Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-03-20FILE Copy Prepared: March 14, 2007 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 20,2007 12:30 p.m. Study Session, Rooms 201 and 202 1:30 p.m. Meeting, Board Room, Town Hall 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated February 20,2007 2. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments are not to exceed 3 minutes. 3. REPORTS a. Vacation Homes / Short-Term Rentals b. Accessory Dwelling Units c. Brief Description of Lake Estes Village Proposal 4. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 69@@@B@@@@B@@6@08@@68@@B@@@86@ 0 0 0 Estes Valley ~ Planning Commission next scheduled meetings @ 8 8 8 8 8 STUDY SESSION ~ Monday, April 16,2007 at 1:00 p.m. Room 202 (the usual place) lunch on your own ~ @ MEETING ~ Tuesday, April 17,2007 Lunch at 12:30 in room 202 Meeting begins at 1:30 No study session on this day ~ There are currently nine items on the agenda. 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ You can view information about all current submittals, including next month's Planning Commission items, on our web page: www.estesnet.com/comdev/CurrentRequests.aspx 0 0 0 @ 0 0 8@080@@89@Q@@@96@60@8@89@@@@B@@ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ]L- 2 _--iFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission February 20, 2007,1:30 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Hull; Commissioners Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Amos, Director Joseph Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated January 16, 2007. b. Request for Continuance to April 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, KEARNEY MINOR SUBDIVISION, A Portion of Lot 12, South Saint Vrain Addition, Kearney and Sons Excavating, LLC/Applicant c. AMENDED PLAT, Boundary Line Adjustment for the Metes & Bounds property located at 651 Laurel Lane in unincorporated Larimer County, CO, J. Rocksey and Jacquelynn Powell/Applicant - Request to change the existing boundary line between two lots from a north-south orientation to an east-west orientation At the request of adjacent property owner Kris O'Neil, item "C" was removed from the consent agenda and will be reviewed as an action item. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) that items "A" and "B" of the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Court, provided a letter to the Planning Commissioners and read it for the record. He stated he was present on behalf of homeowners in Fall River Estates to express disappointment and frustration regarding 'The Celtic Lady's Mountain Retreat," a home used for short-term nightly rentals in their neighborhood. He also expressed concern about a recently constructed model home at 1050 Fall River Court. Planner Shirk stated the Town's Community Development Committee will again review information on short-term nightly rentals at their meeting on March 1, 2007. Planning staff is currently reviewing the use classification of the model home. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 20,2007 3. AMENDED PLAT, Boundary Line Adjustment for the Metes & Bounds property located at 651 Laurel Lane in unincorporated Larimer County, CO, Applicant: J. Rocksey and Jacquelynn Powell Planner Shirk provided a brief summary of the staff report. The applicants own two lots and wish to change the orientation of the property line between the two lots from a north-south orientation to an east-west orientation. The lot that currently fronts Laurel Lane contains a single-family dwelling; the second lot is undeveloped but is a legal, buildable lot. Reorientation of the property line would provide access for the undeveloped lot directly onto Laurel Lane, eliminating the need for an access easement across the developed lot. The proposal does not create any additional impact on the neighborhood. Public Comment: Adjoining property owners Tom and Kris O'Neil, 702 Tanager Road, stated they have no issue with changing the lot line but are concerned about whether the applicant's southern property line (as shown on the plat) matches with their northern property line. They requested verification of receipt of the survey they filed with Larimer County approximately a year ago and verification that the property boundary shown by the applicant is in agreement with that shown on their survey. Planner Shirk stated Larimer County staff will do a thorough survey review and will verify the plat submitted by the applicant meets county requirements and is correct. He will provide the O'Neils with contact information for Larimer County staff. He also noted a utility easement will be placed over the existing water service line that crosses the applicant's property. Adjoining property owner Michael Allen, 630 Tanager Road, questioned whether the undeveloped lot would be zoned for multi-family development and whether the size of the building on the lot would be limited. He stated his dissatisfaction with the proposed boundary line adjustment due to concern that a large house will be built on the property and concern about the water resources being strained to an unacceptable level. Planner Shirk stated the applicant has not requested rezoning of the lot (it is currently zoned E-1- Estate); neighboring property owners will be notified if such a request is made in the future. The Estes Valley Development Code does not limit the size of a single-family residence that may be built on the lot aside from the setback requirements and building height limit. A home could be built on the vacant lot in its current configuration but would require removal of significant trees. Approval of the boundary line adjustment would most likely result in any future residence being located farther from the Allen's property line than under the current lot configuration. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Klink) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat for the Metes and Bounds property located at 651 Laurel Lane to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the memo from Town Attorney White dated January 24,2007. 4. CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW, GROCERY / RETAIL CENTER, Intersection of Highway 7 and Manford Avenue, Applicant: The Mulhern Group, Ltd. Planner Shirk stated this concept plan is being presented to the Estes Valley Planning Commission as an informational item to allow local residents and members of the Planning Commission an opportunity to provide preliminary evaluation and comments on a concept for redevelopment of the property at the corner of Highway 7 and Manford Avenue. No action is required at this time. The six-acre site is zoned CO-Commercial Outlying redevelopment of the site is proposed to include a 50,000-square-foot grocery store, a fuel center, and a 5,000-square-foot pad site for commercial retail use. No rezoning would be required for the proposed use. The lumberyard and other existing uses on the site are expected to be relocated by the developer to a new location in Estes Park. Planning staff received a phone call from Jacqueline Miller, owner of one of the properties shown on the L f AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 20,2007 concept plan as a portion of the development. Ms. Miller stated she does not intend to sell the property and voiced strong opposition to the concept plan. Public Comment: Steve Loos of the Mulhern Group, Ltd. stated he is working with Loftus Development, Inc. on this project; they are actively working on the acquisition of properties for the development. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether preliminary traffic studies have been conducted, particularly in regard to traffic on Manford Avenue. Mr. Loos stated the studies are being conducted but are not yet complete. Marsha and Ken Hobart stated they manage the property owned by Jacquelyn Miller and Luetta VerStraeten, who have indicated that under no circumstances would the property be up for sale nor do they wish to relocate the businesses currently on their property. Paul Kuna, 1050 S. St. Vrain, questioned where the lumberyard would be relocated if the plans move forward and expressed concern about possible rezoning of a formerly considered new location for the lumberyard across from Eagle's Landing Condominiums. Chair Hull reiterated that no action on the grocery/retail center concept plan will be taken by the Planning Commission at this time. 5. MASTER PLAN, YMCA OF THE ROCKIES ESTES PARK CENTER, Parcel Identification Numbers 3404106001, 3404200022, 3404300032, 3404400064, 3404200022, 34050000022, 3405000024, 3409100001, 3409100028, 3409200006, 3404200022, 3409100001, 3404400064, 3409100028, 3404300032, 3410000013, 3400000014,3404306006,34043060 2515 Tunnel Road, Applicant: YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report, stating this is a request for approval of a master plan for the YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center; the plan is intended to provide guidance for development of the 889-acre YMCA property over the next twenty years. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) does not provide specific review criteria for master plans. Planning staff has evaluated the submitted plan for compliance with applicable sections of the EVDC such as density, setbacks, stormwater drainage, and utilities, as well as ridgeline and tree protection standards, wildlife habitat areas, and wetland/stream corridor protection. If approved, this master plan will provide a template for review of future development plans for the property and will provide waivers to specific EVDC sections such as road paving, curb/gutter, and sidewalks. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan set forth a goal to adopt a master plan for the YMCA. Staff believes the overall quality and vision of the proposed master plan is excellent. The plan concentrates higher levels of development in the core of the site and redevelops this core as a pedestrian campus; it includes the relocation of existing parking lots and drives, and development of an open space and a pedestrian system. Planned development outside the core area includes additional cabins, staff housing, and reunion cabins. The density proposed by the master plan is approximately 12% of the maximum density allowed under the EVDC. The maximum occupancy would increase from the current 4,578 to 5,260-an increase of 647 people. Planning staff suggests that several code requirements be waived with the understanding that some additional development standards will be imposed. Suggested waivers to the EVDC include road and sidewalk paving, development plan review for certain buildings, and sidewalk along Tunnel Road. Suggested requirements additional to the EVDC include additional parking-lot landscaping and stricter exterior lighting standards. Staff recommends waiving sidewalk paving requirements along Tunnel Road (Spur 66) and along interior sidewalks and roads, except where delineated in the master plan (pg. 24) and where necessary to meet ADA requirements, and suggests the existing and proposed trail system satisfies the sidewalk requirements of the EVDC. If a formal L 2 AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 February 20,2007 easement is recorded or right-of-way dedicated along Tunnel Road, the existing trail along Tunnel Road would satisfy the trail-system-linkage requirement of the EVDC. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan includes a specific planning sub-area for Spur 66, including the YMCA, and includes a development guideline to protect the YMCA frontage as open space. The three proposed reunion cabins located along Tunnel Road may not comply with this guideline. The original draft of the Master Plan proposed additional staff housing in this area. Neighboring property owners expressed strong opposition to the staff housing, and the Master Plan was changed to propose reunion cabins in that location. Planning staff suggests that reunion cabins will result in more concentrated traffic, but for a shorter period of time than the year-round traffic generated by staff housing. A number of property owners along Tunnel Road have expressed concern about the impacts of these proposed reunion cabins. Staff recommends additional information be included in the master plan regarding the location of these buildings in relation to the road, stream corridors, and significant trees. If the proposed location of the buildings meets the limits of disturbance standards set forth in Section 7.2.D of the EVDC, staff suggests the Comprehensive Plan guideline could be met if the buildings are set back far enough from Tunnel Road. Staff has also reviewed by Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan adopted by Larimer County in 1996 (a set of development guidelines) and finds the general concept of the reunion cabins does not violate any of the guidelines set forth in that plan. Most guidelines in the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan are site-specific. At this time there is no specific proposal for the reunion cabins; therefore, a determination can not be made as to whether the proposed reunion cabins meet limits of disturbance standards. Colorado Division of Wildlife Officer Rick Spowart left a phone message for staff indicating that there are six or seven other sites for the reunion cabins on the YMCA property that would have less impact on wildlife; however, location of the reunion cabins as shown on the Master Plan would not impact elk movement. He would like to see the aspen stands in that area preserved. An important issue is the need for bear-proof garbage containers on the YMCA property. The average slope calculation for the YMCA property is 19%. Planning staff recommends the Family Cabins Infill area shown in the master plan on page 23 be "tightened" to avoid areas of steeper slope. Staff supports the landscaping concepts set forth in Section 4.3 of the master plan. Site-specific landscape plans will be reviewed with future development. Parking lots will need to be landscaped in accordance with Section 7.5 of the EVDC, which requires perimeter screening and interior landscaping. Staff