HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2006-06-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 20, 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, Hull, Kitchen,
and Klink
Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner
Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer
None
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
Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated May 16, 2006.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Eisenlauer) that the Consent Agenda be
accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with Chair Pohl abstaining due
to his absence from the May meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 22 And Outlot B, Stanley Hills Subdivision, 710 - 746
Black Canyon Drive, Applicant: Thunder Canyon Homeowners & Stanley Hills
Homeowners Association
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to adjust the
common lot line between a lot containing seventeen condominium units and an
adjacent outlot. A corner of one of the units extends over the property line of Lot 22
due to a surveying error that resulted in the property line being improperly
determined. Approval of the amended plat will move the southern property line of Lot
22 only slightly; the lot sizes of both Lot 22 and Outlot B will remain the same.
This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues
or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the
provision of public services.
Public Comment:
Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying stated he had made the
original surveying error; he expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to correct
the error.
It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hix) to recommend approval of the
Amended Plat of Lot 22 and Outlot B, Stanley Hills Subdivision, to the Town
Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff,
and the motion passed unanimously.
CONDITIONS:
1. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements).
2. Compliance with memo from Town Attorney White to Dave Shirk dated May 24,
2006.
3. References to “proposed lot line” shall be labeled “lot line”, and “existing lot line”
shall be labeled “former lot line.”
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 20, 2006
4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, Hallett Heights Subdivision, SE 1/4 of the
SE V4 of the SW Va of the SE V4 of Section 35, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., 1836
Mary’s Lake Road, Applicant: David P. & Diane M. Caddell
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to subdivide a
2.5-acre property into five lots. The request was originally scheduled for the May
Planning Commission meeting but was continued to allow the applicant to make
design changes to address concerns about the depth of the existing sewer line and
to accommodate neighbors’ requests to retain the access to their homes in its
current location.
The property is zoned A-^-Accommodations, which allows single-family-residential
use as well as accommodations use. The proposed lots meet the lot dimension and
configuration requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), and the
lot sizes have been increased to account for an existing average slope of greater
than 12%. The proposed lot sizes are large enough to allow the placement of one
residence on each but are not large enough to allow a second unit to be built on any
lot. This will provide a total of five units at full build-out. Under the EVDC, the base
density for A-1-zoned lots is four units per acre; the resulting maximum allowable
density would be nine units if the applicant had proposed to develop the property as
a “cabin resort” operation. Thus, the potential density has been reduced by four
units.
The existing residence will be located on proposed Lot 2. Lots 1 and 2 will be
accessed via a long-established drive, to be named Mary’s Lake Lane. The applicant
is requesting waivers to EVDC Appendix D.ll.l Curb and Gutter and D.II.M Street
Paving requirements to pave the road and provide curb and gutter; all other road
standards will apply. The intersection with Mary’s Lake Road will be paved. Staff
supports these waiver requests. Lots 1 and 2 will need to form a road-maintenance
association.
Lots 3, 4, and 5 will be accessed via a shared driveway, also to be named, that will
be an extension of Silver Tree Lane, which is currently under construction as part of
the adjacent Silver Tree Subdivision. These lots will need to join the Silver Tree
Lane road association.
Landscaping is required along Mary’s Lake Lane and Silver Tree Lane. The
applicant requests a waiver to the district buffer landscaping requirement along the
eastern property line. Because the property is zoned A-1 and accommodations use
is allowed, staff does not recommend approval of this waiver. The applicant also
requests a waiver of the requirement to install automatic drip irrigation; staff supports
that request provided that an irrigation plan is submitted and adhered to. The EVDC
specifies that all required landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy growing
condition at all times. Landscaping is monitored by Community Development staff for
a period of three years.
All utilities are available to serve the proposed subdivision. The residence on Lot 2
will get water from the existing main on Mary’s Lake Road; Lots 3 through 5 will get
water from the main to be installed with development Silver Tree Subdivision. The
new water main must be installed, and right of access via Silver Tree Lane must be
approved before any building permits can be issued for Hallett Heights Subdivision,
making the proposal dependent on the approval of Silver Tree Subdivision.
An existing water line that crosses the applicant’s property and serves two adjacent
residential properties will be relocated to the road right-of-way; the owners of the
residences served by this line must be notified by the applicant prior to
commencement of the relocation work.
This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were
received from Estes Park Public Works Department, Town Attorney White, Upper
Thompson Sanitation District, Larimer County Engineering Department, Larimer
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 20, 2006
County Department of Health and Environment, Larimer County Emergency
Services Specialist Tony Simons, and Colorado Geological Survey. No significant
issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or
the provision of public services. The Colorado Geological Survey recommended that
foundations be engineered. A variety of comments from the Larimer County
Engineering Department are tied to the final plat and will be addressed as the final
plat application is processed.
Public Comment:
TheuaPP'*cant. David Caddell, stated he will maintain Mary’s Lake Lane up to the
north boundary of proposed Lot 2, not just to the driveway as required in the
suggested conditions of approval. He stated his intent to use recycled asphalt
beyond the paved apron at the Mary’s Lake Road intersection and that he will
ottotinA^r?.Wni0nJhue road t0 address potential drainage and erosion problems.
