Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1996-12-17# BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission December 17, 1996 Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, John Gilfillan, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl, and David Thomas All Trustee Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Secretary Botic None Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. MINUTESMinutes of the November 19, 1996 and December 3, 1996 meetings were approved as presented. ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairman Sager explained that although the Public Hearing was held on December 3, 1996, new comments not presented at that hearing would be heard at this meeting. Director Stamey stated that several Town of Estes Park Planning Commissioners, Trustees and staff attended the Larimer County Study Session on December 12, 1996 and he read Larimer County Chief Planner Russell Legg's report from that meeting which reviewed the history of the Comprehensive Plan process and eight recommendations. Numbers 4 and 5 recommended the Giant Tpck and Fall River Addition areas be designated as Special Study Areas. Audience comments: Nancy Brown, 1280 Giant Track Road, stated she and her husband purchased their property 18 ye^rs ^9° specifically for its zoning and believes they will be damaged if the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. She was speaking for herself and her husband and noted some properties in other neighborhoods are spot zoned and requested same for their property, requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to retain existing zoning and does not want to be in a Study Area. Eunice Docter, owner of property at 1112 Giant Track, spoke representing 160 property owners and submitted a Petition to rl?air?hei9r zon&g PandyemphasiZed their “°"toth“y chance in existing regulations which would restrict their rights which are now permitted. Speaking for herself and her husband, she agrees with Nancy Brown's comments and asked the Commissioners to be fair and moral and requested retaining A Accommodation classification. Warren Clinton, owner of two lodges on Fall River and other orooertv in Fall River area, expressed concern with bein9 part ofYa Study Area and questioned what would be involved. sherrv Pettyjohn, 513 Grand Estates Drive, representing the Este?Valley3 Contractors, asked for consideration to del y adoption until performance guidelines are determined. Lucille Younglund, 2801 Fall River Road, also spoke on n-F hcT- husband She expressed concern with being in a yand asked adoption L delayed until performance etandarde are defined. audy aenista,f M^s6.' Doc?^rrshe believes3additional study is needed and P6.0^1® n0t had time to understand the proposed Comprehensive Plan. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Conunission - December 11, 1996 Page 2 Bob Clements, 1889 Fall River Road, Fall River Road lodge owner, asked what a Special Study Area is and what is involved. He has concerns with the term 'Comprehensive' if two areas are not included, agrees with Mr. Clinton and requested the Plan not be adopted. Chairman Sager emphasized the plan is a Comprehensive Plan, not a zoning plan. Director Stamey explained the two types of zoning changes and stated the Comprehensive Plan is a vision of what may be reasonable for the future. John Spooner, 527 Hondius Circle, expressed concern with the two study areas, asking why these areas are different. Chairman Sager stated the requirements will be the same for all areas and regretted the two areas were specifically identified as the Comprehensive Plan already addressed these concerns. Ruth Clinton, owner of various properties on Fall River, asked for clarification on the impact to building permit applications. Mr. Stamey explained the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan would have no bearing on permit applications at this time as the Plan is a guide and does not change anything legally and stated the Comprehensive Plan is a statement of community values, a vision of our community and a framework to proceed. Howard MacMillan, Windcliff Homeowners and Spur 66 representative, complimented all those involved with the Comprehensive Plan for their foresight and responsible recommendations. He noted that large numbers of people answered the surveys, there were day and evening opportunities for workshops, and free and easy expression was encouraged. In the Spur area a questionnaire was sent to 380 people with more than 90% affirmative response. The Comprehensive Plan study has been sponsored by the Town and County and now is the time to adopt and manage the growth. Director Steimey responded to Commissioner questions stating: the regional growth monitoring system that Larimer County is proposing would involve a broader area; there will be a public process of approximately Ih years to develop a regulatory system which would be recommended to the Town Board and Larimer County for approval. In 1997, an Intergover^ental Agreement will be developed to create a Joint Planning Commission for the Estes Valley. The intention is that the Estes Park Planning Commission and the Larimer County Planning Commission will consider adopting the Comprehensive Plan on December 17 and 18, 1996 respectively. Director Stamey recommended incorporating the Staff Report of Russell Legg in considering adoption. Chairman Sager requested the Section 6.C. PG 3, Public Space Guidelines regarding banners be amended to change shall t "may" as banners were given consideration in 1989 and vetoed. Commissioner Burgess stated she observed at the Hearings many people favor the Comprehensive Plan and believe i^ediate adoption is imperative. The minority who spoke against the Plan were due to zoning conceps; adoption of