Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-11-15Prepared: November 8, 2016 • Revised: STUDY SESSION AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 15, 2016 11:00 a.m. Room 202, Town Hall 11:00 Review of Minutes (5) Chair Hull 11:05 Discussion regarding amendment to EVDC - Vacation Director Hunt Rental regulations & Position Statement (45) Commissioner Moon 11:50 12:05 12:20 12:40 12:55 Lunch (15) Prendergast Resubdivision (15) Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers Amended Development Plan (20) Estes Valley Master Trails Plan (15) EVDC Amendment related to Attainable Housing (15) This item is on the EVPC meeting agenda for November 29th. No study session will be held on November 29th' 1:10 Adjourn Planner Gonzales Planner Gonzales Planner Gonzales Director Hunt Chair Hull Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 10:45 a.m. The public is welcome to attend study sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted. Times are approximate. i Prepared: November 8, 2016 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION November 15, 2016 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes of October 18, 2016 B. Metes & Bounds parcel, 625 W. Elkhorn Avenue; Watson Minor Subdivision Owner/Applicant: William & Vivianne Watson Request: Create two lots of record from one existing lot Staff: Audem Gonzales 5. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL & LOT 10, MOUNT VIEW PARK, TBD BIG HORN DRIVE; PRENDERGAST RESUBDIVISION Owners: Ralph & Mary Ann McBride, James & Sally Gruber, Richard & Marcia Prendergast, The Harmony Foundation, Inc. Applicant: Richard Prendergast Request: Adjust property lines between five parcels resulting in four legal lots. Staff: Audem Gonzales 6. AMENDMENT TO APPROVED SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-01; LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS; 1665 HIGHWAY 66 Owners: Randy Jackson & Michael Andrejek Applicant: Michelle Oliver Request: Review revision to approved Special Review. Revision is the location of the loading area. Staff: Audem Gonzales 7. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adoption of 2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Continued from October Planning Commission meeting. 8. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO VACATION RENTALS. Review of proposed amendment, with public comment accepted. This will be an action item at a Special Planning Commission meeting to be held Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. Continued on next page The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 9. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Young Residence Variance — Aspen Valley Road — Approved November 1, 2016 2. Harmony Foundation Variance — Big Horn Drive — Approved November 1, 2016 B. Estes Park Town Board 1. Ordinance to extend Floodplain Regulations 2. Fee Waiver Request — Harmony Foundation Variance & Annexation C. Larimer County Board of Commissioners 1. None. D. Community Development Update 1. Downtown Neighborhood Plan update 2. Floodplain Mapping Update E. Other 8. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, White, Schneider, and Hills Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioners Moon and Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately ten people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today's meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Mares/town resident stated he served on the vacation rental task force, and there seemed to be some misunderstandings about the goals of the task force. He stated the task force administrator established two ground rules: (1) no discussion regarding enforcement; and (2) no discussion regarding the allowance of nine or more occupants in vacation rentals. The task force was to assume the County Commissioners and the Town Board wanted to approve occupancies of nine, and they were tasked with determining any proposed code changes. Mr. Mares stated there were very explicit directions as to what they could and could not discuss at the task force meetings. Dick Spielman/town resident was also a task force member. He stated the idea behind the task force was to handle all of the discussion regarding possible code changes so the Planning Commission would not continue to be bogged down with the issue. The task force recommendations were to provide a starting place for the Planning Commissioners. Because of the complexity of the issue, he suggested having members of the task force present and available to provide clarification at any future study sessions (Planning Commission & Town Board) regarding vacation rentals. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, September 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. B. Continuation to the November meeting of the proposed adoption of the 2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING LONG-TERM RENTAL OF ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) Director Hunt reviewed the staff report. Previous meetings included discussions and concerns about de facto rezoning, increasing density, and unintended consequences. The proposed amendment would allow long-term rental (30 days or more), under specified conditions, of attached ADUs in the five single-family zone districts as described in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Currently, attached ADUs are allowed on qualified parcels and occupied by members of the principal dwelling unit. Some of the current code would still apply; e.g. ADUs shall not exceed 33% of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling, no short-term rentals would be allowed, no home occupations or change in off-street parking requirements, and a few other modest changes. A new mandatory registration process (no fees) would be handled through the Town Clerk's office. A specific timeline for registrations would apply. Director Hunt stated the previous version of the proposed amendment had a sunset provision. This sunset provision would provide for a date by which the amendment would expire and revert back to the code prior to the amendment. The latest version extends the sunset date from October 31, 2017 to December 31, 2017, which allows for process by the appropriate boards, along with allowance for a full-year lease for tenants. The sunset clause would allow for registered and maintained ADUs that otherwise comply with code (size, etc). to be grandfathered after the sunset date. The Town Clerk suggested a January through March annual registration period. Director Hunt stated enforcement of ADUs has been discussed many times. With the proposed amendment, the enforcement aspect would be strengthened if we provide for the process as described. With the sunset provision and grandfathering element, staff would have the ability to confine their tasks. If the majority of ADU owners follow through with registration, the remaining minority would present a narrower task list to address. Director Hunt stated if the proposed amendment is adopted with the sunset clause, we would hopefully legitimize a sizeable number of the existing ADUs in the Estes Valley. He did not anticipate many new residential ADUs permitted through the building permit process, either through a remodel or new construction. He stated lenders have more strict lending practices than in the past, and they regularly check for zoning compliance prior to approving a loan. It would be difficult to obtain a loan if a sunset clause is in effect. Director Hunt stated the Estes Park Housing Authority has identified a definite housing need, and the ability to rent an ADU will solve a piece of that puzzle, though he did not anticipate it having a large impact on the housing shortage. Director Hunt stated the Commissioners and the public have expressed concerns about changes in the character of single- family neighborhoods if ADU rentals were allowed, and that is a valid concern. He stated he would be remiss if staff offered a code amendment that would radically alter that balance. He did not think the proposed amendment with the specific qualifiers would have that effect. Staff and Commission Discussion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commissioner Schneider requested clarification on the sunset provision, stating the sunset provision would apply only to those that did not register their ADU, and all those that did register would be grandfathered after the sunset provision expired (proposed date of December 31, 2017). Director Hunt confirmed the accuracy of Commissioner Schneider's statement. Public Comment John Phipps/town resident stated ADUs would constitute a drastic change for the single-family zone districts, as it would change the character of family neighborhoods. A homeowner has a right to rely on zoning regulations, especially when there has been no material change in the character of a neighborhood, which he stated came from a Colorado Supreme Court case. He stated there are other alternatives (Multi-Family Residential, Accommodations, and Two-Family Residential zone districts), and questioned why single-family zone districts were being considered. He asked the Commissioners to envision what the zoning map would look like if all the single- family zone districts were removed, and wondered if Estes Park would be a resort community or just a resort. He disagreed with the sunset provision, and the possibility of renewal at the time of expiration. He asked if illegal ADUs became registered, would they be grandfathered at the end of the sunset period? Does this mean if enough people violate an ordinance for long enough, they would eventually be grandfathered if they registered? He had concerns about building codes, proper utilities, parking, etc. Mr. Phipps did not think the effort would create enough long-term rentals to benefit the housing shortage. He was opposed to the long-term rentals of ADUs. Fred Mares/town resident has been following the history of ADUs since 2012. There seemed to be a rush on this proposed amendment because of the highway closure, and now it seems to be related more to workforce housing. He was concerned the Planning Commission was creating de facto rezoning if they approved the amendment making long-term rental of ADUs in residential zone districts a use by right. He wondered why we were going through this process if it would not have a large impact on workforce housing. He asked the following rhetorical questions, including but not limited to: How many ADUs are there in town now? How many ADUs are outside the Town limits? How large are the existing attached ADUs? Should ADU property owners be required to pay commercial utility rates? What happens if the tenant loses their job? How many times can and ADU be re-rented without being considered short term? Who will be keeping the records? If we aren't doing this to facilitate workforce housing, why are we doing it at all? What does removing the lot size and structure size restrictions have to do with rentability of an ADU? He stated this was a risky code amendment, and wanted to know the ground rules. If this is approved, he liked the permit system, stating it would be important to ensure staff had the ability to implement the plan and track the results. He disagreed with property owners having the ability to get a "free pass" if they participated in the "experiment." Dick Spielman/town resident agreed with Mr. Phipps and Mr. Mares. Concerning the proposed sunset clause and the enforceability of the issue, he stated he saw no reason for property owners to come forward and register their property if they had been successfully renting it (legally or illegally) for many years. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Staff and Commission Discussion None It was moved and seconded (White/Hills) to recommend the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of Commissioners disapprove the proposed text amendment, including the proposed sunset clause to the Estes Valley Development Code, as presented in Exhibit A, finding that it would constitute a rezoning of five residential zone districts. Density is at the heart of zoning. This would double the density in those zone districts. Neither the Estes Valley Development Code nor the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan support this. The method of drastically changing the zoning by changing the uses allowed rather than going through the rezoning process does not constitute sound community planning. The motion to disapprove was approved 5-0 with two absent. Town Attorney White was excused from the meeting. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING REMOVING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RM-MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT Director Hunt reviewed the staff report. The concept was to remove the minimum lot size in the RM—Multi-Family Residential zone district for development or redevelopment of multi-family housing on multi-family zoned lots. He explained the limitations of the existing code's minimum lot size would allow only seven or more housing units per lot, as well as single-family or duplex units. By removing the limit, three to six units could be constructed on any given RM-zoned property. Director Hunt stated the Estes Park Housing Authority's Housing Needs Assessment encouraged multi-unit housing, and this amendment would provide for an option that could fill a niche for development and redevelopment. In Table 4-2, the 40,000 square foot lot size requirement would be removed, while all other standards would still apply. Director Hunt stated he did not think this was an intended barrier to development. He stated he thought the intention of the minimum lot size may have been to encourage developers to combine lots for multi-family housing projects; however, instead it discouraged development and redevelopment. The proposed amendment would remove a barrier, and potentially encourage development/redevelopment. Public comment None Staff and Commission Discussion None It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Hills) to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to the Town Board and Larimer County Commissioners and the motion passed 5-0 with two absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5. REPORTS A. Director Hunt reported there will be a special study session for the Planning Commission regarding vacation rentals on Tuesday, November 1, 2016, beginning at noon in the Town Board Room. Vacation rentals will also be discussed at the study session prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2016. Direction received from the Town Trustees and County Commissioners at the August 30, 2016 joint meeting was to draft code language regarding vacation homes with occupancies of nine and above, with regulations as recommended by the task force. Director Hunt stated there were some items discussed at today's study session where the task force had not reached consensus. Any remaining issues can be worked through at the November 1St study session. Additionally, any revisions that need to be done with the occupancies of eight and under could be addressed in order to make the amendment as synchronized as possible. B. Director Hunt reported on a revision to the Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers development plan that was approved by the Town Board earlier this year. The Board of Adjustment did not approve a variance request for the placement of the proposed loading area. He stated it was determined the approved Development Plan could not be completed as proposed, but could be amended to provide an appropriate location for the loading area. This will be an action item for recommendation to the Town Board at the November Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Schneider requested answers to the Planning Commissioners' questions regarding the Temporary Use Permit from a previous Planning Commission meeting. C. Director Hunt reported Planner Audem Gonzales was promoted to from Planner Ito Planner II, and staff is in the process of hiring a Planner I. Once that position is filled, we will be up to full strength. Director Hunt stated one of his goals as director is to revise the EVDC to be easier to administer, regulate, and enforce, and there is a balance to be reached in all of that. Any changes proposed in the code will come before the Planning Commission. D. Chair Hull asked the Commissioners for comments regarding the vote to recommend disapproval of rental of ADUs. Comments included but were not limited to: Commissioners Hills and White objected, stating it would result in zoning changes in five zoning districts. Chair Hull commented ADUs make sense if they are for family. Commissioner Schneider was concerned about how you would collect data without a registration process, and was supportive of a definite sunset provision, but did not agree with the grandfathering aspect. When asked if there were other ways to move forward with ADUs, Director Hunt stated the ability to have ADUs in specific zone districts is an option, though he has not seen it done across all districts. There is a possibility to adopt a density standard. He has not worked in a community where rental regulation has been a common practice. Commissioner Hills stated she was not against ADUs, but wanted to see them contained to the proper zone districts. Commissioner White agreed, stating Accommodations or multi-family zone districts would be better suited for ADUs. There must be other communities that have made this work. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:37 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Betty Hull, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary Watson Minor Subdivision Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org [P ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: November 15, 2016, 1:30 PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This application is a request to preliminary plat two single-family residential lots located in the E-1 Estate zone district. The title of the subdivision is: Watson Minor Subdivision — Located in the NW IA of Section 25 and the NE 1/4 of the NE IA of Section 26. T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado. STAFF OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; and 2. Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission LOCATION: 625 West Elkhorn Avenue, within the Town of Estes Park OWNER/APPLICANT: William E. and Vivianne M. Watson, Trustees I same as owner CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REVIEW PROCESS: This application is a request to preliminary plat 2 single-family residential lots zoned E-1 Estate within the Town of Estes Park. The property is currently developed with two single-family homes on one parcel of land. The subdivision is approximately 2.5-acres in size. Maximum allowed density for this property is one home for every 1-acre. Each proposed lot will meet the 1-acre minimum. Subdivision Review (§3.9): The purpose of the subdivision review process is to ensure compliance with the subdivision standards and provisions of this Code, while encouraging quality development in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. All subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards". Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat applications are reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Minor Subdivision Final Plats are reviewed by Town Board or the Board of County Commissioners. 1 SITE DATEA TABLE: Surveyor: Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. Parcel Number: 35252-00-008 Development Area: Approx. 2.5 acres Existing Land Use: 2 single-family homes Proposed Land Use: 2 single-family homes Zoning Designation: E-1 Estate, single- family residential district with 1-acre minimum lot size Adjacent Zoning: East: E-1 Estate North: E-1 Estate West: E-1 Estate South: CO — Commercial Outlying Adjacent Land Uses: East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential South: Commercial Services: Water: Existing TOEP service (no changed proposed) Sewer: Existing Estes Park Sanitation District (no change proposed) 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 issue relevant to any particular project. 1. Lots. This proposal compiles with lot dimension/configuration standards set forth in Section 10.4 of the EVDC. Each lot will meet the minimum requirement of 1-acre in the E-1 Estate zone district. 2. Grading and Site Disturbance. Limits of Disturbance. Section 10.5.B.2 requires that limits of disturbance (LOD) be established with the subdivision of land. This has been delineated on the preliminary plat for Lot 2 in the form of a building envelope. An established building envelope designates the area of the lot which may be used for development. 3. Tree and Vegetation Protection. The applicant/owner is hereby notified that if significant trees are removed, now or in the future, replacement is required in accordance with EVDC §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection. 4. Public Trails/Private Open Space. No public trails/private open space are required with this subdivision. 5. Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. There are no Geologic Hazard areas within this subdivision. Wildfire Hazard. A very small portion of the subdivision includes a Wildfire Hazard Area. This area is located on the extreme east side of the property. Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 15, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Watson Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat 1 The existing homes and proposed building envelope are located outside of the mapped area. A wildfire hazard mitigation plan is not required. 6. Wildlife. This subdivision is currently developed with 2 single-family homes. No wildlife study has been required for this subdivision. 7. Water. Both homes are serviced by the Town of Estes Park. 8. Fire Protection. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed this proposal and has no comments/concerns. 9. Electric. Two new utility easements would be dedicated on the Final Plat across Lot 1 for secondary overhead power lines. The property to the west requires the easement through Lot 1 as does Lot 2. TOEP Light and Power has required these easements to be 15-feet in width. 10. Sanitary Sewer. Currently there is a sewer main running east-west across the property. Estes Park Sanitation has required a 15-foot sewer easement for this line. The easement has been identified on the preliminary plat and would be dedicated on the Final Plat. 11. Stormwater Drainage. The site is currently developed. No drainage plan has been required. 12. Access. Access to Lot 1 is proposed to utilize the existing driveway access that is in place crossing the adjacent property to the west (340 James Street). An access easement is currently being formalized and will dedicated via separate instrument. Staff is requiring the final recorded document to be referenced on the Final Plat. Access to proposed Lot 2 is proposed to utilize the existing driveway off Farview Lane. An existing driveway between the two homes is proposed to be abandoned. A note has been added on the preliminary plat. 13. Public Right-Of-Way. There is no dedication of public right-of-way associated with this subdivision. The existing trail to the south of the property is wholly contained within public R-O-W. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 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 500-foot radius. As of November 1, 2016, no formal written comments have been received for this application package. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.orq/currentapplications if received after November 1st and summarized in the staff presentation. Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 15, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Watson Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. With the conditions of approval listed, this proposal will comply with all applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. Adequate public facilities are currently available to serve the proposed subdivision. 3. The proposed lot configurations meet minimum lot size requirements 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Watson Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. 15-foot wide electric easement shall be placed on the Final Plat. 2. 15-foot wide sewer easement shall be placed on the Final Plat. 3. Reference access easement to Lot 2 from west property on Final Plat with recorded reception no. SAMPLE MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE the "Watson Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat, as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. NOTICE: Within sixty (60) days of the Board's approval of the Final Plat application, the developer shall submit the plat for recording. If the plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void. Attachments: 1. Statement of Intent 2. Application 3. Preliminary Plat Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 15, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Watson Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat CORNERSTONE September 22, 2016 RE: 625 West Elkhorn Avenue Watson Minor Subdivision Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying. Inc. (CES) on behalf of Mr. Watson, are pleased to submit plans and correspondence for the "Watson Minor Subdivision". PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is approximately 2.5 acres that slopes to the south. The property currently holds two (2) residences with the primary residence (proposed Lot 1) being constructed in 1905. The access to Lot 1 will utilize the historic driveway that is in place crossing the adjacent property located at 340 James Street. An access easement is currently being formalized and the final recording information will be placed on the final document. Access to proposed Lot 2 will utilize an existing driveway off Farvicw Lane. Subject property is zoned E-1 Estate with surrounding properties having similar zoning. Minimum lot size in the E-1 zoning district is one (I) acres minimum. The proposed subdivision will maintain minimum lot size. UTILITIES No modifications to existing utility services is being proposed. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely. Jes Reetz Planner 3 Development Plan 3 Special Review 3 Rezoning Petition I— Preliminary Subdivision Plat f— Final Subdivision Plat X Minor Subdivision Plat 3 Amended Plat 7 Boundary Line Adjustment ROW or Easement Vacation Street Name Change Time Extension i— Other: Please specify Condominium Map r — Preliminary Map Finil Map E Supplemental Map Name of Primary Contact Person Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. cio Jes Reetz Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is 1692 Big Thompson Ave, Suite 200, Estes Park, CO 80517 r Owner r Applicant IX Consultant/Engineer ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Submittal Date: 09/21/2016 "ft--== Type of Application General Information Project Name Project Description Project Address Legal Description Parcel ID # Site Information Watson Minor Subdivision Subdivide property w/ two dwelling units such that each is on a separate parcel 625 West Elkhorn Ave, Estes Park, CO 80517 Metes and Bounds 35252-00-008 Lot Size 2.5± Acres Area of Disturbance in Acres N/A Existing Land Use Residential Proposed Land Use Residential Existing Water Service X Town Proposed Water Service Pr Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Is a sewer lift station required? Existing Gas Service X Xcel Existing Zoning E-1 Estate I— Well E None 7 Other (specify) r Well r None 7 Other (specify) IX EPSD r UTSD C EPSD UTSD I— Yes X No r Other ; None Proposed Zoning E-1 Estate • Septic n None E Septic Site Access (if not on public street) Access to Proposed Lot 1 off James St thru 340 James St. Are there wetlands on the site? E Yes No Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? Primary Contact Information X- Yes I— No Attachments Application fee X Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to X Statement of intent planning©estes.org X 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan IX 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Pork P.O. Box 1200 .6 17D MacGregor Avenue -6 Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone: 19701 577-372) .6 Fox: (970) 586-0249 www estes.ofg/CommunityDevelopment Revised 2013.08.27 KT Contact Information Record Owner(s) William E /Vivienne M Watson. Trustees Mailing Address 625 West Elkhorn Ave, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant William E / Vivienne M Watson. Trustees Mailing Address 625 West Elkhorn Ave, Estes Park. CO 80517 Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave, Suite 200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone (970) 586-2458 Cell Phone Fax Email jreetz@ces-ccc.com APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: viwyv estes orq/ComDeviSchedufes&Fees/PlanninqApplicat[onFeeSchedule pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal, MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65,5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot. and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT 1.1„ I I / 1.3 71? 2:;' 7 t 1 (.4 T 77 Applicant PLEASE PRINT: It.' , A -1-0 Signatures: Record Owner Li; Vf Date 9- 1_2 - Applicant Date ci -/ 4 Revised 2013.08.27 KT Signatures: Record Owner Applicant tk/ At) VIrt- ika,,t7=4 /1/ (iti2A" • Date Date Z1- )2 1 4 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION 10. I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property ► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) IP I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at http./NAvw estes orq/ComDev/DevCode II- I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. 10- I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete . II" The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. 111. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT tA_,1 i ‘; (AIN Applicant PLEASE PRINT 1.1; (, 77 Revised 2013.08.27 KT Watson Minor ivision.xls Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip AITKEN MARTHA JEAN PO BOX 1163 WALDEN CO 80480 AYRES ROBERT G/JUDITH C 3603 HUNTERS POINT SAN ANTONIO TX 78230 BAILEY VERD R/CHERRI L REV LIVING TRUST 540 W ELKHORN AVE UNIT B-3 ESTES PARK CO 80517 BARTLETT FRED/TINA 880 N PEAK VIEW WAY PRESCOTT AZ 86303 BOLES JEFF/JULIE 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT Dll ESTES PARK CO 80517 CROSS CARL F 740 W WONDERVIEW AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 DEDON CONSTANCE L 395 JAMES ST ESTES PARK CO 80517 DROTAR BENJAMIN LAWRENCE/LAURA LEI 9674 W 87TH CIR ARVADA CO 80005 DUELL CRAIG LEE & SHAUNA 496 VALLEY RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 ECKERT JASON D/KARI M 8389 COLE ST ARVADA CO 80005 ELKHORN PLAZA ASSOCIATION PO BOX 2792 ESTES PARK CO 80517 FALL RIVER VILLAGE LLC 3303 W 144TH AV STE 106 BROOMFIELD CO 80023 FINNEY PATRICIA J 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT 14 ESTES PARK CO 80517 GOLDEN LEAF INN LLC 325 JAMES ST ESTES PARK CO 80517 GRAY STANLEY E 2109 ZUPPKE DR URBANA IL 61801 HAIGH ROBERT B/CATHY A 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT 8 ESTES PARK CO 80517 HAMMERSCHMIDT EDWIN F/DEBRA L 12383 ROBYN RD SAINT LOUIS MO 63127 HARRIS CLARENCE E & MARY L 9377 WOLFE ST LITTLETON CO 80129 HAWKINS GILBERTJ TRUST 7830 FAIRVIEW AVE DENVER CO 80221 HEWITT MARJORIE B 6334 S 35TH CT LINCOLN NE 68516 HICKS ROBBY G/PAMELA S 366 DATE ST AKRON CO 80720 HINKLE RONALD L & EDWINA I 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT 16 ESTES PARK CO 80517 INGALLS DEBRA LEE & MARTHA BETH 2413 N CORONA ST COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80907 ISERNHAGEN GLENN A/LOUANNE 7789 5 WAVERLY MTN LITTLETON CO 80127 JACOBSON ERNEST E JR & MAE C 6105 E MEXICO AVE DENVER CO 80224 JAMES CHRISTOPHER N 321 FAR VIEW DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSON ROBERT EDWARD PO BOX 2744 ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSON S JOWAYNE & ARNOLD M/ROY EMIL PO BOX 2744 ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSTON GERALD/LINDA LIVING TRUST 128 OLD CREEK DR MONUMENT CO 80132 JONES LARRY D/BEVERLY R TRUST 19802 N DESERT SONG CT SURPRISE AZ 85374 JORDAN DONNA HELEN PO BOX 1725 ESTES PARK CO 80517 KITELEY CHERYL FALLON/STEVEN M 913 3RD AVE LONGMONT CO 80501 KUPKA CHARLES R/JANICE E 1736 2ND AVE SE CEDAR RAPIDS IA 52403 LEE MICHAEL/JULIE 311 FAR VIEW DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 LITTLE TERRY HAMMOND/MARCIA LYNN 412 JACKSON ST DENVER CO 80206 LIVINGSTON HARRY M/MARY 625 W WONDERVIEW AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 MANSFIELD GARY T/SUZANNE B PO BOX 1910 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MAYO SUZANNE J REVOCABLE TRUST PO BOX 3989 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MORRONI THOMAS J 7130 S QUINTERO ST FOXFIELD CO 80016 NET INVESTMENTS LLC 552 W ELKHORN AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 PEETZ KEITH G/ANNA M 6541 W LINVALE PL DENVER CO 80227 PHIPPS JOHN G/CONNIE R 585 W WONDERVIEW AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 RAYMER GREGORY A PO BOX 49241 DENVER CO 80249 °age 1 Watson Minor Subdivision.xls Page 2 RIVAS-MARQUEZ IVIANUELA PO BOX 4216 ESTES PARK CO 80517 RIVKINA TETIANA & SHRESTHA SABIR 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT 9 ESTES PARK CO 80517 RSDP LLP 533 W ELKHORN AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 SHIRK DAVID WAYNE/ESLA MINER PO BOX 3571 ESTES PARK CO 80517 STONE HEATHER GLISMANN 627 MARIGOLD LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 TESSLER JOHN A/SALLY 5 300 FAR VEW DR B4 ESTES PARK CO 80517 THOMPSON JACK D 4750 W 25TH ST NO 16 GREELEY CO 80634 THOMPSON RON L/CINDY 4118 W 8TH ST GREELEY CO 80634 THOMSPON MELISSA D 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT BS ESTES PARK CO 80517 THURMAN THOMAS R/SUZANNE E 1410 7TH ST MARION IA 52302 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK CO 80517 WATSON WILLIAM E & VIVIANNE M 625 W ELKHORN AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 WEBB WILLIAM E 1670 E BROAD ST STATESVILLE NC 28625 WHITE STEPHEN M/CATHY M 1805 N BROAD ST GALESBURG IL 61401 ZAHOUREK CONSERVATORY LLC 4225 FAWN TRL LOVELAND CO 80537 ZIEMKOWSKI MARK 0/LESLIE B 822 EL MONTE AVE CHICO CA 95928 S-139.32/ E /112.44' (D) 1 / 4.2e FOUND 2' PIPE WHICH BEARS N 11'45'4E' E 1.74' /PROM SET CORNER LOCATED.E: WATSON ANNOR SLUE...SION IN 1166 NW IN Of T.16 221.0.1 Of SECTION SS AND T.* NE NI OF THE NE IN or SECTION 26 151, WOW OF 111E ION PAL LAMER COUNTT.COLOAA013 ,-,""‘e• PRELIMINARY LAT WATSON MINOR SUBDIVISION 814 CORKASIOME EhrStiEFAMGISuRVEYING. MC COPTAIG. RIGIOSFIESOIVED CORNERSTONE WILLIAM WATSON .. ...memo. _8_ Nom. 1 1 Tmome ..•,, PRELIMINARY PLAT WATSON MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 25 AND THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 26 TSN, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL No 352340000/ FOUNT 2 5' BRASS PARCEL No,3524300014 PARCEL No. 352430E015 680 WEST WONDERVIEW AVE. BEING THE NW 62? MARIGOLD LANE 570 MARIGOLD LANE ZONED E.1 ESTATE CORNER SEC. 25 ZONED E-1 ESTATE ZONED E..1 ESTATE 1 1 STEEL ROD RIt S 1;1;4434 11008V.71b0"11(M) - _ .......,_ ___ _ .__ ,, ____,„.„.„ ....... 2V BUILDING _:„......- -- SETBACK-,.....-ip ,......„ 7 ....._.... . PROPOSED ..-- ....' ....,- .../ ,.." _... _- -- / P EASEMENT FOR MO 10' UTILITY SERVICE -----"' .., ____ __ ..-- id -- , ' PARCEL No. 3525200006 500 ESTATE r -r /1 j la UTILITY SERVICE -__ PROPOSED JAMES 57. ...ST. — _ r___ s .... _11 GARAGE :. __. __ - --'- _- -- 1 EASEMENT FOR LOT 2 ZONED E- ACCESS EASEMENT ...."‹...-- .....- ...- r! __I EXISTING I __ II, I__ WATSON MINOR SIJEICARSION __• k FOR LOT 1 WATSON ",;,-'..-/f7' _ t \--1- '- tOT 1 _..-' MINOR SUBDIVISION ......, .,_ -- --- - - T= - --68-20%-Sr- - IT , r ..,__ - INFORMATION TO BE r 1 (FINAL RECORDING ,--__., , ,--- - _- __- -- , ___ ZONED E-1 ESTATE II 1.336* AC. Z / / ;/ SHOWN ON FNAL ___, / / ..,, DOCUMENT) ) ...- I-- --- 6 i - — _____ ______________ _ / ,.... , •‘. _ .... - / ---- ---__ - -...... / ? 4. r -,_,- 't { -- , ,•,A ------ __, -...,, ________Thioc..... ,,, ,ct___1_ EXISTING •„ I. I-- "" I --._ „..;-, • • I . / / 4111 V --- E, 2 --- , • 2 , CURRENTLY 625 W -/ RESIDENCE I //I, .,- . `\., / --- _--1 --- . • - N. '''`‘'. 1 ELKHORN AVE. `:1 ; - - - - - - - -.' , - \ , -• 2 ...___-.....-.. s • ----i- -.... ,,.... __. ..l'- ...,.. .,.._ .__ ...... .... _...„... / PARCEL 3525030E08 - -1 /,' ,...1 ,...., I / ...-.-- e PROPOSED -_ __ ,, 4 ,,,, .- ., / \ __... '(. i \ ..,..., ,../ I ---1 \ „. i PORTION DO EXISTING ORNEWAY CONNECTING ----,.... •-- ,. _.":.-____25- BUILDING - T-- -=-- •-- _l_ EASEMENT16Sa''EH - -_ ...„-- X LOTS TO BE ABANDONED \ % SET_BACR --- erv,26„ - -L-1._ • l' t 70- _ j 1 ....-'' - - - . -EXISTING _ _s L. _ RESIDENCE •_ __ _ is. 1 i L _. CURRENTLY 625 W -1 -1 ELKHORN AVE. I , PARCEL 3525203008 ! 25 ,,,,N: PGIO f ase 7.4 _ 'R es3;.(0) S 0,1111 E 17.8'(0) 6119 5 01.11 05, E. 17.m (Li) FOUND 2_5- BRASS BEING THE 6 1116 CORNER SEC- 25 ogrc: 5581500 PARCEL No 3526100034 340 JAMES STREET ZONED E.1 ESTATE 2.3V _... `-.. _ z 43,5156.66 SF ' ...." '---- ' 3 __.--- __________-, I Am AC- ZONED E4 ESTATE \ ,•-'" 1..----. 76" --- a --. - - -__ --- '0312 .05OF .E. 1 ''S BIr_37 E 1.,.._---- \ --- ,.-' ---- -• - \ --.--:----1-- 'PROPOSED .-- _ „,_ --- _I_ EXISTING- ,....., „-- BUILD E FIRER' --- --- --. I --- ..- - _ PARCEL No. 3525200007 301 FARVIEW LANE ZONED E-1 ESTATE =17 = _HAW_ _ 76.10 _---N173.294W 133713' (DT - 1, 1 re 30 0 30 60 90 SCALE 1" = 30' LEGEND • SUBJECT PROPERTY UNE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE DENOTES BUILDING ENVELOPE/SETBACK DENOTES EASEMENT LINE DENOTES FOUND MONUMENTATION AS SHOWN DENOTES SET 65 REBAR Wl ALUM. CAP PLS 020146 DENOTES FOUND ALIQUOT CORNER AS SHOWN DENOTES EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC DENOTES EXISTING SEWER DENOTES EXISTING WATER -0- DENOTES EXISTING POWER POLE DENOTES EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE GENERAL NOTES: CONTOURS ARE AT 2.FOOT INTERVALS loco PG T.C.850. sun. M. ESTES P445 CO tif.n. 0.01-80514-2414 FAX: 10701586.259 Prendergast Re-Subdivision Plat Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, 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 MEETING DATE & LOCATION: November 15, 2016, 1:30 PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This application is a request to preliminary plat 4 single- family residential lots through the re-subdivision plat process. The title of the re- subdivision plat is: Prendergast Re-Subdivision Plat. Staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat STAFF OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; and 2. Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission LOCATION: 753 Big Horn Drive, outside of and within the Town of Estes Park OWNERJAPPLICANT: Ralph J. and Mary Ann McBride / Richard Prendergast CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: VanHorn Engineering & Surveying STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REVIEW PROCESS: This application is a request to preliminary plat 4 single-family residential lots zoned E-1 Estate which are located in and outside of Town of Estes Park limits. The subject area is partially developed with single-family homes and a rehabilitation center (Harmony Foundation). The re-subdivision plat area is approximately 3-acres in size. Currently, there are 5 legally non-conforming parcels eligible for the re-subdivision plat. The Harmony Foundation building is built across three of these parcels and over two jurisdictional boundary lines (County and Town). The purpose of this plat is to clean up the area by legally platting 4 lots which would correlate with how the area has been developed. An annexation application is running concurrently with this re-subdivision plat application. Maximum allowed density for this property is one home for every 1-acre. 3 out of 4 lots will not meet Code requirements for minimum lot size. A variance was approved by the Board of Adjustment on November 1st to allow the proposed lots to be under the minimum lot size requirement. Re-Subdivision Plat Review. The EVDC currently does not contain the Re- Subdivision Plat process. After discussions with the Community Development Director and Town Attorney, it has been concluded that this platting process is legal and has been done in the Estes Valley before. This application is not creating a subdivision, it is merely platting metes and bounds properties and adjusting the boundaries between currently platted lots and unplatted lots. The purpose of the review process is to ensure compliance with the subdivision standards and provisions of this Code, while encouraging quality development in the Estes Valley reflective of the goals, policies and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. Preliminary Plat applications are reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Final Plats are reviewed by Town Board or the Board of County Commissioners. Since this application is being processed before the Annexation, both the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners will review the Final Plat for approval. SITE DATEA TABLE: Surveyor: VanHorn Engineering & Surveying Parcel Numbers: 35243-00-001, 35243- 00-002, 35243-00-003, 35243-00-004, 35243-05-010 and 352453-00-029 Development Area: Approx. 3 acres Existing Land Use: 2 single family homes, the Harmony Foundation and several unbuildable parcels Proposed Land Use: 2 single-family homes, the Harmony Foundation and 1 new legal lot Zoning Designation: E-1 Estate, single- family residential district with 1-acre minimum lot size Adjacent Zoning: East: E-1 Estate North: R-E Rural Estate and RE-1 Rural Estate West: RE- Rural Estate South: E-1 Estate Adjacent Land Uses: East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential and undeveloped West: Undeveloped South: Single-family residential Services: Water: Existing TOEP service (no changed proposed) Sewer: Existing Estes Park Sanitation District (no change proposed) 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 issue relevant to any particular project. 1. Lots. This proposal calls for legally platting 4 lots in an area that is presently made up of 4 metes and bounds parcels and 1 platted lot. Currently, 4 out of the 5 parcels are non-conforming in regards to their E) Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 15, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Prendergast Preliminary Re-Subdivision Plat size. They are deemed legally non-conforming as they were created before subdivision standards were in effect. 3 of the 4 proposed lots will also be non-conforming in regards to their size. A Variance application was approved on November 1, 2016 to allow them to be under the minimum lot size. 3 of the 4 proposed lots will each contain a single-family home. The remaining lot is undeveloped and will be eligible for development in the future. Section 10.4 of the EVDC requires a minimum of 1-acre of land in the E-1 Estate zone district. 2. Grading and Site Disturbance. Limits of Disturbance. Section 10.5.B.2 requires that limits of disturbance (LOD) be established with the subdivision of land. Since the majority of this area is developed, staff has waived the requirement for establishing a limit of disturbance for each lot. The preliminary plat does show rock outcroppings/large boulders to be protected from future development by including them on the preliminary plat. 3. Tree and Vegetation Protection. The applicant/owner is hereby notified that if significant trees are removed, now or in the future, replacement is required in accordance with EVDC §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection. Major trees have been placed on the preliminary plat map. 4. Public Trails/Private Open Space. No public trails/private open space are required with this plat. 5. Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. There are no Geologic or Wildlife Hazard areas within this re-subdivision area. 6. Wildlife. No wildlife study has been required for this re-subdivision plat. 7. Water. All three single-family homes are serviced by the Town of Estes Park. Proposed Lot 1 has the ability to connect to water via the water main located within the proposed 30-foot utility easement running along the eastern edge of proposed Lot 1. This utility easement will be recorded on the Final Plat. 8. Fire Protection. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed this proposal and has no comments/concerns. 9. Electric. There are several overhead electric lines running across the subject area. Light and Power is requiring easements for these lines, more specifically, a 20-foot overhead utility easement across Lot 1 and 3. They have also required a 10-foot utility easement along the northern and eastern property lines of Lot 4 and along the southern boundary of Lot 3. Staff is requiring a note on the final plat stating that the overhead utility easement across proposed Lot 1 and Lot 3 shall be vacated if/once the overhead power lines at this location are moved or undergrounded to a new location. Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 15, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Prendergast Preliminary Re-Subdivision Plat 10. Sanitary Sewer. Currently, all buildings are serviced by Estes Park Sanitation. EPSD is requiring a 30-foot easement for the existing sewer main. This is shown on the preliminary plat and shall be recorded on the Final Plat. A note has been added on the preliminary plat addressing future development of proposed Lot 1. It states: "Prior to development of Lot 1, Prendergast Resubdivision, A sewer main per Estes Park Sanitation District Standards must be extended from southeast of the property to the southern line of Lot" This note was added to ensure that the owner or future owner of Lot 1 knows that the main is required to be extended with development on the lot. Since this is not a subdivision application, infrastructure extensions such as this are not required with approval. Staff is requiring a label on the preliminary plat for the future extension of the main. Currently, the main is drawn on the map but not labeled as "future". 11. Stormwater Drainage. The majority of the site is developed. No drainage plan has been required. 12. Access. Access to proposed Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, and Lot 4 is to come from the existing drive running through the subject area. This is a private drive and not a private or public street. A 30-foot access/utility easement has been placed on the preliminary plat and shall be recorded on the Final Plat to allow all proposed lots access via this drive. The property to the north of the subject area shall also be granted access via this easement/drive. 13. Public Right-Of-Way. There is no dedication of public right-of-way associated with this re-subdivision plat. 14. Annexation. Eastern portions of original parcels 2, 3 and 4 are located within the unincorporated Estes Valley. These portions are owned by the Harmony Foundation. The Harmony Foundation building is currently built over Lot 10, Mont View Subdivision and the eastern portions of parcels 2 and 3. An annexation application is running concurrently with this re- subdivision plat application which would annex the eastern portions of parcels 2, 3 and 4 into the Town of Estes Park town limits. The re- subdivision plat will adjust property boundaries to ensure that the Harmony Foundation building is wholly located on one legal lot within the Town of Estes Park boundaries. Approval of this application is tied to the approval of the Harmony Annexation application. The resulting property layout will be 2 legal lots located within the unincorporated Estes Valley and 2 legal lots located within the Town of Estes Park. No portion of any building will be located within two jurisdictional boundaries. In[ffp Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 15, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Prendergast Preliminary Re-Subdivision Plat REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 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 500-foot radius. As of November 1, 2016, no formal written comments have been received for this application package. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.oro/currentapplications if received after November 1st and summarized in the staff presentation. STAFF FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. With the conditions of approval listed, this proposal will comply with all applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. Adequate public facilities are currently available to serve the proposed re- subdivision plat area. 3. The proposed lot configurations meet minimum lot size requirements (Variance approved on November 1st, 2016 to reduce lot size requirements). 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 5. All appropriate easements are conditioned to be placed on the preliminary and final plats. Legal descriptions of these easements shall be placed on the final plat map. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Prendergast Re-Subdivision Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. 30-foot utility/access easement for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and property north of the subject area shall be placed on Preliminary and Final Plat. 2. 20-foot overhead utility easement across Lots 1 and 3 shall be placed on Preliminary and Final Plat with the note that this easement shall be vacated if/once the overhead power line is moved or undergrounded to a new location. 3. 10-foot utility easement along northern and eastern property boundary of Lot 4 and along southern property boundary of Lot 3 shall be placed on Preliminary and Final Plat. 4. Remove language on Preliminary Plat that utility/access easement will be dedicated with this plat. (graphic easements are not dedicated with plats, they are recorded on plats along with legal descriptions). Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 15, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Prendergast Preliminary Re-Subdivision Plat SAMPLE MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE/DENY the Prendergast Preliminary Re-Subdivision Plat, as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Attachments: 1. Statement of Intent 2. Application 3. Preliminary Plat Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 15, 2016 Page 6 of 6 Prendergast Preliminary Re-Subdivision Plat STATEMENT OF INTENT PRENDERGAST RESUBDIVISION AND HARMONY FOUN ANNEXATION September 30, 2016 The Resubdivision for Lai-liner County Parcels #'s 35243-00-001, 35243-00-002, 35243- 00-003, 35243-00-004. 35243-05-010 and 35243-00-029 and Annexation Petition for Larimer County Parcel if's 35243-00-001, 35243-00-002, 35243-00-003 of Section 24. Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6 th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado The intent of this submittal is to adjust property lines so that five parcels subject to this plat become more conforming in accordance to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Four parcels (Original Parcels 2-4 and 6) are outside of the Town of Estes Park (TOEP) limits. The eastern portion of Parcels 2-4 (Book 1 053 Page 528) were illegally split off after 1972 by deed at Reception No. 94076042, dated 1994 and sold to Parcel 5 (Lot 10, Mount View Park). The three parcels cast of the private access road were split off because of an encroachment issue by the building on Parcel 5. The owner at the time, the Kingstone Foundation, wanted to purchase the land under their building. The Harmony Foundation now owns said eastern portion of the three parcels (East Parcels 2- 4) along with Parcel 5 (Lot 10, Mount View Park), which is in the TOEP boundary. The proposed Resubdivision illustrates the original five parcels and the proposed four Lots. In order to adjust the Harmony Foundation parcels that are partially in TOEP limits, East Parcels 2-4 must be annexed into the TOEP. Therefore, an Annexation Application is also a part of this submittal. Proposed Lots I and 2 West Parcels 2-4 and 6 are outside of TOEP limits, will remain so, and will be combined into two new Lots; Lot 1 and Lot 2. The proposed Lots will remain in the Estate (E-1) Zoning District on Town water, EPSAN sewer service, and Town power. The minimum lot size for E-1 zoning is 1-acre, however the original parcels (2-4 and 6) range from 0.30-0.63 acre each. The proposed Lots will be closer to conforming to the prescribed lot size. Additionally, Lot 2 will include its own driveway (currently encroaching on original parcel 4) at the existing cabin addressed 753 Big Horn Drive. Lot 1 is proposed at 1.15 acres and Lot 2 is proposed at 0.59-acre (originally 0.30 acres as Parcel 6). A 30' wide utility and access easement along the east property line of Lots 1 and 2 along the private access road will be dedicated with this Resubdivision. Proposed Lots 3 and 4 The Harmony Foundation currently owns the East Parcels 2-4 (east of the private access road) and Parcel 5 (Lot 10 of Mount View Park) which is the only parcel located in the TOEP limits. East Parcels 2-4 are proposed to include those portions of the original Parcel 2-4 from the east edge of the private access road as Larimer County Assessor currently depicts the parcel configuration (#'s 3524300001, 3524300002. 3524300003). They were split off by deed in 1994 (reception #94076042). East Parcels 2-4 are proposed to be annexed into the TOEP as part of this submittal. The annexed parcels are then proposed to be combined with Parcel 5 and then split into two new Lots; Lot 3 and Lot 4. Harmony's proposed lots will remain zoned E-1 having acreage of 0.74 and 0.51 respectively. The acreages do not confonn to the E-1 1-acre, however it will eliminate the three small parcels (East Parcels 2-4, as depicted by Larimer County), which have acreages ranging from 0.06 to 0.17. Additionally the proposed property line configuration for Lots 3 and 4 will resolve building and improvement encroachments that currently exist over the west line of original Parcel 5 on to the East Parcel 2-4. The proposed lot configuration will also make one structure on each lot instead of two structures on one lot, bringing that issue into conformity. A utility and access easement along the private access road off Big Horn Drive in the southern portion of Lot 4 is being dedicated with this Resubdivision. Variance Request A variance is being requested for minimum lot size (Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3-Residential Zoning Districts). Lots 3 and 4 will be smaller in size than the original Lot 10, Mount View Park lot (0.88-acre) that is currently below the 1-acre minimum lot size in the E-1 zoning district. The resulting Lots 3 and 4 will be 0.74 and 0.51-acre respectfully which is larger than many of the current lots. Utilities All proposed Lots are serviced by Town water, Town power, and the Estes Park Sanitation District (EPSD). Original Parcels 2-4 were in the Upper Thompson Sanitation District and have been recently Excluded from the UTSI) (August 16, 2016). Once the Resubdivision is finalized, a petition for Inclusion into the EPSD will be submitted as agreed with EPSD. A sewer main shall be extended from existing manholes south/southeast of the parcels per EPSD standards prior to the development of Lot 1 as noted on the Resubdivision Plat. CTown Well - None Town Well None 1(4-1 3 ri t e k n Owner A plicant Consultant/Engineer • ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Submittal Date: o! r Development Plan Special Review Rezoning Petition Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Final Subdivision Plat Minor Subdivision Plat Amended Plat 7. Boundary Line Adjustment — ROW or Easement Vacation - Street Name Change r- Time Extension — Other: Please specify Condominium. Map Preliminary Map Final Map - Supplemental Map I Project Name Project Description Project Address Legal Description A.7 Vt g2.1" 4'7 iC / -.4 2 ,ice// A 6,51,45c14"410'71 1 L.' ,)1 4, Parcel ID # co -02 9 3q-113 OD 001 32.43 -co -Ow1 2-143at/3S-2.M3 t. 5:1(3 Lot Size ‘,/a fit' - 5104 5„ Area of Disturbance in Acres Existing Land Use r Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD Is a sewer lift station required? Yes Existing Gas Service Xcel Other Existing Zoning 1 Proposed Zoning Site Access (if not on public street) Septic - None Septic Other (specify) Other (specify) UTSD UTSD No None Are there wetlands on the site? Yes )..