Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-06-19The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Prepared: June 13, 2018 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION June 19, 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 Minutes: April 10, 2018 5. LARGE VACATION HOME: 3153 Fish Creek Road Code Compliance Officer Hardin Owners William and Linda Warne, 4 Bedroom, 10 person occupancy 6. CODE AMENDMENT : Vacation Rentals CCO Hardin 7. CODE AMENDMENT: Special Review Cultural Institutions, Stanley Historic Home Director Hunt 8. 1041 SOUTH SAINT VRAIN AVENUE Wind River Development Plan Senior Planner Woeber 9. REPORTS A. Staff-Level Reviews B. Pre Application Reviews C. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment D. Estes Park Town Board/Annexations E. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners F. Community Development Update G. Vacation Home Update H. Other 10. ADJOURN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Schneider, Foster, and Baker Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Planner I Robin Becker, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve Murphree Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 60 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the agenda, striking Item 4b, Large Vacation Home, as presented and the motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT None 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of April 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Large Vacation Home-REMOVED It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 4-0 with Foster abstaining. 4. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 557 Landers Street. 4-bedroom, 10-person occupancy. Owner: Linda Small Code Compliance Office Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .56-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size, there is also a 10 foot setback on the west side which causes no concern to neighboring properties. There have been no public comments received. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to approve the vacation home at 557 Landers Street and to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants. The motion passed 5-0. 5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 1091 Marys Lake Road: 4-bedroom, 10- person occupancy. Owner: Bruce Stotts and Blaine Moats CCO Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .69-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size. Setback on one side is 9 feet, which is less than the 25-foot requirement. There have been no public comments received. It was moved and seconded (Baker/White) to approve the vacation home at 1091 Marys Lake Road and to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants. The motion passed 5-0. 6. REZONE PROPERTY AT 920 DUNRAVEN FROM CH-COMMERCIAL HEAVY TO CO- COMMERICAL OUTLYING. Planner Becker read the proposal to rezone the entire lot to CO. The purpose is to build a microbrewery/tasting room. The existing building has 2700 square feet of which 1200 is basement. The existing building would require little modification and no additional buildings would be needed. The microbrewery is envisioned to be a 5 bbl. brew system and the tasting room would occupy approximately 2000 sf. of indoor and outdoor seating area. Staff recommended approval of the proposed zoning change. Committee and Staff Question: The proposed 19 parking spaces are surrounding the property. Baker asked what the changing conditions for this rezone were. Director Hunt answered that when the EVDC was written in 2000 microbreweries were not on the radar and microbreweries are not allowed in CH zones, thus the need for either a Code Amendment to add CH or rezone to CO. This property is adjacent to existing CO and the area is transitional to CO. Leavitt and White noted that the applicants Statement of Intent was very valuable and served its purpose of clarifying what the plans are. Public Comment: None It was moved and seconded (Baker/Schneider) to approve the Zoning Map Amendment request from CH to CO to the Town Board of Trustees according to findings of fact with findings recommended by staff and taking in to account the further clarification of the town policy to accommodate the growth of microbreweries. The motion passed 5-0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 Baker comment for the record: Future similar motions should take the requirement for changing conditions more seriously. 7. REZONE TBD STANLEY AVENUE FROM E-ESTATE TO RM-RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY. Planner Becker stated that the area to be rezoned is comprised of one lot totaling 0.07 acres and is currently owned by the Town of Estes Park. The existing zoning of the property is E. This lot is for a retention pond, not additional housing. The adjacent 0.50 acre lot to the south is owned by Mike and Cindy Kingswood and is zoned RM. There is currently an existing single family house on the property. Staff recommended approval of the proposed zoning change. Director Hunt reviewed how rezoning is a discretionary legislative matter and different from development plans which are ministerial and not discretionary. The Comprehensive Plan is an appropriate criterion in discretionary reviews, such as rezonings. Staff and Commission comment: This lot will be used for a retention pond, not additional housing. The plan is well buffered from other zoning in the neighborhood. Applicant comment: None It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to approve the Zoning Map Amendment request from E to RM to the Town Board of Trustees according to findings of fact with findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0. 8. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF DANNY WEST PRELIMIMARY MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT . Becker reported that the proposal entails creating two legal lots from the existing one undeveloped lot. The resulting lots will be approximately .68 and .68 acres in size, with residential use and access from Stanley Circle Drive. The proposed lots meet the E- Estate minimum lot size. There were no written public comments received. Adequate public facilities are available. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat. Staff and Commission Discussion None Applicant Discussion None RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Foster) to recommend approval of the Danny West Minor Subdivision Plat to the Town Board of Trustees according to findings of fact, including findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-0. 9. REZONE 700 N SAINT VRAIN AVENUE FROM A-ACCOMMODATIONS AND R-2- RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY TO A-ACCOMMODATIONS AND RM-RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY Planner Woeber summarized the applicant proposal to continue using the motel in its current location. The A-zoned portion of the property would be reconfigured with a replat and decreased, from 4.6 to 2.16 acres. A portion of the property now zoned A, along with the portion currently zoned R-2 would be rezoned to RM. This would be 4.57 acres. Applicant intends to develop the RM property with a multi-family project. Details of the project are in the planning stages. The rezoning has been submitted with an Amended Plat, which reconfigures the two existing lots. Staff emphasizes the plat amendment is not subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission; it goes only to the Town Board. There are no outstanding concerns or comments from reviewing agency staff. Written comments have been reviewed and are posted to the Town Website at www.estes.org/currentapplications. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, with the following comment: Staff has some reservations regarding the proposed RM zoned site, where safe and adequate access to a multi-family development would require careful planning. Staff and Commission discussion: Schneider questioned the lack of a submitted Development Plan. Leavitt asked how it is that zoning doesn’t follow lot lines. Hunt stated that Split Zoning on a lot is not best planning practice, however there are times it does show up. Applicant Discussion Paul Brown, Concept Design Build, reviewed the history of neighborhood, motel and zoning of the Little Prospect Sub Division. The current owner’s vision is to create a Boundary Line Adjustment and a work force housing development. Daniel Chung, owner’s son, gave background information on his family, community ties and the purchase of two motels in Estes Park. Lonnie Shelton, Van Horn Engineering, cited how many zoning districts this property has been over the years. He stated that a Preliminary Concept Sketch Plan was submitted in November to get information on what would be needed from affected agencies. This process of “testing the water” makes sense from a cost perspective. The Development Plan will come later if the rezone is approved. Utilities show sewer, water and power are all adequately available based on an arbitrary 70 unit development. Public W orks recommended additional right of way and drainage easements. Paul Brown gave 8 responses to the Neighborhood letter received: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 1) Code Requirements in Section 7.5.F.2.a.3.c mandate buffering in addition to the existing landscaping and road separation. 2) Waiting for Comprehensive Plan review is not necessary according to the Planners expert opinion. This lot is a prime location for RM zoning. 3) Each rezone application is a case by case submittal. Since 2017, RM is the only zoning district for increased density and height allotment. 2% of land in the Estes Valley is zoned RM. This location makes practical sense given the size and location. 4) The Development Plan requirement was waived by the Community Development Director. 5) Most of the 22 RM uses are by Special Review which would require a public hearing process. 6) The two most likely uses for this property after the rezone are development or sale for development. 7) Safety items will have to be addressed with the forthcoming development plan, including traffic, parking, pedestrians, bicycles and intersection safety. 8) Proper buffering and a well-designed Development Plan will minimize impact on the neighbors. Commission Comment: Leavitt noted that this was the first time the Planning Commission has heard or seen anything about the Preliminary Concept Development Plan. Hunt responded that it was submitted under the Preapplication process, not the Application process therefore not made public. Paul Brown answered the questions raised by commissioners that neighbors have not been met with, but it would be in best practice to meet with them and all town folk at some point, here will be a traffic study if requested and that the safest access entrance would be off of Stanley Avenue, not Stanley Circle. Public Comment: Peggy West, Richard Mulhern, Don Silar, Kreg Leymaster, Bob Ernst, Patty Bartlett/Stanley Circle residents, all spoke in opposition to the rezone, stating the following concerns and suggestions: History of a neighborhood agreement; departure from original property owners plans; affected property values; lack of long term planning; assurance that R2 is the buffer zone between A and E; RM comes with 22 possible uses; 7 of which are highly possible, mainly multi-family; improper to waive a development plan; rezoning would drastically change the character of the neighborhood; 80+ households are affected; traffic impacts; and a request to place rezoning on hold for 5 years in order to update the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. Applicant Discussion: Lonnie Shelton rebutted the public comments stating that the Planning Staff recommended this and reiterated the expense of providing a full Development Plan prior to approval of a rezone. Many of the 22 uses would be by Special Review. Traffic impact studies look at number of trips, not number of cars to determine use. There are six things we can agree on: rezone is logical next step for this property in creating potential affordable or attainable RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 6 housing close to down town; the parcel is one of the few vacant parcels close to town and can provide