HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2019-07-19
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
Prepared: July 9, 2019
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
July 16, 2019
6:00 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
2. AGENDA APPROVAL
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed
three minutes.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Study Session Minutes: June 16, 2019
Meeting Minutes: June 16, 2019
Large Vacation Home Review: 520 Heinz Parkway, Jeff Abbott, owner
5. AMENDED MINUTES: October 16, 2018
6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1240 BIG THOMPSON AVE, BEST WESTERN-SILVER SADDLE
Staff recommends this item be continued to the August 20, 2019 meeting.
7. CODE AMENDMENT: SELF SERVICE MINI STORAGE IN CO ZONING Planner I Hardin
8. CODE AMENDMENT: GATED COMMUNITIES Planning Technician Kreycik
Continued from June 18 meeting
9. MINOR SUBDIVISION: 638 LAKEWOOD COURT, Seigfried and Anne Goetz Planning Tech Kreycik
10. REPORTS
11. ADJOURN
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 18, 2019
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Estes
Valley, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Rooms 202/203 of Town Hall.
Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice Chair White, Commissioners, Foster, Murphree, Smith,
Theis
Attending: Leavitt, Theis, Murphree, Smith, White, Foster
Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Norris, Director Hunt, Planner II
Hathaway Planner I Hardin, Planning Tech Claire Kreycik, Senior Planner
Woeber, and Recording Secretary Swanlund
Absent: none
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
There were nine people in attendance. This study session was streamed and recorded on the Town
of Estes Park YouTube channel.
Wildfire Project
Planner Hathaway gave a quick rundown of the Wildfire project. It will require two separate motions
at the meeting. Today’s requests include rezoning and subdivision plats for single family homes (14),
townhomes (26) and condos (88). The 15 percent open space requirement is met. R2 zoning was
not proposed by the applicant. Public Works asked for conditions be included in today’s decision to
establish expectations early on. The Development Plan for the condos will be brought to the PC in
August.
Gated Communities Code Amendment
Planning Tech Kreycik discussed the proposed amendment regarding restrictions on Gated
Communities. The main reason for this proposal is for safety and emergency situations. Existing
gated access properties will be grandfathered. There are no restrictions serving one private dwelling.
This is aimed at permanent restrictive access. Commissioner Theis reiterated that he was not in
favor of this code amendment as it could create a potential roadblock to creative planning.
Vacation Home Cap/Review Dates
Planner Hardin reviewed the vacation home cap and moving the review date to June 30. Staff is
recommending keeping the cap at 588. Chair Leavitt introduced the idea of the vacation home
license not be renewed if the home is sold. Attorney White noted that permitted Land Use runs with
the property, not with the registration. A legal route for lowering the cap could be accomplished by
attrition. It was suggested to eliminate the final sentence of the staff report before approving the code
amendment.
Self-Storage Code Amendment
Planner Hardin discussed the upcoming code amendment regarding Self Storage Units in CO-
Commercial Outlying zoning. Seven of the 13 existing businesses are in CO zoning which makes
Planning Commission Study Session June 18, 2019 – Page 2
them non-conforming. An S1 Special Review would be added to the code amendment. S1 reviews
are heard by the governing body, not the PC.
Parking memo-Ayres Associates
Planner Woeber gave an update on the Ayres Associates progress regarding density bonus issues.
Multi-family parking numbers are being researched with direction from Public Works. Ayres has
proposed doing local parking studies, giving an analytical report with findings. Greg Muhonen stated
that streets in Estes Park are quite narrow and not intended for on-street parking. Parking in
Accommodation/Restaurant/Special Events is an issue that Public Works is not fully aware of. The
PC needs to be mindful of these types of developments. Ayres is also reviewing the town zoning
map.
Wildlife Study
Chair Leavitt reviewed the Habitat Assessment and Composite Analysis Map produced in 2008
relating to habitat protection and how to bring this into the Development review process. The Wildlife
Habitat map is in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested making a code amendment to
chapter 7.8 adding the Assessment resource under item E. Endangered Species, Chronic Wasting,
and Climate Change are additional items that could be taken into account along with fencing and
exterior lighting. It was requested to include the GIS overlay and comments from Chase Rylands
(CPW ) in staff reports. Commissioner Murphree gave testament to how he thinks we are over-
regulating wildlife.
Directives Received from Town Board/Board of County Commissioners:
Chair Leavitt proposed that the PC have direct communication from the elected bodies when
concerns arise. Foster emphatically stated that if the town issues a directive, it should be done
formally with a public hearing and a vote. It is wrong that Town Board members can have informal
meetings, but Planning Commissioners cannot. He did not see anything in the IGA prohibiting this.
This needs to be clarified, voted on and put in front of the public.
The county liaison has been told to not attend any further PC meetings, to the disappointment of
many commissioners.
Annexation Discussion:
Commissioner Theis reviewed his memo regarding Annexation (attached). Most of the county space
is built out and the town should seriously consider annexing neighborhoods where people are not
considered town citizens and cannot vote, even though they live, work and shop in Estes Park. Lack
of motivation and financial burdens are part of the reasons. A unified community desire/request is a
possible way around the legalese to create a unified government. If we are redoing the IGA, it this
should be something to explore. Attorney White stated that in order to do this, the Colorado
Constitution would have to be amended.
IGA Next Steps
Director Hunt reported that a public engagement meeting/joint study session with the Town Board
and the County Commissioners would tentatively be held on July 29 to discuss what form the new
IGA will take. Larimer County facilitators will be on hand.
Planning Commission Study Session June 18, 2019– Page 3
Future Items
Wildlife layer maps/Chase Rylands guest speaker
Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
_____________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 18, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith,
Robert Foster, Steve Murphree, Frank Theis
Attending: Leavitt, White, Smith, Foster, Murphree, Theis
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Planner II Brittany
Hathaway, Planner I Linda Hardin, Planning Technician Claire Kreycik,
Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: None
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 45 people in
attendance.
1. OPEN MEETING
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (White/Leavitt) to change the order of the agenda,
switching item 7 with item 8. The motion passed 6-0.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
none
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of May 21, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
Approval of May 21, 2019 Study Session minutes
It was moved and seconded (Foster/White) to approve the consent agenda as
presented, reversing the last two sentences under Vacation Rentals in the Study
Session minutes. The motion passed 6-0.
5. CODE AMENDMENT: VACATION HOME CAP/REVIEW DATE
Planner Hardin reviewed the Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§5.1.B.1.a(6) to make a recommendation to the Governing bodies regarding the maximum
total (“cap”) number of vacation homes in residential zoning districts, currently 588, and to
adjust the annual reporting cycle to June 30 of each year. The last sentence in the staff
report will be omitted, per conversation had at the Study Session.
Commission Discussion: none
Public Comment: none
It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to recommend approval to the Estes Park
Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 18, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
approve the amended text amendment to the EVDC denial of any change to the cap
per Exhibit A, leaving the cap of 588 in residential registrations unchanged. The
motion passed 5-0 with Foster abstaining.
It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to recommend approval to the Estes Park
Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners to
approve the text amendment to the EVDC Exhibit B, changing the annual review
deadline date to June 30. The motion passed 6-0.
6. CODE AMENDMENT: GATED COMMUNITIES
Planning Tech Kreycik reviewed the proposed text amendment to the EVDC chapter 7.12,
ensuring residential developments do not install security gates and other barriers to safe
vehicular access. This would include access to residential single-family subdivisions,
apartment complexes and condominium developments.
Commission Discussion:
Although in favor of the code amendment, Foster thinks this is beyond the scope of the PC
and the EVDC, citing sections 4.A.6 of the IGA. Attorney White answered that we already
deal with service on streets in the Development Code and this is an amendment to that.
Therefore he does not believe this restricts the Commission from adopting this.
Public Comment:
Peter Plaut, Puma Drive, stated that the proposal does not appropriately take into account
historic private roads, such as McGraw Ranch Road. Residents close this road once a
year via a lock on the gate to protect the private road designation. He is concerned that
the amendment could adversely impact residents who have a legal right to protect their
private right-of-way. A citizen, knowing that gated communities were prohibited, might call
law enforcement upon encountering a locked gate and based on development code the
law enforcement might impede the owner's ability to preserve the road’s private status. He
recommended postponing action on the code amendment until his concerns on historic
private roads are researched and addressed. He gave the commission a handout for
review. (attached)
Commission Discussion:
Attorney W hite agreed with the speaker, taking into consideration the actions the law
enforcement in a situation like this and recommended continuance of the amendment.
Theis does not think this proposal is necessary as he is not in favor of new regulations.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Theis) to continue the proposal to the July 16
Planning Commission meeting for reasons discussed. The motion passed 6-0.
7. REZONE: WILDFIRE ACRES, TBD DRY GULCH ROAD
Planner Hathaway described that the subject area consists of 4 parcels containing
16.082 acres which are proposed to be subdivided into two blocks with 43 total lots.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 18, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
The proposal entails rezoning from CH-Commercial Heavy, O-Office, E-Estate and RE-
Rural Estate to O-Office, E-Estate, R-Single Family Residential and RM-Multi-Family
Residential. The applicant has requested that the proposed rezoning be contingent
upon the approval of the Wildfire Homes development package, including the final plat.
Staff recommended approval of the requested Rezone.
All Discussion: see item 8.
It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to recommend approval to the Estes Park
Town Board of Trustees the Rezone of the Wildfire Homes Addition as presented
according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by Staff and the
following condition: Approval of this rezone is contingent upon approval of the
Wildfire Homes development package including the Final Plat of Wildfire Homes
Subdivision and Development Plans and Condominium Maps for The Meadows
Condominiums and the Divide Condominiums. The motion passed 6-0.
8. PRELIMINARY PLAT: WILDFIRE ACRES, TBD DRY GULCH ROAD
Planner Hathaway described the project and proposal. A preliminary plat to subdivide
four parcels into two blocks of 43 total lots. Fourteen lots will be detached single-family
homes, 26 lots will be townhomes, two lots condominiums and one lot dedicated for office
use for Crossroads Ministry. Also included are ten out-lots dedicated for open space,
utilities, access, and drainage. Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works, has asked for
five proposed conditions of approval in the preliminary plat: 1) street standards; 2)
stormwater detention elements; 3) pavement thickness; 4) private access easement; 5)
drainage into unincorporated Larimer County. These conditions have been discussed
with the applicant. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Subdivision
Plat.
Owner/Applicant Discussion:
Melissa Westover, applicant, described the history of how the project came about.
Workforce housing has been a problem for many years. This proposal can significantly
help with this as well as giving Crossroads Ministry a new and better home.
Lucia Liley, Applicant Attorney, presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the
project giving the history and details of the rezone and plat.
Public Comment:
Beverly Briggs, North Ridge Lane, stated that in the neighborhood meeting residents
were told that there would be eight condominiums. Concerns with the emergency exit
on the east side of development were made.
Brian Schaffer, Crossroads Ministry Executive Director, thanked Westover Construction
for their plans to help both the residents of the Estes Valley and customers of
Crossroads.
Naomi Hawf, Estes Park Housing Authority Director, expressed support of the
development.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 18, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
Tracey McGinnis, neighborhood resident, happy to say YES in my backyard.
Jon Nicholas, Estes Valley Development Corporation, stated that 22% of the Estes
Valley workforce commutes more than 1 hour per day, thus there is a need for this
project.
Mike Richardson, speaking for the Estes Valley Board of Realtors, is in favor of the
development.
Scott Applegate, Moss Rock Drive, stated that finding housing is a chronic problem in
Estes Park and this development will significantly help families stay in town and allow
businesses to find qualified help.
Colleen Casey, Eagle Cliff Road, discussed the woes of finding housing for young
adults. This project helps the working middle class.
Brandon Borries, Pinyon Trail, asked if the applicant will be using local
contractors/workers for the project.
Stacey Ciolli, Soaring Circle, stated that this project would allow her to continue to live
in Estes and purchase a house.
Applicant Response:
Attorney Liley noted that the emergency access was requested by the Town and will
not be open for public access. Mark Westover, owner/applicant, responded that locals
would be used as much as possible in the building and development of the project.
Westover Construction will be the general contractor on all building. Estimated price
points will be between $260,000-$425,000 for 1 to 3 bedroom residences.
Commission Discussion:
Mixed housing and buffer-zone sensitivity make this a great project. Well thought out
and creative design. Best use of this piece of land. The Neighborhood meetings were
done the right way. Emergency egress would be more effective on the west side of the
property, to which Hathaway answered that the west side has a conservation easement
and no traffic is allowed there.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend approval to the Estes
Park Town Board of Trustees the Wildfire Homes Preliminary Subdivision Plat as
presented according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by Staff
with the addition of the following Public Works conditions:
1. The following public improvements shall be designed and constructed by the
developer in accordance with Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) unless
designed & constructed by others. All improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance
of any building permits unless otherwise approved pursuant to the provisions in Section
7.12.C.1 of the Estes Valley Development Code.
a. Wildfire Road (to a collector standard). A multi-use trail (8’ minimum width) may be
provided in lieu of on-street bike lanes.
2. Proposed stormwater drainage improvements (ponds, pipes, inlets, ditches, etc)
situated on private property shall be owned and maintained by the owner associations and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 18, 2019
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
maintained so that stormwater discharge into the Town’s public drainage infrastructure will
not exceed the predevelopment flow rates identified in the final drainage report. A
Maintenance Plan (compliant with Chapter 6 of Volume 3 of the Urban Drainage Manual) for
the private drainage improvements shall be submitted and approved with the final drainage
report. The Town Public Works Department will only maintain new public drainage
improvements installed in the public street right of way or in the adjacent public drainage
easement.
3. The thickness of new pavement installed in the public right of way shall comply with
LCUASS Table 10-1, as amended for project-specific subgrade soils.
4. A copy of the signed maintenance agreement for the common driveways (per
Appendix B, EVDC) shared by the owners of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 of Block 1 and all lots within
Block 2 shall be submitted prior to approval of the Final Plat. A copy of this agreement shall
be delivered to the new owners of these lots at the closing of each sale.
