HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2008-02-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 19, 2008,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendeii Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty
Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Kiink, and John Tucker
Chair Eiseniauer; Commissioners Amos, Huli, Kitchen, Kiink, and Tucker
Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White,
Public Works Director Zurn, and Recording Secretary Roederer
Commissioner Grant
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.
Director Joseph stated a letter in the local newspaper had inaccurately indicated that the
proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project was on the agenda for today’s meeting.
When the proposal is scheduled for review, neighboring property owners will be notified via a
mailing, just as they were for previous hearings on this proposal. Also, the Elkhorn Lodge
Redevelopment concept plan will be presented at the March 18, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting; public comment will be taken at that time. Planning staff is available to answer
questions about the concept plan during regular business hours.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ron Norris/President of Association for Responsible Development (ARD), provided ARD’s
definition of “unique mountain character” as expressed by their membership—being in a
small, friendly town, with a wide variety of interesting shops and good restaurants, and
countless opportunities for outdoor activities; seeing spectacular mountain scenery
throughout the Valley; having a wide variety of abundant easily-seen wildlife; the feeling of
being close to nature; and the feeling of not being overcrowded, hemmed in, or
surrounded by concrete and structures that one can see in most American cities. He also
expressed ARD’s desire to have a wildlife policy, open space plan, and revisions to the
Estes Valley Development Code completed as soon as possible, preferably within the
next few months. ARD members would like to be directly involved in this work.
Sandy Osterman/Town Resident, expressed concern about development impacts on all
wildlife, not just elk. Open space between buildings is not used by wildlife; they choose to
skirt development rather than passing through it. The amount of wildlife seen in the North
End has decreased dramatically with recent developments. Knowledge of development
impact on wildlife should be improved. Loss of visible wildlife impacts tourist visitation and
the local economy.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of minutes dated January 15, 2008
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to approve the minutes as presented, and
the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
b.Amended Plat (Lot Consolidation), Lot 4 and Lot 14, Block 13, Carriage Hills 5th
Filing, 2720 Wildwood Drive, Richard A. Shaw/Appiicant—Request to combine
two lots into one lot
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) to recommend approval of the
Amended Plat, Lot 4 and Lot 14, Block 13, Carriage Hiiis 5th Fiiing, to the Board of
County Commissioners, with the findings recommended by staff, and the motion
passed unanimously with one absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 19, 2008
3. REVIEW OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE ESTES PARK 21st CENTURY
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE ESTES VALLEY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority/Applicant
Town Attorney White stated the Town Board approved an urban renewal plan and
established the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) in 1983. Colorado statutes
provide a 25-year life for urban renewal authorities. EPURA is nearing the end of this
timeframe and it is a Town Board goal to reestablish EPURA for an additional 25 years.
State statutes require the Town Board to review and approve a new urban renewal plan,
which includes a blight study conducted by a qualified expert to propose a new EPURA
boundary. Prior to review of the new EPURA plan by the Town Board, the Estes Valley
Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the plan solely to determine whether it is
consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Director Joseph summarized the staff report. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
(EPURA) plan has adopted the following goals, which are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan:
(1) The plan encourages existing and future commercial uses to locate within a
compact, well-defined downtown business district.
(2) The plan provides a pedestrian-friendly downtown environment that provides for
pedestrian movement, areas for relaxing, gathering, and window shopping.
(3) The plan encourages outdoor public spaces, including spaces for outdoor
gathering, dining, nature- and people-watching.
(4) The plan encourages infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs
and stabilize residential neighborhoods.
(5) The plan encourages an adequate blend of public and private parking for residents
and visitors.
(6) The plan will provide a means of redeveloping existing substandard areas.
The plan also outlines the following:
• Urban land use should occur within the Town limits of Estes Park;
• Encourages cooperation among governments and government agencies in the area;
• Encourages a comprehensive and balanced transportation system for the Estes
Valley, while maintaining a local road system consistent with the rural mountain resort
character of the Valley;
• Creation of a comprehensive and integrated trail system for the Estes Valley;
• Ensures that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental
quality within the Estes Valley;
• Establishes the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate;
• The Town and Larimer County will work together to implement the Comprehensive
Plan, to ensure that future development takes place in an orderly fashion that takes
advantage of existing urban services and avoids noncontiguous, scattered
development within the Estes Valley;
• A joint partnership between the Town, the Authority (EPURA), Larimer County, Rocky
Mountain National Park, and other state and federal agencies will be created to
promote integrated planning that meets the goals of the various entities and creates a
model for natural resource preservation, tourism, and sustainable communities.
