Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-08-21RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 21, 2007,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii Commission: Attending: Aiso Attending: Absent: Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Vice-Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Grant, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Chair Hull, Planner Chilcott Vice-Chair Eiseniauer caiied 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 Juiy 17, 2007. b. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-10 and PRELIMiNARY CONDOMiNiUM MAP, The Timbers of Estes, Lot 3, Schroder Subdivision, Mark Theiss/Appiicant—Request by pianning staff for continuance to September 18, 2007 Estes Vaiiey Pianning Commission meeting c. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 5 & 6, Division 7 of High Drive Heights, Denise R. Panthen/Applicant—Request to combine two lots into one iot It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent. SPECIAL REVIEW 07-03, Tract 19, Beaver Point Addition 2nd Fiiing, 701 Eim Road, Applicant: H & C Properties Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow a “U-Haul” truck- rental operation, which is currently being operated under a temporary use permit, to continue at the \-1-lndustrial-zone6 property located at 701 Elm Road. The use is classified as Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals and is allowed in the 1-1 zoning district by special review. The applicant proposes to construct additional parking, drainage structures, and landscaping in a single phase (Phase II) if demand for vehicle rentals increases beyond the current numbers allowed by the temporary use permit (four trucks and eight trailers). There will be a maximum of eleven trucks and seventeen trailers on the site at any one time. Planner Shirk briefly reviewed Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) sections as they apply to this application, specifically regarding outdoor display/sales and storage, vehicle/equipment sales and rentals, grading and site disturbance, landscaping and buffers, and exterior lighting. The proposal complies with applicable code sections with the exception of landscape buffering; the site plan will be revised to show the addition of three evergreen trees. JL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 August 21, 2007 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 Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Pertinent and unresolved comments from the Public Works Department and Town Attorney White are included as recommended conditions of approval. Upper Thompson Sanitation District had expressed concern regarding the depth of coverage of the sewer line under the detention pond but a letter from UTSD was received by planning staff on August 20, 2007 stating there will be enough coverage to prevent freezing during cold weather. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. If the approved use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of one consecutive year or more, the approval shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The submitted plans comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC and mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Planning staff recommends approval of this special review. Public Comment: Amy PlummerA/an Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent Neil & Maryann Casey/applicants. She stated the applicants are agreeable to the recommended conditions of approval. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) to recommend approval of Special Review 07-03, Tract 19, Beaver Point Heights Addition 2nd Fiiing, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Phase II activity shall require a Development Agreement and form of guarantee (per EVDC Section 10.5.K.2) prior to issuance of a permit. 2. Phase II activity shall require the drive entry to be reconfigured to provide a 20-foot corner radii and curbing, the design of which shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. 3. The following note shall be placed on the development plan: “Vehicle storage shall be restricted to paved areas. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of Phase II of the project.” 4. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 46A of the Amended Plat of Tracts 42, 43, & 46, Fall River Addition, 505 Big Horn Drive, Applicant: Van Horn Engineering Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to amend a platted building envelope to allow construction of an outdoor entertainment area and an entry staircase. It is also a request for a minor modification to the required 25-foot building setback to allow the addition of the new staircase/entry to the existing residence to be placed 17.5 feet from the property line. This property was part of an amended plat recorded in 2000; the building envelope was designated to keep development out of a mapped rockfall hazard area to the north and to maintain the minimum setback requirement along the eastern property line. Outdoor Entertainment Area: The applicant has submitted a new geologic report which indicates that expanding the building envelope to the north as shown in the submitted plans would not increase the potential rock fall hazard. The outdoor entertainment area would consist of a