5. The Larimer County Engineering Division shall approve the final drainage report
prior to the issuance of any building permits within this project.
The motion passed 6-0.
9. REPORTS: Director Hunt
• Farewell and thanks to Commissioner Foster, Brittany Hathaway, and Greg
White.
• Tentative IGA meeting set for July 29 with the Town Board, County
Commissioners and the public.
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
_________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
TheEstesValleyPlanningCommissionisproposingamendmentstotheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeconcerninggatedcommunitiesandsecuritybarriers.Iwishtopointoutthepotentialforunintendedconsequencesforhistoricprivateroads,andtosuggestlanguagetoamelioratetheconcern.Thereareanumberoflong-establishedprivateroadsintheEstesValley.Iliveoffoneofthose,McGrawRanchRoad.ThisroadrunsaboutthreemilesbetweenCountyHighway43,otherwiseknownasDevilsGulchRoad,andtheMcGrawRanchentrancetoRockyMountainNationalPark.Theroad’shistoryisprobablytypicalinthevalley,whereadirtroadwascutacenturyagotoconnectanisolatedparceltooneofthepublichighways,andovertimepropertiesalongtheroadweresoldandresidenceswerebuiltthataccessedtheprivateroad,butnotthepublichighway,aswouldberequiredundertoday’scode.Thecountydoesnotcontributetomaintenanceoftheroad,andneitherthesheriffnorthetownpolicepatroltheroadexceptwhencalled.Thereisnopublicrightofwayonthisroad,andneitherthepublicnorprivateindividualsotherthantheownersofpropertyalongtheroadhaveanyeasementforaccess.TheownersalongMcGrawRanchRoadpermituseoftheroadtoreachtheNationalPark.Propertyownersonprivateroadsfacepotentialclaimsthatusersoftheroadhavearightofpassage,basedonassumptionstheroadispublicorassertionsofaprescriptiverightoreasementtouseit.Inordertopreventatakingoftheirproperty,theownersofprivateroadspreservetheprivatenatureoftheroadbylimitingaccessandbygivingexpresspermissiontocross.Suchactionsarenecessarytodefeatassertionsofcontinuousadverseuseorsuggestionsthattheownershavededicatedtheroadwaytopublicuse.Onerecognizedpracticeistocloseaprivateroadonedayeachyear.Todothat,yearsagotheMcGrawRanchRoadownersinstalledasecuritygateofftheentranceatDevilsGulchRoad.Theowners,workingnowundertheumbrellaoftheMcGrawRanchRoadAssociation,closethegatetopublicaccessannually.Usuallythisisdoneinconjunctionwithroadmaintenance,whichhelpswithgraderoperationsthatcantakeuptheentirewidthoftheroadway.Theroadisalsoclosedwhenemergencyactivities,suchaswildfirefighting,aretakingplace.Theownerstaketurnsatthegatetoexplaintheclosuretovisitorsandtofacilitateentrancebyresidentsandemergencyservices.TheAssociationnotifiesemergencyandlawenforcementagenciesinadvanceofanyclosureandprovidesthemwiththecombinationtothelockforusewhenthegateisnotmonitored.Thestaffpaperacknowledgesgrandfatheringforexistinggatedsubdivisions,butdoesnotdiscussthetypeofgateandaccesscontrolonhistoricprivateroadsinthevalleyasdescribedaboveanddoesnotmentionMcGrawRanchRoadorothersimilarsettlementsthatmaybeservedbyprivateroadsthataroseunderearlier,orperhapsno,regulation.TheproposedchangesimplypermissionforcontinueduseofthesecuritybarrierthathasbeeninusefordecadesatMcGrawRanchRoad.However,itwouldbehelpfultomakethisexplicitinboththestaffpaperandthechangestothecode,soastopreventunwarrantedclaimsofprivateorpublicaccessthatarenotconsistentwiththeprivatepropertynatureofthistypeofroad.IntheCurrentSituationsectionofthestaffpaper,page2of8,recommendyouaddthissentencetotheendofthefirstparagraphtorecognizehistoricpractices:“Inaddition,therearehistoricallyprivateroadsinthevalleythatprovideaccesstomultipleresidences,suchasMcGrawRanchRoad,thathavegatesfortemporaryaccesscontrolandtoallowtheroadtobeclosedonalimitedscheduletoconfirmprivateownershipoftheroadway.”InSectionII,D,PrivateStreetsinthecode,addthefollowingsentencetotheendoftheparagraph,followingtheproposedamendment,inordertoprovideexplicitgrandfathering:“TheprecedingsentenceconcerningrestrictionstovehiculartrafficshallnotapplytoprivatestreetsandroadswheresecuritygateswereestablishedpriortotheeffectivedateofthisamendmenttotheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode.”
VacationHome(VH)Address______________________HomeownersNameBusinessNameMailingAddressPhoneNumberEmailAddressSiteInfonnationVHCertificate#3302Ifregistrationisstillinprocess,providedatesubmittedtoTownnaNumberofExislingOft-StreetParkingSpaces4NumberofOccupantsProposed(Maximumallowedis2perbedroomplus2)LocalPropertyManagerContactInformationNameSkyRun-EstesParkPhysicalAddress_______________________MailingAddress_______________________PhoneNumber___________________EmailAddresslowell@skyrun.comAttachmentsx$150Fee(TownANDCounty)xCopyofpropertysiteplan,ifavailableOwnerCertificationAsOwner,IcertifythejformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandIamtherecordownerofthe?o,ØertyRecordOwner_________________________________Date6-LY’47EPTacationRPlanningCommissionChairDaneAPPROVEDDENIEDESTESVALLEYLARGEVACATIONHOMEREVIEWSubmittalDate:Ion520HeinzParkwayEstesPark,COJeffAbbottEPCOVacationRentalLLC1717DevilsGulchRoad,EstesPark,CO6822253004soccerjethro@hotmaiItomNumberofBedrooms4•1101892BigThompsonAye,#101,EstesPark,CO805171892BigThompsonAve.#101,EstesPark,CO805179702355550bfJ€ffAbbottOfficeUsePID&L9MiC1C)LotSize_______RequiredSetbacks:Front______Side,25RearExistingSetbacks:Front%‘/‘bideLCc‘RearStatementofIntentRequired?YESComplieswithNODateZoneDistrict4IIOWN)COUNTYMaximumNumberofOccupantsAllowedit’)NumberofApprovedPackingSpaceszJIStaffRecommendation:(APPROVALDENIALScheduledHearingDate‘9ig—On———ito?uK-7o&-acEstesValleyPlanningCommissionUsec:\users\LindaHardin\Downloads\LVHRAPpIicationDRAFT
IMPROVEMENTLOCATIONCERTIFICATEPAGEI012ISC,N.OcSCPTIOM(FROMtILECOMMITMENTP4th762—12):LOtID,SLOCIC2.PARKENTRmCCESTAItS,EXCEPTPORTIONCOFNtYEOINDEEDRECORDEDMAYIS,1997ATRECEPTIONNO.97030S61,COVNTYOFLA.RIIJER.STATEOFCOLORADOI
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
1
Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith,
Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree
Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners, White, Foster, Murphree. Smith and Theis,
Schneider
Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff
Woeber, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris,
County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin
Swanlund
Absent: none
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in
attendance.