the Plan does not zone property, it is a vision into the future. Commissioner Thomas agreed with Mrs. BuJ9ess and asked that the maps be used as a vision/road map for the future, this vision is one that many people have shared at the neighborhood meetings. Commissioner Gilfillan noted he has not heard from residents regarding A-1 except for RMNP. Commissioner Brown stated A-1 was a compromise with a desire BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 11, 1996 Page 3 to see all perspectives and requested the Giant Track and Fall River areas be removed from the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Sager stated the areas need to be a part of the Comprehensive Plan and agreeable wording can be determined, concerns can be mitigated. Recognizing the process of the past three years (Memo from Chief Planner Russell Legg attached) and stating it was not necessary to separate or specifically identify the Giant Track and Fall River areas, Commissioner Pohl read the Resolution of Adoption (attached) and it was moved and seconded (Pohl/Burgess) the Estes Park Planning Commission adopt the Comprehensive Plan with the following amendments with an addition to Number 5 (in bold below) and it passed unanimously: 1. Add to Page 82 a policy 1.8 that states the following Partnership Land Use System guideline: "Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park are committed to work together to implement the Plan with honesty, respect for people and their rights in an open and fair process." 2. Add to Page 81 additional sentences to policy 1.2 that states: "The performance standards shall be developed in an open and fair process involving land owners, the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, the National Park Service and other affected interests. Performance standards shall be designed which are reasonable, understandable and responsible to residents and their rights." 3. Delete the chart on Page 139 and replace it with the following sentence: "A land use action program will be established within the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement. Work on the Agreement shall begin in the immediate future." 4. The area on the proposed land categories map defined as the Giant Track area (see attached map for area designated by hash marks) shall be designated on the official proposed Land Use map as a special study area. The land use designation shall not occur at this time and the designation as proposed is not adopted at this time. The land use designation shall be determined only after the provisions of the A-Accommodations Zone, the A-1 Accommodation Zone, and the performance standards have been drafted; neighborhood meetings held and issues such as terrain, access infrastructure, compatibility, utility easements, value at equity and land use compatibility have been studied. 5. The Fall River neighborhood shall be designated as a special study area on the official proposed land use map. The purpose of the special study area for the Fall River area is to assess the density and uses to be proposed for the area after the A-1 Zone District and performance standards are drafted, and to ensure that the concerns of the National Park regarding performance standards for scenic vistas, wildfire, wildlife habitat and other issues such as a Transfer of Development Rights program are responsibly and reasonably addressed in a process which includes property owners, Larimer County, the Town of Estes Park and Park Service as well as concerns and rights of property owners. The National Park Service is encouraged to develop a cooperative community outreach program for the area similar in nature to the Spur 66 program. Voluntary design guidelines similar to the Spur 66 design guidelines may result from the special study area. 6. Amend the second paragraph on Page 140 regarding BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 17, 1996 Page 4 establishment of a growth rate for the valley replacing the second paragraph with the following paragraph: "As growth management strategies are explored and recommended in the next phase of the Estes Park Planning effort, the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County are encouraged to participate in a regional growth monitoring program that fully examines growth rate alternatives for the region. The pros and cons of all alternatives will be explored. If a growth rate system is determined to be effective, reasonable and suggested in the Estes Valley, then the following specific actions will be included in the program development." 7. Add on Page 82 the following policy 1.9: "The maps and text included in the Estes Valley Master Plan are to serve as a general guideline to the staff, property owners and governmental entities during the implementation of the Plan. The maps do not represent the zoning of the Valley, but rather a representation of general land use patterns appropriate for the Valley. Rezoning to uses other than those depicted in the Plan may be appropriate if the Applicant demonstrates that the proposals are compatible with the Plan policies." 8. Add on Page 82 the following policy 1.10: "Larimer County reaffirms that the current zoning as represented on County Zoning maps are in place, acknowledged, and operative for the purpose of obtaining building permits and processing land development applications until such times as the zoning is legally changed." Chairman Sager called a recess at 2:45; the meeting resumed at 2:55. 3. SPECIAL REVIEW :^.a. SPECIAL REVIEW 96-6. Estes Park Bank Carillon, 363 E_^ Elkhorn Avenue. Estes Park Bank/Applicant. (Continued from 11/19/96 Planning Commission Meeting) This is a request to play music over the Carillon four times a day on a minimum volume setting. Chairman Sager declared the Public Hearing open and read the Rules of Conduct. Sally Anderson, Applicant's representative, stated the week long demonstration of the Carillon was completed last week and she was only aware of a response from Roger and Larae Essman who did not hear the chimes, however, expressed concern that the Community Church of the Rockies Carillon and bank Carillon may "eventually collide". Due to the unpredictability of the wind, Ms. Anderson offered the Bank's willingness to work with individuals in the future if the proposal is approved and problems arise. She believes a precedent was made with the approval of the Water Wheel Chimes in 1975 through a Special Review. The Bank is requesting approval just as the Community Church received approval for their carillon through Special Review. She believes these are special situations and differ from pre-recorded music played on a tape player. There were no audience comments in favor of the request. Carolyn Dobbins, 145 Stanley Circle Drive, spoke against the proposal stating the chimes had been so loud, she was awakened inside her home and that it is disruptive to hear chimes and songs at the frequency proposed. She requested if the proposal is approved the times be changed to 9:00 am - 6:00 pm and allowed only during the holidays. Commissioner A. Hix stated no precedent would be set in this Special Review process, each request stands on its own. Commissioner Brown suggested the Applicant have a sound measurement done to set a standard of acceptance for future measurement. Commissioner Thomas emphasized the sound is not BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission — December 11, 1996 Page 5 to travel further than 40' as expressed by correspondence from Greg White. Chairman Sager suggested the starting time be 9:00 am and that 9 pm be utilized only in the summer. Commissioners Gilfillan and Brown stated they would be unable to support a motion without a condition of decibel level. Ms. Anderson stated the Applicant is willing to have the decibel level measured so an acceptable measurement can be set, and agreed that music will not be longer than 3 minutes each. Commissioner A. Hix stated she works in the Estes Park Bank building and her employees are in favor of the Carillon and this would be a welcome addition to East Elkhorn Avenue and it was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Burgess) Special Review 96-6, Estes Park Carillon, 363 E. Elkhorn be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees with the following conditions and it passed by the following votes: those voting "Yes", Commissioners Burgess, Brown, Gilfillan, A. Hix and Sager; those voting "No", Commissioners Pohl, Thomas. • Music lasting no longer than 3 minutes each time may be played three (3) times each day at 9 am, 1 pm and 6 pm. • Applicant will provide a test of the decibel level at the minimum setting (utilized during the testing period) which will be the standard for approval of the request. 3.b. Special Review 96-8. Estes Park Paddlers Ltd./Patrick Hvland. dba Estes Park Paddlers Ltd./Applicant. This is a request for kayak touring and instructional service to operate within the boundaries of the Big Thompson River. Chairman Sager declared the Public Hearing open. Applicant, Patrick Hyland, explained this would be a seasonal outdoor activity to enhance opportunities for residents and tourists. He is concerned with safety and made test runs last s\immer. He anticipates 3 tours a day at 9 am, 12 noon, and 4:30 pm with a projection of 150 guests the first season, anticipating doubling within 3 years. There will be a maximiim of 5 kayaks on each trip with one kayak being operated by a guide. In compliance with the state requirement, each guide will have 40 hours of river time. The trip leader must have 500 hours of river time. His future ideas include additional tours, water access into RMNP and utilization below the Lake Estes Dam; at this time efforts will be concentrated in the downtown area. Mr. Hyland explained the "put in point" is on Spur 66 and he will petition the County if this request is approved. Mr. Hyland has not spoken with Rick Spowart, DOW, regarding impact on trout spawning habitat by the Chamber of Commerce, however, he does not believe kayaking is a turbulent activity and will not disturb the area. Applicant has not applied to Larimer County Planning as his first step is to seek local approval. In order to accommodate the business operating from his home, an additional telephone line has been installed, a computer purchased; when profits increase he may rent commercial space. Orientation of approximately 15-20 minutes will be adjacent to Tallant Park. Commissioner Burgess expressed concern with the minimal orientation time. Mr. Hyland felt that would be enough time and the ride would be safe; he is considering helmets with radios for participants and emphasized safety is his niimber one concern. He brought a kayak for Commissioners to view and demonstrated how to get into and out of the kayak. In response to Director Stamey's question, Mr. Highland stated trespassing occurs if you exit the vessel and touch the river bottom. Commissioner A. Hix recommended higher limits on insurance and explained the assumption of risk law. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report and comments from referral agencies. Mr. Joseph noted Town Attorney White has advised the Town has very limited authority in regulating kayaks on the river. Staff recommended approval to Town Board with four conditions. Mr. Hyland explained they wiy. work with the Fire Chief to establish an acceptable range of water BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 11, 1996 Page 6 flow to determine when the operation will be shut down. Correspondence was received from Marlene Remington, President of the Blue Spruce Village Owners Association, who expressed concerns and requested denial of the request. Audience comments were heard from Carol Biedelman, 3245 Tunnel Road, who questioned parking availability, accessible restrooms and potential impacts at the put in point. Mr. Hyland explained customers would be picked up and transferred to their entry point. Chamber of Commerce restrooms would be available. Carol Rich, 2222 Highway 66, requested consideration of property rights and denial of commercialization which would disturb the fish and fishermen. She also expressed concerns with limited orientation time and liability to property owners and felt there was inadequate notification of this request. Todd Jirsa, 401 Lakefront, spoke against the request. He has taught kayaking for many years and believes this is the 'right boat, wrong river'. He is especially concerned with adequate orientation, safety, emergency rescues and urged denial of the request. Safety issues included concern for kayakers and firemen in an emergency, kayak stability and maneuverability in this river which is classified as 3 and 4, and inadequate orientation time. Mr. Jirsa does teach locally in the swimming pool and in the Poudre River. Mr. Hyland stated he grew up in Estes Park and respects the river and emphasized he believes this proposal was written with safety in mind and he will have insurance. Harry Lipscomb, 2222 Moraine Avenue, expressed concerns for trespass area, fishing activities and high water problems to kayakers. Andrew Griffith, Allenspark, stated he has established two kayak schools and raced internationally and came with an open mind. He agreed with Mr. Jirsa's comments and believes this will be too much responsibility for one guide in an emergency situation, additional orientation will be needed, potential for problems with pools and eddys and takeout problems. He no longer has any commercial kayaking interests. Mr. Hyland stated he is a firefighter and deals with emergencies on a daily basis and is satisfied with the emergency medical services in Estes Park. The Public Hearing was closed. Planner Joseph clarified the staff report does not address safety concerns expressed today. In response to Commissioner questions, Mr. Hyland explained the state has requirements for trainers and guides and he will comply. Additionally, he will seek permission from the Town, County, Federal agencies and will be insured. He believes RMNP would be interested in adding this to their offered opportunities. Commissioner Brown clarified with the Applicant the operation would consist of 3 tours per day, 10 crafts maximum (8 customers, 2 guides) and suggested this be approved for a limited time period with a limit per day of no more than 3 tours, 10 crafts each tour, and the Applicant would return for review/approval. In response to Commissioner Pohl's questions. Director Stamey stated if Larimer County did not approve this request and the Town does approve, the operation would be allowed in Town limits. Stating the proposal does meet Special Review Requirements, it was moved and seconded (Brown/Thomas) Special Review 96-8, Estes Park Paddlers Ltd., be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees with the following conditions, and it passed by the following votes; those voting "Yes", Commissioners Brown, A. Hix, Gilfillan, Thomas, those voting "No", Commissioners Burgess, Pohl and Sager. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 17f 1996 Page 7 No portage around bridges, except in case of emergency. Put in and take out locations on Town property are restricted to Baldwin Park and Tallant Park, except in case of emergency. The Applicant shall be required to obtain approval from Larimer County, EVRPD/BOR and any other agency having jurisdiction over the various routes, locations, and related support activities and operations. The Applicant shall purchase and maintain liability insurance in the minimum amount of $150,000 per individual/$600,000 per occurrence, with the Town named as additional insured. No more than 3 trips per day of 10 kayaks (2 guides/8 customers). High flow periods will be regulated by the Fire Department. Applicant will return in one year for review/approval of the request. INFORMATION ITEM - NO ACTION Preliminary information on Elk Ridge Development Plan, Street network/Traffic Circulation. Brodie Avenue (property west of Community Church of the Rockiest. Paul Kochevar explained there have been two meetings with the Mountain Fairways Homeowners Association and several meetings with Town Staff. A consistent voice was not heard from the meetings; the current plan was submitted and explained and Mr. Kochevar stated the proposal would include a private street with traffic calmers. There is a recorded access easement across Mountain Fairways, in addition to dedicated right-of-way, the gj-ade at the entrance of the Community Church is too steep to meet Town standards. The Public Works Director has been apprised of this information. Commissioner Brown requested consideration of angled buildings where they are exposed to the golf course play. Audience comments were heard from Lew Wallace, 1433 Matthew Circle, Chairman of Estes Park Mountain Fairways Board. He stated a Petition had been submitted protesting the extension of Matthew Circle or any other street system that would connect with the proposed Elkridge Subdivision. He stated Matthew Circle doesn't meet Town standards, it is only 22' wide and he expressed traffic concerns, build up of snow, cluster boxes, etc. and the Petition states nine issues of concern. COUNTY REFERRAL Estes Park Residential Care Commercial Rezoning^NCB Development Corporation — John Rimbach/Applicant. This is a request for a 40 unit assisted living facility for the elderly. Paul Kochevar, Estes Park Surveyors, explained