Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2017-10-17Prepared: October 11, 2017 ** Revised: STUDY SESSION AG ENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 17, 2017 12:00 p.m. Rooms 202/203 12:00 Lunch (10) Chair Schneider 12:10 Fish Creek Storage Development Plan (15) Planner Gonzales 12:25 EVDC Amendment regarding Single-Family Use (10) Director Hunt 12:35 EVDC Amendment regarding elimination of applicability (10) and use of the attainable housing density bonus in RE-1, RE, E-1, E, R, & R-2 Director Hunt 12:45 Affordable Housing Issue at 507 Grand Estates Drive (15) Director Hunt 1:00 Undersized Non-conforming Lot Discussion (15) Director Hunt 1:15 Adjourn Chair Schneider Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 11:45 p.m. The public is welcome to attend study sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted. Times are approximate. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Prepared: October 11, 2017, 2017 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION October 17, 2017 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions Introduction of Senior Planner Jeffrey Woeber 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 A. Approval of minutes of September 19, 2017 B. Estes Park Resort – Applicant request to extend deadline for meeting conditions of approval related to the Development Plan approved June 20, 2017. Requested deadline is December 27, 2017 (60 additional days) C. Request by staff to continue the proposed EVDC amendment regarding Outdoor Food Vendors to the November 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting 5. REZONING OF LOTS 1-4, MARYS LAKE ESTATES FROM RE–Rural Estate TO A-1– Accommodations; 638, 650, 742, & 565 LAKEWOOD COURT Owners: Siegfried & Anne Goetz; Rudy & Hilde Frank; Roy & Michele Johnson; Flandango Properties, LLC Applicants: Siegfried & Anne Goetz; Rudy & Hilde Frank; Roy & Michele Johnson; Flandango Properties, LLC Request: Rezone Lots 1-4, Marys Lake Estates from RE–Rural Estate to A-1– Accommodations. Staff: Planner Gonzales 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK TOWNHOMES; TBD PROMONTORY DRIVE – Continued from September 19, 2017 EVPC meeting Owner : James & Susan Mackey Applicant: James & Susan Mackey Request: Proposed townhome development of 19 duplex buildings, creating 38 single- family townhomes Staff: Planner Gonzales 7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN; FISH CREEK STORAGE; 1901 FISH CREEK ROAD Owner : Chris & Marlys Eshelman Applicant: Chris & Marlys Eshelman Request: Redevelop property by removing existing buildings and constructing two new buildings containing 86 storage units. Existing single-family dwelling will remain. Staff: Planner Gonzales Continued on next page 8. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BED AND BREAKFAST INNS – Continued from September 19, 2017 EVPC meeting Planner McCool The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD A DEFINITION IN CHAPTER 13 FOR THE TERM “SINGLE-FAMILY USE”, AND TO AMEND TABLE 4-1 TO MATCH THE DEFINED USE. Director Hunt 10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELPOMENT CODE SECTIONS 11.4b AND 11.4d TO ELIMINATE APPLICABILITY AND USE OF THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS IN THE RE-1–Rural Estate, RE–Rural Estate, E-1–Estate, E-Estate, R–Residential, & R-2–Two- Family Residential ZONE DISTRICTS Director Hunt 11. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR STEEPLY SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES. Continued from September 19, 2017 EVPC meeting Director Hunt 12. REPORTS A. Staff-Level Reviews B. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. 507 Grand Estates Variance – Fred Kropp/Applicant - Denied October 3, 2017 2. 521 Grand Estates Variance – Docter Residence – Approved October 3, 2017 B. Estes Park Town Board 1. EVDC Code Amendment regarding Preferred Plant List – Approved September 26, 2017 C. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners 1. EVDC Code Amendment regarding Preferred Plant List – Approved September 18, 2017 D. Community Development Update 1. Vacation Home Update 2. Downtown Plan Update E. Other 13. ADJ OURN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker Attending: Chair Russ Schneider, Vice-Chair Leavitt, Commissioners Betty Hull, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Robert Foster, and Doyle Baker Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Planner Robin Becker, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. He explained the purpose of the Planning Commission. There were approximately 45 people in attendance. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Gootz/town resident suggested someone at Town Hall let the public know who was putting the Comprehensive Plan together. He recommended a press release on the topic. Pat Newsom/town resident is opposed to change in Estes Park. She is concerned about several proposed code changes. Betty Hull/Planning Commissioner requested an explanation about “floating” zoning. She was confused about all the attention the nonconforming lots were getting. She was opposed to changes in single-family zone districts. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Request to continue to the October 17, 2017 meeting an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to add a definition for the term “Single-Family Use”. C. Request to continue to the October 17, 2017 meeting an amendment to the EVDC to eliminate applicability and use of the Attainable Housing Density Bonus in the RE-1, RE, E- 1, E, R, and R-2 zone districts. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 It was moved and seconded Leavitt/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner Baker abstaining. 4. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 152 STANLEY CIRCLE DRIVE; MIKE & CINDY KINGSWOOD, OWNERS – 12 OCCUPANTS Code Compliance Officer (CCO) Hardin stated the lot size is less than one-acre minimum requirement. Commissioner Baker pointed out that the county records shows one less bedroom than the application. Director Hardin clarified the update to the county records has not yet been made. The home inspection was approved. Public Comment None. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 152 Stanley Circle Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously. 5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 410 RIVERSIDE DRIVE; ANN MISEL (STANLEY KRAUS LIVING TRUST), OWNER; 12 OCCUPANTS CCO Hardin stated the lot size is less than one-acre minimum requirement, and the setback on the east side is six feet less than the required 25 feet. Public Comment None. It was moved and seconded (White/Baker) to approve the vacation home at 410 Riverside Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously. 6. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 3430 EAGLECLIFF CIRCLE DRIVE; JEFFREY HYLER, OWNER; 12 OCCUPANTS CCO Hardin stated the lot size is less than one-acre minimum requirement, and the front setback is ten feet and the rear setback is 20 feet, where 25 feet is required on all sides. Public Comment None. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to approve the vacation home at 3430 Eaglecliff Circle Drive to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants and the motion passed unanimously. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 7. SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN; ESTES PARK BAPTIST CHURCH EXPANSION; 2200 MALL ROAD Continued from August EVPC meeting. Planner Gonzales stated this project was continued from the August meeting to allow the applicant to be present, as he was absent last month. There were lingering questions from the public regarding landscaping, use of the building, and future intentions. The application is a request to expand the existing church with a 9,000 square foot addition. Written permission has been provided by the Federal government regarding access to the property from Mall Road. Additional parking will be added to the south, with the addition being to the west of the existing building. Landscaping on the west property line was an issue in the last meeting, and the applicant is now proposing to add two additional trees in that area. Applicant is now proposing a two-phased approach; finishing out a portion of the addition with classrooms, but not the entire building. A future single-family home is allowed by right on the property, and is not part of the special review; however, the applicant provided the plans for the benefit of the public. The total structure count will be two parsonages, one future maintenance shed (20 x 30), one office building, and the existing church with the addition. The proposed office building will not have a kitchen. Planner Gonzales stated no additional public comment was received since the last meeting. Staff and commission Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: there are no design standards in the EVDC; the landscape buffer that is required is around the boundaries; landscaping of the parking area or around the new addition is not required; no interior landscaping is required. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/project engineer introduced members of the engineering team. Paul Logue/Pastor of the church apologized for any issues that he has caused that may have been offensive. He stated the security lights on the parsonage will remain. He stated he spoke with one of the neighbors regarding the relocation of the modular, and understood they were in agreement about the placement. He stated the church often houses volunteers that come to the area to do various types of work for the community, and they often bring their RVs and park them at the church. Ralph Nations/project manager with the church stated there were several incorrect statements made by the public last month. He stated the waiver request was for landscape buffering so they would not have to landscape the entire south side of the property. The change was not discussed with the neighbors. Commissioner White stated parking RVs on the property was not allowed, and recommended the applicant have a conversation with the Community Development Department regarding allowable uses on the property. After a brief discussion, Planner Gonzales stated the proposal calls for the planting of eight more trees around the parking area, and twelve additional shrubs. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Joy Harvey/county resident stated the neighbors would like to have transparency from the church representatives. The neighbors have no issues with the various church ministries, but they do have issues with the potential impact of the proposed development to the neighbors. She requested the Commission deny the landscaping waiver. Laura Case/county resident was concerned about additional exterior lighting. She requested there be no construction traffic on Joel Estes Drive if the project was approved, and was opposed to the landscape waiver. Jeremy Collinette/county resident was concerned about how they were really going to use the additional 9,000 square feet, wondering if it would become housing. Ralph Nations stated the new addition will be used for classrooms for children and youth. He stated they would not be housing people there, except for occasional overnight volunteers. He was working with Planner Gonzales regarding Temporary Use Permits for this use. Lonnie Sheldon stated a neighborhood meeting was not required. The applicant is not required to pave the gravel road. Chris Lee/Kennedy Architecture Group stated each level of the addition would be 4,500 square feet, and would include a warming kitchen. The upper level will allow easier access to the second floor via two bridges, while the lower level will have natural light to the south. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Gonzales reminded the Commissioners to include any additional conditions of approval in the motion. Commissioner comments included, but were not limited to: Temporary Use Permits may solve the issue of the overnight RVs; a landscaping plan was requested to ensure all required landscaping would be installed; request to have all exterior lighting be code compliant. Lonnie Sheldon stated the church is willing to install code compliant interior and perimeter landscaping as part of the building permit set, which would need to be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. They will also comply with the dark sky ordinance for all buildings on the property. Conditions of Approval (as recommended by the Planning Commission) 1. The landscape waiver will not be granted as requested on the south and west property boundaries. 2. Entire site will be compliant with the dark sky ordinance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to recommend approval of the Estes Park Baptist Church Special Review to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners according to the findings of fact and the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Schneider requested a five minute recess at 3:09 p.m. 8. DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; RAVEN ROCK TOWNHOMES; TRBD PROMONTORY DRIVE Planner Gonzales stated the subject property is zoned A–Accommodations, and is approximately 10 acres in size. It was annexed into the town limits earlier this year. The applicants, James & Susan Mackey, propose to develop the property with 38 units in 19 duplexes, including three outlots and three detention ponds. Three utility easements would also to be dedicated on the plat, along with a dedicated town Right-of-Way. A private circle drive is proposed, with additional private drives that front the individual duplex buildings. The applicant has proposed an alternative landscaping plan that will disperse the landscaping among the property. They have added additional trees, and the buffering on the east side is considered adequate by staff. The three outlots would protect the existing wetland areas. One of the proposed wetlands is in the setback, and a variance application has been submitted that will be heard by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. A preliminary stormwater drainage plan was also submitted and reviewed by the Town Engineer. This plan provides for three detention ponds to collect and discharge stormwater. There have been neighbor concerns with the preliminary drainage report. The final drainage plan will go with the Final Plat. Regarding access, the entrance to the subdivision will align with Promontory Drive. A wildlife study was submitted, with no mitigation efforts being recommended. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan for Future Land Use indicates accommodations would be appropriate for this property. No major issues were identified by reviewing staff. There were several public comments received. The application was routed to all affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the Development Plan, and the recommending body for the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat. Staff recommended two conditions of approval, listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion Planner Gonzales clarified inquiries regarding the annexation of this property into the town limits earlier this year. There was discussion as to whether or not the Final Townhome Subdivision Plat should be approved prior to the approval of the Development Plan. It was noted the Planning Commission would not be reviewing the Final Plat; however, the approval of this plat is conditional to the approval of the Development Plan. Public Comment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 6 David Bangs/project engineer prepared the preliminary drainage report. The adjacent property owners are concerned about groundwater. It was his professional opinion the amount of groundwater flowing onto the neighbor’s property would be the same or less with the proposed development. The surrounding existing wetlands and associated groundwater could also affect their property. In the preliminary design, all the detention ponds are built to meet the 100-year event (1% annual chance). The ponds will be grass-lined, pervious, and would hold the water for hours, not days. The detention ponds are typically maintained by the HOA. There are no standards for regulating groundwater, and Mr. Bangs assured the Commission there would not be any additional groundwater caused by this development affecting the neighbors. He explained where the discharge areas are on the property, stating one of the drainage areas may need to be redesigned depending on the outcome of the variance application. Historic discharge locations will be maintained. Joe Coop/project engineer stated the proposed duplexes would meet all height and setback requirements. Floor plans are still in the design phase, and will have main floor living. The sewer manhole is located in the utility easement. There is an existing fence in the easement, which will be replaced by the applicant. James Mackey/applicant and property owner purchased the property in 1995 with the intention of developing it. He has been working on the various parts of this project since 2014. The review has been thorough and all issues are being addressed adequately. He met briefly with the neighbors to introduce himself. He has had several conversations with Ms. Ray, but not with the Keiltys. More than the required landscaping will be installed, to screen the buildings from the neighbors. Units 35-38 will not be right up against the property line. Drainage plan will comply with the required regulations. He is aware of Mr. Keilty’s ongoing groundwater issue. He originally met with Rita Kurelja of the Estes Park Housing Authority regarding a possible affordable housing project, but after meeting with various people decided not to pursue it. Michael Keilty/town resident was concerned the project would create a groundwater problem on his property, and had a private engineer review the drainage plan. He was also concerned about the potential for trespassing. He stated the postcard he received in the mail was not adequate notice. Barbara Keilty/town resident was concerned about what might happen in the future. Based on the report from their third-party engineer, their home is in imminent danger. Claire Ray/town resident was concerned about construction phase, and requested construction vehicles be limited to Marys Lake Road and not be allowed to use Arapahoe Road. She was concerned about her privacy and view corridor, and water runoff during construction. She has had a couple of phone conversations with Mr. Mackey prior to today’s meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 7 Dawn James/town resident submitted a document for the record regarding her environmental and traffic concerns. Her comment will be posted on the Town website. She was concerned about wildlife migration, increase in traffic, vehicle speeds, and pedestrian safety. She stated Marys Lake Road is becoming used more and more as a route to get to Rocky Mountain National Park. Larry Murphy/town resident was concerned about the density of the project, the wildlife, and the view obstruction. Kevin Conrad/town resident complained about the notification process. He stated the maintenance of the detention ponds will be critical, and was looking forward to reviewing the Final Drainage Report. Tom Gootz/town resident commented on whether or not the comprehensive plan would address areas such as this. He was opposed to the property being zoned A-Accommodations. He had comments related to the International Building Codes that were not in the purview of the Planning Commission. Richard James/town resident was concerned about traffic and the possibility of having 38 new vacation rentals in the neighborhood. Bev Wright/town resident stated the lead planner should explain both the pros and cons of projects. She was concerned about density, the short-term rental possibility, wildlife, and view corridor obstruction. Mike Gould/town resident and Promontory HOA stated this project will block their view. He was concerned that the project would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and traffic would be too congested. He requested additional traffic studies on other nearby intersections nearby. He was concerned about the drainage impacts to the nearby neighbors. He stated notifying property owners only within 100 feet is too small an area. Michael Keilty/requested a continuance. Carly Lober/county resident stated the high density of the area was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Lonnie Sheldon stated the difference between the preliminary and final drainage report is small. There is one-foot of freeboard proposed in the report, which will be more than enough to contain high flows. If ponds are lined, they can be punctured by animal hooves, and bubbles can form underneath and decrease the volume as designed. The preliminary report complies with the state stormwater regulations. Regarding the traffic study, the parameters of the study were directed by former town engineer Kevin Ash. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 8 Joe Coop provided additional information about the proposed drainage channel along the east side of the property. Trees will be placed on either side of the channel. The stormwater management plan has to be approved by the county health department prior to commencing construction. The development plan complies with the EVDC and the drainage plan complies with the drainage requirements. The property owner has the right to develop his property in accordance to the EVDC. The wetlands are not jurisdictional. It was noted the wetland study was approved by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). The property owner is aware of the new building code requirements. James Mackey appreciated the comments. He is willing to be transparent with neighbors. He is open to addressing the issues and would support a continuance. Public Comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Baker was opposed to a continuance, stating if the design met the requirements of the EVDC, there would not be a basis for denying the application. The only comment that pertains to the Commission was the one about being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and furthering the goals of the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Leavitt requested additional comments from drainage experts on both sides of the issue. Conversation regarding this issue can occur outside of the Planning Commission meeting, with results presented next month if the meeting is continued. Commissioner Hull supported a continuance, and reminded those in attendance that Marys Lake Lodge is also in the A–Accommodations zone district. Conditions of Approval 1. A Final Townhome Subdivision Plat shall be approved by Town Board within 120 days of Planning Commission decision date. The Final Plat shall be submitted with a Final Drainage Study and all associated infrastructure construction plans/financial guarantees. The Final Plat shall be recorded within 60 days of Town Board approval. 2. An approved Variance to locate the detention pond within the 50-foot wetland setback is required. It was moved and seconded (FosterLeavitt) to continue the Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision to the October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Murphree voting against. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to continue the Raven Rock Development Plan to the October Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Murphree voting against. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 9 Note: At this point in the meeting, the order of the agenda was changed, and various items will be continued to future meetings. 9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) AND AMEND THE DENSITY CALCULATION STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING Planner Gonzales stated the proposed amendment would eliminate FAR from the EVDC, and eliminate the requirement to use FAR in the employee housing density calculation. The proposed amendment evolved from discussions with Planning Commission, Town Board, and County Commission, on streamlining the EVDC and removing redundancies. FAR regulates the dimensional aspects of lots, and there are many of these in the code. FAR is the relationship between square footage of a building and how it relates to lot size, and is an outdated planning mechanism. Regarding the employee housing piece of the amendment, Planner Gonzales stated we now allow employee housing in commercial zone districts, and the number of units is dependent on the FAR on the property. If we remove FAR, we will need to recalculate how we establish density in commercial zone district. Planning staff has proposed tying the accessory use unit amount to being no more than the square footage of the principle use. Parking for employee housing units shall not exceed the required parking for the principle use. Removing FAR would make the EVDC easier to understand. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to recommend approval of the text amendment to the Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of Commissioners as presented in Exhibit Red, including findings, and as recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 10. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING MAXIMUM RIDGELINE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR STEEPLY SLOPED GABLED & HIPPED ROOF STRUCTURES Planner Becker stated the proposed amendment would place an upper height limit for steeply sloped roofs (A-frames, in most instances). The recently approved height limit increase applied only to gabled roofs. If the existing calculation was used on an a-frame structure, it could exceed 30 feet quite easily. This issue was raised by the Town Board during the building-measurement discussion. Following discussion among the Commission, it was decided to continue this item to the October meeting in order for Director Hunt to provide a visual regarding the calculations. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Foster) to continue the proposed code amendment regarding maximum ridgeline height for steeply sloped roofs to the October 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously. 11. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING BED AND BREAKFAST INNS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 19, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 10 It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to continue the proposed amendment regarding Bed and Breakfast Inns to the October 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously. 12. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.66 - SIGNS It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to continue the proposed amendment regarding Signs to the November 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously. 13. REPORTS There were no comments regarding the report items listed on the agenda. There being no further business, Chair Schneider adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. _________________________________ Russ Schneider, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Russ Schneider, Planning Commission Chair Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Jeffrey Woeber, AICP, Senior Planner Date: October 17, 2017 RE: Development Plan: Estes Park Resort Extension Request for Approved Deadline Overview, Request: The Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) approved a Development Plan for the Estes Park Resort Townhomes, which proposes a 33-lot Townhome Subdivision on a 9± acre parcel, located in an A-Accommodations Zone District. The property is located on the north shore of Lake Estes, just west of the Lake Estes Marina. It is currently addressed as 1700 Big Thompson Ave. The proposal involves a Preliminary Townhome Subdivision, a Final Townhome Subdivision, and a Development Plan. The Preliminary Plat was approved by the Town Board, on July 25, 2017. The Development Plan was approved, with nine conditions of approval, by the EVPC on June 20, 2017. The Planning Commission’s approval was as follows: “I move to approve the ‘Estes Park Resort Development Plan and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision’ according to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions recommended by staff, provided that all conditions of the Development Plan shall be met 120 days from the approval date, or else the Development Plan approval is null and void.” The 120 day time period will expire on October 18, 2017, and the applicant is still working to comply with some of the conditions of approval in order to finalize the process and then record the final plat. This will not be completed prior to October 18th. The final plat is scheduled for review by the Town Board on October 24, 2017, but it is likely it will need to be continued to November in order for the applicant to comply with the conditions of approval. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to extend the deadline within the Planning Commission approval of the Estes Park Resort Townhomes Development Plan, from October 18, 2017 to December 17, 2017. Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 17, 2017 Page 2 of 3 Estes Park Resort, Extension Request Sample Motion: 1. I move to approve the applicant’s request to extend the 120-day deadline, which was previously approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission for the Estes Park Resort Townhomes Development Plan. The revised deadline is December 17, 2017. All conditions on the Development Plan shall be met by December 17, 2017, or else the Development Plan approval is null and void. Attachment: Applicant’s Request for Extension CORNERSTONE co) PHONE 970.586.2458 FAX 970.586.2459 E-MAIL cesaces-Lcc com WEB www (as ccc corn 1692 Big Thompson. Suitt. 200 Estrrs Park, Colorado 80517 LOpmENT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING. INC October 2, 2017 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Co. 80517 'eC OCT 2 201/ 11W-E j Elz RE: "Estes Park Resort Townhomes''- Development Plan Extension Request Dear Mr. Hunt: We respectfully request an extension to the approved development plan for final mylar submittal. The development plan was approved at the June 20th Planning Commission meeting. Estes Valley Development Code requires that final mylars be submitted within 120 days after approval (October 181"). Construction documents needed to be prepared and have been submitted for review and approval in conjunction with the Final Townhome Plat. The development plan is tied to the preliminary plat and therefore, final mylars cannot be submitted until the final plat has been approved by the Town Board. We are requesting an extension to the development plan mylar submittal of 60 days (180 days total) to be submitted by December 17, 2017. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jes Reetz Planner Page 1 of 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Planning Commission From: Robin Becker Planner I Date: October 17, 2017 RE: Outdoor Food Truck Vending License continuance request Outdoor Food Vending License was extended from the Agenda to the November 21, 2017 meeting due to further research requested via community feedback and engagement. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: October 17, 2017, 1:30PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This request is to rezone the entire Mary’s Lake Estates subdivision from RE-Rural Estate to A-1 Accommodations. Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 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. Provide a recommendation to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners of approval or denial of the re-zoning application. LOCATION: Lots 1-4, Mary’s Lake Estates, within the unincorporated Estes Valley VICINITY MAP: See attachment OWNER/APPLICANT: Lot 1: Goetz Family Trust, Siegfried and Anne Goetz, Lot 2: Frank Family Trust, Rudy and Hilde Frank, Lot 3: Roy and Michelle Johnson, and Lot 4: Flandango Properties, LLC, Rich and Sherry Flanery STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Present Situation: The subdivision is located within the unincorporated Estes Valley off of Mary’s Lake Road and is currently developed with a single-family home and two bed & breakfast buildings. One lot is undeveloped. There are four lots within this subdivision and all lots are zoned RE-Rural Estate. Proposal: The proposal entails re-zoning the entire subdivision to A-1 Accommodations. Bed & breakfast uses are not currently permitted in the RE- Rural Estate zone district. The two bed & breakfasts in the subdivision were originally built when the zoning was A-Accommodations and were permitted by right. A-1 would allow these uses. Mary’s Lake Estates Zoning Map Amendment 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, October 17, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Mary’s Lake Estates Re-Zoning SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Parcel Number: 3402216003, 3402216004, 3402216002, and 3402216001 Development Area: Approx. 30-acres Existing Land Use: Single-Family Home and two Bed & Breakfasts Proposed Land Use: N/A Zoning Designation: RE-Rural Estate Adjacent Zoning: East: A-Accommodations North: A-Accommodations West: RE-Rural Estate South: RE, E-Estate, and A Adjacent Land Uses: East: Church North: Mary’s Lake Powerplant West: Single-Family Home South: Undeveloped and Accommodation Units Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District Review Criteria. 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. In accordance with Section 3.3D “Standards for Review” of the EVDC, all applications for re-zoning shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Staff Finding: Bed & breakfast uses are not currently permitted in the RE- Rural Estate zone district. They were originally built when the zoning was A-Accommodations and were permitted by right. The 2000 valley-wide re- zoning made these uses legally non-conforming as long as the uses did not cease to operate for a period over one year. The applicants have stated they were not aware of a re-zoning of the area in 2000 to RE-Rural Estate. The initial Mary’s Lake Estates plat provides notes stating the zone district was A-Accommodations and was intended for a mix of single-family homes and bed & breakfast uses. Staff has found that the 2000 valley-wide re-zoning created several conflicts with existing land uses and newly established zone districts. This application is a classic example of these conflicts. Re-zoning this subdivision back to an accommodations district would reflect with how the area was built and currently used. A-1 allows for bed & breakfast uses as well as single-family uses. The applicants chose not to request the A- Accommodations zone district because they felt it was too intense of a use Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Mary’s Lake Estates Re-Zoning for their subdivision. Properties to the north, east, and southeast are zoned A-Accommodations and allow for a more intense land use. 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: Staff has waived the development plan requirement per Section 3.3.B.1 of the Estes Valley Development Code: “All applications seeking to amend this Code to allow a change from one (1) zone district to a different zone district or seeking to amend this Code by changing the permitted uses in any zone district shall be accompanied by a development plan. This requirement may be waived by Staff if it finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or other factors associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver.” Staff has waived the requirement for a development plan because of the fact that the subdivision is mostly built out. Also, this subdivision was originally platted under the A-Accommodation zone district regulations. The plat notes stated there was a mix of anticipated land uses, which is aligned with how the area actually built out. There are no anticipated future impacts from additional development. The A-1 zone district is more restrictive than the A-Accommodations zone district. 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: Adequate services are located within the subdivision to continue to provide service to the existing land uses. Reviewing agency staff has provided no concerns for inadequate service in the future. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This application has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. There are no outstanding concerns or comments associated with this application. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette. Typical mailings include a 100-foot radius. As of October 11, 2017, no formal written comments have been received for this application package. All written comments are posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Mary’s Lake Estates Re-Zoning STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Zoning Map Amendment. 2. Larimer Board of County Commissioners is the Decision Making Body for the Zoning Map Amendment. 3. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 5. The Zoning Map Amendment application complies with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: 1. I move to APPROVE the “Mary’s Lake Estates Zoning Map Amendment application” according to findings of fact with findings recommended by Staff. 2. I move to CONTINUE the “Mary’s Lake Estates Zoning Map Amendment application” to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to DENY the “Mary’s Lake Estates Zoning Map Amendment application”, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Mary’s Lake Estates Subdivision Plat 5. Full application can be found at: www.estes.org/currentapplications KIOWATRLLAKEWOOD CTPROMONTORY DRSSAINTVRAINAVEA R A P AH O R D ARAPAHORD MARYS LAKE RD M A R Y S LA K ER D KIOWA DRKIOWA DR KIOWACTKI OWA CTUTELNUTE LN MARYSLAKE 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. 0 160 320Feet 1 in = 443 ft±Tow n of Estes ParkCommunity Devel opm ent Mary's Lake EstatesZoning Map Amendment Printed: 10/11/2017Created By: Audem Gonzales Lakewood CourtHIGHWAY 66TUNNEL RDP E A K V I E W D R Site M ary's L a k e R o a d MarysLakeRezone-638-650-742-565 Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip BOLLINGER MARY C PO BOX 270602 FORT COLLINS CO 80527 CAIRNS RICHARD A/CYNTHIA 6821 E VALLEY VISTA LN PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253 FLANDANGO PROPERTIES LLC 501 SAINT VRAIN LN STE 101 ESTES PARK CO 80517 FRANK FAMILY TRUST 650 LAKEWOOD CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 GOETZ FAMILY TRUST 638 LAKEWOOD CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSON ROY E/MICHELE D 742 LAKEWOOD CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 MACKEY JAMES R & SUSAN M 11 NORMAN PL GREENVILLE SC 29615 MARYS MEADOW DEVELOPMENT INC 1350 GRAVES AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 PROMONTORY LLC/THE 4730 S COLLEGE AVE STE 205 FORT COLLINS CO 80525 ROCKY MOUNTAIN EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF ESTES PARK INC 451 PROMONTORY DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 SCHIFFER ADAM P/ELIZABETH G 3707 INWOOD DR HOUSTON TX 77019 SEGAL GARY M/SUSAN R 846 MOSELEY RD HIGHLAND PARK IL 60035 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK LARRY GAMBLE 1000 HWY 36 ESTES PARK CO 80517 VAN BOGAERT JEFFREY M/PATRICIA W 543 PROMONTORY DR UNIT 21 ESTES PARK CO 80517 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: October 17, 2017, 1:30PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: Approval of a Development Plan for the development of 19 duplex buildings (38 townhome units). Also, request for recommendation of approval of Preliminary Townhome Subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the Development Plan and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; 2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant’s testimony, public comment, and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and 3. Provide a recommendation to the Town Board of approval or denial of the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision application. 4. Approve or deny Development Plan application. LOCATION: TBD, Marys Lake Road, within the Town of Estes Park VINICTY MAP: See attachment OWNER/APPLICANT: James R. and Susan M. Mackey STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project appeared before the Planning Commission on September 19, 2017. The PC voted to continue the item to the October 17th hearing date. Present Situation: The subject property was annexed into the Town of Estes Park in 2017. It is approximately 10-acres in size and is undeveloped. The property is zoned A-Accommodations. Proposal: The proposal entails buildings 19 duplex buildings with 38 individual platted townhome lots. There are three Outlots proposed and three detention ponds. Several utility easements are proposed to be dedicated with several main extensions anticipated. There is no zone change requested with this development. Raven Rock Development Plan and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision 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, October 17, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub. SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Parcel Number: 34021-00-024 Development Area: Approx. 10-acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: 19 duplex buildings with 38 individual townhome lots Zoning Designation: A-Accommodations Adjacent Zoning: East: A-Accommodations and E-Estate North: A-Accommodations West: A-Accommodations South: A-Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses: East: 2 single-family homes and undeveloped property North: Undeveloped West: Church South: Mary’s Meadow Condominiums Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District Review Criteria. 1. Development Plan: 3.8.D. Development Plan Standards for Review requires the staff review and recommend approval/denial to the EVPC. The EVPC shall review the development plan application and all submitted plants and reports, and evaluate them according to the following standards: 1. The development plan shall comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC; and, 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. 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 applicable provisions of this Code. 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. The project consists of 19 duplex buildings, each with two separate units. The total number of units on the property will be 38. Each of the 38 units will be located on their own townhome lot. The lots conform to maximum impervious coverage. The buildings conform to maximum allowed heights. 2. Landscaping. Arterial buffer landscaping is required along Mary’s Lake Road, non-arterial buffer landscaping is required along Promontory Drive, Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub. and district buffer landscaping is required along the common border between this development and Arapaho Meadows. The applicant has provided more trees and shrubs than are required for this project but offers an Alternative Landscaping Plan for the location of this landscaping. Staff has found the Arterial, non-arterial, and district buffering to be adequate. The applicant has proposed additional landscaping internal to the site on each individual property. 114 trees are required and 270 shrubs. The landscaping plan proposes 164 trees and 273 shrubs. Since the overall project is over on required landscaping Staff has accepted the alternative plan. 3. Open Space. 4 acres out of the 10 acre site are platted as outlots. These outlots will contain the detention pond areas as well as a significant rock outcropping on the northeast section of the site. Private open space is not required with this type of development. 4. Water. There is a water main running through Mary’s Lake Road. This proposal calls for tying into that main and creating a looped system throughout the development. This will allow appropriate water pressure and flow to be met. 5. Fire Protection. There are two fire hydrants proposed with this project. Fire access is provided with platted public rights-of-way and using the private drives as emergency access areas. The preliminary plat shows the intent to dedicate these areas as emergency access easements. Portions of these easements will run through townhome lots. 6. Electric. A 20-foot utility easement was dedicated in 2016 for new Town of Estes Park electric lines along Mary’s Lake Road. All new electric lines for this project will be undergrounded (primary and secondary). 7. Sanitary Sewer. There is an existing sewer main downhill from the proposed development that borders the Arapaho Meadows subdivision. The plan calls for tying into that existing main and providing additional mains throughout Raven Rock. The 8” mains are proposed to run through the internal streets/driveways and will serve all the units by gravity flow. Stormwater Drainage. An addendum to the preliminary drainage report was submitted to staff on October 9th for review. This additional submittal was provided to address lingering concerns from Planning Commission expressed at the September 19th hearing. The addendum provides additional design calculations and drawings to further explain how the proposed pond outlet structures will function and how storm water discharge from the proposed development will be controlled and delivered to existing infrastructure downstream of the project. Three on-site detention ponds will be located on the property. They are designed to not exceed the historic outfall quantities of stormflow release. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub. All the ponds are designed with outlet structures and orifice plate restrictions to mimic the historic flow releases. Several internal storm sewer catch basins and buried storm sewer pipes will transport on-site generated flows to the ponds. Detention Pond 1 is proposed to be located within the 50-foot wetland buffer. This location will require a Variance as Code states that there shall be no disturbance of the ground within wetland setbacks. The applicant is proposing a channel and berm along the northeast property boundary in order to properly convey outflow from Detention Pond 2 off-site. Release rates are below historic rates at this location. A Preliminary Drainage Report was provided to Staff with the submitted applications. A Final Drainage Report is required to be submitted with the Final Plat for all subdivisions along with associated infrastructure improvement plans/financial securities. It is customary that the final plans show greater detail on the drainage systems of a project. The Preliminary Townhome Subdivision drainage plan is a detailed conceptual plan only. Staff has reviewed it and deemed it acceptable for this stage of the project. 8. Access. Access to the site will be from Mary’s Lake Road via newly proposed Promontory Drive. This Drive will be dedicated as Town ROW on the final plat. Gray Jay Way and Rock Wren Circle are two private drives accessing from Promontory Drive. All duplex buildings will front onto one of three drives proposed. The applicant has also extended ROW to the northwest and southeast edge of the property for future connections if needed. As noted above, emergency vehicle access is sufficient and provided throughout the site. A traffic impact study was provided to Staff for review. The study concluded that no additional auxiliary lanes for the Mary’s Lake/Promontory Drive intersection are recommended with development of the townhome subdivision. 9. Right-Of-Way. Public Works has requested an additional 10-foot public right-of-way dedication for Mary’s Lake Road. The applicant has provided this on the preliminary plat. It shall be dedicated on the final plat. Also, Promontory Drive is shown on the preliminary plat as public right-of-way and shall be dedicated on the final plat. 10. Wetlands. Two delineated wetlands have been shown on the plans in the southeastern section of the site. A 2015 wetland delineation was performed by Darcy A. Tiglas. This summary of that study was revised in September of 2017. There is a 50-foot setback to all wetlands per the EVDC. This project proposes building a detention pond within that 50-foot setback. This action requires a Variance. 11. Wildlife Study. A wildlife habitat report and conservation plan was submitted with this application. According to this report, no endangered, Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub. threatened, or special concern plant/wildlife species will be adversely affected by the proposed project. 12. Comprehensive Plan. The site is located within the Mary’s Lake planning area, which anticipates a wide-range of land uses, including the subject property envisioned to be for Accommodation uses. The existing zoning complies with the future land use designation. Duplexes and residential uses are allowed within the A-Accommodation zoning district. Development Guidelines. The guidelines for this planning area call for protecting natural resource areas such as drainage ways, open meadows, and wetland areas. Two wetland areas were identified on this site and contain a 50-foot setback buffer. Major drainage areas to the north of this property are protected as “Public Open Space” and more wetlands are delineated to the east of this property. The subject property itself does not contain a major drainage way that needs protecting, according to the drainage report. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This application has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette. Typical mailings include a 100-foot radius. As of October 11, 2017, two formal written comments have been received for this application package. All written comments are posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications. Public concerns/comments have been about drainage, view sheds, installation of utilities, density, building style, etc. Staff has met with the reviewing agencies to go over public comment and have assured staff that these concerns have been addressed with the current submittal or will be addressed with final infrastructure plans (e.g. final drainage study). STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The development plan and preliminary townhome subdivision comply with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. Development Guidelines and Future Land Use). 2. The Planning Commission is the Approving Body for the Development Plan and Recommending Body for the preliminary plat. 3. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were received. 5. The Development Plan and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision will comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC once a Variance is approved for a detention pond within the wetland setback. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 6 of 7 Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Development Plan and Preliminary Townhome Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. A Final Townhome Subdivision Plat shall be approved by Town Board within 120 days of Planning Commission decision date. The Final Plat shall be submitted with a Final Drainage Study and all associated infrastructure construction plans/financial guarantees. The Final Plat shall be recorded within 60 days of Town Board approval. 2. An approved Variance to locate the detention pond within the 50-foot wetland setback is required and shall be approved prior to town signatures on the Development Plan. SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR THE PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION: 1. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the “Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision application” according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the “Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision application” according to findings of fact with findings recommended by Staff. 3. I move to CONTINUE the “Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision application” to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuance.] 4. I move to recommend DENIAL of the “Raven Rock Preliminary Townhome Subdivision application”, finding that … [state findings for denial]. SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1. I move to APPROVE the “Raven Rock Development Plan application” according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2. I move to APPROVE the “Raven Rock Development Plan application” according to findings of fact with findings recommended by Staff. 3. I move to CONTINUE the “Raven Rock Development Plan application” to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuance.] 4. I move to DENY the “Raven Rock Development Plan application”, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 7 of 7 Raven Rock Development Plan and P. Townhome Sub. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Development Plan set 5. Preliminary Townhome Subdivision plan set 6. Building floorplans and elevations 7. Full application (including wetland study and drainage reports) can be found at: www.estes.org/currentapplications KIOWATRLSSAINTVRAINAVEKIOWA DR LAKEWOODCTPROMONTORY DRARAPAHORDARAPAHORD M A R Y S L A K E R DMARYSLAKERD 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 60 120Feet 1 in = 125 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Vicinity MapRaven Rock(Preliminary Townhom e Subdivision and Development Plan)Printed: 9/13/2017Created By: Audem Gonzales M ary's L a k e R o a d S SAINT VRAIN AVEMARYS LAKE RD PEAK VIEW DR MARYS LAKE SitePromontory Drive Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) Dawn James –351 Kiowa Drive, Estes Park Submitted 10/16/2017 for consideration for the 10/17/2017 Planning Commission session. Main concerns at this time: 1.Environmental Impact –Wildlife data not being taken into consideration 2.Traffic Impact –Additional factors not being considered in “traffic analysis” 1.Environmental Impact •At the September 19, 2017 Planning Commission session, I had requested that the wildlife study be re-evaluated. The developer indicated that additional wildlife studies would be performed. Question: Has there been additional studies performed? There has not been any public notification of such study being conducted. 1 •In addition to the hundreds of elk in the meadow this year, additional wildlife sightings have been made. This picture of a young Moose, in the wetland area of the proposed development area, was taken by Phyllis Edelbrock from The Meadows townhomes off Kiowa Drive on 5/21 after the May snow storm. Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) 2Page 18Page 20https://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/ nepa/final_estes_park_ea.pdf Request: A Resource Management Plan needs to address what actions will be instituted to protect human-wildlife conflict during construction and post construction especially during Spring, Summer and Fall. **Please note below excerpts from the Parking Structure study / recommendations. Environmental Impact -Continued Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) Environmental Impact -Continued Request: With a known human-wildlife conflict in this proposed extremely high density residential development, the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) need to participate in the planning to properly mitigate negative interaction. CPW has responsibility of the elk when outside of the park. Facts to Consider: Below are pictures of what happens several times each month as the elk bed in the meadow that is planned to be developed. Excessive traffic often grinds to a halt to view as little as four up to 200 elk or deer. Pictures below were taken at dusk, making it even more dangerous for the humans and for the wildlife. Over the last couple of months we had up to 100 elk make their presence in the proposed development area nearly every day. In the Pictures below there were approximately 80 elk and 40 cars continuously stopped. 3 Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) 2.Traffic Impact –Factors that have not been considered in the “traffic analysis” During the September 19, 2017 Planning Commission meeting it was noted that the City Engineer saw no issues with the developer’s assessments. I had pointed out several concerns that will not be re-reviewed today. However…. Question: How could their be no concerns over the traffic analysis, as it relates to pedestrians and cyclists, when in fact the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan (EVMTP) (Appendix Page 8) indicates that the Mary’s Lake Rd route from Hwy 7 and Hwy 36 is a known route as a loop for cycling and jogging (Appendix Page 9)? Trail #23 -Mary’s Lake Road Improvement Ranked #5, out of 27 trails, of those opportunities identified in the Master Trails Plan’s Project Priority Table (Appendix Page 10) . The EVMTP notes that the existing road has no shoulder to safely accommodate current pedestrian and cyclist volume. The development is on Mary’s Lake Rd, between Hwy 7 and Hwy 36. With an increase in population, given the proposed plan, the Planning Commission MUST address this increased hazard. Request: Planning Commission must require the developer to enhance Mary’s Lake Rd to accommodated their increased pedestrian and cyclists volume along Mary’s Lake Rd. In addition to the developer’s actions, the Planning Commission must take advantage of this construction disruption to implement the previously identified needs laid out in the EVMTP to accommodate the current pedestrian and cyclists needs outlined. 4 Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) 2.Traffic Impact Continued Facts to Consider:There has been precedence set with the Mary’s Lake Lodge condo development’s sidewalk, and others throughout Estes Park, whereby the developer’s multi-family policy is to enhance and contribute to the neighborhood and neighboring area. When the developer’s obligation is coupled with the needs identified in the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan, the Planning Commission must ensure that appropriate cross-walks and the availability of sidewalks are in place to allow pedestrians and cyclists to safety travel on Mary’s Lake Road, as shown on the next slide, and southbound toward Kiowa Drive. 5 Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) Request: The developer extend the current pedestrian and cycle path that ends near Lakewood Ct. and what appears to at the developer’s property line. The extension should continue across the causeway and loop around to the Mary’s Lake designated parking area, as noted by the red lines on the adjacent Google map. The developer should also extend the walkway/trail southbound toward Kiowa Drive. A natural or paved surface, multi-use trail to provide a safer recreation option for the developments local residents and vacation home renters, as well as the neighboring community. 2.Traffic Impact Continued 6 Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) Appendix 7 Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) 8 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/TransportationStudies Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) 9 Please note that the developer rejected Pedestrian and Bicyclist Traffic as they noted there was limited impact. The Estes Valley Master Trail Plan disagrees. As with nearly all local development of multi family residential areas, there should be some pedestrian and bicyclist path or trails required. Question: How will the Town of Estes Park address the Master Plan initiatives in this area of residential development? Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) 10 The Town of Estes Park has identified the need for additional trails on Mary’s Lake Rd, stretching from Hwy 36 to the Fish Creek Trail. This appears to be an ideal time for the Town of Estes Park to ensure that the Master Trail Plan is not disrupted. Question: How will the Town of Estes Park address ensure that Mary’s Lake Rd development will not interfere with a trail from Hwy 36 to Fish Creek? Public Comment –Mackey Subdivision (Raven Rock) 11 Trail #23 -Mary’s Lake Road Improvement Ranked #5 in Long Term Master Trail Plan Project Priority. Question: Knowing this, what are the Town’s plan while the area is prime for improvement? ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: October 17, 2017, 1:30PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: Approval of a Development Plan for the development of 86 storage units within two large buildings. Staff recommends approval of the Development Plan PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; 2. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant’s testimony, public comment, and Town staff’s findings and analysis; and 3. Approve or deny Development Plan application. LOCATION: 1901 Fish Creek Road, within the unincorporated Estes Valley VINICTY MAP: See attachment OWNER/APPLICANT: Chris and Marlys Eshelman STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Present Situation: The subject property is located within the unincorporated Estes Valley and is approximately 2.5 acres in size. It is developed with multiple buildings and commercial/industrial uses. The owner of the property lives in a single family home located on the west portion of the site. The project area is zoned I-1 Restricted Industrial. Proposal: The proposal entails building two large buildings totally around 15,000 SF in size for the purpose of creating 86 storage units. The project will include paving a looped driveway system around the two buildings for business access as well as fire protection. The existing access and drive off of Fish Creek Road will be utilized for this project. There is a Variance request for lowering existing grade of the existing cliff face. The project proposes excavating 4 additional feet to accommodate the looped driveway system. The Variance application is scheduled for a November 7th Board of Adjustment hearing date. Fish Creek Storage Development Plan 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, October 17, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Fish Creek Storage Development Plan SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Parcel Number: 2406200025 Development Area: Approx. 2.5-acres Existing Land Use: Commercial/Industrial/Residential Proposed Land Use: No change Zoning Designation: I-1 Restricted Industrial Adjacent Zoning: East: RE-Rural Estate North: I-1 Restricted Industrial West: R-Residential South: R-Residential Adjacent Land Uses: East: Single-Family Home North: Commercial/Industrial West: Open Space South: Open Space Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District Review Criteria. 1. Development Plan: 3.8.D. Development Plan Standards for Review requires the staff review and recommend approval/denial to the EVPC. The EVPC shall review the development plan application and all submitted plans and reports, and evaluate them according to the following standards: 1. The development plan shall comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC; and, 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Self-Service Storage projects over 20,000 SF are subject to the (S1) Special Review process. If projects are under 20,000 SF they are permitted by right and only require a Development Plan. This project is for roughly 15,000 SF of Self- Service Storage use, therefore, only a Development Plan is required. 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. The project consists of constructing two large storage buildings equaling approximately 15,000 SF is size. 86 Self-Service Storage units will be split between the two buildings. The buildings are low pitch and less than 15-feet in height. 2. Lighting. The applicant has requested a waiver to providing a photometric study for the project. Staff did not require a photometric study with the application submittal due to the size of the project and lack of parking lot lighting. All proposed wall lights shall be shielded and downcast to meet Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Fish Creek Storage Development Plan the Dark Sky ordinance. This is a staff level waiver under the EVDC and not a Planning Commission decision. 3. Landscaping. Development in industrial zone districts requires district landscaping buffers to adjacent residential properties. The subject property does border some adjacent residential, to the west and south. The applicant is requesting a waiver to these buffers for the following reasons: 1. Property to the west and south is zoned R-Residential. These adjacent properties are platted as Public Open Space and will never be developed. Code provides for waiving district landscaping buffers for cases such as this. When there is unbuildable land or natural topographic buffers, standards can be waived. Also, there is an existing cliff face on the western edge of the subject property that is 15-20 feet tall. This serves as a natural screen to any development west of this property. (See image below.) Property to the south is a large area of open space containing trees, bushes, and the creek. Looking west towards development proposal area Arterial landscaping buffer requirements are met. The applicant has provided 15 trees and 36 bushes along Fish Creek Road. The plantings will be outside of the right-of-way and will be irrigated. There is no district landscaping buffer requirement to the north as the property borders another industrial property. A second waiver is requested to internal lot landscaping for the following reason: 1. Each non-residential property is required to plant 1 tree for every 1,000 SF of impervious coverage. This project would trigger at least 15 trees based off the building sizes alone. Industrial properties typically never provide internal landscaping, only property line buffers. Staff is discussing a potential Code amendment to exclude industrial zoning from this regulation. This discussion has been going on among staff Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Fish Creek Storage Development Plan and Planning Commission members before this application was submitted. 4. Water. There are water service lines currently servicing the multiple commercial/industrial buildings and single family home on the site. This project proposes abandoning those lines and installing a new service line to the east of the east storage building. The storage buildings will not be serviced by water. 5. Fire Protection. A new fire hydrant is proposed near the north property line that will be used to serve the development. There is an existing water main along the north property line. The new hydrant and main extension will require additional review during the infrastructure construction plan process, which takes place after Development Plan approval. These improvements require a financial security by the developer with no building permit issued until all infrastructure plans and securities are reviewed and approved. The looped driveway system is adequate to accommodate emergency vehicle apparatus. A fire truck turn template was provided to staff and was reviewed by the Estes Valley Fire District. 6. Electric. The buried electric line to the existing shop will be used for the proposed storage buildings and automatic gate/entry sign. 7. Sanitary Sewer. Existing sewer lines to the shop are proposed to be capped. The storage units do not propose sanitation facilities. 8. Stormwater Drainage. Post developed storm drainage will be handled through concrete trickle pans, approximately 125-feet of 24” ADS pipe and three manholes crossing the creek before entering the creek. This results in a grass lined swale on the east side of Fish Creek for water quality treatment prior to release into the creek. Final drainage details will be reviewed during the infrastructure construction plan process. All work proposed within the regulatory flood plain is required to obtain the appropriate permitting. There are four concentrated storm drainage areas over the cliff that outflow onto the subject property. This stormwater will flow into the trickle pans and into the proposed conveyance system to the grass lined swale. Stabilization associated with the proposed cliff cut will require further review during the next review process. County Engineering staff reviewed the initial application and recommended a grassy buffer for water quality. The applicant addressed this recommendation in the conceptual storm water drainage plan as part of this application. 9. Access/Parking/Loading. Access to the site will remain from Fish Creek Road via the existing driveway. Fish Creek road is currently under construction as it was damaged during the 2013 flood. The final location Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Fish Creek Storage Development Plan and size of the road is somewhat unknown at this time. The access points for this development will remain at their locations but the north entrance will become narrower and more defined where it intersects Fish Creek Road. A traffic impact study was provided to Staff for review. The study concluded that the predicted vehicle trip to and from the site will decrease with this proposed use when compared to the existing commercial/industrial uses. Also, parking requirements per Code (8 spaces required for this project) are not practical for this type of use. A storage facility utilizes drive aisles in front of units for parking. Requiring 8 dedicated striped parking spaces outside of the storage areas is not practical. Staff has agreed to accept the alternative parking plan of providing zero spaces. The traffic study also address loading areas. Code requires a dedicated 12’x15’ loading area on the site. Again, the self-storage use is one giant parking and loading area. The initial plan submittal showed the loading area within setbacks, which would have triggered a Variance request. Staff has agreed that no dedicated loading area shall be required and has accepted that as an alternative parking and loading plan as shown on the proposed site plans, as allowed by EVDC. 10. Right-Of-Way. An additional 20-feet of ROW is proposed with this submittal per Larimer County Engineering requirements. Fish Creek requires 100-feet of ROW. It currently has 60-feet of ROW which means this property is required to dedicate an additional 20-feet. The additional ROW shall be dedicated by a separate instrument prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Floodplain. The proposed buildings are outside of the current 100 year FEMA floodplain and river setback. This stretch of Fish Creek was initially proposed to be re-aligned but that is no longer the case. Also, the Estes Valley Water Shed Coalition planned on river restoration work for this area but this project fell through. Staff has reviewed the proposal under current regulations and site topography. 12. Comprehensive Plan. The Fish Creek/Little Prospect Mountain Planning Area found in the Comprehensive Plan has language stating that development in the Acacia Industrial area should provide buffers/screening from the adjacent residential development. Several waivers have been requested with this project in regards to landscape buffers in specific areas. One landscape buffer area is being required by staff (along arterial road). Several of these buffer areas are exempted from landscaping per the EVDC. This is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. In such cases the EVDC is required to prevail. 13. Variance. A Variance has been applied for lowering the original grade more than 12-feet. The existing cliff cut is more than 12-feet. The applicant Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 6 of 7 Fish Creek Storage Development Plan has proposed excavating an additional 4 feet west of the existing cliff face. The result will mean that the original grade will be changed by more than 12-feet. The purpose of this excavation is to incorporate the access and fire driveway loop around the storage buildings. The applicant needs more space for this type of development, partly for public-safety reasons. There is a 30-foot river setback to Fish Creek and a floodplain that prohibits moving the development farther to the east. Land on the east side of the creek is also located in the floodplain and contains a steep slope to the road. The Variance application is scheduled to go before the Board of Adjustment on November 7th. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This application has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Landscaping, right-of-way dedication, and the Variance are the only outstanding issues associated with this project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette. Typical mailings include a 100-foot radius. As of October 11, 2017, no formal written comments have been received for this application package. All written comments are posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The development plan complies with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. Development Guidelines and Future Land Use). 2. The Planning Commission is the Approving Body for the Development Plan. 3. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 5. The Development Plan will comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC once a Variance is approved for changing the original grade more than 12-feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Development Plan and with the following conditions: 1. An approved Variance to lower original grade more than 12-feet is required and shall be approved prior to Planning Commission signatures on the Development Plan. 2. A 20-foot Right-Of-Way dedication for Fish Creek Road by separate instrument shall be recorded and a copy with recordation notation shall be submitted to Community Development Staff within 60-days of Development Plan approval date. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 17, 2017 Page 7 of 7 Fish Creek Storage Development Plan SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1. I move to APPROVE the “Fish Creek Storage Development Plan application” according to findings of fact with findings and conditions recommended by Staff. 2. I move to APPROVE the “Fish Creek Storage Development Plan application” according to findings of fact with findings recommended by Staff. 3. I move to CONTINUE the “Fish Creek Storage Development Plan application” to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 4. I move to DENY the “Fish Creek Storage Development Plan application”, finding that … [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Development Plan set 5. Full application can be found at: www.estes.org/currentapplications FISHCREEKRDBALDPATECTB A L DPATECTFish CreekThis 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 40 80Feet 1 in = 111 ft±Tow n of Estes ParkCommunity Devel opm ent Fish Cre ek StorageDevelopment Plan1901 Fish Cre ek Road Printed: 10/11/2017Created By: Audem Gonzales Fish Creek RoadE HIGHWAY 36MARYS LAKE RDP E A K V I E W D R Site FishCreekStorageDP&Variance-100.xls Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip SHAVER MARSDEN A 7326 FINCH ST HOUSTON TX 77028 ESHELMAN CHRIS L/MARLYS K 1901 FISH CREEK RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 GREENLEE MARGIE PO BOX 1522 ESTES PARK CO 80517 COPPER ROBERT D FAMILY LP PO BOX 1125 ESTES PARK CO 80517 PRIDEY MARY E TRUST 706 CARRIAGE LN N TWIN FALLS ID 83301 SOUTH TEXAS FARMS INC PO BOX 2734 MCALLEN TX 78502 KEARNEY AND SONS ENTERPRISES LLC KEARNEY AND SONS EXCAVATING INC PO BOX 3623 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MCCORMICK DARRYL E/LISA L 1980 BALDPATE CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 GIBSON KEITH & LEIGH 4432 CREEKBEND CIR RICHARDSON TX 75082 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK CO 80517 October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 5, 2017) Page 1 of 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Carrie McCool, Planning Consultant Date: October 17, 2017 RE: Proposed Text Amendments to Estes Valley Development Code: EVDC § 4.3 Bed and Breakfast Inns Permitted by Special Review (Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts); §13.2 – Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples; and § 5.1 U – Specific Use Standards for Bed and Breakfast Inns Planning Commission Objective: Review and recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to; 1) extend special review use review and approval procedures to Bed and Breakfast Inns in all residential zone districts and; 2) to restore specific use standards for Bed and Breakfast Inns (B&Bs). Code Amendment Objective: The objective of these proposed code amendments is to review the EVDC to do the following: • Set forth an administrative review process for B&Bs with 8-and under occupants. • Allow B&Bs with 9-and-over occupants to be permitted by special review in all residential zone districts with the exception RM Multi-Family Residential zone district wherein they would be permitted by right. • Restore specific use standards that apply to B&Bs to ensure compatibility with neighborhood character, compliance with existing business licensing requirements, annual operating registration, and posting requirements found in Sec. 5.1.B. (Vacation Home) regulations. • Advance the intent and community-wide policies outlined in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan relating to economics by supporting the tourism industry while preserving community character. • Support a unique blend of businesses, residents, and visitors, without negatively affecting the natural beauty and character of Estes Valley residential neighborhoods. October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 5, 2017) Page 2 of 8 • Align specific use definition and examples with requirements for owner occupancy/operation of a B&B or employment of an on-site manager that resides on the premises during the bed and breakfast use. Proposal: Amend EVDC § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts Permitted by Special Review (Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts); §13.2 – Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples and § 5.1 – Specific Use Standards for Bed and Breakfast Inns as stated in Exhibit A [“PC Draft”], dated October 17, 2017, 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: Bed and breakfast inns (B&Bs) are appropriately classified as low-intensity accommodation uses in Table 4-1: Permitted Uses Residential Zoning Districts of the EVDC. However, they are prohibited in all the residential zone districts except RM Multi-Family Residential and most recently recommended as S1 review in the R-2 Two- Family Residential zone district. B&Bs have become an integral part of the tourism industry as they offer an alternative to a hotel, motel or vacation home rental. Specifically, they offer a different experience for travelers than traditional forms of accommodation by providing a homelike ambiance and a personal level of attention, often in dwellings with unique décor, architecture, historical significance or natural beauty. An important feature distinguishing B&Bs from other forms of tourist accommodation is that the primary function of the property is a residence. Typically, they are located in dwelling units that are in residential neighborhoods so ensuring compatibility with the neighborhood is essential. While B&Bs contribute to local economies, they can raise issues concerning their potential impacts upon existing residential neighborhoods. Some of the concerns include the potential of increased traffic, parking, noise, as well as other less quantifiable impacts that affect neighbors’ perception of their neighborhoods. Considering the positive impacts that B&Bs could have on the Estes Valley economy coupled with the ability to mitigate any potential adverse impacts through the Special Review Use approval procedure and implementation of specific use standards for B&Bs, staff has brought forth these EVDC text amendments for the Planning Commissions’ consideration. On May 16, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval of an amendment to the EVDC revising the criteria used to determine when a special review is required and to categorize special review projects according to intensity. The first draft of this text amendment proposed to allow B&Bs as uses permitted by special review in all residential zone districts to be reviewed through the S1 procedure (e.g., Board approval). Per discussion in the June 20, 2017, Planning Commission study session, the Planning Commission concluded that B&Bs are uses that have wider public interest October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 5, 2017) Page 3 of 8 or impact that should be reviewed through the S2 procedure (e.g., PC recommendation and Board approval). Since the Planning Commission Study Session, staff has analyzed the operational characteristics and impacts of occupancy of existing bed and breakfast inns in the Estes Valley as well as the effectiveness of the specific use standards utilized to regulate vacation homes. Similar to vacation homes, the larger the residential dwelling unit; the greater potential for neighborhood impact. The current vacation home regulations set forth two maximum occupancy classifications (8-and-under occupants and 9-and-over occupants) that have worked well in the Estes Valley. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the occupancy classification framework and set forth an administrative review process for B&Bs with 8-and-under occupants subject to the specific use standards in the new Section 5.1 U Bed and Breakfast Inns. It also allows B&Bs with 9-and-over occupants to be permitted by special review in all residential zone districts except RM Multi-Family Residential zone districts wherein they would be permitted by right. Since a larger B&B could have a wider public interest or impact, staff recommends review and approval through the S2 procedure for B&Bs with 9-and-over occupants. The S2 special review use procedure for B&Bs with 9-and-over occupants would ensure that larger B&Bs are granted approval only for their specific bed and breakfast use approved at their specific site and any adverse impacts of the bed and breakfast inn on a specific area/neighborhood is adequately addressed. It would also provide the opportunity to deny a bed and breakfast inn use if findings establish that concerns cannot be resolved. To ensure compatibility with neighborhood character and conformance with business regulations and licensing, this amendment restores the specific use standards for B&Bs that were previously repealed when the Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners adopted regulations related to short-term vacation rentals on December 15, 2016, and later amended in March 2017. Similar to the maximum occupancy classifications of the vacation home regulations, the specific use standards have worked well for the Estes Valley by setting forth annual operating registration, inspection, posting, and business license requirements, as well ensuring these businesses are not designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential uses of a dwelling unit by one household. The proposed specific use standards for B&Bs are aligned with the successful vacation home specific use standards and address public comments received relating to neighborhood character, vehicular traffic, parking, occupancy, density, accessory dwelling units as well as ensure compliance with existing business licensing requirements, annual operating registration, inspection, and posting requirements found in Sec. 5.1.B. (Vacation Home) regulations. Specific text has been included to require owner occupancy of a B&B or that an on-site manager employed by the owner resides on the premises at all times when the bed and breakfast is in operation. This owner occupancy requirement should deter people from renting out rooms in their homes as it does not fit the business model of Airbnb. Most vacationers that use Airbnb feel the best situation is to have a host nearby and not stay on the property with them. Staff has October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 5, 2017) Page 4 of 8 read numerous complaints on the Airbnb websites wherein vacationers found it “unnerving” that the host resided on the property. Lastly, the text revisions restore the restriction of B&Bs to be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue within the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district. EVPC Study Session and Commissioner Input The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed proposed text amendments at the June 20th and September 19th, 2017 study sessions. The following narrative outlines how recommendations from the study sessions, separate Commissioner and Town Attorney input has been analyzed and addressed in the proposed text amendments (see Exhibit A) : • The Planning Commission recommended allowing B&Bs as uses permitted by special review in all residential zone districts to be reviewed through the S2 review procedure. Upon analysis of the implementation of the vacation home specific use standards and considering the proposed owner occupancy requirement, staff is recommending an administrative review process for B&Bs with 8-and-under occupants in a parallel fashion as vacation homes. As such, the vacation home specific use standards have been incorporated into draft text to ensure compatibility with neighborhood character, compliance with existing business licensing requirements, annual operating registration, inspections, and posting requirements outlined Sec. 5.1.B.vacation home regulations. Since larger B&Bs (with 9-and-over occupants) are more likely to have impacts on existing residential neighborhoods, staff is recommending that B&Bs with 9-and-over occupants be allowed as uses permitted by special review to be reviewed through the S2 procedure (EVPC recommendation and Board approval). • The proposed text amendment has been revised to state the B&B annual operating registration shall designate the resident owner or on-site manager employed by the owner instead of an “on-site operator.” Additionally, the amendment specifically requires that the owner of the B&B, or an on-site manager employed by the owner, shall reside on the premises at all times when the B&B is in operation. • It was suggested that the minimum number of off-street parking spaces be tied to the number of guest rooms (one per room) plus the number of vehicles used on-site by permanent residents. Under these suggested parking requirements, an eight (8) bedroom B&B would be required to provide eight (8) parking spaces. Staff finds that it is very rare for a residential dwelling to have eight parking spaces on-site. Similar to vacation homes, it is not advised to impose requirements that are out of character with the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed parking requirements are consistent with the vacation home parking standards that have been working well within the Valley. October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 5, 2017) Page 5 of 8 • The Planning Commission recommended that limitations for employee housing and attainable housing units be deleted from the specific use standards due to the relevancy of including them in the text amendments. Exhibit A has been revised to align with the vacation home regulations which state that employee housing units and attainable housing units shall not be designated as B&Bs. • The Town Attorney noted that it could be possible to have a B&B in a condominium. In efforts to align the density regulations that limit one (1) bed and breakfast inn per residential dwelling unit; the reference to “detached single-family” has been deleted from the Specific Use Definitions and Examples for Bed and Breakfast Inns found in Section 13.2 of the EVDC. If approved, the definition and specific use standards found in Exhibit A will be aligned with upcoming revisions to Sections 5.20.110- Vacation Homes and Bed and Breakfast Inns and 5.20.020 – Definitions of the Municipal Code that will be completed by the Town Clerks office. • Commissioners suggested that home occupations be prohibited for consistency with how they are addressed in the short-term vacation rental text amendments (see Sec. 5.1.B (Vacation Homes). The existing home occupation regulations are intended to ensure that a home-based business would not change the character of the neighborhood. Examples of Estes Valley home based business are property managers, pet sitters, general contractors, wedding officials, bookkeepers, etc. These types of home-based businesses have business activities that are mostly conducted off-site (not at the residence) and would be compatible with the operation of a B&B business. Further, it is important to mention that the vacation home rental regulations prohibited home occupations because vacation homes are not owner- occupied on a full-time basis. • Due to the potential enforcement issues related to meal service, the limitations on meals provided to B&B guests and the general public have been deleted. • At the September 19th Study Session, Commissioners requested a revisitation of the occupancy limits, so that the “eight” includes the owner/operator and family. Staff is aware of case law that restricts zoning from regulating the number of members in a family, even in conjunction with non-relatives. Building and fire codes can and do regulate the number of occupants, irrespective of family status due to life-safety issues. Today’s families change from day-to-day or month-to-month and thus would be difficult to regulate. Because the proposed B&B regulations require owner- occupancy, it is reasonable to assign the resident owner or on-site manager one bedroom and therefore subtract it from the allowable occupancy calculation formula of a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two (2) guests. Staff has added language (see U.2.a(3) of Exhibit A) to address the Commissions concerns regarding occupancy limitations. • Commissioners stated that the requirement of meeting the safety codes as it currently stands could be made less ambiguous. The proposed code language states that B&Bs shall be required to meet applicable building, health and fire codes. October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 5, 2017) Page 6 of 8 This language is consistent with the text found in the vacation home regulations. The Chief Building Official reviewed the requested change and found that B&Bs should follow the same regulations as the updated vacation home regulations. The regulations as currently written have worked well in the Valley. It’s also important to note that Planning Division Staff provides excellent customer service by assisting customers through the development review and permitting process. A key component of that is assisting applicants to comply with all applicable regulations that would apply to their particular project/proposal. Staff Findings of Fact: The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;” Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected. 2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley:” Staff Finding: The proposed text amendments are compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and advance community-wide policies related to economics by supporting the tourism industry and critical livability factors (e.g., quality of life, natural setting, community character, etc.) for residents. Additionally, the proposed amendments are consistent with growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendments in principle. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 5, 2017) Page 7 of 8 • Advances the intent and community-wide policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. • Supports a unique blend of businesses, residents, and visitors, while protecting the Estes Valley community character by allowing Bed and Breakfast Inns to be permitted by special review in all residential zone districts when there are minimal impacts, and mitigation measures can be imposed to address identified concerns. • Restores specific use standards that apply to Bed and Breakfast Inns to ensure compatibility with neighborhood character, annual monitoring, and compliance with existing business license requirements. Disadvantages: • None. Action Recommended: Review the amendments 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: Proposing Code Amendments are aimed at setting forth an administrative review process for Bed and Breakfast Inns with eight and under occupants; allowing Bed and Breakfast Inns with nine and over occupants to be permitted by special review in all residential zone districts to be reviewed through the S2 procedure; and restoring specific use standards for Bed and Breakfast Inns. Low: This particular Code Amendment. Sample Motion: 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 as presented in Exhibit A 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 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 as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). Attachments: October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 5, 2017) Page 8 of 8 1. Exhibit A: § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning District, Bed and Breakfast Inns Special Review S2; §13.2 – Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples; and § 5.1 – Specific Use Standards - Bed and Breakfast Inn (August 15, 2017). 2. Public Comment from Ellen Allen and Jim Fisher dated July 27, 2017. 3. Public Comment from Robert Welch dated September 6, 2017. EXHIBIT A [October 17, 2017 – EVPC Draft, B&Bs Permitted by Special Review; and Specific Use Standards for B&Bs] § 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 “LV” = Permitted by Large Vacation Home Review "—" = Prohibited RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM ACCOMMODATION USES Low-Intensity Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inn: 8 and under occupants — P — P — P — P — P — P S P P §5.1 U Bed and Breakfast Inn: 9 and over occupants — S2 — S2 — S2 — S2 — S2 — S2 S S2 P §5.1 U Vacation Home: 8 and under Occupants P P P P P P P P §5.1B Vacation Home: 9 and over Occupants LV LV LV LV LV LV LV LV §5.1B (Large Vacation Home Reviews may be approved by Planning Commission only, subject to specified criteria) § 5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS This Section contains regulations that apply to specific uses or classes of uses. U. Bed and Breakfast Inn 1. All bed and breakfast inns shall be subject to the following: a. Annual Operating Registration. (1) All bed and breakfast inns shall obtain an operating registration on an annual basis. An annual operating registration shall be effective on and following the date of issuance for all of the remaining calendar year in which it is issued, unless suspended or revoked for cause, provided that registered bed and breakfast inns may continue operation during January 1 and March 31 of any calendar year following a year in which the bed and breakfast inn was duly registered. (2) If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the permit. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley, a permit shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's Office. (3) No more than one (1) operating registration shall be issued and effective in any given calendar year for a bed and breakfast inn. An active operating registration for a specific bed and breakfast inn shall be transferable to a different owner in accordance with procedures in this Code and as established by the Town Clerk’s office. (4) Every bed and breakfast inn for which an operating registration application is made shall require that the bed and breakfast inn undergo and pass an initial inspection in accordance with this Code prior to issuance of the operating permit. (5) Issuance of an operating registration for a bed and breakfast inn shall not constitute a zoning entitlement for a property’s use as a bed and breakfast inn, nor shall absence of an operating registration for a bed and breakfast inn constitute removal or abrogation of a property’s zoning permissibility for use as a bed and breakfast inn. However, both appropriate zoning permission, special review approval and compliance and a valid current operating permit shall be necessary elements in order for operation as a bed and breakfast inn to occur. (6) The registration shall designate the resident owner or on-site manager residing on the premise who can be contacted and is on the property twenty-four (24) hours per day when the bed and breakfast is in operation, regarding any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the representative of the owner for immediate violation resolution purposes with regard to the bed and breakfast inn. An annual operating registration shall not be valid unless the resident owner and on-site manager employed by the owner (if different), sign the operating registration application acknowledging all bed and breakfast inn regulations. If the resident owner or on-site manager changes during the calendar year, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of change, and to insure the on-site manager is knowledgeable of all bed and breakfast inn regulations. If the property changed during the calendar year, it shall be the responsibility of the new property owner of record to transfer the operating registration into his/her name and to ensure all other regulations in this Section are in compliance. (7) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating permit shall be proof of a current sales tax license. (8) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may deny or withhold the renewal of an operating registration until a violation related to such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with §12.4.A.1. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may revoke or suspend the operating permit at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Operating the bed and breakfast inn during any such period of suspension or revocation shall be a violation of this Code. Appeal to this section shall be made in accordance with the appeals process in the Estes Valley Development Code. (9) Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code or other penalties and enforcement powers as may be available at law. (10) The owner of the bed and breakfast inn, or an on-site manager employed by the owner, shall reside on the premises at all times when the bed and breakfast is in operation. b. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20 (Business Licenses) In case of conflict between Chapter 5.20 and provisions of §5.1.B of this Code, the provisions of §5.1.B of this Code shall control. c. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Except in the CD district, design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use. (2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast inn. (3) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms. (4) Accessory buildings shall not be used for amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. (5) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate each bed and breakfast inn, except that one (1) wall- mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (6) Vehicular traffic and noise levels shall not be out of character with residential use. d. Parking. (1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a bed and breakfast inn shall not be reduced to less than two (2). (2) Maximum Off-Street Parking – Residential Zoning Districts. This Section applies to all vehicles that are not parked or stored in a fully enclosed garage. No more than a total of four (4) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot of two (2) acres or less. No more than a total of five (5) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot greater than two (2) acres in size, but less than five (5) acres. No more than a total of six (6) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than five (5) acres, but less than ten (10) acres. No more than a total of eight (8) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than ten (10) acres. (3) Maximum Off-Street Parking – Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Maximum parking for bed and breakfast inns shall be regulated according to the parking standards applicable to Hotel, small.” e. Employee housing units as designated in §5.2.C.2 shall not be designated a bed and breakfast inns as defined and regulated herein. f. Attainable housing units as designated in §11.4 shall not be designated as bed and breakfast Inns as defined and regulated herein. g. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns shall not be permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also §5.2.B.2.a, which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the length of tenancy). h. CD District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. i. Density. Only one (1) bed and breakfast inn shall be permitted per residential dwelling unit. j. Postings. (1) Bed and breakfast inns in all zoning districts shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site. The posted notice shall be provided by the Town Clerk’s Office at the time the operating-registration is initially applied for, shall be posted in a prominent location inside the bed and breakfast inn prior to or during the initial inspection, and shall remain posted in the same location for the duration of its use as a bed and breakfast inn. The posted notice shall include standard contents as determined and approved by the Community Development Department. (2) Property Line Boundaries: The property owner or local representative shall inform all occupants of property boundaries. (3) Property owner or local representative shall include in all print or online advertising the operating registration number in the first line of the property description. (4) Advertising shall accurately represent the allowed use of the property, including the maximum number of allowed occupants. (5) Neighbor Notification. Prior to issuance of the initial annual operating permit, the resident owner or designated manager residing on the premises shall be responsible for mailing a written notice. a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the boundary of the subject property. b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the resident owner or manager residing on the premise. Any change in the resident owner or manager residing on the premise shall require that the name and telephone number of the new resident owner or manager residing on the premise be furnished to the Community Development Director and owners of properties with15 days two (2) weeks of the change. Mailed notice of such changes shall follow the same procedure as the initial notification as specified herein. c) Proof of mailing shall be provided to the Community Development Director upon issuance of initial annual operating permit. 2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subject to the following: a. Occupancy. (1) Maximum Occupancy – 8-and-under occupants. The maximum allowable occupancy shall be limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two guests. The maximum allowable occupancy for an individual bed and breakfast Inn shall be eight (8) occupants. (2) Maximum Occupancy – 9-and-over occupants. A residential structure with four (4) or more sleeping rooms is permitted by special review in accordance with the S2 approval. The maximum occupancy in a 9-and- over occupant bed and breakfast inn shall be as specified in the special review approval granted by the Town Board; provided that occupancy shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals per sleeping room plus two (2) individuals per bed and breakfast inn. (3) One bedroom shall be assigned to the resident owner or on-site manager and therefore subtracted from the maximum occupancy calculations in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. (4) Number of Parties, bed and breakfast inns. Bed and breakfast inns may be rented, leased or furnished to one (1) or more parties. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations may be operated on the site of a bed and breakfast Inn. Bed and breakfast inns may also offer limited ancillary services to guests, such as offering classes/workshops to guests, provided they are in character with residential use. c. Meal Service. Bed and breakfast inns may provide meals service to registered overnight guests. d. Bed and breakfast inns, whether new or existing structures, shall be subject to the requirements of Sec. 7.9 (Exterior Lighting) for new development. e. Bed and breakfast inns shall be required to meet applicable Building, Health and Fire codes. § 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C.2.b (1) Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: Bed and Breakfast Inn means a detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased or occupied as a single accommodations unit for accommodations purposes for terms of less than thirty (30) days and is operator owner-occupied on a full-time basis or an on-site manager employed by the owner resides on the premises during the bed and breakfast use. October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 11, 2017) Page 1 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: October 17, 2017 RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding Definition of “Single Family Use” Planning Commission Objective: Review and recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to create a definition for the term “Single Family Use.” Code Amendment Objective: The objective of the proposed code amendment is to amend the EVDC to create a definition for the term “Single Family Use.” Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommends approval of the language in Exhibit [Delta] Red to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion: The EVDC has definitions and regulations for several concepts related to use of a structure and/or premises for single-family use. We define “Dwelling, Single-Family” and “Dwelling, Detached”, which are cross-referenced related concepts in Chapter 13 (Definitions). We also define the terms “Household” and “Household Living”, which are parallel concepts in defining a single family in the specific context of zoning and land use. However, we don’t have a specific definition in EVDC for the term “Single-Family Use”. The specific origin of this Code request was a citizen request to staff and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the overall concept in a June meeting, followed by consideration of draft Code language in a July study session, and on both occasions requested staff to bring this matter forward for public hearing – which brings us to today. Although no specific application to date has required the definition to be invoked, there is a reasonable link between potential future administration of the EVDC and this specific use. As long as our Code is in compliance with other statutory and case law and regulations, such as US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development stipulations for group homes, Fair Housing Act regulations, and similar matters, there is no downside to October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 11, 2017) Page 2 of 3 adding this use definition to EVDC. Staff is not aware of any such regulations that would conflict. The definition in Exhibit Delta Red defines “Single Family Use” in parallel with these matters. Much of the actual language in the exhibit is borrowed from our existing definition of “Household” (Sec. 13.3.125), which is appropriate in maintaining Code continuity. Staff Findings: The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;” Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected – specifically, adding clarity and specificity to definitions in 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:” Staff Finding: The proposed text amendments are compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and advance community-wide policies. Additionally, the proposed amendments are consistent with growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendments in principle. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Advances the intent and community-wide policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Disadvantages: October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 11, 2017) Page 3 of 3 • Does add slightly to the length and complexity of the EVDC. Action Recommended: Review the amendments 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. Level of Public Interest Low interest in this specific Code amendment; high in the overall issue of matters affecting single-family uses in the Estes Valley. The amendment itself was initiated by request of a concerned citizen. Sample Motion: 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 as presented in Exhibit Red 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 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 as presented in Exhibit Red, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). Attachments: • Exhibit [Delta] Red: § 11.4 [Single Family Use Definition] (October 17, 2017). EXHIBIT A [Single Family Use Definition: Version [Delta] Red] Planning Commission: 2017-10-17 CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS § 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. 44.5 Single Family Use. a. General Definition: A single family use is a land use designated for a family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption, or for eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident caregivers) living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. Single family use shall include occupancy by a renter household for terms of thirty (30) days or more. Refer to the definition of accommodations use for renter occupancy for terms of less than thirty (30) days. October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 11, 2017) Page 1 of 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: October 17, 2017 RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding Restricting Housing Density Bonus Eligibility to the RM (Multi-Family Residential) District. Planning Commission Objective: Review and recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to remove all residential districts except RM (Multi-Family Residential) from eligibility for bonus density incentives, and to remove other concerning language from the section. Code Amendment Objective: The objective of the proposed code amendment is to amend the EVDC to restrict the density bonus to RM zoning only. The density bonus is aimed at increasing the supply of workforce and attainable housing in the Estes Valley. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommends approval of the language in Exhibit A [Gamma Red] to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion: The EVDC has included a density bonus in Chapter 11 (Incentives) since 2002, according to our records. The same subsections on density were amended in late 2016 to change the threshold criteria for income eligibility and to add workforce incentives, in order to address the growing local shortage of housing in those categories. More recently, concerns in the community have arisen regarding the possibility that the density bonus could lead to subdivisions into smaller single-family lots for workforce or attainable categories. That would have more impact on single-family zoned areas, due to greater land area in the single-family districts if nothing else. On the one hand, any measure that reduces the opportunities available for workforce or attainable housing development should be approached with great caution. The problem with attainable and workforce housing won’t be resolved by reducing the supply. October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 11, 2017) Page 2 of 5 On the other hand, this amendment seems unlikely to have much impact on workforce and attainable housing issues. Since the original 2002 amendment, a number of multi- family projects have been proposed under this incentive section, and several built; however, to staff’s awareness, only one single-family project (The Neighborhood subdivision) has been done. In the context of overall Code changes proposed recently and contemplated in the future, the effects of any amendment on single-family neighborhoods seems to generate most local concern and nervousness. Given that multi-family seems to offer most opportunities for new or redeveloped workforce/attainable housing – nationwide and in Estes Valley – the negative consequences of this zoning change do not seem significant, and the value in maintaining overall community support for more important housing solutions seems worthwhile. Staff is reluctant to remove options from the table for incentivizing housing alternatives, but in this case the overall good outweighs the bad in our judgment. It doesn’t appear to us that passage or denial of the amendment will change matters, judging from the past 15 years; and there is a case for stability in this matter. It can also be observed that single-family attainable/workforce subdivisions could still be done in the RM zoning district. That is not the highest and best use of our RM land, but it would be legal and available under EVDC, with or without this amendment. A minor aspect of approving the amendment: it will bring height bonus and density bonus provisions into parallel alignment. The height bonus is available in only RM. This amendment may head off confusion between the bonuses. Additionally, staff has been consistent in recommending “simpler is better” when EVDC amendments are brought up. This will shorten the code section in question – not only by reducing the number of eligible zoning districts in Sec. 11.4.B, but also by eliminating the language in Sec. 11.4.E.1 regarding minimum lot size / area, which affects subdivisions for single-family or duplex lots only. On that latter topic: The 2002 language in Sec. 11.4.E.1 contains some provisions that become unnecessary if RM only is retained for the incentives, as that section applies only in single-family and duplex developments. But there’s another excellent reason to remove the language therein – namely, leaving it could allow for significantly changing the character of single-family zoning itself, if actually implemented. A close reading of Sec. 11.4.E.1.a in particular shows that density in some districts could be radically affected. The most extreme example is in RE-1 zoning, where the current 435,600 square foot minimum lot size could be reduced to 5,000 square feet per lot. A developer pushing this existing permission to the max would increase allowable density to approx. 87 times the current standard. This is justifiably scary. October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 11, 2017) Page 3 of 5 Sec. 11.4.e.1 also starts with the ominous phrase: “Notwithstanding the minimum lot area requirements set forth in the underlying base zoning district, the following requirements shall apply…” Writing any Code section that includes the word “notwithstanding” is like handling a live rattlesnake – it can be done, but you’d better get it right the first time and every time. Neither rattlesnakes nor “notwithstandings” cut you any slack. This language is likely an example of “unintended consequences” in drafting, which unfortunately appear more than rarely in EVDC. The section should have been vetted a lot better in 2002. At any rate, we now have the chance to fix it. Finally, we’re using the opportunity to add a little clarity to the section, by inserting “…and workforce…” or similar phrasing in a few spots, and fixing one or two typos. (I should have been more thorough in 2016.) Staff Findings: The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;” Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected – specifically, aiming at resolving attainable and workforce housing shortages in a targeted manner. 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 amendments are compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and advance community-wide policies. Additionally, the proposed amendments are consistent with growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 11, 2017) Page 4 of 5 Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendments in principle. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Advances the intent and community-wide policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. • Supports a goal of simplifying and providing flexibility and alternatives for compliance under the Code and regulations. • Results in a straightforward target for reaching our workforce / attainable housing goals. • Removes a concerning Code subsection which could undermine single-family character in some aras of Estes Valley. Disadvantages: • Takes some viable alternatives off the table for providing affordability in single-family areas of the Valley. • Does not align with the letter of adopted Strategic Goals. Action Recommended: Review the amendments 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. Level of Public Interest Medium in this specific Code amendment; high in the overall issue of matters affecting single-family neighborhoods. The amendment itself was initiated by request of a concerned citizen. Sample Motion: 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 as presented in Exhibit Gamma Red 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 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 October 17, 2017 EVPC (Written October 11, 2017) Page 5 of 5 Development Code as presented in Exhibit Gamma Red, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). Attachments: Exhibit Gamma Red: § 11.4 [Density Bonus in RM] (October 17, 2017). EXHIBIT A [Density Bonus in RM: Version [Gamma] Red] Planning Commission: 2017-10-17 § 11.4 - ATTAINABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS A. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide a variety of attainable housing for persons living and/or working in the Estes Valley. (Ord. 2-02 #9) B. Eligibility. All residential subdivisions and developments in residential the RM (Multi- Family Residential) zoning districts are eligible for the attainable or workforce housing density bonus set forth in this Section. This Section’s density bonus for attainable or workforce housing shall not be available and shall not be applied in any zoning district except the RM (Multi -Family Residential) zoning district. (Ord. 2-02 #9) C. "Attainable" and “Workforce” Defined. For purposes of this Code and Chapter, "attainable housing units" and “workforce housing units” shall mean the following: 1. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or bel ow, adjusted for household size , confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e., rent and utility expenses) must not exceed thirty percent (30%) of th e maximum income for an imputed household size based on one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income , confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. The imputed household size is equal to one and one-half (1.5) times the number of bedrooms in the unit,. For example, rent on a two-bedroom unit would be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income limit of a three -person family; for a three- bedroom unit the rent should not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of a four-and-one-half-person family - the midpoint of the range of a four- and five- person family. c. If the property owner does not pay all utility expenses, then a utility allowance, computed by the Estes Park Housing Authority, must be subtracted f rom the housing cost to determine the maximum rent. (Ord 2- 02 #9) 2. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size , confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed forty percent (40%) of the one-hundred-fifty-percent Larimer County Area Median Income, adjusted for household size , confirmed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. (Ord. 2-02 #9) 3. Larimer County Area Median Income, Defined. The Larimer County Area Median Income is the current applicable area median income for Larimer County published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Ord. 2-02 §9) 4. Workforce Housing . Housing units shall be eligible for the Maximum Permitted Density Bonus (Sec. 11.4.D) if at least one resident in each housing unit annually submits an affidavit, including a copy of a W -2 form, to the Town and the Estes Park Housing Authority certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundary Map. D. Maximum Permitted Density Bonus. Except in the R-1 Zoning District, sSubject to the standards and review criteria set forth in this Section and Chapter, attainable or workforce housing units are eligible for a density bonus of up to two (2) times (one two hundred fifty percent [150%200%]) of the base Max. nNet dDensity standard set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. E. Development and Design Standards. 1. [Reserved] Minimum Lot Size/Area. Notwithstanding the minimum lot area requirements set forth in the underlying base zoning district, the following requirements shall apply to residential subdivisions and developments that include attainable housing units pursuant to this Section: a. Single-Family Detached Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for single - family, detached attainable housing units included in a subdivision or development shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, provided that at least fifty percent (50%) of the total housing units in the subdivision or development are attainable. If less than fifty percent (50%) of the total units are attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less than seventy -five percent (75%) of the underlying base zoning district lot area requirement. b.a. Two-Family Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for two -family attainable housing units included in a subdivision or development shall be twelve thousand (12,000) square feet, provided that at least fifty percent (50%) of the total housing units in the subdivision or development are attainable. If less than fifty percent (50%) of the total units are attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less than seventy -five percent (75%) of the underlying base zoning district lot area requirement for two -family residential uses. 2. Public Sewers and Water Required . All developments containing attainable or workforce housing units approved under provisions of this Section shall be served by public central sewer service and public water service. 3. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable or workforce housing units approved under provisions of this Section shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see §5.1.B). (Ord. 02-10 §1) 4. Deed Restriction Required. Attainable housing units developed pursuant to this Section shall be deed-restricted to assure the availability of the unit for sale or rent to persons meeting the income or workforce guidelines and definition set forth in §11.4.C above, for a period of time no less than twenty fifty (2050) years. The mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney. (Ord. 13-99 §D.4, 11/3/99; Ord. 2-02 #9, 2/12/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05; Ord. 2-10 #1, 1/26/10) September 19, 2017 EVPC (Written Sep. 11, 2017) Page 1 of 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: September19, 2017 RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding Maximum Building Height for Structures with Steep-Sloped Roofs Planning Commission Objective: Review and recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to add a specific maximum building height for structures with steep-sloped roofs. Code Amendment Objective: The objective of these proposed code amendments is to amend the EVDC to place an upper height (highest plane) limit on buildings with steep-sloped roofs. The specific amendment language would apply to buildings with a 12:12 pitch (45-degree angled slope) or greater. The most common example would be an A-frame house. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommends approval of the language in Exhibit Red to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion: The EVDC was amended in summer 2017 to change the method used to measure building height. The goal was to simplify the measurement process. A complex mathematical formula was eliminated and replaced with a simple vertical line connecting two horizontal planes. As part of the same set of changes, we introduced an averaging method for calculating the high plane (upper height limit) of a gabled or hipped roof. The new method is to average the eaveline (lowest edge) and the ridgeline (highest edge). While this makes good sense for most sloping roofs with shallow or moderate pitches, averaging a steep sloped roof with this method could lead to a ridgeline that goes well above the maximum height number (which is still 30 feet for most structures in most districts). For example, going halfway up an A-frame roof slope would leave a lot of vertical roof sticking above the “maximum height” as measure in the new formula. This question was raised by Town Board during building-measurement discussion. June 20, 2017 EVPC (Written June 5, 2017) Page 2 of 4 In practice, we aren’t likely to see many new A-frame or similar roof styles in the near future, for two reasons: (a) the style just isn’t all that popular these days [no new A- frames have been built in Estes Valley for at least 20 years]; and (b) newer wind-load Code requirements no longer allow the classic A-frame style with an open interior as new construction in our region. All the same, new A-frames could turn into all the rage again at some future point, and building codes and materials could evolve – so the concern does have merit for future development. The proposed amendment would add an absolute maximum limit for how tall a structure’s ridgeline (highest plane) could be, if the slope is greater than 12:12 pitch (i.e., a 45-degree angle or greater from horizontal). The amendment keeps things simple: For a 12:12 or greater sloping roof, the height is measured to the ridgeline, instead of the average. For most buildings, that would mean 30 feet from finished grade to ridgeline. It is a good coincidence that the 30 feet works for both types of measurement. The Town’s Building division indicates this happens to give similar results to sticking with the averaging method for steep-sloped roofs but putting in a lower number for that averaging. We could get to the same result by using averaging but making the average height around 20 or 22 feet, but that seems more complex. A parallel advantage is that this way, we do not have to change our dimensional standards in the Chapter 4 tables for different roof styles. One other minor suggested change is clarifying the lowest-plane roofline concept for roofs in general. We have been calling this the “eaveline”, but actually that’s not a precise term in building terminology. Sec. 1.9.E.1(3) replaces the word “eave” with “point of the topmost top plate”. That terminology is understood precisely by designers and builders, and it corresponds to just about the same place as the eave line on most gabled or hipped roofs in any case. (The top plate’s upper edge corresponds to the plane on which the roof trusses rest, which is within a foot or so of the eaveline.) Staff Findings: The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;” Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected – specifically, possible future changes in roof styles. June 20, 2017 EVPC (Written June 5, 2017) Page 3 of 4 2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley:” Staff Finding: The proposed text amendments are compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and advance community-wide policies. Additionally, the proposed amendments are consistent with growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed amendments in principle. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Advances the intent and community-wide policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. • Supports a goal of simplifying and providing flexibility and alternatives for compliance under the Code and regulations. • Results in a straightforward and easy to calculate measurement. • Avoids accidentally allowing tall, pointy rooflines to interrupt the tall, pointy landscape surrounding our Valley, which many prefer to remain in its natural uninterrupted state unless it can’t be helped. Disadvantages: • Adds slightly to Code length and complexity. Action Recommended: Review the amendments 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. Level of Public Interest Low. No input or public comment has been received. June 20, 2017 EVPC (Written June 5, 2017) Page 4 of 4 Sample Motion: 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 as presented in Exhibit Red 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 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 as presented in Exhibit Red, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). Attachments: • Exhibit Red: § 1.9.E (Rules of Measurement - Height) (September 19, 2017). EXHIBIT A [Red] [Ch. 1: Measurement; Building Height: Max. for Steep Roofs] PC: Sept. 19, 2017 § 1.9 - Rules of Measurement E. Height. 1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height means the vertical distance measured from the mean average elevation of the finished grade ((lowest point elevation + highest point elevation) / 2): (1) To the highest point of the roof surface, excluding parapet, if a flat roof; (2) To the deck line of a mansard roof; or (3) To the mean height level between the lowest eave point of the topmost top plate and highest ridge for a gable, hip or gambrel roof. (4) Exception: For any building with a steep sloped roof, the highest-point elevation shall be measured from average finished grade to the highest point on the highest ridge. For purposes of this subsection, the term “steep sloped” shall mean any roof with a pitch greater than or equal to a 12:12 ratio. 2. Line of Measurement. Height shall be measured along a vertical (plumb) line connecting the horizontal plane of roof height measurement to the horizontal plane of finished grade, as specified herein. 3. Exemptions from Height Standards. The following features shall be exempt from maximum building height: a. Chimneys to the extent required by the applicable Building Code(s); b. Skylights, parapet walls, cornices without windows, communications antennas, Micro Wind Energy Conversion System (MWECS); and c. Wireless telecommunications facilities and structures, but only to the extent allowed by the specific provisions set forth in Use Tables 4-1 and 4-4 in Chapter 4 and in §5.1.T of this Code.