Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-12-18 The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Prepared: December 7, 2018 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION December 18, 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: November 13, 2018 Minutes: November 13, 2018 Large Vacation Home: 907 Prospect Park Drive, Jason/Amy Brown, owners Request to go from 4 bedrooms to 5 bedrooms CCO Hardin 5. CODE AMENDMENT, CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN a. Staff recommends a continuance of this item to the January 15, 2019 meeting 6. CODE AMENDMENT, PARK AND RECREATION DEFINITION a. Staff recommends continuance of this item to the January 15, 2019 meeting 7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1551 S. Saint Vrain Avenue, Estes Park Housing Authority, owner a. Staff recommends continuance of this item to the January 15, 2019 meeting 8. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1450 Big Thompson, Quality Inn, Greg Jurgens. owner Proposed 2 story, 2 unit residence with garage and storage on existing motel location Senior Planner Woeber 9. REPORTS 10. ADJOURN Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado November 13, 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, Theis, Murphree, Smith Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Acting Director Machalek, Senior Planner Woeber, Planner II Hathaway, Planner I Becker, Town Board Liaison Norris, Code Compliance Officer Hardin and Recording Secretary Swanlund Absent: White, Schneider Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. There were approximately 6 people in attendance. This study session was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. EVPC By-laws update Planner Becker reviewed by-law amendment changing one word: Start no later than 5:00 rather than the current word end no later than 5:00. This would allow more citizens to attend the meeting. Leavitt’s initial reaction uncertain due to the length of PC meetings. TB and BOCC approval would be needed. A December resolution is what is being requested. Smith, speaking as an active business owner, thinks it would be better to start later, drawing more public attendance, giving them a chance to participate rather than just stream or watch meetings. Implications to staff could be beneficial because the office would be staffed all day, rather than closing at 11:00. Norris suggested trying the later meetings for 6 months to see how it goes. A required meeting motion to extend past a certain time should be put into the by-laws. Issue a public statement/press release to let public know. Ferguson Minor Subdivision Planner Becker reviewed the 2 subdivision plats. Drainage impact on neighboring properties will be asked of the applicant during the PC meeting. Black Canyon Development Plan Planner Becker reviewed the amendment to build a wedding venue and additional accommodations. She discussed the variance that has been applied for. Applicant originally proposed a 3 story accommodation building, but due to neighbor meetings, dropped it down to 2 stories. Parking issues should be kept to their property, not spilling into the adjacent properties. Landscaping is not required on southern boundary. Theis requested to change the order of the meeting agenda, switching Ferguson (item 6), with Black Canyon (item 5). Planning Commission Study Session October 16, 2018 – Page 2 Code Amendment-Office use in RM/Special Review EPNRC Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposed Code Amendment using RM zoning for office space as a Special Review use. Day care is already allowed in churches, which are allowed in RM. Accessory use is defined in the Development Code, chapter 13.3.5. The primary use should be at least 51% of the site, accessory use is a portion of that, either incorporated or detached. Foster expressed concerns of engaging in a pattern of changing Code for a particular, single “relationship”. The main reason for this Code change is due to availability and affordability of office space in Estes Park. The definition of office (in Code) is basically the exclusion of things that are of a retail nature (banks/storefronts). Focus is needed on the effects of office use, not what the office is. SR will allow discussion on issues, and conditions can be added and are subject to code amendment limitations. EPNRC has been located at the Church over one year with no problems. Code Amendment-Parks and Recreation in Residential Districts Planner Woeber reviewed that the purpose of this Code Amendment is to revise the definition of Parks and Recreation. Director Hunt wrote a lengthy report prior to his leaving. The county planning staff determined that it was too complex and submitted a revised definition. After consideration by staff, it was determined that the item should be continued to December to find a solution to this which will require the extension of the moratorium by both elected Boards. What is needed is well thought out proposals to prevent unintended consequences. Norris advised not rushing through this and get input from the community, with consideration of a Special PC meeting with public input just for this subject. First steps are to get both Town and County staff on the same page, and then see if both elected Boards are in agreement. A draft is needed to do it right and keep us on track. Public comment will be allowed at today’s meeting even though the item is being continued. Code Amendment-Consistency with Comp Plan Planner Woeber reviewed the proposal to remove references in the EVDC where there are requirements for consistency with the Comp Plan, which has been problematic and confusing for quite a long time. Development Code is to be used for making land use decisions. The Comp Plan is to be used as a reference. At the February, 2018 meeting between TB, PC, and BOCC, the elected officials expressed a clear wish that the practice of using the Comp Plan as regulation cease and also that the EVDC be amended to remove references that seemed to invoke the Comp Plan as a regulatory document. It was asked in February to clarify the language, not necessarily uncouple it. It could look suspicious to the public if we do this quickly. The Comp Plan can be cited, referenced, used, but not in decision making. Machalek stated how he understands the amendment is that the plan is an advisory document when doing policy versus reviewing specific projects that have been proposed that are in accordance with the development code. He stated that specifics were needed from the PC in terms of what they wanted changed or brought back for review. Reducing the level of confusion is time well spent. White noted that the Comp Plan, not the EVDC, is used as regulatory document for opposing a project every time a development plan is approved. The elected officials want this continuing confusion solved, sooner rather than later, alluding that the EVDC takes priority over the Comp Plan. It was noted that this proposal has very little relation with the EVCPAC. Planning Commission Study Session November 13, 2018 – Page 3 EVCPAC18 Update: Town Liaison Norris recapped what the Committee was asked to do: write table of contents, draft an RFP for consultants to bid on, and provide recommendations of stakeholder groups. Drafts for all of three are in the process of getting comments from members of the task force and other members of the public. The original intent was to present and discuss this before the end of the year. He suggested, however, to leave them out for comment through the end of year and not process anything until the new County Commissioner has been seated and Director Hunt is back. Lunch break from 12:10-12:25 Location and Extent review Attorney White explained the topic, which was raised from Mountain Coaster project. Put simply, governments equal in status can’t control other governments. This is also know as Doctrine of Comity, which is adopted by Colorado Legislature. It does not involve private property. The Mountain Coaster is not a public park, it is a park and rec facility. Reports Acting Director Machalek discussed issues with how the density bonus interacts with Code, stating that consultants Ayers and Associates are working on the density calculation modifications. The new sign for neighborhood meetings, which is now required for any public hearing projects, was displayed. There will be TB study session on roundabouts on January 8, PC is invited to attend this meeting. Public Works is in constant contact with CDOT, which does have an Oversight Board but unsure if there is an appeal process. Greg Muhonen could give the PC an overview of the relationship with CDOT at some point in time. Investigate if the Colorado Municipal League (CML) or Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST-tourism-based economies) have any efforts afoot with regard appeals to CDOT. Vacation Homes Discussion See attached sheet regarding Code Changes. Discussion included the following topics: 1) 90 days to complete application, extension granted by staff. 2) Use it or lose it, sign affidavit on renewal. All correspondence will be electronic moving forward so there will be no hard signature. Disclosure stating they acknowledge and agree to terms. This would apply to 2020 renewals, residential properties only. 3) Bear resistant trash containers required, which is already in Larimer County and Municipal code. Enforcement is an issue. This is to be effective immediately. 4) Neighbor notifications only when license is originally issued. 5) Publish a list online (updated daily once Laserfishe is in effect). 6) Amount of cars regarding large vacation homes should equal number of bedrooms, no maximum needed as long as it is not illegal (or a nuisance). 7) April review of the cap and waiting list to see if there are any VH that can be dropped. 8) Review the definition of ADU to distinguish from rooms for rent and short term rentals. Hold off from VH context. Clerk would like a clear definition due to numerous calls they receive. Revisit this in the December meeting: what is allowed and what is not. 9) Notice of fire restrictions and ways to inform renters: Town Clerk or CCO or PIO.. Jackie Williamson stated the need for a better definition in Code that the property owner of record is the only one who can apply for a VH, and the fact that the license runs with property needs to be made clearer. Planning Commission Study Session October 16, 2018 – Page 4 Future Study Session Items Parks and Recreation use Consistency with Comp Plan CDOT ADU’s related to vacation homes. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 1:22 p.m. _____________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Vacation Rental Code Change Topics Some of the following items may be handled with administrative procedures rather than code changes. 1. Requiring a VR application to be completed in a certain amount of time after the initial filing of the application. Ninety days is suggested, from the day the packet is sent. 2. 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. Two weeks of rentals during the course of the year is suggested. Applicants would sign an affidavit at license renewal time stating that they had rented the property the required number of days. Additional evidence of having done the rentals could be requested if there is any question. 