Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2025-01-21 This 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, January 21, 2025 1:30 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 2024 PUBLIC COMMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Rezoning Criteria 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. January 15, 2025 1 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 19, 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 October 15, 2024. Commission: Chair Charles Cooper, Vice Chair David Arterburn, Dick Mulhern, Chris Pawson, Jeff Robbins Attending: Commissioners Arterburn, Pawson, Mulhern, Robbins, Senior Planner Hornbeck, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town Board Liaison Frank Lancaster Absent: Cooper Vice Chair Arterburn called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 15 people in attendance. INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Robbins/Mulhern) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 4-0. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Pawson/Robbins) to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 4-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: none ACTION ITEM Rezone 860 S Saint Vrain Ave Senior Planner Hornbeck The applicant requests to rezone the subject parcel from E (Estate) to RM (Multi-Family Residential). A conceptual site plan and building elevations depict ten two-story townhome units, each approximately 1,830 square feet. Each lot includes exterior open space and a deck or patio, with sizes ranging from approximately 3,300 square feet to 4,000 square feet. Vehicular access would be provided from Community Drive, with emergency-only access from South Saint Vrain Avenue. Each unit has a two-car garage and one guest parking space. Landscape buffers and open land are depicted around the perimeter of the property. The development would utilize the workforce housing density bonus allowed by EPDC Section 11.4 to increase the number of units permitted from seven to ten. This is an increase of 43%, less than the full bonus density of 100% (i.e., 15 units). As such, six of the units will be deed-restricted for 50 years to be sold or rented only to qualified members of the Estes Valley workforce. The other four units would not be subject to the deed restriction. The application was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No comments indicated an inability to provide adequate services and facilities. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward to the Town Board a recommendation of approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. Commission Discussion: statements summarized as follows: There is no mixed-use district at this time. Workforce housing requires at least one occupant to work in the Estes Valley; this does not have to be the owner. RM zoning dra f t 3 Planning Commission – November 19, 2024 – Page 2 allows for an increase in unit numbers. Property to the south is deed restricted as open space and can't be developed. A multimodal trail on Highway 7 and Community Drive and a seasonal bus stop are nearby. Using Highway 7 as emergency access only is a result of comments from CDOT and concerns heard from neighbors. A road with a lower volume and speed is preferable to a state highway for access. The market rate will be comparable to 100-125 AMI. The cost risk is on the developer if the market doesn't match the cost. A minor variance on the south side of the property will be requested for patios. Fencing must meet the town code requirements if proposed and is not allowed to block the migration of wildlife. Applicant Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, spoke on the history of the zoning districts. The year 2000 city-wide rezoning did not plan for any new multi-family zoning. RM zoning was only applied to multi-family buildings that were already in existence. New multi-family zoning must be done through a rezoning request. Affordability comes from density, and density makes sense in the main corridors of the town. This proposal is significantly less dense and less impactful than what the Comprehensive Plan allows. Public Comment: Those speaking in opposition: Kristen Fields, David Sendros, Jed Eide, Susan d'Antemont, Kristine Poppitz, Christi Washington, Rebecca Urquhart, Hanna Fields, and John Guffey with the following concerns: elk crossing, density, adverse traffic conditions, continuity of existing neighborhoods, too costly for workforce housing, spot zoning, and no change of conditions. Discussion: Mixed-use is a guide suggested by the Comprehensive Plan. The vision for that corridor does not include single-family homes per se. Pawson noted an error on the Future Land Use Map, calling out the lot to the south. That should be colored green for open space, not red for mixed-use. Skipping over two other zone districts (R and R1) should be considered. Attorney Kramer reminded the Commission that the Planning Commission's job is to ensure that the proposal meets the review criteria and follows the development code. Robbins stated that he believes this application meets those requirements. Mulhern spoke on using the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan. He also quoted figures from the Colorado Department of Wildlife regarding the number of elk that have to be harvested every year due to overpopulation. It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Pawson) to forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Board of Trustees of the Zoning Map Amendment application because it does not meet the Change in Conditions nor the needs of the impact to the elk. The motion was tied, 2-2, with Mulhern and Robbins voting no, resulting in a failed motion. Arterburn motioned to defer the item to the next meeting, but it was not seconded. It was moved and seconded (Robbins/Mulhern) to forward a report of the split vote to the Town Board, which passed 3-1, with Arterburn voting no. DISCUSSION: Due to time circumstances, Town Clerk Williamson was unable to give her discussion on Vacation Home processes. This may be done at a later meeting date. A consultant has been selected for the Development Code rewrite, and the Town Board must approve the contract. dra f t 4 Planning Commission – November 19, 2024 – Page 3 There being no further business, Vice Chair Arterburn adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m. _________________________________ Vice Chair David Arterburn Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary dra f t 5 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Chair Cooper Estes Park Planning Commission From: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director Date: January 21, 2025 Re: Review of Rezoning Criteria PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Information Item QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Staff will provide the Planning Commission with an overview of the criteria established in the Development Code for the review of code amendments (rezonings) and then solicit Commission discussion and feedback. As this is an information item, no formal action from the Commission is required. Background and Discussion: The ability to regulate land use is granted to municipalities by the State of Colorado. Regarding amendments to adopted land use regulations, Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 31-23-304 (Method of procedure) states: The governing body of such municipality shall provide for the manner in which such regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of such districts are determined, established, enforced, and, from time to time, amended, supplemented, or changed. However, no such regulation, restriction, or boundary shall become effective until after a public hearing thereon at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. At least fifteen days’ notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in such municipality. While the above statute permits municipalities to address land use regulations, it does not provide specific criteria for how municipalities are to establish those regulations or evaluate amendments. Rather, such procedures are left to the municipality to establish. For the Town of Estes Park, land use procedures, rules, and regulations applicable to land use are set forth in the Development Code. Specifically for the evaluation of rezonings, Section 3.3.D (Standards for Review) of the Development Code establishes 7 2 three review criteria that must be considered by the Planning Commission and Town Board. The Code’s review criteria (bold) are presented below, along with a staff analysis: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Determining compliance with this review criteria can be challenging due to the lack of specificity in what constitutes a change in condition. For example, what timeframe should be used for evaluating changes – only recent changes within the last few years or should longer-term changes be considered? What is the area affected – only properties adjoining the rezoned property or should land and properties farther away be considered? What type or degree of change should be considered, including physical changes to the area’s development pattern or changes in master/comprehensive plans applicable to the area? Given the Development Code does not provide specific guidance, Commissioners are asked to make reasonable judgements in the evaluation of a rezoning request. As such, it is both expected and normal that different viewpoints and conclusions may result, but with no one viewpoint or conclusion considered to have greater weight or influence. Regarding staff evaluation of a rezoning, staff takes a comprehensive view of what constitutes a change in condition, and considers both historical and recent changes, physical changes along with changes in applicable master plans/comprehensive plans, and views the affected area as going beyond the rezoned property and adjoining properties, with a focus on the general public. Regarding another perspective on changes in conditions, Colorado courts have put much emphasis on the importance of comprehensive planning/master planning and have generally supported rezonings when deemed to be in conformance with such comprehensive plans. As such, a change of conditions is not necessarily a prerequisite to rezoning from an overall legal perspective. (Colorado Land Planning and Development 2021, 12th Edition) 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; and The Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan was recently adopted in 2022, and is the guiding document for the Town. As such, both short- and long-term decisions affecting the Town should be made with the Plan’s vision, guiding principles, goals, policies, and recommended actions in mind. Within the Plan, goals and policies on the natural and built environment, economy, housing, health and social welfare, and transportation and infrastructure are established. In addition, Chapter 3, Future Land Use, of the Plan is especially important when considering land use and development decisions. This chapter designates a Future Land Use 8 3 category for properties within the planning area to establish the desired pattern of development and character for these areas. So, when considering a rezoning, the Commission should evaluate whether the requested zoning district furthers the desired character of the area as set forth in the Plan. Whereas a property’s Future Land Use designation, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, is aspirational, a property’s zoning is regulatory. Zoning establishes the permitted uses that can occur on that property and other regulatory standards such as building setbacks and density. When a property is rezoned, the permitted uses in the new zoning district must be compatible with the existing uses and development in the area, in addition to being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding compatibility, the Development Code offers guidance with the following definition: Compatible or Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. The definition clearly states that compatibility does not mean that land uses within the vicinity of each other have to be the same. But they should be in harmony. In furtherance of this objective, much of the Development Code’s purpose is to ensure such harmony exists. From requirements for building setbacks, buffering and landscaping, density, and height limits to requirements for the submittal of traffic impact reports, and site lighting and drainage plans, the intent is to ensure that future development does not adversely affect nearby properties or the overall public welfare. The Planning Commission may also add conditions of approval to a rezoning request, if they believe such conditions are necessary for greater compatibility between existing and proposed land uses. Sometimes the term ‘spot zoning’ is used when referring to a rezoning. Pursuant to established planning principles, a rezoning must be compatible with adjacent uses in the area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. A ‘spot zoning’ generally occurs when these principles are not adhered to. A commonly used example of ‘spot zoning’ is the rezoning of a small parcel within an established residential zone, as designated in that municipality’s comprehensive plan and zoning map, from residential to commercial. Such commercial rezoning could be considered incompatible with the surrounding residential area and inconsistent 9 4 with the comprehensive plan, especially if purposely done to relieve that property of certain zoning requirements. While this is a simplistic example, and the factors for and against a rezoning can be complex, it nonetheless still shows how a rezoning should and should not be evaluated. Further to this issue, it should be noted that the Development Code does not define ‘spot zoning’ but does require all rezonings to meet the evaluation criteria, as addressed within this report. 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. Of the three evaluation criteria, this is generally the most straightforward. When an application for rezoning is received, staff will send that application to all applicable utility and service providers for their input and recommendations on the requested rezoning. These providers will generally state if they can serve or not serve the property, and any impacts the rezoning may have on their provision of service. If the service providers indicate they cannot serve the property or that the provision of service would require investment by the property owner, then such information should be considered during the evaluation of the rezoning request. For example, if the Fire District indicates that due to the terrain of the area being rezoned that two emergency access points would be very beneficial, though not required, then the Commission may want to consider making this a condition of the zoning approval. Conclusion: When a rezoning goes before the Planning Commission, staff will provide a report on how that rezoning is either consistent or inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s various goals and policies and the property’s Future Land Use designation. Similarly, staff will also provide an analysis of how the proposed rezoning is either compatible or incompatible with the land uses in the surrounding area. This information is intended to help Commissioners form their own conclusions on the item. Attachments: None 10 11 Colorado Open Records Act Workshop Learn about Colorado's Open Records and Open Meetings laws at a two- hour workshop with Jeffery Roberts, director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, on Feb. 1 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Estes Park Town Hall Board Room. Anyone currently serving on a public body, either in an appointed or elected position, those interested in serving on a public body, those who are the custodians of board records, and members of the public who are interested in the transparency processes of government operations should attend. The state's Sunshine Laws were enacted to protect the public and ensure that public business is conducted with transparency and accountability. Click here to register. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/colorado-open-records-act-workshop- tickets-1136162676149?aff=oddtdtcreator&utm_medium=email 12 1/16/2025 CURRENT PROJECTS Submittal Date Application Type Project Name Location Recommending/ Decision Making Bodies Next Proposed Meeting Date Ex-Parte Prohibited Staff 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 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 3/20/2024 Rezone Request Kinley Accommodations 1895 Fall River Rd PC/TB tbd yes KW 3/20/2024 Development Plan Kinley Accommodations 1895 Fall River Rd PC tbd yes KW 3/20/2024 Rezone Request Workforce housing 860 S Saint Vrain Ave TB 28-Jan yes PH 6/7/2024 Amended Development Plan Fun City 455 Prospect Village Dr staff -PH 12/5/2024 Amended Condo Map Deck expansion 540-550 W Elkhorn TB tbd yes PH key: PC-Planning Commission TB-Town Board BOA-Board of Adjustment TRC-Technical Review Committee staff: PH-Paul Hornbeck KW-Kara Washam SC-Steve Careccia *Scheduled Neighborhood Meetings:Meeting Location Date 13