HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2006-07-18RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 18, 2006,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer,
George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink
Chair Pohl, Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Kitchen, and
Klink
Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner
Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary
Roederer
Commissioner Hull
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 June 20, 2006.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hix) that the Consent Agenda be accepted,
and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. REZONING, Portions of S35-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M. (Parcel ID numbers
3535400034, 3535400077, 3535400057, 3535400016, & 3535400038), 1750, 1840,
1850, 1854, & 1860 Mary's Lake Road, Applicant: Robin Smith representing
M.L. & Marjorie L. Angle, Jr.; Robert & Deborah Briggs; Tony & Florence
Bielat; Patricia Jo & James W. Smith Trust; and Ferrell & Merilyn Ingram &
Janice Taylor
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to rezone five
properties from A-^-Accommodations to RE-Rural Estate in order to minimize future
development potential in this neighborhood, which has seen three subdivision
proposals on neighboring properties within the last two years. The proposed
rezoning would reduce potential development on these lots from four units per acre
to one unit per 2.5 acres. The Estes Valley Development Code requires that official
zoning map amendments comply with relevant standards, only one of which applies
to this request—“the amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in
the areas affected.” Given the number of recent subdivisions on the surrounding
properties, the request complies with this standard, and planning staff recommends
approval of the rezoning request.
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. Comments were received from Upper Thompson
Sanitation District and from neighboring property owners LaShelle Lyman, who
wrote in support of the request, and Harland Ranney, who stated his desire to retain
A-1 zoning for his property.
Public Comment:
Robin Smith, 1850 Mary’s Lake Road, conveyed that it is the desire of all five
property owners/applicants to have their properties rezoned.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 18, 2006
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the
Rezoning of Portions of Section 35, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M. (Parcel ID
numbers 3535400034, 3535400077, 3535400057, 3535400016, & 3535400038), to
the Board of County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously
with one absent.
4. APPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT TO
NATIONAL FOREST LANDS, All Section 16, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., less
Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners MLD 93-EX0327; 2750 Notaiah
Road, Applicant: Eagle Rock School / American Honda Education Corporation
Commissioner Amos recused himself from this agenda item.
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the Eagle Rock School property,
which was formerly owned by the public and available for public use, was approved
for a conditional rezoning in 1992 by the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners. The property was previously zoned O-Open, which did not allow
public schools. One condition of approval was that “an easement shall be described
and granted for trails and trailheads to provide public access to adjacent National
Forest lands.” The purpose of this condition was to allow hunter access through the
property to help manage the elk population, although it was not intended to mandate
public hunting on the Eagle Rock property. The easement has not been dedicated.
Additionally, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between American Honda
Education Corporation (Eagle Rock School), Colorado Division of Wildlife, Arapaho
Roosevelt National Forest, and Rocky Mountain National Park became effective in
1992, in which American Honda Education Corporation agreed to provide up to two
public trails across Section 16.
Eagle Rock School recently requested building permits to add staff dwelling units,
which prompted planning staff to review the original conditions of approval. The
school’s noncompliance with the condition of approval was discovered at that time.
Eagle Rock School is requesting to amend the original conditions of approval to
eliminate the condition to dedicate a trail easement through the property.
This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments opposing
the request were received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District, Estes Valley Trails Committee, and North End Property
Owners Association. The U.S. Forest Service stated they had “no strong objection”
to the request. A letter was received from neighboring property owner Rex Ross
Walker, President of Sombrero Ranches, Inc., stating he would not allow public
access through his property.
Based on the original conditions of approval, letters from reviewing agencies, efforts
by Rocky Mountain National Park to reduce the elk population, and the fact this
property was formerly public property open to public access, planning staff
recommends upholding the original condition of approval. Staff would support
amending the condition to allow Eagle Rock School to facilitate an alternate trail
easement through nearby properties (within one mile) to provide access to
Roosevelt National Forest. The alternate trail easement would be subject to approval
by the Estes Valley Planning Commission.
Public Comment:
Wendell Amos, President of the Estes Valley Land Trust and property owner of 3333
Rockwood Lane South, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of Eagle
Rock School. He stated there is a protected area around the Eagle Rock School
buildings that is in an Estes Valley Land Trust conservation easement. He related
the general history of the acquisition of Section 16 by American Honda Education
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 18, 2006
Corporation (Honda Corporation) from the Colorado State Land Board, and the
history of access to the property via private road from U.S. Highway 34. He stated
the condition of approval in question was established due to the concern over the
growth of the elk herds. He stated the 1992 MOU had never been acted on by any of
the participating parties and that, for safety reasons, access across the property for
hunters and other trail users via the former trail is not appropriate. He stated Eagle
Rock School officials are willing to work with other agency representatives to provide
a location for the trail other than across the Honda property, although it would be
difficult to determine an alternate location given that it is surrounded on three sides
by private property and the owners of those properties are adverse to providing a
public access easement. Eagle Rock School officials don’t understand why planning
staff will not approve certificates of occupancy (COs) for the new residential
buildings until the original conditions of approval are met. He requested that the COs
be granted because trail negotiations will be too lengthy.
Gary Matthews, President of the Estes Valley Trails Committee and property owner
of 139 Stanley Circle Drive, explained the role of the Trails Committee, emphasizing
the importance of interconnections between trails and their value to community
residents and visitors. He stated the Trails Committee’s objection to this request,
noting that a trail through the area would provide an important link to the Glen Haven
area. He stated that many people had access to the Section 16 property prior to its
purchase by Honda Corporation; there was a large public outcry when it was sold
into private ownership. The original conditions of approval were intended to address
public concerns about the loss of access to this property. He stated that the small
section of National Forest land that reaches Highway 34 is too steep to construct
trail. He requested that the original condition of approval be retained or Eagle Rock
School be required to provide an alternate access easement.
Vincent Quartararo, 2766 Notaiah Road, stated he owns a forty-acre parcel nearby
and would not be willing to provide a public access easement for trail across his
property.
Chair Pohl stated the request is to eliminate a requirement under which the project
was approved but nothing had been presented to indicate that granting revocation of
condition would result in public good. He stated it would be more practical for the
applicant to bring forward an alternate plan for consideration. Mr. Amos
acknowledged that it would have been helpful for Eagle Rock School to have
convened the group of cooperating agencies to decide on the trail easement at the
time the MOU was signed but requested again that issuance of the certificates of
occupancy not be tied to completion of the original condition of approval. He stated
Eagle Rock School would negotiate the trail easement in good faith and see that it
was provided if possible.
Commissioner Kitchen noted the MOU provided for up to two public trails. She
stated that current development projects are required to provide trail easements
under the Estes Valley Development Code, regardless of whether connections are in
place or not, and that the lack of current connections does not provide adequate
reason to eliminate the condition of approval.
In response to Director Joseph’s question regarding what length of time would be
reasonable to allow for negotiation of a comparable alternate access easement.
Eagle Rock School Head Robert Burkhardt stated that perhaps a year would be
reasonable but noted he couldn’t speak for other agencies. He stated Eagle Rock
School officials would work assiduously toward this goal but noted that the school
property is an “island” and that adjacent landowners, including MacGregor Ranch
and Rex Walker, are opposed to public access across their properties. He stated the
Eagle Rock School property had not been open to public access prior to its
acquisition by Honda Corporation; it was leased to Mr. Walker for cattle grazing. The
state discontinued the lease in order for the property to be used for a higher and
greater purpose. A series of public meetings regarding the issue of public trails had
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 18, 2006
been held but no solution had been reached. He stated his concern for the safety of
the students. He acknowledged that the northwest corner of the property was within
100 yards of a public road but stated that access would have to cross MacGregor
Ranch property. In response to questions from Commission Klink regarding public
hunting on the property, including pre-approved access by disabled hunters as
provided for in the MOD, Mr. Burkhardt stated that hunters had been allowed on the
property one time in 1993 but they were rude and disrespectful; no hunting has been
allowed on the property since that time, including hunting by disabled persons. He
stated the MOD expired in 1997.
Mr. Burkhardt stated that when the school was initially conceived “people wanted a
bunch of conditions and wanted to hold Honda up for a whole lot of money” and
indicated that conditions had been agreed to without the intent to abide by them. He
reiterated his concern for student safety. Commissioner Kitchen pointed out that
Honda Corporation had agreed to provide public trails in the MOU yet Eagle Rock
School does not want anyone who is not involved with the school on the property.
