HomeMy WebLinkAboutREZONE Silver Moon 175 Spruce Ln 2015-05-26
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Philip Kleisler, Planner II
Date: May 26, 2015
RE: Amended Plat, Development Agreement and Rezoning Request; Silver
Moon, LLC/Owner
Objective:
Consideration of (i) a request to adjust an internal property line between two parcels
(“southern” and “northern”),(ii) an ordinance rezoning the northern parcel from RM
Multi-family to CD Commercial Downtown, and (iii) a development agreement as a
substitute for a traditional development plan.
Present Situation:
The two subject parcels are owned by the applicant, Silver Moon, LLC. The northern
parcel is zoned RM Multi-family and is currently vacant. The southern parcel is zoned
CD Commercial Outlying, and is developed with a 44-unit hotel named the Silver Moon
Inn. The hotel and associated facilities (e.g. parking, pool) are entirely contained within
the southern lot. The applicant recently purchased the northern parcel to perform rock
fall mitigation work along the internal property line.
The northern parcel was initially a part of the Mountain Gate development. Throughout
the development of Mountain Gate the northern parcel was illegally subdivided.
Proposal:
The applicant proposes the following:
1. Lot Consolidation Platto consolidate both parcels into one (1) lot by removing the
interior lot line. The proposed plat will correct the illegal subdivision noted above.
2. Rezone the area that is currently the northern parcel to CD Commercial Outlying.
Once the parcels are combined, the best practice is to rezone to have a single
zone district.
3. Development Agreement restricting the use of the area currently comprised of
the northern parcel. Development plans are generally reviewed with any
rezoning of land. The Development Agreement will substitute a development
plan by requiring any future development in that area to go through a Special
Review. As written no developmentwill be permitted, including accessory uses
such as a small gazebo, without first gaining Special Review approval.
As outlined below (“Action Recommended”), the Planning Commission
recommends that restrictions for the area of the northern parcel be further
restricted toresidential useonly. This restriction would prohibit accessory uses
for the hotel (e.g. gazebo, picnic areas) and vacation home rentals.
Advantages:
The application is consistent with the policies and goals of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed Development Agreement seeks to mitigate potential adverse
impacts from future development to the neighboring residential properties.
Disadvantages:
Future development not determined at the time of rezoning.
Action Recommended:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed this request at their March 16, 2015
hearing. At that time the Commission made the following findings:
1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board.
2. The requested rezoning is generally consistent with the land use plan described
in Chapter 4 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application
will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
4. Approval of the amended plat and rezoning will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict
with the purposes and objectives of this Code.
5. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas
affected.
6. The Town and other relevant service providers have the ability to provide
adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application is
approved.
The Commission then voted unanimously (5-0, two absent) to recommend approvalof
the application package, conditional to:
1.Development on the former Mountain Gate \[northern parcel\] parcel shall be
limited to residential use only.
2.The following notes shall be included on the plat:
a. Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary
lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustment do not create
additional lots or building site for any purposes. The area added to each
lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be considered an addition to,
shall become part of, and shall be conveyed together with, each lot as
shown.
b. Approval of this plat does not affect the nonconformity of any structures.
3. Compliance with memos from:
a. Estes Park Community Development memo dated March 5, 2015.
b. Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated February 16, 2015.
c. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated February 10, 2015.
d. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated January 29, 2015.
Note on Condition #1
The Planning Commission moved to further limit all development in the area of what is
currently the northern parcel. The applicant submitted a letter dated April 6, 2015
objecting to this condition. Should the Board move to approve the application pursuant
to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, staff recommends including the
following condition of approval:
1a. The proposed Development Agreement shall be amended to reflect the Town
Board conditions of approval.
Budget:
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low-to-Moderate
Staff has received two letters from residents to the north. In a letter dated February 18,
2015, the President of the Mountain Gate Condominium Association requests that a
“restriction be placed on the plat restricting all non-residential (commercial) use from
being developed” in the area of the northern parcel. The letter further asserts that
absent of such a restriction, the Association opposes the rezoning application. A
nearby homeowner made a similar request in a letter dated March 16, 2015.
Sample Motion:
1. I move to approve (or deny) the proposed Amended Plat and Development
Agreement, with the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and staff.
2. A move to approve(or deny) Ordinance #03-15.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 03-15
2.Statement of Intent
3.Site Plan
4. Development Agreement
5. Planning Commission Report and Minutes Excerpt
6. Letter Challenging Planning Commission Recommendation
7. Public Comments
RECORDOFPROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
hadtheopportunitytovoicetheiropinionatthattime.TheTownofEstesParkandLarimer
CountyadoptedtheComprehensivePlanin1996,whichdetailedthelanduseplanningprocess
usedtorezoneproperties.Inlate1999,theEstesValleyDevelopmentCodewasadopted.Priorto
thezoningchanges,therewereopportunitiesforpropertyownersofproposedrezoningstomeet
withTownstaffand/ortheMayortorequestthezoningnotbechanged.Additionally,property
ownershadoneyearfollowingthezoningchangestochallengethedecision.Inthiscase,the
Liddellsdidnotcomeforwardtorequestthezoningremaintwofamilyresidential.Staff
commentedmanypropertiesintheimmediateareaweredownzonedfromtwofamilytosingle
family,andtheLiddellpropertywasnotsingledout.
ConditionsofApproval
1.Compliancewithmemosfrom:
a.EstesParkCommunityDevelopmentmemodatedMarch5,2015
b.UpperThompsonSanitationDistrictemaildatedFebruary20,2015
c.EstesValleyFireProtectionDistrictmemodatedJanuary27,2015.
Itwasmovedandseconded(Murphree/Schneider)torecommendapprovaltotheTownBoard
oftheRezoningrequestofLot4,TwinViewSubdivisionwiththefindingsandconditions
recommendedbystaffandthemotionpassedunanimouslywithtwoabsent.
4.4.LOTLOTCONSOLIDATIONCONSOLIDATIONPLATPLATANDANDREZONINGREZONINGREQUEST,REQUEST,PortionsPortionsofofLotsLots7,7,8,8,24,24,andand25,25,BlockBlock10,10,
TownTownofofEstesEstesPark,Park,175175SpruceSpruceDriveDriveandandananadjacentadjacentundevelopedundevelopedproperty,property,SilverSilverMoonMoonInnInn
PlannerShirkreviewedthestaffreport.Theapplicantproposedtoadjustthepropertyline
betweenMountainGateCondominiumsandtheSilverMoonInn.Bothparcelsareownedbythe
applicant,SilverMoonLLC,andhavedifferentzoningdesignations;theSilverMoonpropertyis
zoned/5Α CommercialDowntown,andtheadjacentundevelopedpropertyiszonedRM Multi
FamilyResidential.PlannerShirkstatednodevelopmentisproposedatthistime.Inorderto
mitigatepotentialimpactoftherezoningonadjacentproperties,theownerhassubmitteda
developmentagreementthatwouldrequireSpecialReviewforanydevelopmentontheportion
ofMountainGatebeingincorporatedintheSilverMoonproperty.ThisSpecialReviewwouldbe
heardbythePlanningCommission,whowouldmakearecommendationtotheTownBoardfor
thefinaldecision.
PlannerShirkstatedtherequestistorezonetheundevelopedpropertyfromRMtoCD,then
consolidatetheSilverMoonInnpropertywiththeundevelopedproperty,withaCDzonedistrict.
PlannerShirkstatedtheapplicanthasmitigatedsomerockfalltoprotecttheSilverMoonInn.In
thepast,rockshavefallenandcauseddamageandasafetyhazard.Theundevelopedlotisfairly
steep,withquitelimitedaccess.Anyadditionalaccesswouldrequireabandonmentofoneofthe
entrywaysintotheSilverMoonInn,andavariancetotheEVDCtoallowdrivewayaccess.Planner
Shirkstatedtheapplicationwasroutedtoaffectedagenciesandadjacentpropertyowners.Staff
receivedoneletterfromtheMountainGateCondominiumsHomeownerAssociationopposing
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
therezoning.Theyhadconcernsaboutpotentialuses.PlannerShirkremindedtheCommissionof
therequirementtogobeforethePlanningCommissionforanydevelopmentproposals.The
undevelopedpropertywaspreviouslypartoftheMountainGateCondominiums.Removalofthis
propertystillallowsMountainGateCondominiumstomeetthedensityrequirementintheEVDC.
PlannerShirkstatedtheStandardsforReviewwereasfollows:
1.Theamendmentisnecessarytoaddresschangesinconditionsintheareasaffected;
StaffFinding:Inthepast,rocksfromthecliffbehindtheSilverMoonInnhavefallenonto
theSilverMoonInncausingdamageandasafetyhazard.InNovember2014,theownerof
theSilverMoonInnpurchasedtheundevelopedportionoftheMountainGateCondosto
facilitaterockfallmitigation.Thepropertyownerdesirestocombinehispropertyintoa
singleparcel.Section1.7.Cspecifiedthatzoningdistrictboundariesshouldbelotlines,
andmakesnoprovisionformixedzoningdistrictsonalot.
2.Thedevelopmentplan,whichtheproposedamendmenttotheEVDCwouldallow,is
compatibleandconsistentwiththepoliciesandintentoftheComprehensivePlanand
withexistinggrowthanddevelopmentpatternsintheEstesValley;
StaffFinding:Becausenodevelopmentisproposedatthistime,staffhaswaivedthe
requirementforadevelopmentplan.Theproposeddevelopmentagreementrequiring
SpecialReviewwillrequireadevelopmentplanforreviewandapproval.
3.TheTown,Countyorotherrelevantserviceprovidersshallhavetheabilitytoprovide
adequateservicesandfacilitiesthatmightberequirediftheapplicationwereapproved.
StaffFinding:Utilityprovidershavenotexpressedanysignificantconcernsaboutthe
requestedrezoning.Anyfuturedevelopmentwillneedtodemonstratecompliancewith
EVDCSection7.12 AdequatePublicFacilities.
StaffFindings
1.ThePlanningCommissionistheRecommendingBodytotheTownBoard.
2.TherequestedrezoningisgenerallyconsistentwiththelanduseplandescribedinChapter
4oftheEstesValleyComprehensivePlan.
3.Ifrevisedtocomplywithrecommendedconditionsofapproval,theapplicationwillcomply
withapplicablesectionsoftheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode.
4.Approvaloftheamendedplatandrezoningwillnotbemateriallydetrimentaltothepublic
welfare,injurioustootherpropertyintheneighborhood,orinconflictwiththepurposes
andobjectivesofthisCode.
5.Theamendmentisnecessarytoaddresschangesinconditionsintheareasaffected.
6.TheTownandotherrelevantserviceprovidershavetheabilitytoprovideadequate
servicesandfacilitiesthatmightberequirediftheapplicationisapproved.
PlannerShirkstatedstaffrecommendedapprovaloftheLotConsolidationPlatandRezoning,
withconditionslistedbelow.Henotedapprovalwillnotaffectnonconforminguses.
PublicComment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
LonnieSheldon/applicantrepresentativestatedhehadnocommentsatthistime,butwouldlike
theopportunitytoreplytootherpubliccomments.
DanHerlihey/MountainGateCondominiumsHOAPresidentstatedsixofthefifteenbuildings
directlyabutandoverlookthesubjectproperty.Therewereoriginally19unitsplanned,butthe
finalphasewasneverdevelopedandthedevelopmentrightsexpired.Hestatedcommercial
zoningwasnotappropriateforthatparcel,basedupontheslope,naturalundisturbednatureof
thehillside,lackofaccess,andadjacencyofthatpropertytotheMountainGateresidentialunits
andotheradjacentresidentialparcels.Iftherezoningrequestwasapproved,theHOArequested
arestrictiontotheundevelopedparceltoresidentialuse.Thiswouldeasetheirconcernsabout
thepotentialforcommercialdevelopmentonthatparcel.
ReneKrahn/Townresidentwasconcernedaboutfuturedevelopmentonsuchasteeplot.He
agreedwithMr.IĻƩƌźŷĻǤƭcomments.
StaffandCommissionDiscussion
None.
ConditionsofApproval
1.Thefollowingnotesshallbeincludedontheplat:
a.Boundarylinesindicatedonthismapareadjustmentsofformerboundarylinesofthe
propertydepictedhereon.Suchadjustmentsdonotcreateadditionallotsorbuilding
sitesforanypurposes.Theareaaddedtoeachlotshownhereonbysuchadjustmentis
tobeconsideredanadditionto,shallbecomepartof,andshallbeconveyedtogether
with,eachlotasshown.
b.Approvalofthisplatdoesnotaffectthenonconformityofanystructures.
2.Compliancewithmemosfrom:
a.EstesParkCommunityDevelopmentmemodatedMarch5,2015
b.EstesParkUtilitiesDepartmentmemodatedFebruary16,2015
c.EstesValleyFireProtectionDistrictmemodatedFebruary20,2015
d.EstesParkSanitationDistrictmemodatedJanuary29,2015
Itwasmovedandseconded(Hills/Murphree)torecommendapprovaloftheLotConsolidation
Platwiththefindingsandconditionsrecommendedbystaffandthemotionpassed
unanimouslywithtwoabsent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
March 17, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Itwasmovedandseconded(Schneider/Hills)torecommendapprovalofRezoningfromRM
MultiFamilyResidential to/5Α CommercialDowntown withthefindingsandconditions
recommendedbystaff,whilelimitingdevelopmentonthecurrentlyundevelopedpropertyto
onlyresidentialuse,andthemotionpassedunanimouslywithtwoabsent.
5.
ASPIREWELLNESSCOMPLEXATTHESTANLEY;AMENDEDSPECIALREVIEW201401;TBD
SteamerDrive
PlannerKleislerreviewedthestaffreport.HestatedtheapplicantreceivedapprovalbyTown
BoardofSpecialReview201401inFebruary,2014.ThesiteisLot4oftheStanleyHistoric
District,andiszoned!Α!ĭĭƚƒƒƚķğƷźƚƓƭ͵StanleyVillageShoppingCenterislocatedtothesouth,
andpublicopenspaceisonthewest,StanleyHotelcomplextothenorthwest,andamixof
singlefamilyresidentialandoutlotstothenortheast.Theoriginalapprovalincludedan
Accommodations1building,aWellnessCenter,andtheAccommodations2building.Theoriginal
developmentplanproposedbuildingtheWellnessCenterandtheAccommodations1buildingsas
separatebuildings,alongwiththeinfrastructurethatincludedtheparkinglots.The
Accommodations2buildingwasonlyaconceptualfootprint,withanundeterminedconstruction
date(partofafuturephase).Theapplicantisnowrequestingapprovaltoconstructthe
Accommodations2buildingfirst,withtheWellnessCenterandAccommodations1buildingto
followoncetheEstesParkMedicalCenter(EPMC)obtainsnecessaryfunding.WhenEPMC
realizedtheoriginalseparatebuildingswerenottheideallayoutfordaytodayoperations,they
approachedtheapplicantaboutͻŅǒƭźƓŭͼtheWellnessCenterandtheAccommodations1
buildingtogether,allowingclientseasieraccessibilitytobothbuildings.PlannerKleislerdisplayed
adiagramoftheapprovedplan,andoverlayedtheproposedchangestoallowabettervisualfor
theCommissionersandpublicinattendance.HestatedbecausetheAccommodations2building
wasonlyaconceptwiththefirstapproval,theapplicationbeingreviewedtodayincludesan
architecturalreviewandanalysis.Thechangesincludeaslightlylargerfootprintforthefused
buildings,andashiftoftheAccommodations2buildingapproximatelyfive(5)feettothe
northwest.Theoriginalconstructionphaseswouldbereversed.
PlannerKleislerstatedtheprocessandreviewcriteriaincludedthefollowing:consistencywith
thegoalsandobjectivesoftheEstesValleyComprehensivePlan(thisparcelispartofthe
DowntownNeighborhood);compliancewiththeEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC);and
compliancewiththeStanleyHistoricDistrictguidelines,whicharelocatedintheEstesPark
MunicipalCode.TheStanleyHistoricDistrictMasterPlandoesnotapplytothisspecificlot.The
PlanningCommissionistherecommendingbody,withtheTownBoardhearingtheitemon
Tuesday,March24,2015forafinaldecision.PlannerKleislerstatedtheSpecialReviewcriteria
requiresapplicationsmitigate,tothemaximumextentfeasible,potentialadverseimpactson
nearbylanduses,publicfacilitiesandservices,andtheenvironment.Theapplicationshould
accomplishtheseinordertoreceiveapositiverecommendationbythePlanningCommission.
PlannerKleislerstatedtheStanleyHistoricDistrictguidelinesincludeviewcorridorsfromthe
StanleyHotel.TheAccommodations2buildingisproposedtoliejustoutsideaviewcorridor,and
March 16, 2015
Estes Valley Planning Commission
PO Box 1200
Estes Park CO 80517
Re: Silver Moon Inn Lot Consolidation Plat and Rezoning
Dear Planning Commission Members:
As the owners of Mountain Gate Condo Unit H, which is located on the southeast corner of the
Mountain Gate Condominium Development at the edge of the wall associated with the former
Lewiston Hotel, we have enjoyed looking out over that beautiful property toward town and the
mountains every day of the four or five months a year that we have been spending there for the
last 10 years. We have also appreciated viewing the wildlife that often makes its way on a trail
through the ravine, below our property and on around the bottom of the wall to the west.
Though we are very pleased that the Silver Moon, LLC has purchased the property with no plans to
develop it and that they have submitted a development agreement that would require Special
Review on the portion of the Mountain Gate property being incorporated into their property, we
are writing today to share our concerns and discomfort about the possible negative effects of the
commercial zoning designation on our property and others in our Association and their potential
real estate values in the future. Ironically when we bought our condo we were concerned about
the potential development of that property by the owners at that time, but were relieved to learn
that their original permit had expired and that the residential zoning codes in Estes Park had since
been tightened up a little making the development of that property less dense than it might have
been before. Therefore we would really like to see a restriction placed on the rezoned area
restricting all non-residential development from the parcel, particularly since we are planning to
move to Estes Park full time this summer!
We are sorry that we are not able to be at the hearing in person. My husband, Gordon Dyck, was
th
diagnosed with ALS last fall at the Cleveland Clinic. On Wednesday morning, the 18, we will be in
Cleveland spending the entire morning at our first ALS Clinic meeting with several doctors, physical
therapists and other health professionals. Gordons diagnosis is another reason that I decided to
write this letter, since he has so appreciated being in Estes Park as he learns to live with ALS where
he gains strength from the beauty of the morning sunrise from our condo windows, the great
views from our patio and the support of the wonderful friends and neighbors around him!
Thanks for giving this letter and the Mountain Gate Condo Associations memo your consideration.
Judith A Beechy
315 Big Horn Drive, Unit H
Estes Park CO 80517