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission find The Urban Renewal Plan
for the Estes Park 21st Century Urban Renewal Project to be in conformance with the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion followed between the Commissioners, Director Joseph, and Estes Park Urban
Renewal Authority Director Wil Smith. Commissioner Klink expressed concern about the
age of the Comprehensive Plan, inter-agency cooperative efforts since adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan, and tax-increment financing. Commissioner Tucker expressed
concern about the proposed boundaries of the new urban renewal area and the effect on
properties of inclusion in the “blight” area. Director Joseph noted that there have been
cooperative planning efforts between the town and other agencies, citing the Estes Valley
transportation study and adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code as examples.
He stated EPURA has a role in these efforts. Director Smith discussed the proposed
blight area. There is no harm to properties by being included in this area; not every
UL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
February 19, 2008
property within the proposed boundary is blighted. The blight area boundary will be
recommended to the Town Board, which can choose to modify it.
Public Comment:
Bill VanHorn/Area Property Owner expressed opposition to the proposed renewal of the
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. He stated that other entities such as the hospital,
recreation district, and library provide services to maintain the quality of life, public health,
and safety, and tax funds should not be redirected from these entities to EPURA. He
expressed opposition to the area proposed for the new urban renewal boundary; it is his
opinion that no area in Estes Park is blighted.
Commissioner Klink motioned to find that the EPURA plan complies with some portions of
the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; however, certain aspects do not comply with the
Comprehensive Plan, including items 1,2, and 3 as shown below.
Commissioner Amos expressed his disagreement with the motion, stating his belief that
the urban renewal plan is satisfactory with respect to the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan.
Commissioner Huli seconded Commissioner Klink’s motion.
Commissioner Tucker requested an addendum to the motion to include redefinition of the
proposed urban renewal boundary map, based on input from EPURA Director Smith that
the map could be modified to be more address-applicable than the general area currently
shown.
Commissioners Klink and Hull indicated their acceptance of the addendum to the motion.
Attorney White confirmed the validity of the motion as worded.
Director Joseph reiterated that there will be a hearing before the Town Board prior to any
action to implement the proposal urban renewal plan or to renew EPURA. The Planning
Commission’s finding is part of a procedure that is yet to be completed. The final decision
regarding the urban renewal authority rests in the hands of the Town Board.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to find that the EPURA plan complies with
some portions of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; however, certain aspects
do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, including:
1. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan refers to the importance of health care,
recreation, and quality of life. The EPURA proposal would reduce the tax
revenue of the hospital, library, and recreation districts, reducing their
effectiveness.
2. Only a few of the proposed projects in the new EPURA plan comply with
recommended actions in Chapter Seven, Section A.4 of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Planning Commission recommends more specific and definable
projects.
3. Page 2-9 of the Comprehensive Plan calls for a high level of citizen participation
often culminating in broad consensus. EPURA’s ability to issue bonds without a
public vote, bypassing citizen consensus through elections and bypassing the
TABOR law, which was established by public consensus, are not in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission further requests redefinition of the map
currently proposed, with modifications such that the map is more address-
applicable than the general area shown.
The motion PASSED with one absent.
Those voting in favor: Hull, Kitchen, Klink, Tucker.
Those voting against: Eisenlauer, Amos.
Jim RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
February 19, 2008
4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-03, FREEDMAN COMMERCIAL BUILDING, Lot 1A,
Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, & 3, Prospect Village Subdivision, and Adjacent Right-of-
Way, 460 Prospect Village Drive, Edward J. & Gisela Grueff/Owners, Bret & Jan
Freedman/Applicants
Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request to build a two-story, 2,000-
square-foot real estate office with a 450-square-foot garage and ten parking spaces on an
undeveloped lot. The lot is approximately half an acre in size and is zoned CO-
Commercial Outlying. The proposed use is an allowed use.
