Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-01-16RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 16, 2007,1:30 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Chair Pohl; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, and Klink Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent:Town Attorney White Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and welcomed Commissioner Grant to the Planning Commission. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated December 19, 2006, It was moved and seconded (Hull/Eisenlauer) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Amos nominated Commissioner Hull for Chair. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Klink. There being no further nominations. Commissioner Hull was elected Chair by acclamation. Commissioner Klink nominated Commissioner Eisenlauer for Vice-Chair. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Hull. There being no^ further nominations. Commissioner Eisenlauer was elected Vice-Chair by acclamation. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) that the Community Development Department Secretary or designee be appointed as Recording Secretary. There being no further nominations, the Community Development Department Secretary or designee was appointed by acclamation. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Director Joseph stated information and public comment on proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code short-term rental policies have been presented at the last three Planning Commission meetings. He welcomed anyone present to provide further comment to the Planning Commission. None spoke. He stated the proposed changes are essentially on hold pending further work by planning staff to produce a more exhaustive analysis of the issues for review by the Town Trustees. He stated his expectation that the analysis will be presented at the next Community Development Committee meeting at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 1, 2006 in the Board Room of Town Hall; this will be the next opportunity for public comment on the issue. Commissioner Hull thanked Chair Pohl for his twenty-three years of volunteer service to the Town, stating he had been a mentor and friend and will be missed as a member of the Planning Commission. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 16, 2007 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, 1150 West Elkhorn Avenue, Appiicant: Real Estate Investment Cet I, LLC Chair Pohl explained that a packet of information had just been provided to the Planning Commission by Carl Towner, representing Real Estate Investment Cet I, LLC. He called a ten-minute recess to allow time for Commissioners to review the information. The meeting reconvened at 1:51 p.m. This proposal was heard and continued at the December 19, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners Amos and Grant recused themselves from participation on this agenda item due to their absence from that meeting. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a proposal to redevelop an existing accommodations site that currently has twenty-six units. The property consists of two lots zoned A-Accommodations, as are most of the surrounding properties. The applicant proposes removal of the existing units and development of twenty-three new units for accommodations and multi-family use. For the proposed development to occur, the two lots must be combined into one via an amended plat, which will also dedicate easements, right-of-way, and so forth. Planning staff recommends requiring recordation of the plat prior to issuance of the first building permit. Two adjoining properties are accessed through the applicant’s property via a road that will be widened to meet current road standards; the entry on Elkhorn Avenue will also be realigned for safety. This road is a private road but will be dedicated as public right-of-way. Dedication of right-of-way on the applicant’s property will also be provided for a portion of a cul-de-sac bulb, which will be shared by neighboring property owners and may be constructed in the future. At the December 19, 2006 meeting. Commissioners and/or staff expressed concern regarding the proposed impervious coverage, building setbacks, and building heights. The proposed plan has since been amended and now meets the following requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): land use, density, impervious coverage, setbacks, and proposed unit heights (the heights will be verified as individual building permits are issued). Planning staff and other affected agency staff originally held a pre-application meeting with the applicant on April 14, 2006 to discuss this development proposal. During the meeting, planning staff expressed concern regarding the extent of site disturbance proposed. Staff reiterated this concern in a follow-up letter on April 19, 2006. Planning staff repeatedly expressed concern with overall site impact and stated disapproval of the plan would be recommended if these concerns were not addressed, including in September 2006 when an incomplete application was submitted and in a letter dated November 6, 2006. Planner Shirk noted that the portion of the site on the north side of Fall River was developed in 1997, prior to the adoption of current development standards, with the removal of only four trees and a portion of a stand of aspens. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan policies state buildings should be located and designed to fit the land, new development should minimize the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Valley, and development impacts within riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains should be minimized. These policies are codified in Section 7.