Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2013-11-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 19, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Betty Hull, Vice Chair Kathy Bowers, Commissioners Charley Dickey, Nancy Hills, Doug Klink, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes Chair Hull, Vice Chair Bowers, Commissioners Dickey, Hills, Klink, Murphree, and Sykes Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Town Board Liaison Elrod, Town Engineer Kevin Ash, Larimer County Manager Terry Gilbert and Recording Secretary Thompson Director Alison Chilcott, Town Attorney Greg White The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were eight people in attendance. Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner introduced him/herself. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, October 1,2013 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. B. Portions of Lot 1, North End Ranches, Amended Plat; 3325 Devils Gulch Road; Loren & Susan Bley/Applicants. The applicant has requested the application be continued to the December 17, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. C. The Sanctuary Development Plan 2013-05 and Preliminary Subdivision Plat. Staff has requested continuance of the application. The application has been revised and routed to CommlLonem "eS.;nagnd " SChedU'e “ b6 h6"" ^ *he DeCember 17' 2013 P,snnin^ iw.rPrdau";d ,K,ink/sykesi ,o approve ,he - p—^d a„d .he METESAND bounds PARCEL, Mountain River Townhomes Development Plan 2013-03 and Preliminary Subdivision Plat, 6S0 Moraine Avenue Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to redevelop the former Drnnn«|kPTPiertV'!°Cat,ed 3t 65° Moraine Avenue '"'thiP the Town limits. The development proposal includes a development plan that describes the layout and use of the propertv and a preliminary subdivision plat that describes lots for commonly ownerarra7s7h 7'roads s ormwater ponds, and lots for individually-owned townhouses. Planner Sh rk staterthe Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the development plan whHe the subSo^pTaT wlTthe fhe body for the Pt^lifinary and subsequent final subdivision plat, with the final decision coming from the Town Board. Planner Shirk stated the singrfamlfvET&rt5 ar6 Z°ned A-4ccommorfotons m-Residentlal Multi-Family, with Single-family E-l-fstofe zoning across Fall River and Riverside Drive. Construction^ ^hlllnt °Wner iS B & L DeveloPment' and applicant is Dallman onstruction. The agent for this project is Van Horn Engineering and Surveying The overall site IS approximately 7.5 acres. The existing dwellings on the property amTot'being S wlthlhe bal Sta,ed .“h6 existing deve*0Pment lies along the river and the west property line sold IsldliZl >e Prr|oper,''.remainiri8 undeveloped. The proposed townhomes would be FEMA has “a POrt,°n °f th6 pr°p0Sed devel°Pn'ent lies within the floodplain FEMA has approved a map amendment (correction to existing conditions), stating the property is outside of the regulated floodplain. ' 8 3. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 19, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Shirk explained the development proposes 26 single-family dwellings, averaging 4.4 units per acre. This is less dense than what is currently allowed in the A-Accommodations zone district (8 units per acre for this type of development). The overall concept has been approved by the Public Works Department, with a few details to be worked out prior to construction. Two stormwater treatment ponds will be built on the site. The site layout would provide for connection to Park River Place Condominiums on the east side of the property, and align with Cedar Ridge Circle on Moraine Avenue. An access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) will be required. Concerning wildlife in the area. Planner Shirk stated there is a conservation easement on the north side of Moraine Avenue, and wildlife frequently migrate through the area towards the river. The submitted wildlife habitat report included a few criteria to incorporate into the HOA declarations, such as no dog runs, bird feeders, etc. Design considerations would include no fences between units with a wildlife corridor recommended close to the east property line, taking advantage of the open space between this project and Park River West, as well as the access to the river from the conservation easement to the north. Planner Shirk sent a survey to the Northern Colorado Elk Management Group, made up of land use and wildlife officials throughout Colorado, including Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, CSU, Boulder and Larimer Counties, etc. The results showed 80% of respondents recommending the creation of a single corridor. Based on those comments, there is an adequate amount of space on the projected plans to allow for wildlife migration. There are no retaining walls planned, so wildlife could also migrate freely throughout the site between the units. Planner Shirk stated the Estes Valley Fire Protection District requires a turnaround lane for fire trucks. They requested a hammerhead turnaround area at the northeast corner of the property. This will require a variance approval from the Board of Adjustment. The proposed turnaround did not affect the traffic impact analysis. CDOT has the approved the design without a center turn lane on Moraine Avenue. Planner Shirk stated the development would include landscaping along the highway and internal roads with specific landscaping at each unit. Street landscaping would need to be installed within two years. Individual landscaping will be installed as units are completed. The applicant has requested a modification to allow smaller trees be planted, stating smaller trees have a higher success rate. The applicant would be planting approximately 200 trees instead of the required 138. Although there are no architectural design standards in the Estes Valley Development Code, the proposal is to construct one and one-half story homes (one story with a walkout lower level). Planner Shirk stated the development plan complies with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) with a few exceptions. The minor modifications requested include a six-foot wide interior sidewalk in lieu of the eight-foot wide sidewalk required in the EVDC. The A- Accommodations zone district requires eight-foot sidewalks. This modification request is within the 25% allowance the Planning Commission is authorized to grant. The tree size, mentioned above, is the other requested modification. Planner Shirk stated Public Works and the applicant are working to reach an agreement on stormwater, streets, and sidewalk design. Upper Thompson Sanitation District supports the design. The HOA declaration revisions will need to be completed prior to being heard by the Town Board. Revisions should include wildlife management and descriptions of rental units (short- and long-term) for clarification to potential purchasers. Construction plans will be required once the project is approved, and many of the staff findings will be addressed at that stage. Staff Findings 1. The development plan, if revised per recommended conditions, will comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC, as outlined in the staff report and Findings of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission ! November 19, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Compliance dated November 13, 2013. This finding excludes requested modifications and waivers. 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Commission is the Decision-making Body for the development plan, and the Recommending Body for the subdivision; the recommendation is to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park. 4. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board agenda. This means a revised application demonstrating compliance with conditions must be submitted before the application can move forward to the Town Board, but no later than 30 days after Planning Commission meeting date. Staff recommended approval of the development plan and preliminary subdivision plat with conditions listed below. Staff and Commission Discussion None. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering stated the fence on the east side of the property would be removed. He provided a brief history of the site, stating the new development would contain fewer buildings than what currently exists. The new Base Flood Elevation (BFE) would be shown on the preliminary and final plats. Details would be worked out with staff. Concerning the traffic impact analysis, he stated peak traffic is nearly 600 cars per hour (2012 statistics). Per CDOT, that amount of traffic did not trigger requirement of a turn lane. He stated there would be 12 feet between each unit, eave to eave. Some fireproofing may be required, which would be addressed with the construction plans. Celine LeBeau/Wildlife Consultant stated she studied the Comprehensive Plan's wildlife maps. There was not a high-use area for elk mapped on this property, but there was one for deer. The proposed site does not have much bedding habitat for elk, and the riverbank is generally too steep for elk to use for river access. Van Horn Engineering set up a motion camera along the river and in the meadow. The photos showed no elk along the river at this site, with minimal numbers in the meadow. Having discussed the project with Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife Officer Rick Spowart, he was more concerned about the human/wildlife conflict (bears/trash, cow/calf incidents, etc.) than wildlife migration issues. He stated the area is already fragmented by existing development, and did not see where additional development would greatly affect wildlife. Ms. LeBeau stated the cameras revealed visits by coyotes and a mountain lion, but generally was not high quality habitat compared to other areas fronting the river. She found the development of the site would not have a significant effect on wildlife migration. Kevin Ash/Town Engineer stated there was an approximate 10% slope on the west side where the road and sidewalk are proposed, making it difficult to meeting the 5% maximum slope requirement for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The applicant provided the Town with language that would allow the slope to be greater than 5% due to the grade of the road. ADA provides an exception that allows the noncompliance as the street slope warrants, but the Town is obligated to encourage applicants to meet the standard. Public Works supports the project and will work with the applicant to resolve any issues. All public infrastructure should comply with ADA regulations. Mr. Ash stated they requested a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which was changed to a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA). The floodplain line was in the southwest corner. Van Horn ________REC0RD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 19, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall completed a process with FEMA to get the line adjusted. It was noted that this LOMA was completed prior to the September flood. Maryellen Banfield/Town resident represented the Cedar Ridge Condominiums Homeowners Association. Her comments are posted in written form on the Town website. Concerns raised by the HOA were directed towards long-term impacts; specifically, wildlife and traffic. They supported a turn lane into the development. She felt the Traffic Impact Analysis did not reflect the true stress on the area. Arthur Blume/Town resident stated many species of wildlife currently migrate across Moraine from the conservation easement to the north. He was concerned about the long-term traffic impacts, as well as protection for the wildlife. Jeff Moreau/applicant stated he and Van Horn Engineering have worked hard with all public entities to meet every criteria of the development code, with the exception of the minor modifications and the variance request for the hammerhead turnaround. This all began by trying to appease the Community Development Department and the neighbors with the wildlife migration concern. The design was revised to remove a driveway along the east side of the property; however, that revision caused the requirement for the turnaround. He has made many concessions and asked the Commission to keep that in mind. He stated build-out expectations would ideally be five years. The reason for requesting smaller trees is not a cost­ saving issue, but a higher survivability rate. Conditions 1. Weed mitigation shall be initiated prior to site disturbance to the extent necessary to prevent weed migration to nearby properties. Mitigation plan shall be finalized with construction plans. 2. Variance approval for fire turnaround lane. 3. Landscaping on east side shall be designed to maximize elk migration and shall be coordinated with the existing fence system. 4. HOA declarations shall be modified to address wildlife considerations, as outlined in the staff report. 5. The subdivision shall be modified to include Base Flood Elevation information. 6. Compliance with the following affected agency comments; a. Water Division dated November 14,2013. b. Fire District dated November 14, 2013. c. Community Development Department dated November 13, 2013 d. Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated November 14, 2013. e. Public Works Department dated November 19,2013. It was moved and seconded (Dickey/Murphree) to approve Development Plan 2013-03 and recommend approval to the Town Board for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Sykes supported the project. She acknowledged and appreciated public comments from the Cedar Ridge residents. She stated the applicant addressed all the issues required by the Community Development Department. Commissioner Murphree agreed with Commissioner Sykes. Commissioner Dickey stated he supported the development. He considered the current conditions of the property as blighted, and was comfortable with the application for redevelopment. Commissioners Hills and Klink agreed with the others. Commissioner Bowers sympathized with the Cedar Ridge residents. Development is inevitable on large parcels with close proximity to town. She commended the developer for reducing the density and increasing the landscaping. People make a conscious choice to live in that area, and all have to deal with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 November 19, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall traffic issues certain months of the year. Commissioner Murphree commended the staff at Van Horn Engineering for their hard work on the project. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO CONCURRENT REVIEW AND PROMULGATING PROCESSING SCHEDULES. At the study session, it was discussed having conversation with the Town Attorney prior to making any decisions concerning this proposed amendment. Chair Hull opened the agenda item for public comment. There was none. It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Murphree) to continue the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code until such time when Attorney White can be present at the Planning Commission study session and meeting. 5. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Planner Shirk reported the Anschutz Wellness Center at the Stanley Hotel had been officially withdrawn by the applicant. 2. Planner Shirk reported next month's agenda would include an application for an expansion of the north parking lot at the Estes Park Medical Center. This is a very complex land use application. 3. Planner Shirk reported next month's agenda would include an application for The Sanctuary on Fall River Townhomes. 4. Planner Shirk reported the initial plans for the proposed Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure has been determined complete for review. However, there are some major items to resolve. This should come before the Planning Commission in February, 2014. 5. Planner Kleisler reported the Board of Adjustment approved a variance request to construct an above-grade deck in the Stanley Heights Subdivision. 6. Planner Kleisler reported staff is still spending a significant amount of time on flood recovery efforts. The Town Board approved two municipal code ordinances relating to floodplain measures: 1) Amendment to come into compliance with state floodplain regulations. This was on track prior to the flood; and 2) Ordinance for temporary building requirements for properties adjacent to drainages. This ordinance replaced the ordinance for emergency provisions adopted shortly after the flood, and will be in effect for one year. Planner Kleisler reported staff has been issuing temporary floodplain permits and enforcing regulations. Building will be allowed, but must meet criteria to avoid being in jeopardy when the next flood occurs. Proper permitting also comes into play if the homeowner desires to obtain flood insurance. He reported the Community Development Department has applied for a grant to complete a Master Plan for the Fall River Drainage. The process will include extensive community input. Planner Kleisler attended a conference dealing with grants for flood- impacted communities. 7. Commissioner Dickey requested updates on the FLAP grant. Planner Shirk stated he would ask the Public Works Department to provide a brief update next month. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:01 p.m. ing SecretaryKaren Thompson, Ri