HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-06-16RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 16, 2009,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty
Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl
Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty
Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl
Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott,
Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent:
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.
Chair Klink introduced new Commissioner Rex Poggenpohl, who is representing Larimer
County and replacing Wendell Amos.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT . tPaul Newendorp/Sustainable Mountain Living Group extended an invitation to all
community organizations to a meeting on Thursday, June 18 at Town HalL The meeting
will include discussion to propose a transition initiahve for the future of the Estes a y
and its ability to become a sustainable community within 20 years.
Fred MaresTTown Resident suggested online posting of the agendas and documentation
for public meetings seven days prior to the meeting date. If changes are made’
post a revision date. Director Joseph noted more people are using the website, and Staff
will keep the information as current and accurate as possible.
2' Planner Shfrk notified the Planning Commissioners that the Mary’s Meadow Development
Plan 06-01B, The Meadow Replat, and the Preliminary Condominium Map has been
withdrawn by the applicants, Jim Tawney and Frank Theiss.
MEETING CHANGE AND BYLAW AMENDMENT . oi
The Planning Commission meeting time is established in the bylaws and Planning
Commissioners discussed revising the bylaws to change the meet'ng r^^rn 1.30 p.m^
to 6:00 p.m., with study session beginning approximately two hours priort0 tha
depending on the agenda content. Commissioner Klink stated the time chanSe ^ou'd
hopefully result in better attendance and more public comment. This proposed change
could occur on a trial basis and be revisited in the future based on public input and
logistics.
The bylaws include a provision requiring that notice of proposed am+endmen!a/tc°ntr|'er
bylaw/be given to each Planning Commission member in writing at least d^s ^5°
to the meeting. Town Attorney White advised that the Planning Commission could wa
this requirement if all members agreed to the waiver.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to waive provision in the bylaws requiring
th/t nodce of proposed amendments to the bylaws be g.ven to each Planning
Commission member in writing at least seven days prior to the meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 16, 2009
It was moved and seconded (KlinkTTucker) to amend the bylaws to read: “...with the
time set by an adopted motion of the Commission,” to start study sessions Pri0I|to
the meeting, with the exact time depending on agenda content’f start!. anrT"?
Commission meeting at 6:00 p.m., beginning with the July 21, 2009 meeting. Th
motion passed unanimously.
3. CONSENT AGENDA ^ ^ onno
Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated May 19, 2009
BLUE SPRUCE SUBDIVISION - Lot 1,Blue Spruce Subdivision and a portion of Lot 10>
Greetey Zder Corony, located at 2250 Highway 66. This is a request to ad]Ust the
internal lot line between two lots originally created in 1918.
It was moved and seconded (Norris-Tucker) that the consent a9enda. 5>e.aec.^?Pjad as
amended, and the motion passed unanimously. Lane and Poggenpo a
. ni AM no n'i - BLACK CANYON INN CONDOMINIUMS MASTER
4' PLAN Tte iS^es at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums located in the east % of section 24,
To^shrp 5 Zh, Range 73 West, located at 800 MacGregor Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Sloan Investments, LLC c/o Jim Sloan
Staff Report: onnmval to build 26 dwelling/accommodationPlanner Shirk noted ,h,s'f a ^fqU|nsJ|'Xrrenovations to some existing buildings and
units AsLmTng apprli and buiid-out, this would bnng the total to 69 units. The
appHcant proposes development in the eastern port,on of the s.te.
Planner Shirk stated the
opposing the emergency access q nts were received opposing Building 6 (units
S“t Snbde0“berorePt"n Board on dune 23, 2009.
Planner Shirk noted this P-PO-'rps^tda?!™!^)
the length of the cul de approved due to the planned
than code allows on a cul de sac. Canyon property and the Overlook
em:rCyThrd^\io0pnm:Cnrcomprsenwith the setback requirements of 50-feet from
wefSids areas,dand the building height will also comply.
Planner Shirk noted the Building department hasd'fpUperova|hlohadd a trail along
addressed prior to approval. There is als0 ® th Rldgeview Condominiums wiil beMacGregor Avenue. A CPrtectipn to the sewer hnetojh^^idge^ requ.red for (ho (ree
required. Staff is recommend'n9i2ifa assessment report, three mitigation techniques
being removed. Concerning ,he ® ®lSneS|wence considerations, and 3) bear-proo
were recommended: 1) t";n,n3 0’ ° pauested’ a eduction in the parking requiremem frorn
trash containers. The applicant has requested a based on histor|ca| usage and
2 25 spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces p ■ g.. k noted this proposal complies with th
win reduce the impervious ®''era9eh P'3,?"6: fhe residential land use categoiys He also
in *he
future.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
June 16, 2009
Public Comment: u i • i
Kerry Prochaska/Cornerstone Engineering, representing the applicant, noted the electrical
will be worked into the existing subdivision and will provide a loop service for the entire
area. He noted the emergency access easement will not be a thoroughfare, as it will have
a locked barrier across the entrance. Mr. Prochaska noted the developer disagrees with
the 2-for-1 tree replacement condition, and is requesting no tree replacement. Mr. Sloan
believes there are enough shrubs and other landscaping that will suffice for landscaping.
Planner Shirk stated a district buffer is required along the east side of the property where
many trees are being removed.
Ruthie Cosby/Town Resident/Overlook Condominiums HOA Treasurer notified the
Planning Commission of the overwhelming “No” by the HOA for the emergericy access
easement, with concerns of unintended consequences, liability, additional costs to
homeowners for improvements and/or maintenance, etc.
Johanna Darden/Town resident opposes this development.
Patricia WedanH-own resident believes Mr. Sloan is very conscientious and will do the
best job possible to preserve as much as possible.
Gale White/Town resident has concerns about increased traffic and lighting. He would like
the Planning Commission to consider the percentage of accommodations units versus
single-family units.
Planner Shirk commented the entrance to the development will be reconfigured
become safer. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates one vehicle for every 1-4 units, and
the anticipated increase on weekends during peak hours is 15 vehicle trips per day.
Bill Darden/Town resident approves of the plan, but has concerns about being able to
actually use the emergency access easement in an emergency.
Closed public comment.
Tucker would like to see tree replacement Ja1 - r^°n^m'Sn7nbeerliehvreS tree replacement
approved maintenance agreement for the ease , reolacement He alsoshould be 1:1; Commissioner Poggenpohl agrees with
supports the additional 25 feet of right-o v'/ay . d d tban tbe 2;l tree replacement;
the emergency access easemen and a is concerned that
fhheUrcSmtrsstori)M7me in lieu of building <o pay for their share of
the future trail construction.
Ser,Sopre:fP"n«ToTc:ndSrnarto
by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
b. submittal of a phasing plan outlining sequential utility installation (including fire
hvdrants and stormwater facilities) and development of unit .0. ArchteSuralrtTrings for the proposed bear-proof trash enclosure.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
June 16, 2009
d. Delineate number of significant trees to be removed, and include number of
replacement trees (one replacement tree for each significant tree removed).
e. Include the note: Significant trees to remain shall be subject to maintenance
requirements set forth in Section 7.5.J of the Estes Valley Development Code.
f. Include the note: No construction activity shall be initiated between April 1 and July
15 of any year.
3. Compliance with the following memos/letters/emails:
a. EPSD to Dave Shirk dated May 13, 2009.
b. Greg Sievers to Dave Shirk dated May 8, 2009.
c. Greg White to Dave Shirk date April 16, 2009.
d. Public Works (Tracy Feagans) to Dave Shirk dated April 24, 2009.
e. Estes Valley Recreation and Park District to Dave Shirk dated April 21, 2009.
f. Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated April 27, 2009.
g. Corps of Engineers to Dave Shirk dated April 14, 2009.
h. Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated June 2, 2009.
4. Prior to issuance of a grading/building permit for new development:
Development Agreement and form of guarantee shall be submitted,
a An emergency access easement through the Overlook condominiums shall be
recorded with the Larimer County Clerk. This easement shall also provide for
emergency access through the Black Canyon property to the Overlook
condominiums, maintenance, and shall be subject to review and approval of
Town Staff prior to recordation. , r> ur
b. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Town of Estes Park Public
Works Department, EPSD, and the EVRPD.
c. The “sheep fence” as noted on page 5 of the wildlife impact assessment shall be
removed.
5. PRELMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT - THE NEIGHBORHOOD - Lots 15, 16, and 17,
Block 2, The Neighborhood, Owner and Applicant: Pawnee Meadows, LLC
Planner Chilcott stated this is a request to subdivide three lots into five lots in The
Neighborhood subdivision. The original 1975 subdivision had 30 homes, with 15 deed
restricted to be attainable housing. This application would increase the number of lots
from 30 to 32, with the additional two lots being deed restricted. Most of Phase I has been
completed. Pawnee Meadows, LLC is in the beginning stages of developing Phase II.
This development is helping to meet an important need for affordable housing in this
community. Homes are currently being sold for approximately $100,000 less than the
median home price in the area. This proposal, if approved, will keep the project viable in
today’s economy, reduce infrastructure costs, keep selling prices down, and result in
increased home size. All of the proposed lots are conforming within theuz0lll'19
Staff finds the application complies with the subdivision criteria in the EVDC- 1 he
applicant is also asking for a reduced setback on one side from 10 feet to 7.5 feet with a
greater setback on the opposite side. Staff is supportive of this reduced setback. This
change would require an approval of a minor modification by the Planning Comrnission.
The infrastructure that was planned prior to this application is sufficient to handle the two
new proposed lots. If approved, a number of agreements would need revision, mcluding
but not limited to: Development Agreement stating a 30-Iot development should be
changed to 32 lots; an updated Attainable Housing Agreement stating which lots would be
designated as attainable housing; and an agreement between the Town of Estes Park
and the Housing Authority to ensure the correct income category for buyers should be
revised from 15 homes to 17.
Planner Chilcott commented the area is in a mapped elk habitat area, which creates a
fencing issue. The applicant has shown proposed fencing of the rear yards, which could
tie into each other and restrict elk movement. Planner Chicott rerninded the
Commissioners of the 40-inch fence height limit in mapped wildlife habitat areas.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 16, 2009
Migration openings are required every 40 feet if the fence is higher than 40 inches, in
hindsight, Director Joseph stated there should have been a master fencing plan for this
subdivision. He believes the fencing issue is a function of the relatively small lot sizes.
Planner Chilcott noted there will need to be some revisions for the utility easements if the
setbacks are changed. She also stated the lot numbering system needs to be revised to
differentiate between the old subdivision and the new subdivision.
There is also a neighborhood trash issue on some lots, and Planner Chilcott stated most
of this junk is on a lot donated by Pawnee Meadows, LLC to the Estes Park Non-profit
Resource Center. Code Enforcement Officer Andrew Hart has been working with the
Resource Center Board to clean up the area. Planner Chilcott reminded Commissioners
that those lots are not part of this proposal. There is also a house that is owned by
Pawnee Meadows, LLC, which needs to be removed before a road to the proposed lots
can be built.
Staff recommends approval with conditions.
Public Comment:
Paul Kochevar with Pawnee Meadows/Applicant clarified the change in the side setback
would involve taking 2.5 feet from one side and adding it to the other side of the lot which
would then have a 12.5 foot setback, with no increase in the building area. He would like
to make this setback issue an amendment to the application. Mr. Kochevar noted the
fence along the south side of the lots will not be solid. Also, the side fencing will be
allowed up to the back of the garages or entryways. Commissioner Hull voiced her
disappointment in Mr. Kochevar in dealing with the trash in the subdivision.
Marion Dougherty/Town resident has concerns about the trash in the area, as well as the
fencing issue. She is also opposed to any fencing of the lots. Also, she is opposed to
changing the type of structure on the lots from one-story to two-story.
Sandy Osterman/Town resident is concerned about the trash that blows into the Talon’s
Point neighborhood from The Neighborhood. She is also opposed to the area fences and
believes they violate the requirements. These issues have been ongoing over the last
couple of years.
Planner Chilcott noted the applicant has been working with Community Development staff
in recent weeks to work on the issues addressed today. A motion to continue was made
by Commissioner Lane and later withdrawn. Director Joseph stated a failure by the
Planning Commission to act on today’s application is deemed a recommendation of
approval to the Town Board. Director Joseph reminded the Commission that fencing can
only be addressed on lots under this proposal. Applicant Kathryn Kochevar asked for
compassion on this project and wants the Planning Commission to realize the reason she
and her husband, Paul Kochevar, began this project with the goal of helping residents of
the community realize the benefits of homeownership, not with the goal of rnaking a larger
profit. She wants to be able to provide affordable housing in the community, and would
hope to be provided some leniency on the fencing.
Closed public comment.
Commissioner Norris suggests the developer come up with a communication plan to
address the trash problems with neighbors. He supports a 40-inch fencing plan and the
minor setback modification. Commissioner Fraundorf indicated the 40-inch fencing plan
needs to be very specific. He also supports the setback modification.
It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Lane) to recommend approval of The
Neighborhood Preliminary Subdivision Plat to the Town Board of Trustees with
the findings and recommendations in the staff report and the following
conditions. The motion passed with Commissioner Hull abstaining.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
June 16, 2009
Conditions:
1. Compliance with the submitted application.
2. No changes to the original Neighborhood subdivision approval are approved
except those noted in the staff report.
3. A minor modification to the side-yard setback to ailow piatted 7.5-foot side
setbacks on one side, provided there is a 12.5-foot setback on the opposite
side.
4. Fencing on individual lots shall be restricted to 40 inches in height.
6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK
12
a. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION - revisions to §7.8 of the Estes Valley
Development Code, including, but not limited to, removal of the Colorado Division of
Wildlife from the review process and updating wildlife habitat maps.
Staff Report:
Director Joseph stated Planning Commission directed Staff to produce a very short and
concise code fix that would address the role of the Division of Wildlife and would also firm
up the Planning Commission’s position in their ability to turn down a development proposal
based on mitigation. This proposed draft focuses on when a wildlife habitat assessment is
triggered, and removes elk calving as a trigger for a wildlife habitat assessement since elk
calving occurs throughout the entire Estes Valley.
Concerns brought forth by the Commission included - Commissioner Klink is concerned
about the large number of raptor areas on maps as well as other areas that would trigger
assessments. Commissioner Hull prefers the calving areas remain in the maps, would like
to see “Division of Wildlife” removed from E.5, would like to see calving, lambing, and
fawning as well as raptor areas back in the code. In 4.a.. Commissioner Hull does not
recall seeing any “requirements of this Section;” and would like the words “and effective
be added into 4.b. to read Plans found to be adequate and effective by the Decision-
Making Body shall become binding upon the Applicant. (Note: ..’and effective’ was
removed from the language in the final motion to recommend approval to the Town Board)
Finally, Commissioner Hull prefers a qualified wildlife biologist over a qualified person.
Director Joseph stated this revision pertains mainly to when an assessment is triggered
that could result in a finding of adverse impact. This finding of adverse impact would be
taken out of the hands of the Division of Wildlife and be given to Planning Commission,
Town Board, and County Commissioners, and further narrows it to remove calving as a
trigger since calving occurs valley-wide. Commissioner Norris suggests in 4.b. to use
‘Wildlife study and any mitigation plans must be found adequate and effective..., in H.2.d,
he believes a list of examples should be included. Commissioner Lane supports all
changes. Commissioners Tucker and Hull approve of the maps. Commisssioner Fraundorf
supports the changes. Commissioner Poggenpohl believes this short-term fix is
acceptable.
Fred Mares/Town resident submitted a letter to the Commissioners that states his support
of a wildlife code that compliments an open space plan. He is concerned there is no
revision listing requirements for mitigation and implementation, nor mention of density or
reduced footprint.
Johanna Darden/Town resident agrees with Fred Mares and believes any code revisions
should err on the side of all wildlife.
Mark ElrodA’own resident believes a “qualified person” is not acceptable. Also, he
disagrees with the removal of the ability to change the maps when errors are found.
Closed public comment.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
June 16, 2009
Commissioner Lane questions inserting “effective” into Section 7.8.F.4.b, because you
cannot determine if a plan is effective until after it has been in place for a period of time.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Norris) to recommend approval to the Town
Board of Trustees the proposed wildlife habitat code revisions with the following
additional modifications as approved by the Planning Commission: Section
7.8.E.1, continue to use the map language from December, 1996; Section 7.8.E.5,
strike “after consultation with the Division of Wildlife”; Section 7.8.F.4.b, modify
to read “wildlife studies and any mitigation plans found to be adequate by the
Decision-Making Body shall become binding on the applicant;” Section 7.8.H.1,
strike “and is acceptable to the Staff.” The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Norris wants Town Board to know this is a first step in improving the wildlife
code and urges Town Board to proceed with an open space study. Commissioner Hull
supports the ability to amend the maps, and prefers to have calving and fawning in the
code. Commissioner Lane is interested to see what Town Board opinion is on remaining
problems. Commissioner Tucker believes this code will allow the Commission to be more
effective Commissioner Fraundorf wants to fine tune the code. Commissioner Poggenpoh!
suggests creating checklists for conservation plans. Commissioner Klink looks forward to
hearing from Town Board on other issues to address.
7 REPORTSPlanner Chilcott reported there are two staff-level development plans under review, one
being a Safeway fueling station at the current Silver Lane Stables, and the other a smaH
group living facility at 857 Moraine Avenue. Both positive and negative wri
have been received on the Safeway project. The Safeway plan also includes a height
variance request that will go before the Board of Adjustment.
Director Joseph noted that staff had a pre-application meeting for the Stanley Park
grandstand renovation.
There being no further business, Chair irned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
, Chair
Karen Thompson,^Recording Secretary