< No Site stakin• must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? Yes hoc Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Prima Contact Person is A11.9Chnienl-:. ita-16 L e v; i 3 Application fee 3 Statement of intent 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning©estes.org Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Pork, .1. P.O. Box 1200 .6 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Pork. CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone: (970) 577-3721 -4% Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Revised 201308.27 KT „ - r=•-• - Date Date _5/2 fip a/ Signatures: Record Record Owner Applicant Record Owner(s) _ 12 cdk, (.4 /1 A--fvri pry 15n Mailing Address / 7 /0 rivdal i(4/e7 oc_ / !.//De Phone - 3 q 7 -904,5 Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email akrd 7 1 -09 b - Do it6.-c, 7)( 75 2 Sy 972-3/a- j/4 Consultant/Engineer V4 go/ a F;id 4 Le jivip e Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: www.estes.orq/ComDeviSchedules&FeeVPIanningAciolicationFeeSchedule.pdi All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT.” Pc, h Pi) ei; e Applicant PLEASE PRINT: mAyr Anninz 8(14 e- Revised 2013.D8.27 KT MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT.' 61r s • n...)1,4f v Applicant PLEASE PRINT: / A V ci vie-Le 9a..c Signatures: Record Owner‘ Applicant Date Date 5/2 //2-6' Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email 3 3 Oy tf- / >-)R 73 7 — 5 2 3 6 ,47 Orelle-6,1 0 v-6- 70/q 0-/o7 O,a,j, Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax 75 2 3 Email V4 ei1-1.01" ri Pyi 06e ; 0 9 if .6e,a Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: kvvvw . esies org /Com Dev/Sc hedu les&Fees/Pla n nInciAppi ica lion F eeSc hedu 1 e.odi All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.27 KT MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: , Record Owner PLEASE PRINT. 14 Lie Li et (i'Y1i . e f' zJ Applicant PLEASE PRINT: g(d.,1611( d Pft{4j 1/21t (C. <<t +P-110f,.rQc 4_1 Date I/2 zY " Record Owner Applicant ye,dirz,,,,(_ Date _5-'4 y/2 a/ 4, V11111111111111 Record Ov,rner(s) r erino-( Pry ivyr7 ),.ve Ci4, i 1/2)4 Lz A 1-- 1-e-ziya s-6 Mailing Address .7c) 1q 6; /2 Jtti ti 411' D4 r 7K 7.WCti Phone 17:t-P - 3 0 tfi/; Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant 6-14 a I/ cl 11 r6Ti(_Lf c ef-,It Mailing Address 2 0 /9 6--4.1-er-ii M/4v / rx 752 5 Y Phone q 7:2_ — 3/a - S / Cell Phone Fax Email ConsultantlEngineer Vi t.44 /-(0-1(r) Pj4/7 Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email e e Adv, 11,_ri Kt/ APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: www, estes.orp/CornDev/Schedules&FeesiPlannindADDlicationFeeSchedule.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.27 Ki Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone 1-5 OA i7?-217.) r :-cpg ),L Fax Email Applicant g;./- tl /9(e--eldV- 1? f Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email #Pfil LiArt/ 1 106-. )5,,r.6( Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: 71v, 111„1 fvvv-11,4c Applicant PLEASE PRINT: 27.,t7 i7-d it- Signatures: Record Owner' Date Applicant' Date 11111111111111111111.1111.1111111111.1111MMI APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: wwvv estes.ord/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninciApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.21 KT APPLECART CERTIFICATIOR t. hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. • In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). O. I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: http:ifwvvvvestes.oro/CornDev/DevCode I› I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC . IP. I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete. inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ire I understand that a resubmittat fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. 0- I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Ge d i 4 /9r,retd-e-i-jd_th .t gehfciek Proic& fps Applicant PLEASE PRINT: R; ,c).7 ird o f e a_ 5 Date 6 /2 Y/...‘-,0/ Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Date 572//2 0/ Co. Revised 2013.08.27 KT APPLiCART CERTIRCATIOR • hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ,-•• In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). • I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: httowwww.es tes.org/C omDeviDevCode ▪ I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC . ID I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. D I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 0- The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. PP- I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ie I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: J:TE e- 5 C_3-r0 , a'a //A, 64-Lik),e Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: Record Owner 1,elL 1.4.4 T71,6-1-,- Applicant it° Date Date / 5/2 Y/2 va Revised 2013.08.27 KT Date Date Date Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: Record Owner Applicant APPLECKVT CERTIMATIOR hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in Ming the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. N In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). t- I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: http://www estes.oroiComDev/DevCode • understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. N I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. N I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. N I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. t> I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: ea/pi-3 (Y) diri4 /4 90 ei/6-6Kief-c_ Revised 2013.08.27 KT Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: ) Record Owner Applicant .11a APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I,- I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. t In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, i acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). I- I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at ritto://www.estes.orQ/Com Dev/DevCode to I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. i• I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. to- I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. IP I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void . Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: 42.6, ie ("4- 5The: 131%. 1)9-zg-47-ris-e-oz- Date r/2 4. k4,1k-1.-1 Date Co/ Revised 2013.08.27 KT APPLiCANT CERTTFICATIOR i. I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. 6., In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and aaree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: nttp://www.estes.oro/ComDev/DevCode 0. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. P I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 0. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. 10. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. IP I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: ga Applicant PLEASE PRINT: eir,4 lf-y5t) /12 rj, ,c Signatures: L Record Owner( Applicant Date ,.....:<:///1-3 /./ Date Revised 2013.08.27 KT Page 1 PrendergastResubdi, - sent 10-11-16.xls Owner Owner 11 Address City ST Zip Marilyn Hall 186 Lees Creek Rd Asheville NC 28806 The Harmony Foundation, Inc. 1600 Fish Hatchery Rd Estes Park CO 80517 Samantha Diedrich 731 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Malvin Walker 850 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 James & Linsdey Gray, 790 Big Horn Dr, A LLC 420 5 Marion Pkwy, Apt 1501 Denver CO 80209 William & Christina Trowbridge 730 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Mountain View Cabin, LLLP 7019 Gateridge Dr Dallas TX 75254 Donald & Joan Magnuson PO Box 531 Estes Park CO 80517 Ashley Ward & Kimberly Trees 811 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 James Pilon 821 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Liesl Laurienti PO Box 3354 Estes Park CO 80517 Susan & Larry King 9637 W Ohio Ave Lakewood CO 80226 Sara Walker PO Box 2325 Estes Park CO 80517 Warren & Janet Wergin PO Box 1585 Estes Park CO 80517 Donale & Janet Swanson PO Box 787 Hudson IA 50643 Judith Maxwell 747 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Janice Whitmore 250 Granite Ln Estes Park CO 80517 Steven & susan Swickard 755 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Robert & Ralph McBridge Marsha Prendergast 7019 Gateridge Dr Dallas TX 75254 Davis Family 790 Big Horn Dr #B Estes Park CO 80517 Bradford Hazen 40 Meadow Rd Lyons CO 80540 Harlen Schultz 139 County Road 46 Berthoud CO 80513 Michael & Karen Johnson 840 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Muriel MacGregor Trust PO Box 4675 180 MacGregor Ln Estes Park CO 80517 Bighorn Partnership 7601 Road 37 Mancos CO 81328 Jennier Taylor & John Tormalehto 215 Evergreen Ln Estes Park CO 80517 Jeffrey Sanders & Donna Reiter-Sanders 860 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Sherry Timm 365 Northridge Rd Highlands Ranch CO 80126 PR H:T,IMINARY PR H'NDERGAST _L-1H:SUBDIVIS ON PLAT SURVEYOR NAME LONNIE A SHELDON PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR/ENGINEER NO 26974 DATE. APPROVAL OF SURVEY PI.AT- TH6 SURVEY RAS BEEN REVIEWED AND IS HERESY APPROVED AS TO FORA AS COWNLYNG ToTH ALL CURRENT SURVEY RfOUIREMENTS OF LARHAER COUNTY MD OF STATE LAW PERTAINING TO PUTTING ANS MONUMENTATION. THIS APPROVAL CONSTITUTES IrOTHER A WARRANTY BY EARNER COUNTY CONCERNING SUCH COMPLIANCE, NOR A RELEASE OR woommir Or THE SUBDIVIDER AND HIS SURVEYOR CONCERNING ANY NONCOMPLIANCE Or THIS SURVEY WITH CURRENT SURVEY REouinmENTS. DATE: (SIGNATURE) (PRINTED NAME) COLORADO P.N.S. NO. LARDER COUNTY ENGRLEERING DEPARTMENT BOARD OF COUNTY COVVISSIGNERS APPROVAL APPROYED BY THE LANKA CORRY WOAD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TIES DAY Of 2076 ALL DEOTCARONS ARE RERUN ACCEPTED ON ETEIAAJ OP THE P.TRAC rms APPRO.. ODES NM GoLCDTME ACCF_PTANCE OF RESPONSIWITY BY THE COUNTY FOR 00167411011 N. RPM. CR iomorDauci OF ANY STIEMS. HIGIWATS. ALLE75. BRIDGES. RIGHTS-OF-woo OR oTHER AIRTNACTISCS OCSIGNATED ON TARS PLAT. ELLEN MARSHALL NOTARY PUBIC ATTEST: CLERK OF THE BOND BY THE LAINKA MINTY 1.1EALINI AUTionTry m6 SLAY OF 2016 NE CONSTRLICOD. ON De SLIBIWASION OR MIT LOT HOER. INCLUDING THE DEVELOPALFNI 18 0mM% room AND THE PROASION OF SENARE TREATMENT. 5144/1 EC DOFF IN A RAMER LAWN MU. WET N.L OF REOUREMENIS OF THE oCADRADO DEPARD4Dfl a HEALIN, AND THE LAMER CORM puBuo NECJII DEPARTMENT, AND THE OrrCERS OLTPORIZIED TO ENFORCE SUCH REEKAREMENTS. LAROADI COUNTY HEALTH ANHy..111 NOTARY PUBLIC TOWN CLERK MAYOR TOWN ENCINEER'S CERTIFICATE' APPROVEL HI THE TORN ENGINEER OF ESTES PARK THIS DAY OF TOWN ENGINEER DAY OF SHEET PAUL, NO. 20)5-12-02 ffiliTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION: KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT ROBERT MCBRIDE. ELLEN MARSHALL, RALPH LACBRIOE, MARY ANN MCBRIDE. JAMES GRUBER, SALLY GRUBAR, RICHARD PRENDERGAST, IJARCK PRENDERGAST, ANSI THE HARMONY FOUNDATION. INC., BEING THE OwNERS OF CERTAN PARCELS OF LAND IN TALE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOPIASTHP 5 NORTH. RANGE 73 WEST, OF THE Oh P.M., IARWER COUNTY. COLORADO. REINS MORE PARTICULARLY OF_SCREED AS FOLLOWS, 70 WIT_ IRVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE imuE A SHELDON, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN ON HIS OATH. DEPOSES AND SAYS. 11141 HE IS A REGSTERED LAND SURNEYOR/ENGrNEER UNDER PIE LOWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, THAT THIS SURVEY 00E5 DEPICT THE RESALOASON OF INC SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND WAS MADE BY HIM OR UNDER M1 DIRECT sUPERYINCN AND RESPONSIBLE CHARGE. MOHO 44 REL. min HASTIC GAP STARTED 26974 40 OC DENIER Ks/ 11410 GORIER FouNG 14 REEAR .104 pusnc CM e 0 STNAPED 2E974 rOuND 14 RFBAR 90N pusTIC CAR STAMPED 9435 58457'00T I moo. Fe812A.Tg,"42t;tr' Sw7571. net TORN Or (sr"' PARK. LGtDMW. (5885r0 449e) FOUND 44 MEM WM PLASTIC CAP -.APED 9485 FL t 'CU 18504 \..._ FOND 2 .8" B.LaA BRAES CAP X COINER stamen 150. 4730 5211-524 W.C. ACTUAL CORNEA IS A 00.110,0 SAKE 04 CLL ROCK, 9Emis 503.4501 39' mom BRASS cAP 057'O 510 CONTAINING 2.08 ACRES MORE OR LESS. HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS CAUSED THE SAW TO BE SURVEYED AND RESUBDNIDED TO SE KNOWN AS LOTS 1-4 Dr THE PRENDERGAST RES:AID:VISION PLAT, LAR1MER COUNTY, COLORADO, AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE AND Cower TO AN0 FOR PRNATE USE FOREvER HEREAFTER THE STREETS AS ARE LAO OUT AND DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT. AND DO ALSO RESERVE PERPETUAL EASEMENTS FOR THE NSTALLAITON AND MAKITENLANCE OF UTILMES AS LAID OUR AND DESIGNATED ON THS PUT. MRCSS OUR HANDS MO SEALS THIS DAY OF 2016 10 1E2.40' 50) (5.6851V2 (5919.5712) EAST PARCEL 2 FOURS 94 RAMP LOT“ PLASM OP STOWED 29074 FANG 44 MAR IN ROCK Wm PLASTIC CAR VAMPED PL5 0015. BRASS 0.36' SOLON Of 5.ccotm DR( ROBERT MCBRIDE STATE OF COUNTY OF ),.ss LOT 3 0.74 ACRE E-1 417,, FOUND REEssli /610 RAM CAP GUY WIRE srAlOtO RA65 UTILITY POLE LECENP THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT %WS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2016 RU ROBERT MCBRIDE AND ELLEN MARSHALL, OWNERS OF PARCELS 2-4. 0114 PLASTIC CAP STAWID 26.974 WIWI 7636' FATNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSON EMPIRES_ 0 8 ARCEL 3 3 ACRE E-1 ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT MANHOLE ELECTRIC LINE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE SEWER UNE WATER LINE FENCE JUNIPER TREE PONDEROSA PINE TREE 6 4 ORIGINAL. T 10, MOU 0.88 E- RALPH .1 IMMIX /DRY ANSI MCBRIDE STATE OF --) $5 COUNTY OF THE FOREGOING INSTRLMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2016 BY RALPH A MCBRIDE AND MARY ANN MCBRIDE, OWNERS OF PARCELS 2-4. N6=4 211.72' r TOUR PA REENA NTH RASIIC CAP slowm 005 109400 IA woo PLASTIC STAAPED 2697 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 4 WEST ARCEL 0.6. ACRE -1 ROCK OUTCROPPING/BOULDER ...a S yS 018 JAWS GRUBAR SALLY GRUBAR 0 FOUND NIONUMENTATION • STATE OF COUNTY OT ) )SS so FOLLOW • OF Cult NORM OF mcNAL 601 SET #4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP 026974 AUOUOT MONuMENTATION THE FOREGOING NSTROMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2016 BY JAWS GRLIDAR A142 SALLY GRUBAR. OWNERS OF PARCELS WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ur COMMISSION EXPIRES 00 OD MEASUREO OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS (00.00) PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS 1'17 12.20' .2400 (42.28.) N oamE. Of MU Y ORO ACC MOOD 7 11 MCA HOARD OF TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATE: APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Of THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK COLORADO BY A RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON THIS DAY Cr 2D FOUND IR ROM ALLIMI/LW CAP STAMPED WASS CORNER ORIGINAL PARCEL 6 0.30 ACRE NOTARY PUBLIC ---(584'271 170.87 RICHARD PRENDERGAST MARCH PRENDERGAST -.STATE Of COUNTY OF _____-)S1 THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2016 BY RICHARD PRENDERGAST AND LAAROA PRENDERGAST. FROM UT OF MO1N1 ONNERS Or PARCELS 2-4 AND 6. 0 . 65.3 ,10 71 . -Or-WAY AS INTNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ME PLAT spowS THE AND INSOL M 1 10 IRE MY COMMISSON DARES_ [IFORM%FT ar. SAAEY moo Emmy: N FELD TES TT AS A STRACHT /coRNER, NM NO DUNE 753 134 HORN LINE .89.47131 230,44' psi 2551 LITIN T01.70 LUST 105.71 rOuND 04 RUM PLASTIC CAP STAMPED SUN FOUND 1/2" RES.* IMO NO CAP REARS N7702'211 4.92' 1410.4 AC:CUM) coRHER (44 REINA Unli ALEGLILE PLASTic cop) ,g NT. YEW PARK 5.10. SOURNESI CORNER P 11 ... %7 , ETAR c..0 14TH .0 SCALE, 30' 60 90 0 30 NOTARY PUBLIC VICINITY MAP SCALE 1"=200' REPRESENTATIVE, THE HARMONY FOUNDATION STATE OF )SS COUNTY THE FOREOCRNG *45116UMENTAS B A , ONNOIREDGED BEFORE ME 1145 REPRESENTATRE FOR THE HARMONY FOUNDATION. SURVEYOR'S NOTES. 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY O THE WEST LINE OF THE SW X Of THE NNE OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH. RANGE 73W OF THE 615 P 14 THIS SECTION UNE IS ALSO THE WESTERLY BOUNDWI OF MOUNT NEW SUBOMSION SAD UNE BENG MONUMENTED ON TIR NORTH END BY A BRASS CAPPED MONUMENT STAMPED TORN OF ESTES PARK NW COR WY AND ON THE SOUTH END BY A 44 ROBIN wiTi NO CAP. Al BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT ARE RELATIVE TO THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS UNE BEARS NORTE. 01.04'00' EAST - AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF MOUNT NEW PARK. 2. BURIED UTILITIES ARE NOT LOCATED ON THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PUT. ONLY VISIBLE SURFACE LFILMES ARE SHOWN. 3. POSTED ADDRESS OF PRCIPETMES ARE 753 AND 819 BO HORN DRIVE, ESTES PARK, COLORADO 10517. 0. ALL LOTS NVOLVCO IN THIS BU ARE 20NED E-I AND WILL RENON E-I UPON APPROVAL OF THE BEA 5. THE TITLE COMMITMENTS USED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ROOKY MOUNTAIN ESCROW & TITLE,. INC. FILE NO. MA3698-16 (DATED MARCH 04, 2016) AND FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY FILE NO. 560-FIN 681122-382-DE. 580-F0468124 -362-0E. 500-F0IRE1125-302-13f. 550-F0468117-362-DF, ALL DATED OCTOBER 31, 2013. 8. THE ABOVE LISTED TILE COMMITMENTS. MOUNT VIEW SURDS/RION PLAT OF RECORD (DATED 1910), BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT ID, MOUNTAIN NEW PARK SUBDIMS1ON AND THREE MEETS AND BOUNDS (PROJECT NO. 96-7-4, GATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1996) AND ILAPROVETKENT SURVEY PLAT Or THE NINCSTONE PROPERTIES (RECEPTION NO. 20140005558. DATED FEBRUARY 3, 2014) WERE THE ONLY SOURCES USED FOR LOT UNE DETERMINATION AND EASEMENT RESEARCH. NO FURTHER RESEARCH WAS PERFORMED NT 004 HORN ENGINEERING. 7. OVERHEAD UTILITIES WERE NOT FORMALLY ADDRESSED BT TITLE COMMITMENT EXCEPTION NOTES. PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS MAY .APPLY. T. PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT OF LOT I, PRENDERGAST RESUBDMS1014 A SEWER WAIN PER tsIts PARK SANITATION DISTRICT STANDARDS MUST BE EXTENDED FROM THE MAN SOUTHEAST OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTHERN LINE OF LOT 9. LOT 10. MOUNT NEW PARK SUBDIVISION SHALL BE VACATED FROM TILE MOUNT NEW PARK SURE/10510N FIAT (DATED 1910). 10. ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANT DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE DATE YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANy DEFECT TN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FRD14 THE CERTIFICATION DATE SHOWN HEREON. MACGREGOR RANCH FATNESS MY HAND AND °FRO.% SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOTARY PUBLIC MACGREGOR RANCH DRAWN BE CML CHECKED BY: LAS SCALE m 3D' CA.TC 09-30-16 PROJECT ENGINEER' CEUNE m LEBEAU VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING. INC 1043 FISH CREEK ROAD ESTES PARTY CO 6.0517 PROPERTY OWNERS (WEST SIDE OF DRIVE). ROBERT R. MCBRIDE AND ELLEN MARSHALL, RALPH J. A145 MARY ANN MCBRIDE, MARSHA AND RICHARD PRENDERGAST. AND JAMES oND SALLY GRuEMR 7019 CATEROGE DOSS DALLAS. TX 75254 1 OF PROPERTY OWNERS (EAST SIDE OF DRIVE), THE HARMONY FOUNDATION INC PO BOX 17413 BOULDER. CO 80309 1 Staff Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Audem Gonzales, Planner II Date: November 15, 2016 RE: Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers — Amendment To Conditionally Approved Special Review Development Plan Planning Commission Objective: Consider recommending approval or denial of the amendment to a previously conditionally approved Special Review Development Plan for the Lazy B Ranch and Wrangler entertainment venue. Present Situation: The Special Review Development Plan went before the Planning Commission at their April 19th, 2016 meeting and was continued to May 17th, 2016. At this time, the Planning Commission recommended Denial of the Special Review proposal and Development Plan 4-3. The Special Review went before the Town Board of Trustees at their July 26th, 2016 meeting where the Board Conditionally Approved the Special Review and Development Plan 4-2. One condition placed on the approval stated that a Variance shall be required for the loading area location (proposed to be within the required loading area setback). The Board of Adjustment met on September 13th, 2016 and denied the Variance request 3-1. The conditions of approval for the Special Review application were not met, therefore, the proposed plan cannot be approved as it was approved in July. Proposal: The applicant has amended their original proposal to now include the loading area location in the Phase 3 parking lot versus alongside the building. The parking lot was conditionally approved to be developed in Phase 3 of the project. This delay would also include paving and striping the loading area during Phase 3. Additional landscaping has also been included in the amended plans. With these amendments, the application no longer needs a Variance so the condition has been rendered inapplicable. This item will move forward to the Town Board at their December 13th meeting date. The Town Board is the decision making body for Special Review Development Plans and amendments thereto. Advantages: • Renders inapplicable the condition for needing a Variance Disadvantages: o Places the loading area in the proposed parking lot, which is not ideal but may be done with appropriate permission. Special operating times of the entertainment event venue ensure there will be no conflict between loading times and guest parking times. Action Recommended: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Special Review Development Plan amendment. The following modifications to the amended plan submittal shall be made before the Town Board Meeting: 1. Show the proposed loading area on all Phasing Plans 2. Show dimensions of loading area on plan set 3. Include note that loading area striping shall be done in Phase 3 4. Add note on all Phasing Plans that the loading area shall not be used during hours of public patronage. Sample Motions: I move to recommend Approval the Special Review Development Plan amendment. I move to Continue the item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. I move to Deny the Special Review Development Plan amendment. Attachments: 1. Updated landscaping plan - includes additional landscaping where the original loading area was proposed and shows new location for loading area in the proposed Phase 3 parking lot November 15, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission Public Meeting sly Botanical Nave Common None See/Condition Other Plants 10 Physocorpus cptiforus Ari f er Jubilee Amber Jbilce Ninebark 113 3 Pcpubs Vermicides - Clurrio Aspen, OuckiN (Cl)mp) 2.00' Cl 6 Beiteris thinbergi 'Rose GI Ba-berry, Rose Glau 95 13 Ruclueckia fulg'Goidaturm Block-Eyed Susan Ill 5 Acer ne-gundo Senscrliori Boxelder, Sensation 2.00" i Buf faloberry 115 ...64.4w-clio a-genteo 49 Euonyrrus ()lotus tarytctus Baling Bir-J-1, Dual 115 O Roth& columrifera Conefiougr, Mexican flat Prcirie 111 $0 Edinaceo purpireo Coneflouter, Purple :II 20 Cotoneaster cipiculatLis Cotoneoster, Crcrberry 95 5 [labs Dago' Crcb, Wry, 200' I Males 'Rada-A' Crab, Rocimt 200' 3 flolus 5pring Snout Crcb, Sprig Sass 200' 5 Rbes oliciarno Currant, Alpine 115 8 Rbes cereurn Currant, Solos 95 6 Leucx su.Alaska' Daisy, Shasta 11I 5 Abies corcolor Fr, Kite eV 14 GrFestuca gIllijcifilue Gross, Elijah Blue Fescue 111 15 Cratoecps x mordenensis 'lobo' Flairthorrl Tricia 200' 33 juriperus solairto 8uffcio' Inkoer, Buffalo 115 24 Junioerus &kilo Caigry Ca-pet _Viper, Colgxy Carpel 115 7 Juniperus sccpulorvrn Jnixe, Rocky Flountcil 6.0 5 5yi iido ytAgcris 115 bloc, Cot i n xi Purple 3 5yriola yulgoris 'Aloci Lilac, Corrmon White 115 2 Sorb% cuaporn forountcin Ash, Eircpecn 2.W' 7 Cercocapus moritanus flountcin ilthogony 115 U Physocarpt5 opulifols Nord Finebark, Dwarf 115 3 Ottercus macrocorpa Oak, Bur 200' 2 Prus alacita Phe, Bristleccne 6.0 3 Pi-us &lure Pine, Firm 6.0 12 Pnrus x cistern Pkno, Ftrple-Leaf 115 25 Potentilo Fruticosa Potentillo, Native Yellow 115 13 Prurus besseyi Sondcherry, Western 715 5 Splroeo jguorica 'Anthony Waterer' Spires, Anthony Waterer 115 6, Spires, 5rciumovid 115 'Sncturnourxi Spi-cw,o njoporica 6 Achl liconshbe' Yarrow, Moorehhe 111 I QUIN (arm/ A. MIA S einiq Mn Due — I I Aktr SNM.Due D/Ids.a cow we. aim we. a. %ran ...ID NAM *&O6 .11.4 Dia`. Patna; NO. YAM Oaltn(Ptno) 111,, MY Dal,Dge — Iatr — I MAUD LANDSCAPE ASSLEES NO LIQ3L/TT FOR ELEMENTS CF PLAN rFEEMENTED BY OTItRS. CONTRACTORS TO REVEN ALL PLANS FOR GRAENG AND DRANAC4E All) AD-UST ACCORDNGLY TO ABIDE BY ALL CITY, CCULTY AND STATE REGU.APONEL 2 CHER TO APPROVE ENTRE PLAN BEFORE NSTALIATION S ALL ['LUTES ARE TO BE LOCATED PPM TO BEQ4.1.1G MT HORK. CONTACT UTILITY NOTFY—ATCN CENTER CE COLORADO. L300.4221.137 4 CONTRACTOR TO CONFRT1 LOCATIONS OF ALL MATERIALS HTTI OIlER PRIOR TO NSTALLAWN. 5. CONTRACTOR TO COFFPJI ALL rEASLREYIENTS. PLAN BASED ON SITE r15451.REMENT5 AND LC PROVIDED BY CHER ALL FLANT CIJANTITES TO BE TAKEN FROM ELAN RATNER -FILAR PLANT L51. 7. POSMVE DRANAGE ANAT FROM EXISTM AND PROPOSED STRICTURES TO BE TIANTAIED EtIRNG CONSTRAKTION AND UPON COIDELETICN OF LANDSCAFM. 8. CONTRACTOR TO DETERrFE ALL CONSTRUCTION TETHODS. 0. TIE CUALITT OF RANT MATERIAL SHALL COMET 14Th TIE RECIAFIENTS CF TIE COLORADO TERSEST ACT, 1173 CRS, MILE 3S, ARTICLE 26 B. ALL LANDSCAEtra MATER PANTED SHAU_ BE LEALTI41 AND BE EcL-EATELE 14TKI THE I r+"AI CLIIATE AND TIE STE SOL CTLARACTERBTES, MANAGE AND HATER SUPPLY. I PRIOR TO MIA/LAWN OF LANDSCAPE MATERIAL, AREAS THAT NAVE BEEN COMPACTED 81' CONSTRICTION SHALL BE THOROLBI-LY LOOSENED ORGANC AMEND-V.17S SI-LALI. BE TITOROLGTLT NCORPORATED AT TIE RATE Of 3TD5/10005OfT a ALL BED AREAS TO BE COVERED 14Th 3. MAL DEPTH OF I V2' TAN COBBLE MESS OTI-ERREE NOTED ON PLAN a WOVEN, LN RATED MED BARRER FABRC TO BE NSTALLED N All. FLANTNG AND NON PLANTED BED SPACES. FABRE TO BE OVERLAPPED 1114-LI1 5ITI-1 NO roORE TAM 24' BETWEEN SOD STAPLES It ALL TREES TO BE STAKED AND GUYED FOR ONE TEAR APPROATE SAFTET CAPS TO BE LEED ON ALL POSTS. EL ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND TIRE TO BE RELATED FaLl AUTOMATED UNDERGRGIND IRRY.ATIDN SYSTEM. K CONTRACTOR TO NSTALL RRIGATION STTEM ERGATION SYSTEM TO FOLLOW ALL CITY, CANTY AND STATE REGLI-ATICNEL DRP PP./GATT:TN TO BE USTALLED N ALL. PLANING BEDS USNG RAFBED SETS-ISO Ern L I ruis AND DETREUTLON 71,13t4. 17. LIRE RRIGATION TYPE AND LAYOUT TBD UPON FM. LAYOUT OF BED LEES AND NARDSCAPE STRICTURES. 13 AS BLIT RMAITON PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED LEON COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPE .R. MY scab, vase 1 Pn. Drldluani Buis S rum. rtmor IL., ammo.. CU, com...,..s.• I arm, Yvan D -- I Mbaser 1 of.. tax rua 00::. MP. S. (... M. 2. 14c. e rm." rem L.A. 14,111 Milikli i 4111 4Vey. 5 [....11MINI Pr. I lk Nfle I Psi. ,,r_ 1174 rule eom craw. YMn IAN:DS:CAPE PLAN OVERALL PLAN DETALED LANDSCAPE 400 HEMLOCK STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GI7022403B www.detaledandscape.com LAZY B RANCH ELK MEADOW CAMPGROUND ESTES PARK, COLORADO • To: Estes Valley Planning Commission Estes Park Town Trustees Mayor Todd Jirsa Estes Valley Board of Adjustment RE: Lazy-B Development Date: 11-7-16 From: Mike Egan — Partner — S & E Enterprises — 1755 Moraine Ave, Estes Park The Lazy-B Wranglers are now required to resubmit their development application for approval to the Planning Commission and Town Trustees due to rejection of their Variance request by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on 9-13-16. The Variance to the Loading Dock location was a condition of approval by the Town Trustees. This upcoming review by both the Planning Commission on 11-15-16 and Trustees on 12-13-16 will present another opportunity for each body to reject this project for non compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and for violations of procedures by Planning Commission staff. Van Horn Engineering has presented a new plan for the loading area which will be in your package. You will note that they have moved the loading area to the middle of the parking lot. This loading area now takes up 10 of the required parking spaces and is not screened. Section 7.11.N (General Development Standards) of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDV) requires screening of loading areas and prohibits them from being located in required parking spaces. In addition, pages 7-10 of the Van Horn Drawings still show the loading area in the original proposed location along Mills Drive? You will also find in your package a letter from Van Horn which responds to all the conditions of approval. This response is totally inadequate and clearly does not meet the conditions specified, especially regarding the timetable for response, Public Works conditions, Larimer County Engineering, and local planning department. The Mills Drive neighborhood has hired Ascent Planning Solutions — Dave Shirk to assist us with addressing our concerns regarding these conditions. Please review Dave's letters of 9-8-16, 9-16-16 and 10-6-16 which explain in detail our objections. At this time we think it is fair to request that the Estes Park governing bodies again carefully review the EVDC to determine the compliance of this project. The Lazy-B project is a standalone commercial entertainment establishment as defined under chapter 13.2.C.12 (Definitions) which is clearly prohibited under Section 4.4.A.1 of the EVDC in an A-Accommodations district. It markets itself as a nightly (May 15th thru September) western entertainment in its brochures. The Town Trustees approved the project on 7-28-16 on the basis that it was a major indoor event center. This would be allowed by special review in the A-Accommodations district if it met the definition of major indoor event center. It does not. Section 13.2.C.19.c.(1) clearly prohibits a major indoor event center of under 20,000 s.f. in the A- Accommodations district , or a recreation or entertainment use conducted on a continuous basis.. The Lazy-B facility is 17,910 s.f. and is conducted on a continuous basis from mid May thru the end of September. When there are conflicting provisions in the EVDC, Section 1.13 states that the more restrictive provisions apply. This was the basis of the original planning commission rejection of this project along with the adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Finally all Special Review Projects still have to meet Section 3.5 of the EVDC which provides that "The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment". Also The State Highway Access Code requires in Section 3.11 that "The turn lanes not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent property". There has been extensive evidence presented over the last 9 months of the adverse impacts to parking & driveways on Mills Drive, Rock Inn Parking, Rocky Mountain National Park objections, Environmental concerns, Traffic congestion, wildlife, wetlands, and overall disruption to the neighborhood. No effort has been made to mitigate any of these concerns by the Lazy-B. If the Lazy-B had made use of the existing Elk Meadow entrance, many of these adverse impacts could have been avoided. I urge all of the approval bodies involved to carefully review the EVDC Sections cited above in order to make an informed decision. Thank You. /\A ascentplanningsolutions@gmail.com Ascent. maillinig. solutions 970-231-1178 Land Use Consultation Design Owners Representative September 16, 2016 Estes Park Community Development Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Gonzales: I write this letter on behalf of S&E Enterprises with the purpose to clarify and document the current status of the `Lazy-B Ranch and Wranglers' development application. Ascent Planning Solutions asserts the failure to either comply with or appeal Town Board conditions of approval renders the application null and void, and any land use approvals will require a new land use application. EVDC Section 3.2.E.2 provides 30 days to comply with conditions of Board approval. A condition of approval of the July 26 2016 Town Board action was approval of a variance from the Board of Adjustment. The applicant did not contest this condition of approval and a hearing for the required variance was scheduled for September 13. At that time the BOA disapproved the variance. We believe the application is null and void due to inability to comply with accepted conditions of Town Board approval. Should the Department determine otherwise, we believe revisions to accommodate the loading area exceed the authority of staff to modify the approved plan. We base this belief on the fact that a variance was a specific condition of approval imposed by the Town Board, and therefore exceeds staff's authority to waive or modify this requirement. Finally, we assert the there is no development plan approved for the proposed use. Public record indicates the Planning Commission failed to take action on the development plan within the allowed timeframe and in accordance with Section 3.1.D the development plan was rendered denied. The applicant did not exercise their right of appeal to the Town Board within the specified timeframe. This assertion is based on the requirement that development plans for special review uses must be "reviewed and approved" by both the Planning Commission and Board. Respectfully, Aw(W,ah.1 David W. Shirk, Principal cc: Estes Valley Planning Commission Estes Valley Board of Adjustment A boutique land planning company specializing in Mountain Land Use and Development. —/\/- ascentplanningsolutions@gmail.com Ascent. Pianflingsolutions 970-231-1178 Land Use Consultation - Design Owners Representative October 06, 2016 Estes Park Community Development Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Gonzales: This letter is in response to the September 26, 2016 resubmittal of the "Lazy B" application. This resubmittal was intended to address required conditions of approval, as imposed by the Town Board. In accordance with the development code, conditions of approval were to have been satisfied within 30 days of Town Board approval. These responses took two months to submit and do not satisfy the conditions of approval: the application should be certified null and void for failure to comply with conditions of approval. The surrounding neighborhood has been following this application for 10 months, yet delays and time extensions continue. The application continues a pattern of failure to demonstrate compliance with the development code. In deference to procedural due process for parties-of-interest, we request the Community Development Department certify the application denied. The applicant may submit a new application that complies with development code standards. Specific conditions not met include: Public Works Conditions. Transportation #3: Required further mitigation of conflict between existing Rock Inn parking and the proposed turn-lane. The response is that discussion took place at the Planning Commission hearing. There may have been discussion at the Planning Commission hearing, but it was still imposed as a condition of approval. We are not aware of any additional mitigation that has been explored and or resolved since this condition was imposed by the Town Board. We suggest this is a blatant disregard of this condition of approval. Transportation #5: The condition states Public Works does not support the request to delay paving until Phase 3. The response is in direct contradiction to this statement and a violation of the development code. Larimer County Engineering. Bullet point 2: The county engineering department stated that access, circulation and parking at the Rock Inn will be modified, and requested assurance the parking lot will adequately function. The submitted response does not even attempt to address this condition of approval. This was a condition of approval imposed by the Town Board, and not one that can be simply dismissed with statement "no solutions were A boutique land planning company specializing in Mountain Land Use and Development. agreed upon." Why were no solutions agreed upon? What was discussed? What will the impact be? This is a blatant disregard for this condition of approval. Planning Division. Condition #4: The application for loading area setback was disapproved by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The proposed solution is a clear violation of EVDC Section 7.11.N, which requires screening of loading areas and prohibits them from being located in required parking spaces. The revised application not