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code, Grading and Site Disturbance Standards. An area in the southwest portion of the development may violate the EVDC standard that prohibits cutting to create benches/pads for development. The applicant proposes extensive and significant overlot grading, and the proposed limits of disturbance cover roughly the entire site with the exception of a small area of non-disturbance near the river corridor. It is staff’s opinion that the proposal does not meet the grading and site disturbance standards required by the EVDC. For instance, the EVDC states that limits of disturbance (LCD) may be multiple and noncontiguous on a site and provides illustration of preferred “pockets” of LCDs. Illlllllllll III RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS i1 Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 16, 2007 The Comprehensive Plan states that development along this highway (Fall River Road) should be minimized to the maximum extent possible. Information provided by the applicant’s engineer indicates the applicant proposes removal of many significant trees, including 52 coniferous trees and 22 deciduous trees. These trees meet the definition of a significant tree as provided in the EVDC. The applicant submitted a report at today’s meeting prepared by Dan Speedlin of A Growing Business, Inc. that conflicts with the numbers provided by his engineer and shows significantly fewer trees will be removed. However, Mr. Speedlin’s definition of significant tree does not coincide with that provided in the EVDC. A number of trees shown on the applicant’s plans as trees to remain are in locations shown on the applicant’s grading plan where either utility line work will damage root zones or cut and/or fill will occur in the location of the trees. Staff recommends that utility lines be placed under driveways where possible in order to preserve trees. Setback requirements for both wetlands and stream-corridor protection apply to this proposal. The applicant proposes adequate screening, including supplementation with native plantings. The proposed stormwater detention ponds have been redesigned to provide native vegetation and meet the Code requirements. Planning staff recommends that each driveway area provide dedicated guest parking. Each unit provides two parking spaces as required by the EVDC; however, not all driveway aprons are deep enough for guests to park in front of the garages. Access may be limited or blocked by inappropriately parked vehicles, which may result in units being inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Also, the garage loading for units 21-23 is designed such that if a vehicle is parked outside one of the garages, access to the other units will be blocked. Staff recommends redesign of this building to address this concern. Three sections of the EVDC require the minimization of curb cuts to the maximum extent possible via the use of shared driveways or other means. Planning staff has recommended the applicant eliminate the two southernmost proposed driveways and load those units from the drives to the north. Planner Shirk corrected information provided in the staff report, stating the applicant will need to bring in fill for the road in the area of the cul-de-sac. Cul-de-sac standards provide for a maximum of 120 vehicle trips per day, which this proposal will exceed. Staff recommends waiving this standard because the applicant could instead create a second access point on Elkhorn Avenue to serve a portion of the units and reduce the trips on the cul-de-sac. However, a second access point on Elkhorn Avenue would create potential traffic hazards. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Town Attorney Greg White, Estes Park Sanitation District, and the Town of Estes Park Building Department and Public Works Department. A letter from adjacent property owners D. Scott and Patty Eldridge, 1130 West Elkhorn Avenue, was received expressing concern about loss of view corridors, substantial loss of trees, an increase in the number of buildings from seven to twenty-three, increase in traffic and noise, loss of wildlife habitat, and potential pollution of Fall River. Two additional adjacent property owners, at 1152 and 1250 West Elkhorn Avenue, verbally expressed their concerns to planning staff regarding the proposed limits of disturbance. The applicant provided letters of support from the property owners at 1152 and 1250 VVest Elkhorn Avenue as part of the packet of information submitted to the Planning Commission at the start of the meeting. Significant changes have been made to the applicant’s proposal since the December 19, 2006 Planning Commission meeting that bring the proposal closer to compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. Redevelopment of the site would increase traffic safety. However, it is the opinion of planning staff that the proposed limits of disturbance exceed that allowed in the development code and staff recommends disapproval of the application. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The submitted application fails to meet Limits of Disturbance Standards set forth in Section 7.2.D, and in Staff’s opinion the grading plan fails to comply with Section 7.2.B3 “Cutting to Create Benches.” RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 16, 2007 2. There are several corrections and changes that could be made conditions of approval. These include: a. Number of driveways and driveway intersection design; b. Lighting plan; c. Refine grading and landscaping plans; d. Off-street parking design; e. Amend LOD to encompass all site work (this was completed with the applicant’s most recent submittal); f. The proposed sediment pond on the north side of the river shows grading in an area where vegetation is to be preserved and should be corrected; g. The proposed sediment pond near the wetlands does not include any grading information and should be corrected; h. The relocated hydrant near the intersection of River Walk Court and Elkhorn Avenue should be shown; i. The existing water line easement in the southeast corner of the lot shall be shown on the development plan; j. The lienholder’s signature should be removed from the development plan; k. The proposed stop sign should include reference to MUTCD standards; l. The correct crosspan widths should be shown; m. Retaining wall materials should be included in the notes section; n. Construction plans should account for root protection as outlined in Appendix D. 3. Staff recommends the southern drives be removed, per Table 4-7 and Appendix D.III.6. 4. The Town will not consider assuming public maintenance of the proposed street until a cul-de-sac has been fully developed. 5. An amended plat will be required to be recorded prior to issuance of any permits. This amended plat will need to account for sewer easement, postal cluster box easement, relocated water line easement, and right-of-way dedication. 6. The development plan is not consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Development Code. 7. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver to Appendix D.II.E2 “Number of Vehicle Trips Per Day” because reducing the number of access points on West Elkhorn Avenue advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC (minimize drives) and would result in superior engineering (fewer drives on an arterial street). 8. Construction plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any permits. 9. The applicant should review the Staff report and development code for all requirements, such as construction barrier fencing, timing of utility installation, as-built drawings, etc. 10. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 11. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the development plan. Per Section 3.2.F, appeals to the Planning Commission decision may be made to the Town Board. Due to noncompliance with Limits of Disturbance and Grading standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code, Staff recommends disapproval of Development Plan 06- OS “River View Pines.” Discussion followed among Commissioners and planning staff, and is summarized as follows. The EVDC defines significant trees by their diameter at breast height. Significant conifers are eight inches or greater; significant deciduous trees are four inches or greater. Concerns regarding disturbance to riparian habitats relate to proposed installation of sewer mains along the river corridor. Concerns regarding visual impact and the view from the highway corridor relate to the number of trees proposed to be rerrioved. The Fall River corridor is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area with uniquely desirable visual characteristics and an important area to resident and visitor experiences because it is a corridor to the national park. There are a variety of policies in the Comprehensive Plan to protect the natural appearance of this corridor, including providing for development that consists of small, residential cabins “tucked in” among native vegetation along the stream RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 16, 2007 corridor. There may be a few significant trees on the site that should be removed due to lightning or insect damage. Pubiic Comment: Carl Towner, representing Real Estate Investment Get I, LLC, provided a visual presentation to the Planning Commission. He requested assistance from the recording secretary in setting up his laptop computer; minutes reflecting that portion of the meeting are taken from the audio recording of the meeting. Mr. Towner noted the EVDC recommends removal of trees that pose a threat to public safety. He stated the EVDC does not require provision of parking for parties. If proposed units on the south side of the river were “bottom-loaded” (to meet staff’s recommendation of removal of the southern driveways), congestion would be compounded. Providing “tucked in” units along the Fall River corridor is not a requirement of the EVDC. The proposed development is on the west end of Elkhorn Avenue, not on the main road to the national park. The existing units on the site are modular homes from 1997 and do not have garages. Proposed removal of trees would allow the new units to have garages. Trees add value to the property and he will take care to protect root zones of trees. Mr. Towner stated he had contacted all adjoining property owners but one. He read a letter of support signed by neighboring property owners Jon and Paula Bryson, stated he has the support of Deer Crest Resort, and quoted from a letter of support signed by neighboring property owner Michelle LeClerc. He rebutted issues raised in a letter received by planning staff from neighboring property owners D. Scott and Patty Eldridge, and stated that a portion of the Four Seasons Inn (owned by the Eldridges) encroaches onto his property. He stated only 2,000 square feet of the 4.35-acre property is untouched by previous development. He addressed issues raised in current and previous staff reports, stating unit design has changed to save as many trees as possible, impervious coverage is less than the maximum allowed by the EVDC, building