recommends that landscaping in parking lot interiors exceed the maximum planting requirements as defined by the EVDC. Staff further recommends the applicant use the preferred planting list found in the EVDC and utilize large-spread shade trees to maximize visual coverage of parking lots. All development, including the proposed realignment of Mountainside Drive, will be subject to stream and wetland setback requirements. Future development and redevelopment will be subject to lighting standards set forth in Section 7.9 of the EVDC, and must be shielded and downcast. Staff recommends that no parking lot lighting exceed fifteen feet in height rather than the 25-foot height allowed by the EVDC, that bollard-style lighting be used for pedestrian areas, and that the overall lighting plan be developed within one year of master plan approval. Entry lighting should be addressed first. Staff supports the parking lot concept presented in the master plan and recommends the YMCA consider a shuttle bus system to help minimize traffic on Tunnel Road/Spur 66. The following roads (including parking lots) that serve new lodges will need to be paved to applicable current standards concurrent with development: Friendship Lane, Kallenberg Drive, Mesa Drive, and Mountainside Drive. All other roads should be exempt from the paving requirements set forth in Section 7.12 of the EVDC. Staff suggests Mountainside Drive be paved to county standards up to the point of the proposed new alignment. From that point on, Mountainside Drive would need to be built to rural road standards set forth in the Larimer County Road Manual, Appendix G. The realignment must ensure there will be no negative impact on stream/wetland corridors and will need to be reviewed by the iFT , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 20,2007 Larimer County Engineering department prior to construction. Approval of the master plan does not indicate approval to rebuild Mountainside Drive in the proposed location. The traffic impact analysis presented with the master plan indicates the warrant for a dedicated right-turn lane off Tunnel Road into the YMCA grounds has already been met. (CDOT standards require a turn lane when there are 25 right turns per hour; there are currently 130 turns per hour.) Larimer County staff is willing to allow the construction of up to five additional cabins before requiring turn lane construction. Staff recommends the turn lane be installed with any development that increases traffic into the YMCA grounds, such as additional conference or sleeping facilities. Traffic signage must meet MUTCD standards. All buildings should be addressed in accordance with Larimer County addressing policies. The YMCA provides its own water treatment facilities. The YMCA submitted information which indicates that adequate water rights to support the proposed additional development shown in the Master Plan are available. Town Attorney White reviewed this information and has indicated that it appears the water rights are adequate. Sanitary sewer service is provided by Upper Thompson Sanitation District, which has stated the interior collection system will need to be studied to determine if it can carry additional flows. Provision of a second source of electric power should be completed prior to any additional development. Staff recommends the YMCA formalize evacuation and fire mitigation plans prior to additional development. The master plan includes a well-formulated stormwater management plan. Only those stormwater facilities necessary to serve specific future development will be required at the time development takes place. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town Attorney Greg White, Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Rocky Mountain National Park, and Larimer County Engineering Department. Thirteen letters or emails were received from neighboring property owners whose comments focus on concerns about development along Tunnel Road/Spur 66. Because not enough information has been provided at this time, approval of the master plan does not include approval or disapproval to locate any development along the Tunnel Road frontage. Any future development in that area shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Limits of disturbance standards will be reviewed when the development is proposed. Public Comment: Kent Meyer, President of the YMCA of the Rockies, provided background information about the YMCA of the Rockies. He stated the proposed master plan is a 20-year plan developed in conjunction with EDAW, an international design group that has created development plans for areas within Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks and other sensitive natural areas. The proposed master plan envisions the growth of programming at the YMCA property with very little growth in the numbers of people who will utilize the site and is geared toward "best practice" principles of management of the property. Mark Holdt, YMCA Vice President, provided a visual presentation. His comments are summarized as follows: • The proposed 20-year master plan is intended to improve the visitor experience and was created with care and concern for the environment. • The plan provides guidance for future development but does not identify any immediate projects. Development will occur in phases as funding becomes available. • A number of older buildings will be removed to make room for new buildings. • The plan provides for improved traffic and pedestrian circulation. Some current roads are proposed to be removed. There will be a separate entrance route for services/deliveries. • Maintenance services and buildings will be consolidated and located "behind" the core area of the site. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 20,2007 • The locations of activity centers such as family programming, family sports, family conference lodges, etc. will be grouped together. • Signage, access, trails, pedestrian safety, and the aesthetics of the grounds will be improved. There will be dedicated green space. • Everything proposed in the master plan is consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan. • No variances are requested. • Current zoning would allow development of 13,753 hotel rooms or 3,111 individual cabins. The plan does not maximize the density allowed by the zoning. The total number of buildings will increase by a total of 12.3%; total guest and staff rooms increase by 11%; total maximum occupancy will increase by 648 people, or 15%. • The YMCA has requested that Larimer County allow five cabins to be built prior to requiring construction of the right-turn lane into the YMCA property. This is to allow time to work out funding for construction of the turn lane concurrent with construction of the service road and redesign of the entry onto the property. • The applicant is in agreement with all conditions of approval recommended by planning staff. Chair Hull called a recess at 3:11 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:24 p.m. Phil Hendrix, Landscape Architect from EDAW, provided a visual presentation and overview of the proposed master plan. Additional information presented is summarized as follows: • Current development of the property shows a lack of land-use patterns. • Existing development is already condensed. Infill areas for family cabins have been identified, although specific sites will be determined individually as development occurs. • Open space will be protected into the future. • There are many existing trails on the property. The YMCA wishes to work with Rocky Mountain National Park to continue trail connections into the Park, as well as creating future connections to the Estes Valley trail system. • The Mountainside area will continue to be used for small groups, reunions, weddings, etc. The applicant intends to preserve the historic, natural characteristics of that area. • The area adjacent to Glacier Creek will be used for nature education; a new nature center is proposed for that area. • The road in front of the administration building will be removed. Existing roads will be used as a loop road around the core area, creating a strong pedestrian environment within the core area. Intersections will be realigned for safety. • "Dark-sky-compliant" lighting, such as that used within national parks, will be used. • Parking areas will be consolidated and will include large landscape islands. Landscaping will mitigate glare into Rocky Mountain National Park and will screen vehicles. • Storm drainage and erosion control has been addressed in the master plan. • Proposed impervious coverage on the YMCA property has not been estimated. A number of existing roads will be removed, and there will be reclamation work on land that is currently gravel. • The proposed reunion cabins are six- to eight-bedroom facilities. There are several in the core area; three are proposed along Tunnel Road; they are also shown in the Summit area. The master plan shows sites where the reunion cabins will fit well, not necessarily where they will be built. • The proposed reunion cabins site along Tunnel Road should easily accommodate the cabins and could easily meet or surpass limits of disturbance standards. It is not in mapped wildlife habitat or in sensitive areas shown in the Spur 66 Management Plan. Each cabin requires approximately half an acre of land for the building and parking. The proposed cabins would encompass 1.5 to two acres of land out of the seven-acre site. The cabins could be located approximately 150 feet off Tunnel Road. DR-AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 February 20,2007 Chair Hull reiterated Mr. Shirk's statement: "Because not enough information has been provided at this time, approval of the master plan does not include approval or disapproval to locate any development along the Tunnel Road frontage. Any future development in that area shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission." Adjoining property owner Carol Beidleman, 3245 Tunnel Road, read aloud her letter to the Planning Commission received February 20, 2007, which commends the YMCA for work on the master plan but expresses strong objection to development along Spur 66 (Tunnel Road). She expressed concern about the proposed reunion cabins' impact on area vegetation and wildlife, requested the YMCA pursue a conservation easement for the open-space corridor surrounding their property, and requested the Planning Commission stipulate that no development be allowed along the Spur 66 corridor. She stated her comments were made on behalf of the 131 property owners who signed the petition dated September 1, 2006 against development of the proposed staff housing along Spur 66. Adjoining property owner Bryan Michener, 2332 Mountainside Drive, stated he has been a YMCA resident for 65 years. He endorsed the YMCA's effort to plan but stated the YMCA has been remiss in their treatment of the historical nature of the property (the largest site of Native American encampment in the Estes Valley, according to Mr. Michener), and in their lack of environmental stewardship. He provided a number of examples to support these contentions. He expressed great concern about the environmental impacts of development of the proposed reunion cabins along Tunnel Road. Bill Lamm, "Holy Hill" property owner (2260 Cliff Road), expressed concern about the visual impact of the proposed reunion cabins. He encouraged the YMCA to enter into a conservation easement for that area of their property to protect open space, scenic views, and wildlife habitat. Gail Johnson, "Holy Hill" property owner; echoed the previous comments and stated the "bubbles" shown on the Spur 66 Management Plan to reflect sensitive wildlife areas should not be viewed as perfect or written in stone. She noted there is beaver activity and nesting goshawks in areas outside the wildlife areas shown in the management plan. She stated 5,000-square-foot buildings are not "cabins." Scott Cast, "Holy Hill" properly owner (2610/2680 Terrace Lane), stated he concurred with Bill Lamm's remarks. He stated the Planning Commission would be remiss to approve the proposed master plan with the reunion cabins adjacent to Spur 66 and encouraged approval of the plan without them. John Wood, legal council for YMCA, stated the staff findings are neutral regarding development of the reunion cabins along Spur 66. He requested continuance of the application to allow the YMCA to provide site-specific information if the Planning Commission was inclined to make other than a neutral finding. He reiterated that the master plan is conceptual in nature and is not a development plan. Further discussion followed between Planning Commissioners, staff, Mr. Holdt, Mr. Meyer, and Ms. Beidleman. Mr. Holdt stated current work on the three-year process of developing a conservation easement for the YMCA property at Snow Mountain Ranch takes precedence, but the YMCA is open to further discussions regarding a conservation easement on the Estes Park property. Planner Shirk pointed out that four property owners on the list of 130 who signed the petition against the development of staff housing along Tunnel Road have received variances to build closer to the road. Commissioner Klink noted that some of the petitioners have some of the most visible residences in the Estes Valley. Ms. Beidleman stated a number of the petitioners live out of state but own property in the area. Commissioners expressed the opinion that the proposed master plan is well received except for possible development of the reunion cabins along Tunnel Road. Holdt and Meyer stated the YMCA desires to provide reunion cabins in a variety of settings and would like to keep options for future development of the cabins open. DRA-FT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 February 20,2007 It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the Master Plan for YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center, 2515 Tunnel Road, to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and with particular emphasis on finding #7, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. FINDINGS: 1. This is a request for a master plan outlining future development of the YMCA of The Rockies Estes Park Center and includes waivers to several code standards such as curb/gutter and paving standards. It also includes additional restrictions to code standards such as outdoor lighting. Future development will be subject to standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. With the exception of specific waivers subject to approval of the Board of County Commissioners, the development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. The Master Plan is consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan. 4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 5. This is a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (who need to approve various waivers). 6. Approval of this plan provides a three-year vesting period pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S. The YMCA may request subsequent vesting period extensions with review by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and approval of the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. 7. Because not enough information has been provided at this time, approval of this master plan does not include approval or disapproval to locate any development along the Tunnel Road frontage. Any future development in that area shall be subject to review and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. CONDITIONS: 1. Future development shall comply with the approved Master Plan. Future plan amendments shall be presented to the Estes Valley Planning Commission for review. Staff shall be authorized to review minor plan revisions pursuant to Section 3.7 of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. With the exception of waivers outlined below, development shall comply with the provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code and other applicable codes. 3. The YMCA of the Rockies shall present a report to the Estes Valley planning staff on a yearly basis (YMCA shall be responsible for scheduling this meeting in January or February). This report shall include a summary of the previous year's development activity, as well as intentions for the coming year. The purpose of this report is to ensure a high level of communication, and allow the Estes Valley Staff to inform the YMCA of development requirements such as changes to the Estes Valley Development Code and review timeframes to minimize delays in processing building permits and/or development plans. 4. Development plans shall not be required for the following development, as delineated in the Master Plan: entry features, replacement cabins, maintenance facilities, guesUfamily cabins, outdoor chapels, picnic/cookout shelters, restrooms/shower facilities, human resources complex, gathering spaces, or other small projects that do not individually exceed 2,000 square feet. Building and/or grading permits shall be required, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Staff and applicable Larimer County Staff (such as engineering, building, and health). Staff recommends the YMCA meet with planning staff prior to beginning design to discuss requirements. Staff reserves the right to require a development plan for individual projects should it be determined a building permit application does not contain adequate information to review for compliance with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 5. At such time that Mountainside Drive is re-aligned, it shall be designed and paved to county road standards up the point of the proposed new alignment. From that point on up the hill, Mountainside Drive shall be built to rural standards set forth in the Larimer LFT 1-6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 February 20,2007 County Road Manual (adequate width, crown, ditch sections, and road base; no paving or curb/gutter). The proposed alignment of Mountainside Drive shall be subject to review and approval of Staff to ensure proper stream setbacks are maintained and engineering standards-including Best Management Practice standards for drainage-are met. 6. Curb and gutter shall not be required for roads, unless necessitated by stormwater management requirements or sidewalks. Roadside drainage swales shall meet Larimer County standards or other, as approved by the Larimer County Engineering Department. 7. Photometric studies shall be included with all parking lot proposals. No parking lot lighting shall exceed fifteen feet in height. 8. Bollard-style lighting shall be used for any proposed lighting of pedestrian areas. 9. Staff recommends all existing outdoor lighting not necessary for security and/or safety purposes be turned off during non-operating hours. 10. Future cabin development and redevelopment shall be coordinated with the Trails Master Plan. 11. Paved sidewalks shall not be required along Spur 66 and interior streets and roads, except as delineated on the Land Use Master Plan (p. 25). Staff shall be authorized to approve alternative sidewalk materials such as pavers or finely crushed rock. Any alternative materials shall provide for ADA accessibility. 12. Parking lot interiors shall exceed the minimum planting requirements for parking lot interiors by twenty percent. For example, where the EVDC requires ten trees in a parking lot, twelve shall be required. 13. Additional development shall require verification of adequate water rights. 14.All new development shall require that regulatory signage, such as stop signs, meet MUTCD standards. Street signs shall be mounted at a standard height and have reflective lettering to be visible at night from Tunnel Road all the way to the proposed development. 15. All new development shall be addressed in accordance with the Larimer County addressing policies. 16. No increase in occupancy shall occur until evacuation and wildfire mitigation plans have been approved by the Larimer County Emergency Coordinator. The Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department Chief shall be consulted with on the preparation of these plans. 17. An exclusive southbound right-turn lane shall be constructed or guaranteed at the Tunnel Road-Kallenberg Drive intersection with the first traffic-generating phase of development, such as a new cabin. 18.The following roads that serve new lodges shall be paved to applicable standards concurrent with development (including parking lots): Friendship Lane, Kallenberg Drive, and Mountainside Drive. All other roads shall be exempt from paving requirements set forth in Section 7.12 of the Estes Valley Development Code. 19. Any additional right-of-way necessary to satisfy the 40-foot half right-of-way required for the portions of Tunnel Road that are adjacent to this development shall be properly dedicated no later than December 31,2007. 20. A public pedestrian access easement shall be recorded for the existing trail along Tunnel Road no later than December 31, 2007. 21. The overall lighting plan mentioned on page 35 should be developed within the first year of approval. Entry lighting should be addressed first. 22.The YMCA shall discuss partnering with the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park to take part in the shuttle bus system. 23.The existing building inventory should be updated to include the two new reunion cabins. 24. The site-area calculations on page 11 should be finalized. 25. References to Estes Park Sanitary Sewer District should be corrected to Upper Thompson Sanitation District (see page 18). 26.The slope analysis map should include an average slope calculation. 27.The Trails Master Plan should be amended such that the "open space" and proposed reunion cabins do not conflict. 28.A map of the sanitary sewer easement shall be included in the master plan. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 February 20,2007 6. REPORTS Planner Chilcott: Lake Shore Lodge is planning to submit a revised development plan application. If the application is complete, the development plan will come before the Planning Commission in April. The plans that were formerly submitted but found to be incomplete are available for public viewing on the Town website. Commissioner Tucker requested a study session specifically for the Lake Shore application. Planner Shirk: The deadline for appeal of the Planning Commission decision to disapprove the Riverview Pines Development Plan 06-08 has passed. No appeal was filed. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:41 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS EXERPT FROM ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 1:30 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Attending: Chair Pohl; Commissioners Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, and Klink Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioners Amos and Kitchen Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 5._PROPOSEDAMENDMENTS-JO_THEJESTES _VALLEY_ DEVELOPMENTECODE? Vacation Rentals' Director Joseph stated the proposed amendments would take language that currently exists in the municipal code pertaining to short-term rentals (also referred to as vacation homes) and add it to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The language is currently included in the EVDC by reference, and the proposed changes would not alter the intent or meaning of that language. Changes are also proposed to the EVDC to delete some confusing inconsistencies that exist between the municipal code and the EVDC. For instance, planning staff proposes to delete references to bed-and-breakfast inns, which are disallowed by the EVDC in single-family residential zoning districts even though vacation homes are allowed. As defined in the EVDC, a bed-and-breakfast requires the property owner to be on site, which provides a greater self-policing element than vacation home use and thus should not be discriminated against in the code language. Proposed changes would allow either use in residential areas provided that other regulations in the EVDC are met. Public Comment: John Phipps, 585 Wonderview, stated he is a local attorney, and spoke on behalf of himself as a homeowner and on behalf of his wife, who has been a realtor in Estes Park for 25 years. He stated his wife believes that allowing vacation homes in residential areas decreases property values. He requested that only one term be used to define vacation homes rather than the current practice of using the terms short-term rentals, nightly rentals, and vacation homes interchangeably. He argued that short-term rentals are defined as an accessory use in the EVDC and questioned whether using a property for short-term rentals year round should be allowed. He requested the term "on-site manager" be stricken from the code language, stating it implies accommodations use. He asked that references to renting to "one party" be better defined, noting that one person could make the reservation for a rental but bring seven unrelated people along. He' stated that grandfathered properties should be required to conform to the new guidelines when their business license is renewed. Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Court, expressed his concern about the meaning, use, and definition of terms, particularly the term "nightly rentals." He requested that "nightly rentals" be removed from the list of allowed uses, noting the term more appropriately describes accommodations uses. He requested that "vacation home" be used instead and that one- night rentals be disallowed in residential areas. . I. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 21, 2006 Jay Harroff, 1089 Fall River Court, stated he has been a local realtor for eight years and shares the concerns expressed by Mr. Phipps. He stated that homeowners in residential areas do not want nightly rentals in their neighborhoods, nor do they want off-site management of nightly rentals. Ruth Goetzel, 1141 Fall River Drive, expressed the opinion that homeowners associations should not have to commit their resources to policing vacation rentals via restrictive covenants. Don Gooldy, 1071 Fall River Court, stated the EVDC defines vacation home as a residential dwelling unit and further defines residential dwelling unit as a building or portion of the building that includes sleeping and kitchen facilities. He argued that if a bedroom is rented on an individual basis, it must include a kitchen. He also stated that the allowed size for signs for vacation homes is too large to be appropriate in residential areas and requested that the size be limited to 8" x 18", Ginny Page, 1861 Raven Avenue, stated that rentals do not belong in residential areas. All citizens providing public comment stressed that the single-family residential character of residentially zoned neighborhoods should be protected. Town Attorney White clarified that long-term rentals are defined as thirty days or longer, while short-term rentals are defined as less than thirty days. Commissioner Hull and Chair Pohl expressed their appreciation of the comments received from the public. Commissioner Klink requested that staff examine the possible results of changes to the EVDC that would require short-term rentals to be a minimum stay of four to five days. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hix) to continue the discussion of the proposed amendments to next meeting, and the motion passed unanimously via voice vote with two absent. I , -~ Estes Valley Development Code: ~ Accommodations Uses FRoNt_ Estes Park Community Development Department NOV. Ptl - Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue - PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 ME ET) Al 4 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com (200(~ DATE: December 19, 2006 ·V,; 411~p TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley .- A il Development Code Accommodations Uses Ba---r U USFS 1 1--3 STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph E - ~-5 36 BACKGROUND: In 2004, the Estes Valley Development Code was revised to allow 1 1 Vacation Homes in all residential zone districts and to allow residential uses in the ;= USFS RMNP Accommodations zone. At that time there were & ainvq a few oversights in the Code revisions that are now being proposed. These include eliminating Bed and Breakfasts as a specific use in residential zone districts, and clarifying residential uses are allowed in accommodations zone districts. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced is delineated with strikethrough (The quick brown fox jumped eveNhefenee). 2. New text is delineated with underline Uhe quick brown fox jumped over the fence). 3. "Relocated" text is delineated with double-strikethrough (The quick brown fox jumped e¥01:41»*eage). § 4.3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Additional Regulations "P" = Permitted by Right (Apply in All Use Classification Specific Use "S" = Permitted by Special Review Districts "-" = Prohibited Unless Otherwise RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Stated) Page 1 of 9 Zoning Districts Additional Regulations "P" = Permitted by Right (Apply in All Use Classification Specific Use "S" = Permitted by Special Review Districts "-" = Prohibited Unless Otherwise RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Stated) ACCOMMODATION-USES 1 1 -6 .4. Be#af,€1 =tm-ittte,-16*ty ------SP §6:4-8 AGGemmedatiens @Feakfast-laa § 4.4 NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS A. List of Districts/Specific Purposes. 1. Accommodations Zoning Districts. a. A Accommodations/Hiahwav Corridor Zonina District. This district implements the "A-Accommodations" land use category set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. It applies primarily in highway-oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of accommodation cilid residential uses, including relatively higher-intensity accommodations such as multi-story hotels and motels. A variety of related tourist-serving retail and commercial uses, such as restaurants, bars and gift shops, will be permitted, but only as accessory uses to a principal accommodations use and only if such supporting uses arc located inside the same structuro as the-#FinG#pal-wee. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review "-" = Prohibited Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Use Classification Specific use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Unless Otherwise Stated) ACCOMMODATION USES ·¥44-8 In CD, such use Low Intensity Bed and p p _ _ _ _ shall not be located on the Accommodations breakfast inns ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue In CD, such use shall not be Hotel, Small - P P - - - _ located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue Page 2 of 9 ·Short-term and long-term nightly rentals allowed as a principal use in a residential dwelling unit Nightly - P P - - - - ·See also Table 5-2 which Rentals allows nightly rentals as an accessory use to a dwelling unit in the A-1 and CD zoning districts Resort lodge/cabins,-P- - §5.1.P low-intensity In CD, such use shall not be Hostel P-P---- located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue §5.1.J In CD, such use shall not be High-Intensity Hotel/Motel P-P-__ - located on the ground floor Accommodations of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue Recreational vehicle park/S ----- - §7.15 campground Resort lodge/cabins ~------ §5.1.P COMMERCIAURETAIL USES In the A district: ·Permitted as accessory to an accommodations use Personal Services P - PpppP only; and •Ute shall bo locatod within the come structuro as o pel:mitted-aGGemmetatiGns 969. In A only as part of a hotol Vehicle/ epmetel-use. In the A Automobile P - - p - p - district, accessory to a Equipment Sales rentals & Services principal accommodations use onlv. Commercial In CD, such use shall not be parking - - P P P - - permitted to locate on facility Elkhorn Avenue Limited equipment ---p - P P §5.1.R rentals Vehicle/ equipment ---p - P P §5.1.L repair Vehicle/ equipment - - - S - S S §5.1.R; §5.1.L sales and rentals Page 3 of 9 | | Vehicle | storage Section 4.4.C Density and Dimensional Standards C. Density and Dimensional Standards. 1. Table of Density and Dimensional Standards by Zoning District. 2. Minimum Land Area Requirements for Accommodation and Residential Uses in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 below includes a standard for "minimum land area per accommodations (guest) or residential unit," which applies only in the A, A-1 and CD zoning districts. The "minimum land area" necessary to meet this standard shall be measured using the net land area ~ definition set forth in §4.3.C, "Density/Dimensional Standards." When applying the minimum land area standard to a parcel's net land area, all resulting fractions shall be rounded down to the next lower whole number. 3. Maximum Units/Density Not Guaranteed. The number of dwelling residential or guest accommodation units allowed on a site is based on the presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met. The maximum residential or accommodations density established for a zoning district is not a guarantee that such densities may be obtained, nor a valid justification for varying other dimensional or development standards. 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. (Table excluded to save paper and printing cost) 5. Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Dovolopmont Parcol a. Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted. One (1) or more principal uses shall be permitted per lot or development parcel, except that in the A zoning district, only one (1) principal residential usc shall bo permitted per lot or devolopmont parcol. b. Permitted Mix of Uses. Where more than one (1) principal use is permitted per lot or development parcel, mixed-use development is encouraged, subject to the following standards: (1) More than one (1) principal commercial/retail or industrial rionresidential use permitted by right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or established together on a single lot eF-site, or within a single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code and all other applicable ordinances are met. (2) Any combination of residential and commercial/retail uses that are permitted by right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or established together on a single 1Ot er-site or within a Page 4 of 9 single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code, and all other applicable ordinances, are met. For example, a two-story structure on a single lot in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district may have a restaurant or retail store on the ground floor, and residential apartments or condominiums on the second noor. § 5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS This Section contains regulations that apply to specific uses or classes of uses. A. Adult Business. (no changes) B. Bed and Breakfast Inns. All bed and breakfast inn uses shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Structures shall not be altered in a way that changes their general residential appea·FaRGer 2. If four (1) or more off strcot parking spaces aro provided pursuant to §7.11, visual screening from adjacont rocidontial usoc shall bo roquirod. 3. Other than rogistorod guests, no meals shall bo served to the general public. No cooking or kitchen facilities shall bc allowed in tho guest rooms. Should we have any specific standards for Bed and Breakfasts? B Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No"= Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Nightly Rentals Yes Yes Yes ~ Yes ~ Yes Yes Yes ~ Yes §5.2.8.2.9 e e. Rentals. (1) Long-term rentals (lease terms of thirty [30] days or more) of a principal or accessory residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts. (2) Short-term nightly rentals (lease terms of less than thirty [30] days) of a principal residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts, subject to the following restrictions: pfevided-that the following conditions arc met. All permitted short term rentals of dwelling unjts shall be required to: Page 5 of 9 (a) Comply with all the conditions and requirements as set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapters 5.20 and 5.35, and (b) Obtain o business licence if within Town limits. (a) Vacation homes shall not be operated in a manner that is out of character with residential uses This includes vehicular traffic and noise levels that are out of character with residential uses. Vacation homes shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low-intensity and low-scale residential setting Guest rooms shall be integrated within the vacation home. Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use (b) A vacation home shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party. The total maximum occupancy of eight (8) individuals shall be ~ further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two additional guests. In the event the vacation home is managed by a full- time on-site manager, the vacation home may be rented, leased or furnished to more than one (1) party subject to the limitations of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two (2) guests with a maximum of eight (8) occupants. (c) No changes in the exterior appearance to accommodate each vacation home shall be allowed, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (d) Only one (1) vacation home shall be permitted per lot in single-family residential districts. (e) No recreational vehicle, as the same is defined in Chapter 13 of the Estes Valley Development Code, tent, temporary shelter, canopy, teepee or yun shall be used by any individual for living or sleeping purposes. (f) Each vacation home is permitted a maximum of three (3) guest vehicles on site and parked outside at any one (1) time. On-street parking shall be prohibited. All vacation homes shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent of the owner for all purposes with regard to regulation of this use (g) Obtain a business license if within Town limits. Section 5.2.C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Page 6 of 9 Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresldential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Additional Conditions Bed and Breakfast No No Yes Yes Yes No No Swimming pools and Yes Yes Yes No No No No Must be located on the tennis courts same parcel ef-a-pefmitted principal hotel or motel use. as a principal accommodations use. Section 13.2.C 1. Accommodations, High-Intensity. a. General Definition: Visitor-serving facilities that provide temporary lodging in guest rooms or guest units for compensation, and with an average length of stay of less than thirty (30) days. High-intensity accommodations generally serve a larger number of guests than low-intensity accommodations. See definition of the term "guest room or unit" in §13.3 below. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (1) Hostel: An establishment operated, managed or maintained under sponsorship of a nonprofit organization that holds a valid exemption from federal income taxes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, or which is licensed by and operated under the rules of Hosteling International-American Youth Hostels, or a comparable hosteling umbrella organization approved by the appropriate governing entity. (2) Hote//Mote/: An establishment that provides temporary lodging to the general public in quest units or guest rooms and typically providing additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, entertainment and recreational facilities. (3) Recreational Vehicle (RV) ParWCampground: (No changes) (4) Resort Lodge/Cabins: A tract of land under single GWAGFGhip-aR€1 management with guest rooms or guest units available for temporary rental. The guest rooms may be contained in a main "lodge" building and/or contained in detached, freestanding "cabin" structures (the latter freestanding structures shall not include recreational vehicles or mobile homes). Guest rooms/units in a resort lodge/cabin use may contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of "limited kitchen facilities" if such guest rooms comply with all conditions set forth in §5.1.P of this Code. Page 7 of 9 2. Accommodations, Low-Intensity. a. General Definition: Visitor-serving facilities that provide temporary lodging for compensation, and with an average length of stay of less than thirty (30) days (except for permitted long-term nightly rentals--see 2.b(3) below). Such facility shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low-intensity and low-scale residential and/or rural setting. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (1) Bed and Breakfast Inn: An establishment operated in 2 aA-ewaeF- eGGwpied, single-family detached dwelling unit, or portion thereof (excluding accessory buildings), that provides lodging, with or without the service of a morning meal only, and where the operator lives on the premises. No more than eight (8) guests may be accommodated at any one (1) time. Accessory buildings shall not be used for guest quarters or amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. (Ord. 2-02 #10; Ord. 11-02 §1) (2) Hotel, Small: An establishment containing no more than eight (8) quest units or guest rooms that provides temporary lodging with eating and drinking service and a dining room where meals are served. (3) Nightly Rentals: In the A-1, CO or CD zoning districts, a single-family, duplex or multi-family dwelling unit that is leased for compensation, to provide temporary lodging for visitors and guests. The term of lease in this permitted principal nightly rental use may be either short-term (less than thirty [30] days) or long-term (thirty [30] days or more). See §5.2.B for nightly rentals allowed as an accessory use in the residential zoning districts. (4) Resort Lodges/Cabins, Low-Intensity: A tract of land under single eweepship--am€1 management with no more than a total of twenty (20) guest rooms or guest units available for temporary rental. The guest rooms may be contained in a main "lodge" building and/or contained in detached, freestanding "cabin" structures (the latter freestanding structures shall not include recreational vehicles or mobile homes). A single structure shall contain no more than four (4) guest rooms or units. Guest rooms/units in a resort lodge/cabin use may contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of "limited kitchen facilities," but only if such guest rooms comply with all conditions set forth in §5.1.P of this Code. Section 13.3 6. Accommodations Use shall mean a commercial, visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging in guest rooms or guest units, for compensation, and with an average length of visitor stay of less than thirty (30) days. Examples of accommodations uses include motels, hotels, bed and breakfast inns, resort lodges and hostels. A principal "nightly rental" use of a dwelling unit in the A-1, CO or CD zoning districts, as more Page 8 of 9 .. specifically described in §13.2.C.2 of this Chapter, is an accommodations use. On the other hand, an accessory short-term "nightly rental" use of a dwelling unit in a residential zoning district, as allowed by §5.2.B.2.9 2 of this Code, is not an accommodations use. See also the definition of "guest room or unit" below. 