmed that the applicant is willing to stipulate that he will not add piecemeal spaces (9 spaces at a time) until the PC has amended the Development Code to create a better procedure for adding such spaces or unless and until a full Development Plan number of spaces is required. Moving the parking off- site is not being considered due to the requirement of ADA spots. Cody Walker, applicant, stated that he has no plans to add additional attractions. Appellant Responses: Urquhart asked that Codes be followed, not rewritten. Decide if the Location and Extent review makes sense or not. The property rights are understood but this project does not fit in residential zoning. The residents along Dry Gulch bought their property assuming the Walker property would be low family residential. The laws are clear; deny the development application. PC Discussion: This is not a review of an original development plan, it is an appeal. Schneider stated that this did go before the BOCC and BOA and the IGA clearly states that the PC shall be part of the decision making process, which has been ignored. Theis stated that he doesn’t agree with the argument of existing use, the stables represent a commercial use. The 19 parking spaces was used to avoid a public hearing, and he doesn’t like the loop-holes but that doesn’t make it illegal. RE1 was clearly intended for low density use and this isn’t that. White stated that the focus is narrow and even though clearly flawed, the plan meets Code. Smith stated that there appears to be ample parking space to accommodate the entire project, expressing concerns with Use Classification, parking, and lack of landscaping. Murphree stated that this property is clearly designated for low impact residential housing. Simply put, when Code is written, it is written with a reasonable interpretation, and it is our duty to look at the overall intention of the Code and why it was adopted. This fits in the category of a commercial endeavor. Leavitt agreed that there are holes in the Code, that this was an attempt to bypass the PC and that this is a commercial operation. He questioned the Location and Extent review, and the Use Classification review. This is an appeal, not a review. Theis referred to the statement that the elected officials and legal counsel from both the Town and County spoke to the PC earlier this year: they shouldn’t base a decision solely on the Comprehensive Plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Planning Commission October 30, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree) to deny Development Plan DP 2018-04 (Estes Park Mountain Coaster), due to the numerous questions and concerns raised by the PC, reversing staff’s decision on appeal finding that the proposed project is a commercial endeavor and does not comply with the comprehensive plan in keeping with the RE1 zoning. The motion failed 2-4 with White, Leavitt, Smith and Theis voting against. Attorney White suggested it would be better to have an additional motion. It was moved to continue the appeal (Smith) to January, 2019, which was not seconded. It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to uphold the staff’s decision on appeal according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff with the parking stipulation by the applicant. The motion tied 3-3 with Theis, White and Leavitt voting yes and Schneider, Smith and Murphee voting no. A tie motion fails. Attorney White stated that the earlier motion to not overturn the appeal is sufficient to uphold the staff decision. The appeal was denied. Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Robin Becker – Planner I Date: November 13, 2018 RE: Development Plan Amendment – Black Canyon Inn Applicant Request: Approval of a Development Plan for a project consisting of commercial and accommodation uses. Planning Commission Objectives: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); 2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant’s testimony, public comment, and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and 3. Approve or deny the Development Plan application. Location: 800 MacGregor Ave. 11, north of E. Wonderview Ave. and east of MacGregor Ave., legally described as Lot 2, Amended and Restate Black Canyon Inn Minor Subdivision. Vicinity Map: See Attachment #1 Owner/Applicant: Black Canyon Resort, LLC Applicant’s Representative: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying Inc.- Jes Reetz Project Description: Present Situation: The subject property is 4.047 acres in size and is mainly undeveloped. The site is zoned A (Accommodations). Proposal: Development of a 150-seat wedding venue at 11,900 square feet, one motel-style accommodations building at 7,100 square feet, and 8 condo-style accommodation units. The wedding venue will be accessory to the principal accommodations use. The wedding venue is proposed to be over the allowed 1,000 square feet per EVDC §5.2.D.4, “Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses”. See Variances. Variances: Per EVDC §5.2.D.4 “Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses”, free standing accessory buildings and structures shall not be larger than one-thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. A variance has been scheduled for review by the Board of Adjustment on December 4, 2018 to allow the accessory use (wedding venue) to exceed the allowed 1,000 square feet. Currently the code does not allow an accessory structure to be over 1000 square feet. Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Black Canyon Inn Amended Development Plan Page 2 of 5 Site Data Table: Consultant: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering Parcel Number: 3524473002 Development Area: 4.047 acres Existing Land Use: Residential Building and mainly undeveloped Proposed Land Use: Commercial and Accommodations Zoning Designation: A, Accommodations Adjacent Zoning: East: E-1, Estate North: R, Residential West: A, Accommodations South: RM, Residential Multifamily, A, Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses: East: Black Canyon Hills Addition, Single- Family Residences North: MacGregor Ranch and open space West: Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condos, Meyers Addition 1970 Division, Condo and Single-Family Residences South: Meyers addition, Ridgeview Condos, and Single-Family Residences Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District Review Criteria: Depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. 1. Buildings and Lots. Two main buildings (wedding venue and motel-style accommodation building) are proposed along with eight condo-style accommodation units. The accommodation and wedding venue buildings are proposed to be two levels. The eight accommodation units are proposed to be two levels as well. The buildings and site meet height restrictions, lot coverage, and setback requirements. The applicant met with many of the neighbors on August 30th 2018, the result of this meeting was the removal of a third floor in the 14-unit accommodation building. This will result in minor obstruction of range views. Note that views are not protected within the EVDC, therefore the reduction in height was voluntary on behalf of the applicant. 2. Landscaping. The project is required to plant a minimum of one (1) tree for each forty (40) lineal feet of street frontage and one (1) shrub for each fifteen (15) lineal feet of street frontage. The applicant exceeds this requirement. A minimum buffer of 8 evergreen trees and 11 shrubs per 100 linear feet of district boundary between residential and accommodation/commercial zoning is required. • The northern boundary buffer requirement has been met. • The western boundary buffer requirement has been met. • The eastern boundary buffer requirement has been met. Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Black Canyon Inn Amended Development Plan Page 3 of 5 3. Water. Water is to be provided by the Town of Estes Park Water Division. The Division has outlined numerous requirements for the development, some of which have been addressed by the applicant on the Development Plan, and some of which are applicable to construction and the building permit stage. 4. Fire Protection. Estes Valley Fire Protection District provided comments regarding hydrants, egress, and approach. Applicable comments at this stage have been addressed with the Development Plan, other comments regarding egress, alarms and fire protection system plans will be addressed at the building permit stage. 5. Electric. Electric service is to be provided by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. The Division’s requirements have been met. 6. Sanitary Sewer. The Estes Park Sanitation District, who will provide central sewer service to the proposed development, had comments pertaining to easement access, line locations, and cleanout locations. All comments have been addressed. 7. Stormwater Drainage. A drainage study was submitted, and reviewed by engineering staff with the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department. Public works has no objection. 8. Access. Access to the site is proposed to be a full-service access via MacGregor Ave. A traffic impact study (TIS) was conducted for the project. The TIS evaluated Level of Service (LOS) impacts resulting from the proposed development. Improvements are proposed along the access route from MacGregor Ave. to the site. These improvements will match existing driveway grades. Three access easements exist to allow access through the Ridge View Condominiums, through Black Canyon Inn and through the Overlook Condominiums. Public works has no objection. 9. Sidewalk/Trail. The applicant has proposed an 8’ trail along MacGregor Ave. with pedestrian connections to both the wedding venue and the accommodations building. 10. Parking. The applicant has proposed 60 parking spaces per the table below. Use Requirement Provided High Intensity Accommodations (EVDC 7.11) 1 per guest room<750 sq. ft. or (14 rooms proposed) 1 space per 3 employees (9 employees proposed) 17 Commercial Recreation or entertainment establishment, Indoor (EVDC 7.11) “All other” 1 per 200 Sq. Ft. 7100 sq. ft. of total patron space proposed. 7130/200 =35.65 x 75%= 26.7 (27spaces) 27 Resort Lodge/Cabins (EVDC 7.11) 2 Future Accommodation Units -(2) per cabin or guest room 4 Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Black Canyon Inn Amended Development Plan Page 4 of 5 Resort Lodge/Cabins (EVDC 7.11) Units 13-16 -(2) per cabin or guest room 8 Resort Lodge/Cabins (EVDC 7.11) Units 11 & 12 -(2) per cabin or guest room 4 11. Outdoor Lighting. All lighting will be shielded and deflected down in compliance with EVDC §7.9. 12. Comprehensive Plan. This project conforms to goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, as follows: • Policy 2.4 Initiate planting programs to soften the visual impact of existing development. o Buildings that must be located in open areas should be clustered, designed and landscaped to blend into their surroundings to the maximum extent possible. o Removal of trees on steep slopes and ridgelines should be discouraged except as required for wildfire protection. • Policy 3.1 Encourage infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs and to stabilize residential neighborhoods. • Policy 7.1 Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. This proposed development is located in between the North End Planning Sub Area and the Downtown Planning Sub area, not quite in both. The proposed development has voluntarily been reduced in height in a manner that attempts to protect neighboring views of the range, and recedes into the hillside. This coincides with the downtown land use goal of “the downtown area is intended to develop as a dominant commercial core, consisting of a variety of character districts”. The North End planning area with regard to MacGregor Ranch recommends cluster development patterns that should be utilized to enhance open space opportunities. This development meets these two goals. Public Notice: Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners in accordance with EVDC, Section 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. Public Interest: Medium There is some opposition to the project from area residents, namely residents of the Black Canyon Hills Addition Subdivision. Overall design, traffic, pedestrian safety, and access are the main concerns expressed in letters of opposition. Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Black Canyon Inn Amended Development Plan Page 5 of 5 Following meetings with the neighbors and Black Canyon Inn property owner, some neighborhood support was received. All comments received are available at: www.estes.org/currentapplications Staff Findings: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The Planning Commission is the Decision Making Body for the Development Plan. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 2. The development plan is consistent with the recommendations of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Concerns and issues that were raised have been addressed or will be addressed at time of building permit. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Black Canyon Wedding Venue Development Plan with the condition that the applicant receive a variance from the Board of Adjustment for the size of the wedding venue. Sample motion: 1. I move to approve the Black Canyon Wedding Venue Development Plan application according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2. I move to continue the Black Canyon Wedding Venue Development Plan application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to deny the Black Canyon Wedding Venue Development Plan application, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Development Plan Set 5. Building Elevations & Floorplans 6. Public Comments 800 870 340 370 375 351 350 400 333 401 800 800 UNITS1-2 UNITS1-4 ENVUNIT H ENVUNIT G ENVUNIT F ENVUNIT E ENVUNIT D ENVUNIT C UNIT B UNIT A UNITSC1 C2/3C4/5 C6 UNITSD1 D2/3D4/5 D6 This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown 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 youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 30 60Feet 1 in = 65 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity D evel opm en t Black Canyon Inn Development Plan Printed: 11/7/2018Created By: Robin Becker Subject Property July 16, 2018 Rev 10/29/2018 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Co. 80517 RE: Black Canyon Wedding Venue – Statement of Intent (revised) Dear Mr. Hunt: Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) on behalf of Mr. McAndrew, are pleased to submit plans for the Black Canyon Inn Wedding Venue Development Plan. Every effort has been put forth to meet the guidelines stated within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). UPDATE TO STATEMENT OF INTENT FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The owners of the Black Canyon Inn held a neighborhood meeting on August 30, 2018. Owners from the Black Canyon Hills as well as several owners west of MacGregor where in attendance. Overall, the project was received rather well. The main concerns for owners west of MacGregor Ave. dealt with development along Black Canyon Creek. We stated no development along the creek is being proposed. Main concerns for owners of the Black Canyon Hills pertained to guests wondering onto private property and view obstructions caused by the “Accommodations” building. After walking the neighboring properties with the owners the owner/developer has decided to remove the third floor from the accommodations building in its entirety to reduce the obstructions caused by the accommodations building. PROJECT HISTORY The subject property has undergone several development plan reviews over the course of the last ten (10) years. The first development plan (09-03B) proposed nineteen (19) condominium units ranging from duplex units to four-plex within this location. The approved development plan was then amended to propose seventeen (17) townhome units being either single family or duplex construction and was approved at the March 15, 2016 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting. During the title review by the Owners attorney’s it was revealed that the “Townhome Plat” had not been executed correctly and was in fact, not valid. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of constructing a 150-seat wedding venue together with a fourteen (14) room accommodations structure. Parking for the uses is proposed in two (2) paved parking areas between twenty three (23) and twenty nine (29) stalls. ADA parking will be provided in both parking areas. There are two room configurations being 470 and 480 square feet within the accommodations building. It is intended that guests utilizing the wedding venue will also be occupying the nearby accommodations. The wedding venue will be two (2) stories with a banquet hall and ceremony floor and a basement. Both floors will be enclosed with decks facing towards the northwest. Service parking and access will be provided with a separate parking area adjacent to the lower floor. Units proposed with the amendment to development plan 09-03B (denoted as units twenty (20) thru twenty five (25)) will remain unchanged with this development proposal but will be constructed as accommodation units rather than condominiums or townhomes. The property has an average slope of 17.2% and as a result, retaining walls will need to be utilized. A majority of the proposed walls will be below 4-feet in height with a few locations being over 4-feet in height. Retaining walls greater than 4-feet in height will be engineered with the final construction drawings. CURRENT AND ADJACENT ZONING The current zoning of the Black Canyon Inn is A- Accommodations. Mac Gregor Ranch has a zoning of RE- Rural Estate bordering the north. Black Canyon Hills borders the east and has a zoning of E-1 Estate. Ridgeview Condominiums is located in the southeastern portion of the property and has a zoning of RM- Multi Family. The Overlook Condominiums, Lot 1 Stanley Historic District and Leonard Property border the south and have a zoning of A- Accommodations. SETBACKS Setbacks are typically 25-feet from the property line except for where the property borders an adjacent property zoned A-Accommodations which the setback would be reduced to 15-feet. There is a 15-foot setback from the access easement that encompasses the existing driveway. The proposed lots will maintain a building envelope a minimum of 3- feet (width varies). UTILITIES Water – Town of Estes Park An 8” water main currently follows the existing roadway southerly to the Overlook Condominiums property. A portion of this water main will need to be replaced and lowered to allow the construction of an access road to units thirteen (13) to sixteen (16). This access road will also be utilized for an emergency access through the Overlook property. An easement is in place with the access being a reciprocal easement for the two properties. A fire hydrant is being proposed that will service the proposed development. A six inch (6”) water service is proposed to both the wedding pavilion and accommodations structure. Sewer – Estes Park Sanitation District A sewer main extension is proposed that will follow the roadway to service the proposed development. Services range from six inches (6”) for the accommodations and wedding venue to four inches for units eleven (11) thru sixteen (16). Electric – Town of Estes Park Electric service will be provided by looping the electric from the existing office to a power pole on the southerly property line shared with Overlook condominiums. ACCESS Primary access to the property is off of MacGregor Avenue. Portions of the existing access have been upgraded as part of the previously approved development plans from MacGregor Ave. to the Black Canyon office. Further improvements are being proposed as part of this development plan. The proposed roadway will match the existing driveway grades and general location. An existing access easement is recorded to grant access to our subject property. Furthermore, an existing access easement exists to allow access to the “Ridge View Condominiums” thru the subject property along with a reciprocal easement between Black Canyon Inn and the Overlook Condominiums to allow emergency access only. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jes Reetz Planner A2.0Sheet No:Sheet Title:Date:Issue:FLOORPLANSBlack Canyon Resort LLC11/30/2017DDbas1s.comLongmont, Colorado 805042007 100Yr Party Ct, Ste #1970.586.9140Architecture, P.C.© BASISA R C H I T E C T U R E P . C .DSill 3'4'6'CSill 1'6'4'CSill 1'6'4'CSill 1'6'4'CSill 1'6'4'CSill 1'6'4'CSill 1'6'4'CSill 1'6'4'2146'-8"3'2136'-8"3'2126'-8"3'2116'-8"3'2106'-8"3'2096'-8"3'2086'-8"3'2226'-8"3'2186'-8"3'BSill 5'2'3'BSill 5'2'3'BSill 5'2'3'BSill 5'2'3'BSill 5'2'3'BSill 5'2'3'BSill 5'2'3'2006'-8"3'2016'-8"3'2026'-8"3'2036'-8"3'2066'-8"3'2056'-8"3'2046'-8"3'2306'-8"3'2266'-8"3'2346'-8"3'2386'-8"3'2416'-8"2'-8"2406'-8"3'2396'-8"4'2376'-8"2'-8"2366'-8"3'2356'-8"4'2336'-8"2'-8"2326'-8"3'2316'-8"4'2296'-8"2'-8"2286'-8"3'2276'-8"4'2256'-8"2'-8"2246'-8"3'2236'-8"4'2216'-8"2'-8"2206'-8"3'2196'-8"4'2176'-8"2'-8"2166'-8"3'2156'-8"4'2076'-8"3'2426'-8"3'14'-10"14'-8"14'-8"14'-8"14'-8"14'-8"14'-10"10'103'7'-10 3/4"2'-4 3/4"4'-10 1/2" 4'-5"2'-4 3/4"7'-10 1/4" 7'-5 3/4"2'-4 3/4"4'-9 1/2" 4'-5"2'-4 3/4"7'-10 1/4" 7'-5 3/4"2'-4 3/4"4'-9 1/2" 4'-5"2'-4 3/4"7'-10 1/4" 7'-5 3/4"2'-4 3/4"4'-7 1/2"14'-6" 8" 14' 8" 14' 8" 14' 8" 14' 8" 14' 8" 14'-6"5'-7 1/2" 6'-10 1/2" 4'-8 1/2" 6'-10 1/2" 10'-10 3/4" 6'-10 1/2" 4'-8 1/2" 6'-10 1/2" 10'-10 3/4" 6'-10 1/2" 4'-8 1/2" 6'-10 1/2" 10'-10 3/4" 6'-10 1/2" 2'-5 1/4"1'-8" 2'-4" 12'-6 1/2" 8'-5 1/2" 10'7'35'10'3'-4" 4'-2" 14'-8" 4'-2" 10'-6" 4'-2" 6'-4" 4'-2" 10'-6" 4'-2" 14'-8" 4'-2" 6'-4" 4'-2" 7'-5 1/4"7' 7'-9 1/2"13'-8" 3'-3 1/2" 6'-4 3/4" 3'-10 1/4" 10'14'-10"14'-8"14'-8"14'-8"14'-8"14'-8"14'-10"1'-8" 1'-4"1'-11 1/2"17'-7 1/2"8'-1 3/4"2'-4 1/4"4'-5 1/2"4'-1 3/4" 2'-8 1/4"1'-9 3/4"5'-4 1/2"1'-2 1/4"1'-4"4'-8"2'-8 1/4"5'-1" 1'-11" 4'-2" 2'-10"1'-11 1/2"8 1/4"3'-7"10"4'-1 1/2"8"10'7'-10 1/2"2'-1 1/2"1/A4.01/A4.02/A4.02/A4.03/A4.03/A4.05678 A7.0ROOF LINE ABOVE6' HIGH WOODEN"FENCE" DIVIDERVAULT LINEINTERCONNECTEDSMOKE/ CODETECTORSRATED DEMISING WALLTO ROOF SHEATHINGRE: ASSEMBLIESCLOSET RODS/SHELVES G.C.COORD. w/OWNERBATH EXHAUSTFAN, VENT OUTROOF, TYP.CENTER OF W.C.16" FROM WALLOR VANITY, TYP.DIRECT VENT GAS F.P. FIELD VFY.FRAMING & VENT PER SELECTEDMODEL SPEC PROVIDE F.P. MFR.INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONSTO FIELD INSPECTOR AT TIMEOF INSPECTION18" HIGH BENCH5/8" TYPE 'X' GYPWALLS & CEILINGGASF.P.COFFEECLFLUE CHASECOFFEECLFLUE CHASECOFFEECLFLUE CHASECOFFEECLFLUE CHASECOFFEECLFLUE CHASECOFFEECLFLUE CHASECOFFEECLGUESTROOMS470SFMECHANICAL/FIRE RISERSTORAGEFLUE CHASEGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFBATHWCBATHWCBATHWCBATHWCBATHWCBATHWCBATHWCBALCONYCOVERED ENTRY WALKWAYBALCONYBALCONYBALCONYBALCONY BALCONYBALCONYCEILING: VAULTEDCEILING: VAULTEDCEILING: VAULTEDCEILING: VAULTEDCEILING: VAULTEDCEILING: VAULTEDCEILING: VAULTEDENTRYSHOWER3'x4'-8"VANITY72" WIDESHOWER3'x4'-8"VANITY72" WIDESHOWER3'x4'-8"VANITY72" WIDESHOWER3'x4'-8"VANITY72" WIDESHOWER3'x4'-8"VANITY72" WIDEGASF.P.GASF.P.GASF.P.GASF.P.GASF.P.GASF.P.EFEFEFEFEFEFEFSHOWER3'x4'-8"VANITY72" WIDESHOWER3'x4'-8"VANITY72" WIDEBENCHCOBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHSCO SCOSCOSCO SCOSCO SNOTE:ALL NOTES TYPICAL FOREA. UNIT UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED11/4" = 1'-0"Upper Floor14 UNITS @ 470SF/EA.LAUNDRY/MECH - 470SFPROJECT GENERAL NOTESGENERAL1. All construction shall conform to the International Building Code, 2015 edition as amended by the Townof Estes Park, and all other applicable codes.2. Construction debris shall be legally removed on a continuing basis. The site shall be maintained in a"neat" appearance.3. Dimensions are to face of stud, panel, or concrete unless otherwise indicated. Log and columndimensions are to centerline. Vertical dimensions are to concrete slab, wood subfloor or top of wall orbeam.4. Provide fire-blocking per IBC Section 718. Provide fire-blocking in concealed spaces of stud walls at thefloor-ceiling level and at 10-foot intervals, in openings around vents, ducts, etc., and at all interconnectionsbetween concealed horizontal and vertical spaces.Penetrations:**(Pre-approved) Firestop subcontractor or (pre-approved) special inspector required, submit proposedsystems to Building Dept***Fire Sprinkler: Per local amendment, provide NFPA13R fire suppression system throughout building.5. Design Loads: Seismic: Category B Floors: 40 psf Decks: 70 psf (Ground Snow Load, No Hot Tub) Roof: 70 psf (7,000>8,000); 15psf Dead Wind: Exposure class C 175 mph Ultimate Wind Speed, 3 Second Gust 136 mph Nominal Design. Hazard Zones: Flood: No Geologic: No Ridgeline Protection: No Wildfire: Yes6. Typical exterior wall: Lap siding on housewrap on 7/16-inch sheathing on 2x6 stud wall (16"o.c.). ProvideR-21 blown fiberglass insulation in stud cavity in all exterior walls. 