A number of constraints affect the area available for development on the property,
including the size and “flagpole” shape of the lot, existing utility easements, and a platted
river setback/public access area along the Big Thompson River. The applicant has done a
good job of working within these development constraints and proposes placing the
building on an already disturbed portion of the property, in the location with the least
impact.
At their February 5, 2008 meeting, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved a
variance to the side-yard setback to allow secondary fire escape stairs to be built eleven
feet from the property line in lieu of the required fifteen-foot setback, a variance to the
landscape buffer setback to allow one parking space to be built one foot from the property
line in lieu of the required eight-foot planting area, and a variance to allow portions of the
parking lot to be located forty feet from the river. Other than the approved variances, the
plan demonstrates compliance with required building/structure setbacks.
The development plan proposes 35.6% impervious coverage; up to 65% is allowed per
the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) is
0.125 where 0.25 is allowed. The applicant has designed a two-story building to minimize
the footprint. Detailed review for compliance with the maximum allowable building height
will be completed at the time a building permit application is submitted.
The lot is fairly flat and the entire lot lies within the floodplain. The submitted grading plan
proposes raising the elevation of the building and parking area approximately three feet
such that the proposed building will be above the 100-year base flood elevation.
Additional comments from Public Works Director Zurn were received February 18, 2008,
which request the applicant provide an analysis from a licensed engineer to provide
evidence that the proposed project does not affect the base flood elevation or adjacent
properties. The Public Works Department further recommends that the applicant pursue a
letter of map revision (LOMR) to remove the proposed improvements from the 100-year
floodplain. Planning staff recommends that provision of the analysis by a licensed
engineer be a condition of approval.
A water-quality structure is proposed to ensure that runoff from the building and parking
lot is filtered prior to entering the Big Thompson River. The Public Works Department has
requested a more detailed study be submitted prior to issuing final approval of the
applicant’s plans.
There is an existing “thirty-foot river setback for beautification and public access,” which
was dedicated when the subdivision was platted. Staff recommends construction of an
eight-foot-wide gravel trail in the existing public access easement. The trail construction
plan should be submitted for review and approval with the grading permit application.
One twelve-inch-diameter ponderosa tree will be removed to construct the proposed
building. No other tree removal is planned; most of the existing vegetation on the lot is
along the river and will not be disturbed. The EVDC requires landscaping along side
property lines adjacent to parking lots. The required tree and shrub plantings should not
be placed in utility easements. This limits landscaping options on the lot. The applicant
should propose locations for the trees and shrubs that meet the intent of the Code.
A minimum of ten parking spaces, including one van-accessible space, are required;
these are shown on the development plan. Wheel stops must comply with requirements in
EVDC Section 7.11.0.4. There are adequate public facilities available for the proposed
development.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
February 19, 2008
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received
from Town of Estes Park Building, Public Works, and Light and Power departments; Town
Attorney White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Estes Valley Trails Committee, and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No written comments were received from neighboring
property owners.
The lot is served by Upper Thompson Sanitation District; comments received from UTSD
primarily address their need to ensure continued access to an eighteen-inch collection
main that runs parallel to the river. The applicant, the applicant’s engineer, and UTSD
have worked together to reach an agreement concerning access.
Planning staff recommends approval of the development plan.
Public Comment:
Joe CoopA/an Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. He confirmed
that the applicant has worked with Upper Thompson Sanitation District; they have come to
an agreement in order maintain UTSD access to the sewer main. The applicant has
redesigned plans for the property several times and has done everything possible to
minimize impact in the area. The proposed building is small.
John SpoonerA/an Horn Engineering requested clarification whether Director Zurn’s
comment regarding the LOMR is a requirement or a request. Director Zurn stated the
comment is a recommendation to the applicant. Mr. Spooner went on to provide detailed
information on the manpower, cost, and time involved in obtaining a LOMR, as well as
explaining some of the differences between FEMA, Larimer County, and Town
requirements for development in the floodplain. Director Zurn concurred that the process
is complicated. He reiterated his request for a statement from a licensed professional
engineer indicating that the applicant’s development will not affect upstream properties.