bar/grill, hot tub, and open fire pit. Fire Chief Scott Dorman has stated that open fire pits are allowed on private property, provided they meet a number of conditions. The property owner should familiarize himself with these conditions, which are delineated in the staff report. Based on the geologic report, planning staff finds that the amendment to the northern line of the building envelope will not be in violation of any code provision, nor would it negate the intent of the geologic hazard or setback regulations. Staff recommends approval of amending the northern portion of the building envelope. IIIIIIB RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 August 21, 2007 Minor Modification to Setback for Staircase: The applicant’s statement of intent states there is currently no staircase leading to the front door, which is located on the upper-floor deck. However, a set of stairs has been built in this location to provide access for an interior remodeling project. The contractor, Westover Construction, has stated the stairs are temporary and will be removed upon completion of the project. Planning staff has reviewed the building plans submitted for the existing residence, which was built in 2002. The building plans show an exterior stairway that provides access to the upper main living level; the stairway shown on the original plans is code-compliant without the requested minor modification. Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 3.7 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant minor modifications up to a maximum of 25% from building setback requirements, provided the Commission finds that such modification advances the goals and purposes of the code and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open-space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. Planning staff believes the requested minor modification meets none of these requirements and recommends denial based on the following; • No advancement of the goals and purposes of the Estes Valley Development Code. • Would not result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open- space preservation. • No practical difficulty exists. A compliant set of stairs could be built, per the original building plans. • The lot was finalized in 2000, after adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. • The existing dwelling was built in 2002, while the 25-foot setback and building envelope were in place. Therefore, any potential hardship or practical difficulty is “self imposed." • The applicant purchased the property with the existing regulations in place. The amended plat 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 services. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Building Department, Fire Chief Scott Dorman, and Town Attorney Greg White. Three neighboring property owners contacted planning staff—two were in favor of the amended plat, the third questioned why the statement of intent stated there were no entry stairs when there are. Public Comment: Lonnie SheldonA/an Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He clarified that the original geologic hazard report had been submitted by Michael West from Boulder; the new report was completed by TerraCon. He stated although the recently constructed stairway looks permanent it is only for use during the remodel. The applicant wishes to have a stone stairway built in that location. He cited sections of the development code to support the applicant’s request and noted that the driveway leads to the proposed location for the stainway and that the neighboring residence is approximately 300 feet away. The applicant’s residence was not built where planned—it was moved by twelve feet. He encouraged the Commissioners to help the applicant and allow him to build a nice set of stairs into his house. In response to questions from Commissioner Tucker, Planner Shirk stated no comment was received from the neighboring property owner to the east. The proposed stairway would not be in the direct line of sight of that neighbor. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Tucker) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 46A of the Amended Plat of Tracts 42, 43, and 46, Fall River Addition to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, with the exception that the minor modification shaii be approved as shown in revised Condition #1 due to lack of comments received from neighbors or other parties, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent. CONDITIONS: Ill ill RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 August 21,2007 1. The approved Minor Modification to allow an eastern side-yard setback of 17.5 feet in lieu of the required 25 feet shall be restricted to the location of the proposed entry staircase and shall not extend the length of the eastern property line. 2. Compliance with Chief Dorman’s comments dated July 2, 2007 regarding outdoor fire pit requirements (as delineated in the staff report). 3. Reformat the plat for recording (remove improvements). 