Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2006-04-18RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission Aprii 18, 2006,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendeli Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Chair Pohl, Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Huil, Kitchen, and Klink Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Homeier, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer None c. Chair Pohl 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 March 21, 2006. b. Preliminary Condominium Map, Aspen Winds Condominiums, Lot 1 of the Replat of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 3 of the Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, 1051 Fall River Court, Rohrbaugh Properties, LLC, Applicant: Request withdrawn by staff. Amended Plat, Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Larimer Terminals Subdivision, 901 Juniper Lane; Request to vacate road right-of-way; Hawf & Mechem, LLC, Applicant. d. Amended Plat, Lots 22 & 23, White Meadow View Place, 551 & TBD Ponderosa Drive; Request to adjust the boundary line between two lots; Kirk Miller, Applicant. Comissioners and staff discussed the fact that item “b” of the consent agenda, the Aspen Winds Condominiums preliminary condominium map, was erroneously listed and should be removed from consent agenda because the application had been withdrawn by staff. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) that Consent Agenda items a, c, and d be accepted and item b be removed, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. SPECIAL REVIEW 06-02, Horse-Drawn Carriage Concession, Downtown Estes Park, Applicant: Tender Grass Carriage Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. He stated this is a proposal to offer horse-drawn carriage rides within the Town of Estes Park. Services will include transportation for weddings and other special events, as well as carriage rides along a fixed route with normal hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. The proposed route has been approved by the Town Board of Trustees in past years. Public pick-up and drop-off points will be limited to the Transit Center and Tregent Park. Other proposed locations include the Stanley Hotel, St. Bartholomew’s Church, and Our Lady of the Mountains Church. Planning staff recommends that any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops be approved by Town staff including, but not limited to, the Public Works and Police departments. If traffic RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Aprii 18, 2006 conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public-stop locations, it is recommended that Town staff be authorized to restrict operations until the problem is corrected. The applicant will be required to obtain a business license and provide a certificate of insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town. No signage will be allowed on public property. The horses will be required to be diapered during service and wear steel shoes with borium and rubber pads to cushion the foot. The applicant proposes to pick up and drop off the horses at a private residence along Dry Gulch Road. Planner Shirk stated boarding of the horses is not allowed at that location and money would not change hands. The applicant’s truck and horse trailer would be parked at that location when not in use. The proposal was submitted to the Estes Park Police Department and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for review and comment. No comments were received. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposal. Public Comment: The applicant, Don Gardner, stated he ran a carriage service in Estes Park from 1996 to 2000 using the same routes. He stated he understands the expectations of staff and the rules that apply. He has the necessary insurance with the Town of Estes Park listed as an additional insured. In response to questions from Commissioner Hull, Mr. Gardner stated he will use two Clydesdales. One horse will rest at the property on Dry Gulch Road while the second one is working. He has renewed contact with the owner of the property, who has agreed to allow Mr. Gardner to keep a horse there without a boarding fee. He stated his truck would be parked there when not in use and that he has an arrangement with the Holiday Inn that allows him to hook up his horse behind the hotel. Commissioner Pohl stated his concerns about the carriage service disrupting traffic during the repaving project scheduled along Highway 34 this summer. Mr. Gardner stated he will change his route if requested to do so by Town staff. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Klink) to recommend approval of Special Review 06-02, Horse-Drawn Carriage Service, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimousiy. CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall obtain a business license from the Town Clerk. 2. Provide a copy of a Certificate of Insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with the Town to be named as an additional insured. 3. Obtain written permission from property owners for specified stops on private property, including the Stanley Hotel, St. Bartholomew Church, and Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church. 4. Submit a revised site plan incorporating the following: Signature block: APPROVAL: Approved by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees this _______, 2004. day of John Baudek, Mayor Any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops to be approved by Town staff. No signage shall be allowed on public property. If traffic conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public stop locations. Town Staff is authorized to restrict operations until the problem is corrected. This is intended to account for accidents, parade routes, periods of heavy traffic, or other instances of traffic hazards or congestion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 18, 2006 All horses shall be diapered during times of service. Public drop-off shall be limited to the Transit Center and Tregent Park. 5. A copy of the business license and Special Review permit shall be kept with the carriage. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, Wonderview Village Condominiums, Metes And Bounds, 120,130, & 140 W. Wonderview Avenue, Applicant: Longs Peak Development, LLC Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the Wonderview Village Development Plan 05-07 was approved by Planning Commission on October 18, 2005. The development plan provides for seventeen condominium units. The proposed condominium map is consistent with the development plan and will allow for individual sale of the units. A greater floor area ratio (FAR) is allowed than was accounted for in the submitted plans, and the applicant will extend the rear of the units along the south property line by four feet to maximize the FAR. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town Attorney Greg White, the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, and Estes Park Sanitation District. Comments from Town Attorney White regard the use of the condominium map to consolidate several lots into one. Planner Shirk stated a note must be added to the condominium map which clearly states the lots are being consolidated with the condominium map. Comments from Town Attorney White as well as Public Works have been included as recommended conditions of approval; Estes Park Sanitation District expressed no concerns with the preliminary condominium map proposal. No comments were received from neighbors. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposal. Public Comment: Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant concurs with all of the recommended conditions of approval. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map, Wonderview Village Condominiums, Metes and Bounds, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with Town Attorney White’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated March 23, 2006; 2. Compliance with Light and Power Department and Water Department comments found in the memo from Public Works to Dave Shirk dated March 28, 2006; 3. Ten-foot-wide utility easements shall be platted around the perimeter of the lot; 4. Proposed utility service lines shall be delineated; 5. The map shall include a pedestrian easement covering the proposed sidewalk locations; 6. The map and building floor plan shall be amended to account for small changes to the development plan along the south lot line; 7. Deck dimensions shall be shown. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Aprii 18, 2006 AMENDED PLAT, Mary’s Meadow Deveiopment, Lots 2, 4, and Outlot A, Mary’s Lake Repiat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-01 and PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, Mary’s Meadow Development, Proposed Lot 4A, Mary’s Meadow Replat of Mary’s Lake Replat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, East of Mary’s Lake Lodge at the intersection of Kiowa Drive and Mary’s Lake Road, Applicant: Mary’s Meadow Development, Inc. Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report, noting these items were continued from the February 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. The amended plat request is to adjust the boundary line between Lots 2 and 4 and remove Outlot A. The current proposal reflects a slight reduction in the size of proposed Lot 4A. Staff is supportive of this change. The applicant proposes to construct thirty-five units on Lot 4A and has addressed most of the conditions listed in the February staff report. The proposed stormwater detention area has been changed from one large detention basin to three or four small ponds. A wetlands expert was hired to determine what plantings would enhance the wildlife value of the area; those plantings are included in the proposal. Tall fencing may be necessary to protect the new plantings and may be in place for a few years. The proposed detention ponds will be constructed in the fall of 2006, with some of the planting occurring at that time. The remainder of the planting around the detention ponds would take place in the spring of 2007. Planner Chilcott stated a sidewalk along the south property line is now shown in the submitted plans. Staff recommends the addition of curb and gutter. Concerns were raised at the February meeting about fire department access to the interior of the development. Staff has since discussed this access with Fire Chief Scott Dorman, who verified his acceptance of the plans and stated there is adequate access. The interior sidewalk will be constructed with rebar set in six inches of concrete, which will support the weight of fire trucks. Seventy-nine parking spaces are required for the development. The plans submitted originally showed nine of those spaces as “optional.” Current plans reflect construction of all required parking spaces; the formerly optional spaces will be constructed during the final phase of the development. Planner Chilcott noted that some neighboring property owners have expressed concerns over the impact of the development to their property. She stated the Planning Commission can address compatibilty issues in greater detail when proposals are for a zoning change than when there is an existing use by right. The Gresslins, who own the property to the south, across from the development’s proposed entrance off Kiowa Drive, requested the driveway be moved so headlights would not shine into their home. The applicant has angled the driveway and shifted its location fifteen feet to the east to address this concern. In visiting the site, staff found that headlights may still hit the home and recommends aligning the driveway so that headlights will be directed along the property line between the Gresslin’s lot and the adjacent vacant lot to the east. Doing so would eliminate the need to relocate the existing postal cluster box and could save the developer rnoney. The project engineer and the applicant contend that headlights will not shine on the home with the driveway located as is currently proposed. Some neighboring property owners have also requested the proposed common building be relocated. Planner Chilcott stated this is a much more significant request that would require site redesign and noted the location of the common building is not under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 18, 2006 Public Comment: Amy Plummer of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. She stated the applicant is agreeable to all recommended conditions of approval except the realignment of the driveway. She noted Mr. Tawney feels the proposed modifications to the driveway, angling it and moving it fifteen feet to the east, will prevent headlights from shining into the neighbors’ windows. Mr. Tawney would like to wait until the final phase of the development to add the four additional parking spaces at the northeast end of the parking area being discussed; relocating and realigning the driveway as staff has suggested would require the immediate construction of those parking spaces. Further discussion about the location of the driveway followed. Tom Gresslin of 2824 Kiowa Trail addressed the Commissioners, reiterating his concerns about the possibility of headlights shining into his windows and requesting the relocation and realignment of the proposed driveway. He expressed his appreciation of Planner Chilcott’s work in reviewing this project. Frank Theis, agent for the developers of Mary’s Lake Lodge, The Promontory, and Mary’s Meadow Development, requested that the improvement guarantee for revegetation and wildlife enhancement of the area around the detention basins not be required to cover plantings other than basic revegetation. Town Attorney White clarified that the issue is not under the purview of the Planning Commission; the request must be presented to the Town, which handles such matters administratively. The applicant, Jim Tawney, stated the location of the driveway that Mr. Gresslin objects to is proposed to be fifty-five feet to the east of Mr. Gresslin’s residence. Moving it as staff has proposed would make it seventy-five feet to the east of the house. He contends the photo exhibited to Planning Commissioners does not accurately depict the orientation of the driveway. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hix) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat, Mary’s Meadow Replat of Lots 2, 4, and Outlot A of Mary’s Lake Replat, a Portion of Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed with ali Commissioners voting in favor with the exception of Commissioner Kitchen, who abstained. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the affected agency comments with the exception that an easement shall not be required to discharge water from detention basins onto the downhill property. 2. Review and approval of the final drainage report by the Town staff and Larimer County Engineering Department. 3. A five-foot-wide non-motorized pedestrian trail easement shall be shown along the Lot 2A western property line. 4. The drainage notes shall be clarified and responsibility for maintenance of the detention facilities on Lot 4A shall be addressed. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to approve Development Plan 06-01, Mary’s Meadow Development, Lot 4A, Mary’s Meadow Replat, a Portion of Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed with all Commissioners voting in favor with the exception of Commissioner Kitchen, who abstained. CONDITIONS: 1. Town Board approval and recordation of the amended plat. 2. Compliance with the affected agency comments. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Aprii 18, 2006 3. The maximum allowable density, project net density, and lot coverage numbers found on the development plan shall be updated. 4. The sidewalk/trail shown along Kiowa Drive is not shown with curb and gutter. The plan shall be revised to include curb and gutter. 5. This application shall be conditioned on compliance with the detention-pond enhancement report. 6. The driveway alignment shall point to the east property line of Mr. Gresslin’s lot. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Klink) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map, Lot 4A, Mary’s Meadow Repiat, a Portion of Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed with aii Commissioners voting in favor with the exception of Commissioner Kitchen, who abstained. CONDiTIONS: 1. Approval of Development Plan 06-01 and compliance with the Development Plan 06-01 conditions of approval. 6. PROPOSED CHANGE TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.4.D AND SECTION 13.3 TO ALLOW OUTDOOR ATMs AND INTERNET/COMPUTER KIOSKS IN THE CD-Commercial Downtown ZONING DISTRICT Planner Shirk stated that a variance request approved in the summer of 2005 prompted planning staff to propose the addition of language in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow automated teller machines (ATMs) and computer kiosks to be placed outdoors in the downtown area. The suggested code change was discussed at the March Planning Commission meeting. Given the number of questions Commissioners had, staff agreed to clarify the wording and present the request again. Current regulations prohibit ATMs from being located outside a building in the downtown area. Internet kiosks are being used in other areas of the country and can serve a variety of informational functions, such as finding a restaurant, making a hotel reservation, or checking the weather forecast. The Convention and Visitors Bureau has expressed a desire to install informational kiosks throughout the downtown area to assist visitors by providing parking, lodging, entertainment, and other information. Current regulations also prohibit this type of kiosk. The machines could be operated by any property owner or renter. An ATM/kiosk could not be located in a public right-of-way unless it was operated by the Town, and if it were free-standing, it would have to meet applicable building setbacks. ATMs and kiosks could not restrict the movement of pedestrians through plazas, along adjoining sidewalks, or through other areas intended for public usage; plans would be reviewed by staff to ensure compliance with this standard. The content of a computer kiosk would be regulated by Title 9 of the Municipal Code. The additions would be made to Section 4.4.D.1.a.(3), Additional Zoning District Standards, and to Section 13.3, Definitions, as follows: §4.4.D Additional Zoning District Standards. 5. Operational Requirements. a. Outdoor Sales. Use. Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District. (3) Exceptions. (e) Automated Teller Machine (ATM) and/or Interactive Kiosks intended to serve walk-up customers only. ATMs or kiosks shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians through plazas, along adjoining sidewalks, or through other areas intended for public usage. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 18, 2006 §13.3 Definitions 128.5 Interactive Kiosk shaW mean a device that allows the public to access the internet, send and retrieve e-mail, or provide wa^inding or other information. These may be incorporated within an existing structure or be free-standing. They shall not be used to provide off-premise signage for other businesses. The display shall comply with the adopted sign code. Content shall be restricted to comply with Title 9 “Public Peace, Morals and Safety” of the Municipal Code. At the request of Chair Pohl, Planner Shirk and Director Joseph clarified that “off- premise signage” refers to a static sign and that display of any off-site content would have to be user-activated and limited to the screen. Commissioner Klink stated he would move to approve the proposed addition to the Estes Valley Development Code, provided that planning staff will add this clarification to the language. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4.D and Section 13.3 to allow outdoor ATMs and Computer/Interactive Kiosks in the CD-Commercial Downtown zoning district, at the recommendation of staff, to the Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. 7. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported that a request will be made at the May 16, 2006 Planning Commission meeting to amend language in the Estes Valley Development Code to allow home daycare providers to have one employee to assist with daycare. The request has been prompted by local childcare providers, who have stated that having two adults in a childcare setting improves safety. Chair Pohl expressed his appreciation of planning staff, particularly Ms. Chilcott, for their work in reviewing the Mary’s Meadow Development project. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair