HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2007-02-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 20, 2007,1:30 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii
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, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and
Tucker
Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Recording
Secretary Roederer
Commissioner Amos, Director Joseph
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. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated January 16, 2007.
b. Request for Continuance to April 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting —
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, KEARNEY MINOR SUBDIVISION, A Portion of
Lot 12, South Saint Vrain Addition, Kearney and Sons Excavating, LLC/Applicant
c. AMENDED PLAT, Boundary Line Adjustment for the Metes & Bounds property
located at 651 Laurel Lane in unincorporated Larimer County, CO, J. Rocksey
and Jacquelynn Powell/Appiicant — Request to change the existing boundary
line between two lots from a north-south orientation to an east-west orientation
At the request of adjacent property owner Kris O’Neil, item “C” was removed from the
consent agenda and will be reviewed as an action item.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) that items “A” and “B” of the consent
agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Court, provided a letter to the Planning Commissioners and
read it for the record. He stated he was present on behalf of homeowners in Fall River
Estates to express disappointment and frustration regarding “The Celtic Lady’s Mountain
Retreat,” a home used for short-term nightly rentals in their neighborhood. He also
expressed concern about a recently constructed model home at 1050 Fall River Court.
Planner Shirk stated the Town’s Community Development Committee will again review
information on short-term nightly rentals at their meeting on March 1, 2007. Planning staff
is currently reviewing the use classification of the model home.
3. AMENDED PLAT, Boundary Line Adjustment for the Metes & Bounds property
located at 651 Laurel Lane in unincorporated Larimer County, CO, Applicant: J.
Rocksey and Jacquelynn Powell
Planner Shirk provided a brief summary of the staff report. The applicants own two lots and
wish to change the orientation of the property line between the two lots from a north-south
orientation to an east-west orientation. The lot that currently fronts Laurel Lane contains a
single-family dwelling; the second lot is undeveloped but is a legal, buildable lot.
Reorientation of the property line would provide access for the undeveloped lot directly
Ill 111 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
February 20,2007
onto Laurel Lane, eliminating the need for an access easement across the developed lot.
The proposal does not create any additional impact on the neighborhood.
Public Comment:
Adjoining property owners Tom and Kris O’Neil, 702 Tanager Road, stated they have no
issue with changing the lot line but are concerned about whether the applicant’s southern
property line (as shown on the plat) matches with their northern property line. They
requested verification of receipt of the survey they filed with Larimer County approximately
a year ago and verification that the property boundary shown by the applicant is in
agreement with that shown on their survey. Planner Shirk stated Larimer County staff will
do a thorough survey review and will verify the plat submitted by the applicant meets
county requirements and is correct. He will provide the O’Neils with contact information for
Larimer County staff. He also noted a utility easement will be placed over the existing
water service line that crosses the applicant’s property.
Adjoining property owner Michael Allen, 630 Tanager Road, questioned whether the
undeveloped lot would be zoned for multi-family development and whether the size of the
building on the lot would be limited. He stated his dissatisfaction with the proposed
boundary line adjustment due to concern that a large house will be built on the property
and concern about the water resources being strained to an unacceptable level. Planner
Shirk stated the applicant has not requested rezoning of the lot (it is currently zoned E-1-
Estate)] neighboring property owners will be notified if such a request is made in the future.
The Estes Valley Development Code does not limit the size of a single-family residence
that may be built on the lot aside from the setback requirements and building height limit. A
home could be built on the vacant lot in its current configuration but would require removal
of significant trees. Approval of the boundary line adjustment would most likely result in
any future residence being located farther from the Allen’s property line than under the
current lot configuration.
It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Klink) to recommend approval of the Amended
Plat for the Metes and Bounds property located at 651 Laurel Lane to the Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
CONDITIONS:
1. Compliance with the memo from Town Attorney White dated January 24, 2007.
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW, GROCERY / RETAIL CENTER, Intersection of Highway 7
and Manford Avenue, Applicant: The Mulhern Group, Ltd.