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-09, Stone Bridge Condominiums, Proposed Lots 2 & 3, Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, currentiy a Metes and Bounds property located at 1043 Fish Creek Road, Appiicant: Rock Castie Deveiopment Co., Owner: Van Horn Trust Planner Shirk provided an in-depth review of the staff report. This is a request to develop 4.3 acres zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential with twenty-four detached multi-family dwelling units, which is an allowed land use within the RM zoning district. The applicant intends to subdivide these units into condominium ownership. The applicant’s property is in the process of being subdivided into three lots; proposed Lots 2 and 3 are included in this development plan proposal. The portion of the property on which the Van Horn Engineering office is located (proposed Lot 1) is not part of this development plan. The applicant has applied for rezoning of proposed Lot 1 from RM to O-Office; this rezoning would match the use of the property and prohibit additional residential development on Lot 1. The preliminary subdivision plat and rezoning request were reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 16, 2007 and were recommended for approval. The Town Board is the decision-making body for the subdivision plat and rezoning request; planning staff anticipates both the preliminary and final plat applications, as well as the rezoning request, will be heard by the Town Board in late October. The applicant will also request an extension of the vesting period from 2010 to 2012. One recommended condition of approval of the preliminary plat application was that Larimer County grant a waiver to the required Fish Creek Road right-of-way width. The waiver to allow the applicant to maintain a sixty-foot right-of-way width on the west side of the road was conditionally approved by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners on May 21,2007. The development plan encompasses two lots. Each lot was reviewed individually for compliance with density, floor area ratio (FAR), parking, setback, landscaping, open space, and impervious coverage requirements. The proposal meets the density requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)—six units per acre are proposed (24 units on 3.989 net acres) and eight units per acre are allowed. Ten units are proposed for Lot 2; 11.4 are allowed. Fourteen units are proposed for Lot 3; 20.5 are allowed. The total number of proposed units on the two lots is twenty-four, where thirty- two are allowed. The applicant is not proposing to maximize density. The applicant has applied for a correction to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) floodplain maps. Completion of FEMA review is anticipated by mid- October. If the proposed corrected floodplain is approved by FEMA, it will not extend beyond the creek’s main channel. Approval of this development plan must be contingent upon FEMA approval of the proposed map correction. The maximum impervious coverage allowed in the RM zoning district is 50%. Proposed impervious coverage on Lot 2 is 42.3% and on Lot 3 is 37.3%, yielding an overall total impervious coverage of 39.1%. This proposal also complies with the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) in the RM district, which is 0.30. Proposed FAR for Lot 2 is 0.27; proposed FAR for Lot 3 is 0.22. Sidewalks will be provided to each unit. The applicant should provide a pedestrian trail from the proposed development to proposed bridge over Fish Creek and then on to the hike/bike path. The proposed development must meet wetlands and stream-corridor protection standards. The minimum setback from the stream (Fish Creek) is thirty feet; the locations RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 August 21, 2007 of the proposed units meet this standard. The applicant has received a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to remove a small, disconnected portion of wetlands. The applicant has provided a Wetland Creation Plan, which proposes significant riparian corridor enhancement through bank stabilization and wetland enhancement along Fish Creek, including replacement of the small area of wetlands to be removed. The applicant’s landscape plan does not include specific district-buffer landscaping. However, the proposed “typical unit” landscaping shown in the architectural concept drawings accomplishes this objective. Provided each unit is so landscaped, the required quantity of plantings will be met. District buffer guidelines require evergreen plantings within twenty-five feet of the property line. The applicant has requested a modification to allow the plantings to be placed closer to the units, which will better screen the units and allow the placement of more appropriate riparian plantings beside Fish Creek. The applicant has met with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) to determine a corridor for elk crossing through the property. Items such as retaining walls, building locations, and fencing have been designed to allow the passage of elk. The CDOW will need to approve the fence design to ensure it will not pose a hazard to wildlife. No dumpster is proposed for the units; instead, curbside pickup is proposed. Future condominium declarations should specify that trash should be kept inside until the morning of pickup. Exterior lighting will be subject to lighting standards in EVDC Section 7.9 and must be shielded, downcast, and no higher than fifteen feet above the ground. The Light and Power Department originally required that street lights be placed at each entry point onto Fish Creek Road but after discussion with planning staff, who conveyed neighborhood concerns about street lights in these locations, agreed to waive that requirement. The access points are considered driveway entrances rather than street intersections. The proposed development requires fifty-three parking spaces; sixty-six will be provided. Of these, forty-eight will be in garages and eighteen will be guest parking spaces. Units 1075, 1095, 1105, 1107, 1157, and 1185 do not have adequate driveway depth to accommodate parking outside the units’ garages and parking at these units should be restricted to in-garage parking only. This restriction should be addressed with the condominium covenants and declarations. The proposal provides adequate guest parking near these units to accommodate visitors. Two small hammerhead turning areas are proposed for this development. On the afternoon of August 20, 2007, the Fire Chief requested that a thirty-foot-wide turnaround be provided for fire trucks; it may be possible to alter one of the proposed hammerheads to provide fire access to address this concern. Adequate public facilities are available to serve this development. The water main along Fish Creek Road will be extended. The existing sewer main is not deep enough and a new sewer main will be installed, which will run parallel to the existing main for a distance, although at a lower depth. A twenty-foot-wide easement will be provided for an existing private water line that crosses this property and serves homes on the east side of Fish Creek Road. The submitted ISO calculations indicate adequate fire flow is available; three new fire hydrants are proposed. Numerous concerns have been expressed by neighboring property owners. Most comments received were written between January and May and were directed toward the subdivision and right-of-way waiver requests. The overwhelming themes of these comments were concerns about traffic safety, density (multi-family development adjacent to single-family residences), preservation of wildlife habitat, and floodplain issues. Comments were received from Dale and Diane Beck, 1635 Powelly Lane; Raymond and Sally Allen, 820 Fish Creek Road; Matt and Ruby Lynett, 894 Fish Creek Road; Paula Edwards, 1020 Acacia Drive; John Poulos, 1805 Powelly Lane; Robert and Myla Bernhard and their son, Fred Bernhard, 1650 Powelly Lane; David Diggs and Mari Hirata, 1770 Powelly Lane; Karin Edwards, 1020 Acacia Drive; Enda Mills Kiley, 1901 Ptarmigan Trail; Kathleen Cannon and Henry Cannon, 1110 Fish Creek Road; Bob and Laura Trump, 830 Fish Creek Road; John and Patti Watson, 1740 Powelly Lane; Judith Saurino, 890 Fish Creek Road; William and Marguerite Paynter, 810 Fish Creek Road; and Fred Held, 1710 Powelly Lane. lull RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 August 21,2007 The Town and applicant are in the process of formalizing an agreement regarding the “Creek Enhancement and Wetland Creation Plan” submitted by the applicant. This agreement will outline Fish Creek restoration responsibilities, the proposed bridge, and associated easements. As part of this agreement, the applicant will do some work on Town property to provide bank stabilization. The agreement will be reviewed by the Town’s Public Works Committee prior to final review by the Town Board. Planner Shirk read the nine staff findings and recommendation shown in the staff report. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed Stone Bridge Estates development plan 07-09. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Planner Shirk stated staff believes FEMA approval of the floodplain map correction is likely. EVDC Section 7.10 would allow the Planning Commission to require the applicant to provide bear-proof trash containers. The additional sidewalk and potential turn-around for emergency vehicle access would not push the impervious coverage on the site over the allowed limits. Public Comment: Frank Theis/CMS Planning and Development/Consultant for applicant Rock Castle Development stated project planning began over fifteen months ago. There have been many issues due to the creek, adjacent county road, and inside-town-limits status of the property. The applicant has tried to address concerns from the Town, County, opponents, and neighbors and provide a sensitive design. Darcy Tiglas, wetlands expert, provided a wetlands report. The applicant will stabilize the creek, revegetate banks, and recover wetlands. The traffic impact analysis found no detrimental safety issues. Recent expansion of County road right-of-way standards from sixty feet to 100 feet was aimed at flat lands where that right-of-way width is needed. The applicant has repeatedly offered to meet with neighboring property owners and hosted a meeting where only two neighbors came. Units have been designed to have a single-story profile at Fish Creek Road; all buildings have been pushed as far from the road as possible. An evergreen hedge is proposed along the road rather than a concrete wall like that found at the nearby Creekside Subdivision. There will be stone columns and a small section of fence, which will be designed for safety of elk, at the entrance. Decks of the units will be no closer than thirty feet to Fish Creek. The revised flood plain is within the existing banks of the creek. Landscape