The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-07-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 17, 2007,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also 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 Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Planner Chilcott Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 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 June 19, 2007. b. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, Grueff-Edwards Subdivision, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, Lot4ED, LLC/Applicant—Request withdrawn by applicant c. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-09, Stone Bridge Condominiums, Metes & Bounds Property located at 1043 Fish Creek Road, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant—Request for continuance to August 21, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting It was rnoved and seconded (Klink/Grant) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN/LOCATION & EXTENT REVIEW—SPECIAL REVIEW 06-01 A, Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, 555 Prospect Avenue, Applicant: Park Hospital District Director Joseph summarized the staff report. A development plan was approved in January 2006 for a major renovation of the Estes Park Medical Center. This amended development plan request is to allow the remodel of the existing emergency room facilities on ^e southern s de of the building. The proposal includes an addition of appmSely 6,900 square feet and renovation of approximately 3,000 square feet in the existino buildmg. Ambulances will continue to use the same area but the porte cochere will be off/pk;SkedCipd t0 Pr°Vlde an enclosed area for ambu|ance patients to be dropped Planning staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in compliance with applicable standards in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and with the policiesPooals and objectives of the Comprehensive Pian, with the exception of one arLTjtor'mwat; HS out Ined below- The application mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible CSrlientVerSe ,mP °n nearbV land USeS’ PUbliC fadlitieS and services> and the prn0b°sad addit‘on.+is *n an area that has previously been disturbed. Site protection, thePwri?t^Htp nfatnhd Shte-i?StUrbar?Cle standards are not applicable. While some trees on the west side of the building will be removed (possibly relocated on site), the three RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission July 17, 2007 coniferous trees in the south landscape island will be retained. The proposed landscaping exceeds the requirements of the EVDC. Planning staff recommends the storm drainage plan be revised such that drainage from the roof on the south side of the building does not flow across the sidewalk. The project engineers have indicated their willingness to make this change. This request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department and the Water Department. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff recommends approval of the revised special review. Public Comment: Ross Stephen/Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, was present to represent the applicant. He stated a sidewalk chase will be added such that storm drainage will flow under the sidewalk rather than over it. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Tucker) to recommend approval of the Amended Development Plan/Location & Extent Review—Special Review 06-01A to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. The routing of the roof stormwater discharge shall be redesigned to avoid surface flows across the sidewalk at the street. 2. Submittal of Site Construction drawings consistent with these approved plans upon application for a building permit. 4. PROPOSED BLOCK 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE This request is to make a number of changes and corrections to the Estes Valley evelopment Code. Director Joseph and Planner Shirk presented information on each proposed change. Chair Hull stated amendments to each Code section would be discussed and voted upon individually. Section 4.3.C.5, Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts, regarding floor area ratio and lot coverage applicability Hlw^?Sed chfan.ges specify fhaf all development in residential zoning districts, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall be subject to a ll00rlarea rat,° (FAR) 0f 0-30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%; This win ^ ct the development of allowed uses such as day care centers, senior institutional mg facilities, and private schools, which are not currently subject to these standards. Public Comment: None. nro'IinLirC)Ved ^nd seconded (Amos/Grant) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 4.3.C.5, Table 4-2 of the Estes Valiev Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Section 7.1, Slope Protection Standards, regarding development on steep slopes Proposed changes remove the exception regarding development on steeo slooes for \/In apgroveld for s'ngie-family residential use prior to the effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). These properties would then be subje^ to EVDc ian ■ ’ ^ Protection Standards. This would require applicants to provide a site plan prepared by a professional engineer for