3. Require bear resistant trash containers. Add to EVDC to be consistent with Town of Estes Municipal Code (Wildlife Ordinance). This needs to be in the code so that it can be enforced in the Estes Valley outside of town as well as in town. Information will be placed in the applicant’s packets. Should be consistent with Municipal Code and County Wildlife Ordinance. 4. Mail VR notices to adjacent properties when a license or permit is initially issued on an annual basis and whenever ownership or local contact changes as required in EVDC 5.1.d.5.b. Revise code to match this practice. 5. Publish a list of licensed/permitted VRs online. The list would be updated quarterly. This will be done by the Clerk’s Office. 6. Set a minimum number of parking spaces for large VRs based on the number of bedrooms. 7. Prior to the annual review of the vacation rental cap Community Development will review the list of registrations in progress to see if any can be dropped. Those on the waiting list will be reviewed by the Clerk’s Office to see if any can be dropped. CD will adjust these lists to reflect the revised data. 8. Revise the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit to clearly differentiate ADU’s from rooms for rent and short term rentals. Strictly enforce EVDC 5.1.h which prohibits an Accessory Dwelling Unit from being used as a short term rental. 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. This is an administrative process – no code change. Need to determine which area has responsibility for this task. Topics Removed From List 1. Allowing additional large VR’s by conversion of existing VR licenses/permits to large VR. (Wind Cliff problem will be solved by reestablishing the PUD). 2. Publish the VR complaint phone number online (Host Compliance). This is already being done. 3. 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. Strict enforcement is the current policy. A notice is sent as part of the initial packet for new licensees and permit holders. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners, Foster, Murphree. Smith and Theis Also Attending: Acting Director Travis Machalek, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Planner I Robin Becker, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Commissioners Schneider, White Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in attendance. 1.OPEN MEETING Planning Commission/Staff Introductions. 2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to change item 6 (Ferguson) with item 5 (Black Canyon) on the agenda as presented and the motion passed 5-0. 3.Public Comment: Tom Gootz, 2855 Grey Fox Drive, Chapter 4, Table 4.1 has been intercepted/distributed to many people, and the dramatic proposals for residential areas are wrong for Estes Park. He asked that the PC take them seriously. 4.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of the October 16, 2018 Study Session Minutes. Approval of the October 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Approval of the October 30, 2018 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Smith) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 5-0. 5.MINOR SUBDIVISION, FERGUSON TOWNHOMES 3 AND 4 1581, 1583, 1587, 1589 Mary’s Lake Road Commissioner Theis recused himself and took a seat in the audience. Planner Becker reviewed the Minor Subdivision proposing the creation of two townhome subdivisions. Each would consist of two townhome lots, two out-lots and a townhome 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall building. Staff recommended approval of proposed Preliminary Townhome Subdivisions with the following conditions: 1)Detailed grading and drainage plan for both shall be submitted with the Final Plat applications. 2)Shared drainage and maintenance easements between Ferguson Townhome 3 and 4 shall be shown on the Preliminary and Final Plats. 3)A Road Maintenance Agreement shall be submitted with Final Plat applications. Commission/Staff Discussion: None Applicant Discussion: Seth Hanson, applicant, stated that he has previously done a similar project, approved by the PC. The townhomes are under construction, and the goal is to sell them individually rather than have one ownership. The county engineer requires a detention basin, thus the conditions of approval. The downhill neighbors are not impacted by the development drainage. Public Comment: Trudy Ester, 1070 Griffith Court, explained the massive concrete “lego” blocks that were installed to address the drainage from the applicant’s first project. She has spent thousands of dollars on landscaping to cover them up. She showed the PC photos, requesting that the applicant finish the first project before being allowed to do another. Applicant: Hanson noted that what Ms. Ester was referring to was a completely separate property and project. He did not want the concrete wall, however it was required of him by County Engineers at that height, with that material. He was not allowed to have any water drain onto her property including historical flow. He confirmed that Conditional Items 2 and 3 have been satisfied, item 1 is waiting for approval from the County Engineer. Commission Comments/Questions: None It was moved and seconded (Foster/Smith) to approve the Ferguson 3 and 4 Preliminary Townhome Subdivision according to findings of fact, including findings and conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed 4-0. 6.DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, BLACK CANYON INN 800 MacGregor Avenue Planner Becker reviewed the proposal of a 150 seat wedding venue, a motel-style accommodations building and 8 condo-style accommodation units. A variance is scheduled for review by the Board of Adjustment on December 4. Staff recommended approval of the 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Development Plan with the condition that the applicant receives the variance. Commission/Staff Discussion: Theis clarified that the PC was being asked to review this project prior to the variance on the size of the building. Attorney White explained that there is no code requirement for percentage of accessory use to overall use. If the Board of Adjustment doesn’t grant the variance, a new development plan will be required. Applicant Discussion: Justin Spodek, applicant, spoke on the process of the plan, remarking that the business is driven by hospitality, and because of that they have proceeded with empathy and consideration. They been in close contact with neighbors and generously agreed to remove the entire 3rd floor of the proposed accommodations building. The wedding venue is being built down slope and facing north to mitigate noise for neighbors. Outdoor Deck and patio space will be used as intermittent space between the ceremony and the reception. The upper level will be where ceremonies will be held, ground level will be for receptions and after parties. Hours of operation have not been decided. The wedding venue will be rented out to non-staying guests as well as paying overnight guests. If parking were to become a problem, a shuttle service would be used, which would be an acceptable condition for the PC to add to the proposal. Theis suggested developing an overflow parking plan. Steve Lane, Bas1s Architecture, presented slides on the proposal showing the layout and location of the venue. In regard to the variance request, Chapter 5 of the Development Code states that a banquet hall is allowed as accessory use and buildings can be detached in this (A) zoning district. Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering, discussed traffic flows and impact. Delich and Associates did the traffic analysis study. There will be an ‘emergency access only’ drive on the south exit, sharing an easement with the Stanley Hotel property. There is an overflow parking area already constructed at the south entrance to the property. This area cannot be paved due to stormwater considerations. Public Comment: Anna Claassen, 370 Homesteader Lane, thanked the developers for their excellent communication and willingness to work with neighbors. She expressed concerns with vehicle noise and lights from the parking lot on properties to the south and east. The owners are open to a berm and landscaping, and she requested that the landscaping be irrigated for 3 years to ensure it does not die. JR Davis, 375 Prospector Lane, agreed with Claassen’s comments and concerns. He suggested that the commitments and proposals by the neighbors be put in writing. Applicant Response: Reetz explained the 4 foot retaining wall being proposed on the eastern edge of the parking 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall lot. It is approximately 10 feet off the property line, with a berm and landscaping behind, which should block headlights. Landscaping code requires 8 trees and 11 shrubs per 100 feet of linear property line. There is the possibility of adding a split-rail fence to keep people from trespassing. Theis mentioned that a solid fence or wall would block noise and light better than landscaping alone. The applicant is open to continued work with neighbors on the concerns of noise and lights. Lane asked why the 1,000 sq. foot variance mechanism didn’t go before the BOA for previous, more recent projects. White answered that the PC can grant a modification up to 25%. Machalek answered that the planning staff did a search of previous variances and determined that it was overlooked in the past, but that doesn’t mean we can overlook it now when we know it is a requirement. Commissioner Discussion: All agreed that this is a well done project, complementing the applicants on the way they followed the rules and terms of communication with the community and neighbors. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Foster) to approve the Black Canyon Wedding Venue Development Plan with the condition of a Parking Plan for overflow parking, and according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. The motion passed 5-0. 10 minute break from 2:55-3:05 7.CODE AMENDMENT, ALLOW OFFICE USE IN RM- ZONING Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): §5.2 Table 5.1 and EVDC §5.2.B.2.i Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal to amend EVDC Accessory Uses permitted in Residential Districts and additional requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures permitted in Residential Zoning Districts. Staff recommended approval of the language in “Exhibit A” stating that this text amendment is in response to a shortage of adequate and affordable office space for small businesses and non-profit agencies. Commission/Staff Discussion: None Public Comment: None Applicant Discussion: Laurie Dale Marshall, Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center (EPNRC) Director, read a letter giving the history of EPNRC and the reason for the proposed Code Amendment and Special Review. She noted that the EPNRC office space is budgeted at $1,000/month and in her search she found two spaces in that price range with most office rentals being between 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall $1200-$1750/month and not large enough. Affordable office space is hard for all nonprofits in the Estes Valley. The additional, but not exclusive, access within the church makes the space more desirable. Michael Moore, Pastor of the Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies, stated that as a church, they are not allowed to profit from use of space. The church is able to partner with and recoup costs with a nonprofit making it a win/win situation. Commission Comments: Commissioner Murphree thanked the pastor for his allowance of the use of the church by the community. Leavitt and Foster expressed concern that this will open up RM zoned area to excessive office use but felt comfortable with the restrictions and the S2 process. The temporary use permit is only available for one year, and this Code Amendment is the only way, per Code, to allow this type of office use. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Leavitt) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners of the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, finding that the amendment is in accord with Section 3.3 of the EVDC. The motion passed 5-0. 8.SPECIAL REVIEW, ESTES PARK NONPROFIT RECOURSE CENTER, OFFICE USE IN RM-MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 1700 BRODIE AVENUE Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal of the Special Review Use (S2) to permit an accessory office use within the RM-Residential Multi-Family zoning district at the PCCR. Staff recommended approval of the S2 Special Review with findings and conditions as stated. Commission/Staff Discussion: Highest amount of square feet the EPNRC could go up to at this location is 1400, from the current 800. This is a good reciprocal use for the church and EPNRC. Public Comment: None It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Murphree) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees the Special Review Use proposal, including findings and conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0. 9.CODE AMENDMENT, CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Amendment to the EVDC to remove inappropriate regulatory cross-references between the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. Planner Woeber reviewed the request. The 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 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall appropriate status as a visioning and goal setting document. Commission/Staff Discussion: Foster asked what the Comprehensive Plan’s role is in future changes to the EVDC. Removing the Comprehensive Plan from Development Proposals is a terrible mistake. PC should have a clear understanding of what the effect of these amendments would be to the Development Code. Leavitt mentioned the unintended consequences and need for a thorough review before taking any action. PC has had short time to review and digest this amendment and the public needs time to look at it. White noted that the State mandates that we have a Comprehensive Plan, and State Statutes require Municipalities adopt it. PC is not required to use Comprehensive Plan as criteria for making approvals by State Statute. One of the main problems is the use of the terms shall be consistent and compatible. Many aspects of the Comprehensive Plan can be used for or against in the justification process. One of the main concerns is with regard to Development Plan approval with use of the Comprehensive Plan (density, height, land use, etc.) to make sure those boxes are checked. This is not just removing the linkage between the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, it is clarifying how, where, and when. This subject needs more discussion and review. Trustee Norris recalled that the concerns and issues of the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners almost exclusively related to Development Plans. There is value in using the Comprehensive Plan for zoning and general Valley-wide development. The 1999 plan is still what needs to be used to bridge the two subjects. Public Comment: Fred Barber, 2190 Devils Gulch Road, provided written comments to the PC and staff regarding the proposal, and asked that they be entered into the record (attached). He spoke on keeping the current wording and not updating the Code, which is applicable under the law. Jay Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive, remarked that the PC is the citizen’s voice for the Estes Valley. He referenced recent Code Amendments, stating that this Code Amendment would be detrimental to the community and requested approval only with careful analysis and citizen input. Kevin Conrad, 2240 Arapahoe Road, commended the PC on the thoughtful deliberation they are putting into the current Code Amendments, warning of the serious consequences. Decoupling requires the need of a mechanism to incorporate the concepts of the Comprehensive Plan into enforceable code. He encouraged the PC to go slowly down this road and find a way to make individual decisions on developments. Commission Comments: Foster would like more time and a better solution on this subject. Machalek stated that he understands what the PC is looking for: clarity on what the Comprehensive Plan can and should be used for regarding Code Amendments and the need to take a more surgical approach in extracting the Comprehensive Plan from the Development Code. Theis believes that zoning and land use decisions need to be left connected to the Comprehensive Plan. There is no rush in approving this Code Amendment. Updating the current plan to roll 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall into the new plan is necessary. Directive from elected boards is needed on how the Comprehensive Plan relates to zoning and code amendments. It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Theis) to continue the amendment as stated in Exhibit A to the December 18 PC meeting. Reasons given were: more time needed to review and discuss the issues raised; no time constraints; the need to retain some connection between Comprehensive Plan and Development Code in code changes and zoning; need for public input. The motion passed 5-0. 10. CODE AMENDMENT, PARK AND RECREATION DEFINITION Planner Woeber requested a continuance of the proposed Amendment to the EVDC to revise the definition of Park and Recreation Facilities to the December 18 PC meeting due to the current drafts not being sufficiently complete for the PC to review. A continuance of the moratorium will be needed due to this continuance. Public Comment: Fred Barber, 2190 Devils Gulch Road, provided written comments to the PC and staff. He requested that they be entered into the record (attached). He suggested vacating the moratorium and rolling back the wording on the Code Change on an interim basis which will take away the “time frame schedule”. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Theis) to continue the Park and Recreation Code Amendment to the December 18, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed 5-0. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m. Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: December 18, 2018 RE: Request for Continuance: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to Revise Sections of the Code Requiring Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Staff Request: An amendment is proposed by staff, to revise sections of the Code requiring consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The draft that has been proposed is not sufficiently complete for review by the Planning Commission. Community Development staff will continue working to draft an amendment for the January Planning Commission meeting. Staff requests the Estes Valley Planning Commission continue the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to revise Sections of the Code requiring consistency with the Comprehensive Plan to their January 15, 2019 meeting. Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: December 18, 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 January 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 January 15, 2019 meeting. Page 1 of 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Robin Becker, Planner I Date: December 18, 2018 RE: Request for Continuance: Development Plan Peak View Apartments located at 1551 S. Saint Vrain. Staff Request: Staff requests the Estes Valley Planning Commission continue the Peak View Apartments Development Plan to the January 15th 2019 meeting. Public Works and the applicant are working on addressing comments for this project. LAKEFRONT STRAVEN CIRBIG THOMPSON AVE G R A N D E S T A T E S D R RAVEN AVE LAKEFRONT STBIG THOMPSON AVERAVEN CIRBIG THOMPSON AVE GRANDESTATES D R RAVEN CIR GRANDESTATESDRLAKEFRONTSTRAVEN CIR BIGTHOMPSONAVE G R A N D E S T A T E S D R RAVEN AVE GRANDESTATESDRLAKEFRONT STRAVENCIRBIG THOMPSON AVE BIG THOMPSON AVE LONE PINE DRLAKEFRONT STBIG THOMPSON AVE RAVEN AVE 0 75 150Feet -Town of Estes Par kCommunity Development Printed: 12/12/2018Created By: Jeff Woeber Project Name: Project Description: Quality Inn Development Plan(Fr om Town GIS, 2017 Aerial Photo) SITELOCATION October 17, 2018 (rev. 11/27/2018) Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Co. 80517 RE: “Quality Inn Managers Quarters” Statement of Intent Dear Mr. Hunt: Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) on behalf of Mr. Gregg Jurgens, president of Caribou Chalet’s Inc., are pleased to submit plans and correspondence for the “Quality Inn Managers Quarters” development plan located at 1450 Big Thompson Avenue. Every effort has been made to ensure the application meets the guidelines and criteria stated within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). EXISTING CONDITIONS Currently Lot 30A is developed with the Quality Inn of Estes Park lodging, swimming pool and associated parking. Lot size for lot 30A is presently 182,341± square feet. The property is currently at 53.4% lot coverage with the proposed development adding 1.5% of additional coverage. PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PLAN A previous development plan was reviewed and approved in 2014 to remove and replace some of the accommodation buildings. No action was taken on part of that plan and the plan has exceeded the vesting period so the previous development plan is voided. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development will add a managers quarters consisting of two (2) units. The structure will be two- floors with residences being upstairs and the lower floor will contain a garage and storage used by the hotel. Utility mains are located near the proposed development with no main extensions required. ACCESS There are two access points to the subject property, an access off Lakefront Street and the main entrance off State Highway No. 34. No improvements are proposed to the existing accesses. B-40R turn templates are shown on the development plan to approximatley represent truck turning movements within the property. UTILITIES Sewer An existing sewer main is located west of the proposed development with the proposed structure connecting to an existing manhole. Water A 12” water main is located along the southerly property line. A 3/4" water service will connect directly to the main. Electric Overhead power is located along the southerly property line with a pole mounted transformer being proposed at an existing power pole. Electric service will be buried. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jes Reetz Planner