HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2008-08-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 19, 2008,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty
Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker
Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, and Tucker
Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White,
Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer
Commissioner Klink
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence of the meeting.
Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of meeting minutes dated July 15, 2008.
It was moved and seconded (HuII/Tucker) to approve the consent agenda, and the
motion passed unanimousiy with one absent.
3. UPDATE TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPENDIX TWO,
RESOURCE INFORMATION, Wildlife Habitat Map
Director Joseph stated that EDAW, an environmental planning and design firm, had been
retained by the Town to conduct a study to update the existing wildlife habitat map found
in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1996. The study provides
an up-to-date, comprehensive analysis of the inventory of wildlife habitat within the Estes
Valley. The study is available in draft form via the Town’s website and from the
Community Development office in Town Hall. Minor revisions to the study are needed;
therefore, the proposal to adopt the new wildlife habitat map into the Comprehensive Plan
will be on the Planning Commission’s September 16, 2008 meeting agenda.
EDAW Presentation:
Drew Stoll of EDAW, Inc. provided a PowerPoint presentation as an overview of the draft
Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, which was authored by EDAW with assistance from
staff members of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), and
Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). Existing ecological information and
documentation was used to complete a rapid, targeted habitat assessment; there was not
extensive field work involved in this assessment. Information was gathered from the
Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Town staff, Rick Spowart of the CDOW, RMNP
biologists, the Estes Park Bird Club, and others. Habitat on all lands was considered,
regardless of whether the property is privately owned or public land. Focus was placed on
target resources—those that are most endangered, rare, or important due to high use by
species such as bighorn sheep—including hydrologic resources; riparian corridors; rare
vegetation; important bird, bighorn sheep, elk, and mule deer habitats; and wildlife
movement corridors. Areas within the Valley that have been developed were considered
compromised in terms of their wildlife value. Priorities for conservation of ecological
networks included conservation of habitat patches, conservation and restoration of
ecological linkages (wildlife corridors), protection of rare plant and animal species, and
protection of important bird habitat. Mr. Stoll noted that there are some vegetative
communities within the Estes Valley that are ranked as globally significant. There are also
endemic plant and butterfly species (species that exist in this area and nowhere else in
the world). Raptors and migratory birds occur in the area, which is part of the Rocky
Mountain flyway. The assessment strives to provide a highly diverse ecosystem resulting
i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission ^
August 19, 2008
in no extinction of species. Due to the codependence of plant and animal species,
protection of one results in protection of others. It is not useful to state that all lands within
the Estes Valley are of high importance, so the assessment uses a ranking system. Mr.
Stoll presented an Ecological Priorities Network map that delineates highest value
habitats, high value habitats, and other valuable habitats. Highest value habitats include
aquatic, riparian, wetlands, and bighorn sheep critical winter habitat. High value habitats
include rare vegetation communities, vegetation communities with rare or endemic plant
species, severe-winter range for elk and mule deer, movement corridors, migratory bird
habitat, raptor nests and their vicinities, stream corridors, and other important ecological
linkages. Other valuable habitats include rock outcroppings (which provide unique
ecological features, nesting for some bird species, and a unique environment for some
plant species), large patches of forest or undeveloped lands that serve as refuge/shelter
for wildlife, and important hydrological systems of the Estes Valley. Some of the lands
identified as the highest value habitat are protected under the current development code;
Mr. Stoll suggested that additional protection, such as greater river setbacks, may be
appropriate.
Staff and Commissioners’ Discussion/Comments:
Commissioner Tucker questioned why bears and large cats were not specifically identified
in the habitat assessment. Mr. Stoll noted that a long list of species could have been
identified, including fox, coyote, squirrels, etc., but these species range widely and are
generalists rather than species that require specific critical habitat. By protecting target
species such as mule deer and elk, these additional species fall under the same umbrella
of protection. Commissioner Tucker expressed his appreciation for the work done by
EDAW, stating the Ecological Priorities Network map developed by EDAW provides a
good foundation for consideration of how habitats may be affected by future Planning
Commission decisions.
Commissioner Grant questioned whether empirical data had been used to determine
migration corridors. Mr. Stoll stated EDAW relied on information provided by CDOW
Officer Rick Spowart and RMNP biologists. No scientific studies have been conducted to
show the locations of wildlife movement corridors in the Estes Valley.
Director Joseph stated the study is an objective assessment of the habitat found in the
Estes Valley. There is much work remaining to be done to make connections between the
habitat assessment and the regulatory framework upon which future land-use decisions
will be made. There will be ongoing public hearings to address these issues in the Estes
Valley.
Public Comment:
Ron Norris/Town Resident spoke on behalf of the Association for Responsible
Development (ARD) and stated he was pleased to see the report come out in draft form.
He strongly emphasized the importance of using the maps found in the study, particularly
the Ecological Priorities Network map. He stated the Town has not done a good job in the
recent past in advertising and communicating with the public on issues such as this. He
expressed ARD’s willingness to help advertise or co-sponsor public hearings, noting the
study is a good step forward.
Eric WaplesA’own Resident expressed appreciation for Mr. Stoll’s comments regarding
the importance of connectivity, wildlife corridors, and the concept of ecological networks.
He noted that windows are closing rapidly on privately owned lands. He encouraged the
Planning Commission and Planning Department to coordinate efforts to identify remaining
areas where decisions can be made to improve habitat patches or connectivity, as well as
to protect corridors and patches that are needed to connect currently protected areas. He
expressed his opinion that the design of Ranch Meadow Subdivision could have provided
a corridor for elk movement from the golf course to the open space area within the
subdivision, but did not. He questioned what new information had been brought forward in
the study and what recommendations EDAW would make accordingly.
Discussion ensued, with Mr. Stoll and Director Joseph providing comments in response to
additional questions from Commissioners and Mr. Waples. Mr. Stoll stated the current
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
August 19, 2008
setback applied to wetland areas and stream corridors does not buffer riparian areas. It is
important to protect these areas and to have a transitional area of impact rather than
locating buildings right on the edge of sensitive areas because water needs to filter
through other vegetation prior to entering wetlands and because wildlife utilizing wetlands
should not be disturbed by dogs, people, lighting, and so forth. Protection of plant species,
including globally ranked vegetative and endemic plant species, is important, particularly if
there is the desire to prevent loss of species. Mr. Stoll noted that roads create barriers. He
stated that bighorn sheep are particularly in need of protection.
Mr. Stoll went on to state the elk herd is beyond the sustainable level, and that wildlife
behavior has changed substantially due to risk from vehicles, inappropriate food sources,
and changing genetics because wildlife is not migrating naturally. Although the composite
analysis map provided in the study reflects Colorado State University mapping of severe-
winter range for elk (for instance), the situation is dynamic due to changing wildlife
behavior. The width of corridors needed for elk migration varies depending on the number
of animals using the corridor, the landscape of the area, architecture, parking, and roads.
Corridors should be considered on a site-specific basis based on location; efforts should
be made to ensure that fencing and architecture don’t become barriers to movement.
Buffers required for wetland areas should also be varied based on the significance of the
wetland (major wetland vs. minor wetland). Director Joseph noted that general literature
does not provide applicable guidelines for the width of elk corridors because elk in this
area are so habituated to humans.
Tom Kuepers/Town Resident expressed concern that possible impacts of pine beetle
infestation had not been addressed in the study and encouraged the inclusion of that
potentiality.
Bill Van Horn/Area Resident stated consultants have been cautioning the Planning
Commission for thirty-five years that elk corridors should be provided and elk calving
areas should be protected. He stated elk go where they want to and are particularly
attracted to irrigated grass unless they are shot or otherwise harassed. Planning should
be for species other than elk. He encouraged the Commissioners to use planning to help
reduce the number of elk, as well as to disallow landscaping and bird feeders that attract
elk. He stated he has not seen a porcupine in Estes Park for ten years; they used to be
very common. He noted mule deer are declining and encouraged the Commissioners to
focus on a “total” plan, not just a plan to accommodate elk.
Commissioner Amos commented that every time a new building comes in, things are a
little bit worse. He expressed surprise at the number of raptor sites found in the Estes
Valley and stated they should be considered in future planning. He thanked EDAW for the
comprehensive report and expressed the hope that the meeting attendees were present
to help establish new regulations, noting the only species of animal that can be regulated
is humans.
4. REZONING, AMENDED PLAT, and AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN/LOCATION
AND EXTENT REVIEW—SPECIAL REVIEW 06-01B, ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER,
All Hospital Addition, and two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-
R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as portions of Tract 9 and
11 and all of Tract 10, 555 Prospect Avenue and 475 Mocassin Circle Drive, Estes
Park Medical Center/Applicant
Applicant Presentation:
Jeff Chamberlain of RLH Engineering was present to represent Estes Park Medical
Center and provided a visual presentation. The applicant proposes to remodel and
expand the emergency department of the hospital, which would consist of a 4,606-square-
foot addition and remodel of 3,065 square feet within the existing building. New drainage,
a new emergency department drop-off and entry area, and a loop road with additional
parking are proposed. The addition has been designed to blend with the existing building.
Construction has been planned in phases to ensure the emergency department will
remain open. The proposed new loop drive would run through the existing gravel lot to
create the loop. New landscaping is proposed. The applicant intends to open the new
addition in March 2009, with remodel of the existing space to take place from March
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
August 19, 2008
through mid-May. The addition is needed to accommodate the high volume of
emergencies seen in the summer, as weil as increasing demand based on the needs of
the elderly population in the winter. There has been a recent issue with the noise
generated by the air-handling unit on top of the existing building. The air-handling unit will
be replaced as part of the proposed emergency department addition. The applicant does
not have specific numbers regarding the decibel readings of the proposed equipment. The
construction company has agreed to provide information on noise ratings for the new unit
and will do anything possible to mitigate noise from the unit. The applicant agrees to meet
the requirements of the Town noise ordinance.
