HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-09-18RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 18, 2007,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce
Grant, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker
Chair Hull; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Klink, and Tucker
Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Board
Liaison Homeier, Public Works Director Scott Zurn, and Recording
Secretary Roederer
Absent:Commissioner Kitchen, 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. a
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a.Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated August 21, 2007.
b. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS Lot 22 9nnth
£App|rica„t^pen. ^rappncanSt,toVcri„uAeV:HTsei.e:hteo
Planning Commission mseting on Octobsr 16,2007. ^
c- JSy.'SED development PLAN 00-07C, MARY’S LAKF l nnrc
Lak^Reolat'^lsM* 3’,MfT’S „ake Subdi',ision’ and Lots 3A and 3B of Mark’s
-TNood:sa^-
compliance with density limits. P Proposed. The request is in
!LTornTasasneVuenCa°:rui;m°fthKI:nki “ C°nSent age"da ba acaaP*ad’ a"d
3- PeESLt°EPSMLo"3PLSAcl0oVd0eransdubPdlEiLslirZoCBigNDT^oT'UM TP’ ™E T'MBERS
MarkTheiss “'vision, Big Thompson Avenue, Applicant:
cTnZinfu'riliLZ™ reP^est to construct and
currently undeveloped 1 9-acre A-Accommn!iJrn 3 t0ta °f.thirteen dwe,lm9 units on a
different unit types The siand-alol unTk n^f^^ T^ ,0t- The apP|icant ProP°ses
the neighbor’s residence thus nmviriinn f P?.aed °n Porti°n of the lot closest to
residential-zoned lot to the south District9hiirffprS|tl0H fr0n^ the adjoinin9 single-family-
southern property line bUffer landscaP|n9 will be provided along the
reqtiiremen^s: drensity, tii^pe^biusnco^raqe^tbacks Ve*<Tmf,nt C°de (EVDC) ,imits or
parking, and exterior lighting Access to the nmnn^H Pede.strian amenities and linkages.
Grand Estates Drive Curb gutter and d.de1I'eloPment Wl11 be Provided from
ve. ouro, gutter, and sidewalk will be installed along the western
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
September 18, 2007
property line bordering Grand Estates Drive; a portion of sidewalk will extend into the
development. The proposed sidewalk ramps will need to meet federal ADA standards.
Building code standards for handicapped accessibility will be applied when the building
permits are reviewed.
Sanitary sewer service will be provided through an existing eight-inch main along the
southern property boundary. An eight-inch water main will be extended from the existing
twelve-inch water line near the northern property boundary.
The application was continued at last month’s Planning Commission meeting due to
drainage concerns. Two drainages from the north flow through the property. The applicant
proposes to capture these flows in a swale to be built along the northern property line.
Those flows will be directed into a pipe that will run through the center of the property and
will be released into a detention pond near the south-central portion of the lot, which will
allow release of the drainage at the historic rate and in the historic location. Also, the curb
and gutter to be installed along the east side of Grand Estates Drive will capture water
from the road, which will flow southward and discharge off the side of the road south of
the applicant’s property. The adjoining property owner to the south expressed concern
about the proposed drainage and met with planning staff to review their concerns.
Because the property is zoned appropriately for the proposed use (residential/accommo
dations), it is a use by right. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed
development plan.
Public Comment:
Paul Bennett of Alpine Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the
applicant has worked with Town staff to address any issues. The neighboring property
owner to the south voiced some concerns regarding drainage, particularly drainage off
Grand Estates Drive.
Leonard “Harry” Potzler, 560 Grand Estates Drive, stated he is the property owner to the
south. He is concerned about drainage from the proposed detention pond and from water
directed onto his property by the new curb and gutter proposed along Grand Estates
Drive. Water from the TravelLodge and Grand Estates Drive is currently absorbed by the
property under consideration for development. Buildings and pavement on the lot will add
to the water flowing into the detention pond, which will direct all the flows onto his
property. He requested that the developer either forego installing curb and gutter or
provide curb and gutter past his lot to keep road runoff flowing down Grand Estates Drive
of the roadake H6 3 S° requested that “no parkin9” si9ns be Posted on the east side
RCln a(?dress 9'ven> questioned whether there will be a limit on the number of
vehicles that can be parked on the site and expressed concern that the occupant of one of
dhoeernot°halUpn |S C0Uld bG bv 33 imProPer|y Parked vehicle; that particular unit
does not have a large enough driveway apron for a vehicle to park in front of the aaraoe
Planner Shirk and Director Joseph responded. Vehicles, including RVs, could be9parked
Further comments from Mr. Bennett are summarized as follows There is no existinn rtirh
PulAo Works Department has requested the applicant provide a taentv fUSe
fs vrilling trdSoesoe 3 9 S°Uthem Pr°Perty Hne '0r p0SSible ,uture use- aPP'frart
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Ml
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
September 18, 2007
Public Works Director Scott Zurn reviewed drainage flows in the area. Two drainages
enter the property from the north and meet (forming a “Y”) before exiting the property at
the south-central portion of the site. The requested drainage easement will reserve the
right to route drainage as it historically flowed. The developer is installing curb and gutter
along Grand Estates Drive at the request of the Public Works Department. A long-term
goal is to provide curb and gutter along both sides of Grand Estates Drive to direct runoff
into the lake.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Eisenlauer) to approve Development Plan 07-10,
The Timbers of Estes, Lot 3, Schroeder Subdivision, and to recommend approval of
the accompanying Preliminary Condominium Map to the Town Board of Trustees,
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed
unanimously with one absent.
CONDITIONS:
1. Final construction plans (including erosion control plan) shall be approved by the Town
of Estes Park Public Works Department and Estes Park Sanitation District prior to
issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit.
2. Compliance with the following memos:
a. From Mike Mangelsen to Bob Goehring dated July 19, 2007.
b. From Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated July 27, 2007.
c. From Estes Park Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated August 15, 2007.
3‘ S"trfash enclosure shal1 be subject to review and approval of the Colorado Division of
Wildlife prior to issuance of first building permit, and shall be installed prior to issuance
of first certificate of occupancy.
The grading plan shall bear an engineer’s stamp.
fe*“olaSeTcDOTac" Sha" ^ SUbmitted Wi'h firS* 9radin9/buiWing permit
A development agreement and form of guarantee shall be submitted by the aoolicant
and approved by the town prior to issuance of any permits.
4.
5.
6.
grlnd?:«h access™^ Wil' bS in ,he S0u,h6ast 9uadran, of the YMCA
co;e:smsrrsplan^o;!;e2YoMo?Ax abru^edLarer c?un,y Board ofstandards, such as pavino but akn n^ec^ waivers to some development
Plan conditions of ap=arcoaXiao»pCri^^^^^^^^ --
Count^street-namhngstendartsh^^ed p^rkin^'mrbs0063^ ""h UnitS mUSt meet Larimer
front of the reunion cabins The aoolicant muc;t nax bs,.and Sldewalk will be provided in
western edge of this parking lot dPuPe to thP PeC'a 5tent,0n to reve9etation of the
to the submitted plans to re9move all of tha nrpu'n 9rade‘ Chan9es have been made
applicant has minimized all proposed fexhtLPoTwmPx°h0hed parkin9-,ot '''ghting. The
Each cabin will be provided with an outdoor trash9rpppnt iIC a mUSt be code comP|l'ant.
is proposed north of the northernmost reu^ ?^^
proposed development through the YMCA’s orivatP watofter ? availab,e to serve the
been extensively upgraded. P Vate water system, which has recently
proper^l(wneTsSfor°iconsi^ratlonPPnC^*comrmenr'nc a9enCy Staff and t0 neiphb-ng
Larimer County EngineerinrCartment anTeulinn^ Wer6 reCeived from the
Light and Power Department and Puhlir \A/nleBn d S Department, Town of Estes Park
District, and Town Attorney White. K Department> uPPer Thompson Sanitation
lull Hi RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
September 18, 2007
The proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
and Estes Valley Development Code as conditioned by the YMCA Master Plan approval.
Planning staff recommends approval of the development plan.
Public Comment:
Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, was present to represent the
applicant. The applicant agrees to all recommended conditions of approval. The trash
receptacles at the new units will be bear-proof.
Barbara Finley, adjacent property owner/2634 Dorsey Circle, expressed concern about
lack of landscaping around parking lots on the YMCA grounds and questioned whether
landscaping would be required and when it would be installed. Mr. Reetz stated
landscaping would be installed as promptly as possible following installation of
infrastructure. Planner Shirk noted all landscaping must be installed or financially
guaranteed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new cabins. The recently
approved YMCA master plan provides that new parking-lot landscaping shall exceed the
required amount by 20%
^a'Ln0Th YM V.iCf P,,;elfident- stated landscaping should be installed during planting
season. The parking lot will be landscaped as shown on the submitted plans.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to approve Development Plan 07-12
?MUCA9 r,h6°Ro'..a- Me,es and B0UndS ProPerty accessed via Mesa Dr 4 on the
«ir recommended by
2 the county
23,r2007^^^ niemo from ®^®3stai^aSc(^ZuiT|ato(DavetShirlfdat^^August
4- Sha" be revised ,0 reference Ladm- county instead o, the
considera!iondpSe?PseecHon972eM*MVaMomfD|-hh- Park'n9 l0t requires sPec'al
6 StreetdeeP*r0°!in9 P|ants^ shail be ^clud^ (^th^planbin9 reve9eta,ion fr6- Plosion
76; S^aroTslfef'i
8- and
9- - p- and shai, he
5. development PLAN 07-14 DELLA TPRda ..
at 3501 Pali River Road, Appi’icam: DeJa ^^rra "uc and B°UndS ProPerty '«ated
Planner Shirk summarized the staff rennrt thJ r
Estes Valley planning area and Is bordered nn^h PP ICaut S proPerty is on edge of the
National Park. It Is currently developed with imh6 n0rth and west by Rocky Mountain
and a coffee shop. The appTcInt ompol.e. camPs,tes> a small motel, cabin unfe
ourteen-room guest lodge/wedding facilitv- thp re,^°ve 3,1 campsites and develop a remain. The redevelopment is S and S rnn.T6'’ Cabins’ and coffea shop would
she 5kt'dih9 a n®W l0d9e in an area curfently userfo?Rvarray °' ?aV'n9 the existi"9 dri''d
Site disturbance is proposed An area fnr « 'or campsites. Very little additinnai
lhfs9oi,HiS area C0Uld accommodate up to 16 Ogue^f NotaiS proposed west of 'he new
this outdoor wedding area Althonnh tho r.r ^ ^irnProvements are propospd forheight limit because ^t wil/b^iocated in>anJex?^^cud9e " 3 ’ar9e st-'d-.b -eltethe
this SoT^'thVlan? area ws rettedout S'1 T9'61/ ab0Ve ,he blue line- Because of
h denSlty re9Ulremanta- The applicant Proposes^rSrto'uL9;^^^^^^^^^
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
September 18, 2007
system (with improvements to the system) on the site. The wells were adjudicated in
1975; the Larimer County Health Department has indicated the wells are excellent in
terms of water quality and flow. The applicant submitted a water study using methodology
provided by the Town Water department, which indicated water usage will decrease by
30% with this redevelopment. There are ongoing discussions between the applicant and
the town regarding annexation of this property; water service to the property is one of the
main discussion points. Staff recommends that annexation of the property be a condition
of approval. Larimer County has agreed to cede building permit review and issuance to
the town based on the pending annexation of the property.
The existing driveway into the site will be paved. Parking will be added along the drive in
locations that are now generally camping sites. A small section of interior road will be
added to provide an emergency-vehicle turnaround. To meet landscaping requirements, a
few more shrubs must be added to the parking areas. The parking calculations must be
corrected on the plan cover sheet, although the plans show the required number of
parking spaces. There will be a decrease in the daily vehicle trips generated; the Colorado
Department of Transportation has indicated that no new access permit is required.
This request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring
property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town
Attorney Greg White, Town of Estes Park Building Department and Public Works
Departrrient, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and Rocky Mountain National Park. The
national park expressed concern about outside noise levels. There will be no outdoor
sound amplification, and reception activities will be held indoors. The town’s noise
devlSopmentplanPly t0 th'S Sit6 Plannin9 staff recommends approval of the proposed
Town Attorney White stated the current intergovernmental agreement between Larimer
County and the Town of Estes Park requires any development such as this be annexed to
he town at the town’s sole discretion. Staffs recommended condition of approval #
thanMamrsi7 2008l^'l'SoNldhh" Shbm" ®n.annexation Pe,ition 10 the Town Clerk no lafe;
man March 31. 2008, should be changed to require annexation by that date. Connection
to town water shall be addressed with the annexation agreement.
Slw!0r ':l0?eph Stated he received comments from Rick Spowart, Colorado Division of
WildWe, indicating that the change of use of this property from a Sgro^rto a
wedding facility will reduce the adverse impacts to the area's big horn sheep.PS
Public Comment:
Pan"±n!fLan9/De!,a Ter!^a’ LLC thanked the Commissioners and town staff and
expressed her excitement for the project and its positive impact on Estes Park.
nrnnn!fr!m/33f.Fa" Ruer R°ad stated ,he aPP«“hfs have Visited with them about the
proposal several times; they are quite pleased with the plan He questioned when the
SsisSSHsi
nJn»STm0Ved f»n? seoonded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to approve Development Plan 07-14
finlIrnnHac a Hvand BOUndS ProPertV located at 3501 Fall Ri™T Road wHh the
QhewnS aPd condl,.lons recommended by staff and with condition #1 revised as
CONDITIONS^6 n10tl0n passed unanimously with one absent.
1- So8PrOPe^ Sha" be anneXed in,° ,he T0Wn of Estes Park no later than March 31,
3 With mem0 fr0m Scott Zurn ,0 Dave Shirk dated August 31,2007
Eng™eTr mana9ement P|an shal1 be subjact to review and approval of the Town
5 rnmSienf "nil mem° f,r0m D°U9 Ryan t0 DaVe Shirk dated AuguSt 27, 2007
August 21 2037.mem0 fr0m Upper ThomPson Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
September 18, 2007
6. A development agreement and letter of credit shall be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. The parking lot screening shall comply with Section 7.5 of the Estes Valley
Development Code.
The parking summary table shall be amended to include the coffee, motel, and cabins
requirements, and the Lodge requirements shall be amended to require 28 spaces
instead of 14.
8.
6. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, Amended Plat of
Lots 3 and 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1825 and 1925 Homestead Lane, Applicants: Paul
M. and Katherine M. Kochevar and John A. Skoog
Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to adjust the interior boundary
line between Lots 3 and 4 of the Skoog Subdivision and subdivide the largest lot (Lot 3)
mto three srnaller lots. Lot 3 formerly contained three tourist cabins and was zoned for
multi-family development. It was rezoned in 2003 to E-^-Estate in conjunction with the
preliminary plat review, and two of the cabins have since been removed. The final plat
was approved but expired prior to recordation and is null and void; thus the applicant has
submitted a new plat for review. The third cabin would have to be removed before another
residence could be constructed on the proposed lot on which it is situated.
lilinhh^ h plf’ lhe app|icfnt proposes to extend water and sewer mains into the
neighborhood and provide fire hydrants. The applicant also proposes to move an existino
road farther north and pave it to the western edge of proposed Lot 2 The former road
area will be revegetated. The existing road erodes severely during rains and plugs the
culvert, resulting in storm drainage flowing over the road. Paving will alleviatePpotential
S'lte0rhPrTS- Ihe Prrsed ali9nmP"' Of fPo private drive to se™ (wo oUhe tots
would also have the effect of removing the traffic for two dwellings from a oortion of thP
existing road, thus helping reduce the overall traffic impact on the SigZrhood
Code rEwri'»ii(!,thin 3 mapp?d sleeP-sl0Pe hazard area. The Estes Valley Development
rr 0P0SeS bU"din9 envel°Pes fo prevent development on the steepest portions of
Elmrt rtzS -r"1'"1126 f® dis'orbance. Neighboring property ovnners S and RebeLaS4.~road design and drainige issued “ eXPreSSed SOme 00ncern re9ard'P9 the
nC!;rthC to^STo“dmLegeCOorhe1x^^^^^^ mad^fc TT She6t fl°WS fr0m the
applicant's proposal does nof adequatera^^^^^^^ ditch-The
nood to bo chanqod or rosizpri Ho oieo avn j dotontion aroa may
width; mountain road standards require the PrnaSri Gh C°nce/n about the P^Posed road
provide for emergency vehicle access A firo hf/H b + tW° f6et W,der than ProPosed to
(beyond the prop9osedV pavemenrshouW aaLth^ 6nd °J the road
emergency vehicle turnaround The<?P !<;«;, .oc mow « 60 a?ic?ss and a paved area for
granted along the length of the applicant’s Drnnpyrh?eneSSltfate7addltl0nal easements be
minor corrections to the lanauaoe on tho nia? tk ^ir®ctor ^urn a*so requests some Paul Kochevar, was mat^L ?o attend todavt^^^ C°.nSUlt;n9 ?ngineer for this ProP°aa'.
from Mr. Kochevar recced toSay a^^^^^^^^^
Zurn and requests approval of the prelimha,^ nit al concerns expressed by Director
this application be continued to the October 1V6,P20ofprnntoS«nZ:ene;toqgUeS,ed
Public Comment:
the6prape^to NtoKochevan009 W3S PreSen*and indiCated he is in ,he praaaaa °f celling
JILL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
September 18, 2007
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Grant) to continue the Preliminary Subdivision
Plat, Deer Ridge Subdivision, Amended Plat of Lots 3 and 4, Skoog Subdivision, to
the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting on October 16, 2007 in order to
resolve the issues presented by Town Engineer Zurn, and the motion passed
unanimously with one absent.
7. PROPOSED BLOCK 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE
This request is to make additions and a correction to the Estes Valley Development Code,
and is a continuation of discussions which began at the Estes Valley Planning
Commission meeting of August 21, 2007. Director Joseph presented information on the
proposed changes as follows:
Section 3.1 .D, Required Times for Action and inaction, addition of proposed
subsection 5, Extension of Times, regarding timeframes for action on all land-
use applications; and
Section 3.2, Standard Review Procedure, addition of proposed subsection H,
Aiternative Review Procedure, regarding provision of optional alternative review
procedure
Proposed Section 3.1.D allows the temporary extension of timeframes for review of
land-use applications due to short-staffing, a vacancy, or an extremely heavy workload
in the Community Development Department, or any other factor that would prevent
adequate and timely review of applications. Extension would be at the discretion of the
Comrnunity Development Director and would be for a period not to exceed sixty (60)
days beyond the normal timeframe for review. In response to Commissioners’ request
at the August meeting to identify a trigger or threshold for this extension. Director
Joseph offered to add the following language as the final sentence of this subsection:
A vacancy of more than three weeks in Planning staff due to personnel changes
medical leave, or other FMLA-authorized absence shall be considered adequate
S,TcUodS 0f Time under this Provision-” Following further discussion, it
was agreed that this additional language would be too restrictive and that the triqaer
for time extension should be based on workload, as originally proposed.
Proposed Section 3.2.H provides the applicant an alternative to waiting an additional
lf-the t,r?e exte"sl0n has been invoked. It allows the applicant to elect to pay
for the services of a qualified professional planner, chosen from a list of appropriate
consultants maintained by the Community Development Department to process and
rev,ew the application. This option may be attractive to an applicam who “shes to
Stay on a particular time schedule for development purposes.
Public Comment:
None.
'tr"a„st! '"oved ®nd seconded (Tucker/Grant) to recommend approval of the
proposed amendments to Section 3.1.D and 3.2 of the Estes Valiev Develnnmsnr Code, with the deletion of the finai sentence of p opLed Sechon 3 1 D
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County CoZi^ionL a^d
the motion passed unanimously with one absent. ’
Section 4.3, Table 4-2, Base Density and Dimensionai Standards, Residentiai
Zomng Districts, regarding required setbacks from interior drives in the RM-
Multi-Family Residentiai zoning district
Director Joseph stated the proposed change to footnote [9] of EVDC Table 4-2 is a
Hnekeepitn9 'iem- The f00tn0te Pertains t0 setbacks in multi family residen^l
tn fnd current|V "Tiplies that no street setback is required. StaVff would like
0 clarify that structures must be set back from public or private roads that serve more
than four adjacent or off-site dwellings. If the road does not serve more than four
dwellings, the setback requirements are not invoked.
.11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
8Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 18, 2007
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Amos) to recommend approval of the
proposed amendments to Section 4.3, Table 4-2 of the Estes Valley Development
Code to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County
Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
8. REPORTS
Planner Shirk stated the Board of County Commissioners approved the Panthen lot
consolidation plat at their meeting on September 17, 2007. He also recently attended a
workshop on accessory dwelling units and will have input on this issue for Planning
Commission consideration at a future meeting.
There being no further business. Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
Betty Huir, Chair
ulie^oederer, Recording Secretary