HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commisson 2020-09-15Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado,September 15,2020
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING
COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado.
Meeting held VIRTUALLY in said Town of Estes Park on the 15 day of
September 2020.
Committee:Chair Matt Comstock,Vice Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins,Howard Hanson,Steve Murphree.
Attending:Chair Comstock,Vice Chair Heiser,Commissioners Elkins,
Hanson,Murphree,Director Randy Hunt,Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber,Planner II Alex Bergeron,Recording Secretary Karin
Swanlund,Town Board Liaison Barbara MacAlpine
Absent:None
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hanson)to approve the agenda and the
motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson)to approve the consent agenda and
the motion passed 5-0.
AMENDED PLAT:1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE,ESTES PARK RESORT
Planner Woeber reviewed the staff report noting that the development is currently under
construction.During the construction process,the owner/applicant determined that an additional
garage unit was possible,totaling three garages instead of two for this particular lot.This
addition requires a minor revision to the recorded plat.A Minor Modification to the approved
Development Plan is also needed,and it is concurrently being processed by staff per EPDC
Section 3.7.A.That change will not be approved unless/until the plat amendment is approved.
There is also some minor realignment of utility easements,which have been reviewed and
approved by the respective utility providers.No other changes are proposed.Staff
recommended a change in the plats title to the Second Amended Plat to avoid confusion.
DISCUSSION:
Vice-Chair Heiser asked about the potential easement infringement on lots 6,15,22 and
32.Lot 14 has a small overlap and Lot 27 has a considerable overlap into the easement.
Jes Reetz,Cornerstone Engineering,noted that the easements would not be under any
structures and within the protected area between the property line and building.Lot 27
will be reconfigured and revised.Per the Condominium Declarations,the developer can
make changes to the plans without the properties’owners’signatures.It was noted that
the meaning of “area of no disturbance”is a carryover from the original Plan to protect
wetlands in the area.Director Hunt noted that in the future,non-jurisdictional wetlands
do not need to be on the plat,but in this Plan,it sets aside areas with scenic value.Reetz
agreed that the re-addition of the metes and bounds to the drawing would be useful for
the future.In answer to Chair Comstock’s question,the only variance applied for and
approved for this project was for a wetland area setback reduction from 50 feet to 25 feet.
It was noted that two plots had been removed since the initial development was approved,
reducing both the density and impervious coverage.
Hanson questioned where the previous and current changes had taken place as they
aren’t delineated on the submitted site plan.Reetz answered that Lots 11 and 25 were
removed.Director Hunt stated that staff would provide the current recorded plat in the
staff report on future projects to clarify changes being made.Heiser noted that he did ask
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission —SEPTEMBER 15,2020—Page 2
for and received the original plat from Planner Woeber and that it helped him review the
current plat.
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Elkins)to recommend the Estes Park Board of
Trustees approve the Second Amended Plat to add a garage and reconfigure
utility easements to the Estes Park Resort Townhome Subdivision,as described
in the staff report,with the findings as recommended by staff,including the
following conditions of approval:
1.This plat shall be retitled the “Second Amended Plat of Estes Park Resort”
and a retitled exhibit provided prior to scheduling for Town Board hearing
and consideration.
2.Easement be revised to not overlap with the structure of lot 27 and re-add the
area’s linear description to not be disturbed on the property’s southwest corner.
The motion passed 5-0.
CODE AMENDMENT:AMENDED PLAT REVIEW PROCESS
Currently,the EPDC defines an Amended Plat,Boundary Adjustment,or a Land
Consolidation Plat as a Minor Subdivision,requiring Planning Commission review and
Town Board approval.As typically there is little or no impact from these “Minor
Adjustment”processes;they can be appropriately reviewed and processed by staff.
The amendment would also allow a more realistic time frame for receipt and recordation
of Final Subdivision Plats,from 60 days to 180 days.Changes to the EPDC are
summarized as:
1).Amend Chapter 3,Review Procedures and Standards,Section 3.9 Subdivisions,to
differentiate a “Minor Subdivision”from a “Minor Adjustment.“A “Minor Adjustment”would
be an ‘Amended Plat,”“Boundary Adjustment,”or a “Land Consolidation Plat.”There are
existing definitions in the EPDC of “Boundary Adjustment”and “Land Consolidation Plat.”
Staff has added a definition of ‘Amended Plat”as this is not currently defined in the EPDC.
Minor Subdivisions will continue to be limited to subdivisions involving not more than four
lots,with each fronting onto an existing street and not requiring extension of public facilities.
These Minor Subdivisions are currently defined as “Frontage Lots.”The amendment would
redesignate such subdivisions as “Minor Subdivisions,”in accord with best planning practice.
Minor Subdivision would require Planning Commission review and Board approval as they
do now.A Minor Adjustment would be a staff-level review.
2).Amend Chapter 3,Review Procedures and Standards,Section 3.2 Standard
Development
Review Procedure,G.Summary Table—Standard Development Review Process by
Application Type,by adding a “Minor Adjustment”category which specifies a required staff
review.
3).Amend Chapter 10,Subdivisions,Section 10.2 Applicability/Scope,to differentiate a
Minor
Subdivision from a Minor Adjustment,consistent with what is proposed for Section 3.9 (see
No.1.,above).
4).Amend Chapter 13 Definitions,Section 13.3 Definitions of Words,Terms,and Phrases,
by amending the existing definition of Minor Subdivision,to be consistent with the rest of this
proposed code amendment (see No.1.,above).
5).Amend Chapter 3,Review Procedures and Standards,Section 3.9.F.1.Effect of Approval
of a Minor Subdivision,and Section 3.9.F.3.Effect of Approval of a Final Subdivision Plat,by
increasing the time period to submit a plat for recording,after approval,from the current sixty
(60)days,to one hundred and eighty (180)days.
DISCUSSION:
In answer to Chair Comstock’s question as to why such an amendment is necessary,
Director Hunt explained that this saves time and money for the Town and applicants with
straight forward processing on simple requests.Applications for these requests will
continue to be posted on the website for transparency and referred for comment to all
affected agencies.
Town Trustee McAlpine asked the Commission how they feel about changes to the Code
now,rather than waiting until the Comprehensive Plan is rewritten.Heiser stated that the
process of adopting a new comp plan would take an extended amount of time,and a
change of procedure like this is an administrative fix,adding that we need to allow Code
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission —SEPTEMBER 15,2020—Page 3
changes to occur in the interim.Murphree stated that caution should be exercised even
though the current comp plan needs to be redone “head to foot.”Hanson said that
piecemeal changes might be dangerous and caution should be taken.The change being
proposed eliminates public comment and questioned whether it is good to cut the public
out to set policy for the future.
Heiser noted that the issues would likely not be of significant interest to anyone other than
the property owner but questioned the appeal process for a staff-level review.Hunt read
Chapter 12.1 .c of the EPDC,which states that appeals of decisions made by staff would
be taken to the Board of Adjustment,not the Planning Commission.Heiser pointed out
that it would seem more logical that it go to the Planning Commission for review.Hanson
expressed discomfort with giving up decision-making authority on something that is
currently within the Planning Commission jurisdiction.Hunt made it clear that staff will
not pick and choose between projects that are controversial vs.noncontroversial.
Controversy is not a valid reason for determining staff-level review or a Commission-level
hearing as being the most appropriate.Comstock asked how a member of the public
would know how to appeal to a staff-level decision if there were no outbound
communications.Hunt responded that there is nothing in the Code requiring notification
of adjacent property owners,but is certainly a possibility for the future.Woeber stated
that he does not remember an adjacent property owner coming forward with “unforeseen
consequences”in his time as a planner processing similar applications.This would
simplify and streamline things for the applicant,staff,Planning Commission and Town
Board and free up resources.
Heiser noted that this amendment has usefulness,but has concerns about the process.
There is no addition to Chapter 2 adding minor adjustments,and chapter 12.1 could be
amended.Staff level Development Plans are appealed to the Planning Commission,so
these should also be added to that same process.Hanson suggested putting up a yard
sign so neighbors would know something is happening,or notify them with a mailing,as
is currently required in Appendix B.
Clarifying the definition of an Amended Plat,and clearly delineating which types of
Amended Plats this amendment would include is something staff will do before the next
hearing.Due to the changes being discussed,Director Hunt suggested continuing this
item to the November meeting for reasons of time and transparency.
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson)to CONTINUE the text amendment to
the Estes Park Development Code to the November 17 meeting,with details for
review as a discussion item at the October 20 meeting.The motion passed 5-0.
REPORTS:
The topic of a Code amendment to building height was discussed with the Town’s
Public Information Officer,but there has not been time for a public announcement due
to the Cameron Peak fire.It is on the radar and ready for submiffal with both
newspapers and social media.
Parking regulations are under a reciprocal review with Public Works and the
Transportation Manager.
Comprehensive Plan is being recommended for the 2021 budget,which will soon be
decided by the Town Board.The DOLA grant application deadline is October 1.
Trustee McAlpine noted that there is a lot of support from the Town Board.
October discussion on the Planning Commission’s role will address when a Code
amendment is needed;a 2017 memo on the maffer identified those that are
straightforward and don’t involve policy changes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission —SEPTEMBER 15,2020—Page 4
The Estes Valley Land Trust gave a presentation to the Town Board regarding the
Estes Valley Parks and Rec plan which was developed with a State grant.There is no
known plan to bring that to the Planning Commission.Trustee MacAlpine noted that
Land Trust Director Jeffrey Boring gave a presentation at a Town Board Study Session.
Director Hunt will provide a copy of the report once it is final and perhaps have Mr.
Boring present his ideas to the Commission.
Carriage House at the Stanley Hotel was heard by the Technical Review Committee in
August,with additional attention to walkways and traffic impacts.The final review will
likely take place in October.
The Planning Technician position is in the interview stage,with a hopeful start date at
the end of October.
The Alarado traffic signal design has been approved by CDOT and the applicant and is
on order.Installation is TBD.A temporary certificate of occupancy is still being
discussed,provided traffic flow can handle it prior to the signal being installed.
There being no further business,Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.
p
Matt(nsto ,air
z1
Kar Swanlund,ecording Secretary