Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Joint Estes Park Planning Commission & Larimer County Planning Commission 1996-12-03BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING COMMISSION - JOINT PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 1996 Estes Park Planning Commission: Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, John Gilfillan, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl, and David Thomas Attending: Chairman Sager, Commissioners Brown, Burgess, A. Hix, Pohl, Thomas Absent: Commissioner Gilfillan Larimer County Planning Commission: Chairman Edward Haimes, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ray Dixon, Michael Doten, Steve Johnson, Leonard Roark, Peter Salg, Linda Stanley, George Wallace Attending: Chairman Haimes, Commissioners Amos, Dixon, Doten, Johnson, Roark, Salg, Stanley, Wallace Also Attending: Town Administrator Ga^ Klaphake, EPURA Director Art Anderson, Town Attorney Greg White, Trustee Liaison George Hix, Trustees Baudek and Marshall, Community Development Director Stephen Stamey, Larimer County Planning Director Larry Timm, Larimer County Chief Planner Russell Legg, Senior Planner Robert Joseph, Secretary Roxanne Botic Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS/PROCEDURES Chairman Sager explained the purpose and procedures of the Joint Public Hearing with the Estes Park Planning Commissioners and Larimer County Planning Commissioners. This began in 1993 with the formation of the Intergovernmental Agreement on March 21, 1994; both Planning Commissions, Town Trustees, County Commissioners and related staff members have worked with consultant Design Studios West, to compile this Comprehensive Plan. Members of the Estes Park Planning Commission and Larimer County Planning Commission were introduced. Chairman Sager reviewed the procedures for the Public Hearing and recognized Director Stamey. PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW OF THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PT.AN - DIRECTOR STAMEY. Planning Process: • Process began 3 years ago • Informational brochure with Workshop schedules was mailed to every mailing address within the Valley • 8 community wide workshops held during Phase I • 28 Planning Area Workshops • 6 open houses • 17 member task force met for 1*5 years • Recent community update • Joint Town/County effort • Individual notification to property owners of existing zoning, proposed future land use, and type of change • 2 community surveys to test community input • Issues Lack of affordable housing Increased development pressures Loss of open space Need for intergovernmental cooperation Decrease in environmental quality BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 3, 1996 Page 2 The Plan outlines a future vision and direction for development based on community values The Comprehensive Plan does not propose no growth or unlimited growth; plan reflects moderation and managed growth Talmey-Drake Surveys in 1993 and 1995 • Quality of Life • Trends • Problems - volunteered response • Rate of growth • Growth issues (physical /natural) On-going outreach - notification to property owners • Responses • All responses mapped • Staff re-examined every 'no' and 'no opinion' • Issues considered: Existing land use, existing zoning, proposed future land use, extent and effect of proposed change, site characteristics, neighborhood context, personal contacts with owners, site visits. Staff made revisions to a number of parcels. • Review Committee (Mayor Dekker, Trustee Doylen and Commissioner Disney). Committee reviewed staff recommendations and examined broader policy issues. • Changes were made in response to public input. • Recommendation to approach future land use development with a system of locational and service capacity performance standards. • Performance standards will consider factors such as: access, slope, highway corridor, site disturbance, riparian systems, open space, night lighting, utility service, wildfire, wildlife, TDR's, visual impacts, PUD approaches. Future Land Use Plan • Plan will serve as a guide for the Town and County • Articulates a common vision for the future • Informs citizens, landowners and developers of the desired future land use character of the valley • Based on public input, environmental features, with a proposal to develop a uniform set of land use categories and land use standards and procedures between the Town and County • Establish a joint Town/County Planning Commission for the Estes Valley There are approximately 6,800 acres which are vacant or with no improvements (1,000 in town, 5,800 out of town). Future Land Use Categories were described • Residential • Commercial • Accommodations • Industrial • Public Lands Performance Standards • While some standards do limit density, other standards are aimed at quality of development. • Measurable - the developer, public. Commissions and BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission — December 3, 1996 Page 3 staff should all be able to come to the same conclusions. Major