1/2-inch non-rated gypsum wallboard atinterior, unless otherwise noted.7. Typical roof: Heavy texture asphalt shingle roofing on min. 30# felt on nominal 5/8-inch roof sheathingon roof trusses or rafters as noted. Provide 2 courses of Ice & water shield at eaves to min. 24" inside wallline, and 30-inches either side of the valley centerline at valleys.Air Leakage:**Blower Door Test required on thermal envelope in accordance with ASTM E 779 per IECC C402.5**INTERIOR FINISH8. Provide blocking in wall for mounting all grab bars, cabinets, towel bars, closet rods, etc.9. Use metal edge at all gypsum wallboard corners. Ensure factory edge or provide metal edge trim wheregypsum wallboard meets a different material.10. Provide cementitious board (Durock or equal) behind all tiled surfaces. Provide water-resistant gypsumwallboard at all other wet locations.MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING11. All heating equipment, piping, ventilation and installation to comply with the I.M.C., 2015 edition, and allother applicable codes.12. All plumbing materials and equipment to comply with the I.P.C., 2015 edition, and all other applicablecodes.13. Mechanical & plumbing contractor to provide design and installation of heating system, and serviceand connections for all appliances and fixtures.14. Coordinate installation of equipment with Electrical contractor.15. Mechanical system: forced air (system design by others).ELECTRICAL16. Electrical materials and installation to comply with the I.E.C.C., 2015 edition, and all other applicablecodes.17. Provide installation and connections for all appliances, fixtures and equipment requiring electricalservice.18. Power, lighting and smoke alarm location to comply with code requirements. All lighting to be LED.19. Coordinate requirements of Electrical equipment with Mechanical & plumbing contractor.DELAYED SUBMITTALS20. Prior to inspection, submit a gas line diagram to the building division for review & approval21. Prior to inspection, provide documentation of compliance with manuals J,S & D22. Engineered truss drawings shall be submitted to the design professional of record for review & approval.Prior to framing inspection a stamped statment from the design professional of record shall be submitted tothe building division acknowledging the truss submittals are compatible with the design of the building orstructure. ensure adequate time is provided for review, comment and revisions if required.23. Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm to be provided through delayed submittals - G.C. to submit fire marshaland building dept. for review. No plastic piping permitted, coordinate HVAC & Lighting. Architect reservedthe right to require specific changes to sprinkler pipe layout for aesthetics after review of proposed design.FAIRE HOUSING24. Accessible unit only - All user outlets, switches, controls and receptacles within 16" to 48" a.f.f.,unobstructed and 34" to 46" a.f.f., obstructed. Front controls on range, 34" counter and lavatory heights A2.1Sheet No:Sheet Title:Date:Issue:FLOOR PLANBlack Canyon Resort LLC11/30/2017DDbas1s.comLongmont, Colorado 805042007 100Yr Party Ct, Ste #1970.586.9140Architecture, P.C.© BASISA R C H I T E C T U R E P . C .WW/DWDWDASill 3'4'5'ASill 3'4'5'ASill 3'4'5'ASill 3'4'5'ASill 3'4'5'ASill 3'4'5'ASill 3'4'5'1006'-8"3'1026'-8"3'1016'-8"3'1036'-8"3'1046'-8"3'1056'-8"3'1066'-8"3'1166'-8"3'1176'-8"3'1226'-8"3'1236'-8"3'1156'-8"3'1076'-8"3'1186'-8"3'1106'-8"3'1116'-8"3'1136'-8"3'1096'-8"3'1196'-8"3'1256'-8"3'1216'-8"3'1276'-8"3'1206'-8"3'1246'-8"3'1266'-8"3'1126'-8"3'1146'-8"3'1086'-8"3'WW/D7'34'-4"8"23'-1 1/4"1'-2 3/4" 4'-3 1/2" 5'-8 1/2"8"101'-8"8" 9'-4"13'-10" 8" 14' 8" 14' 8" 14' 8" 14' 8" 14' 8" 14'-1/2"3'-5"3 1/2"4'-8"3 1/2"5'-2 1/8"8"5'-1 1/2"3 1/2"5'-1 3/4"3 1/2"3'-1 3/4"8"3'-1 3/4"3 1/2"5'-1 3/4"3 1/2"5'-1 1/2"8"5'-1 1/2"3 1/2"5'-1 3/4"3 1/2"3'-1 3/4"8"3'-1 3/4"3 1/2"5'-1 3/4"3 1/2"5'-1 1/2"8"5'-1 1/2"3 1/2"5'-1 3/4"3 1/2"3'-1 3/4"8"3'-1 3/4"3 1/2"4'-8"3 1/2"5'-5 1/4"3'-10" 5'-1" 10'-6" 5'-6" 7'-10" 5'-6" 10'-6" 5'-6" 7'-10" 5'-6" 10'-6" 5'-6" 7'-10" 5'-6" 8'-11" 5'-10"7' 4'20'-4"10' 8"14'-10"14'-8"14'-8"14'-8"14'-8"14'-8"14'-10"21'-1 1/2"4'-10 3/4" 2'-5 1/4" 3'-3/4" 2'-3/4"5'-2 3/4" 2'-4 1/4" 6'-5"8"1'-8 3/4"3'-1 1/2" 1'-7" 2'-4 1/4" 2'-1 3/4"1'-2 3/4"1234 A7.0PROVIDE GRAB BARREINFORCEMENT IN WALL,RE: INTERIOR ELEVATIONSINTERCONNECTEDSMOKE/ CODETECTORSRATED DEMISING WALLTO ROOF SHEATHINGRE: ASSEMBLIESDIRECT VENT GAS F.P. FIELD VFY.FRAMING & VENT PER SELECTEDMODEL SPEC PROVIDE F.P. MFR.INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONSTO FIELD INSPECTOR AT TIMEOF INSPECTIONCLEAR FLOORSPACES (C.F.S.),TYP. WALKOUT FLOORLAUNDRYGUESTROOMS470SFCLGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFGUESTROOMS470SFADA WCADA WCADA WCADA WCADA WCADA WCADA WCSHOWER3'x5'GASF.P.GASF.P.GASF.P.GASF.P.GASF.P.GASF.P.GASF.P.VANITY54"CLBATHSHOWER3'x5'VANITY54"BATHTUB3'x6'TUB3'x6'CL CLCL CLCLSHOWER3'x5'VANITY54"BATHSHOWER3'x5'VANITY54"BATHTUB3'x6'TUB3'x6'SHOWER3'x5'VANITY54"BATHSHOWER3'x5'VANITY54"BATHTUB3'x6'TUB3'x6'SHOWER3'x5'VANITY54"BATHTUB3'x6'CEILING: 9'-0"CEILING: 9'-0"CEILING: 9'-0"CEILING: 9'-0"CEILING: 9'-0"CEILING: 9'-0"CEILING: 9'-0"PATIOPATIOPATIOPATIOPATIOPATIOPATIOENTRYENTRYENTRYENTRYENTRYENTRYENTRYCO S CO SCO S CO SCO S CO SCO SNOTE:ALL NOTES TYPICAL FOREA. UNIT UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTEDEFEFEFEFEFEFEF1/A4.01/A4.02/A4.02/A4.03/A4.03/A4.011/4" = 1'-0"Walkout Floor A3.0Sheet No:Sheet Title:Date:Issue:ELEVATIONSBlack Canyon Resort LLC11/30/2017DDbas1s.comLongmont, Colorado 805042007 100Yr Party Ct, Ste #1970.586.9140Architecture, P.C.© BASISA R C H I T E C T U R E P . C .12'-5 3/8" RIDGE-PLATE10'-4"20'-9 1/2"TIMBER SIDING2x TRIM BANDDECK RAILING MIN42" A.F.F. ALL GAPS<4" TYP.COVEREDWALKWAYBALCONYPATIO8" TIMBER SIDING1x8 FASCIA &RAKE, TYP.4'CLASS A COMPOSITIONSHINGLE ROOFS, TYP. U.O.N.GABLE DETAILVENT OR SIDINGSHAKE SIDING IN GABLES8" TIMBER SIDINGSTONE COLUMN WRAP, TYP.TIMBER POSTS & BEAMAPX. LINE OF EXISTINGGRADE, TYP.LIGHTINGFIXTUREFIREPLACE FLUECOVEREDWALKWAYTIMBER SIDINGSHAKE SIDING IN GABLESFIREPLACE13/16" = 1'-0"North Elevation23/16" = 1'-0"South Elevation33/16" = 1'-0"East Elevation43/16" = 1'-0"West ElevationNOTE: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING TO MEET DARK SKYREQUIREMENTS PER EVDC 7.9NOTE: EXTERIOR SIDING TO HAVE A FLAME SPREADCLASS OF III (76-200) OR BETTER. EXTERIOR SIDINGSHALL BE COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS FOR A MIN. OF THREEFEET ABOVE FINISH GRADEANY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS OR NATURALGROUND COVER WITHIN THREE FEET OF EXTERIORWALLS OF BUILDING TO BE NON-COMBUSTIBLEROOF COVERING TO BE CLASS A OR ONE-HOURASSEMBLYPROVIDE GUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTS, TYP.PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AROUND ENTIREPERIMETER OF HOME MIN. 6" WITHIN 10' SLOPE ORSWALE FROM BUILDING & ROOF DRAINS A2.0Sheet No:Sheet Title:Date:Issue:PLANBlack Canyon Resort LLCEvents BuildingLot 2, Black Canyon Inn Estes Park CO, 8051711/30/2017DDbas1s.comLongmont, Colorado 805042007 100Yr Party Ct, Ste #1970.586.9140Architecture, P.C.© BASISA R C H I T E C T U R E P . C .1/A4.21/A4.22/4.12/4.11/A4.01/A4.1DNDND5'-0"5'-0"2118'-0"6'-0"2107'-0"3'-0"D5'-0"5'-0"D2'-0"4'-0"2097'-0"3'-0"D7'-0"3'-0"2058'-0"6'-0"D2'-0"4'-0"2017'-2"6'-0"D3'-0"3'-0"D3'-0"6'-0"D3'-0"3'-0"D3'-0"2'-6"D3'-0"2'-6"D3'-0"2'-6"D10'-0"6'-0"D10'-0"3'-0"D10'-0"3'-0"20210'-0"30'-0"2007'-2"6'-0"2068'-0"3'-0"D10'-0"6'-6"D10'-0"7'-0"D10'-0"7'-0"D10'-0"6'-6"D3'-0"3'-3"D3'-0"3'-3"2038'-0"3'-0"2048'-0"3'-0"2087'-0"3'-0"2127'-0"3'-0"2077'-0"3'-0"12'-5 1/4" 9'-6 3/4" 9'-3 1/2" 14'-2 1/2" 7'-6 1/4"32'-0"7'-11 3/4"22'-0"23'-6"47'-6"20'-0"20'-0"10'-0" 8'-0" 6'-7 3/4"45'-6"23'-6 1/4"23'-6 1/4" 5 1/2"54'-0"10'-0"1/A4.31/A4.31/A4.41/A4.42/A4.42/A4.4BASED ON OTIS 3000CEREMONYBALCONY6" A.F.F.200 SEATSBRIDE'SBALCONYVANITYEXITBALCONYVANITYCOUNTER/WARDROBEBRIDE'SROOMWOMENMENHALLCERMONYELEV.ENTRYCHASE1'10"x5'CHASE1'6"x5'10"AVCHASE3'x1'4"CHASE1'6"x4'8"CHASE1'3"x1'5"1'-5"REF. N13/16" = 1'-0"Ceremony Floor A2.1Sheet No:Sheet Title:Date:Issue:PLANBlack Canyon Resort LLCEvents BuildingLot 2, Black Canyon Inn Estes Park CO, 8051711/30/2017DDbas1s.comLongmont, Colorado 805042007 100Yr Party Ct, Ste #1970.586.9140Architecture, P.C.© BASISA R C H I T E C T U R E P . C .1/A4.21/A4.22/4.12/4.11/A4.01/A4.01/A4.11/A4.1DNUPUPD2'-6"9'-0"D2'-6"9'-0"D2'-6"9'-0"D9'-0"4'-0"D9'-0"4'-0"D9'-0"4'-0"D9'-0"4'-0"1028'-0"16'-0"1047'-0"4'-0"1057'-0"3'-0"D9'-0"6'-6"D9'-0"6'-6"D9'-0"6'-6"1008'-0"14'-6"1018'-0"14'-6"1077'-0"3'-0"1037'-0"3'-0"1098'-0"5'-0"1108'-0"5'-0"1067'-0"3'-0"1118'-0"3'-0"1127'-0"3'-6"1147'-0"3'-0"1137'-0"4'-0"ICE3'-0" 1" 3'-0" 1" 5'-0 3/4"30'-0"9'-3 1/2" 14'-2 1/2" 6'-4 1/2" 5'-3 3/4" 11'-10" 11'-10" 7'-9" 12'-11 1/4" 11'-7"10 1/2"30'-0"22'-10"8'-7"39'-7"21'-0"122'-0"6'-5" 5 1/2"5'-6" TYP. 5'-0" TYP. 3'-2" TYP.11'-8"50'-0"10'-0"40'-0"8'-0" 6'-7 3/4"5'-6" TYP.5'-0"6'-7 3/4"3'-11 1/2" 10'-0"8'-0"DISHBASED ON OTIS 3000BAR(170 - 200 SEATS)TABLEOFHONORGIFT/BUFFETCAKEGIFT/BUFFETDECKGLASSRACKSKITCHENPREP/COOK LINEFHOODSMOPWORK TABLEBARSTORAGEPATIOSTIEREDTO GRADEROCKOUTCROPPINGBANQUET HALLMENWOMENELEV.PACHASE3'x1'4"CHASE1'10"x5'CHASE1'6"x5'-10"CHASE1'6"x4'8"CLCHASE1'3"x1'5"FIRERISERCOOLER1/A4.31/A4.31/A4.41/A4.42/A4.42/A4.43'-11 1/2"1"4'-9 3/4"5 1/2"REF. N13/16" = 1'-0"Banquet Hall A3Sheet No:Sheet Title:Date:Issue:ELEVATIONSBlack Canyon Resort LLCEvents BuildingLot 2, Black Canyon Inn Estes Park CO, 8051711/30/2017DDbas1s.comLongmont, Colorado 805042007 100Yr Party Ct, Ste #1970.586.9140Architecture, P.C.© BASISA R C H I T E C T U R E P . C .12812101210LOG/TIMBER ENTRY ROOFVERT. WOOD ACCENT SIDINGHORIZ. SIDING, TYP.CEDAR CHANNEL SIDINGKITCHEN PARAPETLOG ACCENTSSTONEOUTCROPPINGPORCHSTAIRS TO LOWER PATIOTHROUGH STONE OUTCROPPING128128BRIDE'S BALCONYOXIDIZED METAL ROOFS LOG/TIMBER ENTRY ROOFBRIDE'S ROOMCEDAR CHANNEL SIDINGKITCHEN ENTRYSHED ROOFOVER KITCHEN13/16" = 1'-0"South Elevation23/16" = 1'-0"West ElevationNOTE: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING TO MEETDARK SKY REQUIREMENTS PER EVDC 7.9NOTE: EXTERIOR SIDING TO HAVE A FLAMESPREAD CLASS OF III (76-200) OR BETTER A3.1Sheet No:Sheet Title:Date:Issue:ELEVATIONSBlack Canyon Resort LLCEvents BuildingLot 2, Black Canyon Inn Estes Park CO, 8051711/30/2017DDbas1s.comLongmont, Colorado 805042007 100Yr Party Ct, Ste #1970.586.9140Architecture, P.C.© BASISA R C H I T E C T U R E P . C .128CEREMONY BALCONYBANQUET DECKVERT. ACCENT SIDINGVERT. ACCENT SIDINGSTONE, TYP.LOG ACCENTS, TYP.12428'-10 3/4"CLASS A COMP. SHINGLE ROOF, TYP. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDLOG/TIMBER ENTRY BEYONDOXIDIZED METAL ROOF AT ENTRYHORIZ. SIDING, TYP.TERRACED PATIOSSTEPPING DOWN GRADEALL RAILINGMIN. 3'-6" A.F.F.ALL GAPS <4" TYP.13/16" = 1'-0"North Elevation23/16" = 1'-0"East Elevation TO SEE THE DRAINAGE AND EASMENT PLANS GO TO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fqZOqdiYtC_U08sqJ-weHn_I-lZkSGoL/view?usp=sharing or check the Current Projects page at estes.org Black Canyon Traffic and Drainage Reports If you would like a hard copy, let Karin know ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: November 13, 2018, 1:30PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: Recommendation for approval for two Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plats. Staff recommends conditional approval of the two Preliminary Townhome Plats. PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; and 2. Provide recommendation for Approval/Denial of the Preliminary Plat applications. LOCATION: 1581/1583 and 1587/1589 Mary’s Lake Road, within the unincorporated Estes Valley VICINITY MAP: See attachment OWNER/APPLICANT: Seth Hanson, Mary’s Lake Duplex 2 LLC / Same as owner STAFF CONTACT: Robin Becker, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Present Situation: The project areas are located west of Mary’s Lake Road and north of Giant Track Road. The properties are zoned A-1 Accommodations. Ferguson Three is approximately 0.38 acres and Ferguson Four is approximately .39 acres in size. Ferguson Three and Four have been issued building permits for the construction of a duplex building on each existing lot. Proposal: The proposals entail creating two townhome subdivisions. Each townhome subdivision would consist of two townhome lots and two outlots. Each subdivision will contain a townhome building (converted duplex), with each unit being located on one townhome lot. Both subdivisions will utilize a common drive accessing Mary’s Lake Road. REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Preliminary Townhome Subdivision. §3.9.E. All subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, “Subdivision Standards,” and all other applicable provisions of this Code. Ferguson Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Three and Four Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Ferguson Townhome Three and Four Preliminary Plats SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Parcel Number: 3535411001 and 3535411002 Development Area: Approx. 