Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2011-07-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 19, 2011,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Ron Norris, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Rex Poggenpohl, One Vacant Position Chair Klink, Commissioners Norris, Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Poggenpohl Interim Director Chilcott, Town Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson One Vacant Position The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were seven people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Russ Johnson and Billy Ward, representing the Elkhorn Lodge Historic Preservation Group, invited the Commissioners to a tour of the Elkhorn Lodge on Sunday, July 24, 2011 beginning at 1:00 p.m. The tour will be open to the public. Johanna Darden /Town resident shared her disappointment that Rick Grabish was not reappointed to the Commission, and asked that the Commission refrain from approving any action items until a full commission is in place. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes from June 21, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Fraundorf) to approve the consent agenda as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. 3. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1, SUNDANCE MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, located at 1531 Fish Hatchery Road, AKA “Livingston Amended Plat” Planrier Shirk stated this item was a continued, at the applicant’s request, from the June meeting. The main issue was dedication of an easement for an existing power line located above the existing dwelling. The power line was in place prior to the applicant purchasing the property. The applicant was concerned that services in the easement could be expanded in the future, and the applicant was not in favor of dedicating the easement. Planner Shirk stated staff’s position from last month’s report had not changed. Planner Shirk stated the applicant was requesting vacation of a platted building envelope originally approved by the Town Board in 2001. This envelope accounted for the 50-foot river setback. A variance to expand the existing home into the river setback was approved by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment in April, 2011. Public Comment Jeff Moreau/Applicant representative explained the owner’s concerns. He stated that an easement for the power line was not dedicated when the property was subdivided in 2001, and the owner was not aware of the power line. An investigation into the cost of relocating, burying the power line along the northeastern property line including a river crossing, revealed a cost of approximately $87,000. This option was cost prohibitive for the applicant. Another option involved relocating the power line to the west, and the applicant found that a pole and guy wire would be too close to the existing dwelling. Mr. Moreau asked for a limited easement, to keep the power line capacity at the current level. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 19, 2011 Interim Utilities Director Reuben Bergsten stated the Town was obligated to ensure that land use is documented properly. The Light and Power Department has a prescriptive easement for the power line. Dedication of an easement was not negotiable, and was part of the legal process of documenting land use. Town Attorney White explained it is policy to clean up plats whenever possible in order to keep records accurate. Terry Rizutti/adjacent property owner was opposed to requiring the easement in order for the applicant to remodel the existing dwelling. He suggested handling the easement issue separately. Staff and Commission Discussion None. Conditions 1. Revise the plat to include dedication of an aerial easement for the existing overhead lines, including revision to the dedication statement. 2. Revise the plat to include the note “Relocation of the overhead lines, and recordation of a new easement if necessary, shall automatically vacate the aerial easement dedicated with this plat.” It was moved and seconded (Hull/Norris) to recommend approval of the proposed amended plat to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. 4.PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOTS 12 & 13, BLOCK 10, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR ADDITION, BIRCH AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, located at 540 Birch Avenue Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this was a request to condominiumize an existirig four-unit apartment building to allow for individual sale of units. The request also entails combining the two lots the building straddles. No change of use or increase in density is proposed. Planner Shirk stated most of the existing dwellings in the surrounding area are single-family homes, with a few multi-family structures. Planner Shirk stated the application complies with all applicable standards, with two exceptions: 1) The sidewalk requirement has been waived. After consultation with the Public Works Department, staff waived the sidewalk requirement after determining that any sidewalk built now would not only be a “stand-alone” section, but would likely be removed at a later date; and 2) The drive aisle width has been modified. The Town Engineer approved a modification because the proposed design would provide stormwater management that does not currently exist, and will provide a safer interface with the public street than what is currently in place. The Public Works Department engineers suggested the applicant document the existing drainage conditions prior to moving dirt. Planner Shirk stated several parking lot designs were discussed with Public Works staff and the consulting engineer, with the current design being the best available option to allow vehicles to exit the property forward-facing. Planner Shirk stated the applicant submitted a landscaping plan, which includes additional shrubs, ponderosa pines, and landscaping around the trash enclosure. Public Comment Jes Reetz/applicant representative stated the parking plan was consistent with other parking in that area. The lot is too steep to allow for parking directly south of the building. He stated the stormwater drainage pond will be adjusted and documented, per the conditions of approval. Planner Shirk stated he received correspondence from one adjacent property owner, who supported the project. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 19, 2011 Staff and Commission Discussion None. Conditions 1. The drainage report shall be amended to reflect the final parking lot design. 2. The site plan shall be revised to include the following stormwater details: outflow device, erosion control below the outflow device, spot elevations, and verify the pond volume reflects the final parking lot design. It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Tucker) to recommend approval of the proposed Birch Avenue Condominiums to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. 5. REZONING AND MINOR SUBDIVISION, SE y4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 10-4-73; LESS BOOK 868 PAGE 557, located at 1790 Wind River Trail, AKA “Duncan Subdivision” Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This was a request to subdivide a 38-acre parcel into two platted lots. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling on proposed Lot 2. The property owner desires to build a new dwelling unit on proposed Lot 1, receiving access and utilities from Windcliff subdivision. The property is located off of Tunnel Road, with one access point from Wind River Trail and the other through Wind Cliff. The YMCA owns the property to the west, and the property to the south is owned by the National Park. The subdivision application also includes a request to rezone the property from A -1— Accommodations (four units per acre) to RE-^-Rural Estate (one unit per ten acres), which would be a significant decrease in potential density. If the rezoning and minor subdivision are approved, the new lot sizes would not allow additional lot splits in the RE- 1 zone district. Planner Shirk stated access approval for proposed Lot 1 is anticipated from the Windcliff Homeowners Association. Staff is recommending the signed access agreement documents be provided as a condition of approval of this application. The property owner has plans to sell proposed Lot 1, but has requested approval to retain development rights for one additional dwelling on the proposed lot. If that additional unit was t^ilt, the existing dwelling on that lot would be classified as an accessory dwelling unit. Staff recommended a note be placed on the plat stating the allowance of the accessory dwelling unit. Planner Shirk stated the property contains riparian habitat, and the application included the required wildlife habitat analysis. The report stated there would be no significant impact if the subdivision and rezoning were approved, and the down-zoning of the property would reduce the potential density and help maintain the existing habitat. Staff recommended a note be placed on the plat referencing compliance with the wildlife plan as a condition of approval for future building permits. Planner Shirk stated there would be adequate fire protection for the existing dwelling and the new unit. The new unit would need to comply with building codes and fire codes in regards to fire protection. Regarding access, the applicant applied for several waivers for Wind River Trail, primarily paving, road width, curves, etc., which were granted by the county engineer due to the down-zoning of the property. Per the Estes Valley Development Code, new subdivisions are required to provide trail easements where trails are planned. The property owner had no objections to dedicating trail easement through the property along Wind River Trail, as well as along the spur of road in the northwest corner of proposed Lot 2. Staff reviewed this with the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District Trails Committee. The Committee reviewed and discussed the Trails Plan and found that the plan does call for an Aspen Brook Trail through this location. In the Trail Inventory section of the plan. Section III, Item 4, states RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 19, 2011 “Establish/acquire public non-motorized trail easement...” This Trails Plan was policy adopted by the Town Board and the Larimer County Commissioners in the mid-1980s to gain trail easements within the Estes Valley. The trail is also identified in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Town Attorney White stated that when a property owner has property included on the Trails Plan, the request to acquire the trail easement is completed at the time of a land use application is made. Section 10.5.D.1.a in the Estes Valley Development Code states ‘To the maximum extent feasible, all subdivisions shall provide pedestrian linkages, including trails, to park, schools, adjacent developments and existing and proposed hike and bike trails as depicted in the Estes Valley Long Range Hike and Bike Trails Plan (found in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan).” Planner Shirk stated several public comments have been received in the last few days from people unable to attend the meeting. All were opposed to the Wind River Trail access and public trail easement. Planner Shirk stated there are several conditions of approval. He emphasized that this is the one opportunity the county will have to acquire an easement for a future trail in this area. Public Comment Amy Plummer/Applicant stated the property owner was willing to accept all conditions of approval. His current rights could include an access road to his preferred building site on the southeast corner of proposed Lot 2 from Wind River Trail. He prefers to access the site through Windcliff, where he would pay his share of road maintenance dues. He desires to keep the existing historic dwelling and the access to it from Wind River Trail. Ms. Plummer confirmed the access agreement with Windcliff is still in negotiation, but has initially been approved. Walt Dietrich/County resident was strongly opposed to the rezoning due to the requirernent of the public easement. He distributed a map of the area, which can be viewed in the comments on the Town website. He referred to a court order from 1965 disallowing a change of the roadway (Wind River Trail). Staff and Town Attorney White received a copy of this court order shortly before the meeting, and it can be viewed in the comments on the Town website. Mr. Dietrich stated the private road is for use of the property owners, and was never dedicated or intended for public use. He stated there are several signs and obstacles that indicate it is a private road, although the Trails Committee claims there is historic evidence of use as a trail. He submitted a summary for the record, which can be viewed in the comments on the Town website. It was his opinion that the requirement for trail dedication was a back-door method to take private land for public use, and stated it was inappropriate. Town Attorney White stated the ruling was in 1965, based on facts in 1965. Those facts ,T,ayJh1tVe chan9ed- The ruling stated that the Buser’s (early owners of what is now Windcliff subdivision) could not use the road (Wind River Trail) except for access to the existing single-family residences at that time. In summary, the court found that in 1965 ^ere was no public use of the road. Windcliff does not currently use this road for access. Town Attorriey White stated the private property rights of this road are not being affected by the decision of the Planning Commission, other than what occurs on the subject property. The action of the Planning Commission will not change any of the private property rights of those property owners between Tunnel Road and the northern boundary of this property. Approval of this rezoning does not grant public access to adjacent private properties. He stated the EVDC requires a trail easement if the property is on an approved trail plan. Jessica Pierce Madden/County resident supported the rezoning if it ensured low-density development. She opposed the trail easement, and would be concerned about a new RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 19, 2011 dwelling on proposed Lot 1 with possible improvements to the existing road. Town Attorney White reiterated that nothing decided by the Commission concerning this application would change the private aspect of the road. Discussion occurred among the Commission concerning property rights, the Trails Plan and how it related to this specific trail easement, the EVDC requirement for a trail easement, and the County Commission (elected officials) being the decision-making body. The following members of the public commented: Randall Stone/County resident was opposed to public use of the road. He did not oppose the rezoning or the land subdivision; Richard Seib/County resident agreed with Mr. Dietrich; Johanna Darden/Town resident, Jean Huffman Sutherland/County resident, and Steve Wynosky/relative of adjacent property owner were opposed to the public easement ; Jim Cooley/relative of adjacent land owner, was opposed to allowing Wind River Trail access for a new dwelling; and Roger Pierce/County resident suggested denying the rezoning if the trail easement was not removed. Gary Matthews/Trails Committee member stated that the Commission was not approving a trail, but an easement for a possible future trail in the long-term plan. He explained that local citizens passed a bond issue to provide a mil levy to build trails. The trails plan was presented in community meetings prior to adoption. The Trails Committee was not proposing to violate property rights. The Trails Committee looks at two major goals when planning trails: connectivity (a trail to someplace), and a loop trail. There are other options for a trail in this area. He appreciated the opportunity to have a trail easement that could possibly be used in the future. Today’s decision would not create a trail through that area in the near future. Bud Duryea/President of Windcliff HOA stated the property owner and the Windcliff HOA have signed an Agreement to Negotiate to annex the proposed Lot 2 into the Windcliff Subdivision. The agreement should be completed by December 31, 2011. He appreciated Dr. Duncan s willingness to surrender the current accommodations zoning for one with less density potential. The HOA had no opinion on the trail easement. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Norris directed a question to Ms. Plummer about the applicant, and she stated he was not opposed to people walking along the road. Commissioner Hull stated that trail easements do not become public trails until all property owners involved give their permission for a trail easement through their property. Commissioner Poggenpohl supported the rezoning, and questioned the principle behind the code requirement for a trail easement, and was willing to wait on a decision on that easement. Commissioner Tucker was opposed to the rezoning, stating that the Estes Valley has limited accommodations-zoned property. He supported the property owner’s desire to build a home on the property without going through the rezoning or subdivision process, and would support additional building in the future. Commissioner Fraundorf supported approval without the trail easement. Town Attorney White explained two code provisions pertaining to this applications: First, in Section 10.5.A - No subdivision shall be approved unless it complies with all of the following standards and criteria....Section 10.5.D.1.a — To the maximum extent feasible, all subdivisions shall provide pedestrian linkages, including trails, to parks, schools^ adjacent developments and existing and proposed hike and bike trails as depicted in the Estes Valley Long Range Hike and Bike Trails Plan (found in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan). Second, Section 7.4.A.1 —Trails. All new subdivisions shall provide for public trails pursuant to this Section and Chapter 4, “Zoning Districts.” Also, Section 7.4.C.3 - Dedications for trails shall be at locations deemed appropriate by the Decision- Making Body and shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be in accord with the trails/bike RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 July 19, 2011 path element contained in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan or any other subsequently adopted comprehensive hike/bike or open areas plan. He stated the Planning Commission could make a recommendation as they see fit, but emphasized that the EVDC uses the word “shall”. Chair Klink understood the effects of the rezoning and the effects of an easement but could not support the trail easement. Commissioner Norris made a motion to approve the request for the minor subdivision and rezoning with findings and recommendations by staff, but removing the requirement for a trail easement. That motion was later modified. During discussion among the Commission and staff. Interim Director Chilcott stated that an alternate trail route through the YMCA property to the National Park would involve an easement through this property. Town Attorney White informed the Commission that they were making a recommendation to the County Commissioners, who would make the final decision. If it was the Commission’s desire to not require the trail easement dedication, it would be appropriate to state that in the motion. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) to recommend approval of the Duncan minor subdivision plat and rezoning from A-I-Accommodations to RE-1- Rural Estate to the County Commissioners with the findings and recommendations by staff, with the further recommendation that this area not be considered for a trail easement. Commissioner Tucker reminded the board of their stance on the disallowance of non- conforming accessory dwelling units, stating the applicant had various options to subdivide and/or rezone the property so the existing dwelling would be conforming if a new dwelling was built, rather than requesting to retain development rights for an additional dwelling on the proposed Lot 2. The motion passed 4 -2. Commissioners Norris, Poggenpohl, Fraundorf, and Hull voted in favor. Commissioners Tucker and Klink voted against. Conditions 1. Prior to recordation of the plat, submittal of an easement granting vehicular access to proposed Lot 2 through Lot 15 Block 1 Windcliff Estates 5^ filing. This easement shall be subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney, and shall include applicable recording fee, arid shall be graphically delineated on the plat mylars. 2' recordation of the P|at> submittal of an agreement between the property owner and Windcliff verifying the owner can connect to Windcliff infrastructure, including roads, water and electric system. y 3. Easements as necessary for water and electric lines shall be provided for recordation along with recording fees, prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 4. The following notes shall be included on the plat: a. Wildlife. Road construction, utility installations, development, and any future coristruction activity shall comply with “minimization of Construction Impacts” outlined in the Wildlife Habitat Evaluation and Impact Analysis in the subdivision b. Accessory Dwelling Unit. One additional single-family dwelling unit shall be allowed on Lot 1. Construction of this additional unit shall classify the existing dwelling as an accessory dwelling unit. 6. AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT (RLUIPA) AND SCHOOLS Interim Director Chilcott stated this item was noticed as an action item. The draft code amendments address RLUIPA with the primary purpose of treating places of public aspmbly in the same manner; more specifically, not treating religious institutions differently than other assembly uses. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 19, 2011 Staff recommended the use for religious assemblies and schools go through a Special Review process in the R-2—Two-Family Residential and RM-Multi-Family Residential zone districts. This would involve allowing religious assembly use in the R-2 zone district with a special review, and changing schools from a permitted use-by-right in R-2 to a use requiring special review, as well as removing private schools from the RE-1, RE, E-1, E, R, and R-1 zone districts. Fraternal membership clubs, lodges, associations, etc, would be changed to be permitted by right in the A—Accommodations zone district, as would religious assembly and schools. Day care centers and private schools would be allowed in the A—Accommodations and CO—Outyling Commercial zone districts. The problem statement, which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission several months ago, identified a concern with allowing private schools in residential districts with no requirements for landscaping, impervious surfaces, floor area ratio, public review, etc. that could have significant impacts on a residential neighborhood. This code amendment will eliminate that concern. Commissioner Poggenpohl asked and received assurance that existing assembly uses would not be affected by the changes. Any assembly uses that would be outside the permitted zone districts would be legally non-conforming. Town Attorney White commended Interim Director Chilcott for keeping the changes to a minimum, amending the code in an effective manner, and providing protection from adverse legal reaction. Interim Director Chilcott stated the definition for Religious Assembly would read “A place of assembly for religious worship. Typical accessory uses include, but are not limited to, day care centers and private schools.” This would allow religious uses in banquet rooms, etc., which would be typical uses for our community. The draft code language has beeri forwarded to our Larimer County liaison as well as the County Attorney. Neither expressed any concerns. Public Comment Johanna Darden/Town resident expressed concern about religious use of land. She referred to an extreme religious group that had taken over another community. She did not agree with making special considerations for religious land use. Closed public comment. Staff and Commission Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and Private Schools, as delineated in the staff report, to the Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. 7. REPORTS A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Interim Director Chilcott stated a summary of work-to-date was included in the notebooks. Draft code amendments approved by the Planning Commission in March, 2009 were also included. These amendments were remanded by the Town Board to the Planning Commission in May, 2009. The next step in the process would be to address those specific items remanded by the Town Board. Discussion occurred among the Commission as to what direction to take with revising the amendments. Items included: attached versus detached; size of property; non-conforming versus conforming; allowing existing detached ADUs to be managed and upgraded, remaining silent on rentals, etc. Interim Director Chilcott recommended presenting a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 19, 2011 8 problem statement to the Town Board and County Commissioners to help identify the scope of the amendments, prior to drafting and reviewing specific code language. Commissioner Fraundorf suggested creating a brief chart to list the principal items. Staff was directed to provide a problem statement along with a chart at the next study session. B. Town Board Approvals 1. Interim Director Chilcott reported that the Town Board approved the Stanley Avenue Condominiums Development Plan 03-16 Extension. The original development plan was approved in 2003 and is not completely built out, and they requested an extension to finish the project. Interim Director Chilcott reported the Timbie amended plat was approved by the Town board on June 28th. 2. C. Staff-Level Approvals 1. Interim Director Chilcott reported that Stonebridge Estates was granted a staff-level amendment to their development plan. The size and orientation of some of the units were adjusted to make them more marketable. Interim Director Chilcott reported The Timbers of Estes Condominiums was granted a staff-level amendment to their development plan to make their unbuilt units more marketable. 2. D. Other 1,Interim Director Chilcott reported there has been an increase in development activity. The number of building permits have doubled from this time last year, but the valuation has remained the same. There are several long-term projects that have pulled permits: The Timbers of Estes, Stone Bridge Estates, Marys Meadow, and Park River West. The Promontory also recently pulled permits. Single-family dwelling permits are also up slightly over last year. 2. Interim Director Chilcott acknowledged Rick Grabish’s work on the Commission. His time on the Commission was greatly appreciated. The deadline to apply for the vacant position was July 18, 2011. — Doljg Kffn/, Chair Caren Thompson, Reeofding Secretary