HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2008-11-18RECORD OF PROC
I mill,,EtDWGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
November 18, 2008,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty
Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker
Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Grant, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker
Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Public Works
Director Zurn, Recording Secretary Thompson
Commissioner Amos
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence of the meeting.
Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of meeting minutes dated October 21, 2008.
b. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, Johnson Boundary Line Adjustment, Lot 1, and
Lot 2 of the Johnson-Leuthold Boundary Line Adjustment, 1660 & 1671
Hummingbird Lane - Request to adjust the common lot line between two existing
lots under common ownership.
c. AMENDED PLAT, Sulley Amended Plat, Lots 52 & 54, Second Amended Filing of
the First Addition ot Charies Heights, 1585 Spur Lane - Request to combine two
lots into a single lot.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to APPROVE the consent agenda,
and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent.
3. SPECIAL REVIEW 08-03, Circle of Friends Montessori School, Lot 1, Masonic
Subdivision, 1820 S. St. Vrain Avenue
Staff Presentation:
This is a request for the Montessori School to use the Masonic Lodge as a temporary
location while they continue to search for a permanent location. The school operates a
morning pre-school and afternoon day-care and after-school programs. There are
currently 38 children enrolled and six staff members employed. The hours are Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Masonic Lodge property is zoned R-2-Two-
Family Residential, and day-care centers are permitted by Special Review in this zoning
district. Staff approved a temporary use permit on September 12, 2008, to allow the
Montessori School to relocate to the Masonic Lodge while the Special Review application
is being reviewed. This permit expires December 9, 2008, the date the Town Board is
scheduled to make a decision on the Special Review application. If the Town Board does
not approve the Special Review application, the Montessori School will be required to
immediately vacate the property.
It should be noted that although 38 children are enrolled, not all attend the school at the
same time. No building expansion is proposed; however, a 2,265 square-foot playground
has been installed. This area is fenced off and contains moveable play equipment.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
November 18, 2008
Single-family residences surround the Lodge. The school currently shares the building
with the Masonic Lodge and the Wesleyan Church. The Lodge has addressed interior
improvements and has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy. The Special Review
standards will be met when they comply with the conditions of approval.
Planner Chilcott recommends the approval last one year in order to give the School time
to locate and move to their permanent location. Another review will be required to extend
the one-year approval. Planner Chilcott also recommends waiver of fencing gaps for
wildlife, as the fenced area surrounding the playground is a state requirement for day-care
operations. It is also recommended to waive landscaping requirements for one year.
Parking is not a problem, as there are an adequate number of spaces provided. One
neighbor commented about exterior lighting, and a Masonic Lodge representative is
communicating with these neighbors to resolve the issue. Notes have been made about
which lights should be off at night. ISO calculations determined there is enough water for
fire protection. There are now two points of access; one on Acacia Drive and the other on
S. St. Vrain Avenue. Colorado Department of Transportation and Estes Park Public Works
would prefer having Acacia Drive as the only access, but will accept both because of the
temporary status. Staff recommends approval with two conditions.
Public Comment and Discussion with Commissioners and Staff:
School Director Kay Lawson indicated that they are currently searching for a
permanent location.
It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Hull) to APPROVE the SPECIAL
REVIEW 08-03, Circle of Friends Montessori School, Lot 1, Masonic
Subdivision, 1820 S. St. Vrain Avenue with the following conditions. The
motion PASSED unanimously with one absent.
CONDITIONS: t n
1. This approval shall expire on March 24, 2010, and the Montessori School shall.
a. Submit a new Special Review application for review by December 23, 2009 for
Planning Commission review on February 17, 2010 and Town Board review on
March 24, 2010: or
b. Shall vacate the property no later than March 24, 2010.
2. Compliance with the affected agency comments.
4. UPDATE TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPENDIX TWO,
RESOURCE INFORMATION
Note: Discussion of this agenda item is combined with the related item number 5, Proposed
Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 12
Staff Presentation: ^ -u t «
Director Joseph stated a new, expanded, and improved draft created by Planner Chilcott
which connects §7.8 of the Estes Valley Development Code to other vital sections of the
Development Code. The focus today should be to determine the threshold for completing
habitat conservation studies. Some members of the community think the important habitat
category should be used as a trigger alongside the critical category for habitat conservation
studies. The important habitat category includes areas of severe winter range for elk and
deer, and/or potential sites for rare or at-risk vegetation and vegetative communities. It is
unknown whether or not specific rare species actually exist in these areas, but the possibility
is very real. In order to bring about some idea of how the studies may be applied. Director
Joseph gave several examples relating regions of the Estes Valley to the corresponding
habitat categories according to the Habitat Assessment.
Staff would appreciate public discussion about the important habitat to determirie whether or
not it warrants a site-specific conservation study. Primarily, a designation of critical protects
streams, rivers, and big-horn sheep; a designation of important captures potential existence
of rare vegetative communities and severe winter range for deer and elk. The method of the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
November 18, 2008
mapping system of the habitat assessment contains different ecosystem characteristics that
are combined to create critical, important, or iow habitat, and these change from area to area.
Urbanized areas wiii have habitat in those areas, but it has been compromised and
fragmented. The proposai is that the linear features of the water bodies would be labeled as
critical areas even when located within the urbanized areas zones. There is hope of a mutual
agreement for critical habitat areas to be included in the studies, and discussion needs to
occur as to whether or not to lower the threshold to also include the important habitat areas.
Public Comment and Discussion with Commissioners:
Ron Norris/Association for Responsible Development President (ARD) - Mr. Norris stated
that ARD’s supports including the important habitat areas in the trigger for study in order to
avoid over-degrading of areas.
Frank Theis/Estes Valley Contractors Association - Mr. Theis indicated local contractors are
concerned about creating and nurturing a sustainable economy through good development.
His association is concerned about the possible lack of definition of both the critical and
important sections of the assessment and the repercussions it could bring upon those
actually completing the studies and making arbitrary decisions. Mr. Theis encourages the
commission to be aware of unintended consequences that may arise in critical habitat areas
and how it may affect property values. It is his opinion that riparian areas are very difficult to
define once they have been removed, and the motivation of some developers to remove
these areas in order to avoid the regulatory process on property could be an unintended
consequence.
Sandy Osterman/Town Resident — Mrs. Osterman stated that in a conversation with Rocky
Mountain National Park (RMNP) Superintendent Ron Baker, he indicated that Colorado
Division of Wildlife Reports would be better indicators to compare and assess the Estes
Valley habitat rather than the Rocky Mountain Environmental Impact Statement from 2007.
Mrs. Osterman believes this Impact Statement is the basis of most of the information
gathered for the Wildlife Habitat Assessment. She feels there may be conflicting information
in this Impact Statement when compared to the RMNP study. Considering herself very
familiar with the Devil’s Gulch/Dry Gulch area, she is concerned that some elk movement
areas have been left out of the Composite Analysis Map. It is her opinion that elk are an
essential component of the Estes Valley economy and need to be protected as well. She has
concerns that the Assessment is not written specifically enough to protect the entire habitat.
Fred Mares/Town Resident - Mr. Mares would like to see the important category included in
the studies. He does not see it as limiting development, but as proposing that developers
look at the habitat before creating their development plan. Important areas provide a lot of the
connectivity between the different habitat areas, and should carry more weight than what they
are possibly carrying now.
Seth Hanson/Rock Castle Development Company - Mr. Hanson’s concern is the potential for
limiting development. For example, a minimum setback of 50 feet in riparian areas could
significantly impact development when compared to the current SOToot requirement. Mr.
Hanson would appreciate keeping the developers in mind when making decisions about the
setback limits.
John Spooner/Architects, Engineers, and Designers Committee of the Estes Park
Contractor’s Association - Mr. Spooner indicated this committee was formed to address
concerns about development in the Estes Valley. The committee submitted a letter which is
included in today’s Planning Commission materials. Mr. Spooner indicated the committee
would be willing to meet with Staff/Commission to discuss details and concerns in a friendly
manner.
Various townspeople spoke. All had the general opinion that close attention needs to be paid
to habitat, development, and how the local economy and health of habitat may be affected by
both. Director Joseph pointed out the possibility of a trial study to gain a better understanding
of how a study may look. He also assured developers that variance procedures would still be
in place and setback variances could be brought before the Board of Adjustment.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
November 18, 2008
Director Joseph stated that working definitions for the various zones will need to be written.
He offered a sampling of riparian definitions that could be part of the proposed code. Staff is
open to suggestions from the public for crafting the best definition possible for the Estes
Valley. He has confidence that workable definitions can be written and agreed upon by all
interested parties.
Commissioner Grant appreciates the effort Staff and Planning Commission have put forth
thus far on this study. The purpose of this Commission is to render the best judgment
according to the code. A lot of grey areas will have to be weighed. He is confident that the
process is working. The Planning Commissioners are not experts in the field, but always use
their best judgment to reach a conclusion.
It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Hull) to CONTINUE the UPDATE TO THE
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPENDIX TWO, RESOURCE
INFORMATION to the December meeting. The motion PASSED unanimously with
one absent.
5. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK
12
a. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION—proposed changes to §7.8 Wildlife Habitat
Protection to provide review standards for land identified as critical wildlife habitat,
require preparation of a wildlife habitat conservation plan for land identified as critical
wildlife habitat, and provide for Planning Commission review of said conservation plan
Th^bastcrevisioTpresented this month is to replace the Division of Wildlife (DOW) as a
determining body for Wildlife Conservation Plans with the newly prepared Estes Valley
Habitat Assessment. The DOW will still be involved as a referral agency, but they will not
be required to determine “significant adverse impact” in order to trigger a site-specific
wildlife study. Instead, any land that contains areas identified as Critical Habitat on the
Priorities for an Ecological Network exhibit found in the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment
in Appendix A and in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan will autornatically be subject
to site-specific assessment and preparation of a Wildlife Conservation Pian. Other notable
revisions include the elimination of the thirty-foot river setback for properties developed
prior to 2000. This is proposed to revert to a fifty-foot setback. New features include the
provision of a Riparian zone setback of fifty feet.
Public Comment and Discussion with Commissioners and Staff:
Ron Norris/ARD President - Mr. Norris commented on the code revisions being positive
ones. He suggests having the important category inserted with a sunset clause of one or
two years to allow time to determine feasibility. Mr. Norris would like to see the annual
review included to verify compliance.
Fred MaresATown Resident - Mr. Mares thinks more specific definition is needed to
explain “to the maximum extent feasible” in §7.8 and §7.4.C.1. Developers, biologis s,
planning commissioners, attorneys, etc., will all have their own definitions, which cou d
varv greatly In §7.8.F.2, he questions whether the language used is strong enough to
granUhe dLision-making body the authority to require a study. He w0““ al|° 'l!;1®
the words “in writing” added to the study procedures. Mr. Mares views §7.8.F.4 as stating
a finding will be issued, but feels it does not go far enough in assisting the Planning
Commission with authority to approve or deny the project based ^at f'^ing.
Mr. Mares supports the waiver of the study as long as there is public notice prior to the
waiver.
Director Joseph indicated there are already definitions in place for “imaximum extent
feasible” and “maximum extent practicable” that have legal meaning and defensible basis
in case law. The Estes Valley is a community that has to balance the needs for growth in
the community with the needs to protect the natural setting that attracts growth.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
November 18, 2008
It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Hull) to CONTINUE agenda item 4.a.,
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE, BLOCK 12, to the December meeting, with Staff directed to
continue to work on drafting specific definitions. The motion PASSED
unanimously with one absent.
b.ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS—proposed changes to §5.2.B Accessory
Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residentiai Zoning Districts, to allow accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) within all single-family residential zoning districts except the R'1
district, to aiiow the iease of one unit, to aiiow detached “"f' ap
architecturai standards for ADUs; aiso proposed changes to §13 3.3 Defimtion of
Words, Terms and Phrases, to redefine the term Accessory Dwelling Unit
PlannerThTksummarized the past history of the proposed code cl]a"fes'°[*DAUDSljna5^d
communitv Discussion today will center on lot size, number of units, size of the ADU. and
Sed versus detached units. Concerning the basis of lot size versus zoning district.
Commissioner Kiink stated there are very few iots that wou“
Int Qi7P rpouirement and believes we need to agree on using an actual physical lot size
integrated or attached units, ^iso, closer to the principle
dweinng'^thanUthe pn^er^^nne^Som^iatemen^^^ tgarages°SADtJs<vvouw'betre^uIired
principle dwelling or 1000 scluar® th DiViSi0n of Water Resources will not
apply. Concerning properties with water wel^s the Dmsion^o^ ^ we)i un|ess the we)i
allow detached accessory dweHing un,t® ^ th® ^mmunities allowing detached ADUs
:ha^^fyNa°pnp1S:S ^ 20°6'
nine in 2007, and seven applications thus far in 2008.
Planner Shirk pointed out that ggC°redc|nun|t0s a^^a'funS offhe bTsiie6with relation to
allowed. The restrictions on mteg rpouires the unit be integrated within the
the zone district. For attached units, cod® d must exist The COC|e changes
principle structure; meaning conjllJ^°ls gjt The chart of non-compliant lots supports
proposed include three °laUHn,tnSf. number of odd lots. Three
Lt we should go with zone d'stnct 'nstead of 1oJqSj^^^^^ of )ot size; the
?aterte%o ADU couid be from fhe principie dweiiing.