Mr. Burkhardt stated there are certain times of year when a hiking group is allowed
access with prior permission from the school. Director Joseph noted there may be
an historic prescriptive right of public access already existing on the northwest
corner of the property. Mr. Burkhardt stated there had not been public use of the
property in recent years. He reiterated that neighboring landowners are hostile to
providing easements across their land.
Planner Shirk stated that although the MOU expired in 1997, the original conditions
of approval have not. Lack of public access on adjacent properties should not affect
the decision to provide an access easement on the Honda property, as is required
for other developments in the Estes Valley.
Town Administrator Randy Repola stated that a public access easement on the
Honda property will provide a building block for eventual trail development in the
area. At a recent inter-agency wildlife meeting he had been asked what the Town is
doing to facilitate the elk management plan. He stated the school property had
previously been open to and used extensively for public hunting, even though it was
leased. Losing the access across this property will result in the loss of an additional
tool to address the elk overpopulation problem. He stated the original conditions of
approval provide the only piece of leverage available to bring about resolution of the
development agreement. He noted the change in use on the property and loss of
community access to Crosier Mountain from that area were highly controversial. He
stated the Town would offer assistance to make acquisition of the public access
easement as painless as possible. He commended Mr. Burkhardt and Eagle Rock
School for their contributions to the community and society.
Chair Pohl noted the school had had opportunities to resolve the situation without
changing the original conditions of approval. He stated the public interest must be
considered and referenced the written comments from four public agencies in
opposition to the applicant’s request. He encouraged Eagle Rock School to meet
with other agencies and property owners to develop a plan for an alternate access
easement and reapply for amendment to the original condition of approval at that
time.
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Klink) to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners that the original condition of approval that “an easement shall
be described and granted for trails and trailheads to provide public access to
adjacent National Forest lands” be retained for the property described as All
of Section 16, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., less Colorado State Board of Land
Commissioners MLD 93-EX0327, and the motion passed unanimously with
Commissioner Amos abstaining and one absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 18, 2006
Chair Pohl called a ten-minute recess at 2:57 p.m.; the meeting was reconvened
at 3:07 p.m.
5. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT, Gravelle Minor Subdivision, Lots 7 & 8, Acacia
Acres Addition, 950 & TBD Acacia Drive, Applicant: Joanne Gravelie
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to divide two lots zoned
E-Estate into three lots ranging in size from 0.50 to 0.752 acres. No change in
zoning is proposed and no development is planned at this time. The proposed lot
sizes, dimensional standards, and configurations meet Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC) requirements and are appropriate for area.
Adequate public facilities standards must be met and the facilities must either be
installed or financially guaranteed prior to the creation of the plat. The dedication of a
wider utility easement on proposed Lot 2 may be required to protect existing
significant vegetation, including tree roots. A sewer main extension will be required
to Lot 2. Water and sewer service lines must be stubbed to proposed Lots 2 and 3;
provision of the water service will require a road cut and repaving on Acacia Drive.
The submitted drainage report must be revised and rerouted to the Public Works
Department for review; provision of an easement may be required for drainage. Any
new electric service must be placed underground.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has reviewed the application
and does not require reevaluation of the Acacia Drive/Highway 7 intersection due to
the limited increase in traffic. In order to locate the driveway for proposed Lot 3 as
far from the intersection as possible, the western property line of Lot 2 should be
redrawn at an angle from northeast to southwest or the following must be provided;
an access easement on Lot 2 to serve Lot 3, a shared curb cut, and a driveway
maintenance agreement. Direct access to Highway 7 is not permitted.
Although the EVDC requires curb, gutter, and sidewalk for new subdivisions.
Planner Chilcott stated the Planning Commission should decide whether the addition
of only one lot warrants upholding the requirement or whether sidewalk should be
required along the entire subdivision street frontage or only a portion of it. Requiring
these improvements would provide connectivity if sidewalk is developed by the Town
in the future, but the applicant is opposed to meeting this requirement.
Commissioner Kitchen noted that the addition of sidewalk may complicate drainage
issues on the property. Planner Shirk commented that curb and sidewalk would
provide a measure of safety for pedestrians on a road that has heavy truck traffic.
This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were
received from Town of Estes Park Department of Building Safety and Public Works
Department, Town Attorney Greg White, Fire Chief Scott Dorman, Upper Thompson
Sanitation District, and Colorado Department of Transportation. Emails were
received from neighboring property owner Jeannie Harms, 1865 Twin Drive, who
expressed comfort with the proposal after her questions were answered by Planner
Chilcott. No other comments received in opposition or support. Another adjacent
property owner expressed concern about the accuracy of the site staking;
Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying and Planner Chilcott will recheck the
staking prior to review of the final subdivision plat. No change to the platted open
space in the Carriage Hills subdivision is proposed. Cornerstone Engineering^
verified that the northern property line of Outlot C, as shown on the Carriage Hills 7
filing plat, is the southern property line for the Gravelle Subdivision and that there is
no discrepancy between these two plats.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 18, 2006
Public Comment:
Brad Larsen of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying requested waiver of the
requirement to provide curb, gutter, and sidewalk because it will concentrate runoff
on the site. He stated the applicant is in agreement with all other conditions of
approval. He stated preliminary staking of the property had been done without the
use of surveying equipment; the proposed lots will be properly surveyed prior to the
final plat.
Adjacent property owners Frank and Joan Costello of 1891 North Morris Court
expressed their concern about the inaccuracy of the preliminary site staking. Mr.
Costello questioned whether the lots could be further subdivided; Planner Chilcott
stated they could not under the current zoning. Mrs. Costello also expressed
concern about drainage on the site, noting that water from the property flows into
their patio when it rains. Planner Chilcott stated the new drainage report will be
required to account for off-site drainage.
Ron Dobbins, 1901 North Morris Court, stated his concern over increased density.
Director Joseph stated the applicant’s request is to exercise the right to subdivide
based on the zoning of the property; it is not a request for rezoning.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) to recommend approval of the
Gravelle Minor Subdivision Plat, Lots 7 & 8, Acacia Acres Addition, to the
Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by
staff except that curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall not be required unless
necessitated by the new drainage study, and the motion passed unanimously
with one absent.
CONDITIONS:
1. Compliance with the comments in Public Work’s memo dated July 18, 2006, with
clarification that curb, gutter, and sidewalk be provided up to the proposed
eastern property line of Lot 2 if the revised drainage study shows it is required to
manage drainage. The revised drainage study shall be submitted to planning
staff for review and approval prior to Town Board review of the plat.
2. Compliance with the comments in the Town Attorney’s memo dated June 19,
2006.
3. Utility extensions shall be planned so as not to remove or damage existing
significant vegetation. This may require dedication of a wider utility easement on
proposed Lot 2 to route utilities around trees and minimize disturbance to root
systems.
4. An engineer’s cost estimate for the cost of required improvements shall be
submitted prior to Town Board review of the plat.
5. Water service for proposed Lots 2 and 3 shall be shown on the plat and the plat
shall be rerouted by Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying to Public Works for
their review and approval prior to Town Board review. Street cuts and patching
will be needed to stub water to the property.
6. The sewer main extension and required sewer service stubs to proposed Lots 2
and 3 shall be shown on the preliminary plat and final construction drawings shall
be submitted to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. The plat and final sewer
construction plans shall be rerouted to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District by
Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying for their review and approval prior to
Town Board review.
7. The off-site drainage discharged onto the property shall also be addressed in the
drainage report. The drainage report shall be revised to include the certification
block found in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards Manual. The
revised plat shall be routed to Public Works for their review and approval prior to
Town Board review.
8. Drainage easements shall be provided for detention facilities. Utility easements
shall not be dedicated for drainage facilities and the dedication statement shall
be revised to reflect this.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 18, 2006
9. Underground electric service to the new lots shall be shown on the plat and the
plat shall be routed to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior
to Town Board review.
10. Utility easements should be dedicated along all property lines.
11. A driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the plat, in addition to
provision of the access easement. The draft maintenance agreement should be
submitted prior to Town Board review.
