HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2024-10-15This 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
Town Hall Board Room
Tuesday, October 15, 2024
1:30 p.m.
INTRODUCTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
AGENDA APPROVAL
CONSENT AGENDA
1.Planning Commission Minutes dated September 17, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENT
ACTION ITEMS
1.Large Vacation Home Review 1850 Fall River Rd 5 Senior Planner Hornbeck
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1.Change day/time of Planning Commission meetings
2.Development Code update
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.
October 9, 2024 1
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 17, 2024
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting was held in said Town of
Estes Park on September 17, 2024.
Commission: Vice Chair Charles Cooper, Chris Pawson, David Arterburn,
Dick Mulhern, Jeff Robbins
Attending: Commissioners Cooper, Pawson, Arterburn, Mulhern,
Robbins, Senior Planner Hornbeck, Recording Secretary
Karin Swanlund, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board
Liaison Frank Lancaster
Absent: None
Vice-Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
INTRODUCTIONS
New Commissioner Jeff Robbins was introduced. Jeff will fill the remaining term vacated
by Matt Comstock. There were five people in attendance.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Mulhern) to approve the agenda with the
addition of adding an item to the end of the meeting, discussing moving the time
and day of the Planning Commission meetings. The motion passed 5-0
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Pawson) to approve the consent
agenda. The motion passed 5-0.
ELECTION OF CHAIR and VICE CHAIR
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Pawson) to appoint Chuck Cooper Chair and
David Arterburn Vice-Chair for the remainder of the year. The motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
ACTION ITEMS Text Amendment to the Development Code
1. Public Notice and Submittal Requirements Senior Planner Hornbeck
The current Code requires some public notice requirements to occur a certain number
of business days before a public meeting or hearing, while business is not used in
other instances. Some public notice requirements are 15 days in advance, while
others are 10 days. The text amendment will require all public notice to occur 15 days
in advance of meetings/hearings without using business days.
The current Code requires written notice of public hearings to be sent to adjacent
property owners. The methodology dictated by the Code for determining which
property owners receive notice is unusual, results in inconsistencies from project to
project, and is difficult to administer. It requires notification to all abutting properties
and all properties directly across a public street or right-of-way, plus all properties
within 100 feet of either of those properties. The text amendment will simplify these
requirements to all properties within a 300-foot radius of the subject property.
Discussion: Arterburn questioned using the word radius, suggesting the word buffer
instead.
Staff primarily initiates Text Code Amendments. Private parties can apply for
rezonings via a Zoning Map Amendment, which differs from a text amendment.
dra
f
t
3
Planning Commission – September 17, 2024 – Page 2
Pawson questioned the removal of “business days.” Hornbeck explained that the
number is increasing from 10 to 15 days, and quantifying a business day can get
confusing. Changing the field staking from 10 to 15 days could be considered, but
that requirement is not a “notice” item. Pawson suggested keeping the business
days clause and changing the staking to 15 days. Robbins felt that the 300-foot
buffer was more than adequate.
Public Comment:
Kristine Poppitz, 650 Devon Dr, would like a 15-business-day notice and thinks text
amendments should have a neighborhood meeting. She also suggested that the
Commission consider a 500-foot buffer for mailings.
John Guffey, 561 Chapin Ln, agreed with Kristine’s comments and expressed
concerns about neighbor awareness.
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Pawson) to recommend approval of the
revisions to the Development Code to the Town Board with the additions of
Changing the buffer to 500 feet, adding the word Business Days and adding 15
business days to the Field Staking requirement. The motion passed 4-1, with
Robbins voting against.
2.Residential Occupancy Limits Senior Planner Hornbeck
A new Colorado State Statute (C.R.S. 29-20-111) concerning residential occupancy
limits was approved on April 15, 2024. The Statute prohibits local governments from
limiting the number of people who may live together in a single dwelling, unless such
occupancy limits are based on demonstrated health and safety standards, such as
those established in building and fire codes or water and wastewater environmental
quality standards, or if based on affordable housing program guidelines. The
restrictions became effective July 1, 2024, and are applicable to the Town of Estes
Park. Staff has determined that the occupancy restrictions within the Development
Code are inconsistent with the newly enacted State Statute. As such, staff is
proposing a text amendment to remove all references to specific occupancy limits
from the Code.
Discussion: There have not been widespread complaints regarding this. Pawson
disagreed with the Statute. Robbins asked what would happen if there was an
overcrowding hazard. It was explained that this can be regulated through the
International Property Code. Health and Safety standards can still be enforced. This
Statute removes an arbitrary number. Attorney Kramer stated that he does not believe
this has any applicability to H.O.A.s.
Public comment:
John Guffey, 561 Chapin Ln, noted that parking becomes an issue when so many
people live in a home.
Frank Lancaster, Town Board Liaison, noted that we are a statutory town and can’t
take on authority that has not been granted to us. The State Legislature made this
decision, and we have no option but to change the language in the Code.
It was moved and seconded (Mulhern/Arterburn) to recommend approval of the
revisions on Residential Occupancy Limits to the Development Code to the
Town Board. The motion passed 4-1, with Pawson voting against.
dra
f
t
4
Planning Commission – September 17, 2024 – Page 3
3.Planned Unit Developments Senior Planner Hornbeck
The impetus for considering a text amendment is some recent development
proposals and concepts that have illustrated shortcomings in the Development Code
that can be addressed before the more extensive code update planned for 2024-
2026. The enclosed text amendment includes the following changes:
•Eliminates preliminary/final P.U.D. process in lieu of a single application;
•Allows P.U.D.s in any non-residential zone rather than only the C.O. zone;
•Reduces minimum size to 2 acres rather than 3 acres or property of any size with
five or more units;
•Reduces minimum open space requirements for smaller properties using a tiered
system;
•Allows modifications of building heights up to 42’ with corresponding standards;
•Allows modification of parking requirements with supporting parking study;
•Prohibits variances for density of accommodations uses in-lieu of P.U.D.
process;
•Adds standards for compatibility;
•Requires public benefits as a condition of P.U.D. approval
•Other minor modifications and clarifications; and
•Updates application submittal standards to reflect the above changes.
Discussion:
This is essentially a rezoning, and rezonings are not required to do a two-step process,
Staff reviews the applications to determine if the P.U.D. benefits the community, and the
Planning Commission makes recommendations to the Town Board.
There are currently three or four P.U.D. s in the Valley.
This amendment hopes to address interested properties in the business corridors. The
current CO-only restriction limits this.
The proposed amendments do not allow for any higher density in Residential areas. A
PUD can, however, utilize the attainable housing density bonus.
Public input would be during rezoning and the P.U.D. stage rather than the Development
Plan stage. The Planning Commission and the Town Board will still review all
applications; public comment is allowed at all points, including neighborhood meetings.
Public Comment:
John Guffey, 561 Chapin Lane, expressed concerns with implying that the human
community trumps the earth community. Greater density gives less recognition to the
original environmental community.
Kristine Poppitz, 650 Devon Dr, would like consistency with the number of meetings for
land use applications, stating that letting citizens be heard is valuable. She would like to
be involved in the Development Code rewrite. She would like explanations of workforce,
attainable, and affordable housing instead of referring to everything as workforce.
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Robbins) to recommend approval of the
revisions to the Development Code pertaining to Planned Unit Developments to the
Town Board of Trustees. The motion passed 4-1, with Pawson voting against.
dra
f
t
5
Planning Commission – September 17, 2024 – Page 4
DISCUSSION:
Due to conflicting work schedules, it was suggested that the Planning Commission
meetings be moved from Tuesdays at 1:30 to Monday afternoon. Staff will review this
request and revisit it at the next meeting.
Three consultants will be interviewed for the Development Code rewrite. Interviews are
scheduled for October 7 and 8.
Pawson again requested a Wildlife Corridor/Habitat map update.
There being no further business, Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
_______________________________
Chair Chuck Cooper
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
dra
f
t
6
7
DEPT NAME HERE Memo
To: Chair Cooper
Planning Commission
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Date: October 15, 2024
RE: Large Vacation Home Review: 1850 Fall River Road Unit 5, Gary and
Sally Myers, Owners/ Applicants.
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Consideration of approval for an existing registered Vacation Home to operate as a
Large Vacation Home (9 or more occupants.).
Present Situation:
The subject property has been registered as a Vacation Home with “standard”
occupancy limit (8 or fewer occupants at a time) since before March 31, 2017. That date
is important, as is continuous registration since, in order to be eligible for a Large
Vacation Home (9 or more occupants) per the Estes Park Development Code. The
Town Clerk’s office confirms that the property’s Vacation Home registration is current
and in good standing. The subject property is zoned RM (Multi-Family Residential),
which allows Large Vacation Homes subject to approval by Planning Commission if
standards in Estes Park Development Code are met and appropriate findings of fact
made.
Proposal:
The owners recently purchased the property and are seeking approval to operate as a
Large Vacation Home. The property has three bedrooms currently. Per Code (Secs
5.1.B.2.a and 5.1.B.2.b), occupancy of a Vacation Home is limited to two persons per
bedroom plus two additional, all within the overall limitation of 8 person for a standard
Vacation Home or more than 8 for a Large Vacation Home. The applicants propose to
remodel the home, within its existing footprint, to add a fourth bedroom. This would be
accomplished by dividing a large existing bedroom into two smaller bedrooms. In this
case, the four bedrooms would allow a maximum of 10 occupants at a time. It is worth
noting that additional temporary guests, not staying overnight, are allowable beyond the
10-person limit, as they would be in any Vacation Home or any dwelling.
8
Vicinity Map
Zoning
Subject
Property
R-2
E
E-1
Subject
Property
Zoned RM
RM
A
CO
RE
9
EPDC Sec. 5.1.B contains the current land-use regulations for all Vacation Homes in
Estes Park, and subsection 5.1.B.4 deals with Large Vacation Homes in residential
zoning districts.
EPDC Sec. 5.1.B.4.c.(3) requires a minimum one-acre lot size for large vacation homes,
unless Planning Commission finds adequate buffering or screening exists from adjacent
and nearby properties:
The minimum lot size for a nine-and-over vacation home shall be one (1) acre,
unless the Planning Commission makes a specific finding that the vacation home
has demonstrated adequate buffering or screening from adjacent and nearby
properties, such that a lot size of less than one (1) acre is commensurate with
large vacation home use. Appropriate alternative standards for demonstrating
adequate buffering or screening shall include, but not be limited to: orientation of
the large vacation home on the property away from nearby residential structures,
linear separation from other residential structures, separation from other
structures by an intervening right-of-way, topographic features such as rock
formations or grade differences, and mature vegetation or fencing;
The subject single-family home is one of five standalone condominium units situated on
a property of approximately two acres. The airspace of each condominium unit is platted
individually, including the subject home’s footprint of 1122 square feet (.026 acres).
Thus, a demonstration that adequate buffering or screening is required, and if the
Planning Commission approves the Large Vacation Home, a finding must be included
that confirms the buffering and/or screening is present and adequate.
EPDC 5.1.B.4.c.(4) requires 25-foot setbacks for Large Vacation Homes to all property
lines except where the underlying zoning setbacks are greater. In this case, the 25-foot
setback applies. Since the subject house is a condominium with the platted lot matching
the building footprint, the setback is essentially zero. Therefore, similar to the lot size
issue, if the Planning Commission approves the Large Vacation Home, a finding must
be included that confirms the buffering and/or screening is present and adequate.
Staff judges that the screening and buffering in this case are adequate, based on the
following circumstances on the property and vicinity:
• The subject house, Unit #5 is buffered by the distance to adjoining condominium
units of the development. Unit #2 is the closest unit, approximately 56 feet away.
• Units #2, #4A, and #4B, are all licensed vacation rentals.
• Unit #1 is rented on a monthly basis, targeted to longer term vacation stays (but
not subject to Vacation Home licensure since it is rented for terms of 30 days or
longer).
• Adjacent properties to west and northwest are located across Fall River and are
approximately 180 to 200 feet away, buffering impacts due to distance.
• The adjacent property to the east is located across Fall River Road and is
approximately 215 feet away, buffering impacts due to distance.
• Finally, as noted, the proposed occupancy in this case is no more than 10. The
Vacation Home already allows up to 8 occupants; adding two more persons does
not loom large in the overall scheme.
10
Annotated Site Plan
EPDC 5.1.B.4.c.(2) requires a Vacation Home Safety Inspection Report be provided to
Planning Commission while Section 5.1.B.a(2) requires the home be in compliance with
all applicable Building, Health, and Fire Codes. The attached Vacation Home Safety
Inspection Report indicates the Town Building Official determined an inspection was not
required because the structure was built with an R-1 occupancy under the International
Residential Code. R-1 occupancy includes sleeping units where the occupants are
primarily transient in nature, including hotels, boarding houses, etc. Therefore, the
building is exempt from the single-family dwelling safety survey per the International
Residential Code and the application is deemed compliant with applicable codes.
Advantages:
• The transition to Large Vacation Home status seems unlikely to add much in the
way of impacts, with only two additional occupants per stay.
11
Disadvantages:
• Any expansion of vacation-home use or occupancy in Estes Park has the
potential to add impacts to the neighborhood and vicinity. Measures exist through
the nuisance regulations to curb disturbing elements in vacation home operation,
and in severe cases, to revoke a registration altogether.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the Large Vacation Home, with the specific finding on lot
size and building setback as noted in the motion and with a condition that construction
related the fourth bedroom be subject to issuance of a building permit and subsequent
certificate of occupancy (or certificate of completion).
Level of Public Interest
Public interest in this item appears to be low. Staff received one inquiry about the
proposal from a resident of Summerset Court who was not necessarily opposed to the
application but expressed concern about the potential for parking to overflow onto public
streets. The Municipal Code requires a minimum parking of two spaces per vacation
home. The driveway accommodates three and potentially four parking spots. The
Municipal Code also limits the maximum number of vehicles parked off-street to no
more than then number of bedrooms (i.e. four vehicles in this case).
It should be noted that Large Vacation Home review requires Planning Commission
approval, but a formal public hearing is not required by the Estes Park Development
Code. However, as a courtesy to neighbors, a notice of the Planning Commission
meeting was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, on October 2, 2024 and mailed
to adjacent property owners on October 2, 2024.
Any public comments received will be posted to:
https://estespark.colorado.gov/currentapplications
Sample Motion:
1. I move that the Planning Commission approve the Large Vacation Home
application for as presented, subject to the following:
1. Occupancy is limited to 10 vacation home occupants per stay.
2. The Planning Commission finds that this Large Vacation Home’s location
on a lot of less than one acre and building setback of less than 25 feet are
offset by adequate screening and/or buffering measures currently in place.
3. Applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the fourth
bedroom. A certificate of occupancy or completion shall be obtained prior
to use of the fourth bedroom or operation as Large Vacation Home.
4. Applicant shall update the Town business license, and associated fees,
prior to operation as a Large Vacation Home including a new in-home
posting with updated occupancy and maximum number of parked cars
allowed.
12
5. Applicant shall set up a site visit with the Sewer District and be subject to
System Development Fee prior to operation as Large Vacation Home.
2. I move that the Planning Commission deny the Large Vacation Home
application, finding that [state findings for denial].
3. I move to continue the Large Vacation Home application to the next regularly
scheduled meeting. [State reasons for continuance]
Attachments:
1. Application & Statement of Intent
2. Vacation Home Life Safety Survey Application
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION
BYLAWS
[ADOPTED 01/20221
I.ROLE
The Estes Park Planning Commission (EPPC)is established under section 2.1(C)of the
Estes Park Development Code.The EPPC exercises the authority given to it by the
Town Board as outlined below:
1.Perform all of the duties and responsibilities of a municipal planning commission
pursuant to Colorado law;and
2.Perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the EPPC as described in the
Estes Park Development Code;and
3.Make recommendations to Town Board regarding the Town’s Comprehensive
Plan,provided that final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan shall be at the
discretion of the Town Board.
“Chair”in the remainder of this document will refer to the Chair of the EPPC.
II.MEETINGS
A.Regular Meetings.Shall be held the third Tuesday of each month,with additional
meetings scheduled as needed.Regular meetings shall occur at 1:30 p.m.Any
item on the agenda which cannot be heard and considered by the conclusion of
the meeting may be continued until and heard at the next regularly scheduled
meeting or a specially scheduled meeting and shall have priority over any other
matters to be heard and considered.
B.Study Sessions.Study sessions of the EPPC may be scheduled by the Chair or
the Community Development Director as needed.Such meetings shall occur at
11:00 a.m.or another time specified by the Chair or Community Development
Director.No official action shall be taken and no quorum shall be required for the
study session.The study session shall be open to the public.Unless requested
by the Chair,no public comment shall be taken in a study session.
C.Special Meetings.May be held at any time upon call by the EPPC,the Chair or
the Community Development Director.Notice of at least three (3)calendar days
shall be given to each member of the EPPC.The time,place,and purpose of the
special meeting shall be specified in the notice to the Commissioners.Should a
special meeting be scheduled,notification must be provided to the EPPC
Secretary in an effort to adequately notify the public in accordance with the State
of Colorado Open Meetings Law Section 24-6-402(2)(c) C.R.S.
23
D.Cancellation of Meetings.Regularly scheduled meetings of the EPPC may be
cancelled or rescheduled upon determination by the Chair.Any cancelled
meeting requires notification to the Community Development Director in an effort
to adequately notify the public.
E.Meeting Procedures.Chair shall preside in accordance with generally accepted
norms for the conduct of parliamentary procedure.The EPPC may overturn a
parliamentary determination of the Chair by majority vote.Robert’s Rules of
Order may be considered as a parliamentary guide.
F.Open Meetings.All meetings and action of the EPPC shall be in full compliance
with state statutes governing open meetings,as amended and incorporated
herein by reference.It is the responsibility of the assigned staff member of
Community Development to be familiar with these statutes and regulations.
G.Attendance by Non-members.Meetings may be attended by persons who are
not members of the EPPC.At the discretion of the Chair,non-members may be
allowed to speak at meetings.However,in no event shall non-members be
allowed to vote on matters for which a vote is required.
Ill.MEMBERS AND QUORUM
A.Membership.The EPPC consists of five (5)voting members,as provided in the
Development Code.Appointments of members shall be made by the Town Board
in accordance with Policy 102.
B.Terms.Members shall be appointed to a six (6)year term.The terms of the
members shall be staggered so that the terms of an equal number of the
members,or as equal a number as possible,expire on the last day of March
every two years,as described in section 31 -23-203(3),C.R.S.There are no term
limitations,and members may be reappointed by the Town Board in accordance
with Policy 102.
C.Vacancies.Vacant positions shall be filled by appointment by the Town Board
for the unexpired portion of the term of the position to be filled.
D.Quorum.A quorum for transaction of business of the EPPC shall consist of 3
members of the EPPC.This is the minimum number of members required to be
present to open a meeting and conduct business.
E.Action.Any action by the EPPC shall be by majority vote of the members
attending any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present,unless
otherwise provided by law or ordinance.A tie vote shall constitute failure of the
motion on the floor.
24
F.Town Board Liaison.The Town Board may appoint one of its members as a
liaison to the EPPC,who shall receive copies of all notices,documents,and
records of proceedings of the EPPC which any member would also receive.
IV.OFFICERS
A.Officers.There shall be a Chair and a Vice-Chair as elected by the EPPC.
B.Elections.Officers shall be elected by the members annually,at the regularly
scheduled meeting in April of each year.Officers shall be members of the EPPC.
Notification of who is elected Chair and Vice-Chair will be sent to the Town Clerk.
C.Chair Responsibilities:
1.Preside at all meetings
2.Ensure that all meetings are conducted with decorum and efficiency
3.Call special meetings in accordance with the bylaws
4.Authority to cancel a meeting
5.Sign any documents prepared by the EPPC for submission to the Town
Board or Town departments
6.Represent the EPPC in dealings with the Town Board or other organizations
7.The Chair has the same right as any other member of the EPPC to vote on
matters before the EPPC,to move or second a motion,and to speak for or
against proposals.
D.Vice-Chair Responsibilities:
1.Assist the Chair as requested
2.Accept and undertake duties delegated by the Chair
3.Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chair in the event the
Chair is absent or unable to act.
E.Chair Pro Tern.In the absence of the Chair and Vice-Chair at a given meeting,
the Commission may elect a voting member to serve as Chair for the duration of
that meeting.
V.STAFF ROLE
An assigned staff member of Community Development is responsible for proper
notification of meeting,preparation and distribution of agenda,assembly of packet and
minute taking for all meetings.
VI.ATTENDANCE
Regular attendance by the members of the EPPC is expected.In the event any
member misses three (3)consecutive regular meetings or a total of four (4)regular
meetings in a calendar year,the Town Board may remove its appointed member for
neglect of duty and designate a new member to fill the vacancy.
25
VII.GENERAL PROVISIONS
Recommendations for amendments to these bylaws may be adopted at any regular or
special meeting of the EPPC by a majority of the membership of the EPPC provided
that notice of such possible amendments is given to all members at least five (5)days
prior to the meeting at which action is to be taken.Any amendments shall be subject to
approval by the Town Board.
VIII.COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN POLICIES
A.In addition to these bylaws,the EPPC shall operate in compliance with the
adopted Town Board policy on Town Committees,Policy 102,as amended.The
terms of this policy are incorporated into these bylaws by this reference.A copy
of the policy,along with these bylaws,shall be provided to each member at the
time of their appointment.
B.Failure to comply with applicable Town policies may be grounds for an official
reprimand or censure by the EPPC and/or a recommendation to the Town Board
for removal.
IX.CONFLICT OF INTEREST
All members of the EPPC are subject to the standards of conduct under the State of
Colorado Code of Ethics,Sections 24-18-101 et seq.,C.R.S.,and Article XXIX of the
Colorado Constitution (Amendment 41).At the time of introduction of an individual item
on the EPPC agenda in which the member has a conflict of interest,the member shall
state that a conflict of interest exists and then abstain from participating and voting on
the matter.A member having a conflict of interest on any matter shall not attempt to
influence other members of the EPPC at any time with regard to said matter.
czf
Adopted this day of O,hUCL*.L ,2022.
ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
26