development in areas where the average slope across the proposed building footprint is 20% or greater (rather than the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 17, 2007 current 30% or greater), which should result in better design for slope stabilization, stormwater drainage mitigation, and access across steep slopes. Planning staff believes the expertise of a professional engineer is warranted for building on slopes of 20% or greater. Much of the remaining vacant land in the Estes Valley is within such areas. Staff’s experience is that revisions and redesign of poorly prepared site plans for single-family homes on slopes of 20% or greater in order to address stabilization, drainage, or access issues results in unnecessary delays and additional costs for building permit applicants. Proposed Code revisions would ensure that a property owner is aware of these issues up front and would allow the owner to work with an engineer from the beginning of the project rather than having to redesign midstream. Discussion followed between Planning Commissioners and staff. Concerns expressed by Commissioners are summarized as follows: • Commissioner Tucker: Possible reduction of property value for affected lots. Addition of more restrictions on development. Changes should not be adopted to make the review process more convenient for staff and the Planning Commission to administer the EVDC. • Commissioner Klink; Elimination of grandfathering rights for properties created prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Planning Commission should be concerned with impacts of regulations on orooertv values. t' y • Commissioner Kitchen: Development on small lots that are steeply sloped results in a proportionately larger amount of land disturbance than development on large lots; proposed code amendments should address this. Additonal comments: • Commissioner Hull: Development standards should not be lowered to ensure property values. cu eubure • Commissioner Amos: Proposed changes are directed at lots that are not preferred for development: the value of these lots will continue to increase. The flHHUrLr!riHnt tw hire.^a professional engineer would ensure all issues are devetopmenro?aZ n0t eCreaSe 'he Va'Ue 0f the pr0perty nor prevent • Public Works Director Scott Zurn: The Town is currently dealing with over thirtv steeifSn are,hS ,where last week’s rains caused rumn from development on Steep slopes that is impacting adjacent properties. Development in th^e areas occurred m such a way that revegetation of the properties is noVpSe Th| entire community pays to clean up for individual sites that are not excavated developed, and revegetated properly excavated, • .oTelr:aetLlUgt^plV^^^^^ a,ready appliaaa'a • S^gSsiopr0 SeCti0n 7-1B-2b(4) 0nly applies ,0 propertfes a Town Attorney White: Per the current language in the EVDC no sinole-familv residential-zoned lot, whether it has a steep slope or not, will be reviewed for compliance with Section 7.1.B.2.b(4). That is L purpose of the p^ Director Joseph: The public is notified of proposed Code chanoes via lanai hPftnrl,ththT loca'paper’ information on the Town website, and public hearinas before the Town Board and County Commissioners. Hearings Public Comment: changes would impact new subdivisions and expressed concern that thQ amendments would most frequently apply to old subdivisions rather than new onM. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 17, 2007 It was moved and seconded (Amos/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.1 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion FAILED. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Hull. Those voting against: Grant, Kitchen, Klink, Tucker. Section 7.2, Grading and Site Disturbance, regarding site disturbance standards The proposed change removes the exception regarding grading and site-disturbance standards for development on lots approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of the EVDC. The standards may restrict building location and associated driveways to a location that results in highest degree of compliance with these standards, thereby minimizing site disturbance. The proposed changes are intended to implement several policies in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, including minimizing visual impact of development, visual/environmental quality, and development on skylines/ridgelines. Specifically, changes would address extremely long cuts for driveways on steep slopes and subsequent erosion problems. Althouqh tq<lrti)nnP70?edf r!ntIOn Was 0163,11 to w°rk hand-in-hand with the proposed changes to Section 7.1, It still has some meaning as a stand-alone revision. Public Comment: Frank Theis, 450 Fish Creek Road, stated he likes this proposed change a lot His sKpermP030®^Coh2aSrH^HEVDC f CJi0n 7'1 WaS Chan9in9 the definition of «rJotS TP rromi30/° t0 20/o- He does not object to changing the Code lanauaoe as it relates to exemptions for lots developed prior to the effective Le of the Code pr(^osed1arnen<^r!ientset<^Secdorf7 2So?the,^Es°es^^lev1Dnd .aPPrOVal 0, *he the Estes Park Town Board of Trusies and LaHmf r De,ve,°Pment Coc|e to and the motion PASSED n° Lar mer County Commissioners, ^L°sS: voting inglVs°h Tumc0k:;EiSen,aUer’ Grant’ Hul1’ Xlink. guest parking^pMes6* Parkm9 and Lo‘ldln9: Location, regarding location of family developmente6 aSpecfellvltl“Dr!vewafln9 9U6St parkin9 recluirements for multi- parking requirements' Gues Sd sSte loomeH T* bericounted *°«atd guest all units and shall be dispersed th?oughout he^^^^^ SrSeTeS^^^^^^ Thf" 9a- P development but not bed-and-breakfast usesin singte famify-^e'idTaU^ would be possibleefor^lon^rd^rw^ysStorm^ftheP*anain9 Staff' Was agreed that the proposed change was amended thus- h requ,rements for Quest parking and dtSkWdTsK nco°,u i^d,^rrdre^t parkin9 re9uiremanta it is parking shall be SS to omlif Wlth .ad'0lnin9 'raffio movements. Guest dispersed throughoSuhe site.