Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-05-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2007,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Aiso Attending: Absent: Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Chair Hull; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer None Chair Huii calied the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated April 17, 2007. b. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 39 & 40, Reed’s Subdivision, Sharon Sperte/Applicant— Request to change the existing boundary line between two lots from a north- south orientation to an east-west orientation; no additionai buiiding sites are proposed c. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 3, Chiquita Subdivision & a Metes and Bounds Parcel located at 499 MacGregor Avenue, Trevor Speake/Applicant—Request to combine two parceis into one lot d. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, GRUEFF-EDWARDS SUBDIVISION, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, Lot4ED, LLC/Appiicant—Request by property owner (Town of Estes Park) to continue to July 17, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting e. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, KEARNEY SUBDIVISION, Portion of Lot 12, South St. Vrain Addition, Kearney & Sons Enterprises, LLC/Appiicant—Request to continue to Juiy 17, 2007 Estes Vaiiey Planning Commission meeting It was moved and seconded (Grant/Klink) that the consent agenda be accepted, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff for items “b” and “c”, and the motion passed unanimously. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 May 15, 2007 3. AMENDED PLAT, Proposed Park Lane Subdivision, Lots 9,10,11,12, & a Portion of Lot 8, Block 1, Second Amended Plat of Town of Estes Park, 205 Park Lane, Applicant: Zach Wheatley Planner Shirk stated the applicant has requested continuance of this item to the June 19, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Eisenlauer) to continue the request for an Amended Plat of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and a Portion of Lot 8, Block 1, Second Amended Plat of Town of Estes Park to the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting on June 19, 2007, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. CHARLES HEIGHTS, LOTS 4, 5, AND 10; 1130 Hill Road; Applicant: Warner Reeser, Jr. a. REZONING, LOT 4, FROM E-1-£sfafeto RE-Rural Estate b. AMENDED PLAT, LOTS 4, 5, AND 10 Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to rezone Lot 4 from E-^-Estate to RE-Rural Estate zoning, to combine Lots 4 and 5, and to vacate a portion of right-of- way and dedicate easements. The access road to the property does not follow the platted right-of-way. Vacating the portions of the right-of-way and dedicating easements corrects this error and provides space for an emergency turnaround. This request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Comments were received from Town Attorney Greg White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and Larimer County Engineer Department, Health and Environment Department, and Assessor’s Office. Comments were also received from neighboring property owner Mike Kellam regarding a labeling error on the plat. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Tucker) to recommend approval of the Rezoning of Lot 4, Charles Heights and the Amended Plat of Lots 4, 5, and 10, Charles Heights to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. KUNDTZ SUBDIVISION, Lot 1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision & a Portion of the SW % of the NE 1/4 of S35-T5N-R73W of the 6tfr P.M., 821 E. Riverside Lane, Applicant: Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc. a. REZONING FROM A-1-Accommodations to R-^-Residential b. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT Commissioner Amos recused himself due to his membership on the Board of Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley and left the dais. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request by Habitat for Humanity to rezone a 0.70-acre parcel from A-^-Accommodations to R-^-Residential zoning and to subdivide the parcel into three lots. Prior to the comprehensive rezoning in 2000, the property was zoned T-Tourist, which did not have a density limit. The rezoning will preclude accommodations development and any short-term-rental use of the property. It would allow one additional residential unit to be built and restrict the use to single-family residential. All three dwellings would be deed-restricted for a period of twenty years to provide for attainable housing. The property is currently located in unincorporated Larimer County, and the plans were routed to county staff as part of the review. However, the IJ__RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 May 15, 2007 applicant is requesting that the Town of Estes Park annex the property. If the property is annexed, the decision-making body for the rezoning and subdivision applications will be the Town Board. Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 3.3.C requires rezonings to be necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected, be compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley, and that service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities. Planner Shirk stated median housing values have increased in the Estes Valley since 2000, “pricing out” residents who earn 80% of median income, which is the standard established by the EVDC to qualify for the R-1 zoning district. (Habitat for Humanity targets those whose income is 50% or less of median income.) The Comprehensive Plan encourages a variety of housing types and price ranges be integrated and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods, encourages housing infill within the existing urban area, and ongoing identification of affordable housing opportunities: the proposal helps implement these policies. Adequate public facilities are available for this development. The EVDC requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet at the building line; proposed Lot 1 has a width of 67 feet. The applicant also requests a front-yard setback of 11.25 feet for proposed Lot 2 in lieu of the 15 feet required in the R-1 zoning district. Minor modifications must be granted by the Planning Commission for these requests to be approved; the EVDC allows the Planning Commission to grant up to a 25% modification to dimensional standards. Staff suggests granting these modifications helps implement goals in the Comprehensive Plan and relieves practical difficulty in developing the site. Each proposed lot exceeds the minimum required square footage of 5,000 feet. With the exception of these two requested minor modifications, the proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. The applicant proposes one driveway to serve all three units; planning staff recommends the driveway be assigned a street name to avoid confusion about the location of the western lot. Sidewalk will be constructed along Riverside Drive for eventual connection to the sidewalk system being developed along that road. An existing sewer line crosses the southeast portion of the site. The line will remain in place until a point just south of the proposed driveway. From that point north, a new main will be installed, and the lots will feed into this main; easements must be dedicated for the new lines. The proposed sewer plan must be reviewed and approved by the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Any future residence on proposed Lot 3 will be located in the southern portion of the lot so that gravity-feed sewer service is possible; no lift station will be installed. An eighteen-inch water main also crosses the southeast portion of the site; the proposed easement for this line should be twenty feet rather than the fifteen feet proposed. Individual service lines will come from this main, and appropriate easements should be dedicated. One new fire hydrant is proposed and will be located south of the driveway just off Riverside Drive. The subdivider shall install electric service and a street-lighting system; electric lines and other utility services must be placed underground. The stormwater drainage plan was reviewed by the Larimer County Engineering Department, which requested more information regarding the off-site path of flow. The plan must verify and state that the increased flows from this site will not cause adverse impacts downstream at the RV park. Significant trees on the site shall be protected; if any significant trees are removed, now or in the future, replacement is required on a two-to-one basis, in accordance with EVDC Section 7.3, Tree and Vegetation Protection. The proposed landscaping satisfies the district-buffer requirements of the EVDC, although the Planning Commission may choose to require additional landscaping to increase buffering. This request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 May 15, 2007 services. Comments were received from Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, Town Attorney Greg White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and Larimer County Engineering Department, Planning and Building Services, and Department of Health and Environment. Written comments opposing the request were received from neighboring property owners Michael Meyer, Andrea Wildman, and Steven Piper. General concerns were decreased property values, increased density, overabundance of low- income housing concentrated in the area, traffic danger, loss of wildlife habitat, pets at large, junky yards. The Planning Commission must find that approval of a minor subdivision 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 development code. In addition to requiring additional landscaping, the Planning Commission could choose to prohibit outdoor storage, prohibit or limit fencing on the property, and limit the number of vehicles that can be parked on the property. (The development code would allow four vehicles at each residence; the Planning Commission may impose more restrictive parking limits.) Planner Shirk read the staff findings found in the staff report and stated that staff recommends approval of the rezoning and minor subdivision requests. Discussion followed between Planning Commissioners and staff, summarized as follows. • The Town Board may not approve annexation of the property. • It is generally agreed that affordable housing does not negatively impact neighborhood property values when it is dispersed. • It appears unlikely that a lift station for proposed Lot 3 would be approved by the sanitation district, nor could one be required. • The site is currently zoned A-1, low-density accommodations, which allows residential use. The availability of accommodations units for the traveling public may decrease over time as accommodations-zoned condominiums are occupied for more of the year by future owner/retirees; however, the number of rooms available to travelers has increased dramatically in the last ten years. • The amount of accommodations-zoned property is limited, and the Planning Commission should exercise caution when considering rezoning from commercial (accommodations) use to residential use. • The subject property is not located on an arterial road. • The applicant proposes two parking spaces at each residence; the EVDC allows up to four vehicles per home. Future residents may park vehicles along the driveway. The Fire Chief has not expressed concern about emergency vehicle access to the proposed lots. Planning staff suggests further parking restrictions for this property. • There is no precedent for limiting parking specifically, but there is precedent for imposing restrictions on rezonings. • Code enforcement of zoning violations, i.e., parking violations, can be a lengthy process. Public Comment: Matthew Heiser, Habitat for Humanity (HfH) of Estes Valley Board Member, provided a brief description of HfH work in the Estes Valley. HfH offers the only single-family residential affordable housing program in the area. Owners purchase the residences from HfH; they are not transient. The proposed homes are in the scale and character of other residences in the neighborhood. Three much larger homes (up to 5,000 square feet) could be built on the property by any developer, provided one was designated as an attainable unit. HfH will provide benefit to the adjoining neighbor to the south by providing a sewer access easement. A lift station for proposed Lot 3 cannot be provided. The fire hydrant Mr. Shirk mentioned is already existing. Rezoning the property will increase landscape buffering by requiring district buffering along three property lines rather than the current requirement for buffering along solely the western property line. HfH will create covenants for the subdivision to limit parking and outdoor storage and would welcome additional parking and outdoor-storage restrictions imposed by the Planning Commission. HfH builds quality homes and adds neighborhood value by installing public improvements such as paved road, sewer, etc. One small tree on proposed Lot 2 is planned for removal; HfH RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 May 15, 2007 intends to preserve all other healthy trees on the property. HfH is no different from a financial institution when it comes to legal ability to address complaints regarding zoning violations. It is not economically feasible for HfH to develop the property if fewer than three homes are built. Annexation to the town will provide a smaller required right-of-way width. Mr. Heiser contended that prior to adoption of the EVDC, there was no affordable housing zoning anywhere in the Estes Valley. The EVDC provides for the R-1 zoning district but did not designate any R-1 zoning with the valley-wide rezoning in 2000; therefore, it is implied to “go find it.” While it might not seem good to have an HfH subdivision next to you, HfH is beneficial to the community because it creates homes for those who provide service support for the community. Neighboring property owners Steve Piper and Susan Fenton, 1161 Strong Avenue, and Andrea Wildman and Lew Townsend, 1121 Strong Avenue, each addressed the Planning Commission and expressed support for the goals and works of Habitat for Humanity but opposition to the requested rezoning and subdivision. Shared concerns include: • unkempt yards and excessive outdoor storage by owners of existing HfH homes in the Estes Valley; • too much density is proposed for the property; only one or perhaps two units should be developed on the lot; • approval of the requests will result in a high concentration of HfH homes in one neighborhood (four of the fourteen HfH homes in the Estes Valley); • property values will decrease; • an excessive number of vehicles will be parked on the property; • traffic safety will be compromised because the access point is close to a sharp curve where vehicles commonly speed; • HfH has no jurisdiction over the homes once they are sold into private ownership. Mr Piper and Ms. Fenton stated they cannot use their backyard because the dog at a neighboring HfH home runs loose and is threatening. Ms. Fenton was frustrated with the enforcement process when she contacted the town and was told to call the county. Ms. Wildman stated the applicant has requested a number of special considerations, including waiver of all fees, increased density, a change of zoning, reduced setbacks and lot width, and annexation. She encouraged full consideration of all factors and expressed concern that the application should require a special use review. Mr. Townsend questioned whether the application required review and approval of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. He also expressed concern about impacts to wildlife that use the property and increased stormwater drainage off the site. Director Joseph stated the application has been reviewed following all required procedures as mandated by the Estes Valley Development Code. The “variances” are not required to be heard by the Board of Adjustment because the applicant’s requests for minor modification are smaller than the 25% maximum variance to dimensional standards that the Estes Valley Development Code allows the Planning Commission to grant. Planner Shirk stated the requested modification to the lot width is due to a conflict in the development code language, which staff intends to correct. Leon Wiese, 831 Riverside Drive, stated he owns the adjoining property to the south. His sewer tap is located at the property line, and his service line does not extend onto the applicant’s property. He expressed concern that an electric easement may not be shown on the plat and that the proposed gravity-feed sewer line for Lot 3 will not be functional. He objected to the reduced front-yard setback requested by the applicant for Lot 2 and the small, triangular-shaped building area remaining for a residence given the easements and setback requirements. Ed Mellars, no address given, stated he is working on the 6th Habitat home that he has helped construct. HfH homes are well-built and efficient; the most recently constructed home received a 5-star energy rating. Regarding vehicles that may be parked on the property, he stated twelve cars can’t be parked on that lot because it isn’t practical. Leta Nefzger, 1300 Mary’s Lake Road, stated her property is not immediately adjacent to the site. She expressed a variety of concerns about storm drainage in the area and stated the water flows from the entire mountain across this property. She stated three houses on this lot are too many. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission May 15, 2007 Chair Hull called a recess at 3:35; the meeting reconvened at 3:46 p.m. Discussion among Commissioners and staff followed. Town Attorney White stated approval of the rezoning would require that the affordable housing guidelines provided in the EVDC be met; someone other than Habitat for Humanity may develop the property. Timing of the annexation request, right-of-way widths required by the town versus the county, and complaints and code enforcement were discussed. Town Attorney White stated if the requested zoning change is denied, there are no grounds for the minor subdivision request. Commissioner Klink stated the greatest burden of responsibility for the Planning Commission is when considering a change of zoning and noted the neighborhood is united in expressing concern about the proposed zoning change. Commissioner Kitchen noted two neighboring properties must agree to annexation before the applicant’s property will be contiguous with current town limits. Commissioner Grant expressed his fundamental belief in affordable housing. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Tucker) to recommend denial of the request to rezone Lot 1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision & a Portion of the SW !4 of the NE of S35-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M. from A-1 -Accommodations to R-^-Residential to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. REPORTS a. Staff-Level Review - Development Plan 07-07, Rippling River, Metes and Bounds property addressed 2025 Moraine Avenue, Steve Eck and Steve Williams, Applicants. Planner Shirk stated the applicant had requested variances to reduce the required 50- foot river setback, to allow a corner of a building to be located in the required setback from an arterial road, and to allow construction of a driveway within the required arterial setback. These requests were denied by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on May 1,2006. The applicant’s development plan was denied based on non-approval of needed variances. Because the applicant proposed construction of fewer than ten units (the number which triggers review by the Planning Commission), this was a staff- level review. There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair ~ oederer, ^cording S^retary