plantings will be four to five times what is required. The homeowners’ association will maintain their side of Fish Creek after the restoration work and planting is completed; the Town will be responsible for maintenance of the creek where it runs on Town property. If the Town does not provide satisfactory maintenance, the homeowners’ association will assume responsibility for repairs. Bill Van HornA/an Horn Family Trust stated there have been concerns regarding the proposed changes to the floodplain. In 1950 Lily Lake flooded Fish Creek, depositing material that made the creek channel ill-defined. In the thirty years since the FEMA floodplain mapping was done in 1979, significant erosion has occurred and the location and depth of the stream has changed. The modification of the FEMA flood map is based on analysis of changed conditions of the creek as they exist today. The proposed development requires that something be done about the continued erosion of the stream. John SpoonerA/an Horn Engineering confirmed what Mr. Van Horn stated. The letter of map revision prepared by Mr. Spooner was sent to FEMA because conditions have changed. For instance, in a location where the existing flood map showed the stream channel at a depth of 0.5 feet, the channel is currently 5.5 feet deep. Beaver dams shown in the area no longer exist. FEMA does not rubber stamp map revisions; there is an extremely thorough review process. Mr. Spooner’s credentials include a PhD in hydraulic engineering, teaching experience at Purdue University, and work as a trainer of consultants in flood-insurance evaluations. Randy Willard/Attorney representing Fish Creek Water Association raised opposition to the proposed development plan and urged the Commissioners to continue the application based on unresolved issues, including pending FEMA review of the floodplain adjustment and concerns regarding the right-of-way waiver granted by the Larimer County Commissioners. FEMA may not approve the flood map revision; their decision will not be wL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 August 21, 2007 made until October at the earliest. The potential for another 100-year flood still exists. The area around the proposed development was under water when the Lily Lake flood occurred in the 1950s. The decision to approve the right-of-way waiver has been appealed and is before a court for review. If FEMA denies the flood map revision, the proposed development would become moot. If the court decides the right-of-way waiver was granted in error, the sixty-foot right-of-way will be incorrect. Mr. Willard also contended the fifteen-foot setback from the front property line required by the EVDC has been applied incorrectly. In the case of a conflict between Larimer County standards and EVDC standards. County standards should prevail; therefore, the fifty-foot setback required by the County should apply to this development. Town Attorney White stated the fifteen-foot setback applies to this property because it is within Estes Park town limits. Construction is not allowed in the floodway but is allowed in the flood fringe if the habitable portion of a structure is two feet higher than the flood fringe. Planner Shirk confirmed that construction and/or grading on the site cannot begin until the subdivision plat is approved. Ken Czarnowski/Attorney representing Fish Creek Water Association stated the application for the revised flood map is in the ninety-day review period with FEMA; the public is allowed to comment and the Water Association will submit comments. He urged the Commissioners to table the application until the FEMA decision is made, as it will affect where structures may be located. A six-foot earthen embankment contains 100 acre-feet of water at Lily Lake, which could flood Fish Creek again. Director Joseph stated no building permit will be issued until FEMA approves the revised flood map; if the revision is not approved, the development plan (if approved) would never be fully enacted. Bob Trump/830 Fish Creek Road/President of Fish Creek Water Association stated all members of the Water Association are opposed to the condominium subdivision because it is completely out of character with the area. Neighboring properties are all larger parcels of land; property owned by the sixteen Water Association members totals approximately 200 acres. He read aloud his letter to the Planning Commission dated August 21, 2007 and submitted a copy for the record as well as a letter for the Planning Commission from Karin Edwards dated August 20, 2007. He expressed concern about high density of the proposed development, loss of uncluttered appearance of area, impact on visitors to area, increased traffic volume, difficulty obtaining information on the proposal and accuracy of that information, and bending rules for developers who propose tax-generating developments. He encouraged the Commissioners to vote to presen/e the beauty of the valley for future generations. Fred Bernhard/1650 Powelly Lane expressed opposition to the proposed development and stated nothing is being done to preserve the valley. Town Attorney White stated the U.S. constitution provides that government shall not take private property rights without due process of law. An owner has the right to develop their property. The applicant’s property was zoned