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commission/Staff Introductions
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to change the order of the agenda as
presented moving item number 6 Castle Ridge Rezone to item number 5. The
motion passed 6-0, with Murphree not voting.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of August 21, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the consent agenda as
presented and the motion passed 7-0.
4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN: Beaver Point Subdivision, 1281 High Drive
Planner Hathaway reviewed the project. It is located to the east of Heinz Parkway and
north of Moraine Avenue, within Town limits. The property is zoned A-Accommodations.
The land area is 2.85 acres and is currently developed with a single family home and
garage. The proposal is to create 3 legal lots. There have been no public comments.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat.
Owner/Applicant Discussion:
Dave Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, was available to answer questions. There
was compliance with county regulations pertaining to fire. There were no agency
comments of significance found.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2
Commission Comments:
No concerns were observed in walking the property.
It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board
of Trustees approve the Beaver Point Minor Subdivision Plat according to findings
of fact, including findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0.
5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, Fall River Road,
northwest of West Elkhorn Avenue.
Planner Woeber reviewed that the applicant, Estes Park Housing Authority, is contracting
to purchase this property contingent on approval of rezoning from RE-Rural Estate to RM-
Multi Family Residential. The parcel is just under 7 acres in size. A conceptual
development plan was submitted. Legal notices were published and letters mailed to
adjacent property owners. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Map
Amendment.
Applicant Discussion:
Current property owner Bill Van Horn stated that it is an appropriate change of zoning for
this property. Estes Park Housing Authority Executive Director Naomi Hawf spoke on the
needs of work force housing and the plans for the lot. Thomas Beck, Architect, added
that this is adequate zoning for this lot and it is possible to develop this as multi-family as
long as it is kept to the bottom 1/3 of the lot.
Public Comment:
Jon Nicholas, Estes Park Economic Development Committee, was not asked by his board
to endorse this, but the location is ideal with the Fall River corridor being commercial, and
the closeness to Elkhorn Avenue.
Commission Comments:
Proximity to downtown and the natural zoning buffer make this a desirable project. There
is no guarantee that the housing authority will buy the property, and once it is rezoned, it
is rezoned with all uses that come with RM zoning.
It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board of
Trustees approve the Zoning Map Amendment application for Lot 2 of the Castle
Ridge Minor Subdivision, according to findings of fact recommended by staff. The
motion passed 7-0.
6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Alarado Business Park, 800 Big Thompson Avenue (new
address pending), Lot 1 of Stanley Hills Subdivision.
Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal of a mixed-use commercial and residential
building including an urgent care facility, sandwich shop and employee housing. Written
notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners, a legal notice was published and the
applicant posted signs on the property. Public interest is medium, both in support of and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3
opposed to the project. Staff recommended approval of the Alarado Business Park
Development plan with the following conditions: The proposed eastbound through lane
on US 34 is subject to final approval by Public Works and CDOT, and any future change
in use will require a new Traffic Impact Study and associated mitigation.
Commissioner/Staff discussion:
Residential use is classified as employee housing as an accessory use which is allowed
in CO zoning. No housing for the general public will be allowed.
Owner/Applicant discussion:
Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, reviewed the timeline and details of the project
with a PowerPoint presentation. A neighborhood meeting was held, which was well
attended. All code requirements have been met, including the Variances approved by the
Board of Adjustment on October 2. Maximum occupancy would be limited to 8 unrelated
people per unit. The land has at this lot has always been zoned commercial, one of the
few vacant CO lots left in town. A buffer of dedicated open space exists on north and
west sides of the lot. Drainage and utilities have not been controversial. 20-year deed
restrictions for employee housing have been drafted. This development meets the code
of CO zoning and land use by right as well as meeting community needs.
Ryan Wells, owner/developer, reviewed his background and reasoning behind the project.
The property was originally planned for just a Jimmy Johns, but through numerous public
conversations, it evolved into the current design.
Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant, spoke at length on the traffic studies conducted, both in
low and high season. Adding the Eastbound through lane meets the criteria for the Town
of Estes Park and CDOT.
Larry Leaming, CEO of Estes Park Health (EPH), spoke on the interest the hospital has
and the importance of Urgent Care, especially after business hours. The Emergency
Room should not be the only option for medical care. The traveling public are use to
looking for Urgent Care. This will be available and visible for all, with x-rays, lab and
pharmacy on site. Ambulances will be taking people to the ER, not urgent care. Hours
will be tracked and decided based on demand. Associated expenses will not strain the
Hospital or Family Medical Clinic due to revenues gained from the urgent care.
Phil Heinrichs, owner/developer, stated his commitment to the long term success of the
project. The on-site Jimmy John’s manager will also act as the property manager. Eight
business have made commitments for leasing residences.
Public Comment:
Those speaking against the Development Plan, citing reasons of the disproportional
residential footage ratio to the commercial footage, delivery vehicles for Jimmy Johns not
calculated into the traffic study, pedestrian and automobile traffic, and not enough parking:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
4
David Courtes, Janet Jones, Shaun Jones, Deb Seick, Kris Adams, Pete Maxwell.
Those speaking in favor of the Development Plan stating the huge need for housing and
meeting community needs:
Tim Cashman, Randy Brigham, David Batey, Gerald Mayo, Ryan Leahy, Charlie Dickey,
Bill Van Horn, John Nicholas, Guy Beesley, Naomi Hawf.
Applicant Comments:
Pedestrian traffic will be mostly on the north side of Highway 34, with residents going to
work at Stanley Village and downtown. The unallocated space in the building is a
basement, which Estes Park Health has agreed to lease. EPH and Jimmy Johns will
have two units each. Leases to J-1 visa holders generate enough income to cover the
whole year. Added landscaping on the eastern property line is acceptable. CDOT will not
make any commitments until a full plan set is submitted.
Commissioner concerns/discussion:
o Impressed with the interactions with the neighborhood community.
o Parking restrictions would be included in the lease: 69 spaces total, 11 for
employee housing, 44 for businesses. Spaces were calculated at 1.3 per unit. If
parking becomes a problem, it is up to the owner to correct.
o Rentals will be strictly to businesses with contracts for a unit, and inhabitants must
be employed in the Estes Valley, not leased to the general public.
o EPH stated that they are renting the entire 12,000 sf. 3000 for urgent care, the
extra 9,000 sf will be determined as needs arise.
o Traffic study does not meet peak hour needs for a light.
o The risks involved will fall on the developer, not the town.
o Traffic light, cross-walk or roundabout installation discussions with CDOT.
o One building will not make a huge difference in traffic compared to the benefit the
project will provide.
o Mixed use is a creative and thoughtful design.
o Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the Board of Adjustment’s decision.
o Request for an additional traffic and pedestrian study when project is complete.
It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Alarado Business Park
Development Plan with the following conditions: Additional landscaping shall be
installed along the eastern property line, including trees and shrubs to provide
adequate screening from the neighboring property, with the landscaping to be
designed and installed outside the dedicated public utility easement. The motion
passed 7-0.
MINUTES AMENDED AT THE 7/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS
WRITTEN BELOW:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 16, 2018
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
5
It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Alarado Business Park
Development Plan according to the findings of fact, with findings and conditions
recommended by staff, with the condition that the applicant provide a plan that
shows trees planted on the eastern boundary as part of a landscape buffer, and
they can be on the neighbors property to satisfy that, to provide adequate
screening from the neighboring property, with the landscaping to be designed and
installed outside the dedicated public utility easement. The motion passed 7-0.
Due to time constraints, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:18 p.m.
_________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
__________________________________
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
To: Bob Leavitt, Chair
Planning Commission Members
From: Linda Hardin, Planner 1
Date: July 16, 2019
RE: Continuance Request of Development Plan for Best Western Plus Silver Saddle
Inn, Wallace and Laurine Burke, Owners/Applicant
Staff requests that the development plan for Best Western Plus Silver Saddle Inn be continued
as the required CDOT approval of accesses on to the property has not been provided.
Memo
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Linda Hardin, Planner I
Date: July 16, 2019
RE: Proposed Text Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code:
EVDC §4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts; Table 4-4
Objective:
Review and make a recommendation on the proposed text amendment to the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) §4.4 (Special Review Uses): amendment to the
Special Review Use regulations regarding the Permitted Uses Table 4 -4.
Present Situation:
In June 2017, the Special Review regulations regarding Procedures for Approval,
Standards for Review and Permitted Uses Table were amended. The S1 special review
was added to the CO zoning district for limited warehouse and storage uses, but was
not added for the self-service mini-storage use. We currently have thirteen (13) self-
service mini-storage facilities in the Estes Valley. Attached is a spreadsheet listing
these facilities, their addresses and zoning districts. Also included is a map showing
where these businesses are located.
Seven (7) of these facilities are zoned CO-Commercial Outlying. They fell victim to the
rezoning in 2000, and are legally non-conforming. With this status, they are unable to
expand their businesses. However, limited warehouse and storage use is allowed with
S1 review. Not including self-service mini-storage in the amendment, to be allowed with
an S1 review, was an oversight that needs to be corrected. This will bring the seven (7)
facilities in the CO zoning district into compliance with the code and they would no
longer be considered non-conforming.
Proposal:
The proposed amendment would simply add the self -service mini-storage use to be
allowed in the CO zoning district following the S1 review process. The amendment
restricts allowing self-service mini-storage facilities on major arterial streets or highway,
consistent with the limited warehouse and storage use.
Advantages:
• Existing self-service mini-storage facilities that are currently non-conforming
would be brought into compliance with zoning regulations;
• Discretion of location would still be used with the S1 review process;
• Existing non-conforming facilities would be allowed to expand their businesses
with the S1 review;
• Using the S1 review process, conditions can be set on the projects to minimize
impact to neighboring businesses.
Disadvantages:
• None identified to date.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) §4.4 (Nonresidential zoning districts) Table 4-4; and forward a recommendation
the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of Commissioners
for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The proposed amendment will not require any additional resources or have any
financial impact on the Town.
Level of Public Interest
Low level of public interest. The owner of a storage facility in the CO zoning district is
interested in buying an adjacent CO zoned lot and expanding. That is how the
oversight in the code was discovered.
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A
2. Spreadsheet of existing self-service mini-storage facilities
3. Map of business locations
EXHIBIT A
[CHAPTER 4. ZONING DISTRICTS]
Estes Valley Planning Commission: July 16, 2019
§ 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts
B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Use
Classification
Specific
Use
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Additional Regulations
(Apply in All Districts
Unless Otherwise Stated)
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special
Review
"—" = Prohibited
A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES
Self-Service
Mini-Storage — — — —S1 — P/S1 P/S1
• In CO, not allowed on lots
abutting an arterial street or
highway
If such use in CH or I-1 contains more
than 20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area,
it shall be subject to Special Review
INDUSTRIAL USES
Warehousing
and Storage
Bulk
Storage — — — — — — P §5.1.L; §5.1.S
General — — — — — — P §5.1.L; §5.1.S
Limited — — — S1 — P/S1 P
§5.1.L; §5.1.S
• In CO, not permitted on lots
abutting an arterial street or highway
• In CH, uses containing more than
15,000 square feet of gross floor area
shall be subject to special review
Attachment 1
Address Zone
Fish Creek Storage 1901 Fish Creek Road I-1
Watson Moving & Storage 930 Juniper Lane I-1
Lake View Storage 1000 Big Thompson A
Alpine Self Storage 801 Dunraven Street CH
Comanche Self Storage 960 Comanche Street CH
Northend Self Storage 1771 Wildfire Road CH
ATT Self Storage 860 Moraine Avenue CO
Comanche Self Storage 1170 Woodstock Drive CO
Estes Valley Self Storage 517 Pine River Lane CO
In Self Storage 1210 Woodstock Drive CO
Lake Pines Self Storage 601 Community Drive CO
Lake View Storage 611 Lone Pine Drive CO
Manford Plaza Self Storage 1140 Manford Avenue CO
Prepared by: Linda Hardin
Date: July 16, 2019
Self-Service Mini Storage Facilities
Estes Valley
Attachment2
Staff Report
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Claire Kreycik, Planning Technician
Date: July 16th, 2019
RE: Proposed Text Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code: §7.12,
Adequate Public Facilities and Appendix D. Street Design and Construction
Standards to Restrict Gated Community Access
Planning Commission Objective:
Review and Recommendation on the proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) Chapter 7, Adequate Public Facilities, and Appendix D. Street
Design and Construction Standards to ensure that residential developments do not install
security gates and other barriers to safe vehicular access.
Code Amendment Objective:
As it stands, the EVDC has a policy priority of ensuring that all development within Estes Valley
has “safe and adequate access” to paved roads, both for transportation connectivity as well as
for emergency services access (See 7.12.H). This Code Amendment would expand and clarify
this policy objective, and specifically prevent the development of “gated communities” within
Estes Valley to mitigate public safety and security risks.
The Code Amendment would prohibit the use of gate-controlled access to residential single-
family subdivisions, apartment complexes, or condominium developments. The Amendment
would forbid the installation of any security barrier that blocks public right-of-way or public
access easements. Additionally, the Amendment would restrict private entrances to multi-family
apartment complexes or similar concentrations of dwellings along private driveways.
Commercial and industrial facilities would continue to have gated private driveway capability in
Code. Individual single-family dwellings could continue to have gates across driveways as long
as the gate-controlled access serves only one house. The Amendment would also provide for
certain legitimate exceptions, such as public-safety-authorized gates on public streets, such as
for inclement weather, for temporary street closures for special events, or for maintenance work.
The proposed Code Amendment has support from Estes Park Police Department, Estes Park
Health (EMS), Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and County Engineering. The primary goals
are:
• To make the community more visible to law enforcement and patrol,
• To facilitate response to natural disasters, like fire or flood, and
JULY 16, 2019 EVPC
CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 7 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PAGE 2 OF 8
• To shorten emergency response times, ensuring safety especially for individuals who
may need immediate attention while in a vulnerable state, such as children and the
elderly.
It is advantageous to address security barriers in the EVDC instead of approving or denying
them on a case-by-case basis because of the severity of the consequences in the case of an
emergency. Including the regulations in EVDC also provides for ability to flag proposals at the
stage of the development plan, subdivision, or building permit.
Current Situation:
There are no known single-family residential subdivisions with gated access within town limits;
however, four exist within the Estes Valley Planning Area and one more has been proposed.
Cliff Road and Terrance Lane off of Highway 66 have a gate on both access points that allows
multiple locks. Additionally, Clara Drive near the Gem Lake Trailhead has a gate on the single
driveway and they too have multiple locks on the chains. Off of Dry Gulch Road, the Eagle Rock
School, which is partially residential, has an unmanned gate to restrict free access to their
private facility and Lory Lane has an unmanned gate that allows admittance through a livestock
fence which surrounds the neighborhood.
The Hillcrest Estates subdivision has indicated at a pre-application meeting that they would be
interested in installing secured gated access, but to date have not pursued an amended plat or
building permit as such. The amendment is a preventative measure, so that there are adequate
regulations in place to ensure safe emergency access by preventing gated communities in the
Estes Valley.
Current secured gate accessways would be able to continue as legally non-conforming or
“grandfathered” facilities, but as with other non-conformities, removal or major repairs or
replacement may not allow them to remain in place.
As noted, there are no restrictions on gates restricting access to private driveways accessing
single family dwellings in the development code or the municipal code. Gates on private
driveways are controlled by neighborhood covenants. Furthermore, EPMC §8.04.091 allows
secure entryways for commercial and industrial structures, multi-family residential structures
with restricted access corridors, structures owned by State political subdivisions, or hospitals
and health care facilities, provided that key lock box systems are installed. The Fire Chief is
authorized to implement rules regarding key lock box systems for these doors.
The Larimer County Land Use Code dictates that gated public roads are prohibited and gated
private roads are prohibited unless appealed to and approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, after meeting a series of criteria lined out in §8.14.1. These criteria include:
1. The subject road is a private road and all owners of property having a legally
established right to access via the private road have approved gating the road;
2. The standards for private roads in Subsection 8.14.2.M are met;
3. The appeal request has been referred to the applicable fire protection entity and the
sheriff's department, emergency services for their review and comment, and such
comments have been duly considered; and
4. The design provides for adequate vehicle stacking distance and turn around.
JULY 16, 2019 EVPC
CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 7 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PAGE 3 OF 8
The County has advised that very few gated accesses meet the criteria and are approved.
Proposed Text Amendments:
The Code Amendment would:
• Amend text in Section 7.12, Adequate Public Facilities, to include a prohibition of gated
communities within subsection C, General Requirements.
• Revise and expand Appendix D. Street Design and Construction Standards.
Exhibit A [Red] is attached, detailing the specific amendments.
Staff recommends the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommend approval of the language
in the Code Amendment Exhibit A (Red) to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of
County Commissioners.
Background, Discussion:
There has been a trend over the last thirty years especially in the southern and western United
States for communities in residential areas to create fences and gates to restrict access to
outsiders (Drew and McGuigan 2013). So called “gated communities” are those which have
established security-personnel stations or unmanned barriers to restrict free vehicular access to
a neighborhood or apartment complex. These new communities have cropped up mostly due to
homebuyers’ worries about security and crime. Other reasons that people buy into gated
communities include elevated status, lifestyle, and desire to protect their property value (Taylor
and Francis 2013).
There is some research suggesting that gated communities reduce crimes of opportunity
(Addington et al, 2013). Residential burglary rates are lower in gated communities, even
controlling for factors such as tenure, income, and location (Ibid). However, even though
choosing a gated community may reduce the already statistically low probability of a home
burglary, there are other wide-ranging effects of gated communities.
Whereas proponents of residential gated communities believe they provide a safer environment,
gated communities are less visible to public law-enforcement and patrol. Therefore, residents
might have a greater risk of grievous harm from violent assault, bullying, or intimate partner
violence because the victim may not be able to escape as easily (Taylor and Francis 2013).
Crucially gated communities may provide wider public safety concerns because gates may limit
access for emergency personnel such as fire fighters, ambulances, and police. With gated
communities, emergency vehicles may be impeded or blocked, slowing response time for EMT
or ambulances, which affects our most vulnerable citizens. Importantly, firefighting trucks are
affected because even though fire trucks could ram through gates to gain access to a road,
someone will be responsible for paying to fix the gate and the truck.
Staff Findings:
The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
JULY 16, 2019 EVPC
CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 7 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PAGE 4 OF 8
“All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas
affected;”
Staff Finding:
Changes in conditions in the community may mean that there could be more proposals for
privatization of streets and gated communities within Estes Valley. Several have been
discussed with staff recently. The amendment is necessary as a preventative measure.
2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is
compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley:”
Staff Finding:
There is no development plan associated with this, or any Code Amendment per se. In
staff’s judgement, the proposed Code Amendment does not conflict with the policies and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to
provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were
approved.”
Staff Finding:
Town, County or other relevant service providers would not be significantly impacted
regarding their respective services and facilities, if this Code Amendment is approved.
Public safety officials in the Town and County have expressed support for this concept,
including Estes Park Police Department, Estes Park Health (EMS), Estes Valley Fire
Protection District, and County Engineering.
Advantages:
• Generally complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
• This Code Amendment supports policy priorities of providing safe and adequate access to
paved roads (§7.12.H).
Disadvantages:
• None identified to date.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D
Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park
Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners for a final decision to
approve.
Level of Public Interest
Low. Any written comments for this proposal received by staff will be posted
to: www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Sample Motion:
APPROVAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer
County Commissioners APPROVE the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code
JULY 16, 2019 EVPC
CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 7 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PAGE 5 OF 8
as presented in text amendment Exhibit Red as recommended by staff, with findings as
recommended by staff.
CONTINUANCE
I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission
meeting because…. (state reason(s) for continuance).
DENIAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer
County Commissioners DENY the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as
presented in text amendment Exhibit Red, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial).
Attachments:
Attachment, “Exhibit A (Red)”: EVDC, Chapter 7, Adequate Public Facilities
EVDC, Appendix D. Street Design and Construction Standards
Citations:
Addington, LA, and CM Rennison. (2013). “Keeping the Barbarians Outside the Gate?
Comparing Burglary Victimization in Gated and Non-Gated Communities.” Justice
Quarterly, 2013; 1 DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2012.760644
City of Estes Park, Colorado. “Municipal Code.” Accessed 4 June 2019
at: https://library.municode.com/co/estes_park/codes/municipal_code
City of Laramie, Wyoming. “Unified Development Code.” Accessed 6 May 2019
at: https://www.cityoflaramie.org/444/Unified-Development-Code
Drew EJ, and JM McGuigan. (14 Aug 2013). “Prevention of Crime: An Overview of Gated
Communities and Neighborhood Watch.” International Foundation for Protection
Officers. Accessed at: https://www.ifpo.org/resource-links/articles-and-reports/crime-
prevention-physical-security-training-and-risk-management/prevention-of-crime-an-
overview-of-gated-communities-and-neighborhood-watch/
Larimer County, Colorado. “Land Use Code.” Accessed 4 June 2019
at: https://library.municode.com/co/larimer_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=
PTIILAUSCO
Taylor & Francis. “Risk of crime in gated communities.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 20 March
2013. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115113.htm
JULY 16, 2019 EVPC
CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 7 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PAGE 6 OF 8
EXHIBIT A
[Red]
Estes Valley Planning Commission: June 18, 2019
[Chapter 7 General Development Standards - §7.12.C, Adequate Public Facilities]
C. General Requirements.
1. Approval Conditioned Upon Adequate Public Facilities.
The approval of all development shall be conditioned upon the provision of adequate public
facilities and services necessary to serve the new development. No building permit shall be
issued unless such public facilities and services are in place or the commitments described in
this Section have been made.