Staff Presentation:
Planner Chilcott stated there are three applications to be reviewed. The first is an
amended plat to combine three lots owned by the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) into
one lot. The EPMC is currently located on a nine-acre lot zoned RM-Multi-Family
Residential. The second lot is zoned E.—Estate and contains a single-family residence.
The third lot is also zoned E-Estate] this vacant lot is being used as temporary parking for
construction and hospital employees. A fifteen-foot-wide private access easement is
shown on the Moccasin Addition plat. If this easement still exists, it must be shown on the
amended plat. Additionally, the Public Works Department provided comments on
improvements needed on Mocassin Circle Drive given the volume of traffic accessing the
hospital and using the bypass. If additional road right-of-way is needed for these
improvements, it should be dedicated with this amended plat. Planning staff is supportive
of the amended plat request and recommends its approval with two conditions as noted
below.
The second application is a request for rezoning of the two E-Estate-zoned parcels that
would be combined with the existing EPMC lot via the amended plat. The lots would be
rezoned to RM-Multi-Family Residential. Hospital use and senior institutionai living
(Prospect Park Living Center) are allowed under RM zoning but not under E-Estate
zoning. Staff finds that the submitted application complies with the standards for review of
rezoning requests outlined in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The rezoning
is necessary to address changes in the affected area; specifically, it is needed to meet the
community’s health care needs. The two parcels are adjacent to the existing hospital and
remodel and expansion in the current location is more feasible than relocating the hospital
to another site. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns. Estes Park is a
retirement community, and it is important to maintain health care services for the aging
population. Approval of the rezoning request would permit the expansion of the hospital
parking onto the two parcels currently zoned E-Estate, as well as the addition of a new
curb cut on one of the lots. The Public Works Department has expressed concern
regarding the additional curb cut and the work to be done on Mocassin Circie Drive.
Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with three conditions of
approval as noted below. Planner Chilcott amended condition #3 to recommend that
approval be contingent on compliance with the Public Works memos dated July 30, 2008
and August 28, 2008; she noted that the August 28 date on the second memo was a
typographical error—the date should read August 19, 2008.
The third application is for an amended Special Review/Development Plan to allow the
4,606-square-foot addition and the interior remodel, expansion and redesign of a portion
of the parking lot, and detention improvements. Staff is supportive of this request and
recommends its approvai. If staff’s recommended conditions of approval are met, the
application will comply with EVDC standards. The application is also a location-and-extent
review due to the fact that the hospital is a special taxing district; the hospital board can
vote to overrule some conditions of approval imposed by the Town. The special review
process provides a higher standard for review in terms of mitigating impacts of
development on adjacent property.
The Public Works Department has requested that some runoff from Mocassin Circle Drive
be filtered prior to its release. The applicant has accommodated this request by planning
to route stormwater through a proposed detention basin on the western side of the
hospital, into a new culvert to be installed on Mocassin Circle Drive, and thence into the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission b
August 19, 2008
existing detention pond on the east side of the hospital prior to its release. Comments
received in the Public Works memo dated August 28, 2008 address this issue.
The applicant’s plans show a total of 219 parking spaces as required by the EVDC; 209 of
these spaces are proposed for construction in the first phase. The timing of installation of
the remaining parking spaces is uncertain at this point; staff recommends requiring the
applicant provide verification that sufficient parking will be constructed to accommodate
expansion of the emergency department.
The Estes Park Medical Center will provide a fifteen-foot-wide pedestrian access
easement from Fir Avenue up Mocassin Circle Drive; this easement will be dedicated
once sidewalk is constructed. The Medical Center’s plans protect the most significant
trees on the property. Some trees that appear to have been planted when the hospital
was constructed will be removed. Staff recommends curbs to protect landscaping, grass,
and the edge of asphalt, as well as protection of a large tree near the entrance to the
hospital. Neighboring property owners have expressed concern about weed growth in the
Prospect Avenue right-of-way, which was seeded but needs additional watering. Staff
recommends a condition of approval be that weed control and revegetation be
successfully completed in this area, as well as in the area currently being used as
temporary construction parking.
Planner Chilcott noted that approved special reviews become null and void if construction
is not commenced within one year, while development plan vesting is for a period of three
years. The applicant is requesting approval of a vesting period of six years due to the
uncertainty of the timeframe for construction of the upper parking area.
Planning staff is supportive of the special review request. Planner Chilcott amended
recommended condition of approval #1 and added condition #29. Amended condition #1
specifically references recent comments received from the Estes Park Sanitation District
and Public Works Department. Condition #29 requires the Estes Park Medical Center to
submit documentation demonstrating that the proposed air-handling equipment will not
violate the Estes Park Municipal Code noise ordinance; this documentation must be
received prior to issuance of a building permit.