only fails to comply with condition for a variance to the loading dock location, it fails to comply with general development standards. We respectfully suggest this application does not comply with imposed conditions of approval, and should be certified null and void. Respectfully, ANY IV S'44.1 David W. Shirk, Principal cc: Estes Valley Planning Commission Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Estes Park Town Board RE: Lazy B Ranch variance: Comment Inbox x Rebecca Urquhart 1:38 PM (10 minutes ago) to planning I realize that it may be too late to provide this comment, but in case this gets in to your package, I want to formally object to the Lazy B Ranch's variance request. I have practiced in the area of land use for decades, and I am appalled at the regular exceptions granted to the codes and restrictions I have seen in this Town. The law is the law. Just because a business generates sales tax, or perhaps even creates new jobs, is NOT a justification to grant legal exceptions to building and zoning codes. We all know that the Trustees granted the special review permission to the Lazy B operations, but, as you probably know by now, a lawsuit has been filed. In my opinion, it did not meet the criteria for any special review, and the Trustees decision was, in legal parlance, "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion." But, unfortunately, until a court sets that aside, the owners now are free to request a variance for setbacks. This variance application is not for relief from a foot or 2 of distance. A substantial reduction in the distance requirements is being requested. This will greatly impact the neighboring properties. It is bad enough that Mills Drive will become a high traffic, clogged nightmare every single night, but having facilities that close to the property line will create a significant annoyance to the neighbors. Lastly, the real reason the Lazy B sought special review, and now a variance, is because, allegedly, one owner of the Elk Meadow RV facility (the landlord of the Lazy B) does not want any inconvenience to his patrons. He may not be a partner in the Lazy B, but his partner and the co-owner of the Elk Meadow RV IS a part owner of the Lazy B, and they both are no doubt financially benefitting from the lease of the acreage to the Lazy B. How is justifiable to develop a property through special review and variance exceptions that create very real adverse impacts on the surrounding homes and businesses, all because the businesses benefiting from the Lazy B operations do not want ANY negative impact on their own property? In other words, they are seeking modifications of the legal standards to solely benefit themselves, at the expense of the property owners around the development. The injustice of such a development approach is clear. What's the point of even having setbacks and building regulations, if they are set aside every time some business asks for them? This variance request should be denied, and the Lazy B owners need to find a way to develop the property in the space they have without creating unnecessary adverse impacts on the neighbors. Re,bee-ca- L. Urp44-ezi,-/- Attorney at Law 970-586-7586 Jeremy Vetter 12:29 PM (18 minutes ago) to me Dear Board of Adjustment: Thank you in advance for listening to my concerns about the Lazy B variance request. Other commenters have already pointed out how strongly the factors listed in the Code, for when a variance may be justified, weigh against a variance for the Lazy B plan design—so much so that it would seem difficult to see how any variance could ever be denied, no matter how weak the case for a variance might be, if this one is approved. As a large, approx. 30-acre lot, with an already existing highway entrance, and an abundance of interior space far away from the roadways for proper setback of a loading dock, there are obviously a wide range of design possibilities other than the proposed plan. However, I would like to point out another aspect of this case that would set an incredibly bad precedent, if this variance were to be approved. This variance is intended for an extra use carved out for a portion of the parcel, in addition to an already existing use which dominates the property. In other words, the supposed constraints on the design of this new building are artificially created by the designation of a smaller area along the edge of an existing parcel, most of which is already regularly used for another purpose. If property owners could arbitrarily designate smaller portions of their parcels for other uses and then plead that they are not large enough to allow such other desired uses within the Code requirements, so that a variance has to be granted, then where does it stop? Can any property owner just simply say that they want to establish another use in front of, on the side of, or behind their existing uses, and then demand a variance to accommodate this? Surely the Code was not written to allow the proliferation of multiple uses that cannot fit onto a property within the existing Code, simply because there "isn't room" for the extra use within the Code on whatever arbitrarily small portion of their parcel they may demarcate for that extra use? This is not at all a matter of making a parcel usable for the owner, but rather of a property owner circumventing the Code requirements by pleading that a space limitation they themselves have artificially created for an extra use somehow requires that a variance be granted. Property owners should not be given variances to enable extra uses that wouldn't otherwise fit with the Code, simply because they want to keep adding more and more uses to their property. If such a precedent were to be established, then any property owners could carve off all kinds of additional uses or buildings on sub-parcels of their own design, and then plead the need for variances to fit them in. I would also like to reiterate what others have observed or implied: that the variance is being requested for a side of the property (previously not used for vehicle access) that is adjacent to a row of homes, not a highway, open land, or strictly commercial zone, so that the factors which lead to the need for a setback to protect neighboring property owners in the first place would presumably be even greater, not less. If these rules cannot be respected when a row of homes is involved, then when could such standards ever be deemed enforceable? And unlike the neighboring commercial property to the east, which is located along a major highway (Spur 66), and accesses its loading needs and parking directly from that highway, which is appropriate for a commercial use, this proposal is for a loading dock along a quiet and narrow street with mainly residential and low-density accommodations uses, so that the impact will be much greater than for a highway-facing access point. Interestingly, the Elk Meadow parcel also has its main entrance on Spur 66, so it could reduce many of the negative impacts simply by using their existing highway entrance for ingress and egress, not only for loading but for all commercial purposes. Using Spur 66 and redesigning the location, size, and/or access point for the proposed building could easily eliminate the need for a loading dock variance. It is rather remarkable that they seem unwilling to consider this option, even though the proposed plan not only requires a substantial variance but also inflicts serious negative consequences on neighboring properties. Let us not lose sight of the big picture of what would happen here if this variance is approved. Allowing the proliferation of additional commercial uses on a parcel that already has a long-established accommodation use, against the provisions of the Code and requiring substantial variance from it, is effectively (by government action) increasing the value of one property while reducing the value of surrounding properties which are negatively impacted. Let's respect the rule of law by observing the Code instead of having a system where the local government picks winners and losers by redefining an accommodations zone as permitting standalone commercial uses rather than just accessory uses despite what the Code says (as some of the Town Board did) or by granting substantial variances that do not fit with the existing criteria (as the Board of Adjustment is now being asked to do). I hope and trust that the Board of Adjustment, with its special knowledge and experience with the Code, will agree that this variance is not justified and that it would set many bad precedents for the future. f a scenipla n ni ngsolutions@g mail.con Ascent. Piaming solutions 970-231- 1 178 Land Use Consultation Design Owners Representative September 8, 2016 Estes Park Community Development Department Attn: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear members of the Board: The owner of 1755 H ighway 66, S&E Enterprises, has contracted with Ascent Planning Solutions to evaluate and provide comments regarding the variance request at 1665 Highway 66. S&E Enterprises represents the interests of several properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed variance. Ascent and S&E respectfully request the Board of Adjustment deny the requested variance because it does not comply with review standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. Ascent and S&E would like to thank the Board of Adjustment for their careful consideration of this atypical variance request, Typical variance applications demonstrate special circumstances regarding how a specific standard applies to a specific property: a rational and proportional nexus exists between a specific regulation and its undue burden on a specific property. A typical variance is also not part of a larger development application that includes a special review use, development plan, minor modifications, and variance approval that requires independent approval from multiple bodies. The public record shows that during Estes Valley Planning Commission review of the special review use, two Commissioners expressed concern the use was not allowed, and another was concerned about the impact on the neighborhood. The Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommended disapproval of the special review use to the Town Board; they did not offer findings of fact. The public record shows that during Estes Park Town Board review of the special review use, one Board member noted the proposed use did not fit his reading of the code and that when conflicts in the code exist the more stringent should apply. Another Board member expressed concern the application has not mitigated the impacts on the neighborhood. On a split vote the Town Board overturned the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommendation and found the application for special review use meets the review criteria of the development code and approved the special review. Approval is conditioned upon Board of Adjustment approval of a variance to the code. Section 2.1.B of the development code specifies staff is the recommending body for variances and the Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for variances. This means the planning commission and Town Board actions are not recommendations to the Board of Adjustment. The BOA is an independent quasi-judicial body, specifically set aside from an elected body by state law. Appeals to BOA decisions are to district court. The burden of demonstrating compliance with review standards lies with the applicant. Per Section 3.6.0 all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C. "Shall" is a powerful word and the strongest available to describe the Board's obligation and responsibility to the standards outlined in the development code. A boutique land planning company specializing Mountain Land Use and Developmen Estes Park has been a vacation destination for over 150 years and has been responsive in supplying the demands of the tourism market while balancing the concerns of the local community. Estes Park zoning codes have long required special review of tourist related uses. This standard has helped ensure Estes Park is not a Rocky Mountain version of "tourist traps" such as Myrtle Beach SC or Branson MO. Ascent and S&E believe the request does not satisfy the standards for review outlined in the Estes Valley Development Code. Evidence to support this belief are outlined on Attachment 1, summarized as: 1. No special circumstances exist. 2. Any practical difficulty is a self-created hardship unrelated to the development requirement. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would be forever altered and adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of approval. 4. Other options are available that would not introduce commercial traffic to Mills Drive and could improve overall traffic operations in the area. 5. The use is prohibited both expressly and by implication under the terms of the EVDC for the A- Accommodation zone district. 6. The submitted conditions are so general the code might as well be amended: If this site cannot accommodate the setback then there is no site in the valley that can. Should the Board determine that (1) special circumstances exist; (2) there can be no beneficial use of the property without the variance; (3) the variance is not substantial; (4) the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered; (5) delivery of public services would not be affected; (6) the applicant was not aware of the requirement; (7) there are no feasible alternatives; (8) this is the smallest variance to afford relief; and (9) the use is an allowed use, we request the Board impose certain conditions to secure the objective of the loading dock location and operational requirements. These are described in Attachment 2. The impacts from the overall commercial use should be considered in deliberation of the review standards and criteria. The commercial use is the root cause of the loading area and impacts of this underlying use should be considered. Some of the discussion points outlined in the attachments may have a tenuous connection to the variance request. Others are indisputable. The purposes are to encourage discussion of the impacts of the variance and to document review criteria from the perspective of certain Mills Drive property owners. We request the Board take action on the application as submitted at their September 13 meeting. The Mills Drive neighborhood has been following this application for several month, including multiple time extensions and public meetings. A time extension only adds to this inconvenience. We thank you again for your careful deliberation of this variance request and hope you find the application does not pass the standards to approve this request. Respectfully, Oapiii W. cad David W. Shirk, MUP, A1CP Principal, Ascent Planning Solutions Attachment 1: Standards for Review Attachment 1 is an item-by-item analysis of the review standards and criteria delineated in EVDC Section 3.6.C. This analysis is offered for the Board's consideration and is intended document review criteria from the perspective of certain Mills Drive property owners. Special Circumstances. None of the examples of special circumstances listed in the code apply to this property: there are no exceptional topographic conditions, the lot is not narrow nor shallow, and the shape of the property is adequate for the proposed use. No special circumstances have been identified other than isolated wetlands dictating the building location. This justification assumes the rest of the 30-acres is not available for development. If this is the special circumstance it is without question a self-created hardship not valid in consideration to vary development standards. A factor to consider when determining if special circumstances exist is if the requested variance will nullify and impair the intent and purposes of the specific standards, this development code overall, or the Comprehensive Plan. A final factor the Board must consider when determining if special circumstance exists is if practical difficulty will result from the strict compliance with the standard. Practical Difficulty. There are six criteria to consider when determining practical difficulty. This analysis concludes the application fails all six criteria. 1. Can there be any beneficial use of the property without the variance? G Absolutely and without doubt. The property has demonstrated 40+ years of beneficial use as an RV Park. This is a time-tested viable use. • In addition to this principal use, the property has also been used for an accessory `chuckwagon supper' use for several years without the need for a setback variance. • These uses can continue and may be expanded without the rare and unjustified benefit of a variance to General Development Standard outlined in chapter 7 of the development code. 2. Is the variance substantial? • As a request to a general development standard required by chapter 7, the request is inherently substantial. General development standards have built-in "relief valves" in the form of staff and planning commission modifications to standards up to 25%. These relief valves are included in the code as a way to simplify variances when planning commission review is required, The fact this is substantial enough to require BOA review indicates the nature of the variance. o The variance, at a 56% reduction, is very substantial. o Approval of the variance would have substantial impacts on Mills Drive property owners that outweigh any self-created difficulties. 3. Will the essential character of the neighborhood be substantially altered? Will adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance? • This is a subjective standard, but it is unquestionable this variance request would shunt impact onto the properties the requirement is intended to protect and introduce commercial traffic to a road that has a long-established set of traffic patterns. • The RV park has not traditionally used Mills Drive for access. • The RV park is the only commercial property that abuts Mills Drive. This means if the RV Park used their existing entrance no commercial traffic would ever by introduced onto Mills Drive. o The main property owner has a Federal mandate to not be developed. Other properties are long-standing residential properties. • Mills Drive was created by the Estes Park Company to serve residential properties and has never had commercial traffic other than as the service entrance to RMNP. • Introduction of commercial traffic onto Mills Drive requires Mills Drive be rebuilt. The southern edge of the rebuilt road will be located several feet south of the existing road and will have a significant impact to properties on the south side of Mills Drive. Landscaping, driveways and parking areas will be affected. • The proposed use will generate enough traffic to warrant a right-turn lane from Highway 66 onto Mills Drive. • The warranted right-turn lane onto Mills Drive cannot fit in the space between Mills Drive and the existing RV park driveway. This means the turn-lane will be smaller than standard design, thus affecting the intersection design. • Appendix D.3.B.1 states "No driveway shall be so located as to create a hazard to pedestrians or motorists, invite or compel illegal or unsafe traffic movements or block or alter access to adjoining properties or uses." The location of the access point on Mills Drive creates the need to construct a right-turn lane will block and alter access to the Rock Inn. The reconstruction of Mills Drive will block and alter access to adjoining properties on Mills Drive. • Approval of the variance will allow the proverbial 'nose under the tent' of commercial traffic onto Mills Drive. Once approved, the use and operations of the structure and associated loading dock will inevitably expand over time. 4. Will the variance adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer? • The variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as fire protection and residential streets. There are several issues that stem from this loading dock location. • Possible interference with fire station. The Woodland Heights fire clearly demonstrated that heavy traffic can impact emergency vehicles and that every second counts when fighting wildland fires. • The proposed development warrants a right-turn lane. There is not adequate space to fit the turn-lane between Mills Drive and the existing RV park entrance. This means the public road will not be able to function as intended. • The impact on Mills Drive is undetermined. The applicant will be required to build a new road. But who will maintain it? Who will have a right to use it? Does this mean the homeowners will have to pay to maintain a road they don't want required by a use they don't want? 5. Did the Applicant purchase the property with knowledge of the requirement? • The property owner is not the applicant. • The current owners purchased the property in 2007; the property has been transferred three times since adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code and the relevant standard. • Mills Drive property owners moved there knowing the RV Park was there and could be redeveloped. They also believed development regulations in place to protect their property rights would be followed. 6. Can the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance? • Yes. The applicants predicament is self-imposed and can be mitigated without the variance by using the existing RV park entrance as required by the following code language: o Table 4-7: To the maximum extent feasible, the number of curb cuts shall be minimized by consolidation, shared driveways or other means. o Appendix D.I11.5: To the maximum extent feasible, the number of new curb cuts shall be minimized by consolidation, shared driveways or other means. o Appendix D.III.6: Shared driveways are strongly encouraged; Shared driveways may be used on adjoining properties. o The design completely ignores these development standards. • The property is 30-acres in size and over 1000-feet wide, and has an existing entrance on Highway 66 that could be used. The building/parking lot/etc could be located elsewhere on the property that would not require a basic setback variance. • The applicant could attach the structure to an existing building on-site, which would move the location of the loading dock to the interior of the property. • Traffic conflicts between RVs and passenger vehicles has been cited as a justification to locate the entrance to the Lazy-B on Mills Drive and install a sub-standard turn lane that will affect parking the The Rock Inn. However, no substantive evidence to support this assertion has been presented. A more prudent option would be to redesign the existing RV park entrance to include a turn-lane where there is adequate space. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. • No special circumstances exist, which means the conditions and circumstances affecting the property are so general as to make it more practical to amend the regulation than vary it: if this request is approved without just cause then why keep the regulation in place? O If this site at 30 acres and over 1,000 feet wide cannot accommodate this standard, then what site can? • Accessing the loading dock from Mills Drive will shift the negative impacts from the subject property and onto neighboring properties. This idea cuts through the very purpose of development standards and zoning, which is to protect existing neighborhoods from introduction of noxious uses and ensure new development works with existing and planned development. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. o No subdivision is proposed at this time, though potential subdivision of the property has been mentioned as justification for locating the entrance on Mills Drive instead of Highway 66. o It has been stated that if the property was to ever be subdivided access would need to come from Mills Drive. This is not necessarily correct. • As noted above, several sections of the development code encourage shared driveways whenever possible. c If and when the property is subdivided access easements or rights-of-way could be dedicated through the main property without additional impact on Mills Drive. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. • The Statement of Intent does not discuss how this setback is the least deviation that will afford relief. o There is no description of where the ponds/wetlands location. • There is no explanation why the pond and wetlands "pushes the structure south along the south property line adjacent to Mills Drive" instead of elsewhere on the property. O The plan could include additional buffering and screening than the code minimums. However, the submitted plan shows no screening whatsoever. o The applicant proposes to construct the building in phases: the first phase will not enclose the structure. We suggest the impact of the variance will be increased with this concept. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. This standard has gravitas. Disapproval renders the application noncompliant with Town Board conditions. This in effect means approval of the variance is approval of the use. Public record shows a dispute about the use classification. We believe the use is both expressly and implicitly prohibited under the terms of the code. Explicitly Prohibited: Staff classified the proposed use as "Entertainment Event, Major (Indoor)". This use is allowed in the A-Accommodations zone district by special review. On the other hand, "Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments (Indoor)" is not an allowed use in the A-Accommodations district. We believe the proposed use more closely fits the "establishment" definition than it does to "event' definition and is therefore expressly prohibited in this district. Section 1.8.A.1 states "When the provisions of this Code are inconsistent with one another, or when the provisions of this Code conflict with provisions found in other ordinances, codes or regulations adopted by the Town of Estes Park or Latimer County, the more restrictive provision shall govern unless the terms of the provisions specify otherwise. The definitions of the two uses are summarized: Event: Major entertainment event uses are characterized by activities and structures that attract people to specific (often large-scale) events or shows. Activities are generally of a spectator nature. Accessory uses may include restaurants, bars, concessions, parking and maintenance facilities. b.Examples: Examples include fairgrounds, stadiums, sports arenas, coliseums, auditoriums and exhibition and meeting halls/areas. c.Exceptions: This use classification does not include the following: (1) Exhibition and meeting areas with less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of total event area, which are classified as "Retail Establishments" below. The proposed building is 18,000 square feet and therefore is therefore exempt from this use classification and not allowed in this zone district. Establishment: A building or part of a building devoted to providing amusement, entertainment or recreation for a fee, including movie theaters and theatrical space for dramatic, musical or live performances, indoor pinball/video arcades, bowling alleys, health clubs, aerobic exercise studios and including such activities as billiards and pool, other table games and similar-scale amusements. b.Examples: This use classification includes the following specific types of uses: (1)Limited Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments, Indoor: Limited to the following indoor entertainment establishments only: Indoor movie theaters and theatrical space for dramatic, musical or live performances; indoor billiards, pool and other table games. Implicitly Prohibited. We also believe the use is implicitly prohibited by Section 4.4.A.1.a of the development code, which states "stand-alone commercial or retail uses will not be permitted in this accommodations district; instead, such uses may be developed in the other commercial zones." This implies such uses must be accessory to a principal use. Section 4.4.A.la also states "A variety of related tourist-serving retail and commercial uses, such as restaurants, bars and gift shops, will be permitted, but only as accessory uses to a principal accommodations use and only if such supporting uses are located inside the same structure as the principal use." This also implies such uses must be accessory to a principal use, and only if such use is located inside the main building. In contrast, the site is designed to function as a stand-alone principal use. Indeed, future subdivision of the property was mentioned in the town board report. The site is designed to move the use as far away from the principal use as possible, and proposes to use a separate street for access, without any interior connections. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Should the Board find special circumstances exist and these special circumstances create a hardship and there are no other options, Ascent and A&E request the BOA impose conditions that will substantially secure the objectives of the standard and the impacts of such approval. These conditions are outlined on Attachment 2. Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Lazy B Variances 2 messages Bryan D Gillam <bryan.gillam@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:01 PM To: planning@estes.org The variances for the Lazy B development should be denied. The degree of variance from the codes is to large, including the almost 45% encroachment for the loading dock. This will dramatically effect the quality of life for all of the adjoining neighbors with the increased amount of heavy truck traffic and idling engines in the area. The development will benefit many business people outside of the Estes Valley and very few, most of which have lived here for fewer than 2 years. Please consider the voice of the residents and not out of towers. I strongly encourage you to see through the smoke cloud from the developers and vote to Deny the variances. Thank you Bryan Gillam 721 S Saint Vrain Ave Estes Park Bryan Gillam bryan.gillam@gmail.com Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:07 PM To: Bryan D Gillam <bryan.gillam@gmail.com> Bryan - Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Board of Adjustment. Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org [Quoted text hidden) Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> =ST: • r A, 7 Lazy B Variance 2 messages Tim Roemer <roemertim@yahoo.com> Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:25 PM To: planning@estes.org The loading zone variance being requested by the Lazy B project should be denied! When will we stop putting large out of town developers' desire to make more money, over the rights of our friends and neighbors. All at the cost of our "mountain" lifestyle. Thank you, Tim Roemer 1675 Hwy 66 Estes Park, Co Sent from my iPhone Attachment 2: Potential Operational Conditions q Provide analysis of parking that will be lost as a result of the rebuilt Mills Drive and turn-lane. Parking areas removed as a result of the rebuilt Mills Drive shall be rebuilt to current development standards on the RV park property. An access/parking easement shall be recorded for the benefit of those impacted by loss of parking. q A sound study estimating impact of noise from back-up warnings and shall be provided to determine screening adequate to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance, and such screening shall be required. q Install turn-lane with first phase to minimize potential for rear-end accidents with trucks turning onto Mills Drive. q Complete or guarantee the entire structure with first phase. Ensure the development agreement accounts for this and an adequate form and amount of costs are accounted for. q Hour of operation shall be limited to 5:00 PM-8:OOPM, seven evenings a week, from June through September. q Parking lot lighting shall be de-activated after 8:30 PM. q Milts Drive should be widened on the north side with the south side location unchanged. q Restrict RV park property use of Mills Drive to "Lazy-B" traffic. No campground related activities shall be allowed. Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> T F r. Board Of Adjustment Hearing - Objection to Lazy-B Variance Request 2 messages Donna Egan <dmcde@hotmall.com > Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:37 PM To: ''planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> hi I j1L 414: 6. il f :•%: I would like to express my objection to the variance request submitted to the Board of Adjustment by the Lazy-B Ranch and Wranglers Development. This variance request of 56% to setback requirements for the loading dock area will substantially impact the Mills Drive residents who are already burdened by this project. This is just another attempt by the developer to impose its will on the neighborhood. The additional noise, traffic, and general disturbance is an insult to these people. The Lazy-B claims in the variance request that they had no other logical choice for a loading space. This is an incredible claim since the owner of the property - Elk Meadow has 30+ acres of land to work with to develop the project. This area was chosen because it was inconvenient to the owners to locate it elsewhere. What is the purpose of the Development Code if not to protect property owners from this type of surprise intrusion? Throughout the development of this project both the Lazy-B and Elk Meadow made no effort to compromise or otherwise reduce the many adverse impacts, including this one. The Estes Valley Planning Commission rejected the application after consideration of testimony from area residents, a petition objecting from over 1400 people, written comments from over 300 people, and 2 public hearings. They concluded the project itself did not meet the requirements of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan or Development Code. Hopefully your board will take a look at the minutes from these hearings and review the extensive documentation available on this controversial, poorly planned project, prior to making your decision. Thank You for your careful consideration of this matter. Mike Egan - Estes Park Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> To: Donna Egan <dmcde@hotmail.com> Cc: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Mike - Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:23 PM Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Board of Adjustment members. Please let me know if you have any questions. TO: Estes Valley Board Of Adjustment Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> - r Lazy B variance 2 messages kerbear1111@gmail.com <kerbear1111@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:41 PM To: planning@estes.org To whom it may concern: When a person buys a home, he or she is putting a tremendous amount of trust into the integrity of local decision makers; trust that zoning will be adhered to and trust that their quality of life will be protected. At this point in time, buying property in Estes is like playing Russian Roulette. The Lazy B development is far too large for the square footage on the land they have allotted for it. This is why they needed a parking lot waiver, a sidewalk waiver, a wetlands waiver, and now a loading dock variance. They have 30 acres. It is not necessary for them to encroach on the neighborhood the way that they are. A 56% variance is just shady and disrespectful. It is difficult to imagine the impact this loading dock will have, because there is nothing to compare it to. The only venue anywhere near this size is the grossly underutilized event center. We have no idea how many delivery trucks will be idling 45 feet too close to the neighbors house. Their lawyer is going to stand up and tell you that the neighbors are hysterical and there will be no impact from these trucks. And he is right. There will be absolutely no impact to him. He is going to drive back down to Loveland. And then the very green town planner is going to tell you that this is no big deal. And then he is going to drive back down to Loveland. When are we going to start listening to the residents and stop selling our quality of life to the highest bidder? Thank you for your time. Kerry Egan 1675 Highway 66 Sent from my iPhone Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:41 AM To: Kerry Egan <kerbear1111@gmail.com>, Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Kerry - Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Board of Adjustment. Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org [Quoted text hdden] Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Lazy B Variance 2 messages Monica Sigler <monicahonika@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:11 AM To: planning@estes.org Come on , are you out of your minds? How far over backwards will you bend , and how many codes and laws will you break ( or amend) . You know 1 or 2 feet is one thing, maybe 10 , but 57 FEET, this is ridiculous , it should of never been done and NO more exceptions. I'm beginning to wonder if there are some relation involved . NO NO NO Monica Sigler Sent from my iPhone Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:42 AM To: Monica Sigler <monicahonika@gmail.com> Monica - Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Board of Adjustment. Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org (Quoted text hidden] Jay Vetter 10:56 AM (1 hour ago) to planning TO: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment RE: Lazy B Rance & Wranglers Variance Request We urge you to deny the request for a variance for the loading space setback. Our home is directly across Mills Drive (to the south) from the proposed variance. If built the loading space would be 110' from our front porch. The plan for widening of Mills Drive would destroy the buffer landscaping that currently exists between our home and Mills Drive. That includes four adult trees and five shrubs. Even though the developers intimated in the beginning that they would work with us to mitigate the impact, no such efforts have taken place. This variance, if approved, would make things worse. We have already gotten a taste (and smell) of the negative impacts with a temporary entrance and trash collection site installed across the street in May. When we questioned the town planning staff about the location of the trash collection site being too close to the road, they indicated that it was allowed because it is a private road. It should be noted that the development plan calls for the trash room to be located between the road and loading spaces in question. We do not understand why this variance is needed when the application for the development lists the parcel as being roughly 30 acres, with several other options for locating this loading space being available. Why not require this development to use the current entrance located at 1665 Spur 66 for access to their loading spaces in a redesigned building? It appears that they have chosen to disrupt our lives and property rather than adjust their current business uses to accommodate a new venture of their own. Below is photograph taken from our front porch today. It shows the trees and shrubs that will be destroyed in this project. The wooden fence across the road is the location of a large roll off dumpster. The gale to its left is the temporary entrance that will be the location of the permanent entrance. Thank You, Maureen and Jay Vetter,1711 Mills Drive IMG 3554.JPG L 1 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Maureen and Jay Vetter CEEIVE Date: November 8, 2016 NOV -8 2016 RE: Lazy B ranch and Wranglers Amendment to Conditionally COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Approved Special Review Development Plan We are writing to ask you to recommend denial of this amendment on the following basis: 1 The proposed loading area does not meet code (section 7.11.2) 2 The applicants have not mitigated to the maximum extent feasible the negative impact on neighboring property and public safety. With a 30 acre parcel having its own entrance on a public road there are plenty of other options that are feasible that do not involve the use of Mills Drive. The objections to use of Mills Drive have been previously expressed by most of us who are directly affected, including Rocky Mountain National Park. We suggest that there are two issues regarding this application that need to be clarified before any more action is taken on it. Both of these are relevant to the objections we raise above. 1) Is the applicant applying for development on a 30+ acre parcel or a 5 acre parcel? In parts of the application they apply the code to a 30 acre parcel (maximum lot coverage allowed for development, set backs, etc.) and in other parts of the application and presentation they say it is a separate 5 acre development (need for a separate entrance, wildlife and wetland studies, etc.). We believe the applicants should decide which it is and then meet the codes. 2) Whose road is Mills Drive? A 1924 document is referenced that suggests that the land belongs with RV Park, but even the engineers acknowledge that there are dual claims to part of the land under Mills Drive and that there is a small wedge shaped section near the east end that they cannot determine who owns. The right of way was granted in the same 1924 document to property owners and occupants to the west of the Elk Meadow Property, which is RMNP. It appears that the land belongs to the RV Park (and someone else) and that the road belongs to RMNP who built and maintains it. The town planning department has dubbed it "a private road used as a public road". This apparently gives them the option to decide to apply the code for either classification. Thank you for considering our objections. a TOWN OF ESTES P Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Audem Gonzales, Planner II Date: November 15, 2016 (Public Hearing Date) RE: Proposed Adoption of Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Objective: Consider adoption of the 2016 Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County partnered in the mid-1990s to develop the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which articulates a unified vision for both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley. The Comprehensive Plan which includes the vision for a valley-wide trail system (Comprehensive Plan p. 5-15, 5-27, and 7-8), which would be updated with adoption of the 2016 Trails Plan Over the past twenty plus years significant progress has been made towards implementing this vision. Prior to adoption of the plan, few trails existed within the Estes Valley. Since adoption, construction of the Lake Estes Trail has been completed, construction of the Fish Creek and Fall River Trails is ongoing, and many easements are in place for the Big Thompson River Trail. The Trails Plan was adopted by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District earlier this year after being vetted through the community and project partners. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, as two of the project partners, supported development of the Trails Plan. Adoption of the Trails Plan as an element of the Town and County's Comprehensive Plan furthers a unified approach to planning in the Estes Valley. The Estes Valley Development Code requires dedication and/or construction of trails in accordance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan or any subsequently adopted hike/bike or open areas plan, depending on the specific application type, e.g. development plan or subdivision plat. Proposal: Incorporate the most current trails plan into the Comprehensive Plan by adopting the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. If adopted by the Planning Commission on November 15th, the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners are tentatively scheduled to consider certification of the comprehensive plan amendment on December 13th and December 19th, respectively. Advantages: • Adoption ensures the most current trails plan and trails vision is articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. • Adoption provides authority to require dedication of trail easements or trail construction in accordance with the most current trails plan. Disadvantages: • It is possible that some developers or owners will prefer not to accommodate trails in the corridors shown. Action Recommended: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the latest version of the Estes Valley Trails Master Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Sample Motions: I move to adopt the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. I move to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. I move to not adopt the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: 1. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan refer to www.estes.orq/comprehensiveplan for document 2. Estes Valley Master Trails Plan refer to www.estesvalleytrails.com for document November 15, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report TOWN OF ESTES PARK, 1:(3oolLoomi ri To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: November 15, 2016 (Study Session Date) RE: Proposed Text Amendments to Estes Valley Development Code; Vacation Rentals Planning Commission Objective: Review of proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §5.13.B (Specific Use Standards: Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home) Code Amendment Obiective: The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to appropriately regulate vacation homes in the Estes Valley. During the August 30 joint study session housing discussion, the groups came to consensus that: a. Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) would take the lead in reviewing proposed regulations, with amendments to the Code sent forward to the two governing bodies after due consideration; b. Estes Park Community Development Department staff would draft Code amendments for subsequent review and recommendation; c. The staff would follow the recommendations of the Task Force in formulating these recommendations for the 9-and-over category; d. Staff would incorporate prior direction from the March 30 draft for 8-and-under regulations, as a beginning-point for further consideration; e. The above tasks would take place on a timeline with staff-recommended code language to be provided to the EVPC in October and November 2016; f. Subsequent EVPC recommendations would be targeted for a joint Town Board / BOCC public hearing and potential action in a December 2016 meeting. Discussion: Staff envisions the Nov. 15 Planning Commission study session on Vacation Rentals and the corresponding regular meeting agenda item as a time for the Commission to continue discussion begun in the November 1 study session. The regular Commission meeting on Nov. 15 is also a time for citizens to be able to respond to the discussion so far and to offer their own views and comments. Citizen input has intrinsic value in its own right to the Commission and governing bodies, and is also a crucial element in helping to form a final recommendation and decision. In that spirit, the staff will mostly keep quiet and actively listen on November 15. We will have a few comments to offer. Those will relate primarily to process and practical aspects of regulations. Staff does expect to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission on November 29, and subsequently to the two governing bodies at the proposed joint public hearing on December 15. Attachments: None at this time. NOTE: The items provided to Planning Commission for your Oct. 18 and Nov. 1 meetings on this subject are still valid and applicable! If you left your copies in your binders, they will be left in place for Nov. 1 and subsequent meetings on this topic. If you removed your copies from your binder, please bring to each subsequent meeting. This will assist in conserving paper and reducing our copying and supply costs — thank you.] Revised November 10, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> E. STE'S P K W: Vacation rental cap-related figures 1 message Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:56 AM To: "kthompson@estes.org" <kthompson@estes.org> Karen, Please post/retain in the appropriate Public Comments venues. Thanks, RAH Randy Hunt, AICP Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org From: Randy Hunt Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 7:08 AM To: FRED R MARES; mgmoon@aol.com; Betty Hull Cc: lhardin@estes.org Subject: RE: Vacation rental cap-related figures Fred, I have some additional thoughts but will wait to share those in the Nov. 15 study session and the Nov. 15 and 29 PC meetings. We'll make you email part of the public record. I appreciate your thoughtful attention to the cap concept and to the full subject. This is a difficult landscape to navigate but we will find our way through it. Thanks, RAH Randy Hunt, AICP Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 iirect: 970-577-3719 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org From: FRED R MARES Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 6:58 AM To: mgmoon@aol.com; rhunt@estes.org; Betty Hull Cc: Ihardin@estes.org Subject: Re: Vacation rental cap-related figures Mike & all - will offer some unsolicited comments. I have a very difficult time with a cap that rewards the individuals/corporations who choose to break the law on a continuing basis. There are —250 VRs who are choosing to "be underground" after more than 3 years of the town/county spotlighting the issue, a formal Estes Valley Vacation Rental Owners Association being formed, and major attention from EALA, Visit Estes Park and the EDC. The idea of allowing all of the VRs yet another chance to conform to the code really punishes the 500 individuals/corporations who paid —$80,000 this year to obtain licenses and be legal. The 250 have chosen not to play, I say don't let them play, don't give them a "free pass" and to use Ed Peterson's words "fine them $5,000" when they get caught. I think we can only base a cap on the numbers we know and can verify, and not on assumptions of what may constitute the unknown, the illegal 250. For example, the approach taken below assumes a similar zoning distribution and occupancy (bedroom count) for the 250 as has been documented for the 500 licensed VRs. That may be very incorrect. Take the limiting cases scenarios, what if none of the 250 are in A & C and all are in R zones flying under the radar to avoid licensing fees, or assume the opposite, that all are in A & C zones assuming they don't need licenses due to their zoning. Each case would greatly distort the resultant cap number. There are too many unknowns and many variations that, I think, invalidate this approach. Picking a politically correct or easy to pass number really goes against my value system. It is my opinion that public policy should be based on doing the best thing for the community, not just on what will generate the least push back, what will maximize sales tax dollars, or what best pleases the financially invested. Backing up a step, we (community government, leadership groups, community groups) have very conflicting goals. We want the incremental tourist dollar, we want a more diverse economy, we want to attract working families, we want cheaper housing, we want to maintain our natural environment, etc, etc and yet have invested no time, energy or thought into developing an integrated plan which fits all these goals together. As a prime example, we are giving away in the form of VRs exactly what the housing study says we need, 1- 4 bedroom residences. Any cap number, in my opinion, should be based on the data we have and can verify AND on the goals we are trying to achieve. For example, do we just want to continue on the VR growth curve we are on and collect license dollars until "the market" is saturated, or do want to "slow the leak" of residential housing to the accommodations industry, or do we want to limit VRs to what we currently have, or do we want to have a slightly lower cap to provide a gentle incentive to move some of our Valley's limited residential stock back into inventory. Please share these with colleagues as you deem appropriate and make this part of the public record. Fred Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0 Larimer County Assessor's database, 07/15/16 • There are approximately 6500 residential units in the Valley • Approximately 3100 are owned by non-Valley residents o 3100/6500 = 48% of residences are owned by non-residents n 20% by non-Valley Colorado owners n 28% by out of state owners Host Compliance (iCompass) data, 07/16 • 750 vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Area Estes Valley vacation rental data - per Town license/permit applications as of 11/01/15 498 licensed/permitted vacation rentals • 265 in Estes Park • 233 in Larimer County • Note: 498/750 = 66% of vacation rentals are licensed Of the licensed/permitted vacations rentals • 353 are 3 bedrooms or less • 112 are 4 bedrooms or more (potential 9+ occupancy) • 33 have an unknown number of bedrooms 78% of the Estes Valley VRs have non-Estes Valley owners 46% of the Estes Valley VRs have out of state owners 140 —150 of the 492 vacation rentals "Business Names" include the terms LLC, LP, Inc, Enterprise, Ltd, Partnership, Holding, etc. - 38 owners own multiple vacations for a total of 98 properties Estes Park Area Housing Needs Study, Rees Consulting Inc, January 22, 2016 "Loss of Units —At the same time rental demand was increasing from the factors mentioned above, the size of the rental inventory declined. Long-term rentals occupied by the workforce have been sold to new owners as the market recovered or converted into short-term vacation home rentals, both of which displaced renters and permanently reduced the supply of rental housing.", Pg. 67 "Rental homes being sold, flood damage and rentals being converted to short-term rentals have affected the most renters—about 200 each.", Pg. 83 VR Data Overview package 110516 frm 110116 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 1 C 0 0 c?)(c) c)0;\ No. of Vacation Rentals Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0 Homes converted to Vacation Rentals each year 68 14 1 13 16 41 41 9 10 8 0 0 1 2 2 3 3 III II 171 95 c,p cp, cszcv c36-5 coo e cp`b (pc) e e e ,0 'Y `1, Town Board approves "Use by Right" Licensed VR growth (from 2016 license/permit info) 600 500 U) To 400 a) 0 300 n3 O 200 100 0,`" c).) c,c> c:?› 6cD 61 6q, e ,c) pppppppppp ,),6 p Town Board approves "Use by Right" VR Data Overview package 110516 frm 110116 Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0 Size of Vacation Rentals (no. of bedrooms) 250 200 192 124 0 Z 100 • VRs 79 0 I I I 27 1 _ 1 2 50 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No. of Bedrooms Vacation Rentals per Zoning District 140 120 114 115 100 92 80 0 z 60 41 40 20 0 36 31 25 9 21 14 20 11 0 6 7 6 2 4 A A-1 CD CO E E-1 R R-1 R-2 RE RE-1 RM Zoning District min VRs 33 VRs have an unknow number of -4+ Bdrms VR Data Overview package 110516 frm 110116 Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0 Estes Valley VR ownership 180 160 140 120 160 109 100 80 z 60 55 44 40 23 20 13 7 10 12 7 6 9 9 4 5 0 123 1 _ . • CC < NJ 7ti < (—) 1 _)c na I a 1 I 1 z 1 1 I'I —c) 1 2 1 _ o u z Z 2 z 2 I 2 . 1 Z000 1— zxa 1 > 1 1 _ I Li Li Owner's state of residence Total licensed VRs in all zones 498 % of 498 VRs in A and C zones 108 22% VRs in residential zones 390 78% VRs in residential RM zones 92 18% VRs in residential w/o RM zones 298 60% Total licensed VRs in all zones 498 % of 498 Total licensed 4+ bdrm VRs 112 22% 4+ bdrm VRs in A and C zones 22 4% 4+ bdrm VRs in residential zones 90 18% 4+ bdrm VRs in RM zones 20 4% 4+ bdrm VRs in res w/o RM 70 14% VR Data Overview package 110516 frm 110116