Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-11-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 20, 2007,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali 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 Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, and Tucker Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Director Zurn, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Commissioners Amos and Klink Chair Huii 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. Approval of minutes dated October 16, 2007 b. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane, Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar and John A. Skoog/Applicants — Appiicants’ request for continuance to December 18, 2007 Estes Valiey Pianning Commission meeting It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Grant) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Hull stated she had read the lengthy correspondence received from neighboring property owner Mark D. Elrod regarding the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat application and commended planning staff, especially Planner David Shirk, for their thoroughness and attention to detail. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Applicant: Mulhern Group, Ltd. Planner Shirk stated the details of this application were presented at the October 16, 2007 Planning Commission meeting; the item was continued to allow receipt of comments from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). The applicant has submitted plans showing minor revisions, including preliminary plans for a deceleration lane, the addition of landscape berms along Lexington Lane, the location of trash enclosures, clarification of parking statistics, and correction of minor typographical errors. The proposed development meets Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) review criteria, including density limits, impervious coverage limits, floor area ratio, and setback requirements. The proposal is for the development of one 24-unit building, one duplex, two triplexes, ten detached units, and the use of the existing cabin as a community room. The location of the postal cluster box is proposed in front of the multi-unit building. An eight-foot-wide sidewalk along Highway 7 and a five-foot-wide interior sidewalk are proposed. The property has been zoned for multi-family development since the adoption of zoning in 1961; this zoning has been maintained throughout all zonings since that time, including RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 20, 2007 the valley-wide rezoning in 2000. Today’s hearing is not to determine the land use or density of this project. The intersection of the proposed interior road (Golf Course Road, formerly proposed as South Shady Lane) with Highway 7 would be a three-lane intersection with a dedicated right-turn-only lane. The new deceleration lane on Highway 7 leading to Lexington Lane would have a thirty-foot radius and a sixty-foot “landing area” and would fit within the existing right-of-way. Planner Shirk summarized a letter received from the Colorado Department of Transportation dated November 13, 2007 as follows: projected right-of-way need is 75 feet on either side of the highway centerline, but CDOT will defer to the Town on whether protecting this future right-of-way is possible; CDOT concurs with the findings in the traffic impact analysis; access permits will be required; the deceleration lane is warranted; the applicant must work with CDOT; CDOT will consider a waiver for any deficiency caused by right-of-way constraints. No traffic signal is warranted in either location; CDOT will not allow the installation of a traffic signal without warrants being made. A drainage report must be provided to CDOT. Planning staff has received a drainage report for the overall site, which has been approved by the Public Works Director. Planner Shirk reviewed EVDC Section 7.8, which provides review standards regarding wildlife. He displayed the wildlife habitat map from the EVDC, noting most of the Estes Valley is covered by either elk areas or deer areas. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has requested wildlife mitigation for development along Fall River Road, in the bighorn sheep area, but did not request a mitigation plan for this proposed development. When staff initially discussed the potential development of this property with a CDOW officer, the officer indicated the need to provide wildlife corridors, which the applicant has provided. The development code states that the CDOW must determine whether development will result in significant adverse impact to the wildlife. The letter received from the CDOW dated October 25, 2007 states that elk use this site to feed, rut, and calve but does not indicate that development of the site will have a significant adverse impact on the wildlife. A wildlife conservation plan was not requested by the CDOW. The specific