needed housing; the town needs affordable housing; adequate utilities are present, and things could be done to make traffic and drainage better; support for rezoning by the Planning Department and this Commission allows team to move forward to design something in an RM zone which would come back to this Commission and involve a public meeting; the Planning Commission is the proper approval authority. Staff and Commission Discussion: Foster commented on the number of projects on RM/workforce housing since last July, noting that neighbors have uniformly opposed them, emphasizing the large juxtaposition between neighbors and town concerns and will be voting against the rezone, despite it having some potential benefit to the town. The only way to allocate rezoning to RM is to do it comprehensively and fairly, not on a first come first serve basis. Spot zoning is being done on an ad hoc basis. Buffer zones in the Comp Plan are consistent between single family and higher density, with higher density use having a disadvantageous effect on neighborhoods. Schneider echoed Fosters comments, and questioned what alternatives have been considered besides rezoning. While he supports need for additional housing, his concern is the unintended consequences impacting 80 households, with traffic increase and safety concerns and would like to see development plan prior to approving a rezone of this size. White quoted from Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan section, 5.1: encourage of a variety of housing types and price ranges, stating that she believes there is a market for duplexes. Section 5.3: establish a balanced program to encourage R2 zone development, stating that visual buffering is required with R2 Zoning and ending with the comment that RM is not appropriate here and she cannot support a change to RM. Baker noted that public comment is hard to ignore. The context is insufficiently formulated in the comp plan to be a factor in consideration. The potential impact is too great, with a possible 500% density increase, he declared that he can’t see changing code without any development plan with that high of an increase and we need to vote no. Leavitt mentioned Chapter 6, 5.2 in the Comp Plan does state that this neighborhood is required to have a visual buffer zone, and commercial property should not be extended, arguing that RM is borderline to CO zoning. RM is not a good fit for this property, R2 is. A Statement of Intent would have helped the process. We don’t have any good guidelines for what to do with upzoning at this point. He would like the applicants to see what can be done with R2 zoning as this is a good transition zone into the neighborhood. The property rights of the 80+ residents in the area need to be taken into account, adding that with the other two recently approved projects close to this property, traffic and safety is also a concern. It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to deny the 700 N Saint Vrain Avenue Zoning Map Amendment application finding that it is incompatible with Chapter 6, 5.1, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 7 5.2 of the Comprehensive Plan and FC5* requiring future developments provide a visual buffering between adjacent residential uses, it represents spot zoning at a time we haven’t done a comprehensive plan review of RM zoning, negative impacts of significant density increase of nearly 500 % does not justify the rezoning for purpose of affordable housing. The motion passed 5-0 to deny the rezone. There was a 5 minute break at 3:39pm, meeting resumed at 3:44 11: SPECIAL REVIEW: EAGLE ROCK SCHOOL, ALLOWING A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL IN AN RE-1, RURUAL ESTATE ZONING DISTRICT Planner Woeber described the Special Review criteria and the history behind it. The applicant is proposing expansion of facility primarily to begin establishing more faculty/staff housing. Staff recommended the school and related facilities be allowed as an approved Special Review use, as well as allowing for planned expansions and upgrades in the future. Special Review would allow the use within the identified 140-acre school area. Staff and Commission comments: Baker asked if all future projects would be covered by this special review or would it come back to the Planning Commission at some point. Woeber answered that it would be at the Community Development Director’s discretion, depending on the scope of the project. Hunt added that minor additions would not, but anything that increases the intensity of use would trigger a future Special Review, with a fairly low threshold by which it would be brought before the Commission. Applicant Discussion: Cole Gaylor, MIG Consultants, described the need for this Special Review, stating that there are 14 families on staff at Eagle Rock and the intent is to offer housing and reduce commutes for the employees in this 5-10 year plan. Jeff Liddle, Head of School, reviewed the functional and practical reasons. Eagle Rock is a boarding school and has been understaffed for 20 years due to their need for 24/7 staffing. Intention is to satisfy needs and hire and retain staff. Funding has been secured to build a triplex this summer. Public comment: None Staff and commission discussion: It was noted that Eagle Rock has excellent track record It was moved and seconded (Baker/White) to approve the Special Review Use for a Non-Public School to the Board of Larimer County Commissioners with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 8 findings and conditions of approval as recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-0. 12: WIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Staff recommended continuance to June 19, 2018 to resolve issues for applicant and staff. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Baker/Foster) to continue the Wind River Development Plan to June 19, 2018 and the motion passed 5-0. Baker asked for the following comment be on record: The practice of automatically waiving a Development Plan in association with a zoning request has proven problematic and should be on case by case basis as opposed to a standard practice. 