12. Setbacks shall be labeled on the preliminary plat. The building envelopes shown
on the plan reflect the required setbacks. As noted by the Town attorney,
references to building envelopes and setbacks shall only be included on the final
plat if platted building envelopes are proposed.
13. The dedication statement and surveyor’s certificate shall be revised to reflect the
plat name centered on the top of the preliminary plat, e.g., Gravelle Minor
Subdivision.
6. 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 Fali River Court, Appiicant: Rohrbaugh Properties, LLC
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to convert the existing
sixteen accommodations units and the manager’s residence to condominium units.
No additional development is proposed; the declarant is not reserving the right to
build any additional units. The lot is 1.49 acres and is zoned A-Accommodations.
Accommodations use, with limited use by unit owners, is proposed.
Adequate public facilities requirements must be met and will require upgrading the
existing water service line. Sanitary sewer upgrades are also required. The property
meets the current fire-protection standards and drainage standards. Utility ease
ments will be dedicated along the west and north property lines. The Aspen Winds
sign is currently located in the pedestrian/bicycle path easement; vacation of the
portion of the easement occupied by the sign or relocation of the sign will be
reviewed with the final condominium map application. The pedestrian/bicycle path
easement should be rededicated as a non-motorized access easement and ten-foot
wide trail should be constructed; the proposed trail design must be submitted with
the final condominium map.
This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were
received from Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, Fire Chief Scott
Dorman, Town Attorney Greg White, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. No
comments were received from neighboring property owners.
Public Comment:
Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers stated the applicant agrees
to the recommended conditions of approval and requested clarification on two items.
In response to his question about the drainage pan. Planner Chilcott stated the
drainage pan is shown in the preliminary condominium map and does not need to be
shown on the final map. In response to his question about the driveway maintenance
agreement staff requested. Town Attorney White stated that in lieu of the
maintenance agreement the responsibility for driveway maintenance should be
assumed by the homeowners association in the condominium declarations.
In response to questions from Chair Pohl, Planner Chilcott stated the Building
Department had commented about the existing sign on Outlot F—although it is
currently nonconforming, there is no need to remove the sign unless the size or text
of the sign is changed. If a change is proposed, the applicant would need to apply
for a variance.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Juiy 18, 2006
8
It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Klink) to recommend approval of the
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, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
CONDITIONS:
1. Compliance with the comments 1 through 8 and 10 in Public Works’ memo dated
March 28, 2006.
2. Physical evidence of the parking space(s) on Outlot F shall be removed prior to
recordation of the final condominium map.
The ten-foot-wide pedestrian/bicycle path easement shall be rededicated as a
non-motorized access easement. Construction of a ten-foot-wide trail shall be
required with the proposed design submitted to staff when the final condominium
map application is submitted.
Vacation of the section of easement occupied by the sign shall be reviewed and
approved with the final condominium map application. Or relocation of the sign
shall be reviewed and approved with the final condominium map application.
5. All metered services shall be checked and verified by an electrician and each
service shall be permanently marked with the address or unit number prior to
recordation of the final condominium map.
8. C°mP|iance ™ll;i the comments in the Upper Thompson Sanitation District’s letter
1f;u °06' ?ewer services neecf t° be upgraded or guaranteed prior to
recordation of the condominium map and declaration.
7’ on/SPlia*uC*? withuth.e comments in the Town Attorney’s memo dated June 21
u j Wlt^ t^e su*:)m.'ttal the final condominium map application.
Department Parking Sha" be Provided as required by the Town Building
3.
4.
7 R«VEw°/ni,nNTconAN 06'02, Stan,ey Park Fairgrounds Rehabilitation, Metes &
Ave^^e&P220 J*3St«et94a) Td Uttle Prospect Addition. 1209 Manford
S»nll!,r|=huk>rview»? thS sta,f report- This is a location and extent review of the
Stanley Park Master Plan Concept in order to provide an opportunity for public input
on the conceptual site layout, as well as to request a vJaiver frSm the pSo
Commission to allow planning staff to review specific development plans fo?