Commissioner Hull questioned whether the applicant is in agreement with these revised
conditions of approval. Mr. Chamberlain indicated the applicant is in agreement. He went
on to state the upper parking lot will be installed as a gravel lot during phase 1 of
construction and will be paved during phase 2. At that point, the number of parking
spaces would exceed the number required by the EVDC.
Greg Sievers/Public Works Department Construction and Facilities Manager stated for the
record that the Public Works memo dated August 28, 2008 should read August 19, 2008.
Public Comment:
Fred Wojcik/Adjoining Property Owner expressed concern about the increase in noise
generated by rooftop equipment at the medical center. Measurements of noise from this
equipment taken at his property range from 45 to 50 decibels. Idling ambulances and the
generator for the MRI trailer add to the noise level. The proposed addition will be closer to
his property than the existing building. He stated the hospital has not made an effort to
identify which equipment has caused the noise to increase so greatly since the recent
hospital addition/remodel was completed. He expressed concern that the issue would not
be adequately addressed given the fast timeline for approval of the proposed emergency
room addition and remodel and the hospital’s limited budget.
Discussion followed between Commissioners, Planner Chilcott, Mr. Wojcik, and Estes
Park Medical Center Director of Buildings and Grounds Frank Bilek and is summarized as
follows. The noise problem was brought to the attention of the hospital staff on Monday,
August 11, 2008; the hospital has been responsive to Mr. Wojcik’s concerns. Mr. Bilek
suggested the new penthouse structure has created the problem and stated noise levels
are within 60 decibels during the day and 50 decibels at night. Planner Chilcott noted that
the maximum allowable noise level in both the E-Estate zoning district (Mr. Wojcik’s
property) and the RM-Multi-Family Residential zoning district (EPMC) is 50 decibels at
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission o
August 19, 2008
night; however, the allowable noise level is reduced by five decibels for pure tones. The
Code Enforcement officer has stated his belief that the noise is a pure tone. During the
day, traffic noise covers the noise from the rooftop; the problem is at night. Mr. Bilek
expressed his hope that the problem equipment could be identified and repaired or
replaced.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Tucker) to recommend approval of each of the
following three requests to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one
absent.
• Request to Rezone two Metes and Bounds parceis located in SE S25-T5N-R73W
and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as portions of Tract 9 and 11
and all of Tract 10 from E-Estate to RM-Multi-Family Residential.
REZONING CONDITIONS:
1. Rezoning shall not become effective until the amended plat is approved and
recorded by the Town.
2. Rezoning shall be contingent on compliance with special review application
#06-01B.
3. Rezoning shall be contingent on construction of road improvements required by
Public Works, including the comments in the Estes Park Public Works
Department memos dated July 30, 2008 and August 19, 2008.
• Request for an Amended Plat of All Hospital Addition and two Metes and
Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin
Saddle Addition Plat as portions of Tract 9 and 11 and ail of Tract 10.
AMENDED PLAT CONDITIONS:
1. If additional right-of-way is required, it shall be dedicated on this plat.
2. The plat shall show the fifteen-foot-wide private access easements described
on the Moccasin Saddle Addition plat, unless this easement has been vacated.
3. The written legal descriptions on the plat shall be consistent with each other for
all three lots (four parcels).
4. A written legal description shall be provided for the lot that is labeled Tract 9,
Moccasin Saddle Addition.
5. The Certificate of Ownership and Dedication shall comply with the requirements
in EVDC Appendix B, Attachment A.
6. The parcel identification numbers and subdivision names listed to the right of
the Fir Avenue right-of-way are truncated. This shall be corrected.
7. The Town boundary shall be shown with the symbol included in the legend.
8. The lot size rounds to 10.501 acres based on 457,402 square feet. The same
lot size shall be cited throughout the plat.
9. A lot number should be assigned to the new lot.
10. The vicinity map legibility shall be improved.
11 .The sheet number should be provided in the lower right-hand corner of the plat.
• Request for an Amended Development Plan/Location and Extent Review—
Special Review 06-01B, All Hospital Addition and two Metes and Bounds parcels
located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat
as portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10.
SPECIAL REVIEW CONDITIONS:
1,
2.
4.
5.
Compliance with the affected agency comments, including the comments from
the Estes Park Sanitation District dated August 18, 2008 and the amended
comments from the Estes Park Public Works Department dated August 28,
2008 but actually prepared on August 19, 2008.
Any required right-of-way dedication shall be reviewed to ensure that the
proposed building expansion will continue to comply with the minimum required
setbacks.
The existing and proposed use of the building labeled on Sheet 2 of 7 as
“Existing Building to Remain” shall be clarified.
The applicant shall contact the Building Department to determine if a change of
use permit is required for the building labeled “Existing Building to Remain.”