heights comply with standards, other approved developments have more extensive grading for benching than that requested in this proposal and the proposal does not violate EVDC Section 7.2, and based on Mr. Speedlin’s report on significant trees, 39 trees would be “declassified” as significant trees and only nine significant trees would be removed. Mr. Towner stated all significant issues raised by planning staff have been addressed and requested approval of the proposed development plan. Discussion followed among the Commissioners, planning staff, and Mr. Towner, summarized as follows. Trees. Staff requested several months ago that the applicant provide a report on significant trees to aid with design and evaluation of the site. Mr. Speedlin’s report was prepared on January 11, 2007 and could not have influenced site planning. The Estes Valley Development Code specifically defines significant trees. Many of the significant trees recommended for removal by Mr. Speedlin are listed because of their proximity to existing buildings; however, the applicant intends to remove all existing buildings from the site. Damage to root zones of trees designated to be saved may result in loss of those trees. Access. Access to units 8-12, 13-16, and 21-23 may be blocked, particularly access to adjoining units’ garages, if a vehicle is parked outside the garage of any of these units. Commissioners expressed general concern about access for owners, guests, and/or emergency vehicles. Wildlife. Extensive grading proposed by the applicant may negatively impact wildlife. Other. Chair Pohl expressed concern that the applicant, over the last ten months, received repeated suggestions by planning staff and warnings from staff that the proposal would be recommended for disapproval, yet did not address staffs’ concerns. Mr. Towner argued that other developments approved by the Planning Commission have greater levels of site disturbance than his proposal. Mike Todd of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. In regard to staff’s opinion that the development is not designed to meet the Comprehensive Plan requirement to “fit the land,” he stated the project was designed to fit the existing terraces on the site. He stated the plan will not impact the visual corridor along Fall River. He stated that between the right-of-way and setbacks, there is a small area left to work in and the applicant is attempting to save a significant number of trees. The grading plan does show grading close to trees and a retaining wall to allow top-loading of ■RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 16, 2007 some units. He noted Planner Shirk had amended a statement in the staff report relating to the slope for the cul-de-sac—the slope will be changed from 12% to 9% and will create a better cul-de-sac. Although the proposed guest parking could be improved, it meets the requirements of the EVDC. Condominium declarations could require residents to park inside garages. The southern driveways that staff recommends be removed should be retained so congestion is not increased and access can be provided off the cul-de-sac. Mr. Todd expressed concern about a condition of approval for the amended plat (which was approved but not acted upon and has since lapsed), stating the water line easement can not be vacated until the line is relocated, and the line can not be relocated until the development plan is approved. He listed benefits to the community provided by this proposed development, including the bike path, improved access to adjoining lots, and installation of new sewer and water mains. He noted existing development on the applicant’s property has already impacted the site. He stated the issues have come down to the proposed limits of disturbance and proposed removal of trees—these have been issues from the beginning. There are a total of 219 trees on the site; removal of 80 is proposed. At the River’s Edge development, 83 out of 288 trees were removed from the site. He referred to Mr. Speedlin’s report and to contact with Tony Simons, Larimer County’s wildfire hazard expert, who approximated ten to fifteen trees should be removed due to fire hazard. He stated they would attempt to save trees that could be saved. Discussion followed among the Commissioners, planning staff, and Mr. Todd. Commissioners Klink and Hull expressed concern about the location of guest parking. In response to questions from Commissioner Kitchen, Mr. Todd provided proposed heights of various retaining walls; none exceed six feet. Director Joseph quoted from EVDC Section 7.5.D.2, which states that existing trees shall be incorporated into the landscape to the maximum extent feasible and states root zones of existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. He questioned Mr. Todd whether an analysis of the proposed plans had been done to ensure these requirements were met. Mr. Todd answered, “No.” Chair Pohl called a recess at 4:07 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 4:16 p.m. Adjoining property owners D. Scott and Patty Eldridge, owners of the Four Seasons Inn at 1130 West Elkhorn Avenue, stated they are not opposed to the development plan but listed a variety of concerns, including the proposed location of units 19 and 20, impact on the views for their guests and for their personal residence, loss of grazing area for elk, increased dust and noise with no mitigation plan, loss of trees and view corridor along Fall River, potential loss of income, and increased density. They stated their willingness to work together with the applicant. Adjoining property owners Jon and Paula Bryson, 1152 West Elkhorn Avenue, stated their support of the proposed development and noted their concerns about trees near the bridge creating a sight-visibility hazard for traffic and pedestrians. They stated the proposed retaining walls are necessary to meet the objective of providing a safer access road and that new landscaping on the property would be welcomed. Mr. Towner expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission. Chair Pohl noted that the decision-making body for this application is the Planning Commission; the decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Town Board of Trustees. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Pohl) to disapprove Development Plan 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, due to the number of significant trees proposed to be removed, the lack of safe guest parking areas, and non-compliance with Limits of Disturbance and Grading standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code, as outlined in the staff report and findings, and the motion passed unanimously with two abstaining. Commissioner Kitchen stated she had voted in favor of disapproval only because of her concern about inadequate parking. JH RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 January 16, 2007 5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT and REZONING, Stonebridge Subdivision, Metes and Bounds, 1043 Fish Creek Road, Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Commissioner Kitchen recused herself from participating on this item. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a proposal to subdivide a 4.9-acre parcel located on the west side of Fish Creek Road into three lots. The northernmost lot, proposed Lot 1, would contain the existing Van Horn Engineering office building. The applicant proposes to rezone this lot from RM-Multi-Family Residential to O-Office at the request of planning staff, thus accurately reflecting its current and proposed future use. Lot 2 would be 1.594 acres in size and Lot 3 would be 2.741 acres; both would retain their current zoning of RM-Multi-Family Residential. Prior to the Valley-wide rezoning iri 2000, the property was zoned for commercial use, which also allowed multi-family-residential development. The applicant may submit a development plan proposal for the site for Planning Commission review in March or April. Planning staff recommends that some review issues be delayed until the development plan and/or final plat submittal is received. Planner Shirk stated the most pertinent issue is the right-of-way width. The property is located inside Town limits and the Town Board of Trustees is the decision-making body for the subdivision plat. However, the property is adjacent to Fish Creek Road, which is a county road. Larimer County regulations regarding right-of-way width apply to this property. The applicant will appear before the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners on February 20, 2007 to request a waiver to the road right-of-way width standards. The applicant has submitted a preliminary drainage plan and has indicated an intention to augment the wetlands along Fish Creek. Review of the final drainage plan, as well as required landscaping and buffers, will occur when the development plan and/or final plat application is submitted. Wetlands expert Darcy Tiglas has identified two wetlands areas on the property. One is a fringe wetland along Fish Creek. The second is a small wetlands community on the southern portion of the site. Ms. Tiglas believes this wetland was created by a blocked culvert that was meant to drain from the east side of Fish Creek Road onto the applicant’s property. If water flowed through the culvert as designed, this small area of wetlands would not exist. The applicant proposes to remove this wetland and replace it by augmenting the wetlands along Fish Creek. Wetlands setback requirements apply to this property. Because the wetland along Fish Creek is a fringe wetland, planning staff recommends the thirty-foot stream corridor setback apply rather than the fifty-foot wetlands setback. Utilities are in place to serve the property. A new sewer main will be installed by the applicant parallel to the existing main. The applicant will also install a new water main, which will run the length of the property along Fish Creek Road. There is a private water line crossing the property from west to east; this line serves properties to the north along the east side of Fish Creek Road. The applicant proposes to remove this private water line but must obtain permission from the owners of the line to do so. If this does not take place, planning staff recommends that a twenty-foot-wide easement be dedicated for the line. Recommended condition of approval #12 has been added to address this issue. The Larimer County Assessor’s records indicate that a small portion of property on the east side of Fish Creek Road is a portion of the applicant’s property. A letter has been submitted by William Van Horn, Trustee for Paul H. Van Horn Trust, owner of the property, stating the property on the east side of Fish Creek Road is not owned by the Trust and is not included in the Stonebridge development. It is the opinion of planning staff that the land is a portion of the former Fish Creek Road right-of-way and dates from the realignment of the road in the 1950s. Staff recommends that this discrepancy be addressed to the satisfaction of the Larimer County Assessor’s office prior to submittal of the final plat. Planner Shirk reviewed the findings and recommendations as shown in the staff report and added a 9th finding, as follows: The preliminary plat does not include the submitted grading