Extensive discussion followed between the Commissioners, Directors Joseph and Zurn,
Attorney White, and Mr. Spooner regarding impacts of development in the floodplain,
responsibilities of the town in reviewing such development, the purpose of FEMA
regulations and of a LOMR. The applicant is proposing development of a single building.
The entire lot is within the floodplain; development cannot occur on the lot without being
within the floodplain. If the town can not approve construction of a single building then the
town must consider purchasing the lot. The applicant’s proposal complies with federal
guidelines; the town would not be liable for damage to other properties in a flood event.
Director Zurn’s request is for a higher level of review than that required by Town codes.
Mr. Spooner indicated he is not willing to place his stamp on a statement as requested by
Director Zurn without first completing a full study, which would be a long and expensive
process. The applicant’s proposed building does not lie within the floodway. A LOMR
formalizes the boundary change to the floodplain map so the property owner does not
have to purchase flood insurance; however, the applicant intends to purchase flood
insurance regardless of the status of the floodplain map. He requested that the Planning
Commission waive the requirement to comply with the request from the Public Works
Department to provide a flood study.
Dave Albee/Town Resident provided information on his experiences as a homeowner in
the floodplain in Boulder County. He objected to the applicant’s proposal to add fill to the
site, to have a garage as part of the building, and to build in the floodplain. He noted the
property is used by wildlife to rest and feed, and as a corridor for movement. He
requested that the town purchase the property for use as a flea market and urged the
Planning Commission to deny the application.
Bret Freedman/Applicant stated the proposed building will be located fifty feet from the
river and will not change the flow of the river. Proposed fill is only where the building will
be located and will also be fifty feet from the river.
Commissioner Kitchen moved to approve the proposed development plan with the
additional condition of compliance with Director Zurn’s February 18, 2008 memo and with
the addition of conditions #3 and #4 as shown below. Following further discussion with
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
February 19, 2008
Attorney White and Director Joseph, Commission Kitchen amended the motion to not
include compliance with Director Zurn’s February 18, 2008 memo. Commissioner Amos
seconded the amended motion.
It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Amos) to approve Development Plan 08-03,
Freedman Office Building, Lot 1A, Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, & 3, Prospect Village
Subdivision, and Adjacent Right-of-Way, with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff, and the motion PASSED with one absent.
Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Hull, Kitchen, Klink.
Those voting against: Tucker.
CONDITIONS:
1. Compliance with the comments in Will Birchfield’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated
January 28, 2008.
2. Compliance with the comments in the Estes Park Public Works Department memo
dated February 6, 2008.
3. In the note on the building to be removed, which is shown on the development plan on
Lot 8, the spelling shall be corrected to read “razed” rather than “raised.”
4. Trees near the proposed stormwater filtration pond should be shown on the plan and
the pond should be designed to minimize impact to these trees.
5. Compliance with the comments in Mike Mangelsen’s memo to Bob Goehring dated
January 21,2008.
6. Compliance with the comments in Greg White’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated January
21,2008.
7. Compliance with the comments in Chris Bieker’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated January
21,2008.
8. Compliance with the comments in Timothy Carey’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated
January 22, 2008.
9. An eight-foot-wide gravel trail shall be constructed with this development. The
proposed trail shall be shown on the development plan and construction plans shall be
submitted for review and approval with the first grading/building permit.
10. The plan, including Note #4, shall be revised to refer to “public” rather than
“pedestrian” access.
11. The public river access easements immediately to the east and west of this property
shall be shown on this plan.
12. A total of two trees and eleven shrubs are required along the southern property line,
and three trees and fifteen shrubs are required along the eastern property line. The
applicant shall revise the development plan to propose locations for trees and shrubs
that meet the intent of the code.
13. A note on shall be added to the plan stating that lighting will be minimized.
14. Wheel stops or curb shall be provided on the north side of parking space #2 and along
the parking key to protect landscaping.
15. A pavement/curb cross section shall be provided on the development plan for review
and approval.
16. The vested rights statement shall be added to the development plan.
17. Note #8 shall refer to the I.B.C. rather than the U.B.C.
18. The development plan shall clarify that the ten-foot-wide easement along the south
and west property line is both a utility and drainage easement.
Chair Eisenlauer called a ten-minute recess at 3:15; the meeting reconvened at 3:26 p.m.