2. Level of Service Standards.
a. This Section establishes level of service standards for the following public facilities: sewage
disposal, water, drainage, transportation, fire protection and electricity. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
b. No development plan or building permit shall be approved or issued in a manner that will
result in a reduction in the levels of service below the adopted level of service standard for the
affected facility.
3. Vehicular Access to Public Streets and Private Driveways.
a. No public right-of-way or public access easement shall be gated, have security-personnel
stations or facilities, or have similar barriers installed, so as to restrict free vehicular access
thereupon. This provision shall not apply to: (a) gates or barriers, temporary or permanent,
installed under authority of public safety agencies; (b) temporary street closures under special
event permits; (c) permits granted by the Town; or (d) temporary closures required to perform,
infrastructure work or similar public-property maintenance duties.
b. Gate-restricted access and similar physical access-control barriers and facilities shall be
permitted across private driveways associated with non-residential developments; provided that:
(a) no gates or other access-restriction measures shall be installed across public right-of-way or
access easements.
c. Gates capable of closure and similar barriers shall be specifically prohibited from installation
or operation on the primary entrance of a private driveways accessing multi-family dwelling
sites. Multi-family dwelling sites shall include private driveways accessing multiple single-family
dwellings or driveways accessing apartment complexes. These driveways shall be maintained
with unobstructed vehicular access between the dwelling entrance(s) and the public street
access. However, additional accessways to a such developments may be created with
emergency-access-only gates or barriers, provided the design, installation and operation shall
be approved by appropriate public-safety review entities, including the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District (EVFPD) Fire Marshall, for that purpose.
d. Temporary closures of private right-of ways to prevent adverse possession claims for public
use shall be allowed.
JULY 16, 2019 EVPC
CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 7 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PAGE 7 OF 8
[Appendix D. Street Design and Construction Standards]
II. STREETS
D. Private Streets.
Where private streets are used, they shall meet all design and construction standards of this
Section, including right-of-way widths and surfaced widths. The entire street width shall be deed
restricted for street purposes. When private streets are used, the subdivider shall submit written
documentation, acceptable to the Town, that the streets will be properly maintained. The
recorded plat of any subdivision that includes a private street shall clearly state that each street
is a private street. Private streets shall not be allowed where a public street connection to
adjacent property may be required for existing or future access and traffic flow purposes. Private
streets shall have a primary entrance that is not restricted to vehicular traffic. Refer to Section
7.12.C.
[ … ]
J. Street Dedication.
1. All streets that dead-end at the subdivider's property line, but will not connect with a
street dedicated to public use, shall be dedicated to public use to the property line.
2. All subdivisions shall provide for street construction and right-of-way connections to
adjoining properties, and shall not use gate-controlled access to restrict to vehicular
traffic. Refer to Section 7.12.C.
3. All right-of-way dedications to Larimer County for the purpose of streets shall be in
accordance with the Larimer County Transportation Plan Functional Road
Classification System.
III. GENERAL SITE ACCESS:
A. Access to Public Streets. All new lots, however created, shall have access to a
dedicated public road. If the approved plat provides for indirect access (i.e., over
intervening private drives), access easements and driveway/drainage maintenance
agreements, benefiting all lots with indirect access, shall be provided and recorded at
the same time the plat is recorded. Refer to Section 7.12.H.
B. Driveway Access—General Standards.
1. Safe Access Required. Safe, convenient and adequate access to individual
buildings by driveways shall be provided. Driveway access to collector and arterial
streets shall be discouraged. No driveway shall be so located as to create a hazard
to pedestrians or motorists, invite or compel illegal or unsafe traffic movements or
block or alter access to adjoining properties or uses. To the maximum extent
feasible, new driveways shall align directly across from existing driveways.
2. Backing Prohibited. All multi-family and nonresidential off-street parking spaces
shall be accessible without backing into or otherwise reentering a public right-of-
way, unless it is physically impossible to provide for such access. See Chapter 10,
Subdivision Standards, for flagpole lot requirements.
JULY 16, 2019 EVPC
CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 7 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PAGE 8 OF 8
3. Access to Streets Required. Driveways to a nonresidential building site shall
have access to an approved public or private street or private right-of-way. Gates
across single-access private driveways shall be allowed, but no gate shall block a
public right-of-way. Refer to Section 7.12.C.3.b.
4. Grade Requirements. [ …]
5. Limits on Number of Driveway Curb Cuts. [ …]
6. Shared Driveways. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Private residential driveways shared by two or
more dwelling units shall be maintained with unobstructed vehicular access between
the dwelling entrance(s) and the public street access. Refer to Section 7.12.C.3.c.
a. Shared driveways are strongly encouraged.
b. Shared driveways may be used on adjoining properties.
c. Shared driveways require submittal of a maintenance agreement for recordation.
d. Single-family. Driveways may be shared by up to four (4) single-family residential
units.
e. Multi-family Developments. A driveway may provide access for not more than one
hundred twenty (120) vehicle trips per day.
f. Nonresidential. Driveways may be shared by two (2) or more principal
nonresidential uses.
7. Driveway Opening Requirements. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
a. Nonresidential and Multi-family residential driveway openings shall not exceed
thirty (30) feet in width at the street line. Refer to Section 7.11.K.2 for
minimum driveway openings. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
b. Single-family residential and duplex driveway openings shall not exceed a
cumulative width of thirty (30) feet at the street.
c. The primary entrance for driveway openings shall not have gated access or
other security barriers installed. Refer to section 7.12.C.
Staff Report
Planning Commission, July 16th, 2019
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Claire Kreycik, Planning Technician
Date: July 16, 2019
RE: Preliminary Plat – Goetz Minor Subdivision
Planning Commission Objectives:
1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan; and
2. Provide recommendation to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for
approval/denial of the preliminary plat application.
Location:
638 Lakewood Court, Estes Park, CO 80517
Owner/Applicant:
Anne and Siegfried Goetz
Applicant’s Representative:
Joe Coop, Van Horn Engineering
Project Description:
Present Situation: The project area is located west of Mary’s Lake Road, just south of Mary’s
Lake in Larimer County. The total land area is approximately 7.58 acres and is currently
developed with one single-family dwelling, which also operates as a Bed & Breakfast, on the
east side of Lakewood Court.
History: The lot was created in 1996 through the subdivision of Mary’s Lake Estates in
Larimer County. When the subdivision was created Lot 1 was improperly designated, being
that Lakewood Court, a private right-of-way, splits the lot into two.