243.5 Vacation home shall mean a residential dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code that is located within a residential zoning district and is rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis as an accommodation. Page 9 of 9 5'rfuezc- My name is Tom Ewing, and my home is 1082 Fall River Court in Fall River Estates. 586-3667 I wish to speak to last month's discussion of business enterprises in E-1 (residential) zoning. First, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned last month that the Protective Covenants of the Black Canyon Homeowners' Association state that there be no "nightly rentals". It is a fact that the Town has no regard for such provisions. The Town has no responsibility to be acquainted with, to honor, or to enforce the Protective Covenants of a Homeowners' Association and at present may, if it desires, issue a business license regardless of any such Covenants. If a Homeowners' Association doesn't like it, it is purely a private matter for the Association to deal with by negotiation or by taking legal action. Since last month's meeting, we have talked with residents of E-1 zones and studied again our zoning codes. We have concluded that two very different philosophies or understandings of E-1 (Residential) zoning exist and that they are on collision course. (1) We, the homeowners, purchased our properties and built or occupied our homes with the understanding that these were residential areas in contrast with zones where business enterprises were permitted and encouraged. We chose to purchase our properties for our primary or secondary residences in a zone that was strictly residential and where there would be no commercial enterprises. (2) In contrast, the Town Staff purposes to insert into the Estes Valley Development Code of 2000 sections of the old Municipal Code to permit, and I quote from Section 5.20.110, "to permit the leasing, renting, and occupation of vacation homes in residential zoning districts while maintaining the residential character of those districts." Following this quotation there are fifteen (15) paragraphs and over one thousand (1,000) words given to defining terms, spelling out restrictions, rules and regulations having to do with outside appearances of homes, guest rooms and number of occupants, vehicular traffic, parking, noise levels, kitchen facilities, allowable number of guests, management, signs, out buildings, utility rates, sales taxes, applications for business licenses, agents, property managers, violations, revocation of licenses, appeals, etc. We don't understand the desire to penetrate our residential areas with commercial enterprises when our community has widespread areas zoned for accommodations and/or businesses. Residential areas are for private homes. Money-making enterprises such as so-called "vacation homes" belong in commercial zoning. They are businesses, pure and simple. Trying to provide for them in residential areas is fraught with insoluble problems. The decisions that must be made in process are largely subjective and give opportunity for favoritism, "cronyism", deception or lying, even bribery and corruption. Who decides whether such an operation meets the requirements and rules when the business license is issued? Who monitors each operation to make sure that "the residential character" is maintained? How are violations determined and who makes such a detennination? Who acts on such, and how? Think of all the time, energy, and expense that are necessary if the above-mentioned requirements are to be enforced. Doesn't Town Staff have enough to do without setting up this whole system of permitting, controlling, monitoring, evaluating, and enforcing regulations on business enterprises in residential areas? We believe that anv edifice that requires a business license has no place in a residential zoned area. If a business license is reauired. keep it out! That is just common sense, as well as integrity. You, our Commissioners, and our Town Trustees have to decide which way to go with this clash of philosophies -- to agree with our expectations as homeowners g to side with Town officials who want to penetrate our residential areas with businesses that, to be properly administered, require hours and hours of time and expense, subjective judgments, and opportunities for pressure tactics and ethical compromise. Finally, we ask you to honor our adopted "Town Vision": "Being a caring organization sensitive to the needs of our citizens, visitors, and employees". Thank you. r--::' .,.Str. 7 7-1,7 rei' 541: . r-„t . - I $ r g- . - 9-.. I. 1 0 1 n 4. a #3 1 ... ·7 '6-A U U i ..1 jr ...2.:....=- - -:'.- j iJ-ij ~ DEC 19 2006 I:i~j~ My name Don Gooldy and I have lived at 1071 Fall River Ct. Estes Park, Colorado for the last ten years. In regard to the pending amendment before the Commission Titled: "Amendments to the EVDC Accommodations uses." Definitions seem to be an important part of codes so I would like to introduce some definitions according to Webster's Dictionary. First a look at some sections ofthe EVDC and the amendment. Under "Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted In Residential Zoning Districts" pg. 5 of the amendment: e. Rentals. (2)" Short Term Rentals (lease terms of less than thirty (30) days) of a principal residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts, subject to the following restrictions". The restrictions begin with (a). "Vacation Homes", etc. Vacation Home, is defined on pg. 9 of the amendment." Vacation home shall mean a residential dwelling unit, as defined in the EVDC that is located within a residential zoning district and is rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis as an accommodation." Definition of Dwelling Unit, in part, from the EVDC: "Dwelling Unit shall mean a building or a portion of it designed and used as a living and sleeping quarters and that includes among other things a kitchen". Definition of residential, from Webster's Dictionary: "Of or relating to residence or residences." Definition ofresidence, from Webster's Dictionary: "The place where one actually lives as distinguished from a place oftemporary soiurn" Therefore a Vacation Home, under the definition from Webster's Dictionary and the EVDC, must be a place where someone actually lives, with a kitchen, as distinguished from a place of temporary sojurn. A Vacation home as described in the amendment therefore does not qualify, by definition, as a Residential Dwelling Unit and the amendment to the EVDC should be dismissed. Also, the section on Vacation Home in the Municipal Code of The Town of Estes Park should be repealed for the same reason. In addition, I fully agree with Tom Ewing that a Residential District should not have any businesses. ' I :I ' I -I - i: 1 - -1 i j ff, e'.. 7 21:;,3 ,¢i.. ·· ~ '13'£' ;1, 1 2 71 lo 1 41 1 ; 4 21 43: 111 DEC 19 2006 1 4 f.. 1 L,; ·1 2 1 Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Ct., 970-586-3667 We're not going away! I return on behalf ofthe homeowners of Fall River Estates to express our disappointment and frustration. Things are out of control! Nine months ago we protested the licensing of a commercial business, called "The Celtic Lady's Mountain Retreat", in our E-1 zoned area. At that time we presented our case to the town planners, to , the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and to the Town Board. We believed then, as we still believe, 9 4- that the business license was issued carelessly and even, perhaps, in violation of the zoning code. We 66~y "carelessly" because we don't believe that the·Pjanniag Department did their homework to properly i research the type ofbusiness proposed (easily accessible on websites and in newspaper and magazine advertisements) and also because the owners/operators ofthe business seem not to know, or don't care about the requirements, regulations, and restrictions for conducting a business in an E-1 zoned area. From the beginning of operation there have been, and still are, infractions in the conduct oftheir business which have, and continue to, create disturbance, annoyance, and even danger in the neighborhood. As recently as this past week their flag was lying in the middle ofthe street, on Saturday morning four vehicles were parked in their driveway plus the one that could be seen in the garage, and on Saturday evening, just after darkness fell, one vehicle was parked in the street on a very sharp icy curve preventing two-way traffic on the street in front ofthe business establishment. The business under question was at the time of licensing advertised as a "B & B". The Town, in spite of what it called itself, said, "04 no, it is not a '13 & B"; we call it a "vacation home". In reality, we maintain, it is neither; by definition it fits and is being operated as a "small hotel" in our E-1 zoning. Meanwhile, there is the attempt to legitimatize the business by proposing a change in the zoning code, bringing from the old Municipal Code into the present Estes Valley Development Code the "vacation home" terminology with a host of explanations and requirements in order to try to bring this business into conformity with the code. The procedure we observe is, first, give the business license, carelessly, we maintain, then change the zoning code to legitimatize the business being conducted. * Secondly, and perhaps with even more serious implications, in mid-December, prior to Christmas, we f9~'fltmported to the Planning Department that a model home, a show home for an out-of-town building ~-Tnucontractor and an allied real estate company, had been built and was poised to begin operation at 1050 Fall River Ct., on a residentially-zoned (E- 1) lot in Fall River Estates. Five weeks later, on January 26, 2007, a large article in the Trail-Gazette advertised this model home and its out-of-town builder/owner. We neighbors had been led to believe that this building was to be a private residence so, to be neighborly, we put up with several months ofdangerous parking onthe street ofmultiple vehicles of all sizes (as many as eight pick-ups or larger at one time), destructive parking of heavy equipment on A adjoining outlots, and extensive blowing oftrash and building materials into neighboring yards. Again ~m-,Ohiwe have appealed to the Plam,ing Department and so far no reply. This past mid-week there was a pick- »Grts,up parked on the street preventing two-way traffic, and this past Saturday afternoon there were two vehicles illegally parked on an outlot across the street from the building. We homeowners in Fall River Estates invested in property and settled here to live with our families in a residential area, only now to find out that "residential" means little. Yes, we're disappointed and frustrated. Yes, things seem to be out of control! ./---'..r¥ .~ . ...; -, I. ...#Z, ./. ... t 22:' ; 1 2=. #' / ' !.:m, ./. 4 : / 0 U 5 .! '111 13, 4 L FEB 20 W £ tl i?t 1 1 1 2.9 1 , . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 1, 2007 EXERPT FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MARCH 1, 2007 Committee: Chairman Pinkham, Trustees Eisenlauer and Levine Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt, Directors Pickering, Kilsdonk, Mitchell, and Joseph, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Chairman Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Vacation Homes - Policy Discussion J Dir. Joseph began the discussion commenting that the original code regulating vacation homes was adopted in the late nineties with changes made in 2004 to clarify and address limits on the number of people in vacation homes at one time and the number of cars allowed to be parked on the property. He stated that, with the exception of The Celtic Lady, there are relatively few complaints on the issue, but that some consideration might be given to establishing time limits on vacation rentals or relegating this to an accessory status, subordinate to the principle use of the property. Administrator Repola added that the Municipal Code does not make a distinction between vacation homes and Bed and Breakfasts, that vacation homes are allowed in all zoning districts and that the land development code also allows vacation homes in all districts, but prohibits Bed and Breakfasts in some residential areas. He added that a remedy is needed to correct the disconnect in these two codes. The Committee viewed a website for a local vacation home property that advertises weddings and executive retreats as part of their business offerings. It was noted that these types of activities have a much different impact on a residential neighborhood and questioned whether or not these offerings are considered to be in character with the neighborhood. Chairman Pinkham stated that the purpose of the discussion is to gather facts and information in order to resolve The Celtic Lady issue and to determine the extent of problems rising from vacation homes. Comments were heard from Jeanine Drahota/1140 Fall River Court, Don and Margery Gooldy/1071 Fall River Court, Lyle Jensen/357 Virginia Drive, and George Hockman/1625 Prospect Estates Drive, all of whom expressed general dissatisfaction with vacation homes in residential areas, the disruption caused to neighborhoods by the extra number of people and cars vacation homes generate, zoning issues related to vacation homes, the lack of monitoring and enforcement of the regulations by the Town, and the ill will that is created between neighbors and Homeowners' Associations when commercial enterprise is allowed to occur in residential areas. All agreed that vacation home regulations need to be more restrictive and that nightly rentals are detrimental to residential neighborhoods. Specific situations were cited regarding the business practices of The Celtic Lady including large numbers of guests and cars at the home; inappropriate use of the property; and weddings, seminars, and retreats being advertised on their website. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - March 1, 2007 - Page 2 Judy Anderson/Anderson Realty and Management, stated that as a property manager she rents vacation homes and advises her clients of all regulations related to this type of rental and that she, and other property managers in town, have three night minimums in order to cut down on disruption to residential areas. She stated that when complaints are received, the Town has an obligation to send a police officer to the property and enforce the town ordinance. David Richards/820 West Lane, stated the property adjacent to his is being rented by no fewer than 12 people and that the previous residents kept five dogs on the property. He inquired as to how to obtain information regarding county regulations related to rentals and vacation homes. Chairman Pinkham stated that property owners can adopt private covenants to disallow vacation homes in their neighborhoods at which point these regulations become the responsibility of the HOA to enforce. Administrator Repola added that the Town is not shirking responsibility, but codes and land use regulations need to be written to allow varying levels of tolerance and comply with service levels that the Town can maintain. He stated that when violations occur, the first point of contact should be the code enforcement officer, that the Police Department's zone officers will be asked to patrol areas containing vacation homes on a regular basis, and that noise disturbances should be reported directly to the Police Department. The Town has the authority to revoke business licenses and in the case of The Celtic Lady, there is enough information to warrant notifying the property owner in writing about the perceived problem and ask for immediate compliance. Trustee Levine commented that zoning and codes need to be regulated and enforced by the Town, although a very restrictive code is not in anyone's best interest, and that the information received during the meeting will help identify the next steps to take to improve the code. Rather than to overly restrict vacation homes, the Town should address the properties with violations. The Committee requested staff review definitions in the code and make distinctions between bed and breakfasts, vacation homes, and home businesses. 4. Community Development Memo TO: Planning Commission From: Bob Joseph CC: Date: March 15,2007 Re: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) The Estes Valley Development Code allows for limited Accessory Dwelling Units. The current code provisions read as follows: 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. a. Accessory Dwelling Units. (1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwellings shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single=family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. (2) Size of Accessory Unit. No accessory dwellings shall exceed thirty- three percent (33%) of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling unit or eight hundred (800) square feet, whichever is less. An accessory dwelling unit may contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water and cooking and food storage facilities. (3) Limit on Tenancy. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used as rental units. (4) Density Calculations. Accessory dwelling units shall not count toward any applicable maximum residential density requirement. (5) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. (6) Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number that 1 is allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in §13.2.C.28 below. (7) Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. (8) Home Occupations. Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of an accessory dwelling unit. (9) Lot Area. Lot area must be one and thirty-three one-hundredths (1.33) times the minimum lot area of the district. (10) Unity of Ownership shall be maintained. The ownership of the Accessory Dwelling Unit may not be separated from the principal dwelling. (11) Other Regulations. (a) A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other applicable site and building design, height, access and other standards for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory dwelling will be located. (b) In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control. Staff is considering revisions to the current regulation. In preparation for this discussion staff would like to pose several questions to Estes Park residents and property owners to get feedback on these issues. This feedback is likely to occur in an open house setting later this spring. Prior to holding these meetings, staff is interested in the Planning Commissions response to these questions. Do you think accessory dwelling units should be allowed in any zoning district? If no, what districts do you favor allowing them in? Do you think accessory dwelling units should be allowed regardless of lot size? If no, do you think there should be a minimum lot size? Do you think ADU should be attached to the main house? Do you think ADU should be allowed to be detached? If yes, do you think the property should be a minimum size (list size)? Do you think ADU should be allowed to be rented ? Do you think ADU should be sold separately from the main house? Do you think ADU should have architectural or design standards? 0 Page 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS EXERPT FROM ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2006 1:30 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Attending: Vice-Chair Hull; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Kitchen, and Klink Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Chair Pohl Vice-Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 6. REPORTS b._Acce,sory Kltchens Discussion Director Joseph stated his desire to move the accessory kitchens discussion forward by proposing changes to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)-specifically, to strike the minimum lot size requirement for accessory dwelling units, to provide that the ownership of an accessory dwelling unit may not be separated from the principal dwelling, and to require that the property owner reside on the same properly on which the accessory dwelling unit is located. Currently, the Estes Valley Development Code requires a lot to be at least 1.33 times the minimum required lot size in a zoning district in order to allow construction of an accessory dwelling unit, and the unit must be attached to the principal residence. The proposed change makes unity of ownership explicit, which is important because the code currently does not require new condominium maps involving only two units to be reviewed. Requiring occupancy of the owner on the same property as the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is fairly standard, according to the American Planning Association. The proposed changes reinforce the intent of the existing code language that an ADU is accessory to a principal unit; is for non-paying family, friends, or a care provider; and is not an income-producing rental property. Discussion among the Commissioners and staff followed and is summarized as follows: • If the principal unit was rented, the ADU could not be rented to a separate party. • Proposed changes would reduce the need for planning staff to be the "kitchen police" when reviewing ADUs. • A full kitchen could be included in an ADU, provided other standards are complied with. • Several Commissioners stated a separate guest house would be advantageous to property owners. • Enforcement would still be an issue, as it may be difficult to determine whether the occupant of an ADU is renting or not, or whether the occupant is a relative or guest of the property owner. • Removal of the minimum lot size requirement would allow ADUs on any lot in the planning area, provided other requirements are met, not just on large lots or areas where expensive homes are/will be built. • Requiring an ADU to be attached rather than detached provides a self-policing element, as homeowners are likely to be choosy about those they must share walls with versus guests/family members who are removed from them. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 October 17, 2006 • Perhaps policing of rentals should not be the responsibility of Town staff. The number of rentals units is a concern of hotel/motel owners in the area. • Allowing detached ADUs may increase density. • Current standards in the EVDC were adopted to protect the nature of single- family residential areas. Property owners in those areas assume the single- family character of their neighborhood will be preserved. If detached ADUs are allowed, the character of single-family neighborhoods could be negatively impacted. • Utilities in single-family residential areas were not designed for multi-family use. • The outward physical character of neighborhoods may change. If every lot has a detached ADU, neighborhoods will look very different. This may not be palatable to residents. • Multiple additional cars may be parked on properties; this issue may need to be addressed. • Development codes are citizen-driven. If enough people request a change, there should be public debate. Public Comment: Betty Nickel of The Porfolio Group stated the desire of many of her clients to have guest houses and guest quarters, and noted they are standard in custom-built homes across the country. She stated current code standards have caused problems for her and her clients. Property owners may build "studios" or other conforming accessory units and convert them without building permits at a later date. Her clients want detached ADUs and, given the money they spend on their homes, would not rent them out for additional income. Vice-Chair Hull called a straw vote on whether the planning staff should delve into the accessory dwelling unit issue and present the pros and cons of allowing accessory dwelling units, specifically attached versus detached units. All six Commissioners present voted in favor. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:33 p.m. Betty Hull, Vice-Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. a. Accessory Dwelling Units. (1) Where Permitted. Accessory dwellings shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling on the lot. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and travel trailers shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. (2) Size of Accessory Unit. No accessory dwellings shall exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling unit or eight hundred (800) square feet, whichever is less. An accessory dwelling unit may contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water and cooking and food storage facilities. (3) Limit on Tenancy. Accessoly dwelling units shall not be used as rental units. (4) Density Calculations. Accessory dwelling units shall not count toward any applicable maximum residential density requirement. (5) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. (6) Maximum Occupancy. The combined total number of individuals that reside in the principal and accessory dwelling units shall not exceed the number that is allowed for a single household. See definition of "Household Living" in §13.2.C.28 below. (7) Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom located in an accessory dwelling unit. (8) Home Occupations. Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of an accessory dwelling unit. (9) Lot Aroa. Lot area must bc one and thirty-three ono hundrodths (1.33) times the minimum lot area of the district. (9) Unitv of Ownership shall be maintained. The ownership of the Accessory Dwellina Unit mav not be separated from the principal dwellina. (10) Occupancv. The property owner shall reside on the same property that the secondarv unit is located on. (11) Other Regulations. (a) A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all other applicable site and building design, height, access and other standards for principal dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory dwelling will be located. (b) In the case of any conflict between the accessory dwelling unit standards of this Section and any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control. FRon/l Ocr. 2004 -fc 1*EE'i-iN4 RECORD OF PROCEED:M@8 EXERPT FROM ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6,2006 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Eatea Pa# Town Hal Board: Chair Cliff Dill; Members Chuck Levine, John Lynch, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Dill, Members Levine, Lynch, and Newsom Alae Attendjng: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shiet, Recording Secretary Roederer Ablent: Member Sager Chair Dill called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 3. LOT 24. THE RESERVE 2"D MUNG. 1401 Deer Path Court Applicant James & Susan Kutrubes - Administrative appeal of staffs determination that the Droposed renovation of an existina aaraae space constitutes creation of an accessorv dwellina unit. as defined in Estes Vallev Develogment Code Chapter 13 Planner Chllcott stated the applicant, Jim Kutrubes, Is appealing a decision made by planning staff regarding the interpretation of portions of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) that define an accessory dwelling unit. This is an administrative appeal, not a variance request. The applicant has applied for a building permit to convert an existing 1,122-square.foot RV bay into guest quarters that include kitchen and bathroom facilities. The applicant's lot is 1.25 acres and is zoned E-1-Estate, which provides for a minimum lot size of one acre. Planner Chilcott explained that an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is allowed if the lot in question is at least 1.33 times the minimum lot size; the applicant's lot does not meet this requirement. If the minimum-lot-size requirement is met, an ADU is limited to 800 square feet or 33% of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less. Accessory dwelling units must be fully integrated within the dwelling; they can not be detached. They may be used for guest quarters or mother-in-law apartments but may not be rented out. Staff looks at the overall design of residential building plans to determine whether an ADU is proposed, including whemer there is a living and eating area, sleeping areas, cooking facilities (including kitchenettes), sanltary facilities that include a shower or bath and a toilet, and access. Of these five principal features, removal of cooking or bathroom facilities would be required for the space to be considered something less than an ADU. The applicanfs submitted plans show all these features. Planner Chilcott read a letter received from The Reserve Homeowners' Association in support of the remodel as it is proposed. The letter states that the more significant issue is usage, not structure design, and that the remodeled area could not be used as a rental unit due to covenants that prohibit commercial use. Planner Chilcott stated that when staff reviews building permits they must focus on the design, not on the proposed use, in order to administer the Code. She noted that Town Attorney White submitted a letter which states his support of staffs interpretation of the Code. She also noted that if the Board of Adjustment finds that staffs interpretation of an accessory dwelling unit was Incorrect, the Board must explain how to correctly interpret the definition and the Board's interpretation will be used for all future review of accessory dwelling units. RECORD OP PROCEEDIMMB 2028% Valley Beard 09 A©1~w8rrfffi)301£ 2 June 6,2000 Member Levine requested the definition of a kitchenette. Planner Chilcott stated that a full kitchen is not required when considering whether an ADU is proposed. The applicant's submitted plans include a full-sized refrigerator, sink, kitchen cabinets, and dishwasher, which meets the definition of a kitchenette. Director Joseph stated that the functional definition of a kitchenette is an area that provides for food preparation on a daily basis. The combination of facilities proposed by Mr. Kutrubes meets that definition. He further stated that the question was not whether the Code is too strict or not strict enough; the decision before the Board is whether staff has correctly interpreted the Code as it is written. Publk Comment: James Kutrubes, 1401 Deer Path Court, stated the definition of accessory dwelling unit does not include any specifics on design or intent and noted his intent is to convert a large Ry space to allow for family gathe,ings. An accessory use is defined as incidental and subordinate to the primary use. He noted that The Reserve board reviewed his ~ proposal, as well as the EVDC definitions, and is in agreement with him. Although Town Attorney White noted that his property is less than the 1.33-acre lot size required for an accessory dwelling unit and the proposed area for remodel exceeds 800 square feet, Mr. Kutrubes stated that is not the point. He argued the Code was written toi neighborhoods where covenants are not in place. He noted that many upscale homes are being designed with complete guest quarters, including kitchens. The development code currently allows wet bars. Concern has been expressed by planning staff that the remodeled area could be used as a rental unit; Mr. Kutrubes noted that covenants are in place to prohibit such use. He stated his willingness to work with planning staff to provide a deed restriction on his property to prevent use of the space as a rental unit. He requested that the Board consider upholding staffs decision but make an exception for his project because of the private covenants that are in place. Betty Nickel of The Portfolio Group stated she designs and builds custom homes and has put in numerous kitchenettes. In her experience, this is the first time the minimum- lot-size requirement has come up. She noted that a building permit is not required to plug in a microwave or refrigerator, only to install a sink. She noted that the RV bay is an existing space, including the outside doors, and stated that guest rooms are a better use of the space. She stated the definition of a kitchen should Include a stove; microwaves should not count. Discussion followed among Board members and planning staff regarding the minimum- lot-size requirement for accessory dwelling units, staff's recommendation for removal of the applicant's entire kitchenette, and the current trend toward having full living quarters in the guest areas of larger homes. Director Joseph reiterated that the applicant's plans violate the minimum-lot-size requirements and include a kitchenette and bathroom facilities. Dennis Dakan, lifelong Estes Park resident, stated that his recently purchased Feside&ice at 255 Cherokee Court includes a second kitchen that was installed without a permit and created an accessory dwelling unit in violation of Estes Valley Development Code standards. He stated his support of the petitioner's request and his concern that he would be mquired to remove his kitchen. He noted that restrictions in the EVDC were meant to prevent two families from living in a home and stated that was not his intent. Mi'. Kutrubes restated that his is not trying to change the Code language for this ruling; he is requesting an administrataive exception. He noted that the kitchenette in his guest quarters is integral to his home; it does not meet the accessory unit definition of "incidental and subordinate." When questioned by Planner Chilcott whether he was still appealing staff's decision regarding the definition of an accessory dwelling unit, he stated he is because the proposed use is not an accessory use. RECORD OF PnOCEEDIWee Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 June 6,2[.3 Member Newsom noted that an accessory dwelling unit is a complete living area aside from the main living area. He stated that it is clear that the proposed remodel includes everything that would be found in a dwelling unit and that staff made the correct determination. Member Levine concurred and stated that the definition of accessory dwelling unit should be further defined. He urged Community Development staff to address this issue with the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Estes Park Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners. Director Joseph stated that the Board must determine whether the planning staff is correctly interpreting Code as written, not whether Code is right or wrong. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to uphold planning staff'e decision that an accessoly dwel[Ing unit, as defined In the Estes Valley Development Code, was proposed with building pennk application #8053, end the motion passed unanimously with one absent¤ 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Dill adjourned the meeting at 8:57 a.m. Cliff Dill, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary Accessory Dwelling Unlt Admanistrative Appeal ~ Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 ---------- Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 - www.estesnet.com I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: June 6,2006 PROPERTY OWNERS/PETITIONER: James Peter Kutrubes, Trustee, Susan Elainel€Gtrubes, Trustee/Jim Kutrubes ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL: The petitioner applied for a building permit, application #8053, to remodel an existing attached RV bay. Staff reviewed the application and determined that an accessory dwelling unit was proposed and that an accessory dwelling unit was not permitted on the petitioner' s lot, Lot 24, The Reserve Second Filing, due to the lot size requirements. The attached May 17, 2006 letter from the Community Development Director explains this decision and the appeal process. The petitioner is appealing the Community Development Department's decision that an accessory dwelling unit was proposed. Estes Valley Development Code Section 12.1.C. Appeals from Final Decisions by Sta# provides a mechanism for parties-in-interest to appeal final decisions made by staff in administrating or interpreting the Estes Valley Development Code. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment is the body that hears most of these appeals. In certain circumstances, appeals are reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Estes Park Town Board, or Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. STAFF CONTACTS: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director, and Alison Chilcott, Planner II APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) 1 REFERRAL COMMENTS This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and The Reserve Homeowners Association for consideratioh and comment. The Town Attorney, Greg White, submitted comments. His May 25,2006 letter to Alison Chilcott is attached. III. STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: b 1. Appeal The petitioner is appealing staff' s determination that an accessory dwelling unit was proposed with the attached building permit application #8053. 2. Staff Decision Staff s decision and the basis for that decision is described in the attached letter to Jim Kutrubes dated May 17,2006. 3. Town Attorney Review The Town Attorney agrees with staff's interpretation of the Estes Valley Development Code. The Town Attorney's letter dated May 25,2006 is included as a staff finding. 4. Petitioner's Statement of Intent The Petition' s Statement of Intent states that he is filing an administrative appeal of "Accessory Use" as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code. It is staff' s opinion that the Statement of Intent does not address the matter to be decided, which is whether an accessory dwelling unit was proposed with Building Permit Application #8053. 5. Estes Valley Development Code Definitions Below are the Estes Valley Development Code definitions staff cited in the May 17, 2006 letter. Accessory DweUing Unit shall mean a second dwelling unit integrated with a single-family detached dwelling that is located on the same lot as the single-family detached dwelling. "Accessory Dwelling Unit" does not include mobile homes, recreational vehicles, or travel trailers. Note: EVDC §5.2.B.2.a Accessoo Dwelling Units (Page 5-12), lists accessory dwelling unit requirements, and states that accessory dwelling units cannot be used as rental units. Accessory dwelling units are Page #2 -Accessory Dwelling Unit Administrative Anneal permitted for guest quarters/mother-in-law apartments provided requirements such as minimum lot area are met. Dwelling, Single-Family shall mean a detached dwelling designed to be occupied by one (1) household. Household shall mean a family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption, or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident caregivers) living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. Dwelling Unit shall mean a building or portion of it designed and used as living and sleeping quarters for a single household, and that includes exclusive sleeping, kitchen, eating and sanitary facilities. Household Living. a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident care givers) living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. b. Examples: This classification includes households living in single- family houses, duplexes, town homes, other multi-family dwelling structures, manufactured housing and other structures with self- contained dwelling units. 6. Board of Adjustment Decision If the Board of Adjustment finds that staff incorrectly interpreted the definition Of an accessory dwelling unit, the Board must explain how to correctly interpret the definition and the Board' s interpretation will be used in all future review of accessory dwelling units. IV. SUGGESTED MOTIONS 1. Uphold the Community Development Department's Decision I move to uphold staff' s decision that an accessory dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code, was proposed with Building Permit Application #8053. 2. Overturn the Community Development Department's Decision I move to overturn staff' s decision that an accessory dwelling unit, as defmed in the Estes Valley Development Code, was proposed with Building Permit Application #8053 because ... (Explain How to Correctly Interpret the Accessory Dwelling Unit Definition in Estes Valley Development Code Chapter 13 ). Page #4 -Accessorv Dwelling Irnit Arlminictrativp Anneal TOWN Of CH£$ PARK Community Developmen! Department May 17, 2006 Jim and Susan Kutrubas 10365 Galalia Longmont, CO 80503 Via Fax: 720-684.1806 Re: Building Permit #8053 1401 Deer Path Court Parcel Identification Number 25191-67=024 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kutrubas: Planning staff denied your original building permit application for the above-referenced property, which was submitted on April 24,2006, to "convert an existing attached RV bay to guest quarters." Staff has approved a revised building permit application, which removed the proposed "kitchenette." Your architect/designer made this change to the plans on your behalf to move ahead with the remodel. Staff determined that the original application proposed conversion of a 45' 6" x 24' 8" portion of an attached garage into an accessory dwelling unit of approximately 1,122 square feet in size. Accessory dwelling units are not permitted on lots of less than 1.33 acres in the "E-1" Estate zoning district, a single-family residential zoning district, and your lot is small than 1.33 acres. Lot-size requirements are found in Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2.B.2.a Accessoo Dwelling Units. Staff' s determination that your plans proposed an accessory dwelling unit were based on our review of the definition of the following uses, words, terms and phases found in EVDC Chapter 13: accessory dwelling unit, dwelling unit, single-family dwelling, household, and household living. Staff reviews the overall design to determine if an accessory dwelling unit is proposed; an accessory dwelling unit may contain only limited kitchen facilities such as you have proposed. If a portion of a building is designed so that a household can live independently in that portion of the building, it is an accessory dwelling unit, even if it provides only limited eating facilities such as a kitchenette/wetbar. Based on your discussion with Bob Joseph and myself this morning, our understanding is that you do not wish to redesign this space and want to appeal staff s decision described above. Attached please fmd the Board of Adjustment application form. Provided a complete application is submitted by Thursday, May 18, 2006, your administrative appeal will be P.O. BOX 1200 • 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE • ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 D./.Al. 01111.106'B .en......... -..... ... 