5. REZONING REQUEST and MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT, KUNDTZ SUBDIVISION, Lot
1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision, and a Portion of the SW 14 of the NE 14 of S25-
T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., 821 E. Riverside Lane, Habitat for Humanity of Estes
Valley, IncVApplicant
Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request by Habitat for Humanity to
rezone a 0.70-acre parcel from A-^-Accommodations to F{-^-Residential and subdivide
the property into three lots. The R-1 district is a deed-restricted, attainable-housing zoning
district. Under the current A-1 zoning, the property could be developed with two units.
Prior to the valley-wide rezoning in 2000, the property was zoned T-Tourist, which did not
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
February 19, 2008
have a density limit. The proposed rezoning would prevent accommodations development
and short-term rentals on the property but would allow one additional unit to be built.
The property is currently located in unincorporated Larimer County. The applicant is in the
process of requesting the property be annexed into the Town of Estes Park; therefore, the
rezoning and subdivision requests will be heard by the Town Board.
The applicant proposes one driveway to serve all three units, a sidewalk to be constructed
along Riverside Drive, and landscaping to buffer adjoining properties. All three dwellings
would be deed restricted to provide for attainable housing, which is defined as those
households earning up to but not exceeding 80% of median income for Larimer County as
adjusted for household size. Habitat for Humanity targets households earning 50% or less
of medium income. The deed restriction must be for a period of at least 20 years.
Per Section 3.3.C of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), all applications for
rezoning shall be reviewed for compliance with specific standards, including whether the
rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected, whether it is
compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley, and whether
adequate public services and facilities can be provided. The Estes Valley has seen an
overall increase in median housing value, “pricing out” residents who earn 80% of median
income. For 51% of households in the Estes Valley, 40% of income is used for housing
costs. The applicant’s proposal helps implement several community-wide policies set forth
in Chapter Six of the Comprehensive Plan, including encouraging a variety of housing
types and price ranges, encouraging housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the
community that is integrated and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods,
encouraging housing infill within the existing urban area, and identifying affordable
housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. In comparison to attainable housing currently
in place, such as Vista Ridge and Talons Pointe, the applicant’s proposal provides for
dispersement through the neighborhood. Adequate public facilities are available for this
proposal.
The applicant’s proposal was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on May
15, 2007. The applicant is no longer requesting a reduced setback requirement for
proposed Lot 2, although road setbacks and an existing sewer line easement limit the
building area on the lot. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission grant a
minor modification to the required lot width for proposed Lot 1 to allow the lot to be 67 feet
wide in lieu of 75 feet wide at the building line. This is probably a technicality, as an
amendment to the EVDC that would nullify the need for this minor modification has been
approved by the Planning Commission and Town Board and will be reviewed by the
Board of County Commissioners on March 17, 2008.
The proposed landscaping quantities meet the EVDC district buffer requirements. Two
trees to be planted along the north property line will need to be located such that they do
not interfere with overhead power lines and the landscaping plan should be amended to
reflect this.
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received
from Town Attorney White; Town of Estes Park Public Works, VVater, and Light and Povyer
departments; Upper Thompson Sanitation District; and Larimer County Engineering
Department. Letters of support were received from town resident Sue Doylen and from
Whitney Brooks (no address given). An email of opposition was received from neighboring
property owner Betty Sandra Hays. A packet of information opposing the request was
received during the meeting recess from neighboring property owner Steven Piper.
The EVDC requires that the Planning Commission find that approval of this minor
subdivision request will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to
other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the
Code. Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning and minor subdivision
requests with seven suggested conditions of approval.