1 acre (0.5 for each townhome subdivision) Existing Land Use: Ferguson Three (building permit for duplex) and Ferguson Four (building permit for duplex) Proposed Land Use: Two townhome subdivisions, each containing two townhome lots and two outlots. One townhouse on each townhome lot. Zoning Designation: A1- Accommodations Proposed Zoning Designation: No change Adjacent Zoning: East: E-Estate North: A1-Accommodations West: A-1 Accommodations South: E-1 Estate One Adjacent Land Uses: East: Undeveloped North: Single-Family Homes West: Single-Family Homes South: Single-Family Homes Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District REVIEW CRITERIA: Generally, depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. 1. Landscaping. District buffering is not required at this subdivision stage. 2. Water. Both townhomes are proposed to connect 130’ with an 8’ main extension. Currently the main runs along the east side of Mary’s Lake Road. The extension will run west under the road. 3. Sewer. Each of the four units will tie, via private service lines, directly into the Upper Thompson Sanitation District main that runs along the west side of Mary’s Lake Road. 4. Fire Protection. The driveway has been designed to provide adequate spacing for the largest fire apparatus. Maximum grades do not exceed the maximum 12%. Fire has driven the proposed access with an emergency vehicle and accepts the driveways as indicated in the plans. 5. Stormwater. Per County Engineering comments regarding stormwater comments including drainage, flow patterns and access easement concerns were partially addressed and discussed with County Engineering staff. Since these are preliminary townhome plat applications, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission condition the approvals to Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Page 3 of 5 Ferguson Townhome Three and Four Preliminary Plats comply with Larimer County Engineering Department requests. These requests/comments shall be addressed before/with the submittal of the Final Plat townhome applications. The Final Plats will not be scheduled for public hearing until drainage concerns have been addressed to meet Engineering comments. 6. Traffic and Parking. No traffic impact study was required with these projects. 7. Access. Both townhome subdivisions are proposed to share a driveway access from Mary’s Lake Road. The County Engineering Department has waived the paving standard for the18-foot wide shared access portion of the drive. The applicant is proposing to all-gravel the driveways. A Road Maintenance Agreement will be submitted for the shared driveway with the Final Plat. 8. Building Envelopes. Building envelopes are required with townhome subdivisions. The applicant provided the appropriate envelope locations. 9. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan discusses housing in Chapter Six, Policy 5.0 Housing. The success of a community depends upon the continued availability of adequate housing for all income groups. Promoting a balance of housing opportunities will assist residents and business within the community. This minor subdivision provides for both policies 5.1 and 5.2. 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. This minor subdivision is also located in the Beaver Point Planning Sub-Area. It falls under the Giant Track Special Study Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides no further information on the Giant Track Special Study Area. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: These applications have been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Larimer County Engineering staff has outstanding concerns about drainage/grading, as reflected in recommended conditions of approval. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette, and mailed notices were sent to surrounding property owners pursuant to EVDC 3.15. As of November 2, 2018, no written public comment has been received for this application package. All written comments are posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications. Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Ferguson Townhome Three and Four Preliminary Plats STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The Preliminary Townhome Subdivisions comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. 2. The Preliminary Townhome Subdivisions comply with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Preliminary Townhome Subdivisions. 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. Larimer County Engineering has concerns over drainage/grading and has recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional APPROVAL of the proposed Preliminary Townhome Subdivisions with the following conditions pertaining to both applications: 1. A detailed grading and drainage plan for both projects shall be submitted with the Final Plat applications. 2. Shared drainage and maintenance easements between Ferguson Townhome Three and Four shall be shown on the Preliminary Plats and Final Plats. 3. A Road Maintenance Agreement shall be submitted with Final Plat applications. SAMPLE MOTION FOR FERGUSON THREE PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME PLAT : 1. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the “Ferguson Three Preliminary Townhome Subdivision” according to findings of fact, including findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the “Ferguson Three Preliminary Townhome Subdivision” according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by Staff. 3. I move to CONTINUE the “Ferguson Three Preliminary Townhome Subdivision” application to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 4. I move to recommend DENIAL of the “Ferguson Three Preliminary Townhome Subdivision” application. SAMPLE MOTION FOR FERGUSON FOUR PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME PLAT: 1. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the “Ferguson Four Preliminary Townhome Subdivision” according to findings of fact, including findings and conditions recommended by Staff. Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Page 5 of 5 Ferguson Townhome Three and Four Preliminary Plats 2. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the “Ferguson Four Preliminary Townhome Subdivision” according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by Staff. 3. I move to CONTINUE the “Ferguson Four Preliminary Townhome Subdivision” application to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 4. I move to recommend DENIAL of the “Ferguson Four Preliminary Townhome Subdivision” application. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statements of Intent 3. Applications 4. Ferguson Three Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat 5. Ferguson Four Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat Complete Preliminary Townhome Subdivision plans can be found at www.estes.org/currentapplications. 1075 1111 16701640 1100 89010501070 1575 1132 1573 1551 1553 1571 G I A N TTRACKRDMARYSLAKERDMARYS LAKE RDGCE This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown 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 youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 30 60Feet 1 in = 65 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity D evel opm en t Ferguson Three & FourMinor Subdivision Printed: 11/7/2018Created By: Robin Becker Subject Prope rty Statement of Intent Ferguson Townhomes 4 Lot 1 and 2 of the Amended Plat of Lot 12 and Portions of Lots 10 and 11 west of Marys Lake Rd. Block 13, Ferguson’s Subdivision Project Location: Lots 1 and 2 are just north of the intersection of Marys Lake Rd and Giant Track. Owner: The owner of the property is Marys Lake Duplex 2, LLC with Seth Hanson as the President. The lienholder for the construction loans is Farmers Bank. Project Description: The current zoning is A1, which allows duplex or multifamily as a use by right. Each lot allows a duplex to be built under a single family permit wit h one ownership for the entire building. Construction is underway on a duplex on each lot. This application is seeking to subdivide each duplex into two legal townhome units. Access: Current access is off of Marys Lake Rd. for the 2 lots. Lot 2 abuts Marys Lake Rd. Access for Lot 1 will be granted via easement across Lot 2. The proposed access has been discussed with Estes Park Fire Department at a meeting onsite on Wednesday June 13. On Friday the 15th the department drove their truck(s) onsite to verify accessibility. Accessibility was confirmed pending the removal of two trees. They will be providing notes to the Town and Owner very soon. This access was only 10’ wide at the time. A waiver is requested to allow the driveway to be 18’ to provide more room for grading and drainage considering this is significantly wider than what the fire truck drove onsite. Parking is provided by a single garage for each unit and additional driveway parking of 1 space for each unit. Setbacks: All front and side setbacks will be adhered to. A B uilding envelope is requested to be 13.5 on the south side of Lot 2, Ferguson T4 Townhomes. The building is 15’ from the lot line, however the eave is over the setback. It will meet a 13.5’ building envelope. This was a similar request for Ferguson Townhome One & Two Townhomes. Utilities and Roads: Both lots are serviced by Town of Estes Water and Electric. Propane is the only option for gas. Upper Thompson will service the lots. Water and sewer have mains in the county ROW. Water will be extended approximately 130’ with an 8” main. Electric has a power line running between the 2 duplex buildings. The drive and parking areas shall be 2” compacted road base. They will be 6” of road base and 4” of asphalt at the driveway apron to the property. Stormwater/Drainage The county requirements at the building permit stage do require a drainage study; however, much attention has been given to drainage. The drive on the north portion of both lots shall act as a channel to catch all water that flows south to north following the existing slope of the land. The drive then channels the drainage east into a detention pond that will outlet to a culvert located at the northeast section of Ferguson Four Townhomes. Schedule: Units are currently being constructed and the applicant is requesting to be put on the August 15 submittal for the October 16 Planning Commission meeting and November 19 BCC meeting. Waivers: On the previous projects (Ferguson One Townhome and Ferguson Two Townhome) just completed by the same owner/applicant, paving was waived as a requirement. Fire has confirmed that paving is not required from their department. The applicant would like to request of the Town a waiver to paving. The entire area west of Marys Lake Rd. is a very rural area without paved roads and driveways. It is the desire of the applicant to maintain that same character within the area. The applicant would also request a waiver to the drive width to be 18’ to allow more room for grading and drainage. Submittal Date: Pre-Application (check application type(s))Minor Subdivision Plat Condominium Map Development Plan Amended Plat Preliminary Map Special Review Final Map Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Plat Other: Please specify Project Description Lot Size Proposed Land Use Town Well None Town Well None Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic None Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic Existing Gas Service Other None Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Name of Primary Contact Person Email Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Application Fee 1 copy, 11" X 17" reduced set of plat/plans ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Application Type(s) Boundary Line Adjustment Site Information Xcel Rezoning Petition General Information Project Name Supplemental Map Community Development Department Phone: 970-577-3721 I Email: planning@estes.org I www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Statement of Intent Digital copies PDF emailed to planning@estes.org Contact Information Other (specify) Project Address Parcel ID # Legal Description Refer to the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for application submittal requirements. Town of Estes Park I P.O. Box 1200 I 170 MacGregor Avenue I Estes Park, CO 80517 Existing Land Use Existing Water Service Attachments Proposed Water Service 3 copies, 24" x 36" (folded) of plat/plans Other (specify) Revised 2017.01.09 KT Please check only one box Ferguson Three Townhomes and Ferguson Four Townhomes Duplex subdivision into townhomes 1581/1583 Marys Lake Rd and 1587/1589 Marys Lake Rd. Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Amended Plat of Lot 12 and Portions of Lot 10 and 11 West of Marys Lake Rd, Block 13, Ferguson's Subdivision 3535411001 (lot 1) and 3535411002 (lot 2) Lot 1 is .38 acres and Lot 2 is .39 acres 1 duplex per lot with single ownership per building 1 duplex per lot but each unit is owned individually A1 A1 Seth Hanson seth.w.hanson@gmail.com Consultant/Engineer PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date Ź Ź Ź Ź PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date Record Owner Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. Notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. Phone Record Owner(s) Email Signatures: I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Contact Information Phone Mailing Address Record Owner Applicant As Applicant, I certify the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the record owner(s) of the property. Names: Mailing Address Applicant Email Email Record Owner Phone Mailing Address Applicant Signatures: I grant permission for Town of Estes Park employees, reviewing agency staff, Planning Commissioners, members of the Town Board of Trustees, or Larimer County Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. I acknowledge I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and am aware that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application beying delayed or any approval of my application becoming null and void. Names: Applicant OWNER & APPLICANT CERTIFICATION Record Owner Applicant As Owner, I certify the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and I am the record owner of the property. Revised 2017.01.09 KT Marys Lake Duplex 2, LLC (Seth Hanson) 2803 E. Harmony Rd. Fort Collins CO 80528 310-7498 seth.w.hanson@gmail.com Same Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering joe@vanhornengineering.com 586-9388 8-15-18 Marys Lake Duplex 2, LLC Marys Lake Duplex 2, LLC Marys Lake Duplex 2, LLC Marys Lake Duplex 2, LLC 8-15-18 8-15-18 8-15-18 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING DEADLINES AND FEES • Applicant is responsible for ensuring their deadlines are met. • A resubmittal fee may be charged when deadlines prior to review by the Decision-Making Body are not met, and the application may be delayed by a month or more. • Requests for time extensions after approval by the Decision-Making Body must be made in writing prior to the deadline. Request must state the reasons supporting the requested extension and the requested deadline. Failure to meet deadlines without written acceptance of a new deadline from planning staff will result in the approval becoming null and void. • Full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that is null and void. • Per EVDC §3.2.C, “No changes to the development application or any accompanying plans or information shall be permitted after submittal, except for any changes or additional information request by staff during their review.” TO SEE THE DRAINAGE AND EASMENT PLANS GO TO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gX6LSD1HKB7Z7vuT6oO6dd5n-F9cL-l-/view?usp=sharing or check the Current Projects page at estes.org If you would like a hard copy, let Karin know COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Brittany Hathaway – Planner II Date: November 13, 2018 RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: EVDC § 5.2 Table 5-1: Accessory Uses Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts, EVDC §5.2.B.2: Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Planning Commission Objective: Review and provide a recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to: 1) Revise Table 5-1 (Accessory Uses Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts) to extend Special Review Use (S2) in RM Multi-Family Residential Zoning District to allow for review and approval procedures for offices; 2) Amend Section §5.2.B.2: (Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts) to include requirements for offices as an accessory use in the RM Multi-Family Residential Zoning District. Code Amendment Objectives: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the following: • Provide for a Special Review Use (S2) for offices in the RM zoning district subject to specific accessory use requirements. Proposal: Amend EVDC Section §5.2 Table 5-1: (Accessory Uses Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts) and amend Section §5.2.B.2: (Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts) as stated in Exhibit A, attached. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in “Exhibit A” to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion: This text amendment is in response to a shortage of adequate and affordable office space for small businesses and non-profit agencies. Background: The Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center (EPNRC) has been utilizing office space provided by the Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies under a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) granted by the Town of Estes Park since August 2017, of which expired on September 30, 2018. The TUP is not eligible for additional extensions as TUP’s cannot be granted for more than one year from initiation. Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Page 2 of 4 The EPNRC currently occupies 2 underutilized rooms within the church for general office operations during normal business hours of Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The church has adequate parking to support both uses in addition to available unused space. The EPNRC has searched elsewhere in the Estes Valley for suitable and affordable office space, but with no success. Due to the expiration of the Temporary Use Permit, the EPNRC has requested a Code Amendment and Special Review Use to continue their partnership with the church. This code amendment would allow similar agreements within the RM Multi-Family Residential Zoning District where adequate space is available and uses are compatible. It is important to note that the RM Multi-Residential Zoning District allows not only for residential uses, but allows uses such as senior care facilities, day cares, and religious assemblies with an S2 review. It also allows government facilities, low-intensity accommodations, and public schools as permitted by right uses. These examples would be facilities that could have the ability to offer accessory office space with an S2 Special Review procedure, subject to restrictions. Request: This request would be to allow “offices” in the RM Multi-Family Residential Zoning District with an (S2) Special Review Use procedure, subject to specific use standards outlined within Section §5.2.B.2.I. EVDC. Office use is defined in Section §13.2.33 EVDC. The Special Review Use provision would ensure the ability to conduct public outreach and comment and place conditions on a proposed use to ensure minimal impact to the surrounding neighborhood. An addition to Section §5.2: (Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts.) as it pertains to “Offices” in the RM Multi-Family zoning district is proposed to include the following use standards: Section §5.2.B.2.I. Office 1. Offices permitted as an accessory use in RM Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts upon S2 Special Review Use approval by the Decision-Making Body, subject to the following requirements: a) No accessory offices shall cumulatively exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the principal structure. b) The accessory office use must be incorporated within the primary structure that exists at the time of Special Review approval. c) Off-street parking for an accessory office use must comply with §7.11.D at 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Page 3 of 4 d) Should existing parking be insufficient, a Development Plan shall be required to accompany the S2 Special Review application, prior to installation of additional parking spaces. 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 a shortage of adequate and affordable office space in the Estes Valley. 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 including: • Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley Allowing for the co-location of offices and permitted uses within the RM district will utilize existing development and allow for new and unique partnerships. • Recruit businesses and companies that benefit from the environment and fit with community values. Allowing accessory offices when suitable, will allow for small businesses to remain within the Estes Valley and may recruit new employers of whom previously could not find adequate space. 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, fire, electric services, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment in principle. Advantages: Provides case-by-case Special Review Use consideration for offices when compatible with the Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Page 4 of 4 existing primary use, with the specific advantage of providing affordable space for small business and non-profit agencies. Disadvantages: Potential traffic and parking impacts, of which may be mitigated through the Special Review Use process. 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 Low: No comments have been received. Sample Motions: Approval I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, finding that the amendments is in accord with Section 3.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code. Continuance I move to continue this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because, (state reason(s) for continuance-findings). Denial I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, finding that (state reason(s) for denial). Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 2. Exhibit A - Red 3. Public Comments Ordinance No. - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO AMEND § 5.2 TABLE 5-1: ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND § 5.2.B.2: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC ACCESSORY USES/STRUCTURES PERMITTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, § 5.2 Table 5-1: Accessory Uses Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts and § 5.2.B.2: Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendments; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D (Code Amendments, Standards for Review) and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A, be approved; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit A. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF _______, 2018. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the ________ day of _______________, 2018 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of ____________, 2018, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Exhibit A - Red [Planning Commission 11-13-2018] • EVDC § 5.2 Table 5-1: Accessory Uses Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts • EVDC §5.2.B.2: Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts § 5.2 - ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. 1. Permitted principal uses and approved special review principal uses shall be deemed to include the accessory uses, structures and activities as set forth in this Section, unless specifically prohibited. 2. See also §13.2, "Use Classifications," wherein incidental or accessory uses are sometimes included in the description of a specific principal use. When a use classification or specific use type definition in §13.2 does include permitted accessory or incidental uses, such accessory or incidental uses shall be subject to the general standards set forth in this Section, as well as any use-specific standards set forth in §5.1 or this Section. 3. All accessory uses, structures and activities shall be subject to the general, dimensional, operational and use-specific regulations set forth in this Section, in addition to the same regulations that apply to principal uses in each district. In the case of any conflict between the accessory use/structure standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control. 4. All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the following conditions: a. The accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and customarily found in connection with the principal use; and b. The accessory use or structure shall be conducted and/or located on the same zoning lot as the principal use; and c. There shall be unity of ownership between the principal use and the accessory use. (Ord. 15-03 #1; Ord. 08-16, § 1, Exh. A) B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. a. Listed Accessory Uses/Structures . Table 5-1 below sets forth what types of accessory uses and structures are permitted in which residential zones. If a specific accessory use or structure is permitted in a residential zoning district, the column underneath the zoning district will be marked with a "Yes." If the accessory use or structure is not permitted in a particular zoning district, the column will be marked with a "No." If there is a reference contained in the column entitled "additional requirements," please refer to the cited section(s) for additional standards that shall apply to the specific accessory use. Exhibit A - Red [Planning Commission 11-13-2018] b. Unlisted Accessory Uses or Structures . If an accessory use or structure is not listed in Table 5-1 but satisfies all the conditions set forth in §5.2.A.4 above, it may be permitted subject to compliance with the general, dimensional and operational standards set forth in this Section. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District Additional Requirements "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted “S2” = Special Review Use "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit RE- 1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Accessory dwelling unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No §5.2.B.2.a 1.33 times minimum lot area required Barns and stables Yes Yes Yes No No No No No None (Ord. 15-03 §1) Day care center (Ord. 6-06 §1) No No No No No No No Yes §5.1.F; §5.1.O; as accessory to a permitted religious assembly use Family home day care, small (Ord. 6- 06 §1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.d Home Occupation As accessory to a principal residential use only Fences and walls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §7.5.H Garages, carports, and off-street parking areas used to serve the residents of the property Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.d and §7.11 Exhibit A - Red [Planning Commission 11-13-2018] Golf clubhouses, including space for the sale of golf or other sporting equipment, food and refreshments Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No As accessory uses to golf courses only Home occupation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.e (Ord 18-01 §18) Kitchen, Accessory (Ord. 08-17 §1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No §5.2.B.2.f (Ord. 03-10 §1) Kitchen, Outdoor (Ord. 08-17 §1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Micro wind energy conversion systems Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.g (Ord. 05-10 §1) Private greenhouses Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes • Private schools No No No No No No Yes (Ord. 19-11 §1) Yes As accessory to a permitted religious assembly use only; §5.1.O Office No No No No No No No S2 §5.2.B.2.I Satellite dish antennas 39 inches (1 meter) or less in diameter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Accessory to a principal residential use only •To the maximum extent feasible, but only where there is no impairment to acceptable signal quality, such satellite dish antenna shall be located in the rear yard of the residential use Satellite dish antennas greater than 39 inches (1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes •Accessory to a principal residential use only •To the maximum extent feasible, but only where Exhibit A - Red [Planning Commission 11-13-2018] meter) in diameter there is no substantial impairment to acceptable signal quality, such satellite dish antenna shall be located in the rear yard of the residential use. •To the maximum extent feasible, the satellite dish antenna shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-way (including trails) Small wind energy conservation systems (Ord. 21-10 §1) CUP CU P CU P CU P CU P CU P CUP CUP §5.2.B.2.h Solar collector (Ord. 11-11 §1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Square footage of ground- mounted solar collectors shall be calculated as the area of the solar panels, not the structure footprint. Storage or parking of trucks, cars, or major recreational equipment, including but not limited to boats, boat trailers, camping trailers, motorized homes, and house trailers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.h Swimming pools/hot tubs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Ord. 18-01 §18; Ord. 15-03 §1; Ord 6-06 §1; Ord. 03-10 §1; Ord. 05-10 §1; Ord. 21-10 §1; Ord. 19-11 §1; Ord. 08-17 §1) Exhibit A - Red [Planning Commission 11-13-2018] 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. … I. Office (1) Office permitted as an accessory use in RM Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts upon S2 Special Review Use approval by the Decision-Making Body, subject to the following requirements. a) No accessory offices shall cumulatively exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the principal structure. b) The accessory office use must be incorporated within the primary structure that exists at the time of Special Review approval. c) Off-street parking for an accessory office use must comply with §7.11.D at 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. i) Should existing parking be insufficient, a Development Plan shall be required to accompany the S2 Special Review application, prior to installation of additional parking spaces. (Ord. 13-99 §G, 11/3/99; Ord. 10-00 §1, 7/25/00; Ord. 18-01 §§17—19, 10/23/01; Ord. 2-02 §8, 2/12/02; Ord. 15-03 §§1, 2, 8/12/03; Ord. 8-05 §1, 6/14/05; Ord. 6-06 §1, 9/26/06; Ord. 02-10 §1, 1/26/10; Ord. 03-10 §1, 1/26/10; Ord. 11-10 §1, 3/30/10; Ord. 21-10 §1, 9/28/10; Ord. 11-11 §1, 4/26/11; Ord. 19-11 §1, 9/27/11; Ord. 08-16, § 1(Exh. A), 3/22/16; Ord. 29-16, § 1(Exh. A), 12/15/16; Ord. 08-17 §1(Exh. A), 3/28/17; Ord. 09-17, § 1(Exh. A), 3/28/17; Ord. 27-17 , § 1(Exh.), 10/24/17; Ord. 34-17 , § 1(Exh. A), 2/13/18) ANY RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE FOUND AT THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE UNDER “NONPROFIT/RELIGIOUS PARTNERSHIP”: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark /currentapplications COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Brittany Hathaway – Planner II Date: November 13, 2018 RE: (S2) Special Review Use – To Allow an Office Use in the RM-Residential Multi-Family Zoning District Located at 1700 Brodie Ave. Planning Commission Objective: Review and provide a recommendation for Town Board consideration on a Special Review Use (S2) application requesting approval of an accessory “Office” use in the RM-Residential Multi-Family zoning district. Proposal: This is a Special Review Use (S2) proposal to permit an accessory office use within the RM- Residential Multi-Family zoning district. Location: 1700 Brodie Avenue, east of Community Drive and west of Fish Creek Road, located within the Town of Estes Park. Vicinity Map: See Attachment #1 Owner/Representative: Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies, Pastor Michael Moore Applicant: Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center, Laurie Dale Marshall – Executive Director Discussion: This Special Review Use is dependent on the preceding approval of a Code Amendment requesting “Offices” be permitted as an accessory use in the RM-Residential Multi-Family zoning district upon S2 Special Review Use approval. The Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center (EPNRC) is requesting to continue their relationship with the Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies, where they currently lease 800 square feet of office space out of the approximate 22,662 square foot facility. The EPNRC has been operating with a Temporary Use Permit since August 2017, which expired on September 30, 2018. However, they are allowed to continue operations during this application process. Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Page 2 of 3 The applicant has provided a narrative which may be found in Attachment #2. The narrative describes the proposed use and applicable operation specifics. They describe the relationship with the Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies as mutually beneficial with little to no impact to surrounding uses. Additionally, there are 125 parking spaces available. Per EVDC § 7.11 a religious assembly use requires 1 space per 50 square feet of assembly area, which equates to approximately 80 required spaces. Office use requires 1 space per 200 square feet, which equates to 4 required spaces. As such, the facility has more than adequate parking to support both desired uses. This review procedure provides an opportunity to allow the requested use when manageable impacts can be shown and by imposing mitigation measures, or conditions, to address any potential concerns. The proposed Special Review Use may be subject to the following conditions as recommended by staff: 1. Applicant shall notify staff of any increase in office use in order to confirm the office use does not exceed 25% of gross floor area of the principal structure and appropriate parking is provided. 2. This S2 Special Use Review shall be granted only for the Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center or any successor organization with the same or similar goals and functions. Should an unaffiliated office use within the principal structure be requested, it shall go through a new and separate S2 Special Use Review application. Staff Findings of Fact: Approval of a Special Review Use shall not constitute a change in the base zoning district and shall be granted only for the specific use approved at the specific site. Approval is subject to such modifications, conditions, and restrictions as may be deemed appropriate by the Decision Making Body. (EVDC §3.5) Per the EVDC, all applications for a Special Use Review shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, “Use Regulations”. Should the Code Amendment proposed with this application be approved, this use would be subject to the following standards: • No accessory offices shall cumulatively exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the principal structure. • The accessory office use must be incorporated within the primary structure that exists at the time of Special Review approval. • Off-street parking for an accessory office use must comply with §7.11.D at 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Planning Commission, November 13, 2018 Page 3 of 3 • Should existing parking be insufficient, a Development Plan shall be required to accompany the S2 Special Review application, prior to installation of additional parking spaces. The conditions recommended by staff under “Discussion” may be amended to include additional conditions as the Commission or Town Board deems appropriate. Advantages: Allows for the continued operation of a nonprofit office use in a compatible and affordable setting. Disadvantages: Potential traffic impact during peak visitation hours. Action Recommended: Review the request for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.5.B Special Review Uses, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Staff recommends approval of the S2 Special Review with findings and conditions as stated. Level of Public Interest Low: No public comments have been received. Sample Motions: Approval I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees approve the Special Review Use proposal, including findings and conditions 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-findings). Denial I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the Estes Park Town Board deny the Special Review Use proposal, finding that (state reasons for denial). Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site Plan 5. Public Comments 520 720 830 898 898 694 810 820 890 894 702 1700 370 1480 1600 1600 1885 1870 1855 1890 1880 1801 1601 Fish CreekFISH CREEK RDBR OD I E AV E S K E T C H B O X L N SKETCHBOXL N W A PITICIRWAPITI CIR LAKEESTES UNIT30 UNIT18 UNIT19UNIT15 This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 80 160Feet 1 in = 154 ft±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity D evel opment 1700 Brodie Ave. Printed: 10/17/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway Subject Property ANY RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE FOUND AT THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE UNDER “NONPROFIT/RELIGIOUS PARTNERSHIP”: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark /currentapplications COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: November 13, 2018 RE: Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code, Chapters 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13, Estes Valley Development Code to remove inappropriate regulatory cross-references between the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. Applicant Request: Approval of an EVDC amendment to remove inappropriate regulatory cross-references between the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. Our current Code requires Comprehensive Plan “consistency” as a criterion in decision-making for various types of applications and actions. The removal of such regulatory requirements restores the Comprehensive Plan to its appropriate status as a visioning and goal-setting document . Planning Commission Objectives: 1. Conduct a public hearing to consider public comment and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and 2. Recommend approval or denial of the EVDC amendment, with or without any recommended modifications, to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Location: N/A; Code amendments are applicable Valley-wide Owner/Applicant: N/A Present Situation: For many years – apparently at least since the original approval date of the EVDC in November 1999 – the EVDC has contained language that requires, or at least strongly implies, that “consistency” with the adopted Comprehensive Plan (i.e., the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan) is a required review and approval criterion for many types of projects and proposals reviewed under the EVDC. A full list of all places in the EVDC where the term “Comprehensive Plan” appears in the Code is included in Exhibit A [Blue]. Although not standard for other Code amendment exhibits, in this case staff has included all references in Exhibit A [Blue], including ones that are not being proposed for change in the amendment. This makes the Exhibit slightly longer, but it seems important to know in full context which sections are proposed for change and which are to be left alone. Planning Commission, Nov. 13, 2018 Comprehensive Plan references in EVDC Page 2 of 3 Proposal: On February 22, 2018, a joint Study Session meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Town Board of Trustees, and the Board of County Commissioners was held in the Town Board Room. Minutes of the Joint Study Session are attached. At this meeting a number of topics were discussed relating to Planning Commission and governing body review of proposals under the Code. One item that generated concern among members of both governing bodies was reliance on statements or exhibits in the Comprehensive Plan as (in effect) review criteria. In Planning Commission’s review of the Raven Rock development plan, as well as on other occasions, findings were made that included reliance of the Comprehensive Plan as a regulatory reason for denial of a project. Specific discussion at the meeting included reference to the memorandum by Town Attorney Greg White and Community Development Director Randy Hunt for the November 14, 2017 Raven Rock review. The memorandum cited several Colorado court decisions and best-practice planning principles indicating that the Comprehensive Plan was not to be invoked in this manner. The elected officials on Feb. 22 expressed the clear wish that the practice of using the Comprehensive Plan as regulation cease, and also that the EVDC be amended to remove references that seemed to invoke the Comprehensive Plan as a regulatory document: “The Town Board and County Commission made a specific finding when adopting the EVDC which found the code in compliance with and meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested the EVDC be amended to clarify the language as it relates to meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should be viewed as an advisory document only with the EVDC as the law to be utilized in the review of a development application. Any development application in compliance with the EVDC is therefore in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.” (Minutes, Sec. 2.b (p. 2) [emphasis added] Staff has now review the EVDC, found all such references, and proposed them in the form of this amendment to remove them. Adoption of this amendment does not invalidate the Comprehensive Plan itself, nor does it mean the Comprehensive Plan cannot be cited as relevant or meaningful in a discussion about development-review or similar context. Adoption does mean that the Comprehensive Plan will not be cited as a reason or finding to approve or deny such proposals. The Planning Commission will recall that this discussion came up during the Raven Rock public hearing at PC in October 2017, and that staff provided a memo for the Nov. 14, 2017 PC meeting outlining the planning-related and legal reasons why the Comprehensive Plan should not be considered regulatory and binding. The memo specifically addresses Comprehensive Plan authority over Development Plans, but it applies by extension to other Comprehensive Plan consistency requirements in Code. A copy of the Nov. 14 memo is attached. Public Notice: A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on Friday, Oct. 26. As the Code amendment would be applicable Valley-wide and does not pertain to specific property, no signage has been posted nor neighboring property owner letters distributed. Public Interest: Medium for the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan in general. Planning Commission, Nov. 13, 2018 Comprehensive Plan references in EVDC Page 3 of 3 Low for this specific amendment. (Staff is not aware that the February direction from elected officials has been widely discussed) Staff Findings: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Code amendment. 2. The development plan is consistent with best practices in overall Code relationship to an adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No comments have been received. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Exhibit A [Blue] as drafted. Sample motion: 1. I move to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit A [Blue] according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2. I move to continue the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit A [Blue], finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners deny the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code as stated in Exhibit A [Blue], finding that … [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A [Blue] – Planning Commission draft: Nov. 13, 2018 2. Minutes: Joint Study Session meeting of Estes Park Town Board, Larimer County Commission, and Estes Valley Planning Commission: Feb. 22, 2018 3. Nov. 14, 2017 Memorandum to Estes Valley Planning Commission from Randy Hunt and Greg White re Authority of Comprehensive Plan EXHIBIT A [Blue] Planning Commission draft (Nov. 13, 2018) § 1.3 - Purpose and Intent The regulations of this Code are intended to implement the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and more specifically are intended to: [List A. through N.; no changes proposed. Comprehensive Plan references in “Purpose” sections of Code need not be addressed, as “Purpose” statements of this type are not construed as regulatory or binding] § 3.3 - Code Amendments D. 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. 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 [Reserved]; § 3.4 - Planned Unit Developments D. Standards for Review. All applications for Planned Unit Developments shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements and review standards set forth below and in Chapter 9, "Planned Unit Developments," and with all other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. Preliminary PUDs. An application for approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan, together with submitted plans and reports, shall be reviewed for conformance with the following standards: a. The PUD shall be consistent with and implement the planning goals, policies and objectives as contained in this Code and in the Comprehensive Plan; § 3.6 – Variances C. Standards for Review. All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth below: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, or this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. § 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 development in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. D. Standards for Review. The recommending and decision-making entities shall review development plan applications and all submitted plans and reports, and evaluate them according to the following standards: 1. The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in this Code; and. 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans.[Reserved] § 3.9 – Subdivisions A. Purposes. The purpose of the subdivision review process is to ensure compliance with the subdivision standards and provisions of this Code, while encouraging quality development in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. § 3.11 Temporary Uses and Structures D. Conditions of Approval. In approving a Temporary Use Permit, the Staff may impose conditions, including but not limited to control of nuisance factors (e.g., glare, noise, smoke, dust), provision of security and safety measures, and limitations on hours of operation, storage and parking, provided that such conditions are necessary to: 1. Achieve the general purposes of this Section and the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the temporary use will be located, or to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; § 3.13 Public Facility/Use Location and Extent Review A. Purpose. This Section implements §30-28-110(1), C.R.S., and is intended to provide an opportunity for review of the location and extent of specified public facilities and uses sought to be constructed or authorized within the Estes Valley, especially as to whether such public use is consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and this Code. D. Standards for Review. The EVPC and Boards shall review the extent and location of the proposed public use for its consistency with the goals, policies and objectives stated in the Comprehensive Plan and for its compliance with this Code. § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts A. List of Districts/Specific Purposes. [List of Residential Districts 1 through 8; no changes proposed. Comprehensive Plan references in “Purpose” sections of Code need not be addressed, as “Purpose” statements of this type are not construed as regulatory or binding.] § 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts A. List of Districts/Specific Purposes. [List of Nonresidential Districts a1 through 3a; no changes proposed. Comprehensive Plan references in “Purpose” sections of Code need not be addressed, as “Purpose” statements are not construed as regulatory or binding.] § 5.3 - TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES C. General Standards. All temporary uses or structures shall meet the following requirements: 1. The proposed temporary use will be located, operated and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of this Code. § 7.4 - PUBLIC TRAILS AND PRIVATE OPEN AREAS C: Locational Criteria. 3. Dedications for trails shall be at locations deemed appropriate by the Decision- Making Body and shall, to the maximum extent feasible, generally be in accord with the trails/bike path element contained in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan or any other subsequently adopted comprehensive hike/bike or open areas plan. § 7.8 - WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION E. Wildlife Habitat Data Base. The following sources shall be used to identify important wildlife habitat areas for purposes of review under this Section: 1. Wildlife Habitat map (dated December 1996), as set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time.[Reserved] § 9.3 - PUD-M, PLANNED MIXED-USE DISTRICT D. Applicable Development Standards. 4. Private Open Areas. (1) The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan;[Reserved] § 10.1 - PURPOSES The purposes of this [Subdivision Standards] Chapter are to: A. Provide for the orderly growth and harmonious development of the Estes Valley in accordance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan [Reserved]; § 10.5 - SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS A. General. No subdivision application shall be approved unless it complies with all of the following standards and criteria: 1. Relationship to Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. In designing and planning subdivisions, consideration shall be given to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The EVPC shall study and review all subdivision plats in relation to the general character of the area, the general requirements of the community and the particular requirements of the neighborhood.[Reserved] D. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails. 1. General. a. To the maximum extent feasible, all sSubdivisions shall provide pedestrian linkages, including trails, to parks, schools, adjacent developments and existing and proposed hike and bike trails as depicted in the Estes Valley Long Range Hike and Bike Trails Plan (found in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan). § 11.3 - OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENTS F. Review Criteria for Approval of Open Space Developments. All open space developments shall comply with all other applicable provisions, as set forth in this Code, and the following review criteria: 1. Site Design. The open space development, compared with a more conventional site development plan, better attains the policies and objectives of this Code and the Comprehensive Plan, such as providing more open areas, preserving existing trees and vegetation coverage, protecting wildlife habitats and preserving sensitive environmental areas such as river/stream corridors, hazard areas, wetlands and steep slopes; § 13.3 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES 10. Administrative Appeals shall mean appeals where it alleged by the appellant that there is error in any order, requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative official or agency based on, or made in the application of, the standards or enforcement of this Code in a specific situation, with limited necessity for reference to general goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 58. Comprehensive Plan shall mean the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, dated December 1996, as amended from time to time.-[Reserved] 228. Street, Arterial shall mean any state or federal numbered highway, any street with a right-of-way width greater than sixty (60) feet, or any other street depicted as a "principal arterial" on the Estes Valley Long Range Transportation Plan (Map 5.10 in the Comprehensive Plan). Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 22, 2018 Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the ESTES PARK TOWN BOARD, LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSION, AND ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 22nd day of February, 2018. Town Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb, Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker County Commission: Chair Johnson and Commissioner Donnelly Planning Commission: Commissioners Doyle, Foster, Hull, Leavitt, Murphree, Schneider, and White Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, County Manager Hoffman, Attorney White, Larimer County Attorney Haag, Community Development Director Hunt, Planner Becker, Code Compliance Officer Hardin, County Planner Whitley and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Commissioner Gaiter and County Planning Director Gilbert Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Jirsa and co-chaired by Larimer County Commissioner Johnson. Mayor Jirsa commented the meeting would outline the expectations of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Commissioner Johnson stated the importance of the Planning Commission’s role within the community and the recommendations to the elected boards. The Planning Commission provides the community with an initial hearing before the elected officials hear a proposed project. The Planning Commission protects the property rights of all parties involved, including the developers, the neighboring property owners, and the community as a whole. He spoke to the importance of a quasi-judicial hearing and the need to review a proposal based on the laws in place at the time, i.e. the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Estes Valley Planning Commission Chair Leavitt commented the Commission would request additional joint study sessions to gain an understanding between the entities. A summary of County Commission and Town Board expectations and role of the Estes Valley Planning Commission was reviewed and comments summarized: 1. Planning Commission members are appointed by the Commissioners and Trustees to serve the entire community. Planning Commission members do not independently represent any constituency. 2. The purposes of the Planning Commission are limited to the following: a. Adopt the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with community goals (including identified strategic goals of the Town and County), with community input representative of all stakeholders, and with resources as available through established budgetary and administrative processes. Joint Town Board Study Session – February 22, 2018 – Page 2 Comments: A discussion was heard on the Planning Commission’s responsibility to administer the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The elected bodies provide the direction and the resources need to complete a Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan should be modernized and would require the three entities to outline goals, processes, etc. The Planning Commission members commented on the fact the citizens view the current Comprehensive Plan as relevant and should be considered when reviewing development proposals. It was reiterated EVDC implemented the Comprehensive Plan and is the law when reviewing development proposals. b. The Comprehensive Plan has been implemented through the adoption of the Land Use Code by the Commissioners and Trustees. Any project or project component which is in compliance with the Land Use Code is considered to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Comments: The Planning Commission commented the EVDC states the Comprehensive Plan must be considered in the review of development proposals. This statement in the code has led to confusion among the Commissioners and the citizens during the application review process. The Town Board and County Commission made a specific finding when adopting the EVDC which found the code in compliance with and meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested the EVDC be amended to clarify the language as it relates to meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should be viewed as an advisory document only with the EVDC as the law to be utilized in the review of a development application. Any development application in compliance with the EVDC is therefore in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. c. Administer the Land Use Code as a neutral, fair and unbiased hearing body. d. Make recommendations to the Commissioners and Trustees on current planning applications. Such recommendations will be included in the application review packet provided to the Commissioners and Trustees for final action along with comments from referral agencies, direct citizen input and the staff recommendation. Comments: The Planning Commission would provide clear reasons for the decision made on future development application recommendations to the Town Board and County Commission. The Planning Commission’s minutes should be detailed and provide an understanding for the recommendations made to the elected bodies. e. Perform work as requested by the Commissioners and Trustees such as studying specific planning issues and making recommendations for Land Use Code changes and undertaking structured efforts to update specific provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to perform work that is not specifically requested by the Commissioners and Trustees. Comments: It was noted the expectations do not clearly outline that Planning Commission reviews changes to the EVDC and makes recommendations to the elected bodies. The Commission also makes final decisions on certain development plan applications. Joint Town Board Study Session – February 22, 2018 – Page 3 3. Planning Commissioners are subject to open meeting and open records laws which mandate: a. Planning Commissioners must not meet privately about Planning Commission decisions, activities, issues, or matters outside of properly noticed public meetings. This prohibition includes all forms of communication: verbal, written, and electronic. This prohibition specifically includes ex parte communications with members of the public on development-review matters. Comments: Planning Commission recognizes the problem and would address the concerns. The EVPC would follow the rules of the Open Meetings law and Open Records law. The Planning Commission’s emails would be made available on the Town’s website. All comments on the agenda would be forwarded to Director Hunt to compile and send out to the entire Commission for review. b. All email related to Planning Commission business is considered public record unless otherwise defined under the Colorado Open Records Act. To ensure compliance and to facilitate any CORA requests received by the Town or the County related to Planning Commission business, all Planning Commission e- mail must be received and sent using the assigned Town of Estes Park email addresses. The use of private accounts is not allowed. Comment: Providing public access to the Commission’s emails ensures transparency. 4. Planning Commissioners are appointees of the Commissioners and Trustees and assume the following responsibilities: a. Conduct hearings, discussions and all other activities associated with their work in a courteous, respectful, and professional manner which includes interactions with the public, the assigned staff, project applicants and fellow commissioners. b. Take timely dispositive action on applications coming before the Commission so as to avoid delaying final consideration of recommendations and action by the Commissioners and Trustees. c. Follow legal advice by counsel for the Town and County. d. Concerns regarding job performance of Staff should not be made in public meetings but privately to the Community Development Director. Mayor Jirsa stated the three bodies would need to work together to outline the financial resources for staff and the Planning Commission, and to provide initial and ongoing training to enable them to fulfill their respective roles. Comments were heard on the need for additional land use training for both the Planning Commission and Town Board. Land use should have a higher priority within the valley. Areas with the greatest potential of conflict should be addressed first. Next steps would include a quarterly meeting. The Planning Commission could bring issues forward to the Larimer County Commissioner’s study sessions. Additional items to be discussed at the next meeting would include the Intergovernmental Agreement, revise the bylaws, and revisions to the EVDC. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: November 13, 2018 RE: Request for Continuance: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to Revise the Definition of “Park and Recreation Facilities.” Staff Request: An amendment is proposed by staff, to revise the definition of “Park and Recreation Facilities” in the Estes Valley Development Code. The specifics of this amendment are still being worked through by staff, and the drafts that have been written are not sufficiently complete for review by the Planning Commission. Community Development staff will work with Town and County staff and legal counsel to draft an amendment for the December Planning Commission meeting. Staff requests the Estes Valley Planning Commission continue the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to Revise the Definition of “Park and Recreation Facilities” to their December 18, 2018 meeting.