plan. The grading plan will be reviewed with the development plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 16, 2007 8 This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. With the exception of the Fish Creek Road right-of-way width, no significant concerns issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Comments were received from Larimer County Engineering, Town Attorney White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Larimer County Assessor’s office, and the Town of Estes Park Light and Power, Building Safety, and Public Works departments. Written comments in opposition to the request were received from neighboring property owners John Poulos, 1805 Powelly Lane, and William B. and Marguerite R. Paynter, 810 Fish Creek Road. Planning staff recommends approval of the request. Public Comment: Frank Theis, CMS Planning and Development, was present to represent the applicant and property owners. He stated their agreement with all recommended conditions of approval except condition #12 regarding the private water line easement. Bill Van Horn stated his family currently owns the property. He stated his concern that owners of the private water line would use staff’s recommended condition #12 as a lever to restrict development of the property. No easement exists for the line and he does not want to grant an easement. He requested relief from condition #12. Following further discussion between Mr. Van Horn, planning staff, and Acting Public Works Director Bob Goehring, Mr. Van Horn agreed to condition #12, providing the easement is provisional and would revert to the property owner if the private water line is relocated or abandoned. Director Joseph stated that planning staff would need to review and approve the proposed easement language prior to Town Board action on this proposal. Mr. Van Horn agreed. Bob Trump, 830 Fish Creek Road, stated he is a member of the association that owns the private water line. He submitted written comments to the Planning Commission and agreed that many of his concerns would be more appropriately addressed when the development plan is reviewed. Jan Verschuur, 2361 S. St. Vrain Avenue, stated although he does not live on Fish Creek Road, he often uses the Fish Creek corridor, including the pedestrian trail. He stated that the Fish Creek area has uniquely desirable visual qualities and the development of twenty- four condominium units in this location will detract from the area rather than enhance it. He expressed concerns about development impact to the wetlands on the site. Chair Pohl provided clarification on the subdivision of land versus development plan proposals. He noted that approval of a subdivision does not guarantee approval of a development plan for the property. Commissioner Amos moved to extend the meeting beyond the 5:00 p.m. ending time in order to complete the review of this proposal. He noted the importance of preserving the meeting end time of 5:00 p.m. whenever possible. Commissioner Klink seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision request for Stonebridge Subdivision, Metes and Bounds, 1043 Fish Creek Road, and to recommend approval of the request for Rezoning from RM-Multi-Family Residential to O-Office for proposed Lot 1, Stonebridge Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and with the applicant’s agreement that language to meet required condition #12 regarding the private water line easement will be reviewed by the Town Attorney, and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Kitchen abstaining. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of the proposed right-of-way width modification from the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. 2. The proposed open space area shall be graphically delineated on the final plat. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission January 16, 2007 3.The wetlands and associated setbacks on proposed Lot 3 shall be protected from development through limits of disturbance unless the applicant submits a specific plan delineating how these wetlands will be replaced and how the riparian corridor will be enhanced. This plan shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to final plat application. Development of these lots shall require each unit to have individually dedicated service lines for sanitary sewer. All utilities (including fire hydrants) and required landscaping shall be accounted for with the final plat unless a development plan for Lots 2 and 3 is submitted for concurrent review with the final plat. Compliance with memo from Town Attorney White dated December 15, 2006, with the exception of comment #4. Compliance with memo from Light and Power dated December 19, 2006. Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated December 22, 2006. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Public Works dated January 8, 2007. 10. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Water Department dated December 18,2006. 11. The discrepancy between the Larimer County Assessor’s office and the property owner’s claims of ownership for property located on the east side of Fish Creek Road shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Larimer County Assessor’s office prior to final plat submittal. 12. The private water line crossing the property shall be placed in a twenty-foot easement unless abandoned prior to submittal of the final plat. Said easement shall automatically become null and void if the water line is abandoned. REZONING CONDITION: 1. Recordation of the final plat. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 5:11 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary