The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREZONE Ord 11-18 700 Saint Vrain Ave 2018-06-26 Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: June 26, 2018 RE: Ordinance # 11 18, Rezoning Request, Rezoning Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700 N. St. Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-2 Two-Family Residential to RM Multi-Family Residential and Retaining a Portion of A - Accommodations, Vincent Chung, Prospect of Estes, LLC/Owner/Applicant. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing and make a decision on a request to rezone property currently zoned A, Accommodations and R-2, Two-Family, Residential to RM, Multi-Family Residential and retaining a portion of A, Accommodations. Location Lots 1 and 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, Town of Estes Park, located west of the intersection of Highway 36 (aka N. St. Vrain Avenue) and Stanley Avenue. See Attachment 1. Present Situation: The property currently consists of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Little Prospect Mountain Addition, with split zoning that is not consistent with existing lot lines. That portion of the property currently zoned A, Accommodations contains a motel (Twin Owls), which was established in 1955. The property also contains a four-plex structure which is apparently used as employee housing, as well as a storage shed. A portion of the property along Stanley Circle Drive, to the southwest, is zoned R-2, Two-Family, Residential and is undeveloped. Proposal: Applicant proposes continuing the motel use in its current location. The A-zoned portion of the property would be reconfigured and decreased, from 4.60± to 2.16± acres. A portion of the property now zoned ORDINANCE NO. 11-18 AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS 1 AND 2, LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION, FROM A –ACCOMMODATIONS AND R-2–TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RM –MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND RETAINING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AS A -ACCOMMODATIONS WHEREAS, Lots 1 and 2 of Little Prospect Mountain Addition are currently zoned A, Accommodations (4.56±acres) and R-2, Two-Family Residential (2.24± acres); and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes reconfiguring the two lotsthrough a Plat Amendment, and then having the reconfigured/amendedlots zoned A, Accommodations (Lot 1A, 2.16± acres), and RM, Multi-Family Residential (Lot 2A, 4.57± acres); and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop the RM-zoned lot, which is currently undeveloped; and WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended denial of the rezoning as proposed;and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning change be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1:The zoning of the subject site shall be consistent with the lots proposed on the Amended Plat of Lots 1 and 2 of Little Prospect Mountain Addition, where thereconfigured/amendedlotsshall bezoned A, Accommodations (Lot 1A, 2.16± acres), and RM, Multi-Family Residential (Lot 2A, 4.57± acres); and Section 2:This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF th ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS26DAY OF JUNE, 2018. TOWN OF ESTES PARK _____________________________________ Todd A. Jirsa,Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular th meeting of the Board of Trustees on the26day ofJune, 2018and published in a newspaper of general circulation inthe Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2018, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk Date: June 20, 2018 To: Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees The homeowners in the neighborhood adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 of the Little Prospect Mountain Addition to the Town of Estes Park strongly urge you to uphold decision to reject the Twin Owls Amended Plat and Rezoning Proposal. Our position is that: We are not opposed to the development of housing allowed by R2 zoning (including two- family dwellings). This type of housing can attract and meet the housing needs of working families. We contend that the current R2-zoned area of Lots 1 and 2 is appropriately zoned and should remain R2. We oppose the proposed rezoning of this property from R2 to RM for the following reasons: 1. wĻǩƚƓźƓŭ Ǟƚǒƌķ ĻƌźƒźƓğƷĻ ƷŷĻ wЋ ǒƭĻ ĬǒŅŅĻƩ ĬĻƷǞĻĻƓ ƷŷĻ ŷźŭŷĻƩ ķĻƓƭźƷǤ ǩƚƓĻķ ǞźƓ hǞƌƭ aƚƷĻƌ ğƓķ ƷŷĻ ƌƚǞĻƩ ķĻƓƭźƷǤ ĻƭƷğƷĻΏǩƚƓĻķ ƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩŷƚƚķ͵ According to the American Planning Association (n.d.), city planning standards interpose compatibility buffer. The R2 zone in this case serves to mitigate the effects of the higher impact zone of the Twin Owls Motel on the adjacent large estate-zoned neighborhood of 80 homes. Homeowners have relied on this buffer zone for over 50 years. According to Larimer County information, the Twin Owls was built in 1955, while estate homes directly across the street were built earlier as follows: 128 Stanley Circle Drive, built in 1943; 126 Stanley Circle Drive built in 1950; 151 Weston Lane, built in 1936; and 153 Weston Lane built in 1939. 2. wЋ ǩƚƓźƓŭ źƭ ƩğƩĻ ğƓķ źƓ ŷźŭŷ ķĻƒğƓķ ŅƚƩ ǞƚƩƉźƓŭ ŅğƒźƌźĻƭ͵ The 2016 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment indicates that only 0.5% of the area of Estes Valley is zoned R2 (table, p. 105). It also makes clear that housing options in R2 are much preferred over those in RM in attracting working families to Estes Park (tables p. 95 and 96) and retaining families (table, p. 56). Furthermore, the Housing Assessment revealed that: -aged households these are orts year-round residency and allows residents to invest in and Single-family homes and duplexes are preferred types of housing for working families (p. 12). Workforce households who want to move to Estes Park prefer duplexes far more than condominiums and apartments (p.96). ursue the development of additional ownership housing single-family homes in neighborhoods with the amenities desir are key for a diversified inventory or workforce housing that meets the wide spectrum ). The recommendations from the Housing Needs Assessment are also consistent with Chapter 6, We therefore strongly believe that this existing and yet-to-be-developed R2 area is a rare and essential asset for developing Estes Park workforce housing, provided the area remains R2. Ќ͵ ŷĻ źƓƷĻƓķĻķ ǒƭĻ ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķ wa ǩƚƓĻķ \[ƚƷ Ћ ŷğƭ źƒƦƚƩƷğƓƷ ƭğŅĻƷǤ źƒƦƌźĭğƷźƚƓƭ ŅƚƩ ğķǒƌƷƭ ğƓķ ĭŷźƌķƩĻƓͲ ķǒĻ Ʒƚ źƓĭƩĻğƭĻ źƓ ƷƩğŅŅźĭ͵ According to information presented by Van Horn Engineering at the Planning Commission meeting, the intended use for the new Lot 2 would significantly increase the number of people living on a small parcel of land and have a severe impact on local traffic patterns. No traffic impact study was presented with the proposal. ğ͵ The Estes Park Community Development Department expressed concern for safety with the proposed RM-zoned site. The staff report to the Estes Valley Planning Commission s-zoned site, where safe and adequate access to a multi- Ĭ͵ The sketch map presented by Van Horn Engineering at the May 15 Planning Commission meeting showed the amended and rezoned RM 4.6 acre Lot 2 to be used for workforce housing with three, three-story buildings for a total of approximately 70 apartment housing units. Assuming an average of 4 people and 2 cars per unit this could mean there would be 280 adults and children living on a small parcel of land with an additional 140 cars added to the cars from the 80 existing estate homes from Stanley Circle Drive, Highland Drive, Parkview Lane, Peck Lane, and Weston Lane and the 44 unit Twin Owls Motel entering Stanley Avenue. All these vehicles would create a serious bottleneck at Stanley Avenue and at the Highway 36 junction which is already hazardous in the tourist season. c. The increase in pedestrians and traffic-- and in particular children and bicycles--onto roads that are already congested and dangerous is an extremely important consideration. The intersection of Stanley Circle Drive and Stanley Avenue (where cluster mailboxes are located) is already a problem because the drop in Stanley Avenue makes it difficult to see oncoming vehicles as they approach the intersection coming up the rise from the North (Highway 36). Some of these vehicles turn onto the Southern loop of Stanley Circle Drive, passing in front of vehicles arriving from the opposite direction of the loop. Stanley Avenue is also a primary route for ambulances traveling to and from the hospital. ķ͵ Another traffic safety concern is the intersection of Stanley Avenue and Highway 36. Due to heavy traffic in both directions of highways 36 and 7, especially during the tourist season, it is currently quite difficult to turn left from Stanley Avenue onto Highway 36. This challenge is magnified by the highway 36 turning lane onto Stanley Avenue as cars line up waiting for oncoming traffic from town to clear. 4. bƚ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƦƌğƓ ğĭĭƚƒƦğƓźĻķ ƷŷĻ ǞźƓ hǞƌƭ ƩĻǩƚƓźƓŭ ƩĻƨǒĻƭƷ ğƭ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ ĬǤ ƷŷĻ 9ƭƷĻƭ ğƌƌĻǤ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ /ƚķĻ͵ According to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 3.3.B.1, private-party-initiated applications for code amendments (rezonings) require the application be accompanied by a development plan. This requirement was waived by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. However, re-zoning from R2 to RM has important implications: RM zoning would allow any of 22 possible different uses, with very different and significant impacts on the neighborhood. Re-zoning the current R2 area to RM would allow a 5-fold increase in housing density, a major change to the character of the neighborhood. This increase is in fact what the applicant presented at the Planning Commission meeting. We believe that this upzoning- with its drastic changes to density and subsequent development consequences- dictates that a development plan should have been submitted as part of the proposal. While the Estes Valley Development Code allows waiver of development plans, the circumstances under which that waiver is permitted are very limited, and in this instance, due to major impact and complexity of the proposed development, such a waiver constitutes an ğĬǒƭĻ ƚŅ ķźƭĭƩĻƷźƚƓ͵ 5. tƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ ƩźŭŷƷƭ ƚŅ ƭźƓŭƌĻΏŅğƒźƌǤ ŷƚƒĻƚǞƓĻƩƭ źƓ ƷŷĻ ƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩŷƚƚķ Ǟƚǒƌķ ĬĻ ƭğĭƩźŅźĭĻķ ǞźƷŷ Ʒŷźƭ ƩĻǩƚƓźƓŭ͵ There are many homeowners who bought their property based on the fact that the property behind the Twin Owls, bordering Stanley Circle Drive and Weston Lane, was zoned R2. An upzoning from R2 to RM, with the increase in housing density would impede the property and would change the character of this single-family housing neighborhood. This would be contrary to the directive by Estes Park Town Administrator, Frank Lancaster, in an email January 6, 2017 to Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. In reference to increasing density in Estes Park, he stated 6. wĻǩƚƓźƓŭ ŅƩƚƒ wЋ Ʒƚ wa ƭĻƷƭ ğ ƦƩĻĭĻķĻƓƷ ŅƚƩ Ʒŷźƭ ğĭƷźƚƓ Ʒƚ ƚĭĭǒƩ źƓ ƚƷŷĻƩ wЋ ğƓķ ĻƭƷğƷĻΏǩƚƓĻķ ƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩŷƚƚķƭ źƓ 9ƭƷĻƭ tğƩƉ͵ If this upzoning from R2 to RM is allowed, a precedent will be set for indiscriminate upzoning. Anyone could buy two estate homes on adjacent lots, remove the homes, have the property rezoned to RM, and build high density housing in an estate-zoned neighborhood. This approach -not consistent or compatible with surrounding estate-zoned areas. А͵ ŷĻ /ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ tƌğƓƓźƓŭ ƭƷğŅŅ ƩĻĭƚƒƒĻƓķğƷźƚƓ Ʒƚ ğƦƦƩƚǝĻ ƷŷĻ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķ ƩĻǩƚƓźƓŭ ĬğƭĻķ ƚƓ 9ƭƷĻƭ ğƌƌĻǤ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ /ƚķĻ {ƷğƓķğƩķƭ ŅƚƩ wĻǝźĻǞͳ {ĻĭƷźƚƓ Ќ͵Ќ͵5Ͳ źƭ ĻƩƩƚƓĻƚǒƭ͵ Review Standard 1: The amendment is necessary to address ĭŷğƓŭĻƭ źƓ ĭƚƓķźƷźƚƓƭ źƓ ƷŷĻğƩĻğƭ ğŅŅĻĭƷĻķ. o The staff finding that this standard has been met is in error. It is well established under around and affecting the subject property. For example, if new commercial development begins to encroach on an area or parcel zoned for exclusively residential use, it could be argued that a change of conditions had occurred. However, there has not been a change in condition in the area adjacent to the Little Prospect Mountain Lots 1 and 2. The staff claims that the change in conditions is the pressing need for multi-family housing. That is a valley-wide need, and by no means is it a condition that is specifically applicable to Little Prospect Mountain Addition. A shortage of housing, affordable or Therefore, Review Standard 1 has not been met. Review Standard 2: The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. o p to review the development plan for compatibility and consistency. There is no development plan so it is impossible to evaluate whether or not this standard has been met. The staff erroneously waived the requirement for a development plan, and made their finding based on assumptions on the complexity and type of development. Therefore, Review Standard 2 has not been met. o In addition, based on assumptions as to what the development plan will be, the proposed use fails to meet at least one policy and intent of the Comprehensive Plan The use for which it is already zonedsingle family and duplexes, identified in the Housing Assessment as most desirable for working families, is in very short supply as described earlier in this position statement. Changing it to more dense multifamily will not increase the variety or price of housing; it simply adds to the current inventory. Therefore, Review Standard 2 has not been met. Approval of this amended plat and rezoning proposal at this location is contrary to the inherent obligations of the Board of Trustees to enforce and abide by the legal standards for zoning changes in the Estes Valley Development Code, preserve the character of our neighborhoods, and protect the safety of citizens. We therefore, strongly urge you to deny this plat amendment and rezoning request. Respectfully, The homeowners in the neighborhood adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 of Little Prospect Mountain Addition: Peggy West, 153 Weston Lane Dennis Hurt, 151 Weston Lane Mark and Jean Wiesner, 122 Stanley Circle Drive Bob and Patty Bartlett, 126 Stanley Circle Drive Geoff Clark, 128 Stanley Circle Drive Richard and Liz Mulhern, 131 Stanley Circle Drive David and Susan King, 134 Stanley Circle Drive Gary and Irene Matthews, 139 Stanley Circle Drive Kreg and Jane Leymaster, 138 Stanley Circle Drive Jim and Henrietta Lehman, 144 Stanley Circle Drive Fred and Rita Ginther, 145 Stanley Circle Drive Todd and Rhonda Saemisch, 146 Stanley Circle Drive Bob and Diane Ernst, 147A Stanley Circle Drive John and Susan Gibbs, 156 Stanley Circle Drive Jim and Nancy Thomas, 160 Stanley Circle Drive Mark and Kelly Igel, 168 Stanley Circle Drive Greg and Marina Connors, 650 Highland Lane Don and Debbie Silar, 651 Highland Lane Ray and Luzia Sahm, 700 Highland Lane Ford and Merry Nielsen, 315 Park View Lane Jeff and Liz Spalding, 355 Park View Lane Richard and Jean Ralph, 395 Park View Lane Sources: American Planning Association. (n.d.). Zone Buffers: Solution or Panacea. Retrieved May 1, 2018 from https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report133.htm Estes Valley, Colorado Development Code. (n.d.). Table 4-1: Permitted Uses Residential Zoning Districts. Retrieved May 1, 2018 from https://library.municode.com/CO/estes_valley/codes/development_code?nodeId=CH4._ZONING_DISTRIC TS_S4.3REZODI Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. (2006). Chapter 6: Community-wide Policies. Retrieved May 29, 2019 from: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/comprehensiveplan Larimer County. (2018). Property Search. Retrieved May 1, 2018 from https://www.larimer.org/assessor/search#/property/ Lancaster, Frank. (January 6, 2017). Density bonus for workforce housing projects in Estes Park. Email to Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. Retrieved April 27, 2018 from: https://groups.google.com/a/co.larimer.co.us/forum/#!topic/commissioner_gaiter_public/Kw_itSnu5x0 Rees Consulting Inc. & WSW Consulting. (January 2016). Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Final%202016%20HNA%20Report.pdf A, along withall ofthat portion currently zoned R-2, would be zoned to RMMulti-Family Residential. This would be 4.57± acres. Applicant intends to develop the RM property and has recently done some additional, preliminary site planning. Plans for development were submitted after the Planning Commission review (and recommendation of denial) at their May 15, 2018 meeting. A narrative and site plan are attached, see Attachment 5. Staff emphasizes this is not a formal application or development plan, subject to any approvals, but only a conceptual illustration at this time. The rezoning has been submitted with an amended plat, which reconfigures the two existing lots, Lot 1 and 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, which was platted in 1927. The subdivision is recorded at Reception No. 328986 in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. The reconfigured lots are being reviewed by the Town Board concurrently with this rezoning, under the agenda item called Typically, a simple boundary line adjustment, rearranging the configuration of the two lots, would be a staff-level review process. However, the Town Department of Public Works requested the applicant dedicate right-of-way along Stanley Circle along the southwest of the property, and that dedication requires Town Board review and approval. Staff has attached a map showing the current zoning configuration, as well as the proposed zoning (Attachment 4). Review Criteria All applications for text or Official Zoning Map Amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other EVDC, all applications for rezoning shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Staff Finding: The change that the rezoning would allow for is to increase multi-family housing, preferably, though not necessarily, in the workforce/attainable market niche. Workforce and attainable housing are critical needs, but the community has a housing supply problem in other market segments as well. The need to increase available housing in the Estes Valley area is a condition that has been recognized for many years. The Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment shortage of housing is a more pressing problem currently than affordability; however, with housing in such short supply, prices are r identifies various issues related to the shortage and affordability of housing in the Estes Valley area. Increasing multi-family zoning and potential development is one way to begin addressing this. 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Staff Finding: Staff has waived the development plan requirement per Section 3.3.B.1 of the Estes Valley Development Code: to a different zone district or seeking to amend this Code by changing the permitted uses in any zone district shall be accompanied by a development plan. This requirement may be waived by Staff if it finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or T OWN OF E STES P ARK B OARD OF T RUSTEES, J UNE 26, 2018 700N. S T.V RAIN A VE., R EZONING P AGE | 2 other factors associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify determine whether a rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In fact, rezoning in and of itself is one of the legislative matters that should be reviewed for Comprehensive Plan consistency. By contrast, a development plan attached to a rezoning cannot be made binding. A concept plan is a reasonable illustrative component, as long as it is not made binding. The Future Land Use Plan, Fish Creek Planning Sub-Area within the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan depicts the entire site, including that currently zoned R-2, as on within Chapter 6 does not mention the subject property specifically. More generally, the Existing Land Use Summary in that Section includes the following description of the area: st of Highway 7 and north of the golf course, includes very diverse uses. Large-lot single-family homes can be found north of the hospital on Little Prospect Mountain. Small-lot single-family residences and multi-family development exist east and south of the hospital. In the Comanche/Dunraven area, a service/industrial area is located. South of this area, the predominant land use once again returns to single-family residences. On both sides of Highway 7 from the US 36/Highway 7 intersection to Graves Avenue, there are highway commercial uses. The Estes Park Conference Center and Bureau of Reclamation The Development Guidelines listed for the Fish Creek/Little Prospect Mountain area do not contain a great deal of information specific to the subject property. Guideline No. FC 4. does Staff notes the subject property does contain a significant portion of land currently zoned R-2, Two-Family Residential. The Plan does not identify or address this, but rather depicts the e: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to provide affordable housing. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. Although this is a rezoning, and the specific development plans have not been finalized, the proposed rezoning can establish the zoning to be able to bring about the above Policies. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. T OWN OF E STES P ARK B OARD OF T RUSTEES, J UNE 26, 2018 700N. S T.V RAIN A VE., R EZONING P AGE | 3 Staff Finding:Service and utility providers have indicated they have the ability to provide adequate service in this area within the Town of Estes Park. Reviewing agencies have not raised any concerns regarding possible inadequate service in the future. Staff Comments: 1. Potential density has been mentioned by adjacent property owners, where there have been references to inaccurate numbers. A 500% density increase was mentioned. To clarify, the following are specific calculations only for the property proposed for development, Lot 2A. Proposed Lot 1A, containing the existing Twin Owls motel, is not factored in, although additional development could conceivably be proposed there in the future. Proposed Lot 2A is 4.64± acres in size. 2.24 acres of Lot 2A is currently zoned R-2, Two-Family Residential. Four (4) units per acre is the density allowed (10,890 square feet per unit), with a potential of nine (9) units. 2.40 acres of Lot 2A is currently zoned A, Accommodations, with a minimum land area of 5,400 square feet per unit required for multi-family with a potential of nineteen (19) units. Therefore, twenty-eight (28) units could potentially be constructed on proposed Lot 2A with current zoning. If Lot 2A were zoned to RM, Multi-Family, the density, with 5,400 square feet per unit required, gives a base density of thirty-seven (37) units, which could potentially be doubled through incentives within the EVDC to seventy-four (74) units. The seventy-four (74) units possible through the rezoning is a 164% increase over the twenty-eight (28) units allowed with current zoning. Note this is raw density calculation, and should not be relied on for specific planning purposes. The calculation does not factor in potential variables such as slope, or subdivision requirements (for R-2 development). However, factoring in those types of variables would be unlikely to cause a vast change in the numbers either way. Attachment 6 depicts the acreage of each proposed zoning district. Advantages: Allows zoning that would provide options to establish housing that is in close proximity to downtown Estes Park, and also the continuation of a commercial Accommodations motel use. The rezoning would allow for a planned proposal which could provide some much-needed workforce housing in the Estes Valley. T OWN OF E STES P ARK B OARD OF T RUSTEES, J UNE 26, 2018 700N. S T.V RAIN A VE., R EZONING P AGE | 4 Disadvantages: Creates density on an undeveloped property. Increases traffic in this area of Town. Development in conformance with new zoning will likely involve significant infrastructure expense and effort, if feasible at all. Action Recommended: The Planning Commission voted and recommended denial (5 in favor of denial, 0 opposed, 2 absent) of the rezoning application on May 15, 2018. The Planning Commission concerns included questions regarding this being spot zoning, the need to maintain a buffer between the subject site and adjacent residential areas, inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and that the current R-2 zoning is a better fit for this site than the proposed RM. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission, and stands by this recommendation today. Staff has some reservations regarding the proposed RM-zoned site, where safe and adequate access to a multi-family development would require careful planning. Reservations include a likely need to significantly improve infrastructure in the vicinity, particularly street and intersection geometry and capacity. It is not clear how such improvements will be programmed and funded, by whom, or when. Finance/Resource Impact: None. Level of Public Interest Very high. Written comments have been received for this rezoning. All written comments are posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motions: 1. I move to approve Ordinance 11-18 to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700 N. St. Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-2 Two-Family Residential to RM Multi-Family Residential and Retaining a Portion of A Accommodations and the Zoning Map Amendment application according to findings of fact with findings recommended by Staff. 2. I move to deny Ordinance 11-18 to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700 N. St. Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-2 Two-Family Residential to RM Multi-Family Residential and Retaining a Portion of A Accommodations and the 3. I move to continue Ordinance 11-18 to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700 N. St. Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-2 Two-Family Residential to RM Multi-Family Residential and Retaining a Portion of A Accommodations and the Zoning Map Amendment application, to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (State reasons for continuance.) T OWN OF E STES P ARK B OARD OF T RUSTEES, J UNE 26, 2018 700N. S T.V RAIN A VE., R EZONING P AGE | 5 Attachments: 1. Ordinance #11-18 2. Vicinity Map 3. Statement of Intent 4. Application 5. Map Depicting Zoning, Current and Proposed 6. Sketch Plan Materials 7. Map, Zoning Acreage 8. Full application can be found at: www.estes.org/currentapplications T OWN OF E STES P ARK B OARD OF T RUSTEES, J UNE 26, 2018 700N. S T.V RAIN A VE., R EZONING P AGE | 6