Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2019-10-15Prepared October 4, 2019 The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION October 15, 2019 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Study Session Minutes: September 17, 2019 Meeting Minutes: September 17, 2019 5. AMENDED PLAT: 340 South St. Vrain, Steve Ferrante, owner Planner Woeber 6. CODE AMENDMENT: CHANGE OF USE IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS Technician Kreycik 7. AMEND BYLAWS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TIMES 8. ADVISE AND DISCUSS: Ground lease agreement with Park R-3 School District For the Career and Technical Education (CTE) building 9. ALPACA FARMS/FERGUSON SUBDIVISION: hearing of concerns 10. REPORTS 11. ADJOURN 1 RECORD 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 2 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. 3 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. 4 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 5 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 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado September 17, 2019 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Estes Valley, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Room 202-203 Town Hall. Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners, Murphree, Smith, Theis, Converse Attending: Leavitt, Theis, Murphree, Smith, White Also Attending: Town Board Liaison Norris, Director Hunt, Planning Technician Kreycik, Senior Planner Woeber, Recording Secretary Swanlund, Town Attorney Kramer Absent: Converse Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m There were no people in attendance. This study session was recorded and can be viewed on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. CDOT Vehicle Storage: Planner Woeber spoke on the Location and Extent review for the CDOT vehicle storage facilities. The current facility is outdated and rundown. This will be a rebuild and upgrade. The property is owned by Larimer County and leased to CDOT. A 6,000 square foot, 5 bay facility is being proposed. Realignment of a portion of Range View Road is necessary, which is not a part of the Location and Extent review. That review will be done by Larimer County Engineering. THUNDER VIEW Minor Subdivision: Director Hunt reviewed the minor subdivision. This was a rezoning from March of this year. The proposal is to divide the property into four 2.5 acre lots. The plat conforms to the EVDC, and all affected agencies have reviewed and approved the plat. This will continue on to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. County engineering staff has requested an additional right of way, which would reduce two of the lots to 2.4 acres. A solution has been proposed to have a separate ROW easement 90 days after the recordation on the eastern boundary of the parent property bordering Dry Gulch. Opponents of this project do have the opportunity to object to this solution. Considerable discussion was had on whether this is a proper planning approach to correct the non- conformity of the ROW dedication. Staff and the Planning Commission will accept this solution, but a code amendment to fix this defect is in the works. CODE AMENDMENTS: Director Hunt spoke on the Downtown Building Height concept taken from the Downtown Plan. The reference map is only for guidance. An overlay zone concept and a step-back proposal are the two main mechanisms to focus on. There is no mandatory redevelopment attached to this. Leavitt would like an architectural review component added. Norris suggested finding photos of town where the step-backs have worked and use them for reference. A November Study Session review is planned. Planning Technician Kreycik discussed the code amendment pertaining to amending review standards for commercial developments undergoing Change of Use, affecting Table 3.3 of the 7 Planning Commission Study Session August 20, 2019 – Page 2 Development Code. This will require properties undergoing a change in use to submit a development plan application if the change in use increases the intensity of the land use. The review would ensure that the change is compatible with surrounding uses. Questions about what constitutes a change of use should be expected. Kreycik explained the regulations on Distributed Wind Energy and Conservation Systems. The code amendment would change definitions of micro and small wind energy conversion systems to reflect industry trends. The review will be changed from a Conditional Use Permit to an S1 Special Review. Eliminating red tape and aligning with wind zoning ordinances current best practices is important. Chair Leavitt suggested deferring this amendment for the time being. Board member Norris commented on previous wind turbine legislation conversations that garnered a lot of public controversies. This will be a hot-button issue. It was suggested to get pubic input on this subject for new Comprehensive Plan. The regulation of distributed wind should be addressed within the Comprehensive Plan process if sustainability and community resiliency are identified goals of the Comp Plan process. PUD’s/Vacation Homes: Director Hunt spoke on the subject of whether or not the Vacation Home cap in residential districts should be counted in PUD’s. Vacation Homes are defined as accommodations in code; therefore, PUD approval would allow for approval of vacation homes without falling under the 588 cap. It would have to be written into the PUD proposal or a code change disallowing it. Leavitt suggested giving the BOCC a review of this discussion. 531 S St Vrain Avenue-site of EP Shuttle The property at 531 S St Vrain is one lot, and there are two uses on this lot. This will complicate the Temporary Use with the Estes Park Shuttle. It has been requested of the owner of the lot to make it look nicer and install a fence on the south side while this gets sorted out. Ayres parking study: Planner Woeber discussed the Ayres Associates report on multi-family parking demand rates. The recommendation Ayres came up with is 87 spaces per dwelling. This is lower than the current ITE rate that has been used for recent developments. The Pubic W orks Director is reviewing this report. IGA Update: Director Hunt discussed the just-released press release stating that there is a new online questionnaire with two options. There will be a meeting on September 30 that could include a vote on the future of the IGA. Chair Leavitt would like the problems clearly defined, fix the issues and keep the joint planning area. When asked for the pro/con memo, Hunt agreed to distribute it with two caveats: the county has not signed off on the document and “we don’t have to wait for something to break to make it better”; we can improve things without them being broken. Not all elected officials are aligned, and they should put their thoughts on record. It was requested that the memo be shared with the Town Board before their September 24 meeting. The PC should prepare an updated statement of the one written in February. Project Updates: Will be reviewed in the regular meeting due to time constraints. 8 Planning Commission Study Session August 20, 2019– Page 3 Questions/Future Items Meeting times Amended Plat Code Amendment Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. _____________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 9 10 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: October 15, 2019, 1:30 p.m., Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This application for a Preliminary Plat, for a “Boundary Adjustment/Amended Plat” to rearrange a lot line involving lots within a platted subdivision. STAFF OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and 2. Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission LOCATION: Located to the north of the intersection of South Saint Vrain Avenue and 4th Street in the Town of Estes Park. The existing residence is addressed as 321 4th Street, the existing church facility is at 340 South Saint Vrain Avenue, in the Town of Estes Park. OWNER/APPLICANT: Park Fellowship Church, Steven Ferrante CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Northern Cartographic Land Surveying and Mapping, Mike Costanzo, PLS STAFF CONTACT: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REVIEW PROCESS: This property is the longtime location of a church facility, and a single-family residence. Larimer County Assessor’s records indicate the house was constructed in 1965; it is not clear when the church was constructed. Staff located building permit records on file for the church structure dating to the early 1970s. The property containing the church and residence has been under one ownership and has been considered one parcel for many years. Staff notes the church and residence long predate the adoption of the EVDC. Staff has a Warranty Deed on file, recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, at Reception No. 439691, on 12/11/1981. This deed conveyed the property, from one church to another, with the current legal description, Lots 5, 7, and 9, and the Southwesterly 57 Feet of Lot 6, all within Block 6 of Reclamation Subdivision, within the Town of Estes Park. The Reclamation Subdivision is recorded at Reception No. 672753, on 01/01/1953 according to Larimer County Clerk and Recorder records. Amended Plat, Reclamation Subdivision Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org 11 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 15, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 3 AMENDED PLAT, RECLAMATION SUBDIVISION The current owner intends to transfer the residence, and the lot containing the residence (Lot 9) to a different owner, and with the configuration of an established fence line, is proposing to slightly rearrange the northwesterly (rear) lot line. This is less than 1000 square feet being added to Lot 9 which will be described as Lot 9A. The other subject Lot, Lot 7 and the Southwesterly 57 Feet of Lot 6, will be described as Lot 7A. Lot 9, containing the existing residence and sheds, is zoned R (Residential), with the property containing the church facility zoned RM (Multi-Family Residential). The rearrangement of the lot line will have a small, RM-zoned piece being added to Lot 9. This is less than ideal, but staff does not see any benefit in requiring the applicant to go through a rezoning process, due to the small area involved. Applicant is not proposing additional development at this time. REVIEW CRITERIA: Per the EVDC, Section 3.9 Subdivisions, Subsection 3.9.1.b., a “Boundary Adjustment” involving lots in a platted subdivision is to be titled “Amended Plat.” An Amended Plat is considered, under Section 3.9, a type of “Minor Subdivision.” Minor Subdivision requires a recommendation by the EVPC (Preliminary Plat) and action by the governing body, in this case the Town Board (Preliminary and Final Plat). SITE DATEA TABLE: Surveyor: Northern Cartographic Land Surveying and Mapping, Mike Costanzo, PLS Parcel Number: 2530210905 Lot Size: L7A: 0.380, L9A: 0.293 Acre Zoning: R (Residential) and RM (Multi- Family Residential) Adjacent Zoning: East: R (Residential) North: R (Residential) and R2 (Residential) West: S. St. Vrain Avenue, CO (Outlying Commercial) South: 4th Street, R (Residential) Adjacent Land Uses: East: Residential North: Residential West: Commercial South: Residential Services: Water: Existing, Town of Estes Park Sewer: Existing, UTSD 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 agencies. Staff notes no building permits or additional structures are proposed at this time. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) explored the possibility of adding an easement to the Amended Plat, for a service line that crossed both properties. However, it was determined that due to age, the location of the line was unclear and would involve a significant amount of time, money, and effort to locate, and then to survey, this existing line. UTSD then determined this was above and beyond the District’s requirements for the Amended Plat. 12 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 15, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 3 AMENDED PLAT, RECLAMATION SUBDIVISION PUBLIC COMMENTS: Notice was published, and sent to adjacent property owners in accordance with the notice requirements in the EVCD Section 3.15 General Notice Provisions. At the writing, no written comments have been received for this application. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications if received after October 9, and summarized in the staff presentation. STAFF REVIEW, FINDINGS: 1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the EVDC. 2. 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. 3. Noting the Reclamation Subdivision, as well as the subject property’s existing uses and structures, were in place decades before the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan was drafted or adopted, staff finds the site is not inconsistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. With the site having been developed with the church, residence, and accessory structures many years ago, it appears previous owners, as well as planning staff, did not take interior platted lot lines into consideration, considering the property as one parcel although it is in fact Lots 5, 7, and 9, and the Southwesterly 57 Feet of Lot 6, Block 6 of Reclamation Subdivision. Staff notes any future new structure will be required to comply with all zoning standards and any applicable EVDC requirements. 5. 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. 6. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Estes Valley Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Amended Plat to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, with staff findings. SAMPLE MOTION: I move to recommend approval (or denial) of the Preliminary Amended Plat of Lots 5, 7, and 9, and the Southwesterly 57 Feet of Lot 6, all within Block 6 of Reclamation Subdivision, as described in the staff report, with the findings as recommended by staff. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Preliminary Amended Plat 13 Site Location Ê LAKE ESTES N SAINT VRAIN A V E MAN F O R D A V E STA N L E Y A V E ASPEN AVEBRODIE AVE4THSTS S A I N T V R A I N A V E BIRCH AVEHIGH ST 3RD STGRAVES AVE2ND STFIR AVECOMMUNITY DRELM AVEP ONDER O S A D RBIG THOMPSON AVEGRAND EST A T E S DR STAN L E Y C IR C LEDRDRIFTWOOD AVECOLUMBINE AVEMO C C A S I N C I R C L E D R PROSPECT AVE LAND E R S A VE 1ST STCOMANCHE ST DUNRAVEN ST HIGHLAND LN O U RAYDR W APITI CIR WOODST O CKDRMORGAN S T E ELKHO R N A V E 5TH STPAR K VIEW LN FAWNLNBEACH LN MATTHEWCIR AXELL RD HALBACH LNSAINT VRAIN LNWESTON LNROOFTOP WAYASPEN A VECOMMUNITY DR0 250 500 Feet -Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Printed: 10/9/2019 Created By: Jeff Woeber Project Name: Project Description: Amended Plat Reclamation SubdivisionFor Illustrative Purposes Only 14 2’-zcStatementofIntentThepurposeoftheboundarylineadjustmentistohavethelotlines reflecttheexistingfencelinesoftheresidencelocatedat3214ths•EstesPark,CO80517.AllofthelotsinclusiveofLot9Block6(3214thSt.EstesPark,CO.)currentlyarethepropertyofParkFellowshipChurchwhosephysicaladdressis340S.StVramAv.EstesPark,CO.80517.LegalDescriptionBeingaReplatofLots719,&aportionofLot6block6,ReclamationSubdivision:Creatinglots7Aand9A Block6locatedwithintheSE¼oftheNW¼ofsection30,Township5North,Range72Westofthe6thPrincipalMeridianCountyofLarimer,StateofColorado.15 ESTESVALLEYDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATIONSItJ&LCr,eohlL’c1AILLL-(,SJA.etk,ir&niLVbCJcELUAJ&,LtTnCQrPie-Application(checkapplicationtype(s))FMinorSubdivisionPlatFCondominiumMapFDevelopmentPlanAmendedPlatFPreliminaryMapFSpecialReviewBoundaryLineAdjustmentFFinalMapFPreliminarySubdivision PlatFRezoningPetitionFSupplementalMapFFinalSubdivisionPlatFOther:Pleasespecify________________C14ittiriiITh.diit’ll[.ItProjectName1kStoAF3cz4Obe2’/LJAS4p-mximcur7—Project Description‘9pfl1;’c’iXp1qggu#67M*2?deY-c$7,’J4/NCct/,lkProjectAddressSZi‘771L6c537t3/‘Mti<LegalDescription7aGn4-td-d1’ParcellD#•353O1oct051T?1flht.iiiit’1(1’].LotSize.ifl-b,,3g’:)ExistingLandUse_____________________________________________________________________________________ProposedLandUse_______________________________________________________________________________ExistingWaterSer’nce,7crownWellNoneFOther(specify)___________________ProposedWaterService‘4ownFWellNoneFOther(specify)___________________ExistingSanitarySewerService\(EPSDFUTSDFSepticNoneProposedSanitarySewerServiceEPSDFUTSDrSepticExistingGasServiceXcelOtherNoneExistingZoning_____________________________________ProposedZoning__________________________________‘f711FThIrnt.ii11t’IA[*]NameofPumaryContactPersonrrPrimaryContactPersonisFOwnerApplicantConsultanUEnneer‘IfNiIiiNi1L—,<StatementofIntentisDigitacopiesPDFemailedtoplanning©estesorg3copies,24x36(folded)ofplat/plansApplicationFee1copy,1IX17’reducedsetofplat/plansFRefertotheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeAppendixBforapplicationsubmittalrequirements.!—dSubrnittalDateTownofEstesPark-P.O.Box1200e170MacGregorAvenue4.EstesParkCO80517CommunityDevelopmentDepartmentPhone:970-577-3721-isEmail:planning@estes.org4.www.estes.org/CommunilyDevelopmentReAsed201701.09KT16 RecordOwner(s))?9,ekMailingAddressPhoneEmailcs/cS.6rViZ4uOAU.5fiC5P4t4)570z-g-q’/dPR-f2tFiatae2Si!,?-I‘ContactInformationApplicant7ELJtr&tMailingAddress3zigri,,q,—eT’s?n-t,CoPhone‘773Yiz-Z72’Email,r,f’Prnr,,c”P(ko+vv’czICofinConsultantiEngineerMailingAddressPhoneEmailMINERALRIGHTCERTIFICATIONArticle655ofTitle24oftheColoradoRevisedStatutesrequiresapplicantsforDevelopmentPlans,SpecialReviews.Rezoning,PreliminaryandFinalSubdivisionPlats.MinorSubdivisionPlatsitcreatinganewlot,andPreliminaryandFinalCondominiumMapstoprovidenoticeoftheapplicationandinitialputichearingtoallmineralestateownersvvlierethesurfaceestateandthemineralestatehavebeensevered.Noticemustbegiven30dayspriortothefirsthearingonanapplicationfordevelopmentandmeetthestatutoryrequirementsIherebycertifythattheprovisionsofSection24-65.5-103CRShavebeenmet.Names:/RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT:/4ApplicantPLEASEPRINT:Signatures:RecordOwnerDate____________________ApplicantDateOWNER&APPLICANTCER11FICA11ONAs Owner,(certifytheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandIamtherecordowneroftheproperty.AsApplicant,IcertifytheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttotheOestofmyknowledge andinfilingtheapplicationIamactingwiththeknowledgeandconsentoftherecordowner(s)oftheproperty.IgrantpermissionforTownofEstesParkemployees,reviewingagencystaff,PlanningCommissioners,membersoftheTownBoardofTrustees,orLarimerCountyCommissionerswithproperidentificationaccesstomypropertyduringthereviewofthisapplication.IacknowledgeIhavereceivedtheEstesValleyDevelopmentReview ApplicationScheduleandamawarethatfailure tomeetthe deadlinesshownonsaidschedulemayresultinmyapplicationbeyingdelayedoranyapprovalofmyapplicationbecomingnullandvoid.Names:RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT;)‘At1(7r2ta,5t9pO-74._ecr/ApplicantPLEASEPRINT:cRrct)jDr’,’i,crzt’Signatures:RecondOwner-Revised2o11,cLo9Kr17 Site4th St.30Lake EstesS. St. Vrain Ave.N. St. Vrain Ave.(Hwy 36)(Hwy 7)(Hwy 34)(R=S 42°08' E 100.0')(R=S 42°08' E 66.3')(R=S 44°58' E 100.4')(R=S 39°49' E 100.3')(R=S 34°41' E 100.0')(R=S 49°57' E 100.0')(R) L=115.0' R=1372.7'(R) L=115.9' R=1372.7'(R) L=159.5'R=1272.7'(R) L=160.0'R=1272.7'(R) L=124.0' R=1473.0'S 34°55'02" E 100.00'S 39°49'00" E 100.74'(Basis of Bearings)S 44°49'38" E 100.61'S 42°03'14" E 66.25'S 42°03'14" E 99.92'S 49°50'55" E 99.95'N 4 1 ° 3 5 ' 2 7 " E 5 7 . 4 0 'N 29°22'44" E26.97'N 42°03'14" W13.88'S 42°03'14" E 91.13'N 42°03'14" W 86.14'8.79'L=57.07'R=1372.70'L=25.57'R=1372.70'L=32.26'R=1372.70'CH BRG=N 49°36'33" ECH=32.26'(R) L=115.0' R=1372.7'L=115.00'R=1372.70'CH BRG=N 52°40'58" ECH=114.97'L=160.38'R=1272.70'CH BRG=N 51°30'07" ECH=160.28'L=159.36'R=1272.70'CH BRG=N 44°16'00" ECH=159.25'L=57.07'R=1272.70'L=102.29'R=1272.70'L=115.88'R=1372.70'CH BRG=N 43°04'06" ECH=115.85'Old Lot LinesL=123.71'R=1473.00'CH BRG=N 47°48'37" ECH=123.67'Lot 9A Block 6± 0.293 AcresLot 7A Block 6± 0.380 AcresLot 6Lot 8Lot 10Lot 5Lot 2Lot 4Portion of Lot 6 Block 6Book 2145 Page 6734 t h S t r e e t South St. Vrain Ave.2' Offset2' OffsetChurchHouseShedShedVacant Land5'19'9'32'2 0 '16'3'5'2 4 '32'32'3 5 '47'20'28'Found 1" Iron Pipe No IdentificationSCALE:1" = SHEET: 1 OFPRELIMINARY AMENDED PLATBeing a Replat of Lots 7, 9, & a portion of Lot 6 Block 6Reclamation Subdivision; Creating Lots 7A & 9A Block 6Lying within Section 30 T.5N R.72W, 6th P.M.County of Larimer, State of ColoradoNOTES:1. The Basis of Bearings for this survey is S 39°49'00" E along the southwesterly line of Lot 9, per the plat of ReclamationSubdivision recorded in the Archuleta County Clerk and Recorders Office at Reception Number 672735, monumentedas shown hereon.2. Record bearings and distances are shown in parenthesis (R=). Bearings and distances not shown in parenthesis arefield measured.3. All distances on this plat are in US survey feet.4. These premises are subject to any and all easements, rights of way, variances and or agreements as of record mayappear.5. Notice: According to Colorado law, you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey withinthree years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey becommenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon.VICINITY MAPScale: 1" = 1500'Found Illegible 1.5" Aluminum Cap on 5/8" Rebar P.O. BOX 1096BERTHOUD, CO 80513(303) 709-1019DATE:Found 5/8" Rebar No Identification0U.S. SURVEY FEET-104020SCALE: 1" = 20' Found 1/2" Rebar No IdentificationSet 1" Yellow Plastic Cap PLS 38424 on 1/2" Rebar NORTHERN CARTOGRAPHICLAND SURVEYING & MAPPINGPROJECT NO:SURVEYED BY:DRAWN BY:10/9/201920'19-141MTCMTC1Calculated PositionLEGENDSet Nail & 1" Brass Tag PLS 38424 in Concrete SidewalkFound 3/4" Iron Pipe No IdentificationPRELIMINARY AMENDED PLATBeing a Replat of Lots 7, 9, & a portion of Lot 6 Block 6 Reclamation Subdivision; Creating Lots 7A & 9A Block 6Located within the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 30, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6th Principal MeridianCounty of Larimer, State of ColoradoPreliminaryCERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATIONKnow all men by these presents that Park Fellowship Church, A Colorado Non-Profit Corporation, being the owner of thatpart of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, Section 30, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6th Principal Meridian,Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows, to wit:Lots 7 & 9, Block 6, Reclamation Subdivision, and that part of Lot 6, Block 6, Reclamation Subdivision described in Book2145 Page 673 and described more particularly as follows: Beginning at the North corner of Lot 9, Block 6, ReclamationSubdivision, thence Northerly and parallel with the Southwesterly or rear line of said Lot 6, to the Northwesterly Line ofsaid Lot 6, thence to the West Corner of said Lot 6, thence southeasterly to the South corner of said Lot 6, thenceNortheasterly 57 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.Containing 0.673 acres more or less; Have by these presents caused the same to be surveyed and subdivided into lotsand blocks to be known as the Lot 7A & Lot 9A, Block 6, Amended Plat of Reclamation Subdivision, witness our hands andseals this ____________ day of _____________, 20_____._______________________________Steven FerrantePark Fellowship Church, A Colorado Non-Profit CorporationState of Colorado ) ) ssCounty of Larimer)The foregoing dedication was acknowledged before me this _________ day of _____________, 20____ by________________________._________________________Notary PublicMy commission expires __________________.TOWN ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATEApproved by the Town Engineer of Estes Park, Colorado this ______ day of ___________, 20___._________________________(Printed Name), Town EngineerBOARD OF TRUSTEES CERTIFICATEApproved and accepted by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this ______ day of ____________,20___._______________________ _______________________Town ClerkMayorSURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEI, Michael T. Costanzo, a duly registered land surveyor in the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that this plat of Lot 7A &Lot 9A, Block 6, Amended Plat of Reclamation Subdivision truly and correctly represents the results of a survey made byme or under my direct supervision.18 19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Claire Kreycik, Planning Technician Date: October 15th, 2019 RE: Proposed Text Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code: Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, §3.8 Development Plan Review, Table 3-3, Development Plan Review Requirements and Amend Table 5-2 to Require Development Review in Certain Cases of Changes in Use Planning Commission Objective: Amend the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.8 Development Plan Review, Table 3-3, Development Plan Review Requirements. Additional criteria that categorize intensity of changes in use for non-residential shall be added to §5.1 and §3.8, Table 3-3. Present Situation: Currently, development plans are processed either through staff level review, or through an Estes Valley Planning Commission/Board review. According to EVDC §3.8, the review requirement is based on a given project’s proposed square footage added and increase in parking spaces. The EVDC also requires a review process for major alterations that add more than 2,000 square feet, when the project also entails changes to parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage, or lighting. There are other conditions specified by EVDC that necessitate development review including sites with slopes greater than 30% and land containing ridgeline protection areas. However, changes in use may create impacts that are appropriate to address through development plan review. This text amendment would add a provision for evaluating nonresidential projects that constitute a change in use that could change character or intensity, thereby impacting surrounding property owners and the community at large. Background: EVDC defines Change of Use as “any use that substantially differs from the previous use of a building or land in terms of, for example, required parking, landscaping or drainage, and Staff Report 20 particularly in terms of the new use's overall effect on the surrounding neighborhood and zoning district purpose.” When considering a new project or change of use, there are several factors that determine whether a land use will be harmonious and inoffensive to the public: land use type, intensity of land use, and geographic context of the use (Dukes 2017). Generally, land use type can be categorized as residential, office, merchant, and industrial/utility. Intensity is determined by factors such as occupancy, parking usage, volume of traffic, delivery traffic impacts, noise, and public safety hazard. It is good planning practice that intensity should match or complement surrounding land use intensities. Geographic context of project siting in Estes Park often boils down to accessibility, impacts to viewshed, and density. EVDC also specifies compatibility as a factor to consider of different permitted uses. EVDC defines Compatibility as: “the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean ‘the same as.’ Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development”. There is currently no minimum threshold in EVDC for development review based solely on change of use, rather other factors as laid out in Table 3-3. However, it should be noted that changes of use may impact occupancy load, peak traffic, and parking during hours of operation; or may have other impacts on surrounding properties. The Building Division keeps a “Change of Use” permit application. The Building Permit Technician estimates that around five of these applications are received every year. These applications capture bedroom designations for residential properties, tenant improvements for commercial properties, or similar changes when commercial properties change hands. There is reason to believe that not all of these types of building projects submit a Change of Use permit application. Change of use in building codes and zoning codes are not identical concepts, but a number of the same criteria can be applied to either, if provided in Code. As with the Ordinance 10-19, the text amendment to the EVDC approved earlier this year that changed the number of additional parking spots triggering a staff-level development review, this text amendment would cast a wider net so that the development review team has a chance to evaluate potential adverse impacts of changes of use. This shift in regulation will need to be communicated to community members and it will be important to coordinate with the Building Division when building permit applications are received that indicate tenant improvements or changes of use. The intent of this change to the code is to provide for a clear and consistent standard for development plan review and to allow for opportunities for public engagement, as changes in use could impact neighborhood character and feel. 21 Proposal: Staff recommends amending the EVDC, § 3.8 Development Plan Review, Table 3-3 Development Plan Review Requirements, to require properties undergoing a change in use to submit a development plan application if the change in use increases the intensity of the land use. The review would ensure additionally that the change in use is compatible with surrounding uses. The text amendment defines three “Use Categories” as a way to characterize the intensity of land use for nonresidential developments. These categories are developed based on intensity and size of operations, with EVDC Tables 4-1 and 4-4 guiding which uses are the most intensive (those which require special review in various zoning districts). Use Category 1 shall be the least intensive and Use Category 3 shall be the most intensive. Since accommodations uses are regulated by §5.1.B and in a separate section of Table 3-3, they are excluded from this regulatory approach. Use Categories are characterized below: Category 1: Community services, religious assemblies, office spaces, personal services, retail establishments with greater than or equal to 300 sf retail space, outdoor food vendors, food and beverage services with maximum seating of greater than or equal to 20 customers. Category 2: Healthcare facilities, group living facilities, senior institutional living facilities, day care facilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, food and beverage services with maximum seating greater than or equal to 20 customers. Category 3: Mobile home parks, RV parks or campgrounds, emergency healthcare facilities, utilities - major, adult businesses, convenience stores with fuel sales, outdoor sales, retail establishments greater than or equal to 300 sq. ft. retail space, limited vehicle services, vehicles/ equipment sales and rentals, warehousing and storage, wholesale sales and distribution, limited industrial services, breweries, distilleries, or wineries, entertainment or events facilities, salvage yards, and recycling facilities. These categories are used in Table 3-3 as guidelines for which non-residential development changes will need staff-level or EVPC-level review. Developers would be required to submit a statement of intent and application to describe the project and proposed use in detail. This application will describe any modifications to the building or site improvements. A change of use for occupancy purposes could also require a building inspection at the Building Official’s discretion (if a Change of Use permit was applied for). The Building Division will direct any building permit application which entails a change of use to first submit a Development Application and Statement of Intent before applying for a building permit. A waiver of site plan/ development plan review may be approved by the Director of Community Development. Interior improvements or remodels which are wholly internal to an existing structure, and which do not lead to a development change in use, are exempt from development review provided that they do not meet any other minimum thresholds of Table 3-3. The Community Development Director may waive development plan review provided that the Applicant demonstrates that such construction, site change, or change in use is found to meet the following criteria: 22 a) Does not negatively impact on- and off-site traffic circulation or parking areas, public utilities or services, or on-site drainage systems b) Does not result in any identified safety concerns or hazards c) Complies with the common review standards found in EVDC. A staff-level review shall be required for development change of use applications that increase Use Category from Category 1 to Category 2, or if the development change occurs abuts a residential zoning district (either Category 1 or 2). Planning Commission review shall be required for change of use applications that increase intensity of the land use to a Category 3 use. These changes are outlined in Table 3-3 of Exhibit A. Advantages:  This text amendment generally complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.  It provides a clear standard for development plan review.  It allow a broader scope of review for projects that have higher impacts on the community.  It restricts projects from being built without standard procedures for agency review.  It provides opportunity for community engagement. Disadvantages:  There will be a financial impact on owners and developers of certain projects because they will incur development review costs for projects that previously would not meet the minimum thresholds for review.  Changes of use projects will take more time to complete due to project review timelines.  There will be an impact on Planning Division staff as more projects will be subject to development plan review. Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners for a final decision to approve. Finance/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest Medium: Projects that have not traditionally been reviewed by planners may have a higher level of scrutiny. 23 Any written comments received are posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motions: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners APPROVE the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, as recommended by staff, with findings and conditions recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move that the Planning Commission CONTINUE this agenda item to the ________ [date certain] Planning Commission meeting because…. (state reason(s) for continuance / findings). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners DENY the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). Citations Dukes, A. (2017). “A Town Well Planned: Hierarchical Zoning.” Accessed 13 August 2019 at: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/29/a-town-well-planned-hierarchical-zoning 24 EXHIBIT A §5.1.X Use Categories Use Categories shall be defined herein, as a method to characterize the intensity of land use within nonresidential zoning districts. These Use Categories are defined for nonresidential development, excluding accommodations development which is regulated in §5.1.B.Nonresidential Use Categories Use Category 1: Community services, religious assemblies, office spaces, personal services, retail establishments with greater than or equal to 300 sf retail space, outdoor food vendors, food and beverage services with maximum seating of greater than or equal to 20 customers. Use Category 2: Healthcare facilities, group living facilities, senior institutional living facilities, day care facilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, food and beverage services with maximum seating greater than or equal to 20 customers. Use Category 3: Mobile home parks, RV parks or campgrounds, emergency healthcare facilities, utilities - major, adult businesses, convenience stores with fuel sales, outdoor sales, retail establishments greater than or equal to 300 sq. ft. retail space, self-storage facilities over 20,000 sq. ft., limited vehicle services, vehicles/ equipment sales and rentals, warehousing and storage, wholesale sales and distribution, limited industrial services, breweries, distilleries, or wineries, entertainment or events facilities, salvage yards, and recycling facilities, § 3.8 - Development Plan Review A. Purpose. The purpose of the development plan review process is to ensure compliance with the zoning 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. B. Applicability. All development set forth in Table 3-3 below shall be required to submit a development plan for review pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this Section. Interior improvements or remodels which are wholly internal to an existing structure, and which do not lead to a development change in use, are exempt from development review provided that they do not meet any other minimum thresholds of Table 3-3. The Community Development Director may waive development plan review provided that the Applicant demonstrates that such construction, site change, or change in use is found to meet the following criteria: a) Does not negatively impact on- and off-site traffic circulation or parking areas, public utilities or services, or on-site drainage systems b) Does not result in any identified safety concerns or hazards c) Complies with the common review standards found in EVDC. See also §7.1.B, which requires development plans for all new development on land with slopes steeper than thirty percent (30%) or on land containing ridgeline protection areas. No development, excavation, site preparation or construction activity, including tree/vegetation removal or grading, shall occur on property subject to this Section until a development plan has been approved. 25 Table 3-3 Development Plan Review Requirements Determining Factor Staff Review EVPC Review All Nonresidential Development, Except Accommodations Development, in any Zoning District (Ord. 8-05 #1) Number of Parking Spaces 3 - 20 (Ord. 10-19) 21 or more Construction of Gross Floor Area 2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. More than 10,000 sq. ft. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Major alterations that also entail alteration to the number of parking spaces, the configuration of parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage or lighting on the premises (Ord. 8-05 #1) 2,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. More than 10,000 sq. ft. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Changes in use to a more intensive Use Category as defined in §5.1.X Changes to Category 2 Changes to Category 3 Any change in use occurring at a residential zoning district boundary Category 1 and 2 Uses Category 3 Uses All Residential or Accommodations Development (Ord. 8-05 #1) Number of New Dwellings, Guest Units and/or RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8-05 #1) 3 - 10 11 or more Major alterations that also entail alteration to the number of parking spaces, the configuration of parking, ingress, egress, water, sewer, drainage or lighting on the premises (Ord 18-01 #7; Ord. 8- 05 #1) 3-10 dwellings, guest units and/or RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8- 05 #1) 11 or more dwellings, guest units and/or RV pad/campsites (Ord. 8-05 #1) 26 27 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt – Community Development Director Date: October 15, 2019 RE: ADVISE AND DISCUSS: Ground lease agreement with Park R-3 School District for the Career and Technical Education (CTE) building Applicant Request: The Estes Park R-3 School District wishes to lease property from the Town of Estes Park in Stanley Park to build a Career and Technical Education (CTE) Building. Per Colorado Revised Statutes §22-32-124 (Education – Building codes – Zoning – Planning – Fees – Rules – Definitions) (see Attachment 1), the School District is obligated to “… consult with and advise in writing the planning commission…” in the local jurisdiction, prior to acquiring property for educational use. The School District does not have to seek or obtain approval from the Planning Commission or governing body; therefore, no vote or action on this matter is required by the Commission. Planning Commission Objectives: 1. Review plans and exhibits in connection with the proposed CTE Building and site; consult with the District and its development professionals on the project; and render such advice as the Commission views appropriate. Location: Town of Estes Park, in eastern Stanley Park, across Manford Ave. from the Estes Park High School and the east entrance to the EPHS parking lot. The building would be sited on an existing small parking lot east of the Tennis Courts and south of the Bike Park. See Attachment 3 (Site Vicinity Map). Owner/Applicant: Town of Estes Park – ground lease to be executed between Town and School District in the near future. Applicant’s Representative: Mike Todd, P.E., Cornerstone Engineering Project Description: The School District and design team have provided a Statement of Intent; please see Attachment 2. Present Situation: Planning staff understands EPHS has had career and technical education programming and instruction for some years; however, there is no dedicated or freestanding design space for the program, which has specific facility needs. Some instruction takes