Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2019-09-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 17, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Steve Murphree, Frank Theis, Nick Smith, Dave Converse Attending: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Murphree, Theis, Smith Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanund, Town Board Liasion Ron Norris, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Larimer County EngineerTraci Shambo, Absent: Converse OPEN MEETING Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 15 people in attendance. APPROVAL OF AGEND A It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to amend the agenda, adding an item to revise and revote on the Estes Valley Planning Commission Resolution on the Joint Planning Area from February 19, 2019, and the motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT AGENDA 1. Study Session Minutes dated August 20, 2019 2. Meeting Minutes dated August 20, 2019 It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 5-0. ACTION ITEMS 1. LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW: CDOT VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY, 475 ELM ROAD Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the project stating that the existing facilities are planned to be removed. New improvements involve construction of a 6000 square-foot, 5-bay, vehicle storage facility with associated office space. Site access, via Elm Road, is to be reconfigured and improved. The property is owned by Larimer County and is leased to CDOT. The county will sell the 5-acre property to the State upon the approval of this proposal. The EVPC was asked RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 17, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall to extend the application through October 31, 2019, instead of the standard 30 day time period, as a condition of approval. Applicant Discussion: Erin Lucero, lead architect, gave a brief presentation on the proposed CDOT site showing the floor plan and building design, drainage and accessibility. The design and refiguring of Range View has been done by Larimer County Road and Bridge and is being reviewed by county engineers. Roads do not go through the Board of County Commissioners. Public Comment: Carol Zahourek, town citizen, expressed concerns, with the 17% road grade and the location and specs of the detention pond. Max Burkhalter, town citizen and Range View Road caretaker, noted that the road grade per county standards are not compliant, and road grade changes into business driveways. Becky Glowacki, town citizen, has concerns with losing egress, viewshed, noise and light pollution, snow removal and cost to taxpayers. Bill Brown, town citizen, wants a safe and compliant Elm Road and noted the amount of traffic the road carries, and other road concerns. Response: David Wolff, Fire Chief, has looked at the plans and the concerns have been addressed. The improved surface offsets the steep grade. The Fire Marshall will be submitting his formal comments and approval to Director Hunt. Erin Lucero noted that CDOT completed a historic drainage report, the pond has a culvert so water will not go into the road, the addition of asphalt will help drainage. CDOT has looked and will continue to look for more appropriate sites. Traci Shambo, Larimer County Engineering, explained the multi-stage design and described the details of the detention pond design and the thorough planning that has gone into it. Todd Jurgens, Larimer County Road and Bridge Director, stated this is an existing piece of County right-of-way. Larimer Couty will provide maintenance of a 24 foot wide paved Elm Road road up to the intersection of Range View Road. The current intersection at Kenwood Lane is not standard. The newly designed Range View will be less of a grade than what it currently is in some locations. CDOT has offered to pave the realignment of Range View, with the approval of the local property owners. These plans have been reviewed and approved at the staff level by the County engineering department. Design, construction and management are being done by Larimer County and paid for by CDOT. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 17, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commissioner comments: The Planning Commission only has purvue over the building plan, not the roads. Public concerns can be addressed to Director Todd Jurgens. There are pros and cons to the road improvement, with a chain of responsibility for decisions being made. It was moved and seconded (Smith/White) to APPROVE CDOT’s application for a Location an Extent review, for the CDOT Vehicle Storage/Office Facility at 475 Elm Road, with staff findings and the condition of approval recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION: THUNDER VIEW, 1573 DRY GULCH ROAD In the absence of Planner Hardin, Director Hunt presented the minor subdivision proposal. The applicant would like to subdivide the lot into four 2.5 acre lots, as is allowed by code. One lot currently has a single-family home, the additional three lots would be available for development of one single-family home each, with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and 50’ setbacks on all sides and from designated wetlands. A condition of approval is that within 90 days following recordation of the Final Plat, a 50-foot from centerline right-of-way will be dedicated along the eastern boundary of the parent property bordering Dry Gulch Road. Applicant comment: Mark Theiss, owner, stated that there was a wetland study done and this is dedicated on the final plat. The septic tank will be pumped and crushed in place. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to APPROVE the Thunder View Subdivision Preliminary Plat according to findings of fact and including findings and conditions recommended by Staff. The motion passed 5-0. 3. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT PLANNING AREA A revised and reapproved resolution containing new opening and closing paragraphs (attached) to be read at the Town Board meeting on September 24. It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to revise and reapprove the Resolution in Support of the Joint Planning Area. The motion passed 5-0. REPORTS • The Planner II position has not yet been filled, but we are getting closer. • Project updates: o Wind River apartments: work is still ongoing by CDOT. No building permits have been applied for. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission September 17, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall o Raven Rock: Grading from the Estes Park Chalet is being moved to the Raven Rock development area. A phasing plan has been submitted to allow this. Water, sewer and road base are being reviewed by the building department. o Stanley Hotel: a Development Plan submittal is expected by the end of October. Additional parking construction will begin soon. The Carriage House is to be moved 12 feet to the north to attach to the Art Center. The State Historical Foundation will review these plans. o Elkhorn Lodge: plans should be forthcoming with restaurant/retail/accommodations. A pre-app meeting has been held. ADJOURN There being no further business Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair _________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Resolution In Support of the Joint Planning Area Below is a resolution in support of the Joint Planning Area, which was approved unanimously at the EVPC meeting on February 19, 2019, and revised and reapproved on September 17, 2019. We the Estes Valley Planning Commission strongly support the Estes Valley Joint Planning Area (JPA) and the related Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Our support is based on the following: ● First and foremost, the Estes Valley is one integrated community. In terms of common community interests and concerns, there are no boundaries between the Town and County in the Estes Valley. ● The Estes Valley is unique in that it is landlocked and nearly all of the land is developed. The size of the Estes Valley is not large. Thus, land use planning throughout the Estes Valley is of concern to a wide range of Town and County residents. ● It makes complete sense that land use planning in such a confined geographic area be handled on a coordinated basis. This is why the JPA was implemented more than 20 years ago. ● The Estes Valley Planning Commission is much better equipped to address land use issues in the Estes Valley than the Larimer County Planning Commission due to our knowledge and experience with local land use issues. Our focus is on the Estes Valley. The Larimer County Planning Commission is focused on the entire county and in particular on the front range communities and their issues. ● A primary goal of the new Comprehensive Plan is to create a shared vision for the future of the Estes Valley. This can only be done if there is one Comprehensive Plan for the entire Estes Valley, and this can only be done if the JPA is retained. ● The Comprehensive Plan is much more than a guide for land use planning. It encompasses transportation, parking, downtown planning, trails, utilities, water use, flood control and mitigation, fire mitigation, and more. These topics are by definition valley-wide as is land use planning. ● Residents of the county portion of the Estes Valley may have a more difficult time getting their concerns addressed by their county representatives (the Larimer County Planning Department, Larimer County Planning Commission, and the County Commissioners). These County officials have busy schedules and may at times have more pressing issues to address than the concerns of Estes Valley residents. All this activity will take place in Fort Collins rather than Estes Park, unless special meetings are held in Estes Park. ● If the JPA is dissolved the county portion of the Estes Valley will come under the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. Zoning in the county portion of the valley will have to be redone since the County does not have the same zoning districts as we have in the Estes Valley Development Code. Protections provided to residents by current zoning designations and development code will not necessarily be available after this rezoning. Some neighborhoods, such as Carriage Hills, will be divided with one portion under Town zoning and development codes and another portion under county zoning and development codes. This will create a lot of confusion. ● Dissolving the JPA will increase the dissention and disunity in the Estes Valley. Retaining the JPA together with a new valley-wide Comprehensive Plan will increase cooperation, collaboration, and consensus in the Estes Valley. ● Dissolving the JPA will accentuate the lack of representation that residents experience when development projects are brought forward. There will be no valley-wide forum like the Planning Commission where citizen’s views can be heard. ● The existence of the JPA and IGA allow us to draw on the knowledge and experience of County planning staff as we develop our own unique solutions to Estes Valley land use issues. Given the potential negative consequences of dissolving the JPA and the likelihood of additional unintended consequences, and the lack of compelling reasons for dissolving the JPA, the responsible course of action is to retain the JPA and fix existing procedural problems by revising the IGA. Given the critical importance that the JPA has played in Estes Valley planning, no governing body should propose to dissolve the JPA unless it has identified and provided the rationale for an alternative that can work as well or better than a JPA. Estes Valley Planning Commission February 19, 2019 Revised September 17, 2019 X Bob Leavitt, EVPC Chair