goal - to reduce Special Review and discretionary nature of that system. Growth Projections were reviewed • Residential - Potential for approximately 20,145 people. • Commercial - Potential for approximately 1.34 million sq. ft. of new space. • Build on strength per Dr. Adams (tourism and retirees, Mart retailer, finance, insurance, services). Mobility Existing Levels of Service • Obviously shows downtown congestion Short Term • Highway 34/7 improvements • Downtown circulation and parking plan • Highway 34/36 parking lot and transit system Long Range • Outlying parking/transit • Valley-wide trail system Lily Lake to YMCA Devils Gulch/Dry Gulch Marys Lake - Fish Creek • US Highway 34-36 by-pass connection west of downtown Comprehensive Plan Policies in the following areas were reviewed: Land Use Policies Community Design Growth Management Policies Mobility and Circulation Policies Housing Policies Scenic and Environmental Quality Economic Policies Intergovernmental Coordination Town and County to work together to: • Create an Estes Valley Planning Commission • Develop a uniform set of development regulations and standards • Implement the Comprehensive Plan • Encourage redevelopment and infill in order to prevent sprawl A joint partnership shall be created between the Town, Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, Larimer County, Rocky Mountain National Park, and other state and federal agencies to promote integrated planning Comprehensive Plan Action Plan/Recommended Actions were reviewed. • Land Use • Growth Management • Mobility and Circulation • Housing • Intergovernmental Agreement BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission — December 3, 1996 Page 4 Summary Comprehensive Plan addresses about growth management and quality of life. Community supports managing the rate of growth, density, overall population and desire quality development. If nothing is done, impacts on tourism, schools, traffic, open space and quality of life need to be addressed. The Plan proposes a uniform land use classification system and standards between the Town and County. Plan proposes creation of a joint Town/County Planning Commission for the Estes Valley. Plan provides a best fit for existing subdivisions. Future land use categories are more sensitive to natural features than existing zoning. System of performance standards is proposed to be developed to augment new regulations. The Plan is economically sound. Development of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan has relied extensively on public participation over a three year period. The Plan represents Community values. Introduction of Russell Legg, Chief Planner with Larimer County, who stated: • There has been public participation for several years • Larimer County Commission is: 1. Familiar with the Plan and area effected 2. Present to hear comments 3. Will provide direction to staff following the hearing 4. All Commissioners including alternates present at this Hearing 3. PUBLIC COMMENT 3.a. ORGANIZATIONS E.V.I.A. President Margaret Clark, 415 Elm Avenue, expressed appreciation for Director Stamey's attendance at E.V.I.A. study sessions and noted the following concerns/suggestions: • May need to add a Chapter/Section to address adequate water and maintenance for clean air • Definition lists of future land codes are needed to assist with future study • Grade and widen Marys Lake road to accommodate traffic • Add a Bike path from Beaver Point to YMCA • Construction of affordable housing on Elm Road • Require YMCA to plan ahead • Implement standards to prevent building on steep slopes in the future • Place time limits on 'grandfathering' • Request MacGregor Ranch to remain as is Mrs. Clark suggested an annual review of the Plan and to implement the next phase as soon as possible. Vice President Bryan Michener, 2332 Mountainside Drive, expressed appreciation for Mr. Stamey's presentation and noted the following concerns: • Would like to know the Performiance Standards in Phase II; currently a "beautiful vision statement without any teeth" • Mobility - think in terms of valley circulation BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 3, 1996 Page 5 • Additional staff may be needed to participate in this process • Transportation LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS Helen Plat, 201 Fall River Lane, commended the Town and County for their recognition of complex problems and the community for their active participation; the League of Women Voters urges immediate adoption and to proceed with implementation. She expressed the following should also be examined: • Water availability and air quality controls • Growth management ordinance ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK Larry Gamble, siunmarized the RMNP letter submitted to the Commissioners. Mr. Gamble expressed support for a joint Planning Commission, managing growth, and population densities limits. RMNP was supportive of the March 96 Plan, however, has concerns with the latest revisions. Performance standards are needed now. ASSOCIATION FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT Glenn Mapes, 275 Waggoner Road, recognized Staff's work and improvements made in the past year, however, expressed concerns with zoning enforcement/variances. 