as commercial in 1961 and downgraded to RM zoning in 2000. Zoning changes are decided upon by the Town Board or County Commissioners, not the Planning Commission. Director Joseph and Commissioner Amos referenced the adoption of the EVDC and valley-wide rezoning in 2000; if residents have concerns about development and/or wish to change zoning in the valley, the community must act together to request code changes—an individual parcel or project cannot be singled out. Jan Verschuur/Association for Responsible Development (ARD) spoke on behalf of himself, his wife, and ARD and stated he is not a neighboring property owner. The consensus of ARD is the proposed development is not a good project. He expressed concern about change in traffic patterns and danger to school children who use the Fish Creek corridor; high-density development of 23 units on 4.3 acres adjacent to hike/bike trail; impact on visual appeal of Fish Creek corridor; the development is not in keeping with surrounding properties; and impact on wildlife and the riparian nature of Fish Creek, which could be rehabilitated by the Town without a development of such great density. Frank Theis stated the applicant never received input from ARD and is proposing much less dense development than is allowed. The applicant offered to hook up Fish Creek RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 21, 2007 8 Water Association to the new water main at no cost, which would have relieved the association of one-third of their infrastructure. The Water Association chose to retain their line and use their position to delay the development. Only two homes on the opposite side of Fish Creek Road will have a direct view of the development. Enhancement of the riparian corridor along Fish Creek will bring elk back to the area. Bill Van Horn stated there will be a different FEMA map because the erroneous map in place now will not continue to be used. There is no risk to the public if the development plan is approved because no permits can be issued until conditions of approval are met. The applicant has allowed enough room from the floodplain that the development plan won’t be changed. The lawsuit was filed against the County, and any legal request for project delay should be heard by the District court. The Planning Commission has no grounds to delay the application. Planner Shirk stated no units are proposed to be located in the existing floodway. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) to approve Development Plan 07-09, Stone Bridge Condominiums, a Metes and Bounds property iocated in Portions of Northeast Section 31, Northwest Section 32, and Southwest Section 29, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., with the findings and conditions recommended by staff with Condition #13 to state “...appiication for first buiiding permit” rather than “...issuance of first buiiding permit,” and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Approval and recordation of Stone Bridge subdivision. Approval of this development plan shall be contingent upon FEMA approval of the proposed map correction. Access and right-of-way permits from Larimer County shall be required prior to issuance of the first building permit for each lot. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Town of Estes Park, UTSD, and Larimer County Engineering prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit. Full implementation of the “Creek Enhancement and Wetland Creation Plan for the Stone Bridge Property (Tiglas Feb. 2007).’’ Final version of this plan shall be subject to review and approval of Town staff and shall include details regarding specific plant species and location. A registered land surveyor shall provide a stamped certificate verifying location and height for each structure. The form of this certificate shall be determined by the Chief Building Official or designee. Each unit shall be landscaped in accordance with the typical unit landscaping delineated in the staff report. Staff shall be authorized to grant minor changes to unit landscaping in terms of plant type to encourage species mix. Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated June 21, 2007, regarding this project. Compliance with memo from Larimer County Engineering dated August 8, 2007, regarding this project. 10. Neither the Town of Estes Park or the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District shall be liable for any damage or risk associated with the golf course. Future condo- miniumization shall require the standard waiver of liability for errant golf balls be included in the condominium declarations. 11. Future condominium declarations shall include provisions to keep trash inside until the morning of pick up and shall prohibit parking in front of units 1075, 1095, 1105, 1107, 1157, and 1185. 12. The Division of Wildlife shall approve the fence design prior to construction of such fence. 13. A development agreement between the Developer and the Town regarding “Creek Enhancement and Wetland Creation Plan” shall be finalized prior to application for first building permit. 14. Streetlights shall be removed from plan. 7. 8 9. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 August 21, 2007 15. The following note shall be placed on the development plan: “Any future expansion or change of use of the Van Horn Engineering office building (1043 Fish Creek Road) shall require construction of a parking lot that satisfies requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code, and shall require removal of and revegetation of the existing parking area located on the east side of Fish Creek Road.” 16. A pedestrian trail shall be designed from the Fish Creek trail to serve both lots of this proposal. Design shall be subject to review and approval of staff. 17. Man-made slopes exceeding 25% shall be graphically delineated on the plan, and specific reseeding plans noted (i.e., vegetation, erosion control mats). 18. A note shall be placed on the development plan stating “This site is within an identified wildlife habitat. All development shall comply with Wildlife Protection Standards outlined in the Estes Valley Development Code. This includes future buildings and/or fences.” 19. A “hammerhead” shall be designed for Units 1125 and 1117 and shall be marked with a “no parking” sign. The “hammerhead” turn-around near units 1067 and 1075 shall be marked with a “no parking” sign. 20. The required landscaping shall be graphically delineated in the landscaping legend. 6. PROPOSED BLOCK 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE This is a request to make additions and a correction to the Estes Valley Development Code. The complete text of the proposed changes was provided to the Planning Commissioners via a staff report. Section 3.1.D, Required Times for Action and inaction, addition of proposed subsection 5, Extension of Times, regarding timeframes for action on ali iand- use appiications Director Joseph stated this proposed addition to the EVDC provides procedural steps for land-use approvals of all types. Item D.5 allows the Community Development Director some discretion to extend the period of time necessaiy for the department to review land-use proposals. Any extension would be provided in writing and posted in the Community Development office and on the Town website. Staff received the suggestion that the timeframe not be open-ended. An additional sixty days would provide an adequate time extension under all but the most extreme circumstances. Section 3.2, Standard Review Procedure, addition of proposed subsection H, Aiternative Review Procedure, regarding provision of optionai aiternative review procedure The planning department processes submittals as they come in; sometimes there are very intense periods of activity. There is nothing to prevent the department from receiving so many properly prepared and complete submittals that the work cannot be processed with the in-house workforce. This proposed addition to the EVDC gives applicants a choice of waiting until the peak in the workload has passed or choosing an outside consultant to process the plan review from a list of consultants approved by the Community Development Department. If the applicant chose to use an outside consultant, the applicant would be responsible for payment of all fees charged by the consultant for the review. Staff does not anticipate using this code provision routinely but believes it prudent to codify this option in the event there is an extended illness or other prolonged absence of planners in the office or if faced with so much activity that the staff can’t process the entire workload in the timeframes mandated by the EVDC. Commissioner Tucker requested staff identify a trigger or threshold for application of the proposed additions. Section 4.3, Table 4-2, Base Density and Dimensionai Standards, Residentiai Zoning Districts, regarding required setbacks from interior drives in the RM- Muiti-Famiiy Residentiai zoning district This proposed change was not discussed at today’s meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS UL Estes Valley Planning Commission August 21, 2007 10 It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Amos) to continue discussion of the proposed amendments to Section 3.1.D, 3.2, and 4.3, Table 4-2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to the September 18, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent. 7. REPORTS None. General discussion between Commissioners and staff followed regarding their concerns about the public’s misconceptions about their role and decision-making authority in reviewing proposed developments. The Commissioners make every effort to be fair and reasonable in enforcing the development code. Also discussed was the ways in which the public could influence future development in the Estes Valley. It is difficult to get public involvement unless there is a proposal that directly affects neighboring property owners. Two unidentified members of the audience questioned whether Development Plan 07-10 and the Preliminary Condominium Map for The Timbers of Estes would be reviewed at today’s meeting. Director Joseph stated the items had been continued to the September 18, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting as part of the action on the consent agenda at the start of the meeting. He encouraged them to contact planning staff with their questions or comments and/or attend the September Planning Commission meeting. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Eiseniauer adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m. Rijbhard “Ike” Eiseniauer, Vice-Chair Julie>fioederer,/(ecording Secretary