Planner Shirk stated this concept plan is being presented to the Estes Valley Planning
Commission as an informational item to allow local residents and members of the Planning
Commission an opportunity to provide preliminary evaluation and comments on a concept
for redevelopment of the property at the corner of Highway 7 and Manford Avenue. No
action is required at this time. The six-acre site is zoned CO-Commercial Outlying;
redevelopment of the site is proposed to include a 50,000-square-foot grocery store, a fuel
center, and a 5,000-square-foot pad site for commercial retail use. No rezoning would be
required for the proposed use. The lumberyard and other existing uses on the site are
expected to be relocated by the developer to a new location in Estes Park. Planning staff
received a phone call from Jacqueline Miller, owner of one of the properties shown on the
concept plan as a portion of the development. Ms. Miller stated she does not intend to sell
the property and voiced strong opposition to the concept plan.
Public Comment:
Steve Loos of the Mulhern Group, Ltd. stated he is working with Loftus Development, Inc.
on this project: they are actively working on the acquisition of properties for the
development. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether preliminary traffic studies have
been conducted, particularly in regard to traffic on Manford Avenue. Mr. Loos stated the
studies are being conducted but are not yet complete.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
February 20, 2007
Marsha and Ken Hobart stated they manage the property owned by Jacquelyn Miller and
Luetta VerStraeten, who have indicated that under no circumstances would the property
be up for sale nor do they wish to relocate the businesses currently on their property.
Paul Kuna, 1050 S. St. Vrain, questioned where the lumberyard would be relocated if the
plans move forward and expressed concern about possible rezoning of a formerly
considered new location for the lumberyard across from Eagle’s Landing Condominiums.
Chair Hull reiterated that no action on the grocery/retail center concept plan will be taken
by the Planning Commission at this time.
5. MASTER PLAN, YMCA OF THE ROCKIES ESTES PARK CENTER,
Parcel Identification Numbers 3404106001, 3404200022, 3404300032, 3404400064,
3404200022, 34050000022, 3405000024, 3409100001, 3409100028, 3409200006,
3404200022, 3409100001, 3404400064, 3409100028, 3404300032, 3410000013,
3400000014, 3404306006, 34043060
2515 Tunnei Road, Applicant: YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report, stating this is a request for approval of a master
plan for the YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center; the plan is intended to provide
guidance for development of the 889-acre YMCA property over the next twenty years. The
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) does not provide specific review criteria for
master plans. Planning staff has evaluated the submitted plan for compliance with
applicable sections of the EVDC such as density, setbacks, stormwater drainage, and
utilities, as well as ridgeline and tree protection standards, wildlife habitat areas, and
wetland/stream corridor protection. If approved, this master plan will provide a template for
review of future development plans for the property and will provide waivers to specific
EVDC sections such as road paving, curb/gutter, and sidewalks.
The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan set forth a goal to adopt a master plan for the
YMCA. Staff believes the overall quality and vision of the proposed master plan is
excellent. The plan concentrates higher levels of development in the core of the site and
redevelops this core as a pedestrian campus; it includes the relocation of existing parking
lots and drives, and development of an open space and a pedestrian system. Planned
development outside the core area includes additional cabins, staff housing, and reunion
cabins. The density proposed by the master plan is approximately 12% of the maximum
density allowed under the EVDC. The maximum occupancy would increase from the
current 4,578 to 5,260—an increase of 647 people.
Planning staff suggests that several code requirements be waived with the understanding
that some additional development standards will be imposed. Suggested waivers to the
EVDC include road and sidewalk paving, development plan review for certain buildings,
and sidewalk along Tunnel Road. Suggested requirements additional to the EVDC include
additional parking-lot landscaping and stricter exterior lighting standards.
Staff recommends waiving sidewalk paving requirements along Tunnel Road (Spur 66)
and along interior sidewalks and roads, except where delineated in the master plan (pg.