requirements of EVDC Section 7.8.G are summarized below: • Buffers: requires a setback from identified important wildlife habitat, as specified by the CDOW—none were requested by the CDOW. • Non-Native Vegetation: allows only plant species shown on the EVDC landscaping list to be introduced, limits removal of native vegetation—the landscaping plan provided complies. • Fencing: limits height and type of fencing—no fencing is proposed other than that required by the EVDC to protect plantings. • Exterior Lighting: requires outside lighting to be minimized and not shine onto critical wildlife habitat—the proposal minimizes outside lighting; all exterior lights must be code-compliant, including the street lights. • Refuse Disposal: requires animal-proof containers—the proposal complies. • Domestic Animals: requires enforcement measures to control pets—this issue is addressed in the staff’s recommended conditions of approval. Letters of opposition to the proposed development were received from the following Estes Park residents/property owners: Steve and Beth Ramsey, 1038 Pine Knoll Drive; Barton L. and Sharon Anderson Dannels, 941 S. St. Vrain Avenue; Gwen Knobel, 1070 Lexington Lane; Fred R. Mares, 895 Elk Meadow Court; Carole L. Billingham, 1015 Pine Knoll Drive; Sandra Lindquist, 1980 Cherokee Drive, and Art Messal via email (no address given). Planning staff also received phone calls from a nearby neighbor, who provided the status of elk using the area as follows: on the afternoon of October 26, 83 elk were on site “all afternoon”; a herd of approximately 60 elk were on site from Friday, October 19 through Sunday, October 21. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicant should carefully review the staff report, which contains several references to Code requirements. Failure to satisfy these requirements could lead to a delay in issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission November 20, 2007 2. 3. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed Wapiti Crossing Development Plan 07-13 conditional to; 1. Transformers and pedestals near the north end of the “multi-family” building and between units A6 and A7 shall be placed in less visible locations, as delineated in the staff report. 2. All dogs and cats shall be kept inside the units, except that the dog or cat may be out of doors if it is under the effective control of a person, as defined in the Estes Park Municipal Code. This condition shall be included in any future condominium declarations. 3. The landscaping plan shall be amended so the southern row of shrubs near Unit A1 will be on the berm instead of in front of it. 4. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits. 5. Compliance with the following memos: a. From Jeff Boles to Bob Goehring dated August 22, 2007. b. From James Duell to Dave Shirk dated August 16, 2007. c. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated August 24, 2007. Commissioner Tucker noted the letter received from the CDOW does not state clearly whether the proposed development would have a negative impact on wildlife and questioned how planning staff had requested CDOW comments. Planner Shirk read for the record the letter sent to the CDOW from Community Development Director Bob Joseph on October 18, 2007, which states in part, “The Estes Valley Planning Commission invites review and requests written response from the DOW regarding potential wildlife related impacts associated with the planning of a 51/2 ac. development currently proposed for property at the intersection of Highway 7 and Lexington... . This property is located at one of the most heavily used elk/highway crossings in the Estes Valley.” Commissioner Tucker acknowledged that staff had asked the right questions. Public Comment: Steve Loos/Lead Design Architect for Wapiti Crossing for the Mulhern Group stated he is not a wildlife consultant. The plan (in regard to impact on wildlife) was developed based on input from Town staff and meets the criteria to provide wildlife corridors. Twenty-eight individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Comments are summarized below. Ronald F. Norris/1905 Cherokee Drive has vacationed in Estes Park for 37 years; moved here a couple months ago. Deeply concerned re: the proposed development’s impact on wildlife, provisions of EVDC are not being followed. CDOW says proposed development will have significant impact on elk/deer calving area. Traffic accidents involving wildlife are a severe problem, expected to increase. EVDC requires denial if development is in a calving area. EVDC empowers staff to ask developer to submit wildlife conservation plan; this has not been done. There is justification to deny; he requested that Commissioners reject the proposal. Mr. Norris submitted a letter of opposition. Rick Spowart/Colorado Division of Wildlife Officer was present. Commissioner Tucker noted there were statements in the letter received from the CDOW that could be viewed