The second point deals with occupancyendrental |° gvirt'tenants in9rentals.
has stated the Town does not have >he statu mv autl^omy to^^^ on (he property
Planner Shirk indicated most other count Vacati0n-home rentals are not allowed
Some allow a minimum three-month ten al Pa code would still maintain
in any counties compared. plani?e uSh,rktfIf0f nf nriuDants capped at eight unrelated
single-family dwelling status wlth tlle| n!Jd affidaviuhat property owners would have
individuals, and would also r®duire a land . da WoUid run with the deed on
recorded with the Clerk and Plan supports the
“ p.ta; 1"“ •"
attainable housing.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
November 18, 2008
The third point is the proposal of an ADU size limit of 49% of the size of the principle
dwelling, with a maximum of 1000 square feet. Most ordinances in other coun ies have a
variety of size limits between 800 and 1000 square feet. After talking wrth local designers
and contractors, Planner Shirk concluded that a 1000 square-foot could easily be a two-
bedroom dwelling.
Finally, concerning review by Planning Commission, Planner Shirk ind^^^ed
County requires going before the County Commissioners for approval of a detached ADU.
For the Estes Valley, Planner Shirk recommends a review by the Planning Commission
for detached units in order for affected property owners to be notified and given the
oppSty to coLenl. If covenants are in place for the neighborhood, 'hey can be
addressed at that time. Commissioner Klink pointed out from discussion with T
Attorney White that covenants can be written to include the approval °r de!]ial of
Also other restrictions on certain lots in a neighborhood can be added to the cov®naata
upon agreement by affected neighbors. Commissioner Hull noted that any approved ADU
will be required to share the driveway on the property.
Public Comment and Discussion with Commissioners and Staff:
to provide input on lot sizes, square footage, etc.
Tom Evi/Ing/Town Resident - Mr Ewin9 would *pp"^^^
rsrrl"oC" =s are allowed, Mr. Ewing would prefer long-term
rentals.
Ray Duggans/Uocal Bi;st;^fns\°“n®re;p“;d „r impm^^^^^ eSg^det^ched'unlt oils
"mpl^ would appreciate consideration o, these types
of instances when writing the new code.
Steve Lane/Basis Architecture - Mr. b=o;heniem^^^^^
idea. He has recently seen an ,n^[®a^ed d® ,nnnpr') He feels the proposed architectural
Lane supports long-term rentals (9° day ieft9un to architectural control committees in
standards are not well-written, and shau|ld la« ^3'° fhe purposed code is so specific, it
individual neighborhoods. It is his opi burden the architects, property owners, andcould create design difficulties and/'s° Lners of 10-acre
designers. He indicated most f°r.d® ^nitUS D®eCJ Joseph indicated the
HrhhihrcS 50 ,he “of the
community will be maintained.
square footage of the lot.
Thomas Bech/Local Archlfecf,- Mr.
is good, but the practicality bnngs unintended c neighborhood on a lot of 1/2 or
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
November 18,2008
etc., and opposes short-term rentals unless they are already allowed in that zoning
district.
Planner Shirk reminded those in attendance that the current code allows a maximum of
^200 soualefeeT of structure for accessory use (attached or detached). Therefore,
oarages and storage sheds would take away from the total amount ofsquarefootage
allowed for an accessory dwelling unit. He also noted that current regulations show 27 /o ofle mSLntlal lots InThe Estes9 Valley meet the 1.33 minimum lot size; however, some
of these are on wells which could not support a detached ADU.
and the Commissioners consider a minimum size of 300-400 square feet.
„ was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to CONTINUE ||enda Hem ^
apppqcory dwelling units—proposed changes to §5.2.B Acce ly ^li^f^fruclures Permitted in the Residential Zoning DIstncts to the
December meeting. The motion PASSED unanimously with one absent.
6. REPORTS
Director Joseph reported tha^ injtemews^o Estes Valley He thanked
taken place, and a contractor will be awa Richarci Homeier and K-Lynn CameronCommissioners Kitchen and HUI, John Enckson,^K^ard^Hn^^^^|.^^ partyerSi a wel|_
for their participation in the c^Pen h ice of the COmmittee and the contract
agrSimen? wM|nKrpresentedStotthe TownfBoar^forApproval. Public hearings will most
likely begin after the first of the year.
Planner Chilcott reported that va.cati°,?
bPreserd?orpr:i^^^^^^^^^^^ B-d of ™s and
Larimer County Commissioners.
Planner Shirk reported on ‘h®, ctoltrc'ro?sPtrs^^^^^^^^^
andc'raft^Buikling'has alsTbeen approved Both are included in Development Plan 08-
06. Improvements are progressing nicely at the YMCA.
Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.
Jk J Q
Ike Eisenlauer, Chair
2Karen iTior^on, Recording Secretary