24) and where necessary to meet ADA requirements, and suggests the existing and
proposed trail system satisfies the sidewalk requirements of the EVDC. If a formal
easement is recorded or right-of-way dedicated along Tunnel Road, the existing trail along
Tunnel Road would satisfy the trail-system-linkage requirement of the EVDC.
The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan includes a specific planning sub-area for Spur 66,
including the YMCA, and includes a development guideline to protect the YMCA frontage
as open space. The three proposed reunion cabins located along Tunnel Road may not
comply with this guideline. The original draft of the Master Plan proposed additional staff
housing in this area. Neighboring property owners expressed strong opposition to the staff
housing, and the Master Plan was changed to propose reunion cabins in that location.
Planning staff suggests that reunion cabins will result in more concentrated traffic, but for a
shorter period of time than the year-round traffic generated by staff housing. A number of
property owners along Tunnel Road have expressed concern about the impacts of these
proposed reunion cabins. Staff recommends additional information be included in the
master plan regarding the location of these buildings in relation to the road, stream
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
February 20, 2007
corridors, and significant trees. If the proposed location of the buildings meets the limits of
disturbance standards set forth in Section 7.2.D of the EVDC, staff suggests the
Comprehensive Plan guideline could be met if the buildings are set back far enough from
Tunnel Road.
Staff has also reviewed by Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan reviewed by Larimer
County in 1996 (a set of development guidelines) and finds the general concept of the
reunion cabins does not violate any of the guidelines set forth in that plan. Most guidelines
in the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan are site-specific. At this time there is no specific
proposal for the reunion cabins; therefore, a determination can not be made as to whether
the proposed reunion cabins meet limits of disturbance standards. Colorado Division of
Wildlife Officer Rick Spowart left a phone message for staff indicating that there are six or
seven other sites for the reunion cabins on the YMCA property that would have less impact
on wildlife; however, location of the reunion cabins as shown on the Master Plan would not
impact elk movement. He would like to see the aspen stands in that area preserved. An
important issue is the need for bear-proof garbage containers on the YMCA property.
The average slope calculation for the YMCA property is 19%. Planning staff recommends
the Family Cabins Infill area shown in the master plan on page 23 be “tightened” to avoid
areas of steeper slope. Staff supports the landscaping concepts set forth in Section 4.3 of
the master plan. Site-specific landscape plans will be reviewed with future development.
Parking lots will need to be landscaped in accordance with Section 7.5 of the EVDC, which
requires perimeter screening and interior landscaping. Staff recommends that landscaping
in parking lot interiors exceed the maximum planting requirements as defined by the
EVDC. Staff further recommends the applicant use the preferred planting list found in the
EVDC and utilize large-spread shade trees to maximize visual coverage of parking lots.
All development, including the proposed realignment of Mountainside Drive, will be subject
to stream and wetland setback requirements. Future development and redevelopment will
be subject to lighting standards set forth in Section 7.9 of the EVDC, and must be shielded
and downcast. Staff recommends that no parking lot lighting exceed fifteen feet in height
rather than the 25-foot height allowed by the EVDC, that bollard-style lighting be used for
pedestrian areas, and that the overall lighting plan be developed within one year of master
plan approval. Entry lighting should be addressed first.
Staff supports the parking lot concept presented in the master plan and recommends the
YMCA consider a shuttle bus system to help minimize traffic on Tunnel Road/Spur 66. The
following roads (including parking lots) that serve new lodges will need to be paved to
applicable current standards concurrent with development: Friendship Lane, Kallenberg
Drive, Mesa Drive, and Mountainside Drive. All other roads should be exempt from the
paving requirements set forth in Section 7.12 of the EVDC. Staff suggests Mountainside
Drive be paved to county standards up to the point of the proposed new alignment. From
that point on. Mountainside Drive would need to be built to rural road standards set forth in
the Larimer County Road Manual, Appendix G. The realignment must ensure there will be
no negative impact on stream/wetland corridors and will need to be reviewed by the
Larimer County Engineering department prior to construction. Approval of the master plan
does not indicate approval to rebuild Mountainside Drive in the proposed location.