13: REPORTS Introduction of new staff member Brittany Hathaway, Planner II, from Houston area. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary *reference FC5 should be 5.3 per motion by Sharry White COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Brittany Hathaway – Planner II Date: June 19, 2018 RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Estes Valley Development Code: EVDC §13.2.C.15 (Definitions) and EVDC § 4.3 Table 4-1: Permitted Uses in 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 Section §13.2.C.15 (Definitions) to amend the definition and term “Cultural Institutions” regarding removal of the uses “art galleries” and “libraries”; and 2) Revise Table 4-1 (Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts) to extend Special Review Use (S2) in residential zoning districts to allow for review and approval procedures for Cultural Institutions. Code Amendment Objectives: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to do the following: • Eliminate “art galleries” and “libraries” from the definition of “Cultural Institution”. The use of art gallery is duplicated under “Retail Establishments”, and the use of library is duplicated under “Government Facilities”. • Provide for a Special Review Use (S2) for Cultural Institutions, to allow for non- profit institutions that educate, display, or preserve objects of interest in residential zoning districts. Proposal: Amend EVDC Section §13.2.C.15 as stated in Exhibit A, attached. Amend EVDC Section §4.3 Table 4-1: Permitted Uses in Residential Zoning Districts as stated in Exhibit B, attached. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Planning Commission, June 19, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Discussion: This text amendment is in response to a desired effort to help preserve historically significant properties traditionally located in residential zoning districts. Background: In 2014, 415 West Wonderview Avenue, the original home of F.O. and Flora Stanley, was relisted for sale. Currently, this home is not included on a historic register and thus not under protection for preservation. If sold privately, the house could be renovated and the property subdivided to allow new single-family construction along Wonderview Avenue. Recognizing the aforementioned possibility, The Historic Stanley Home Foundation, a Colorado non-profit corporation, was formed in 2016 seeking to acquire the home for preservation and operation as a museum for local history education. Funding such a venture requires the ability to operate tours and other ancillary museum activities, such as a gift shop. This use of a museum is currently prohibited in all residential zoning districts. This request would be to allow Cultural Institutions in residential zoning districts with a Special Review Use procedure. The Special Review provision would ensure the ability to conduct public outreach and comment, place conditions on a proposed institution to ensure minimal impact to surrounding homes, and promote conservation efforts for Estes Park’s most historical sites. In conjunction, a revision to Section §13.2.C.15 (Definitions) is requested to remove the use of “art galleries” and “libraries” from the definition of “Cultural Institution”. Reasoning is two-fold. First, the use of art gallery is already included under “Retail Establishments” and the use of library is already included under “Government Facilities”, thus is redundant. Additionally, eliminating the use of art galleries and libraries from the definition of “Cultural Institution” ensures only the inclusion of non- profit institutions that display or preserve objects of interest, such as museums. 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:” Planning Commission, June 19, 2018 Page 3 of 5 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected;” Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions of which include the potential sale and subsequent effort to preserve and provide historical education opportunities at one of Estes Park’s historic sites. A specific change in condition is the potential sale of the F.O. Stanley Historic Home to a non-profit group for preservation and to operate as a local educational museum. In addition to the Stanley Historic Home, the amendment will prove to be useful when, and if, other historic structures or properties in residential zoning districts should be deemed worthy of preservation as museums. 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: • 7.0 Economics: Policy 7.3 – “To sustain and support existing tourism industry and marketing programs.” • The site is located within Planning Area 6 – Fall River Road, of which specifically mentions Stanley’s original home as a historically significant site. The assumption would be to preserve this parcel due to its historic significance. By allowing a Special Review Use, the proposed development plan would apply a conservation easement across the entire parcel to ensure conservation and minimal impact to surrounding uses. 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: Planning Commission, June 19, 2018 Page 4 of 5 • Removes a repetitive use term in the definition section of the EVDC and provides special review use consideration for cultural institution uses, with the specific advantage of preserving historic sites. Disadvantages: • Potential traffic impact depending on the location of site. Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code(EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Level of Public Interest High: None Medium: This particular Code Amendment. Several citizens have commented on the specific Special Review proposal for the Historic Stanley Home. By inference, some comments have also expressed interest in the Code Amendment, specifically the current definition’s inclusion of art galleries. Sample Motions: Approval I move to 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 the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code. Continuance I move to continue this agenda item to the next regularly schedules Planning Commission meeting because, (state reason (s) for continuance-findings). Denial I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, finding that (state reasons for denial). Planning Commission, June 19, 2018 Page 5 of 5 Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Exhibit A 4. Exhibit B 5. Stanley Historic Home Foundation Information 505 341 411 551 420 368 374 451 509 511 490 450450 420 380 415 415 415 342 270 311 350 450 341 500 331 410 503 300 465 501 461 W WONDERVIEW AVE MARIGOLD LN FAR VI E W D R FAR VIEW LN S U N N Y LN SUNNYACRESCTUNIT 3 UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 3 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT A UNIT B UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT C UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 UNIT 8 UNIT 1 UNIT 6 GCE UNIT 6 UNIT 1 This draft document was prepared for internal use by the Town of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that you do not post this document on the internet or otherwise make it available to persons unknown to you. 050100 Feet 1 in = 98 ft±Town of Estes Park Community Development 415 W. Wonderview Stanley Home Printed: 6/7/2018 Created By: Brittany Hathaway Subject Property Historic Stanley Home  Statement of Intent  April 18, 2018  Revised June 4, 2018    Project Location  Rockside, the original home of F.O. and Flora Stanley is located at 415 West Wonderview Avenue in Estes  Park. The property, parcel number 3524300025, consists of three parcels defined by meets and bounds,  totaling 4.4 acres. The zoning is E‐1 Estate (1 acre minimum).    Owner  The current owners are Gary and Kelly Brown, of Estes Park. Lienholders include Pentagon Federal Credit  Union and US Bank, 1st and 2nd mortgage holders, respectively.    Project Description  The Historic Stanley Home Foundation, a Colorado non‐profit 501c3 corporation created in October of  2016, is seeking to acquire the home for preservation and operation as a Cultural Center for local history  education. This application requests an amendment to the EVDC to allow Cultural Institutions in  residential zoning districts by Special Review; then the Special Review itself.    Under the stewardship of the Historic Stanley Home Foundation, the property would be nominated for  inclusion on the State and/or Federal Register of Historic Places. Renovations would take place to  facilitate Preservation and Rehabilitation as a Cultural Institution. These latter would include life safety  and accessibility accommodations. All work would comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards  for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures.     The primary goal would be preservation as a ‘house museum’ to illustrate and communicate the history of  the early days of Estes Park. Guests and visitors will be limited in number and activity to respect the  historic value of the home. The primary use intended would be guided public tours. The maximum group  size for tours is anticipated at twelve persons. Small group usage may also be available for organizations,  however, weddings, wedding receptions and family reunions will NOT be allowed, nor will overnight stays  be permitted.     As noted, the property currently consists of three parcels. The first, on which the main house, a garage  and small carriage house sit, encompasses approximately 1.4 acres. The main house has approximately  4,000sf of space on two floors, plus 1,000sf of basement. The garage, approximately 675sf, would be used  for storage and possibly a small gift shop. The carriage house, also built in 1904, consists of approximately  1,350 square feet and is intended to be used for a caretaker’s quarters, in order to provide a monitoring  presence on the property since the main home would not be occupied as a residence. The two additional  parcels would be placed in a conservation easement. This is particularly important since current zoning  would allow for additional single‐family home development.    The existing garage would be converted into public restrooms and a small gift shop. The gift shop would  not serve any prepared food or drink – no food or drink will be allowed in the home. Limited packaged  snack items may be available for purchase (after tour is complete) – as noted below a bear‐proof trash  receptacle will be provided.    Site Access and Parking  Access to the property is from Wonderview Avenue. There currently exists two drive access points at the  far east and west borders of the property. The plan proposed would eliminate the eastern access, thereby  removing some impact to the adjacent properties to the east. The western access would be widened for  two‐way traffic per the EVDC standards. A small parking area (10 spaces) will be located below the home,  to the west of the carriage house, with pedestrian access via an original short staircase. A one‐way drive  above the parking will provide access to accessible parking and fire apparatus access.    Per EVDC Table 7.11.D, one space per 300 square feet, plus one per 90sf of assembly space, is required.  There is no assembly space in the project. There is approximately 3,000sf of usable space within the  home, which results in 10 spaces required, plus two for the carriage house. Per 7.11.N, one 12’x35’  loading space would be required – since there is no need for such a loading space to serve the operations  intended, a waiver from this requirement is requested.    The initial application anticipated the use of a shuttle service for gatherings. As further consideration for  the neighboring properties, the shuttle concept would be expanded to include transportation for all  tours/gatherings during the busy summer season. All guests not requiring ADA parking would access the  property via 15‐passenger shuttle, substantially reducing traffic on and to the site during these times.  The  Stanley Home Foundation has reached an agreement in principle with a local shuttle provider for this  service.     Pedestrian Access  Internal pedestrian access from parking areas is provided.    Utilities, Drainage & Fire Protection  Utility service is provided via private service lines from existing utility mains adjacent to the project site.   Electrical and water service is provided by the Town of Estes Park; natural gas is provided by Excel Energy;  sanitary sewer services are provided by the Estes Park Sanitation.  Drainage impact is expected to be  minimal – please see Waivers section below – as no substantial new paving is anticipated. During the pre‐ application conference it was noted that a drainage study would not be required.    Based on IBC code analysis, the occupant load of the building would be less than 50 and therefore would  be considered a ‘B’ occupancy. Based on this designation, an automatic fire suppression system would not  be required. As required by the IFC, a detailed fire protection plan would be prepared and submitted as a  component of the building permit application for change of use. Fire apparatus access is provided via the  one‐way road to the base of the building.    “No Smoking” signs will be posted on‐property in parking, driveway and walkway areas.     Lighting and Landscaping  No new lighting is anticipated, in part as nighttime use of the property is expected to be restricted.  Existing lighting is intended to remain, however any new/replaced exterior fixtures will be dark‐sky  compliant. Since no new fixtures are anticipated, during the pre‐application conference it was noted that  a photometric light study would not be required.    While a new 10 space parking area could require perimeter landscaping per EVDC 7.5.G.2, the proposed  parking is a significant distance from street edge or lot line. Additionally quite a few trees exist on the lot  currently, far more than would be required by the standard. Therefore it is requested that the existing  vegetation be considered as meeting this requirement, if applicable.      Special Review and EVDC Code Amendment  The use of the property would be classified as a Cultural Institution per EVDC 13.2.15. This use is currently  not permitted in Residential zones per Table 4‐1. This project proposes that Table 4‐1 be amended to  include Cultural Institutions as a use permitted by Special Review in all Residential Zoning districts.     This particular home is certainly not the only historic home in a residential neighborhood in the Estes  Valley, though it may be the first to be preserved and protected as a community resource in this fashion.  The Special Review process is designed to consider and mitigate, if necessary, any impacts of the use to  the property. The proposed amendment therefore provides a process within which other historic  resources in the valley might also be incorporated into the community, each to be reviewed on its own  individual merits.    The benefits to this amendment are numerous. Without such an amendment, it would be necessary to  ‘spot zone’ such a property to a commercial zoning district, which could be seen as setting a precedent for  future zoning changes. Restriction of activities on such a rezoned property would require deed  restrictions, which can be cumbersome and often difficult to enforce. In the event the cultural use is no  longer viable, the property could simply revert back to its historic residential use.    Special Review Considerations  Use and Operation: described above.    Traffic Generation: In absence of this project, it would be possible for up to four single‐family homes  to exist on the property, which would generate 38 trips per day per the ITE Trip Generation Manual.  Per the same document, use as a museum would generate less than 50 trips per day. Therefore a  Traffic Impact Analysis is not required, and thus the expected traffic impact is minimal ‐ in fact not  significantly more impact than single family development. The use of a shuttle service for all tour  guests during peak season lowers the daily trips even further, such that the traffic generated would be  actually be less than that generated by the allowed single‐family use.    Zoning Compatibility: With the proposed amendment allowing the use in residential districts, the E‐1  Estate zoning remains in place. The property is surrounded by E‐1 zoning.    Parking and Site Access: As noted above, parking would be provided in a small area just below the  existing historic stone wall, in the middle of the property. Site access would be further limited to the  west side only. Parking and drives are requested to remain unpaved to retain historic character  (except in the case of the accessible parking space, which may require hard surface paving to meet  requirements).     Hours of Operation: Operation of the museum would vary seasonally, but is anticipated at seven  days/week in the busier/summer seasons (June – October). The first tour is anticipated to begin at  10am (guests arrive 9:45am) with the final tour beginning at 3pm, guests departing by 4:30pm.  During the off/shoulder seasons tour schedules and days of operation will very likely be reduced.     Small group usage would be limited to less than 50 persons (in keeping with building + fire code  provisions noted above) and  would be limited in number (one or two/month). All guests (except for  ADA) would arrive and depart via shuttle. Small group gatherings may extend into the early evening,  but would conclude no later than 8pm.    Lighting & other Environmental Effects: As noted above, lighting impact would not be increased.  There would be no impact on quality of air or water. Since the primary use of the home would be for  tours, there would be minimal noise impact to neighboring property as operations would be held  inside the home and group size would be small. No motion‐sensor lighting will be permitted. Exterior  trash receptacles shall be bear‐proof.    Height, size and location of buildings and activities: The buildings are all existing – no expansions or  additional structures are being proposed. All activities would remain centralized around the existing  facilities.    Resources: As noted in this section of the EVDC, particular note is to be taken of historic and cultural  resources on the property. Obviously the preservation of these is the primary goal of the project!  Existing trees/vegetation, rock outcroppings, etc are also to be preserved and protected as much as  possible. Finally, by putting the currently vacant parcels into a conservations easement, that area is  protected from future impact.    Waivers Requested    1. EVDC 7.11.O – pave parking areas with (8) or more spaces with minimum of 2” asphalt.  Request to keep the historic compacted gravel surface.    2. EVDC 7.11.N, (1) 12’x35’ loading space – no loading spaces are anticipated    Neighborhood Outreach    The Board of the Stanley Home Foundation has attempted to be open with and receptive to neighboring  property owners from the beginning. A primary goal in preserving the home is to do so while being a good  neighbor. Information/outreach meetings were hosted by Board members in July 2017, October 2017, and  January 2018.    Many insights have been gained from this process. Changes to the physical and operational plans that  came either directly or as an evolution of thought as a result of these meetings include:   Disallowing wedding/family and other private gatherings not focused on the historical  nature of the property   Abandonment of the east side driveway   Placement of conservation easement on otherwise ‘developable’ property   Consideration of a small shuttle to reduce traffic                EXHIBIT A § 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES … C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. This Section sets forth specific use classifications in alphabetical order. A general definition is typically provided for each use classification, and in many instances examples are provided of specific uses that fall within the broader use classification. When a specific use example is provided, the example should satisfy both the broader classification's general definition as well as the definition of the specific use, if provided. Finally, the text may provide specific examples of uses that are not included in a particular use classification (referred to in the text as "exceptions"). … 15. Cultural Institutions. Nonprofit institutions displaying or preserving objects of interest in one (1) or more of the arts or sciences. This classification includes libraries, museums. and art galleries. … EXHIBIT B § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts … B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated ) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited RE- 1 RE E- 1 E R R- 1 R- 2 RM … INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES Day Care Center (Ord. 6-06 §1) S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1F Family Home Day Care, Large (Ord. 6- 06 §1) S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1F; As accessory to a principal residential use only Government Facilities Public Safety Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Trail/Trail Head P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Utility, Major — — — — — — — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Utility, Minor P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review; Use shall not include office, repair, storage or production facilities All other Government Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Hospital — — — — — — — S2 Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Ride Facilities — — — — — P P P Religious Assembly — — — — — — S2 S2 §5.1.O (Ord. 19-11 §1) Cultural Institutions S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 Schools — — — — — — S2 S2 §3.13, Location & Extent Review (Ord. 19-11 §1) Senior Institutional Living Continuing Care Retirement Facility — — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1I Congregate Housing — — — — S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.I Skilled Nursing Facility — — — — — — — S2 §5.1.I Transportation Facility Without Repairs — — — — — P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review … Page 1 of 3 STATEMENT OF INTENT WIND RIVER APARTMENT HOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN, of Lots 1 and 2 of the Wapiti Minor Subdivision, Located in Section 31, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed development is on Lots 1 and 2 of the Wapiti Minor Subdivision. The property is located west of State Highway No. 7 and is south of and adjacent to Lexington Lane. The property address for the existing developed parcel (Lot 2) is 1041 South Saint Vrain Avenue. This project is located within the Town limits of Estes Park. OWNER: The owner is Wind River Holdings LLC, (Paul Pewterbaugh). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposed project is a 94 unit apartment complex in four main buildings. It is proposed as an Attainable, Workforce Housing Project. In addition to developing Lot 1 as a 94 unit apartment complex, Lot 2 is proposed to be developed as an associat ed day care facility. The existing building on Lot 2 will be remodeled and added to in order to provide this associated use facility. The property is currently zoned RM, therefore no need to re-zone to fit the associated Code zoning requirement for attainable housing. ACCESS: Currently, the building on Lot 2 (1041 S. St. Vrain) gains access from Highway 7. This project proposes to re-align the existing access onto Highway 7 and to also access from Lexington Lane which will provide two points of access for emergency needs. Both accesses are proposed as full service open accesses without turn restrictions. A traffic study has been performed for the proposed apartment density. That study did not find a need for auxiliary lanes at the three key intersections (Lexington and Highway 7, Lexington at the north entrance t o the development, and highway 7 at the south entrance to the development). Also, a traffic memo related to stacking at the south entrance- exit has been performed (dated March 12). That queue analysis concludes that, while there is a delay anticipated in peak hours to enter onto Highway 7, that queue will not cause a storage concern and back up for the split geometry of that southern access. OPEN SPACE and BUILDINGS: Open space is not required with this development, however, the project is proposed with 55% lot coverage and up to 65% is allo wed in the RM zone. Four large buildings are