Proposal: The applicants are proposing that Estes Valley Planning consider the lot as two
separate lots, known as Lot 1A and 1B. Each parcel would still be large enough to meet the
minimum zoning acreage requirement for RE (approximately 3.90 acres and 3.68 acres
respectively), and Town utilities should be able to serve a new house on Lot 1A.
Review Process:
Preliminary Subdivision. EVDC §3.9.E. All subdivision applications shall demonstrate
compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, “Subdivision Standards,” and
all other applicable provisions of the Code.
Planning Commission, July 16th, 2019
Site Data Table:
Engineer: Van Horn Engineering
Parcel Number: 3402216001
Development Area: Approx. 7.58 acres
Existing Land Use: Residential B&B Proposed Land Use: Residential B&B
Zoning Designation: RE – Rural Estate
Adjacent Zoning:
East: A- Accommodations North: RE – Rural Estate
West: RE – Rural Estate South: A - Accommodations
Adjacent Land Uses:
East: Church North: Single Family Residence
West: Residential B&B South: Condominiums
Services:
Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District
Review Criteria:
Generally, depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of
the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon
issues relevant to any particular project.
1. Water. Existing water service is provided to Lot 1B. Lot 1A has a water main located
near the northeast corner of the proposed lot on the opposite side (east) of Lakewood
Court.
2. Sanitary Sewer. Existing sewer service is provided to Lot 1B. There is a sewer main
along the right of way on the west side of Lakewood Court that can be tapped for Lot 1A.
3. Access. Access to Lot 1A and 1B will use the existing Lakewood Court right-of-way.
Both proposed lots have adequate right-of-way frontage.
4. Sidewalk/Trails. N/A.
5. Mapped Hazard Areas. The subject property is not within flood or geologic hazard
areas. Any new construction for single-family residences will be required to comply with
Larimer County’s wildfire mitigation requirements at the time of building permit.
6. Comprehensive Plan. The property is located within the Carriage Hills/Mary’s Lake
Planning Sub-Area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes existing land uses as being
mixed between agricultural, single-family, accommodations, and open space uses. The
Comprehensive Plan’s policy priority is to maintain the open, relatively undeveloped,
meadow lands, to preserve visual resources. Due to limited water resources, the
Comprehensive Plan does not promote high density affordable housing or
accommodations development. Being that Lot 1A would be designated RE, one single-
family could be developed, and this lot is rather treed (See Attachment 1, Vicinity Map),
the proposed subdivision fits within the Comprehensive Plan guidelines for this sub-area.
Planning Commission, July 16th, 2019
The proposed subdivision to create an additional single-family lot supports the following
policies within 5.0 Housing:
• 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and pricing.
• 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community
that is integrated and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods.
Public Notice:
Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners in accordance with EDVC §3.15
General Notice Provisions. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette and the
application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The applicant has also
posted a “Development Proposal under Review” sign on the property.
As of July 1, 2019, no written public comments have been received for this application package.
All written comments are posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Staff Findings:
Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
1. The Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat complies with applicable standards set forth in
the EVDC.
2. The Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plats complies with the applicable goals and policies
set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Preliminary Minor
Subdivision Plat.
4. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed projects.
5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant impacts have been identified by reviewing
agencies.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat.
Sample motion:
1. I move that the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the “Preliminary Plat of the Goetz Minor Subdivision” according
to findings of fact, including findings and conditions recommended by Staff.
2. I move that the Estes Valley Planning Commission continue the “Preliminary Plat of the
Goetz Minor Subdivision” application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding
that … [state reasons for continuing].
3. I move that the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners deny the “Preliminary Plat of the Goetz Minor Subdivision” finding that
… [state findings for denial].
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Statement of Intent
3. Application
4. Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat
Pro perty Loca tio n
638
638
650
742
565
451
2625
2125
2746LAKEWOODCTKIOWATRLPROMONTORYDR
M AR YSLAK E R D
M
A
R
Y
S
L
A
K
E
R
D
MARYS LAKE
UNIT21
UNIT 4
UNIT 7
UNIT19
UNIT 18
UNIT 2
UNIT 3UNIT22UNIT 20
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 80 160Feet
1 in = 154 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Develop ment 638 Lakewood Ct
Printed: 6/25/2019Created By: Claire Kreycik
STATEMENT OF INTENT
Goetz Minor Subdivision,
Lot 1, Mary’s Lake Estates, Located in Section 2,
Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M.,
Larimer County, Colorado.
06-11-2019
Legal Description:
LOT 1, FINAL PLAT OF MARY’S LAKE ESTATES, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
Project Description:
This lot was created in 1996 through a subdivision process in Larimer County by the name of Mary’s
Lake Estates. When the subdivision was created, it showed Lot 1 as being split by Lakewood Ct. The
total for Lot 1 is approximately 7.587 acres and the two pieces on each side of the road are roughly
equal at 3.899 and 3.678 acres more or less. We believe this was an incorrect way to subdivide the
land and are proposing that each of the pieces of Lot 1, split by Lakewood Ct, be considered an
individual lot. The property is zoned RE, 2.5 acres, so the lots will meet the minimum zoning
acreage requirement. We are proposing the lots to be known as Lot 1A and Lot 1B.
Utilities:
All utilities for this project are located on the property or in the Lakewood Ct. right-of-way, adjacent
to the property. Lot 1B is already served by water, sewer and electric to the existing house. A water
main is located near the northeast corner of proposed Lot 1A on the opposite (east) side of Lakewood
Ct. A fire hydrant is located there as well and a new service line can be tapped into the water main
near the fire hydrant. This fire hydrant is adjacent to Lot 1A and should be able to serve a new house
on Lot 1A.
A sewer main is located all along the right-of-way on the same (west) side of Lakewood Ct. as
proposed Lot 1A. A new service line can be run to the main and tapped in to the main line anywhere
along the east side of Lot 1A.
Electric may require a small main line extension, at the time of a potential building on the property.
There is a transformer on the south side of the cul-de-sac of Lakewood Ct. and this transformer may
be too far from a potential house on Lot 1A. Depending on the location of a proposed house, it may
need a new primary line, to a new transformer, extended closer to the proposed house.
Gas is located in Mary’s Lake Rd, however that is quite far from Lot 1A, and like Lot 1B, will likely
have propane.
Wetlands:
The plat of Mary’s Lake Estates has wetland areas mapped on it. These areas, however, are very
linear, and bounded by property lines. We believe this is an inaccurate delineation of wetland
boundaries and have subsequently done our own wetland determination. Darcy Tiglas provided a
report showing a much smaller area of wetland on Lot 1A. We are proposing to eliminate the
wetland delineation entirely from the platted lots and just propose that the wetland be taken in to
Page 1 of 2
account at the time of a site plan for a building permit for a proposed house on Lot 1A. The report
found that there is no wetland on Lot 1B, which is consistent with the original plat as well.
Building Envelopes:
There are building envelopes shown on the original plat of Mary’s Lake Estates which do not have
any dimensions shown in order to accurately locate them. We are proposing to eliminate the building
envelopes.
Page 2 of 2