io OMsoua e "fSt3^^? I ar! proposed; None of the Proposed buildings exceed
m’nnn ®quare ,fee|’ staff-level review of development plans for buildings under
Ppr?°M q+UarDiIS ?!l0wed Under the Estes ValleV Development Code. The Stanley
Park Master Plan Concept was approved by the Town Board in February 2005 and
MaaU 2e003S 0' a T0Wn BOard 90al: d6ve'0pment of the current Z began in
The overall concept is to rehabilitate the fairgrounds. Implementation of the olan
omoeT wilThP drainagIe and resurfacing improvements. The northern portionPof the
property will be primarily open space; sports fields are planned in that area as well
as drainage for the site. RV parking will be relocated to the southwest comer and
barns will be relocated to central portion of site. The southeast corner of the propertv
may be used as the location for a community theater or for another arena lnv
impact study6 Pr°JeCt th3t reSU'tS 'n a significant increase in use will require a traffic
IolphwUeSt waa 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 thi
provision of public services. Staff received one phone call from a nearby properly
°^n®rrwb0 requfsted. and was provided, a copy of the Master Plan Concept? No
further comment was received from that property owner or from any other
neighboring property owners. ^
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 18, 2006
Public Comment:
Steve NagI of 281 North Court expressed his concerns over the location of the bulk
water distribution site, which is on the fairgrounds property near his residence. He
stated there is a great deal of noisy diesel traffic there as early as 5:30 a.m. and
requested the bulk water distribution be moved to a location away from residential
properties as part of the fairgrounds rehabilitation. Director Joseph agreed to convey
Mr. Nagl’s concerns to the Community Development Committee and the Town
Board of Trustees, noting that individual requests for portions of the redevelopment
will be heard by the Community Development Committee as they are conceived.
In response to a question from Commissioner Klink, Planner Shirk stated if the
community theater project is larger than 10,000 square feet, the request for approval
of that building would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hix) to approve Development Plan 06-02,
Stanley Park Fairgrounds Rehabilitation, Metes & Bounds (PID: 2530405943)
and Lot 1, Littie Prospect Addition, with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff, with the waiver of the requirement for Pianning
Commission review of future deveiopment pians for the property which are
iess than 10,000 square feet, and with recommendation for reiocation of the
existing paid buik water service to an area with less impact on residential
neighborhoods, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
CONDITIONS:
1) Compliance with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
2) Compliance with the approved Master Plan Concept.
3) Compliance with memo from Public Works dated July 18, 2006.
4) Compliance with memo from Estes Park Sanitation District dated June 15, 2006.
5) Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated June 20,
2006.
8. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE:
FAMILY HOME DAY CARE AND DAY CARE CENTER—Use Standards,
Permitted Principal and Accessory Uses, and Definitions
Planner Chilcott stated the proposed amendments address family home day cares,
day care centers, and home occupations. She reviewed changes in the proposed
amendments that have been made since the Planning Commission reviewed the
matter at the June 20, 2006 meeting, which include:
• Day care centers will be permitted by special review in the RE-1, RE, E-1,
and E zoning districts.
• Day care centers will be permitted in the CH zoning district as a use by right.
• Day care centers in residential zoning districts will be allowed only on arterial
streets and only by special review.
• Home occupations on lots with shared private water systems will require
written approval of the water association if the home occupation will increase
demand on the water system.
• Home occupations will be reviewed by the decision-making body to ensure
safe and adequate access for customers. At a minimum, the street or shared
driveway providing access shall have a minimum width of eighteen feet if
serving more than ten customer trips per day.
• Home occupations accessed via roads managed by a private road
maintenance association will require written approval of the association to
permit the customer trips generated by the home occupation.
Public Comment:
Janice Newman, President of Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success,
thanked Planner Chilcott and the planning staff for their work, stating they had
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Juiy 18, 2006
10
resolved many issues together and that the proposed amendments will improve the
situation for daycare providers while ensuring neighborhood residences are not
negatively impacted. She recommended approval of the amendments.
it was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommend approvai of the
proposed amendments to the Estes Valiey Development Code, Block 8, Family
Home Day Care, Day Care Center, and Home Occupations to the Town Board
of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners, and the motion passed
unanimously with one absent.
9. REPORTS
Given the lateness of the hour, the Commissioners and planning staff agreed to
postpone the scheduled discussion of accessory kitchens until the August 15, 2006
meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Edward B. Pohl, Chair