proposed, which each have an approximate footprint of 8,800 s.f. The leasing building on Lot 2 is currently approximately 1,476 s.f. and the addition is proposed at approximately 1,584 s.f. Also, there is a fenced playground area that will be approximately 1,500 s.f. UTILITIES: This property is currently serviced by all the main utilities. The main lines will be accessible for connection and or extension as needed to easily serve t he proposed density. A brief description of each utility and the associated changes is included: Page 2 of 3 • Sewer. Each large building will have an 8” main exiting t he building into a manhole. The manhole will become property of the sanitation district . • Water. Three additional fire hydrants are proposed to be added, and fire sprinklers are proposed for each building with a special connection for fire department access outside each building. • Gas. There will be a 1 1/4” gas service to each large building and a ¾” line to the leasing office/daycare building. • Electricity. Individual meters are proposed for each unit in each building with three phase power. The power will be fed by an individual transformer for each large building. • Cable. A separate connection for each unit is proposed by bringing fiberoptic to the property from the west • Telephone. A separate connection for each unit is proposed as well as individual billing STORMWATER: This property is not near a river, but is adjacent to t he Highway 7 roadside drainage system. Stormwater detention is proposed with this development to offset the impacts of the increased impervious coverage. A release rate of no more than the historic rate is proposed and will be controlled by orifice plate(s) on a drainage control st ructure within the proposed pond system. There will be improvements (by CDOT) to the culvert under Lexingt on Lane near Highway 7, and more are planned in the spring of 2018 (see #3 in Development Specifics below). A Preliminary Drainage Report is submitted with this application and a Final Drainage Report will be submitted later in the process as required by the Code. SCHEDULE: The four large buildings are proposed to be built simult aneously or consecutively without any delay or multiple phasing. The daycare building changes are also proposed on the same schedule. There is not an anticipated phasing plan to build this project out. DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICS: 1. Parking along Lexington. No parking along Lexington is proposed. Curb, Gutter and sidewalk along the south side of Lexington is proposed with this development. 2. The large buildings take advantage of the Code allowed increase in height in the RM zone for attainable/workforce housing, thus allowing three stories and up to 38’ of height per the EVDC calculation method. 3. According to the Region 4 Permits Manager, CDOT is planning reconstruction and repaving of this section of Highway 7 with the plan to improve drainage by adding a relatively large west to east culvert (45” x 29”) under Highway 7 near the int ersection of Highway 7 and Lexington Lane. The manager qualifies that CDOT project t iming may change. That project is known as Project Number ER 007A-026. 4. With the drainage improvements noted in #3 above, CDOT has plans to realign the pedestrian crossing of Highway 7 near Lexington Lane. This development proposes to enhance that crossing (if allowed). See Requested Waiver 1a below for additional information regarding a lighted crosswalk system. 5. This property is currently in two lots and concurrent wit h this submittal there is an Amended Plat submitted to combine the two legal lots created by the Wapiti Minor Subdivision in 2014. Together with this lot combination as a part of the Amended Plat is the dissolving of the internal easement on that common lot line as well as dissolving the limit of disturbance shown on the previous Lot 2. Lastly, there is also a proposal to dissolve the access easement triangle Page 3 of 3 on Lot 1 that used to serve Lot 2. As related to the limit of disturbance elimination, this proposed Development Plan shows much more area of non-disturbance than the old Minor Subdivision, and that limits of disturbance area is near the southeast corner of the property where the native trees are the thickest and where very minimal disturbance is proposed except for two parking spacess for the daycare as proposed. REQUESTED WAIVERS: 1. Highway Frontage Sidewalk, Appendix D Typical Street Sect ion (with Curb and Gutter). a. This project does not propose a Highway 7 frontage sidewalk, nor is there curb and gutter proposed along Highway 7. In lieu of this typical st andard requirement, the project will provide an internal walking path and a lighted, painted and signed push button, highway crossing for the safety of residents and others wanting to cross Highway 7. We are working with CDOT on the details and requirements of such a crossing. b. EVDC Appendix D-5 allows the location of sidewalks on a property to be determined in a case-by-case basis… in addition, the Code states t hat the sidewalk may be located outside of an existing right-of-way. c. This highway frontage sidewalk ‘waiver’ is debatable as a Code requirement as Table 4.8 in the Code is for Non-residential zoning (this is not), and Code section 10.5.D are ‘subdivision standards’ and this project is not proposed as a non-residential, nor a subdivision. 2. Code Section 7.2.B.2.b (original grade change on site with a max of 12’). a. This pertains to the proposed excavation which minimizes the visual impact for residences to the west of the site. The property has been designed to maintain as much visual corridor to the east for the respective properties to the west. This required aligning buildings against the contours which creates the need for more cut on the uphill side and fill on the downhill side. 3. Appendix D.2.H.1 requires minimum centerline radius of 50’. a. We have proposed a 37’ radii on one section of the internal drive to enable the units to fit. This will meet the requirements of the Fire Department and will also help to slow traffic through the neighborhood as a traffic calming device.