0-- .-4.--A., --- --- ---- Mr. and Mrs. Kulrubas May 179 2006 Page 2 of 2 reviewed by the Board of Adjustment on June 6,2006. A complete application includes: the application form: a statement of intent explaining why you think staff incorrectly interpreted the Estes Valley Development Code requirements as they applied to your original building permit submittal, and the $300 application fee. If a complete application is submitted, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment will hear your administrative appeal at the 8:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 6, 2006 meeting in the Town Hall Board Room. Please be sure to attend this meeting. If you wish to refine your statement of intent, changes must be submitted by Tuesday, May 30,2006. Please feel free to contact us about any proposed changes you wish to make so we can advise you whether changes are extensive enough to require ~ continuation to the July 11, 2005 Board of Adjustment meeting. Please submit two drawn-to-scale copies of your site plan, floor plans for the exiting house, and floor plans for the proposed remodel, and one 11" x 17" copy of these plans by Friday, May 19, 2006 for routing to the Town Attorney for review and for posting on the Town website. Please submit twelve drawn-to-scale folded copies of your site plan, floor plans for the existing house, and floor plans for the proposed remodel by 12:00 porno, Wednesday, May 31, 2006. Plans will be included in the Board of Adjustment packets along with your application form and statement of intent. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 577-3725 at your convenience. Sincerely, Bob Joseph, AICP, ASLA Community Development Director cc: Betty Nickel, The Portfolio Group, FAX: 586-9437 0 C w 4 STATEMENT OF INTENT -LAKE ESTES VILLAGE The proposed development of the LAKE ESTES VILLAGE is planned for the site of the existing Lake Shore Lodge and the Lake Estes Inn & Suites. The total acreage of this site is 15.79 acres. Access to this property is at 1700 Big Thompson Avenue along Highway 34. The LAKE ESTES VILLAGE project consists of 15 - two-story buildings for a total of 103 units. The project will be completed in 2 phases for the site work and infrastructure. Phase 1, as labeled, will include the utilities, sewer, and water for Buildings 1,2,3,4,5, 12,13,14, and the pool. Phase 2, as labeled, will include the demolition o f the existing Lake Estes Inn & Suites, utilities, sewer, and water for Buildings 6,7,8,9,10,11, & 15, the entrance and main road through the project. Construction of the buildings will be divided into 3 phases. Phase 1 will include Buildings 1,2,3, and the pool. Phase 2 will include Buildings 12,13,14,8, & 9. Phase 3 will include Buildings 10,11,15,4,5,6, & 7. The possible future additions to Lake Shore Lodge is not part of this Development Plan and is shown for reference only. This development takes into consideration the applicable standards set forth by the Estes Valley Development Code with consideration given to building height, unit density, grading, and slope requirements. The existing wetlands have been mapped and include the required 50' setback protection. The landscaping will include the planting of over 500 trees and 1400 shrubs. The existing pine trees, many over 30 years old, have figured into the site plan to allow for over 90 % retention. H: i-, 156 125 0 ' 1:x:, d i. 2 1 -* Ilt...1.- I-Il- · 141 ; 14% :i Ul FEB - 5 2007 ;f jill :,1 ly * I - 1 ,, e -.0.....le. 443 43 ZE05-99Z-IOR LECE•016-10, O€!Val0100 4,21¥d S3193 ' 'M < 9911€£9-[08~gooqd . 0141 '§141.1331UBUil i20% 1 anNaAV NOSdINOHJ. 018 099& i i >~ 1 1 = 1- IiI 111 1 99V1-IIA Sa193 9)IV-I d li¥ 1 0= 0. 10 i. h 0 U T 111-7, a w--1-,4-Ar 0 4 u'-1 E : 1 1 1 50# 8 -7= n -1,4 1 <*Fi rue 1 : 00-00-0-0 4- 7, f f f f N N .i rd 4 0 - m L__-R fy 1-0 0 0 0 0 6. 4 6 0 p N "9 + . / . 00 0,1 2 . W wma § 22 m m 1% m. i I :w - 30 5 9 ill @ -0# & . 1$*.X =. T 1 & 00 4 00. O : 8 88 d * Z. 3@ 0 8 11 W 828 5. a m: I .. 04; 2 a g 1 1 . 2 7 1 0 L . 1 . 0 034 -le .... 85£¥12 2 : lilill- m 5 4 I lk#.1 61 68 2 1 3 E 5% N 0 AL -Satin: 0 A . 2 32 Z % 2 54- , i W 1/ 441 6% . -721 do 2 6 4,1 im 3 5 q O :Si -1 2 :6048 5 t: 0 90 5092 ~ -1 5 42 wz m Z . <WW. 0 6 8 ,§ M 351 12" 816%I J:im LE;21 . 2 %53222*29#29 :3 1 ki. d.9. k. mi:g U ~ 8 . 680 ELE '*52~ ' -XY" .OW - .N 65 2 L . - 28 02 05' ' 1.= a= 9 Z 32 mi 1w3R2 : 1 5% 53 4- ZE w.. 2 .2 k 1 i 4 2 22 af e m .%1k1 - 80 0-2 0. 3. 1==== : 15 0- 0 e ¥ 1 0 <1 wi wl -0 Z - 1,1 11 05 1 BE B.F F=. ¤ 8, 0 3. 4 85 W Wle! 8, 4 1 d -,1/1 m 1- 1: b 11 Mil i .21,8.0 13 .,i*' OO :O 0 20 dis ...2 Wr- 249@ I. li 14 3.. -- 11 - -Ng= i. =93 :=1 ~~ * 0 (0 Ge Ze.w=Ze 10 Ull U ;1 58 y: f lj.i?22 :8 #b '1 36- 3 8-*fo Z. 3 : -0 -3 il p 21 sli i *832* iE @ ligoillilli w :M m: 1-9-0 Z:,8*25 : 1 W: 22 ..5 .,020=-9 , W. .* i' 9.11 16~ ij ~ Blianaait =:Md Ige w/www.W R ~E =i Ed;41'932 - -9 it Zie M 3.36 ant /* i Er - d c. 8 320 O.- .C•.03--19.1 2 0&0 ... 51.w028=ww:@ M 42 0¥Z %88 15:.i:@E:.fild : N -8 N.Ef •i!#d 342¥2 1 85 -d; 08:54.: %% E- W 23*%02 Qux:2 ~-~ im:W Oug 0.17; N *Sizzle, EN REME 8%180@»18> :§ 2,5,8 9& :fal: 3 f *r 3.133:0 1 -r lili ' O-IJJ 5 U, 9 9 .i 0 8 0 & ME@ 3 0 1 1 2- - 5 3 2- -2 r 0, 2 I 500 UM N 14 2 \ r. 4 £ E w h -1,214 B 3 - . 9d Fil Di I .71 r41 NU tz..th ir,0 Nh 9:w » 24 6 9§§ 2 81.- r.1 4 203 332 y 9 8: *8 31¥0 SIN]r#400 838MON A3AMnS 1N3)43AOHdMI S?001*00 03SOdONd 313HON03 30 dol - 01 SNV~ *3AhlnS 1N3~I3AOHdM 11¥HdS¥ jO 3903= ¥03 N¥ld 39'¢NIVNO ONV ON!0¥80 ('07 68-L) 3 N¥ld 3OVNIV3O ONV ONIC¥&10 3Nll B3#Od N0UVA313 &10013 03HSINIJ - A313 1 310: =:I~~~~~ NOT TO SCALE 133HS 2;100 *Q'0)'81 90£'tr N¥ld ON[diaLS N031 3111000 - TO 9116-£91 N¥ld 3dV0S0N¥1 3Nll £131¥M AM¥Nnno - 3,AI&0 3N1dN33 IONI TIVA (3~77 N¥ld 3dV0S0N¥1 1¥M31¥1 331VM 18¥Nnno N¥ld 3dV0S0N¥1 Nyld ELLIS NE¥8 101¥0 31OHNVA N!¥NG VYWOIS - NV-ld 31IS 3Nn NI¥30 ME)ls (0&' 9 '„p"= NVld All-lan 3AN3AV NOSd Nndkingn 3dld 3GIMO1HO -UNIA AlOd = 611,40 99 30001 OMMON SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS SIH.1 NI SONNAVIO NO Ally¥SS]03N loN 33¥ Mol38 031Sll SNOUVIA 80 5108MAS NDUVA313 ONUSD(3 N0ILVA313 133,#NI = 31 113H0S . NI 0317,19,1 38 TIVHS NOUVA313 03SOdOB ..... '*Mvel S13)OOS ¥313)41 3Ht 3 3NO 30 SUAO.iNOO DNI1SIX3 ZIZ~kn555 30>CVS d01 - 310+4NVM NI¥80 INVO.LS 31OHNVIN B3¥l3S AH¥1INVS - H 3Nll ¥3,1,0,1 OV3Hh13,AO 1NVBOAH 3hllj 0/IlS!)(3 3dld 31383NOD 03030:IN (813) Sl.NOS3y 1311¥A Sll thiVMCIAH 3hIW 03SodoBd 3dld 1¥13ri 031¥DANWOO = 310d 213*Od ONUSDX3 = ·1Stx3 ]M ZI]1¥M L.0.9 3Nn 231¥M 18¥ONIONES - NOUVA)73 3N ONLA3AblnS h!31¥M ABVONO03S M34OS 18¥1INVS £1909 00¥ ZZL'£99 10ErOad JO 310HNVM hl3M]S AN¥1INVS lnON¥310 ZI3,A]S AN¥1.INVS 331¥M - A 3Nll 83#A]S 18*lINVS - SS- NOUBIBUI <]3ZnlnSS3kld - 38 1~15 S1N3,(3A08dri 3@In -6 2£ Lg9/ 1¥811/1 @3*JS 1/viINVS S31S3 3NVI 310HNVM SNOUVOINAMMOO liz ntu -310 3dld NOUVOIhlyl 032:WnSS3Nd-NON - 8- 03811103H 3NON 1N3M3S¥3 ON P SNIMMVd 03$0doad &1313rl S¥0 BOA 301A~M 3Nn S¥9 - 0- NI¥•33 01 Bal-0 DNUSD(3 ¥ S31¥ 03#01'13@ 39 01 88no SNUS=3 B¥ 19%1103Ul(] 01.13¥81 30¥&10 HSINU - NOI,LdINOS 906-999-0£6 £2909 0 LAKE ESTES VILLAGE 16 THOMPSON AVENUE ($3¥0¥ 9 J) ZZL'L99 ¥3NY 1¥101 ·ON nd~381 d¥1 NOILA¥0 HLIM d330 1 Z 13dVHO 33NIDN3 ,·UnMIZV N0Ud3038 1¥ Hd £ 0111 03]GIAIC 8 1 1 330HS 3)I¥1 S380¥ 6,59 3-latss COLOLOOZON NO 31¥Oslmn ¥ ONE 3 * 101 MOOH (9 1-3 1 '6 'L-E SONnlne (53B0 EL'£89 - 30VdS 3H1 01 0N31X3 11¥HS 3Nll M3N f01 69'Z '35 L99'rK- 50 N011!SlnOOV/NOUVOIO:KJ ONVI 3DVN •8019 C '7= -A. Ii. 1, 1 2[05-99M0R :-4 +10,1 Pin *Ir/Al ECIn -ft'A„„M I 0@It-££9-I08 01 =11'0'4 04%.IM.ID.nog DIE ..SRETE;12... OaVH0100 ')02!Vd 93193 9911·£0102 ~09/d 0,0.nvw 71:*„ ..%1*% .,UI 'Gul.133UIBU3 i-mi anNiA¥ NOSdrIOHA 918 099 & 4Jnw~Zy * 4%13} \ gov,-liA saisg g),vi , 1 1 1, 1 - ... g 11 - -- Imil: O i I ' --*MI HlyON 0- U :14 1 6 m f SES: . M f TE -UN * 9.2 Lqi*M yai in 1--~r ..6.-~~1- E Ellillia .E€Ll . ./ 88&2856; ~1 i' 8 id .mi.-ga . a ~b ~b 20 286 \ \45* « E Pilimi B i 8% 4 03 ail EFili 1 ./0/ E m 4/430\~ im" R @11 D ¢d NBd6-517£1hd SNiISIX 3 + WAA \\ 0 4 10 1 I I N *&2 *2 3% ti £1 6* 213 *44% 4 29 40 W. 4#£ .O'EL fia a.* 5~14~ 4- /1 W biplllilillitsQjj 'ZZaTTZ: m §8 I: mEZ 2.1 !!1 ./ L. -\0 1 2 1„A A *». €. I. 444¥. - 94 I 35 3. 9, 4 -4 :R .int :i I \ / N•Nan,- 6 1 1/AJ t€,44, 4 : p/- 4,4 \» - ak \ 4 / k. %*)1\ N12·12'32'W 155.90 \ (#12·21'50W IN411~50'W 1 156.133 b ,€€0 1 \ O in - \4 la,mix -Y ./ 2152~ 1- . 19\- Airilli '90 4/952:#Ad< ·g tr# :1>. I 0 / >/\ It>k o ,\ w<% CN O 1 1 351' 0 1 W.13, 1 \ ---- CooN ' .lt e o f 3 2* t -=fit\\\ft, \\ \\ 0 „ Mil / O Y ; ... 'F,;.- $ Lk..7 . I 96 A . 1 1 4 f..44 1 OP +~ 1 ./ .4. t.\ \\ 0 1 ..k 1 1 . l.. 4 n / i -~ 1 i.: \ d r«· . - r. 24 . 0- 1 0 \ / 4%0 - // " 4 Nt - / P-Ek-01 ./5/941 5 T 4 \ /: /7 / 0.07' // / I / An- r.<32 2 .3 I A \ 'Gy '0425>\ ./ /// o i- / / t < 4~ A \ , 1 /k n' 44 \ M ,4.--,4 m / Li i 0 1 2 ' 1, /11 -14 4 /9 - 151 11 \ / i /LJ f 't / 1 j W 0.1,1 1 latt nt.N I iii I. 3· fl 0 - \ \\ 42-0 A N° FR 1 A w w a. iii 0 -- RARAM 71 / 44 ) 1 I 4 I. i ~ VII iR - t=f 50- 1% i 04 11> 1 P"*29.8 0% 4 2•RA• - 4 A / I 2<1/0 4 ?5 9 , .lif. r --»2.7*9 /224 1 .. /rye 1 1 ARREE . - . £442 434' C i . - / 1,+ -No A 't l ..... lilli •-t 3.09,*23.6.7 -0 --1 -:9 \ ¥ 4 -42--Q 0/ 20 4 Q S / z C MP \El m ZI d _ j i 6 Q i 'i / 1 4% 9 30 is i 40 V - 31,5, 1 4 %1 /A- £ -Q/PR k 2 X /# txo \% 9 4 Z , Jt. b / d,% \ 1 - \91% In 4,» /'2· ~ ~~illirl Igh, . /ef 4 / V @k 00 /- |.01'9*92 3.00,93.LONI 0 01'91,92 3.00.80.ION) (.EL'9£9 M.Of.SE.LOS) R .fo-g,gE 3„00.go.TON .£9 9LS k.££.93.Los SONIN¥38 30 SIS¥8 % SNINOZ 31:1 3dkL / 0, - 4001 k 1339 /131¥09 1/NOZILMOH NO,96164-•00 9/,»I'rid...11¥A GaLS@ '8LCDO#b ON 31V1G Gals@ Drl 'I .101 22~ (Trp) R164O 94 SECTION CORNER OF t€05-99:-[08 :38 48009 /0 "M'of ¤KM 0812·£09-108 £01=9'0'4 a•Hao,Nio.vw..SEDN 991 1-E[9108 1/10,6{ :Ssmiaa¥ DNrn¥,4 EUM -~ *SIJ/,~SA O€I¥10100 'Mil¥d S31SSI 1 21 .: .,UI 'Gul.133u,Buil (53 YA SIANEIAV NOS.IWOHJL 918 099, 41"44 4) r. ' 1 E 3 1, i 6 0 ae¥17IA 93199 9),Vl d th ! ..... M. - *27€.·-·3?€p---~1 HlbION - i 55 22% 2 f i -- 88 - ; '.*--.I--. . Hil 11 11 1% i.¥1 RIJ- :ZZ. 1,101 5 Ent 11 Bi r w ...1 -! -1 -1 -1 -1 .Lm , a=gs % * . :g lam ..... iiiii // 4 4 d# 9 9 1, 4 41 =.32/81 N R # 0 1 ir/1 + mi 4 1/2 % 1 L#/ 1 ! ' {1 1 1 10 'P D 1.8. 8 1.131:13!13:!] 0 2'ilii : 485'EN m 1 iii! i j®illitliti ! m!!! 11 019 112 1 4111 T - g-~ i E '11 - u....0..0 -=.0-5a 11 IfF& 21 I IM min *MN Am i Riliii!.lii!!lie 1 » 1!841 i ix li $ 41 2 1, 10 :-9--g- 'al w Ii'illi !*m 1! " E F 2.234 - r L & El , 1 1... 3 ;i,jii,ii"i,j!~ i lilli fy'.9., 16 •411,5 45( 0 ES : 1111 3 ?8??f#355222223, 2 i,ii, !@00@81 1!8 0 55 52 41 4%89 1 4 E milill 1 1 W 6-11 - Mil &6664 ijiiNitililijit iIi!111 HUR! Iti W ..... 44 -IN I. ..7 19.wi CO ZONING 2 33 81 1- 1/imt/4 9-- --1--------=-- --ni r NOO'09'35~W 334.04' IN00'09'35~W 334.26'] :, L -1@~ - 2 8 - R irl Mp F m ~i i / 42 , R 1 11'14 I - AA 1 . 1,1"/1.Ii ,- -0 ~ 21 Bil@ / / 1 4[1- fv/Ve / cy ... . n' 3,1 /% 037 **E -- - 14:. ' 6 -4 4 +3/4,8<41 00' 71 /Ae f.4 1 1 1/U 1 1& 1»ek I / 8/ \..4 -- ·277-33€'TOTON.1 111 J / (. 'Ll, 3.90,90.LON) Q 1 901 1 11 2:·L t. 3.90.90.lON 9/ . /f 4 4. / AW / 21 . /,/fl>\ %-41 ioc, r. q 4, 42 0 1941 1 1 ..91 /541 1 lit 1 1 / i -Pi 4,5 r ~jft ~~00- - -- -- j :9 1 -37 1 1 131 /4/*2 / ( < * J ~ ,~fA / 0-1 MN , ' 47, Ble #1 *4 1 24 2166"45 C . // / 3 Qi 1(/Em Ill ir') 0 95 cf r/ · ~3· << \ 600,1116 1 ///7/ ,„RNia,· '024 -9 \*- a@ 4»\ 1 - 4=»lt--7-,5~ ' 47 1 1 \\ -5& / 3 N / J , A . /105 -Ex . , n la . ... ' W. ' : . . 29 - - DgEE~*Y ll=* 1 42 ol -Da - 1,1.- -ew wi>%1, - ..r--2.=-~ /\-i) r/ &9- b Pa \\ e 7%2'22> 4 4 4,62, 4»314 .*AH- \\2 4 A 1 1 1!l U . % i .. &5& \- 9 WQ/-4@~ 2 5-\«..\*1, 1 1 11 , .,/\J ' / i /2 /,27~-L 4 \51 . 0/ 1% 1-w-E2--zz~~Iy 02 12. 34 1 -X«74 - 1 1!, , : u lu C 'kia. R . : 1 1 - .1 i Q !22] _j-p ~4#frx . t- \« 0 / 1*PSdlf - ' t V ' Lr> Q - 9 -zir lf-- Q t.: g t 7 - 8 « 0/ -1-m #. 7----- ~c -04' z - 4.- R , +9 - -- .BA bi 8 9--aw«· --fi-----N; E E 11 gz [1- 0 fee N '.~ 34-© n *RE \=b e-4 . + 0 4-- - /// 3--/,» ~g A . 0 0- Imi / uuppl 9 +- .- e c~--- - _141 3\ 0/ 4 Re. rn . \ "2 /0 14 i I N , S , 1 -=A le / #¥74//./1- VA '-5-5 ki t >. r. I v r 0 9 9 99 '6'k 3 52 %43>¥ CO\Q €/ap 4 w w A 40 J .ii 40 49. er' \ --- N . r~ #M\.. \ / E N b WW / 0/A.uff"gy , 5~ 50 / 1 00 ir 12 5. / .. 05* '0 %23% ;2 / r lif 4 h 1 54 T mk 194%4 K 1 9 1 3 d i ·oov S31S3 3>rVI ..0 k¥ld hl3d .. '91/ 1.OL-9*92 3„00.94.LONI C.Z*'5*92 3.00,8*.LON) 9\2 / 4. -----0-- *NA_ - - ,90-992 100.go.LON 94 SONIEd¥38 30 SISVe 0 A . (»96/ 3.00,90.iON) -- - 1 -- ~NA -160.2.------ -e- -- O SNINOZ-•W-n i DNINOZ 3%3 4 th,2 I*-. -916Sq Ft. Emci,nuy Ilitch,n :NOM,dINOSNG NOIGGLL·,00 5,41~,4,-lillily. 5/15/ i7 1¥ M,bl 'E MUS; M,· - PROPOSED LIGUT-DOWNSWILED CONSTRUCT 12' SIDEWALK CONSTRUCT 5' WIDE SIDEWALK 00 MAIN RO ~ R40,0 ~ 4/spit f WESLL IMPS