•01BP 0\ uOlBdLUEO
6uis,eJpun, injsssoons tsou. s,H(H sbm pue ‘psssedins PUEfi'a“J®“
Dasodojd siui joi sjniomisBJiU! 9^ JO^ ABd o\ HiH lUBj6 QBugubmo b .BuisnoM
01QBUIBUB BuipiAOJd p 0OUBpodUil 041 p0Z!U6OO0J SB4 pJBOg UMOl 041 P UOISSI.UieuuoXm 4 lB si >|iEd S8,S3 u, 60./U3S ,0 puB e,!| )0 /Ulienb ,o uoRsenb eg, IsamoM
JI041 Oiui ioM 10 sjno4 ind sj0umo0ujo4 HIH isuqu.puoo Buiah 0|qBid0OOBun 0p!AOJd
uai(0 PUB 0OJBOS 8iB st!un IBIU8J IBuisnoq |B80| BuipjooB AimoMP 8AEI;j PaM° ^ U|
dn moj6 oum asoMt :io| aqi uo jnooo Abui tu8UidO|aA8p asuap ajom ApadOJd SMlJoia^P
lou S0OP hiH 1' ‘.AiiunLUiiioo 041 01 s0p!AOjd j0>|JOM IB41 si!i0U0q O!U)OUOO0 puBjBipos 041
10 ssoi B ui siins0J 4014M ‘0inuiUJOO sj0>ijom 0O!aj0S Aubiu :b0JB S01S3 04I u! Bui.sno4 10
soD/BmM io Iloo am si aajio qo[ B ,daooB ,ou op jo qol B 8AB3| saeAoidma uosBaj AjBuiud
aunouuBOVHda IBMt pseu b meauu puB aujooui UBipaiu ubMi j8M0| jo o/o0S seujooui qii/A 8Soq°saAJ8rHlH 8|Iq« 8uioou! UBipam UBqt jaA»0| jo o/o08 oJE IBqi saujoou, mi« asoq.
S0AJ0S (VHd3) Aiuo4inv BuisnoH MJ^d S01S3 041 lAiiumuujoo 0|qBuiBisns puB p0OUBiBq
B 0jnsu0 sd|04 hIH :Buisno4 0iqBpjonB 10 uoiiomisuoo puB iS0nb0j Buiuozbj 041 slJodc^r^^
AiBuojis nyv ‘.0UUO4 J1041 0soi ubo SJ0UMO01UO4 iubBuBbu—Aiuo4inB Bupnod 0AB4 A041
mqiXBzSBBjo ,uLd Jiaq, moj, paujBa, Aquaoaj SBq H(HjA«unjuuJOO aq, o, aouBpoduJi
JI041 PUB SJ9MJ0M 0O1AJ0S UjBlBJ 01 p00U 041 :S0!|!UJB1 BU!>1J0M JOI S0UJO4 0|qBpjonB
Iimq-110M BuipiAOjd ui. 0|OJ s.hih :pepniou! joabi ui. siuoujrBjv 'luopisoy S0ls3/^lPun^
uuv Ajbiai puB ‘iu0piS0y S01S3/U0JJB0 inBy ‘J0umo0ujo4 h1H/uos|jbo Booog i| A
S01S3 10 AiiuBtuny JOi iBii.qBy lo luopisojd joujjoi/ubujjoq A410J0Q ‘joioojiq Aiuo4inv
Buisnow Wd S0is3/Bf|0jn>i Buy ‘luoiudoiOAoa oiqpuodsoy JOi uojiBpossv/suJON
uoy ‘Aoiiba S01S3 lo AiiuBLuny JOi iBiiqBy lo iu0p!S0Jd/zJBin|/M p3 pepnpu! iBSodojd 041 lo
JOABI u! Bu!>iB0ds 0SO41 -uoissiuuluoo BumuBid 941 PJB04 sbaa iuoujujoo onqnd A4iBu0q
•A011BA S01S3 041 UI SP00U Bu|sno4 0iqBU!BHB ss0jppB 01 p00U 041 0zi.SB4duj0
pjBog UMOi 041 Aq p0iujoi lub01 |BoB Zl02d3 941 PUB UBid 0A!SU0q0jduJOO A011BA S01S3
041 -Aijunujujoo s!4i u\ di4SJ0UMO Ap0dojd 0aj0S0P 04M ‘s0SS0U!snq |B001 10 s00Ao|duj0
S10BJBI hIH 'A0||Ba S01S3 041 U! AOU0BB J041O Aub Aq p0SS0jppB lOU si 100UJ 01 S0auis hIH
IB41 Buisnoq 0iqBuiBUB joi poou 041 'J0O!11O 1U01U0OJOIU0 0poo s.umoi 041 puB sBOUBUipjo
UMOl 01 S||B1 1U01U0OJO1U0 IBUjd ‘AlJOdOJd J1041 UIBIUIBLU lOU op 04M SJ0UMO 01 >HB1 |1!M pUB
S0SSB|O di4Sj0UMO0UJO4 0>]Bi 01 siuBdpipBd sojjnboj yiH poiBis josjoy j|/m sjoq46j0u
Aq p0ss0jdx0 SUJ0OUOO Buiip ‘djqsjouMO oiBAud oiuj pios ojb A041 0OUO soujoq si! 1°
d00>idn JOI BjqBiunoooB s| yiH Joqisqwv p0UO|is0nb nny j0UO|ss|UJUjoo 'uoiibooi siBujS b
IB sijun 08 0JB 0J041 ‘A011BA S01S3 041 u| lusujdojSAsp Bujsnoq 0|qBU|BHB J04IOUB U| J04IO
4OB0 10 011LU jopBnb B u|4i|M S0LUO4 0|qBU|BUB jnoi 0OB|d |||m issnbsj s|4i 10 jBAOjddB
p01Bis J0SI0H ‘JIAl ‘Aijunujujoo 041 ino4BnoJ4i Bu|sno4 0iqBU|BHB S0SJ0dsip iu0iudo|0A0p
p0sodojd 041J04104M 10 SLUJ01 u| -S0sn puB ‘Bujuoz ‘S0Z|S 10| 10 xjiu b sujBiuoo 4014M
‘poo4Joq4B|0u 041 uj punoi SJ041O 411M iu0is|suoo 0jb S0Z|s 10| p0sodojd 041 -011s 041 uo
poMOjjB Ajiuojjno >j|nq 04110 %09 ApiBUJjxojddB—0Z|S u| 1001 0JBnbs OOO'l ApiBUJjxojddB
4OB0 :p0sodojd 0JB siiun 00J41 ‘Bumoz i-y p0sodojd 041 J0pun ■s|B1U0J UJJ01-PO4S joi
p0sn 0q pjnoo siiun 0S041 'looi ojBnbs 008‘9 1° |B101 b joi ‘%08 lo (yvd) °!1BJ b0jb joo|i
B 411M ijinq 0q 01 si|un omi mo||b pino/w Apodojd 04110 Bujuoz [,-v iu9Jjno ,siU0Ujnoop
VOH 941 B|a S0UO1 41JB0 p0iriLU 01 sjopo lUjBd jo|J01X0 BuiiiLUij Bujpniouj ‘sJoq4B|0u
Aq p0ss0jdx0 A|sno|A0jd suj0ouoo ss0jppB 01 p0ui SBq yiH ‘10| J0d s0|O|40a oaai 01 Bu|>iJBd
Bu!1O|jis0J Buipniouj ‘Abm0aup 041 0sn ubo sjbumo Bjnini M04 i|UJ|| |||m puB 0oubu01U|Blu
Abm0A|jp P0JB4S JOI 0p|AOJd HIM siuBUjnoop (vOH) uo!1B|oossb .sjoumooujoh
■S0U!| lOj JO|J01U| pUB 0U|| Apodojd UJOISOM 041 BuO|B BUjdBOSpUBI PPB 01 SpU01U|
osiB iuBO!|ddB 041 'P0UOZ0J lou 0J0M Ap0dojd 041 n iu9UJdo|0A0p JOI p0jmb0j 04 lOU
pinoM qo!4M ‘S0U|| Ap0dojd qinos puB qpou 041 Buo|B p0OB|d 04 |||m Buu0iinq 0dBospuB|
A11SU0P-4B1H ‘siiun 00J41 Bujsodojd Ajuo S| yiH ‘J0A0MO4 :AiJ0dojd 041 uo poMOHB
04 pjnoM sijun jnoi ‘p0AOJddB s| Bu|uoz0j 041 n ■0A|jq 0p|SJ0A|y Buo|B p0uuB|d Jo/puB
0OB|d U| >11BM0P|S J04IO 01 P0>1U|| 04 A||BniU0A0 jj|M 4014M ‘>j|BM0p|S SB ||9M SB ‘j0UnB
puB qjno JOI 0OBds sspjAOjd osjB i| ’pBOJ 041 p uo|SUBdx0 0jnini s| 0J041 n p09u ojjqnd
B S0SS0JPPB inq Buipiinq joi 0iqB||BAB b0jb puBj 041 S0onp0j 4014M ‘iBjd uo|S|A|pqns spi
41IM ABM-IO-I4BU PBOJ IBUOjllppB 01BO1P0P |||M HIH ,AlJ0dOJd 041 10 UOI1BX0UUB JOI pOjjddB
SB4 sn4i ‘pjBog umoi 041 Aq p0M0|A0j 04 01 [Bsodojd 041 0>j|| pinoM puB Aijuniuiiioo
041 JOI uoissnosip pijBA B S| Bu|sno4 0|qBU|BUB joi po0U 041 S0A0||0q (hIH) AnuBLuny
JOI iBi!4BH ■lUBOijddB 041 iu0S0jd0j 01 iU0S0jd sbm 0jniO0ii4OJV S|SBg/j0S|0H m0411B|/\|
quaujuioo 3!|C]nd
8
8002 ‘6L Ajenjqaj
uoissi.LULUoo Bumueid AaiPA saisg
S9Nia3300dd dO adOOdd
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
February 19, 2008
Those speaking in opposition to the proposal included Andrea Wildman/Neighboring
Property Owner, Leon Wiese/Neighboring Property Owner, Karen Kavka/Neighboring
Property Owner, Steven Piper/Neighboring Property Owner, speaking on behalf of
himself, Peggy MacDuff, Don and Jeanne Smith, and Mike and Megan Meyer. Arguments
against the applicant’s request included; the proposed development of three homes is too
dense for the size of the lot; the residences will be too close to the road for the safety of
children who are likely to occupy the homes; neighbors feel they are being force-fed this
project, which is poorly planned; values of neighboring properties will decrease; the
proposed lots are too small and do not fit within the character of the existing
neighborhood; placement of three homes on the lot is driven by HfH’s need to recoup its
financial investment in a property it paid too much for; there are stormwater drainage
problems in the area that will be exacerbated by this development; the proposed right-of-
way dedication is less than previous County standards for right-of-way; wildlife will be
impacted by the proposed development—the lot is currently used as a “main
thoroughfare” by elk; HfH should build a single home on the lot—this would blend with the
character of surrounding properties; approval of the proposed development would result in
29% of all Estes Valley HfH homes being located within 500 feet; the lot Is bracketed by
sharp curves on Riverside Drive and additional traffic generated by three homes in this
location will increase traffic risk significantly; HfH should compromise with neighborhood
concerns by building one home on the property.
Further discussion took place between the Commissioners, planning staff, and Attorney
White and is summarized as follows: HfH proposes that a note be placed on the plat
restricting the number of vehicles allowed on the site; there is no precedent for the Town
entering into such an agreement. The Town’s code enforcement officer cannot enforce
private covenants. The Town could be party to homeowners’ association covenants if the
Town chose to take on that responsibility. No variances are requested by the applicant.
The proposed road right-of-way is 60 feet, which is the standard required by the EVDC.
The site distances provided in the applicant’s traffic impact analysis are taken from the
EVDC. Commissioner Klink noted that if the Planning Commission votes in favor of the
proposal, any future HfH projects will depend on the success and overall appearance of
this project. It would be extremely difficulty for any future Planning Commission to approve
a HfH project without neighbor support.
Public comment was closed at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Eisenlauer. As there were still people in
attendance who wished to address the Planning Commission, it was agreed to continue
this item to the next meeting.
In order to receive further public comment, it was moved and seconded
(Tucker/Hull) to continue the hearing of the Rezoning Request and Minor
Subdivision Piat of Kundtz Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision, and a
Portion of the SW 14 of the NE 14 of S25-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., to the Estes
Vaiiey Planning Commission meeting scheduled March 18, 2008, and the motion
passed unanimously with one absent.
It was also moved and seconded (Huli/Tucker) to continue the remaining agenda
items (Item 6, Proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, and
and Item 7, Reports) to the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting scheduled
March 18, 2008, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m.
Ike Eisenlauer, Chair
Julie^Ro^eref, R^ording Secretary