-P convenie'1t aooess to all units and shall be Illllllllllll RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 17, 2007 Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.11.F of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Section 7.11.0.5. Basins and Drainage Faciiities, regarding Larimer County Stormwater Control Manual applicability The proposed change adds the words “as amended” to the current code language, such that drainage facilities must comply with the Larimer County Stormwater Control Manual, as amended, to ensure compliance with the most recently adopted regulations. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Grant/Klink) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 7.11.0.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Section 10.4.A.2 regarding lot width Planning staff recently discovered conflicting Code language regarding minimum-lot- width requirements. The proposed change corrects this conflict by adding the following language (addition italicized): Lot width shall comply with standards set forth in Tables 4-2 and 4-5 and shall be no less than thirty (30) feet at the front lot line. Flagpole lots shall comply with S 10.4.A.C and shall be no less than thirty (30) feet at the front lot line or seventy-five (75) feet at the building line, or such greater width as may be required by this Code. Public Comment: None. it was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Amos) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 10.4.A.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. Section 10.5.H, Condominiums, Townhouses, and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership, Exemptions, regarding exemption for review of two-unit condominium projects The EVDC currently does not require review of condominium developments consisting of two units or less. EVDC standards for subdivision of property still apply to such development, but there is no opportunity for planning staff to communicate that information to the property owner. The proposed change removes subsection 3, Exemptions, which exempts condominium projects of two units or less from the appropriate review and approval. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Tucker) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Section 10.5.H of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 July 17, 2007 Appendix D.1, General, regarding the Larimer County Road Standards Manual applicability The proposed change adds the words “as amended” to the current code language, such that Larimer County Road Standards, as amended, apply in order to ensure compliance with the most recently adopted regulations. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Appendix D.1 of the Estes Vailey Development Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion PASSED. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Klink, Tucker. Those voting against: Kitchen. Appendix D.lll, General Site Access, regarding driveway design The proposed changes add the requirement that no driveway may be so located as to block or alter access to adjoining properties or uses and require driveway aprons to be either less than five feet in length or greater than twenty feet in length unless it is demonstrated that the design will not interfere with adjoining traffic movements. Planning staff has observed poor traffic circulation within a number of multi-familv developments in the Estes Valley and has received complaints from property owners regarding this issue. Staff seeks to ensure provision of safe and reasonable access by all users of roads/drives within such developments. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Grant/Klink) to recommend approval of the tPoT\\lTperrTentS o ApPendix D-m of the Estes Valley Development Code t0ih*uESteS- Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners and the motion passed unanimously. Y v'omm,ss,onersJ 5. REPORTS fnmm reC?nt'j r®Presented the Estes Valley Planning Commission at a water oualitv forum in Loveland. Strategies to reduce impervious coverage and conserve water wirp DlveroSoemenTcnoderes0h,rTenC,ed SHtandards are current|y reflected in the Estes Valley d Sh exPressed an interest in the use of porous paving materials and requested staff to research the use of these materials as time permits Director Joseph stated the proposed Code amendments reviewed today will be presented wil bP Zp °HHrand.BOard 0f C0Unty ^ommissioners as Block 10 am^dments S August 2Oim^007 ltmpptiriniOPOh,eh an?®r|dments ^or Planning Commission review’Jt the recommend the^for appravaLhlCh W"1 ^ in°IUded " BI°Ck 10 if the Commissioners There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:14 p.m. Julie^Roederer,^ecording/Secretary