Grading shall demonstrate how water from the upper (future) parking lot will
reach the detention pond.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
August 19, 2008
6. Top- and bottom-of-wall elevations shall be provided for the retaining wall
proposed on the southwest side of the upper (future) parking lot, with proposed
contours tying into existing contours.
7. Clearer labeling of existing and proposed contours for the lower, fifteen-space
parking lot and associated driveways shall be provided.
8. Consistent pond design shall be provided throughout the application, i.e., the
pond design shown in the June 24, 2008 Preliminary Drainage Report on Sheet
3 of 7 and on Sheet 4 of 7 shall be consistent with each other.
9. Additional curb shall be provided to protect vegetation.
10. Grading shall be revised to avoid cut on top of two trees at the uppermost
entrance to the hospital.
11. Landscape calculations found on Sheet 1 of 7, which summarize existing and
proposed landscaping, shall be expanded to include all required landscaping,
such as parking lot and impervious coverage landscaping.
12. Weed control and revegetation shall be successfully completed in the Prospect
Avenue right-of-way.
13. Weed control shall be successfully completed in the area approved for
temporary construction parking that is also being used for employee parking.
14. The boundaries of the temporary parking area shall be clearly defined to
minimize disturbance to the land.
15. The parking lot lighting plan shall be clearly presented for review and approval.
The street light symbol(s) shall be included in the legend.
16. The plan shall demonstrate compliance with the minimum required parking or
additional information shall be submitted describing why these spaces are not
needed.
17. Parking calculations shall accurately reflect the square footage of the proposed
addition.
18. Parking calculations shown on Sheet 1 of 7 shall accurately reflect the number
of parking spaces shown on Sheet 2 of 7.
19. The parking counts on Sheet 2 of 7 shall be legible.
20. The parking calculations on Sheet 1 of 7 shall clarify how many parking spaces
are provided with the first and second phase of parking lot construction.
21 .The number of accessible parking spaces shall be revised. One of the spaces is
not truly accessible and shall not be counted as such.
22. Parking calculations shali be updated to account for the parking spaces
required for the three duplexes and the building labeled on Sheet 2 of 7 as
“Existing Building to Remain.”
23. A landscaped island shall be provided in the upper (future) parking lot.
24. Parking calculation column titles shall be readable on Sheet 1 of 7, i.e., the
words “Regular,” “Handicapped,” and “Total” shall be readable.
25. The traffic impact analysis shall be updated to reflect development completed
with Special Review 06-01 and development proposed with Special Review 06-
01B.
26. The public sidewalk shall be placed in a public access easement once it is
constructed.
27. There are two Sheet 3 of 7s. This shall be corrected.
28. A check for the application fee shall be submitted once a partial fee waiver
request is reviewed by the Community Development Committee and Town
Board.
29. Prior to building permit issuance, the Estes Park Medical Center shall submit
documentation demonstrating that the proposed HVAC equipment will not
violate the Estes Park Municipal Code noise ordinance.
JL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 19, 2008
8
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, SOLOMON SUBDIVISION, Outlots A & B,
Prospect Highlands Subdivision, TBD Curry Drive, Central Administrators,
IncVOwner, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant
Staff Presentation:
Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to re-subdivide two existing
outlots, Outlots A and B of Prospect Highlands Subdivision, into four single-family
residential lots. The total acreage is approximately 6.25 acres. The outlots are in a steeply
sloped area and are zoned E-Estate, a 1/2-acre-minimum-lot-size zoning district. The
proposed lot sizes must be adjusted for slope, which the applicant has done.
The proposal does not meet Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) limits of
disturbance criteria, geologic hazard mitigation requirements, cul-de-sac standards
(number of units, length, and turn-around design), and curb/gutter/sidewalk requirements.
The applicant has requested modifications and/or waivers to the EVDC standards listed
below:
Appendix D.II.E.1 - Maximum cul-de-sac length
Appendix D.II.E.2 - Maximum number of vehicle trips per day on a cul-de-sac
Appendix D.lX.D - Street connection details (cul-de-sac bulb)
Appendix D.ll.l - Concrete curb and gutter
Section 10.5.D - Sidewalks
Section 7.2.D.2.b - Limits of disturbance criteria
In 1996, the property owner submitted a proposal to subdivide 66 acres into 21 single
family lots and one outlet. The application did not meet the subdivision standards in place
at that time, including a maximum of twelve units on a cul-de-sac and a maximum cul-de-
sac length of 1,000 feet. The applicant submitted revised plans that maximized the
development potential of the property at that time. The same standards limiting cul-de-sac
length are in place today. Although the EVDC does not specify the maximum number of
units allowed on a cul-de-sac. It addresses this issue by providing for a maximum number
of allowable vehicle trips per day, which provides the same result.
When the original subdivision plat was recorded, the outlots included the note, “Reserved
for Future Development.” However, because the existing plat maximized allowed density,
planning staff suggests the note does not imply approval for additional density.
The applicant proposes a secondary connection to Curry Drive, which would change the
street from a cul-de-sac to a street with a second point of access. This proposed
connection would be through the Koral Heights residential neighborhood approximately
two miles away, with three locked gates in between. Staff suggests this connection would
not benefit the proposed subdivision (although it would provide a secondary access point
to the top of Prospect Mountain) and would not satisfy the requirements of the EVDC in
terms of limitation of cul-de-sac length, the maximum number of units allowed on a cul-de-
sac, or connectivity. These requirements are based on fire protection, as well as the
number of trips generated on a single access point.
The proposed lots meet the adjusted minimum lot size based on slope; each lot would be
approximately one acre In size. The proposal does not meet any of the following limits of
disturbance criteria set forth in EVDC Section 7.2.D:
• Avoidance of visual impacts, including but not limited to ridgeline protection areas,
steep slopes and scenic views.
• Avoidance of steep slopes in excess of thirty percent and other erosion prevention and
control measures.
• Preservation of forests, significant native trees, rock outcroppings or formations, and
other significant native site vegetation.
• Mitigation of geologic hazards, including potential adverse impacts on downslope and
adjacent properties.
• The practical needs of approved construction activity in terms of ingress and egress to
the developed project and necessary staging and operational areas.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
August 19, 2008
The proposed building envelopes on the upper two lots are in an area of 35% slope; the
Code states lots should not be platted in such areas. Planner Shirk noted that the area of
disturbance on the lot would be greater than the proposed building envelopes due to
excavation, installation of utility lines, backfill, and so forth. The submitted plans do not
account for the true limits of disturbance proposed on the property.
The proposed subdivision lies within geologic and wildfire hazard areas. The geologic
hazard mitigation plan submitted by the applicant does not satisfy all the submittal
requirements set forth in the EVDC. Staff agreed to forward the mitigation plan to the
Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) for review and comment and agreed to accept the plan
if the CGS found it acceptable. However, CGS indicated that additional study is
necessary. The Planning Commission should consider this fact in their review of the
proposal.
The stormwater management plan submitted by the applicant has not been approved by
the Town Engineer. The applicant proposes that each lot have its own detention pond; the
Town Engineer has indicated that one detention pond should be provided on the lower
portion of the property to serve all four lots. The Colorado Geologic Suivey also
commented that any detention ponds should be aligned, thus creating a retention pond,
so that stormwater would not filter into the groundwater. Additionally, the Public Works
Department has received notification from downhill neighbors that stormwater runoff from
the south side of Prospect Mountain has resulted in flooding. This issue may warrant
further investigation, including subsurface investigation of groundwater flows.
There are several road design standards with which the proposal fails to comply, and the
applicant is requesting waivers or modifications to these standards. The maximum
allowed length of a cul-de-sac is 1,000 feet (the same standard was in place when the
original subdivision was platted in 1996); the applicant proposes a cul-de-sac 2,000 feet
long. The maximum allowed number of vehicle trips per day on a cul-de-sac is 120 (ten
trips/day per single-family residence); the applicant’s proposal would result in 160 trips per
day (a total of 16 units would access the cul-de-sac). The applicant proposes to construct
a hammerhead turnaround rather than the required cul-de-sac bulb; the hammerhead
would require a three-point turn for fire trucks and snow plows and would need to be
signed “no parking” and “no snow storage.” A cul-de-sac bulb was required for the original
subdivision. The applicant requests waiver to the requirement to provide concrete curb
and gutter and sidewalk; staff would support the request to waive the sidewalk
requirement.
The applicant proposes to widen the road from the current sixteen-foot width to the
required 20 feet and provide two-foot shoulders on each side. The road would be widened
a total of eight feet, which would require additional cut and fill. It would also require a
wider drainage ditch on the uphill side of the road, which would add an additional five to
ten feet of width, resulting in an extra fifteen to 20 feet of additional width along the road.
A six- to eight-foot cut currently exists on the uphill side of the road. Staff suggests the
application does not truly demonstrate the resulting level of additional disturbance on the
mountainside. Grading and limits of disturbance standards should be considered when
reviewing this application for development on a very steep slope.
Planner Shirk read for the record the following statement provided by Public Works
Director Scott Zurn. “The Public Works Department found that the proposed
improvements generally do not meet adopted standards regarding streets and drainage.
Therefore, the Public Works Department does not support approval of this project at this
time. If the applicant chooses to resubmit an application in conformance with Town of
Estes Park standards, the Public Works Department reserves the right to make additional
comments and revise comments as more detail is provided.”
Fire Chief Dorman has noted no concerns with the addition of four lots at the end of the
cul-de-sac, provided a pull-out is built and the road meets width requirements. The
submitted plans do not include this pull-out.
Correspondence from three neighboring property owners and the Prospect Mountain
Townhome Association had been received at the time the staff report was written;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 19, 2008
10
additional comments have been received since that time and were included in the
Planning Commission meeting packets.
Most of the waivers requested by the applicant are waivers to Appendix D of the EVDC,
which includes provisions for modifications and waivers and grants that authority to the
Public Works Department. The Public Works Director did not grant the requested waivers;
thus, the applicant may request the Planning Commission to grant them. The EVDC
requires that the Planning Commission find that the requested modifications or waivers
will result in superior engineering and relieve practical difficulty in developing the site.
Planner Shirk stated the requested waivers may relieve practical difficulty in developing
this site but will not result in superior engineering. Director Joseph added that another
standard set forth in the EVDC is that requested modifications/waivers will lessen site
impact and stated that, in this case, they will not.
Per EVDC standards, development on any lot with a slope greater than 30% requires the
landowner to consult with an engineer, prepare a development plan, pay the requisite
application fee, and go through the staff-level development plan review process, including
consultation with the Public Works Department, submittal of a geologic survey and
drainage plan, and submittal of any other documentation required by staff or the Code.
Planner Shirk read for the record the staff findings as set forth in the staff report. Based on
these findings, staff recommends disapproval of the Solomon Subdivision request.
Chair Eisenlauer called a recess at 3:35 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 3:45 p.m.
Applicant Presentation:
Lonnie SheldonA/an Horn Engineering provided a lengthy presentation on behalf of the
applicant. He provided the Commissioners copies of information on the importance of
providing a secondary access to the top of Prospect Mountain. He expressed his belief
that the proposed subdivision is a good fit for the area and disappointment in the Public
Works Department’s response to the proposal, stating the applicant knew the proposal did
not meet the EVDC standards but is proposing an alternative to those standards. He read
for the record a letter from property owner/applicant Jerry Solomon, which states that
proposed building envelopes will keep construction in a compact region out of rockfell
hazard areas, and the applicant will pay for utilities and associated upgrades, including
construction of the proposed secondary access road, which would provide benefit to all
involved. He also read a letter from adjoining property owner John Heron expressing
support for the arrangement to trade easements and complete road work on property
owned by the Heron family and the Bureau of Reclamation, which would improve access
to communication facilities at the top of Prospect Mountain.
Mr. Sheldon went on to emphasize the importance of the proposed secondary emergency
access, which is intended to offset the impact of three requested waivers—maximum cul-
de-sac length, vehicle trips per day, and connectivity standards. Emergency providers
may have a key to the locked gates, push-button security combinations may be provided,
or emergency personnel can use bolt cutters to get through the gates. The proposed road
would be a 12-foot-wide all-weather surface and would not be built to current road
standards due to the blasting and fill that would be required to do so. Mr. Sheldon
contended the secondary emergency access road would negate the cul-de-sac length
limits set forth in the EVDC.
The original plat of Prospect Highlands Subdivisions shows a possible six additional lots
where four are proposed. The applicant will meet road construction standards for sub
local residential streets even though the requirement to do so is not triggered unless 20 or
more lots are served (a total of 16 lots would be served). The required cul-de-sac bulb is
not feasible due to the slope of the site; Fire Chief Dorman has approved the proposed
hammerhead turnaround, conditioned on the area being signed to prohibit parking and
snow storage. Responsibility for enforcement would fall to the homeowners’ association.
Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant’s request for waiver to concrete curb and gutter
standards is justified because the proposed subdivision is low density and low drainage.
The applicant proposes to widen the road from its current 12-foot width to 22 feet; the
current road has asphalt curb and gutter. In widening the road, all drainage will be
III! Ill RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 19, 2008
11
directed toward the mountainside; the drainage ditch will doubie as a geohazard rockfaii
catch feature.
Mr. Sheidon stated individuai stormwater detention ponds are proposed on each iot. The
ponds wouid be sized to release drainage at the natural flow rate, would capture peak
flow from the homes and driveways, and would not increase downstream drainage. Mr.
Sheldon stated that a single detention pond, as requested by the Public Works Director,
would require the applicant to cut ditches across the mountain to channel water to the
pond. He expressed concern that he had not received direct feedback from the Director.
Impervious coverage of the proposed subdivision would be approximately 8.1 percent.
The applicant does not feel sidewalks are necessary or needed.
The upper two lots are proposed in areas of 35% and 36% cross-slope. Mr. Sheldon
stated the EVDC does not prohibit development on slopes this steep but does provide
standards that must be met. The applicant proposes small building envelopes, the
development is not on a ridgeline, fill and retaining walls will be minimized, foundation
walls will be stepped to follow the natural terrain, and no more than ten feet of cut will be
made. Mr. Sheldon showed several drawings illustrating how homes could be situated on
the proposed lots.
Director Joseph noted that future homeowners will not want a driveway apron steeper
than 8%; most prefer 3%. This will compound the difficulty of locating future residences on
this slope. Mr. Sheldon agreed it would be difficult to do so and stated there will be site-
specific plans for each residence with opportunity for further review, noting that problems
will be the problems of the person who purchases the lot and can be worked out. Director
Joseph went on to state that the level of site disturbance that would result can easily be
seen by looking at existing residences in this subdivision and suggested Mr. Sheldon was
painting a rosier picture than the final project would yield. He stated the necessary amount
of cut and fill, retaining walls, and the overall site impact would be greater than what Mr.
Sheldon described.
In response to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Sheldon provided the following
information. Additional cut will be made on the mountainside to provide the required 24-
foot width for Curry Drive. Proposed limits of disturbance on the lots are small, are on the
less-steep portions of the lots, and would result in the future homes on proposed Lots 1
and 2 being located directly below large, stable rock outcroppings to protect them from
rockfaii hazard. Ongoing geohazard maintenance will be the responsibility of the
homeowners’ association, as is currently the case for the existing Prospect Highlands
Subdivision HOA. All rocks are the site are lichen-covered, indicating that rockfaii is
infrequent. An existing sewer main is located southeast of the property; the applicant
proposes a sewer-line connection that would run directly down the slope along the
proposed lot line between Lots 3 and 4 to this existing main. Electric lines would also be
placed in this location. Staff has suggested the utility lines be placed in the road but this
would greatly increase the length of the lines and cost of installation. Planner Shirk
clarified that placement of utilities in the road is a requirement of the EVDC. Mr. Sheldon
went on to state the lots will connect to town water and will not be part of the Prospect
Mountain water system. The applicant proposes a natural gas connection from Prospect
Highlands Subdivision; if propane is used, the tanks would be buried. The proposed lots
meet density, lot size, and setback requirements and residences could be designed to
meet the height limit and limits of disturbance standards. The applicant proposes the new
lots join the existing Prospect Highlands homeowners’ association and participate in the
annual geohazard rockfaii mitigation efforts undertaken by the HOA. Mr. Sheldon stated
the proposed subdivision fits the character of the existing neighborhood, would be less
dense, and would provide a secondary access that would be beneficial to many entities.
Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant’s willingness to continue this request to the September
16, 2008 Planning Commission meeting and to work with the Public Works Department to
get feedback on the proposal.
Public Comment:
Rick Warren/Neighboring Property Owner expressed concern about potential rockfaii and
drainage problems that may result from the proposed subdivision. He stated that a
neighbor’s residence has flooded twice from an underground spring and expressed
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 19, 2008
12
concern that surface drainage may increase, groundwater flows may be altered, or the
entire hydrologic system for the mountain may change as a result of development as
proposed. He stated the proposed subdivision is in a scenic area in the middle of the
mountain with large rocks and boulders; this area should not be disturbed. He stated a
variety of wildlife use the area proposed for development, including deer, elk, coyotes,
and bobcats; this should not be a minor consideration. In response to questions from
Commissioner Amos, he stated rockfall has not occurred on his property but has on a
neighboring property during periods of rainy weather. He stated groundwater is the
biggest concern.
Kim Comstock/Adjoining Property Owner stated his lot is located directly below the
proposed development and expressed concern about surface and underground water
flows from the mountain, particularly during torrential storms. He stated his belief that it is
absurd to say there will be no changes given the proposed changes to the road and the
increased number of houses; he requested hard data that no changes would occur. He
stated the proposed development might change the path of an underground spring and
cause flooding where there has been no prior flooding. He stated any change to
groundwater flows could flood his home and noted that homeowners insurance and flood
insurance does not cover this type of event.
Tom Kuepers/Neighboring Property Owner stated he lives below the proposed
subdivision. He requested the opportunity to address the Commissioners prior to the
applicant if the proposal is continued to the next meeting. He stated the proposed
secondary access road would not result in a connecting road; Curry Drive will remain a
cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Hull stated her desire to hear additional public comment, noting the
applicant’s presentation had gone on for 65 minutes. Commissioner Amos suggested
continuance of this item to the next meeting. He specifically stated his desire to hear the
objections staff may have to the accommodations the applicant has suggested in order to
address staff’s concerns regarding the ways the proposal does not meet EVDC
standards. Mr. Sheldon indicated his agreement to a continuance. Commissioner Kitchen
assured those in attendance that there would be an opportunity to speak at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Amos moved to continue this item to the September 16, 2008 Planning
Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hull, who amended
the motion to clarify that the applicant’s presentation has been completed; public
comment and a short rebuttal by the applicant will be heard at the September meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) to CONTINUE the Preliminary Subdivision
Plat, Solomon Subdivision, Outlots A & B, Prospect Highlands Subdivision, to the
September 16, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, with the
understanding that the applicant’s presentation has been completed and public
comment and a short rebuttal by the applicant will be heard at this meeting, and the
motion passed unanimously with one absent.
6. REPORTS:
None.
Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 5:01 p.m.
Ike Eisenlauer, Chair
ederer, recording ^cretary