The traffic impact analysis presented with the master plan indicates the warrant for a
dedicated right-turn lane off Tunnel Road into the YMCA grounds has already been met.
(CDOT standards require a turn lane when there are 25 right turns per hour; there are
currently 130 turns per hour.) Larimer County staff is willing to allow the construction of up
to five additional cabins before requiring turn lane construction. Staff recommends the turn
lane be installed with any development that increases traffic into the YMCA grounds, such
as additional conference or sleeping facilities. Traffic signage must meet MUTCD
standards. All buildings should be addressed in accordance with Larimer County
addressing policies.
The YMCA provides its own water treatment facilities. The YMCA submitted information
which indicates that adequate water rights to support the proposed additional development
shown in the Master Plan are available. Town Attorney White reviewed this information
and has indicated that it appears the water rights are adequate. Sanitary sewer service is
provided by Upper Thompson Sanitation District, which has stated the interior collection
system will need to be studied to determine if it can carry additional flows. Provision of a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 20,2007
second source of electric power should be completed prior to any additional development.
Staff recommends the YMCA formalize evacuation and fire mitigation plans prior to
additional development. The master plan includes a well-formulated stormwater
management plan. Only those stormwater facilities necessary to serve specific future
development will be required at the time development takes place.
This request was submitted 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 Light and Power Department, Upper Thompson
Sanitation District, Rocky Mountain National Park, and Larimer County Engineering
Department. Thirteen letters or emails were received from neighboring property owners
whose comments focus on concerns about development along Tunnel Road/Spur 66.
Because not enough information has been provided at this time, approval of the master
plan does not include approval or disapproval to locate any development along the Tunnel
Road frontage. Any future development in that area shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission. Limits of disturbance standards will be reviewed
when the development is proposed.
Public Comment:
Kent Meyer, President of the YMCA of the Rockies, provided background information
about the YMCA of the Rockies. He stated the proposed master plan is a 20-year plan
developed in conjunction with EDAW, an international design group that has created
development plans for areas within Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks and other
sensitive natural areas. The proposed master plan envisions the growth of programming at
the YMCA property with very little growth in the numbers of people who will utilize the site
and is geared toward “best practice” principles of management of the property.
Mark Holdt, YMCA Vice President, provided a visual presentation. His comments are
summarized as follows:
• The proposed 20-year master plan is intended to improve the visitor experience
and was created with care and concern for the environment.
• The plan provides guidance for future development but does not identify any
immediate projects. Development will occur in phases as funding becomes
available.
A number of older buildings will be removed to make room for new buildings.
The plan provides for improved traffic and pedestrian circulation. Some current
roads are proposed to be removed. There will be a separate entrance route for
services/deliveries.
Maintenance services and buildings will be consolidated and located “behind” the
core area of the site.
The locations of activity centers such as family programming, family sports, family
conference lodges, etc. will be grouped together.
Signage, access, trails, pedestrian safety, and the aesthetics of the grounds will be
improved. There will be dedicated green space.
Everything proposed in the master plan is consistent with the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan and the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan.
No variances are requested.
Current zoning would allow development of 13,753 hotel rooms or 3,111 individual
cabins. The plan does not maximize the density allowed by the zoning. The total
number of buildings will increase by a total of 12.3%; total guest and staff rooms
increase by 11%; total maximum occupancy will increase by 648 people, or 15%.
The YMCA has requested that Larimer County allow five cabins to be built prior to
requiring construction of the right-turn lane into the YMCA property. This is to allow
time to work out funding for construction of the turn lane concurrent with
construction of the service road and redesign of the entry onto the property.
The applicant is in agreement with all conditions of approval recommended by
planning staff.
Chair Hull called a recess at 3:11 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:24 p.m.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
February 20, 2007
Phil Hendrix, Landscape Architect from EDAW, provided a visual presentation and
overview of the proposed master plan. Additional information presented is summarized as
follows:
• Current development of the property shows a lack of land-use patterns.
• Existing development is already condensed. Infill areas for family cabins have been
identified, although specific sites will be determined individually as development
occurs.
• Open space will be protected into the future.
• There are many existing trails on the property. The YMCA wishes to work with
Rocky Mountain National Park to continue trail connections into the Park, as well as
creating future connections to the Estes Valley trail system.
• The Mountainside area will continue to be used for small groups, reunions,
weddings, etc. The applicant intends to preserve the historic, natural characteristics
of that area.
• The area adjacent to Glacier Creek will be used for nature education; a new nature
center is proposed for that area.
• The road in front of the administration building will be removed. Existing roads will
be used as a loop road around the core area, creating a strong pedestrian
environment within the core area. Intersections will be realigned for safety.
tPalr,<'sky‘compliant’’ ,'9hting, such as that used within national parks, will be used
• Parking areas will be consolidated and will include large landscape islands
vehicfes.Pin9 Wl11 mit,9ate 9'are 'nt0 R°Cky Mountain National Park andPwill screen
• Storm drainage and erosion control has been addressed in the master olan
necessarily where they wil|Pbe built. W 6re thG reunion cabins w'll fit well, not
the cabins and could0L<Slylmeet orasurpass ahou,d easi|y accommodate
in mapped wildlife habitat or in sensitive arpaT t h f dlsturbance standards. It is not
Plan. Each cabin requires approxima el ,nft.he Spur 66 Man^gement
parking. The proposed cabins ru,7en^oi^^LT^ ?f ,and f0r the bui,din9 and
seven-acre site. The cabins rniiH u 1-5 t0 two acres ,and out of the Road. Cab,ns cou,d be located approximately 150 feet off Tunned
Chair Hull reiterated Mr. Shirk’s statempnt-
provided at this time, approval of the master DlanCrinoc n°t.e';0U9h informa«on has been
to locate any development along the Tunnel Rond nnni ":c u<^e aPPr°val or disapproval
rea sflall bs subject to review and
„on the master plan but expresses 2y°7’ Whlch commends the YMCA for wnrk
Road). She expressed « ®c?rn !bo^ ^bfOUon t0 dev®lopment along Sp“ 66 (TuZLi
vegetation and wildlife, requested me YMrAPnP0Sed reUnion cabins? impacfon ama
open-space corridor surrounding their propertv anT6 3 conse,vation easement for the
r^ntf^lrm^Xhllf^Adio!ninber 1' 20°6 a^ainSt *®l°Pto®nt of '^^Pr^osed stafrhoustogealong Sp'ur^e^3 eSdr
YMCA Smta-06™eateTe entosed^ s,ated ba has been a
lack of environmental stewardship He DroviripHyLaCC°ri?in9 to Mr' M|chener), and in their
contentions. He expressed grelt concL St toe rmber °f examPles ,0 aaPPort thefe
of the proposed reunion cabins along Tunnel Hold nv'ronmen,al imPaots of development
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 20, 2007
Bill Lamm, “Holy Hill” property owner (2260 Cliff Road), expressed concern about the
visual impact of the proposed reunion cabins. He encouraged the YMCA to enter into a
conservation easement for that area of their property to protect open space, scenic views,
and wildlife habitat.
Gail Johnson, “Holy Hill” property owner; echoed the previous comments and stated the
“bubbles” shown on the Spur 66 Management Plan to reflect sensitive wildlife areas should
not be viewed as perfect or written in stone. She noted there is beaver activity and nesting
goshawks in areas outside the wildlife areas shown in the management plan. She stated
5,000-square-foot buildings are not “cabins.”
Scott Cast, “Holy Hill” property owner (2610/2680 Terrace Lane), stated he concurred with
Bill Lamm’s remarks. He stated the Planning Commission would be remiss to approve the
proposed master plan with the reunion cabins adjacent to Spur 66 and encouraged
approval of the plan without them.
John Wood, legal council for YMCA, stated the staff findings are neutral regarding
development of the reunion cabins along Spur 66. He requested continuance of the
application to allow the YMCA to provide site-specific information if the Planning
Commission was inclined to make other than a neutral finding. He reiterated that the
master plan is conceptual in nature and is not a development plan.
Further discussion followed between Planning Commissioners, staff, Mr. Holdt, Mr. Meyer,
and Ms. Beidleman. Mr. Holdt stated current work on the three-year process of developing
a conservation easement for the YMCA property at Snow Mountain Ranch takes
precedence, but the YMCA is open to further discussions regarding a conservation
easement on the Estes Park property. Planner Shirk pointed out that four property owners
on the list of 130 who signed the petition against the development of staff housing along
Tunnel Road have received variances to build closer to the road. Commissioner Klink
noted that some of the petitioners have some of the most visible residences in the Estes
Valley. Ms. Beidleman stated a number of the petitioners live out of state but own property
in the area. Commissioners expressed the opinion that the proposed master plan is well
received except for possible development of the reunion cabins along Tunnel Road. Holdt
and Meyer stated the YMCA desires to provide reunion cabins in a variety of settings and
would like to keep options for future development of the cabins open.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the Master
Plan for YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center, 2515 Tunnel Road, to the Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff and with particular emphasis on finding #7, and the motion
passed unanimousiy with one absent.
FINDINGS:
1 This is a request for a master plan outlining future development of the YMCA of The
Rockies Estes Park Center and includes waivers to several code standards such as
curb/gutter and paving standards. It also includes additional restrictions to code
standards such as outdoor lighting. Future development will be subject to standards
set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code.
With the exception of specific waivers subject to approval of the Board of County
Commissioners, the development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth
in the Estes Valley Development Code.
The Master Plan is consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Estes
Valley Plan.
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment.
This is a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners (who need to approve various waivers).
Approval of this plan provides a three-year vesting period pursuant to Article 68 of Title
24, C.R.S. The YMCA may request subsequent vesting period extensions with review
by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and approval of the Larimer County Board
of County Commissioners.
Because not enough information has been provided at this time, approval of this
master plan does not include approval or disapproval to locate any development along
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 20, 2007
8
the Tunnel Road frontage. Any future development In that area shall be subject to
review and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Commission.
CONDITiONS:
1. Future development shall comply with the approved Master Plan. Future plan
amendments shall be presented to the Estes Valley Planning Commission for review.
Staff shall be authorized to review minor plan revisions pursuant to Section 3.7 of the
Estes Valley Development Code.
2. With the exception of waivers outlined below, development shall comply with the
provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code and other applicable codes.
3. The YMCA of the Rockies shall present a report to the Estes Valley planning staff on a
yearly basis (YMCA shall be responsible for scheduling this meeting in January or
February). This report shall include a summary of the previous year’s development
activity, as well as intentions for the coming year. The purpose of this report is to
ensure a high level of communication, and allow the Estes Valley Staff to inform the
YMCA of development requirements such as changes to the Estes Valley
Development Code and review timeframes to minimize delays in processing building
permits and/or development plans.
4. Development plans shall not be required for the following development, as delineated
in the Master Plan; entry features, replacement cabins, maintenance facilities,
guest/family cabins, outdoor chapels, picnic/cookout shelters, restrooms/shower
facilities, human resources complex, gathering spaces, or other small projects that do
not individually exceed 2,000 square feet.
Building and/or grading permits shall be required, and shall be subject to review
and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Staff and applicable Larimer County Staff
(such as engineering, building, and health). Staff recommends the YMCA meet with
planning staff prior to beginning design to discuss requirements.
Staff reserves the right to require a development plan for individual projects should
it be determined a building permit application does not contain adequate information to
review for compliance with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code
At such time that Mountainside Drive is re-aligned, it shall be designed and paved to
county road standards up the point of the proposed new alignment. From that point on
up the hill. Mountainside Drive shall be built to rural standards set forth in the Larimer
County Road Manual (adequate width, crown, ditch sections, and road base; no
paving or curb/gutter). The proposed alignment of Mountainside Drive shall be subject
to review and approval of Staff to ensure proper stream setbacks are maintained and
engineering standards—including Best Management Practice standards for
drainage—are met.
Curb and gutter shall not be required for roads, unless necessitated by stormwater
management requirements or sidewalks. Roadside drainage swales shall meet
Larimer County standards or other, as approved by the Larimer County Enqineerino
Department. a
Photometric studies shall be included with all parking lot proposals. No parking lot
lighting shall exceed fifteen feet in height.
Bollard-style lighting shall be used for any proposed lighting of pedestrian areas.
9. Staff recommends all existing outdoor lighting not necessary for security and/or safety
purposes be turned off during non-operating hours.
10. Future cabin development and redevelopment shall be coordinated with the Trails
Master Plan.
11. Paved sidewalks shall not be required along Spur 66 and interior streets and roads
except as delineated on the Land Use Master Plan (p. 25). Staff shall be authorized to
approve alternative sidewalk materials such as pavers or finely crushed rock. Any
alternative materials shall provide for ADA accessibility.
12. Parking lot interiors shall exceed the minimum planting requirements for parking lot
interiors by twenty percent. For example, where the EVDC requires ten trees in a
parking lot, twelve shall be required.
13. Additional development shall require verification of adequate water rights.
14. All new development shall require that regulatory signage, such as stop signs, meet
MUTCD standards. Street signs shall be mounted at a standard height and have
reflective lettering to be visible at night from Tunnel Road all the way to the proposed
development.
5.
6.
8.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
February 20,2007
15. All new development shall be addressed in accordance with the Larimer County
addressing policies.
16. No increase in occupancy shall occur until evacuation and wildfire mitigation plans
have been approved by the Larimer County Emergency Coordinator. The Estes Park
Volunteer Fire Department Chief shall be consulted with on the preparation of these
plans.
17. An exclusive southbound right-turn lane shall be constructed or guaranteed at the
Tunnel Road-Kallenberg Drive intersection with the first traffic-generating phase of
development, such as a new cabin.
18. The following roads that serve new lodges shall be paved to applicable standards
concurrent with development (including parking lots): Friendship Lane, Kallenberg
Drive, and Mountainside Drive. All other roads shall be exempt from paving
requirements set forth in Section 7.12 of the Estes Valley Development Code.
19. Any additional right-of-way necessary to satisfy the 40-foot half right-of-way required
for the portions of Tunnel Road that are adjacent to this development shall be properly
dedicated no later than December 31,2007.
20. A public pedestrian access easement shall be recorded for the existing trail along
Tunnel Road no later than December 31,2007.
21. The overall lighting plan mentioned on page 35 should be developed within the first
year of approval. Entry lighting should be addressed first.
22. The YMCA shall discuss partnering with the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain
National Park to take part in the shuttle bus system.
23. The existing building inventory should be updated to include the two new reunion
cabins.
24. The site-area calculations on page 11 should be finalized.
25. References to Estes Park Sanitary Sewer District should be corrected to Upper
Thompson Sanitation District (see page 18).
26. The slope analysis map should include an average slope calculation.
27. The Trails Master Plan should be amended such that the “open space” and proposed
reunion cabins do not conflict.
28. A map of the sanitary sewer easement shall be included in the master plan.
6. REPORTS
Planner Chilcott: Lake Shore Lodge is planning to submit a revised development plan
application. If the application is complete, the development plan will come before the
Planning Commission in April. The plans that were formerly submitted but found to be
incomplete are available for public viewing on the Town website. Commissioner Tucker
requested a study session specifically for the Lake Shore application.
Planner Shirk: The deadline for appeal of the Planning Commission decision to disapprove
the Riverview Pines Development Plan 06-08 has passed. No appeal was filed.
There being no further business, Chair Huli adjourned the meeting at 4:41 p.m.
Betty Hull, Chair
derer. Recording Secretary