as indicating the proposed development would have a negative impact on wildlife and he requested clarification. Mr. Spowart stated he wrote the letter staff received from the CDOW, which was signed by his supervisor, Mark Leslie, on behalf of Mr. Leslie’s supervisor. The role of the CDOW is to state impacts; the proposed development will definitely have a negative impact to wildlife, just about every development in Estes Park does. This site is the most heavily used crossing point for elk moving to/from the golf course. It is also used by elk during the rut and as a grazing site. The site is used by many other species of wildlife, including bear, deer, mountain lions, coyotes, and raccoons. In RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 20, 2007 2007 at least nine bears used this area and bear conflicts were extreme during summer and fall. CDOW has asked the Town to require bear-proof trash containers by ordinance. Lots of wildlife is hit on Hwy. 7 in this area; increased traffic will result in increased vehicle/animal accidents. No fencing should be allowed in the proposed development. Dogs harassing wildlife or wildlife injuring/killing dogs could be a problem. Many communities are wrestling with the issue of development in wildlife areas, as is the CDOW. Communities are increasingly strict in terms of protecting wildlife; the more open space that is left for wildlife, the better. Commissioner Grant stated the issue is the word “significant.” His understanding of the development code is that the CDOW is to render some judgment on whether adverse impacts to wildlife will be significant. Mr. Spowart stated he views his role and that of the CDOW as a “consulting role.” Commissioner Tucker stated the EVDC requests the State to define the term significant but it doesn’t appear to be in the State’s charter to do so. Mr. Spowart agreed that it’s a catch-22. Cory LaBianca/1965 Cherokee Drive—EVDC Section 7.8.A, Purpose, states “to maintain and enhance” wildlife and habitat, and to “plan and design land uses,” which could mean open space, parks, etc. Section 3.8.A, Purpose, encourages development reflective of objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comp. Plan recommendations should apply to development review, which should not be governed solely by codes and regulations. Ms. LaBianca submitted a letter of opposition. Ada McCracken/1089 Pine Knoll Drive—Retired to Estes Park from Colo. Springs because all the land there had been destroyed by development. Excessive number of empty, unsold properties in Estes; low-income housing is not occupied. Town should preserve habitat for wildlife and beauty for future generations. Jayne Zmijewski/926 Village Green Lane—Has volunteered for 40 years for the CDOW and lives at the end of the meadow (the applicant’s property). As a State employee, Rick Spowart is restricted in what he can say. The proposed development will have significant impact on wildlife. Use of the property as a fawning and calving area should be emphasized. Director Joseph questioned whether the opinions Ms. Zmijewski voiced were her own or were the opinions of the CDOW. Ms. Zmijewski stated she represents the CDOW as a volunteer. Jo Persons/1000 Woodland Court—Don’t “tear down paradise to put up a parking lot.” Don’t allow the property to be destroyed for money. It may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right. Al Persons/1000 Woodland Court—Estes Park resident for 24 years. Has heard that the Planning Commission sells out citizens repeatedly in terms of how development is planned for the town. Requested Commissioners do everything possible to stop this proposal from coming through; review all information before making a decision. Commissioner Tucker stated during the time he has been on the Planning Commission, no Commissioner or staff member has sold out for money or made a decision/ recommendation for any reason other than for the benefit of the community. Jim Taylor/659 Cedar Ridge Circle—Very important issue; it’s a question of the appropriateness of unbridled, continuous development. Recent newspaper article stated 400-500 houses currently for sale; why build more? The wildlife issue is very big, but the biggest issue is what citizens want for overall growth. The issue is GROWTH. Joy Beard/1600 Hover Road, #C-3, Longmont, CO—For twenty years she and her family have come to Estes Park to relax and enjoy mountains and wildlife. Family guests always want to see elk; she takes them to the applicant’s property to view. History of Estes Park is land-grabbing and greed. Don’t let elk die. Opposes this proposed development. Eric Waples/1519 Raven Circle—Questioned whether follow-up studies have been done on developed areas to determine whether the wildlife provisions of EVDC Section 7.8 have been effective. Requested examples of projects that have required developers to provide formal wildlife studies. Director Joseph stated there are no examples. The EVDC has been in place since 2000; that is a short window of time to determine what the influence of the adoption of the development code has been. The prior development code had no such provision for wildlife. The impact of a development on elk might be very RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 November 20, 2007 different than its impact on another species. Mr. Waples stated his opinion that the Planning Commission has shown callous disregard for wildlife. There is a great deal of discretion in EVDC Section 7.8 for the planning office to exercise; this discretion has been exercised in a negative way in terms of wildlife impacts. He urged the Planning Commission to use that discretion in a much different way. The number of people at the meeting shows the public’s unhappiness. Judith Nichol, 264 Solomon Drive—Questioned how the proposal has provided mitigation for wildlife and what variances have been granted. Planner Shirk reviewed again each standard of EVDC Section 7.8.G (buffers, non-native vegetation, etc.) and how the proposal complies with each requirement. He reiterated that a wildlife conservation plan was not requested by the CDOW and stated this section of the development code is not intended to prohibit the development of property. A waiver to the driveway/street separation standard was approved. No variances have been requested for this development; none have been granted. Ms. Nichol stated the development will be harmful to elk. Henry Pool/1017 Pine Knoll Drive—Questioned whether the proposed sidewalk along Hwy. 7 would be in public right-of-way or on private property. Planner Shirk stated the sidewalk would be located on private property with a pedestrian easement so anyone could use it. Mr. Pool expressed concern that an additional right-turn lane at the Hwy. 7/ Golf Course Road intersection is needed, noting traffic uses the existing left-turn lane as a passing lane. He contended the proposed turn radius at Lexington Lane is too small; a 50- foot radius should be required rather than a 30-foot radius. Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Drive—Took issue with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan showing migratory routes and corridors and elk and deer corridors as overlapping. He stated he frequently sees elk come down Axminster Lane, cut across his lot, and continue on to the applicant’s property. More bears have been in the area than in the last 14 years. Questioned whether the Town has a plan for open spaces, green belts, wildlife. Stated a visitor center employee told him that they direct people who don’t want to pay National Park entrance fees to view the elk on Hwy. 7. Kay Thompson/351 S. St. Vrain Avenue—^Addressed Commissioners from business- owner’s point of view. Visitors come to see deer and elk; visitors stay in Estes Park in order to do so. Urged Commissioners Tucker and Grant to nail down guidelines not provided by the CDQW. Stated applicant’s property is a wildlife corridor and birthing area. Paulette Robles Mares/895 Elk Meadow Court—Questioned who the applicant used as a wildlife expert. Stated the CDQW are experts but were not approached. Noted people in attendance, emails, phone calls, and letters to the editor in opposition of this proposed development. Stated she had names of 450 people who are opposed to the development and submitted sheets with their names/signatures for the record. Signature sheets read as follows: “Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area. We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is ‘a calving, lambinq and fawning area’ as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section Park voterlfo™SifeU- and C°nSider th'S Si'e ,0r ES*eS Park °pen space- Es,es Robert Taphorn/2613 Wildwood Drive—Expressed surprise that wildlife mitigation was not required for such a volatile issue. Urged follow-through on elements of the EVDC1 best judgment is not acceptable. Joanna Hannah/1050 East Lane—Stated elk corridors provided on the former Storer Ranch property do not work. Overbuilding of Estes Park is akin to development on Maui— Estes Park is a tiny island; its uniqueness should be preserved. Becky Mares/917 Rambling Drive—Grew up in Estes Park; has degree in environmental studies. Multiple generations are concerned with this issue. The applicant’s property will not be a wildlife area once buildings are put up and roads are paved. Public outcry is significant enough to be the code for guidance on the use of this property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 November 20, 2007 Suzanne Wolf/425 Ski Road, Allenspark, CO—^Teaches outdoor education in Rocky Mountain National Park. Tourists say Estes Park is losing its small-town feel. Many say they don’t want to come back because Estes Park looks like a city. Tremendous change in town saddens her. Milt Garrett/1480 Raven Circle—Referenced recent League of Women Voters seminar featuring three speakers on the growth of Estes Park and the Estes Valley. Urged Planning Commission to not approve applicant’s proposal; keep the land for wildlife; keep Estes Park for the middle class; don’t become like Vail. Jerry Brown/821 University Drive—Opposes proposal. Stated Colorado is caving in on itself due to development. Invited developer to join the Estes Valley Land Trust and preserve the property. Linda Behren/1310 Manford Avenue, #E5—Spoke on behalf of the trees and future generations. Expressed concern about global warming and about destruction of wildflowers, grasses, and trees. Warned that elk will go elsewhere. Chris Baisley/1490 Creekside Court—Expressed concern about lack of buffer area to absorb elk that are shooed off golf course in summer. New development along Fish Creek Road and this proposed development will leave elk nowhere to go. -Requested continuance to allow time for wildlifeVirginia Tolane/750 Prospect Avenue- review. Paul Kuna/1050 S. St. Vrain Avenue—Expressed concern that CDOT engineer doing runoff survey at the site did not have copy of proposed plans and concern that the developer wants to sell units and make a profit. Stated he lives in Eagle View Condominiums and there is too much density in town. Wants applicant’s property to be turned over to the Land Trust or purchased with GOCO funds. Gail Nehrig/921 Village Green Lane—Stated visitors wonder what’s going on when they see so many for-sale signs and empty store fronts. Questioned why the town needs more condominiums or more retail space. Jim Tawney/1820 Fall River Road—Repeated “tear down paradise...’’ quote. Questioned whether applicant’s plan provides a common-sense approach to development. Stated development could have been designed to accommodate wildlife, but it probably wouldn’t be profitable to the developer. Susan Laird/2516 Pine Meadow Drive—Estes Park resident for 15 years. Stated agreement with everything said so far. Referenced RMNP presentation on sister park in Poland, noting minimum development is allowed close to the Polish park boundary- expressed desire for similar development restrictions. Stated wildlife needs this area; this proposal is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Questioned how much more development can be allowed in order to have the quality of life residents wanted when they moved here. Qn behalf of Dirk and Gwen Knobel/1070 Lexington Lane, who could not be present at the meeting, planning staff displayed two PowerPoint presentations provided by the Knobels showing photos of elk. Chair Hull closed the meeting to public comment at 3:15. Commissioner Tucker requested Town Board Liaison Homeier convey the size of today’s message from the public to the Town Trustees, stating this is the way a community should act when the community feels strongly. He encouraged public attendance at all Town Board meetings to talk about these things in general, stating that’s how Trustees make decisions. He stated the planning staff applies the development code as it is written today. The developer has done due diligence to create an attractive, functional design. He stated his belief that the proposed development will have an impact on wildlife. There is a need to figure out what Estes Park will look like in the future. He stated the Planning Commission could not rewrite the development code today. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to protect wildlife while figuring out the bigger picture. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 November 20, 2007 Commissioner Kitchen stated her belief in property rights. Landowners should be able to do with their properties what is legal and beneficial to them, with the hope that it will not infringe upon others’ rights extremely. She pointed out that no one has discussed the dilemma of elk overpopulation. A conservation plan for wildlife was not requested by the CDOW. Neighboring property owners enjoy the open land but the property is zoned for just what the developer is requesting. The applicant has met the requirements of the EVDC and Planning Commissioners must follow the guidelines of the EVDC. Commissioner Tucker noted the Planning Commission had recently voted to disapprove a proposed development plan based on levels of disturbance to trees and stated his belief that levels of disturbance also apply to life. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Grant) to DISAPPROVE Development Plan 07- 13, Wapiti Crossing Condominiums, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, based on the significant impact to the wildiife, and the motion passed. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Grant, Huii, Tucker. Those voting against: Kitchen. Chair Hull stated she lives north of the Good Samaritan development, which includes corridors for elk migration. She has never seen the elk use those corridors. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Chair Huii adjourned the meeting at 3:27 p.m. Betty HufiTChair Julie R6ederer,^ecordinfl Secretary