3.b. INDIVIDUALS BY AREA NORTH END Ralph Nicholas, 1660 N. Ridge Lane, stated if the Comprehensive Plan had been in place sooner, Storer Ranch development could have been improved. He requested performance standards address view corridors in commercial areas. Terry Parenti, 215 McGraw Ranch Road, President of the North End Homeowners, expressed concern with timely implementation, urging zoning and performance standards to follow soon and a buffer zone between RMNP and Town limits. Rowland Retrum, 650 Freeman Court, questioned impact on the Stanley Hotel Historic District. FISH CREEK/LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN Al Persons, 1000 Woodland Court, admires the work on the Plan, but is concerned with variances granted in the past. He stated implementation is urgent and critical. Judy Rosen, 333 Little Valley Road, expressed concerns with rezoning for Little Valley area, loss of wildlife and riparian habitat. Jan Hagen, 1701 Windham Drive, President of Dunraven Heights Association, expressed concerns with preservation of wildlife, wetlands and views. She was concerned about changes in the Fall River Corridor. Ima Matthies, 1637 Black Squirrel, President of Little Valley Homeowner's Association, expressed concern with lots which are smaller than 2.5 acres and requested definition of the category. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 2, 1996 CARRIAGE HILLS/MARYS LAKE There were no speakers. Page 6 SPUR 66 Bryan Michener, 2332 Mountainside Drive, noted the unique position between the Town and RMNP and believes this is a good model of community participation. Frank Williams, 1738 Highway 66, requested the County straighten Dry Gulch Road and expressed that the 100' setback is too much and he has been unable to obtain a variance. Howard MacMillan, 3125 Eaglecliff Drive, President of Spur 66 Association, noted the Association's enthusiasm and endorsement of efforts to manage growth. They are concerned with density of land bordering RMNP as well as safety and traffic issues. Harvey Griffith, 1570 Moraine Route, expressed concern with the downzoning of his property which has been used as a business for 25+ years. BEAVER POINT Nancy Brown, 1280 Giant Track Road, stated she and her husband purchased their property 18 years ago and are concerned with the proposed zoning and the financial impact to them. Jim Docter, 516 Grand Estates Drive, and owner of property at 1112 Giant Track, expressed concern for the financial impact with proposed zoning and believes his individual rights will be jeopardized. Eunice Docter, 516 Grand Estates Drive, expressed appreciation for time and energy given to the Comprehensive Plan. She questioned: how many land owners were affected by the A-1 category, if personal notifications were given, who collected responses, who performed tallies, when the first draft will be ready, amount of tax dollars being utilized in this process. She feels that Town Staff does not understand her concerns. FALL RIVER ROAD Charles Grigg, 790 Castle Mountain Road, (also owns 750 Castle Mountain Road) expressed his concern for his property changing from R-M - R-2. DOWNTOWN/GENERAL COMMENTS Bill Van Horn, 2101 McGraw Ranch Road, stated he is a lifelong resident concerned with maintaining the quality of life and has been professionally involved in the land planning process. He supports consistent regulations and recognizes the purpose of the Plan. He is concerned with zoning in Country Club Manor, affordable housing, a place for mobile homes and sees a relationship between affordable housing and density. James Duell, District Manager of Estes Park Sanitation District, expressed concern with the different zoning on BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 2, 1996 the District's two lots. Page 7 Chairman Sager closed the Public Hearing. At 6:48 p.m. there was a break with the meeting resuming at 6:55 p.m. STAFF COMMENTS/RESPONSE Mr. Stamey responded to comments/questions stating not all issues would be addressed this evening. • The proposed future land use category A-1 is a compromise in many locations. Performance Standards comments: Process originally planned in three phases Phase I - community value setting Phase II - development of Comprehensive Plan Phase III - develop regulations The Plan is a guide for Phase III; it is important to continue with Phase III to develop standards and criteria. There will be another series of public workshops; funding is proposed for 1997. RMNP comments to increase density adjacent to the Park - if zoned T-Tourist, then density would be higher than proposed A-1. Ralph Nicholas' comment on view corridor in commercial area; this is being considered to protect the view from public spaces. Rowland Retriim's concern with Stanley Property • Stanley Historic District Master Development Plan and Development Agreements are recognized in the Comprehensive Plan, and will continue to be the controlling standards. • The Stanley Historic District was placed in downtown area due to being within EPURA's area. Little Valley Area - 10 acres to 2% acres concerns • This is a future land use map, not a zoning map • A letter was sent to their Homeowners' Association • Language in Comprehensive Plan addressing minimum lot area requirements - "Quote" - Fall River A-1 Done to balance what has been there historically Howard MacMillan's comments on Spur 66/Dietrich property; Staff will follow-up with Mr. Dietrich A-1 accessory uses - intent to be remain residential in character Staff did collect postcards and performed mapping, all work reviewed by the Review Committee (Mayor Dekker, Commissioner Disney and Trustee Doylen). All information BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - December 3, 1996 Page 8 was available to Review Coimnittee and provided in notebook form. The approach for the Comprehensive Plan is typical and standard in Colorado. Charles Grigg's concerns - there is a Plat restriction on the Castle Mountain Plat which states each lot shall be limited to two dwelling units. Mr. Grigg may seek legal advice. Bill Van Horn's comments on affordable housing and Country Club Manor. • There is language in the Plan to support affordable housing; mobile homes are not initially eliminated; currently allowed by Special Review in multi-family district. • Country Club Manor - no proposed land use category for lots of their size; lots are of record and will be utilized for residential purposes. Existing uses have been recognized. No comment on Boulder County process, is streamlined and efficient. The Town's process • Estes Park Sanitation District concerns - Staff will follow up to ensure identical zoning on both lots. Town Attorney White spoke on issues of property rights from the legal perspective. The proposed Comprehensive Plan is a Plan, it has no effect on zoning of any individual parcel, zoning is accomplished by elected officials of either Town and County after notice and hearing. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to be a guide; there will be an opportunity for public input during Phase III. People do not have a vested property right in zoning which is recognized by the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Until application for a Building Permit is received, there is no vested property right. The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan will not rezone anyone's property within the planning area. 5. PLANNING COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OF STAFF Director Stamey stated he would have a study session with each Planning Commission and have a prepared Staff report by December 17 and 18. Commissioner Amos reviewed some of the process/changes and asked the Commissioners be 'fundamentally fair'. Chief Planner Legg stated the changes in the Giant Track area were a result of a Petition from property owners and he has requested large scale topographical maps for their study session. Director Stamey clarified the usage of PUDs, Commissioner Brown commended a 'fair' approach and asked for BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Conunission - December 3, 1996 consideration of compromise. Page 9 Commissioner Johnson asked how many of the 483 objecting property owners' parcels were modified. Director Stamey will followup at the Larimer County Study Session. Mr. Johnson stated while this is not a zoning map, it appears to be one except for the title and questioned why performance standards could not be done now. Mr. Stamey stated that residents are ready to proceed. Commissioner Amos stated the Plan has no strength until the regulations are written and we will be operating under existing regulations until that time. Commissioner Wallace asked what modifications have taken place since March to change the future land use categories. Mr. Stamey responded. Chief Planner Legg stated the most public comment/concern on the RE-1 came from the Fall River workshops. He would like to follow-up with his Commissioners at their Study Session regarding Larry Gamble/RMNP comments. Commissioner Wallace invited Larry Gamble to attend the Larimer County Study Session. Chairman Sager stated the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled to be adopted at the December 17, 1996 Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Estes Park and at the December 18, 1996, Larimer County Planning Commission meeting at 5:30 p.m. at the County Court House (Ft. Collins). Chairman Haimes asked for a motion to approve the Larimer County Commission minutes of October 16, 1996. It was moved and seconded (Wallace/Salg) the Larimer County Planning Commission October 16, 1996 minutes be approved, and it passed unanimously. Chief Planner Legg reminded the Larimer County Commissioners of the Study Session on December 12, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. There being no further business. Chairman Sager adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary