HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2024-05-21This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page at www.estes.org/videos
ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written comments on a specific agenda item by
completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/EPPCPublicComment. The form must
be submitted by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting. All comments will be provided to the Commission for
consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet.
__________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, May 21, 2024
1:30 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
INTRODUCTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENT items not on the agenda (Please state your name and address).
CONSENT AGENDA
1.Planning Commission Minutes dated March 19, 2024
ACTION ITEMS
1.Election of 2024 officers: Chair and Vice Chair
2. Rezone 540-550 W Elkhorn Ave Planner Hornbeck
Applicant proposes to rezone 0.84 acres from RM - Multi-Family Residential to
CO - Commercial Outlying
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
ADJOURN
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
May 14, 2024 1
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 19, 2024
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in said Town of Estes Park
on March 19, 2024.
Commission: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser, Charles
Cooper, Chris Pawson, David Shirk
Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice-Chair Heiser, Commissioners Cooper,
Shirk, Community Development Steve Careccia, Senior
Planner Paul Hornbeck, Recording Secretary Karin
Swanlund, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board Liaison
Barbara MacAlpine
Absent: Pawson, Shirk
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were eight people in
attendance.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Cooper) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 3-0.
INTRODUCTIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Cooper/Heiser) to approve the consent agenda. The
motion passed 3-0.
ACTION ITEMS
Election of Officers:
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Cooper) to table the item to the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed 3-0.
Development Plan Dream View Inn on Fall River Senior Planner Hornbeck
Hansen/Dale LLC, owner/applicant
The proposed development includes 11 new accommodation units in four buildings and
one existing cabin. Also proposed is a swimming pool, laundry facility, and guest
parking. On-site development is limited to Lot 1, where topography, while considerable,
is less steep than that of Lot 2, where no development is proposed. Off-site
improvements include replacing the private access drive and bridge on the property to
the east. Staff recommended approval of the Dream View Development Plan and Minor
Modification requests, subject to the following conditions:
1.All staff and outside agency comments shall be addressed prior to issuance of
the first building permit;
2.Applicant shall have a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) or Traffic Letter accepted by
CDOT prior to issuance of a building permit;
3.A CDOT State Highway Access Permit must be issued prior to beginning any
work in the Fall River Road ROW and prior to issuance of a building permit. A
Town ROW permit is also required based on the CDOT Access Permit;
4.Floodplain Development Permit (FDP) shall be provided and approved before
Construction Plans are submitted;
dra
f
t
3
Planning Commission – March 19, 2024 – Page 2
5.The Floodplain Development Permit (FDP) and bridge design submittal shall be
approved prior to the Town Engineer signing the Development Plan;
6.Construction plans shall be approved prior to issuance of first building permit;
7.No Certificates of Occupancy (COs) will be approved until the off-site bridge is
constructed and the FDP is closed out;
8.An erosion control plan sheet shall be required with the construction plans for the
development, in accordance with the Mile High Flood District Urban Storm
Drainage Criteria Manual and other current standards. The erosion control
measures must be installed prior to beginning any grading or work on the site;
9.A Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment COR400000
Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit is required and must be in place prior
to beginning any grading or work on the site;
10. Density Agreement shall be recorded prior to issuance of first building permit;
11. Landscape Plan shall be finalized with the Development Plan in accordance with
staff comments prior to the Development Plan being signed by the Planning
Commission Chair;
12. Reciprocal parking license shall be amended to guarantee the use of off-site
parking for a minimum of 10 years in accordance with EPDC §7.11.G.1.d and be
recorded prior to issuance of the first building permit;
13. All exterior light fixtures shall be dark sky compliant in accordance with EPDC
§7.9; and
14. Trees and vegetation shall be protected in accordance with EPDC §7.3 and as
depicted on the Landscape Plan.
Vice-Chair Hieser stated that he has a business relationship with the applicant and that
no discussion of this project has occurred.
Discussion:
David Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, was available to answer questions.
Stormwater drainage will collect on the northeast end of the parking areas. Most flow is
captured in curb and gutter and rock bed and dispersed through vegetation before
discharge into the river.
Attorney Kramer explained that the number of conditions included was to speed up the
approval. The Commission can continue the project; however, if the review criteria are
met, moving forward with the conditions is okay. A suggestion was made that a
Planning Commission Resolution could help simplify this type of situation in the future.
Chair Comstock had concerns with the removal of trees. Code states that if you remove
one, you need to replace it with two. It was explained that an exception to this is for
expressly approved construction activity (7.3.d.5 of the Development Code).
Borrowing parking and dumpster use from the adjacent property, which the same owner
owns, was discussed. The Development Code requires use of off-site parking which
must be guaranteed for a minimum of 10 years.. The density agreement will run with the
land.
Public Comment: none
dra
f
t
4
Planning Commission – March 19, 2024 – Page 3
Heiser spoke on future developments like this, stating that challenges should not restrict
owners from utilizing their property. This plan works well with the land.
Bob Choat, legal counsel for the applicant, explained the exception of the tree
replacement to the Commission, stating that it encourages good planning and doesn’t
swallow the rule.
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Cooper) to approve the Development Plan and
Minor Modifications, according to findings recommended by Staff, including the findings
listed throughout the Staff Report and with the conditions recommended by Staff.
The motion passed 3-0.
REPORTS:
Development Code rewrites will be discussed with the Town Board on March 26,
emphasizing the RFP. A complete rewrite would be preferred.
With two open positions and only one applicant, filling the positions for the Planning
Commission is actively being discussed.
There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m.
_______________________________
Chair Comstock
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
dra
f
t
5
6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Chair Matt Comstock
Estes Park Planning Commission
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Date: May 21, 2024
Application: Zoning Map Amendment of 540 and 550 West Elkhorn Avenue from RM
(Multi-Family Residential) to CO (Outlying Commercial)
Elkhorn Plaza Association, Owner/
Van Horn Engineering, Joe Coop/ Applicant
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation of denial to the Town Board of Trustees, subject to the
findings described in the staff report.
Land Use:
Comprehensive Plan Designation: (Future Land Use): Downtown
Existing Zoning District: RM (Multi-Family Residential)
Site Area: 0.84 Acres
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to consider an application for a proposed Zoning Map
Amendment (rezoning) from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to CO (Outlying
Commercial), review the application for compliance with the Estes Park Development
Code (EPDC), and make a recommendation to Town Board.
Present Situation:
540 and 550 West Elkhorn Avenue is a 0.84 acre site that is currently zoned RM (Multi-
Family Residential), and contains fifteen residential condominium units in two buildings.
An application has been submitted by the owner’s association on behalf of the individual
owners to rezone the property.
7
2
According to County Assessor records, the buildings were constructed as
condominiums in 1968 and 1970. As of April 1, 2024, four of the units are licensed by
the Town of Estes Park as Vacation Rentals. Historically, the property was commercially
zoned, with zoning maps from 1974 depicting the property as C-2 Restricted
Commercial and 1989 as C-O Outlying Commercial. In 2000 the property was rezoned
from C-O to R-M as a part of the larger valley-wide update to land use regulations and
the zoning map. At that time, the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners approved a new Official Zoning Map and Estes
Valley Development Code which replaced and amended the existing Code and Map.
There is no record as to why this particular property was rezoned at that time, but one
possible explanation is that commercial zoning did not match the residential use of the
property. The zoning of a property should be consistent with the existing uses onsite
whenever a zoning change is considered.
Vicinity Map
Subject
Property
8
3
Zoning
Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING USES
SUBJECT PARCEL Downtown RM (Multi-Family Residential) Residential
NORTH Downtown A (Accommodations) Accommodations/
Undeveloped
SOUTH Downtown A (Accommodations) Accessory Use to
Accommodations
EAST Downtown A (Accommodations) Undeveloped
WEST Downtown A (Accommodations) Accommodations
Proposal:
The applicant has requested to rezone 540 and 550 West Elkhorn Avenue from RM
(Multi-Family Residential) to CO (Outlying Commercial). The statement of intent
(Attachment #2) indicates the rezoning is being driven by a desire to combine the
subject parcels and the parcel to the north into a single parcel to be consistent with the
E-1
CO
A
Subject
Property
Zoned RM
RM
CO
W. Elkhorn Ave
9
4
property’s condominium declarations. All three parcels are owned by the Elkhorn Plaza
Owner’s Association but have different zoning, with the northern parcel zoned CO and
the southern parcels zoned RM. Combining the three parcels without rezoning either the
subject parcels to CO or the northern parcel RM would result in split zoning (i.e. a parcel
with more than one zone district). The Estes Park Development Code (EPDC)
discourages, but does not prohibit, split zoning, and best practice is to avoid split zoning
due to the complications it can cause.
The statement of intent indicates other rationale for the rezoning, including:
• Making future redevelopment more viable (no redevelopment is planned at this
time)
• Lack of awareness of the owners of the 2000 rezoning and a desire to return to
the previous zoning
• Consistency with neighboring lots
• Ability to rent the units as vacation rentals
All applications for text or Official Zoning Map Amendments shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and Town Board for compliance with the relevant standards and
criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the EPDC. In accordance
with Section 3.3D “Standards for Review” of the EPDC, 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 Discussion: There have been changes in conditions since the current
zoning was established in 2000. Changes include development of Fall River
Village to the northeast, impacts of the 2013 Flood, and redevelopment of the
Elkhorn Lodge. More broadly, changes in conditions include decreasing housing
affordability in the area and adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan (2022).
Staff Finding: While there have been changes in conditions in the area, they are
not substantial enough or of a nature that makes rezoning necessary to address
the changes. The property has historically been used for residential purposes
and will likely continue to be used as such in the future.
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.
10
5
Staff Discussion: Since no new development is currently proposed, staff has
waived the development plan requirement per Section 3.3.B.1 of the Estes Park
Development Code:
“All applications seeking to amend this Code to allow a change from one
(1) zone district 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 other factors
associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify
such waiver.”
While no new development is planned, the rezoning can still be reviewed for
compatibility and consistency with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive
Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley.
The Comprehensive Plan has nine Guiding Principles for the Estes Valley,
including “Housing opportunities sufficient to support a multigenerational, year-
round community.” (p. 7) The Plan goes on to state:
To achieve the multigenerational, year-round community envisioned in
Estes Valley, the workforce needs stable, affordable housing options and
a housing market that will allow diverse young families to grow into the
community. Demand for housing in Estes Valley has outpaced supply for
years leading to decreasing affordability, overcrowding of the few housing
options that are available, increasing reliance on commuters to fill jobs,
and jobs going unfilled. This Housing element establishes goals and
policies to create housing opportunities. By investing in housing to meet
the needs of the workforce and families there will be more housing
choices for the entire community including seasonal workers and those
seeking to age in Estes.
Furthermore, the Plan recommends the following action:
H 1.F: Continue limit to short-term rental of residential units, within the
limits of the Town’s authority, and consider reducing the number of short-
term rentals to encourage more long-term rental units for housing.
Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is not compatible and consistent with the
housing policies and intent in the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan. Municipal
Code Section 5.20.110(b) caps the number of vacation rentals allowed in
residential zones to 322 licenses in effect at any given time. Rezoning the subject
property from RM to CO would allow the owners of the eleven dwelling units not
currently licensed as vacation rentals to apply for licenses to be converted to
vacation rentals. Additionally, the four existing licenses would no longer count
11
6
against the cap of 322, meaning four other dwelling units in town would become
eligible to be converted to vacation rentals.
The Vacation Home Rental Fee Study prepared by Root Policy Research and
presented to the Board of Trustees on 2022 attempted to quantify the impact of
vacation rentals on the local housing market. It found that the continued
operation of vacation rentals has a detrimental impact on the availability of
workforce housing within the Town:
Every 100 STRs in Estes Park leads to a loss of 3-9 rental units and 4-9
ownership units that would otherwise be occupied by local residents (total
resident housing loss of 7-18 units). In addition, every 100 STRs in Estes
Park result in an $11 increase in monthly rent of resident units and a
$6,500 increase in home prices.
Not every vacation rental is a lost opportunity for workforce housing but the study
shows there’s an overall negative impact by vacation rentals on housing
affordability.
While not compatible and consistent with Comprehensive Plan, the rezoning
would be compatible and consistent with existing growth and development
patterns in the Estes Valley and surrounding neighborhood.
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.
Staff Finding: The property is developed with existing residential uses and is
currently served by utilities. No comments in opposition to the rezoning were
received and no comments indicated an inability to provide adequate services
and facilities from service or utility providers.
Advantages:
If the subject parcels are combined with the parcel to the north as desired by the
applicant, this rezoning (or rezoning of the north parcel) would prevent creating split
zoning with different zone districts on a single parcel.
The rezoning would be advantageous to the owners since it would allow conversion of
the units to vacation rentals, which are more economically lucrative than long term
rentals. Use as vacation rentals does fit with the character of the corridor, which is
largely accommodations, with good access to downtown and the National Park.
Rezoning could also allow future redevelopment as a more intense commercial use,
such as a hotel or retail. Such a use might provide positive economic growth with new
jobs and increased tax revenue.
12
7
Disadvantages:
As mentioned previously, the rezoning would allow 11 of the units to be converted to
vacation rentals along with the conversion of four other dwellings in Town that are
currently on the vacation rental waitlist. The Vacation Home Rental Fee Study prepared
by Root Policy Research demonstrated that vacation rentals have a detrimental impact
on the availability of workforce housing within the Town.
Rezoning the property from CO to RM would have the effect of intentionally creating a
non-conforming use since residential dwellings are not permitted in the CO district. This
could create complications for owners. For example, EPDC Sec. 6.3 prohibits the
alteration or extension of non-conforming uses. The Board of Adjustment recently
approved a variance to enlarge the existing decks which encroach into the river setback
and building setbacks. Such an enlargement of the existing decks would likely be
considered an alteration or extension and thus not permitted.
Rezoning would also potentially allow businesses allowed in the CO zone district to
operate in the dwelling units. The close intermixing of residential and commercial uses
could create conflicts. There may be private covenants that prohibit businesses from
operating within the units but from the Town’s perspective businesses would be
allowed, potentially subject to additional review.
Public Comments:
A neighborhood and community meeting regarding the rezoning project was held in the
at US Bank on April 12, 2024. Two owners attended but no neighbors or anyone else
with concerns/questions attended. No public comments have been received about the
rezoning.
In accordance with the notice requirements in the EPDC, notice of the Planning
Commission meeting was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, on May 3, 2024.
Notice was mailed to all required adjacent property owners on May 1, 2024.
Any public comments received will be posted to
https://estespark.colorado.gov/currentapplications
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town Board a recommendation of
denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment including the following findings of fact:
1. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Zoning Map
Amendment.
2. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the
Zoning Map Amendment.
13
8
3. The application does not comply with EPDC § 3.3.D.1. There have been changes in
conditions in the area, but they are not substantial enough or of a nature that makes
rezoning necessary to address the changes.
4. The application does not comply with EPDC § 3.3.D.2. The proposed rezoning is not
compatible and consistent with the housing policies and intent in the Estes Forward
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The application complies with EPDC § 3.3.D.3. The application has been submitted
to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No
comments indicated an inability to provide adequate services and facilities.
6. The application does not comply with EPDC § 4.4.B - Table 4-4 - Permitted Uses:
Nonresidential Zoning Districts and would create a non-conforming use.
Sample Motions for the Zoning Map Amendment:
1. I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Board of Trustees
of the Zoning Map Amendment application, finding that…[state reasons for
approval
2. I move to continue the Zoning Map Amendment application to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing].
3. I move to forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Board of Trustees of
the Zoning Map Amendment application, according to findings of fact
recommended by Staff.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Rezoning Map
4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
14
15
16
17
Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT OF INTENT
REZONING REQUEST
THE ELKHORN PLAZA ASSOCIATION
Being a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, and the Northwest
Quarter of Section 25,
Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M.,
Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado.
January 26, 2024
Revised May 13, 2024
PROJECT LOCATION:
540 and 550 West Elkhorn Avenue
OWNER:
Elkhorn Plaza Association
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE ELKHORN PLAZA ASSOCIATION:
This rezoning request came about from a series of revelations that occurred when the Elkhorn Plaza
Association decided it was time to rebuild their decks. The decks are over 50 years old now and in need of
replacement. The condominiums were built in 1968 and 1970. The decks are a little small by current
standards, so the owners would like to rebuild the decks a little bigger, ten feet wide, as opposed to replacing
them at 5’-4” – 6’ as they are now. Unfortunately the current decks are already in violation of the 10’ rear yard
setback and the 30’ Fall River setback. Any expansion will require a variance to both setbacks. The variance
application is in process simultaneously with this rezoning application.
In order to enlarge the decks, an amended condominium map will need to be prepared to accommodate for the
increase in the Limited Common Elements for each unit. The initial condominium property was one of the
first ones in the Estes Park area, condominiumized in 1968 and 1970, and it was set up a little differently than
they typically are now. Each building was condominiumized on its own lot, each with different names,
however the condominium declarations were prepared as one association, which isn’t standard. The owners
would like to update the condominium maps by combining the lots into one lot to be consistent with the
declarations. This would include the separate vacant lot the association acquired in 1971. That separate lot is
triangular shaped, mostly in floodplain and is located to the north of the buildings along the Fall River. The
advantage they see is that if the buildings are redeveloped in the future, the property will be more conforming
to modern approaches as to size and can accommodate a larger development without the constraints of the
current property lines. The lot consolidation will also eliminate the need for setback variances to the rear lot
lines in the variance request. This lot consolidation process would be done through the amended condominium
map process if the rezoning is approved and once they are built. Ironically, the setbacks will increase from 10’
to 15’ if this rezoning request is approved, so the lot consolidation would be even more appropriate since they
would need a larger variance in the CO zone.
The final revelation was made when it was noted that the vacant lot is zoned CO and the two condominium
lots are zoned RM. The lot consolidation would thus create a split zoned property. This isn’t illegal, but it
isn’t appropriate. This is why we are requesting the rezone. The vacant lot has been owned by the association
since 1971, but the rezoning process in 2000 did not take into account common ownership and rezoned the
condominium properties from CO to RM, but did not rezone the vacant lot. They basically spot zoned only the
18
Page 2 of 2
condominiums lots in 2000. Several of the current owners were owners in 2000 and do not recall the change in
zoning. They feel this was not right since they were essentially downzoned without their notification. The
HOA as a group would like their zone to go back to what it was prior to the 2000 rezoning effort. The CO
zone would be more consistent with the neighboring lots which are all CO as well. It would make the property
more amenable to redevelopment. It would also enable the properties to more easily be rented nightly since
this is in an accommodations corridor and they are within walking distance of town and provide their own
parking. Five of the units are already nightly rentals and this would make the nightly rental conforming as to
zone. One concern with the rezone to CO is that it would make the residential units a non-conforming use. It
essentially would make them legal non-conforming. However the five units that are already vacation rentals
would be legal since it is a permitted use in the CO zone.