place at 28 Planning Commission, October 15, 2019 Advise and Discuss: CTE Building Page 2 of 3 the existing High School. The CTE Building is proposed so that this aspect of K-12 public education in the District can be fully operationalized. The ground lease between the District and Town was approved by Town Board on Oct. 8, 2019. It is understood execution of the lease will be occurring in the near future. History: The site is currently occupied by a little-use parking lot, which from staff observation seems to be parked only when there are busy events at the School complex or in the Park. The main School parking lot across Manford Ave. holds most of the regular parking needed and does not seem inadequate. Other nearby parking lots (all larger than the one being removed) are at the Observatory and east of Community Drive at the Baseball Field complex. Proposal: Attachments 4 through 7 show the proposed CTE Building plans in some detail. Attachment 5 (Floor Plan) is perhaps the most useful to give a sense of the connection between the facilities and the programming / instructional uses. Highlights include a Welding shop, Wood shop, Automotive area, and a Greenhouse grow space and work area. Also includes are classroom space, offices, and typical accessory and safety facilities. Attachments 6 and 7 show building elevations and architectural design. The CTE Building is not especially distinctive in aesthetic design, but staff would note that: (a) it is a technical education facility, adhering to the venerable architectural principle that “form follows function” (Louis H. Sullivan, 1896); and (b) as good stewards of taxpayer funds, the School District would seem to be focusing limited financial resources where they are most needed, which is on quality education. It might be added that the east end of Stanley Park will no doubt benefit from well- executed new construction. Review Criteria: Not applicable in the customary sense. Essentially the Statutes require a dialog between Planning Commission and the School District. Final approval authority for the project resides with the District Board of Education, or (in the case of the ground-lease element) between the Town Board and the Board of Education. Public Notice: Not applicable in the customary sense. Inclusion on your agenda is required by Planning Commission bylaws; however, the Statutes do not provide for notice of a Commission public hearing, perimeter mailings by Planning, or posting meeting-notification signage. Staff understands the District has their own protocols and requirements as a public entity. Public Interest: Medium Interest in career and technical education in Estes Valley is present. Staff is not aware of any specific public interest in the CTE project location or design, except insofar as it supports the education mission. Staff Findings: Not applicable in the customary sense. Staff would observe that the site is convenient to the School complex, and the existing small parking lot does not seem in frequent heavy demand Recommendation: 29 Planning Commission, October 15, 2019 Advise and Discuss: CTE Building Page 3 of 3 No motion or formal action is needed by Planning Commission. Staff suggests that the Commission consider the provided materials, watch and listen to the District team’s presentation, and ask questions and make observations as the Commission views appropriate. Attachments: 1. C.R.S. 22-32-124 (Education) excerpt 2. CTE Building Statement of Intent 3. CTE Building Site Vicinity 4. CTE BUILDING Site Plan 5. CTE Building Floorplan 6. CTE Building Elevations w color 7. Greenhouse Example 30 Colorado Revised Statutes Title 22 Education § 22-32-124 Building codes-- zoning--planning--fees--rules-- definitions (1)(a) Prior to the acquisition of land or any contracting for the purchase thereof, the board of education of the school district in which the land is located shall consult with and advise in writing the planning commission, or governing body if no planning commission exists, that has jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located in order that the proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible. In addition, the board of education shall submit a site development plan for review and comment to the planning commission or governing body prior to construction of any structure or building. The planning commission or governing body may request a public hearing before the board of education relating to the proposed site location or site development plan. The board of education shall thereafter promptly schedule the hearing, publish at least one notice in advance of the hearing, and provide written notice of the hearing to the requesting planning commission or governing body. (b) Prior to the acquisition of land for school building sites or construction of any buildings thereon, the board of education of the school district in which the land is located also shall consult with the Colorado geological survey regarding potential swelling soil, mine subsidence, and other geologic hazards and to determine the geologic suitability of the site for its proposed use. (c) All buildings and structures shall be constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division of fire prevention 31 and control in the department of public safety, referred to in this section as the “division”. (c.5) In constructing buildings and structures, a school district, district charter school, or institute charter school may consult the guidelines adopted by the public school capital construction assistance board pursuant to section 22-43.7- 106(2)(a) . (d) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of a board of education to finally determine the location of the public schools of the school district and construct necessary buildings and structures. [from FindLaw: https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-22-education/co-rev-st-sect-22-32-124.html] 32 October 1, 2019 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Co. 80517 RE: Career and Technical Education Building, Estes Park R-3 School District 1600 Manford Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Hunt: Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) on behalf of the Estes Park R-3 School District, are pleased to submit the proposed site plans for the Career and Technical Education Building development located along the north side of the 1600 Block of Manford Avenue. EXISTING CONDITIONS The building site is part of a lease agreement between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Park R-3 School District. The lease agreement includes the existing parking lot of approximately 17,969 square feet (0.41 acres), and is located within a 17-acre parcel owned by the Town of Estes Park being a portion of Stanley Park area. The 17-acre parcel is a separate parcel from the portion given to the Town by F.O. Stanley and is not under the same deed restriction. The parcel is abutted to the south by the Manford Avenue and the north by the Stanley Park Bike Park, completed in June of 2018. The parking lot is currently 100% impervious. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development consists of two adjoined buildings, a Career and Technical Education (CTE) building with an attached greenhouse. The proposed CTE Building is approximately 6,500 square feet and the greenhouse is approximately 1,500 square feet. The CTE building will include a large, open shop area with separate designated areas for woodworking, welding, and auto shop activities. The building will also include a teacher office, classroom, and prep room for the greenhouse. Additional storage room for the school district is also included within CTE Building. 33 ACCESS There is currently a single access point to the existing parking lot. The proposed development will include shifting the main access driveway to east of the buildings. An access driveway to the storage on the west side of the building will also be added. PARKING Facility parking will be primarily at the existing high school parking area to the south of Manford Avenue. Five additional parking stalls plus an ADA accessible area is to be located on the site. UTILITIES Sewer A 4” sewer service is proposed to connect to an existing sewer main located approximately 280 feet north of the development. Water An 8” water main has been extended to the southwest corner of the existing parking lot. The new water main also has a fire hydrant adjacent to the building. Electric Currently primary power is located approximately 440 feet northwest of the proposed CTE building, near the existing concessions building in Stanley Park. The primary electric is to be extended underground to the CTE building location through the Stanley Park area for service to the building. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. Michael Todd, P.E. Principal 34 XXX X7505XXX X750575057505BASKETBALLCOURTTENNISCOURTSPICNICSHELTERPICNICSHELTERTENNISCOURTSPARKINGSTANLEYPARKHIGHSCHOOLMANFORD AVENUEPROPOSEDCTE BUILDINGBIKE PARKLAKEESTESMIDDLESCHOOLELEMENTARYSCHOOLBASEBALLFIELDSEXISTINGBIKE TRAILESTES PARK SCHOOLDISTRICT R-3CTE BUILDINGGREENHOUSEVICINITY MAPFILE: G:\DATE: 9/23/2018BY: KMEJOB No: 239.014SCALE 1" = 200'0100 2001692 BIG THOMPSON AVE, SUITE 200, ESTES PARK, CO 80517PH: (970) 586-2458 FAX: (970) 586-2459BIKE PARK35 36 12' GARAGE DOOROFFICE AREA12' x 15.5'CLASS ROOM - 19 SEATS30X19GREEN HOUSE 22'-6" x 67'-1"AREA: 1,509 SQ FTSTORAGE AREA13' x 20-1"'MOBILEWELDINGCARTAUTO AREA 30' x 24'WELDING AREA 34' x 24.5'WOOD SHOP AREA 34' x 24.5'67'-1"22'-6"120'54'30'19'15'19'-1112"16'-2"34'24'-6"30'24'4'-1716"4'10' GARAGE DOORFIRERISER5'6'-4"STORAGE AREASTORAGEAREASTORAGE AREA12'-3"15'-312"MATERIALPRODUCTTRADENAMEMODELNUMBER MATERIALPRODUCTTRADENAMEMODELNUMBER MATERIALPRODUCTTRADENAMEMODELNUMBER MATERIALPRODUCTTRADENAMEMODELNUMBER CUSTODIAL11'-7"5'-10"WALK-INFREEZER HANDWASHUTILITY SINK6'46'-11"3'CTE BUILDING 54'x120'AREA: 6,480 SQ FT8'-5"2'21'1C'C B'B A'A 3'3GREENHOUSE WORK AREAUP 25'-8"13'13'-10"17'10'-2"3'-6"28'7'(2) 5030 FIXED WINDOW(2) 5030 FIXED WINDOW4'14'-10"6'13'-8"15'-6"6"6"5'-2"2'-11"34'16'-1"17'40'FRAME LOCATIONS3" FLOORMARKINGACCESSIBLE ROUTE3" FLOORMARKING3" FLOORMARKING5020 AWNING WINDOW5020 AWNING WINDOW5020 AWNING WINDOW8'-6"11'-6"10'TABLE SAWHOSE BIBHOSE BIBHOSE BIBHAND WASHSINKSLOTTED STEELTABLE3'x6'OPEN INDUSTRIAL SHELVINGTGTGTG 7'7'EXISTING SCHOOL CNCMACHINECNC PCDESIGNATED 8' x 10'FLOOR WORK SPACETABLE WITHSTORAGELOCKING TOOLSTORAGETABLE WITHSTORAGETABLE WITHSTORAGE3'DRILLPRESSWELDINGBOOTH5'x5'PLASMACUTTER5'x5'METAL WORK TABLEWITH STORAGE4'x8'METAL WORK TABLEWITH STORAGE4'x8'BENCHGRINDER220V UNDERGROUND TOPEDESTAL FOR COMPOSTERS220V SINGLEPHASE220V400 GALAQUA TANKSLOTTED STEELTABLE3'x6'AIRCOMPRESSORWELDING SAFETYEQUIPMENT STORAGETOOL STORAGEDESKDESKGAS STORAGE OUTSIDE9'ACCESSIBLE ROUTE HIGH/LOW DRINKINGFOUNTAIN11'-6"EYEWASH/SHOWERCOMBINATIONEYEWASH/SHOWERCOMBINATION4'4'4'3'-2"5'-4"6'-612"VESTIBULE58" TYPE X DRYWALL FORSMOKE RESISTANCEPER 509.4.2 (SEE NOTE 1)WELDINGBOOTH5'x5'WELDINGBOOTH5'x5'WELDINGBOOTH5'x5'WELDINGBOOTH5'x5'MOP SINKPLANTER BEDSSCALE 3/32" = 1'CTE BUILDINGESTES PARK SCHOOLESTES PARKKMEDRAWN BY:FILE:DATE:JOB No: 239.014M:\CES_Jobs\239_Estes Park School District R-3\239_014 CTE Building\EPHS CTE Building_v3-07-24-19.dwg9/17/191692 BIG THOMPSON AVE, SUITE 200, ESTES PARK, CO 80517PH: (970) 586-2458 FAX: (970) 586-245937 54' 10' 19' GREENHOUSE (BY OTHERS) 2 12 22'-6" 12' 12' 10' 8'8' 15'-8" 4 12 42" WAINSCOT GREENHOUSE (BY OTHERS) 120' 67' 19' 42" WAINSCOT 54' 10' 19' GREENHOUSE (BY OTHERS) 2 12 23' 4 12 42" WAINSCOT 120' 10' 19' 42" WAINSCOT CTE BUILDING ESTES PARK SCHOOL ESTES PARK ELEVATIONS KMEDRAWN BY: FILE: DATE: JOB No: 239.014 M:\CES_Jobs\239_Estes Park School District R-3\239_014 CTE Building\EPHS CTE Building_v3-07-24-19.dwg 9/17/19 1692 BIG THOMPSON AVE, SUITE 200, ESTES PARK, CO 80517 PH: (970) 586-2458 FAX: (970) 586-2459 EAST ELEVATION SCALE 3/32"=1' SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 3/32"=1' WEST ELEVATION SCALE 3/32"=1' NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 3/32"=1' 38 39 40 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 15, 2019 STAFF CONTACT: JEFFREY W OEBER, SENIOR PLANNER Staff recently met with property owners who reside in the vicinity of the Ferguson Amended Plats and Ferguson Townhomes. These property owners have stated they intend to attend the Planning Commission meeting on October 15, in order to voice their thoughts regarding various issues they perceive with the development that is occurring in the general vicinity of properties located near the intersection of Mary’s Lake Road and Griffith Court. Staff has placed Item 8 on your agenda as a way to organize this matter. Staff has put together some of the applicable plats and maps for reference. A recent Amended Plat of lots within Ferguson’s Subdivision is referred to as “Alpaca Farm” although the Amended Plat is not titled as such. Staff notes that Ferguson’s Subdivision, consisting of approximately 220 individual lots, was originally platted in 1904. Attached are:  Site Map showing vicinity, location of subject properties, as well as zoning in the area.  Plat of Ferguson One and Ferguson Two Townhome Plat, recorded in January 2018.  Amended Plat of Lots 8, 9, 12 and a portion of Lots 7 and 10, Block 12 Ferguson’s Subdivision, recorded in April 2019. Study Session Discussion Item, Ferguson/Alpaca Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org 41 ^` ^` ^` ^` Ferguson One, TwoTownhomes FergusonAmended Plat Alpaca -Reconfigure6 Ferguson Lots(In Progress) Robison Cabins ^` Site LocationEVPCFor Reference Only A-1 A-1 A-1 A-1 EEEE E E E E E REE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 GLACIER VIEW LN S P R I N G S T UPPERBROADVIEW GIANTTRACK RD STRONGAVEGRIFFIT H C T SPUR LNS P R I NG STHIGHVISTADR MARYSLAKERDHIGH VISTA LN42 RECEIVEDJUNE 29, 2017COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT43 44