the three phase County process and stated this proposal is in the Concept Technical Review phase and on January 2, 1997 there will be an informal review with County Staff and Applicant. The conditional zoning approval is automatically denied if Applicant doesn't proceed with the submitted site plan. Senior Planner Robert Joseph reviewed the staff report. Audience comments were heard from Steve Giannini, 1033 Sutton Lane, who was surprised and upset with the swiftness and change from preliminary approval for a PUD with 8 units to this proposal. He believes this will be inconsistent with the neiqhborhood, it is the wrong environment, extreme wind, no sidewalks, no pedestrian walkv/ay, no private roads, poor access, effect on Marys Lake Road traffic and elk4:h®^ltat* and others in the neighborhood were unaware of the recent BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 11, 1996 Page 8 5. proposal and have not had an opportunity to review the proposal. Margaret Clark, EVIA President, stated EVIA had recently contacted neighboring homeowners and reported on comments EVIA received. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Lovens: good, better than any other plan, if zoning is changed, what then. Joann Baldwin: there is a need, not here; concerns with traffic, wind, what if expansion occurs. Frank and Judy Brooksher: favor the proposal. Dr. Gene Oja: no objection, may improve the road and bring in natural gas. Molly and Lee Kemper: good design, would change the neighborhood to business, concern with wind. Helen and Warren Donahue: opposed to zoning change, concerns with lighted parking lot - they prefer the darkness at night, find the right zoning and build there, concerned with garages and worker accommodations. Mrs. Clark stated the wind was a consistent concern. Tom Gerson, 978 Sutton Lane, stated he was in favor of the original PUD. He is now concerned with ambulance traffic, shift change traffic and requested retaining E-Estate zoning. Ann Brown, consultant with Senior Housing Options, explained that this would be a home for the elderly who stay primarily indoors and are not capable of utilizing walking paths; there will be no garages, traffic would be minimal, very few residents would own a vehicle, due to age of residents the typical family is also older and would probably visit in the afternoons, there is no room for expansion and ambulance traffic will be minimal. This would be a home built to allow elderly to feel wanted and loved. A meeting with area homeowners is planned in January. Commissioner Brown questioned the difference between this proposal and the 8 unit PUD. Mr. Kochevar explained that actual use of the building is limited to the Application proposal. Dwayne Herman, Sutton Lane, expressed opposition as this would be 'spot zoning'; he approves the proposal, not the location. Director Stamey identified existing zoning in the area, which in the immediate area is E—Estate, with the most intensive use Marys Lake Lodge, about 1 mile away. Commissioner Brown stated this is a good project for our community, but would clearly be spot zoning, and agrees with Mr. Herman and does not favor approval. Commissioner Thomas disagrees with Mr. Brown and believes this proposal would be residential in character and an appropriate use of that land, although he recognized the wind tunnel in that location. He supports the idea and until today had only received positive comments, noting only those who are uninformed appear to be opposed. Ann Brown stated the site plan and design are available at the Estes Park Library. REPORTS - none. There being no further business. Chairman Sager adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Roxanne S. Bot'ic, Record!Recording Secretary I I RESOLUTION #96-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has considered the adoption of a comprehensive land use plan for the Town of Estes Park pursuant to CRS 31-23-208; and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Land Use Plan, the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing thereon, notice of the time and place of which was given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality and an official newspaper of Larimer County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado as follows: 1. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan dated November 8, 1996 also known as the Estes Park Directions and the Future Land Use Plan dated December 16, 1996 are hereby adopted as the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Estes Park. 2. The Plan as adopted shall include all portions of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Plan including all maps and descriptive matter therein, including without limitation the following: a) Planning Approach b) Planning the Valley's Future c) Economic Overview d) Land Use Plan e) Mobility and Circulation f) Community-wide Policies g) Action Plan h) Appendix One - Economic Profile Tables i) Appendix Two - All Resource Maps and j) The Future Land Use Map within the Future Land Use Plan dated December 16, 1996 3. The action taken by the Planning Commission herein shall be recorded on the maps and plan and descriptive matter by the signature of the Chairman or Secretary of the Commission. 4. An attested copy of the Plan shall be certified to each governmental body of the territory affected and after the approval by each body shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. Attest Chairman /C Town Clerk CERTIFICATION NOW COMES, Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, and certifies that the above Resolution was carried by the affirmative votes of not less than two-thirds of the entire membership of the Planning Commission of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado at a meeting held on December 17, 1996.