Standards for Review:
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; This rezoning
request is appropriate in order to combine the lots to avoid a split zoned lot. The lots were all zoned
C-O in 1999 but the town changed it, as mentioned earlier, with the 2000 Rezoning and Code effort.
As stated above the owners would like their old zone back that was changed without their knowledge.
It also reflects the use of the property since several of the owners rent them as nightly rentals and
several would also like to rent nightly. This property is ideal for nightly rental because it is close to
town and nightly rentals would subsequently be a legal use in the C-O zone. The Maxwell Inn and the
Elkhorn Lodge are their immediate neighbors and they are zoned for nightly rentals, so this use fits in
the neighborhood.
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; This is consistent with the Comprehensive plan to have high
density close to town and walkability for tourists. Otherwise, nothing is really changing with this
rezoning request.
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. All utilities are
currently serving the property.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
Sincerely,
Joseph W Coop,
Van Horn Engineering
19
20
1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, Colorado 80517 • 970-586-9388 • E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com
April 16, 2024
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
Attn: Community Development
RE: Elkhorn Plaza 540 and 550 West Elkhorn Avenue Neighborhood Meeting April 12, 2024
We held a neighborhood meeting on April 12, 2024 for the Elkhorn Plaza 540 and 550
West Elkhorn Avenue Rezoning project.
The owners showed, but no neighbors or anyone else with concerns/questions. Attendees
raised no questions pertaining to the project.
Thank you –
Joe Coop
Project Manager
Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc.
VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
LAND SURVEYS
SUBDIVISIONS
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
IMPROVEMENT PLATS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SANITARY ENGINEERING
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING
21
22
5/15/2024 CURRENT PROJECTS
Submittal
Date Application Type Project Name Location
Recommending/
Decision Making
Bodies
Next
Proposed
Meeting
Date
Ex-Parte
Prohibited Staff
8/17/2021 Code Amendment Missing Middle zone district PC/TB tbd AA
9/21/2022 Development Plan BAT Building 223 Cleave St staff -PH
11/17/2023 Annexation Spring Hill Suites 2365 Big Thompson Ave TB tbd yes PH
11/17/2023 Development Plan Spring Hill Suites 2365 Big Thompson Ave PC tbd yes PH
11/17/2023 Amended Plat Full Throttle Distillery/Restaurant 231-241 Moraine Ave staff PH
11/17/2023 Development Plan Full Throttle Distillery/Restaurant 231-241 Moraine Ave PC tbd yes PH
1/26/2024 Rezone Request Elkhorn Plaza Condo's 540-550 W Elkhorn Ave PC 21-May yes PH
2/21/2024 Development Plan The View at 242 242 Virginia Dr staff PH
2/21/2024 Amended Plat The View at 242 242 Virginia Dr PC/TB 18-Jun yes PH
3/20/2024 Rezone Request Kinley Accommodations 1895 Fall River Rd PC/TB 18-Jun yes KW
3/20/2024 Development Plan Kinley Accommodations 1895 Fall River Rd PC 18-Jun yes KW
3/20/2024 Rezone Request Workforce housing 860 S Saint Vrain Ave PC/TB tbd yes PH
3/20/2024 Development Plan 261 W Riverside Dr staff KW
3/20/2024 Variance request Workforce housing 261 W Riverside Dr BOA 4-Jun yes KW
4/24/2024 ROW Vacation Estes Ark 521 Lone Pine Dr TB tbd yes PH
4/10/2024 Variance request Spring Hill Suites 2365 Big Thompson Ave BOA 4-Jun yes PH
key: PC-Planning Commission TB-Town Board BOA-Board of Adjustment TRC-Technical Review Committee
staff: PH-Paul Hornbeck KW-Kara Washam AA-Ayres Associates (consultants)
*Scheduled Neighborhood Meetings:Meeting Location Date
23