He stated his has tried hard to work with neighboring property owners.
It W3S moved and socontlecl (Kitohen/Klink) to recommend approval of the
Pl.at 0, Hallett Heights Subdivision, SE VS of the SE
of r 0, he SE /4 0, Sec,lon 35’ T5N- R73W of the 6"' P.M., to the Board
staff anHythemo.ISSIOnerS’T'th ,he findings and oonditions recommended by
Staff, and the motion passed unanimouslv y
CONDITIONS:
1. Silver Tree Lane right-of-way shall be in place prior to recordina the final niat
3 ConvCnfnt Sh|al1 ?0tlfy Smith and ln9ram prior to water line relocation work
■ ^ubmittedfwitMherfinalp?at!0rtflern COl°rad0 Wa,er Conseo'ancy District shall be
4. Foundations shall be engineered.
5' S0a?rentatl0n 0f a road maintenance association to account for road
6 LotenSashSl 'ioin0thpeq-|riVe yay f<?r L0'2 Sha" be submi«®d with the final plat.
■ subf^tted wlTe flna?XtrX e r°ad aSS0°iati0n- DOCUmerrta,ion
7. Limits of Disturbance shall be included in the Legend
9 Ptenffnr m0Tement 2Cr0SS Lo,s 4 and 5 sha" be iegally described
plat. driveway to serve Lots 3-5 shall be submitted with the final
10'SSoSL"9o?aevSeramp^rTiSed '0 de'ineate Specific tree sPecies instead of
“Srd Placing Usr Tr6e SPeC'eS Shal' be Selected from APPOOdix D
ShiTdated Jure 15 200f6Om TraC' D°WnS’ Larimer Count'' Erigineering, to Dave
12 Pu0bTc'arksWiS S Shk'k4dated°Aprd 24 "l^oVfrhrr0 ,roai EStaS Pa*
r0^Styd^“ - rr -
to eight children or adults in aSte^!ity>,homeMday rale^seWng0 Ste7i^pro0po|inP
creation of two categories of family day care home-small day care homes and large
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 20, 2006
day care homes. Small day care homes would continue to allow up to eight children
or adults. Large day care homes would allow up to twelve adults or children and
would only be permitted by special review in some zoning districts. Proposed
changes would allow one employee for both small and large family day care homes,
allow an outside play area, allow more than 20% of the home to be used for the day
care, and clarify that adult day care can not be for individuals receiving on-site
medical or psychological treatment, therapy, or counseling. Other home occupations
regulations would apply. Small day care homes would continue to be a use-by-right
in all residential zoning districts. Large day care homes would be allowed in
residential zoning districts and in non-residential zonining districts A-1 and CD by
special review only; they would be a use-by-right in the A zoning district.
DAY CARE CENTERS: A day care center is currently defined as a place for the care
of four or more children or adults. This is inconsistent with the EVDC definition of
day care home, which allows up to eight children. A portion of the current definition
of day care centers references a section of the state statute that has been repealed.
Proposed revisions clarify that day care centers are non-residential, add their use-
by-right in the A zoning district, and add their use in the A-1 and CD zoning districts
by special review.
Large day care homes and day care centers would both be subject to specific use
standards that are currently in place for day care centers only, including hours of
operation, noise, lighting, access to a paved public street, and so forth. If a day care
center is part of a religious assembly, it would be required to meet the same
standards as a regular day care center. Planner Chilcott noted that current proposed
revisions would allow day care centers along “collector” streets in residential
neighborhoods, which would include streets such as Carriage Drive, Scott Avenue,
or Avalon Drive. She also noted that having eight children and an employee at a
home in a residential neighborhood could have a significant impact on
neighborhoods with dirt roads and/or shared wells. Staff is seeking input from the
Planning Commission on these issues and others such as the number of trips
generated per day.
Public Comment:
Janice Newman, President of Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success, stated
her desire to see the EVDC changed to allow as much licensed day care as possible
while not creating neighborhood conflicts. She noted few family day care homes will
have as many as eight children at one time. There is need for additional licensed
caregivers with adequate facilities; allowing an employee increases safety.
Discussion followed among the Planning Commissioners, planning staff, and Ms.
Newman regarding review or input from homeowners’ associations, ongoing
unlicensed childcare, state regulations and licensing for childcare, and special
review timelines.
REPORTS
Accessory Dwelling Unit, as defined by the Estes Vaiiey Development Code.
Director Joseph summarized a recent appeal to the Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment regarding EVDC definitions for accessory dwelling units. While the
Board of Adjustment upheld planning staff’s interpretation of the code, the Board
also indicated the code may be too restrictive and suggested that the Planning
Commission, Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners may wish to
reconsider some of the language in the code. Discussion followed about the
reasoning behind the definition of accessory dwelling units as provided in the Master
Plan and EVDC, the currently required minimum lot size, the need for regulations
that would not encourage homeowners to install kitchenettes without a permit, and
the current impacts of nightly rentals in residential neighborhoods.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 20, 2006
Public Comment:
None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
Edward B. Pohl, Chair
uli^Roeder^, Recording Secretary