The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2018-10-16 - Special MeetingRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 16, 2018 4:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Rex Poggenpohl, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Wayne Newsom, Pete Smith, John Lynch Attending: Members Poggenpohl, Moreau, Newsom, Smith Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Town Attorney Greg White, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Lynch Chair Poggenpohl called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. There were approximately 35 people in attendance. He introduced the members and staff (at 5:00 pm). 1. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 4-0. A majority vote rather than a unanimous vote for the Appeal was agreed upon by BOA members present. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Bill Van Horn, 2101 McGraw Ranch Road, stated that he felt the staff report was done accurately and could not find anything to disagaree with. Sally Brackman, 1895 Grey Hawk Court, spoke on the numerous provisions in codes and ordiances in Larimer County, suggesting that the project should have gone to a special review committee. Both speakers were asked to speak again at the appropriate time later in the meeting. 3. MOUNTAIN COASTER APPEAL: Director Hunt reviewed the Mountain Coaster project and subsequent appeal regarding the Development Plan Review assignment to staff rather than the Planning Commission. He discussed the description of the appeal, the Development Plan, and the parking review. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Significant Public Comment has been received. Staff recommended that the determination for staff level review is correct and that it be upheld, and that the appeal be denied. Board/Staff Discussion and Questions: Director Hunt responded to Moreau’s questions about parking spaces. If a parking requirement isn’t clearly defined in the table, a parking study is requested which was done for this project. In this case, both town and county Engineering found the parking study to be adequate and sufficient. It was reviewed by both town and county due to Dry Gulch Road being town property and the project being in the county. Moreau asked if 51 spaces were determined to be needed, why were only 19 requested on site. Hunt answered that the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 October 16, 2018 proposed operational plan is to shuttle from offsite parking areas, which is encouraged in Chapter 11 of the Code. The 19 spaces proposed are for exclusive use of the coaster, the other 32 are available off-site depending on needs of this and other operations. The applicant owns both properties, and has a shared-use parking agreement in place at an off- site location. A combination of the shuttling system coupled with a traffic and parking study provides the ability to demonstrate that the operational plan can be locked down by the development plan review process. The timeline of proposal was discussed. The pre-app was early December, the application was filed April 18, and the staff decision was August 8. There was considerable discussion before and after the submittal about parking which is a typical process. Use of a shuttle service was discussed from the beginning. Sign postings for development plans were not required at the time the project was applied for, however there is now a sign posted on-site across from Good Samaritan. No additional approval is needed for the other existing parking sites. Staff advised appellant to appeal to BOCC and PC. After consultation with the town and county attorneys, the BOA was added to the appeal. There is no requirement to post “Staff Only” review projects on the website but we are posting them for transparency reasons. Discussion was had regarding the “trigger point” of 21 parking spaces. There was no legal scope for a discussion to allow a voluntary public review. Revisiting of Table 3-3 could lower the parking space threshold with the addition of trip generation studies. There is no provision to get a second opinion from the county planning department, however an informal one was done early on. A waiver of landscaping requirements was done early on, on the basis of minimal removal of existing vegetation and there was no requirement to ask BOA for a landscaping variance. Appellant Comments: Rick Zier, attorney for the appellants, explained why the appeal was brought to the Board of Adjustment: The authority to interpret code for 3 reasons (summarized) 1) Park and rec definition does not apply; 2) Table 4.1 requires a Location and Extent review by the Planning Commission; 3) Major alterations over 10,000 square feet require a PC review. He stated that more onsite parking was suggested by Traci Shambo, Larimer County Engineer, and requested the Board overturn the staff interpretation, noting that the Comp Plan needs to be used as guide to all Boards in this appeal. Owner/Applicant Comments: Larry Myers, attorney for the applicant, Yakutuk, reviewed the appeal touching on parking, alterations and use classification. The Location and Extent review applies only to government owned projects. This Board’s decision should be based on Table 3.3 and nothing additional. For the record, the applicant disagreed with the Board’s decision of a majority vote requirement. Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering, argued that Table 3.3 was correctly followed. Ticket sales and operations will be conducted from Lake View Plaza, which has an additional 12 parking spaces. The idea is to have people use the shuttle, not drive to the site, for both safety and security concerns. No other coaster in Colorado has parking at the base of the coaster. The use of this property is the same as when zoning was put in place in 2000. The stables have been operating on this property since 1959. The ridership estimate is 230-240 per day in peak season, with 80 shuttle trips. The primary reason for a ticket office at the site is for RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 October 16, 2018 repeat ridership. Cody Walker, applicant, stated that there is no expansion planned as it would change the use. There is also no food service planned. Public Comment: Those speaking in favor of the appeal (against the Mountain Coaster) stating that the decision should have gone to the Planning Commission rather than leaving the public out of the decision making process included: Lyle Zimmerman, Sherry Unruh, Sally Brackman, Michelle Hiland, Ed Dega, Randy Phillips. Those speaking against the appeal (in favor of the Mountain Coaster) stating the staff made the correct decision included: Greg Cenak, Michele Hurni, Greg Query. Applicant Responses: Joe Coop responded to the concerns raised. 3800 square feet is impervious coverage, not building square footage. Pedestrian traffic will not be encouraged due to distance from the off-site parking, which is approximately one mile. A gate is planned to keep people from driving up the property at night. The coaster gives visitors an alternative activity. The 19 parking spaces was an attempt to meet community concerns half way. The task before this Board is quasi-judicial, and the code should be interpreted as drafted. Appellant Discussion: Rick Zier addressed the definition of alterations stating that a structure is not just a building, altering can also apply to land. Code interpretation was not intended this way, the code does not make sense and the filed appeal should be granted by the Board of Adjustment. Board Discussion: The charge assigned to the Board was reiterated: An appeal of the staff determination. It was agreed that the system is flawed and needs revisions however it is not our job to do that tonight. Key factors in the staff’s determination have been met and procedures followed. It was moved seconded (Moreau/Smith) to UPHOLD the staff determination regarding the Mountain Coaster Development Plan (#DP 2018-04) review assignment to staff rather than Planning Commission, with the findings and conclusions as outlined in the staff report. The motion passed 3-1 with Poggenpohl voting against. Chair Poggenpohl requested a discussion about code changes at the next meeting. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. ___________________________________ Rex Poggenpohl, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary