Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2006-10-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2006,1:30 a.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 Vice-Chair Hull; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Kitchen, and Klink Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Chair Pohl Vice-Chair Hull 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. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated August 15, 2006. b. Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Rinella Houser Subdivision, Metes & Bounds, S35-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., 1640 Mary’s Lake Road—Request withdrawn by Applicant c. Corrective Rezoning from CH-Commercial Heavy to \-t—Industrial; Lot 1, Davis Subdivision; 1820 Acacia Drive; Applicant: Harvey E. & Dale E. Griffith It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) that item a. be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Eisenlauer) that items b. and c. be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 18, 19, 36, & 37, Block 8, and Lot 31, Block 7, Country Club Manor Addition, 615 Columbine Avenue, Applicant: Carla Pederson Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to combine four lots into two, vacate rights-of-way and add them into existing buildable lots, and dedicate additional right-of-way along Landers Street. Lots 18, 19, 36, and 37, Block 8, are owned by Ms. Pederson; these are the four lots that will be combined into two. Lot 31, Block 7 is owned by Laura Gulliksen and is included in this application because half of the Driftwood Avenue right-of-way that is under consideration for vacation would be absorbed by this lot. Also, half of the Ponderosa Drive right-of-way will be deeded back to Ms. Pederson via quit claim deed by the property owners of Lot 1, Block 4, Hyde Park. This request was heard at the August 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and was continued due to the concerns of adjacent property owner, Joan Banker, regarding the vacation of rights-of-way. The applicant’s lots in Country Club Manor Addition were platted in 1939. Ms. Banker owns Lots 3, 4, and 5 in Hyde Park, which was not platted until 1959. Ms. Banker’s residence is on Lot 4, with access from Aspen Avenue; Lots 3 and 5 are vacant. Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering was retained by Ms. Banker to evaluate the rights-of-way vacations; Mr. Prochaska agreed with planning staff that the rights-of-way vacations would not negatively impact Ms. Banker’s property. However, Mr. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2006 Prochaska suggested a twenty-foot-wide utility easement be retained where the Ponderosa Drive right-of-way will be vacated; this is included as a recommended condition of approval. The Public Works department will be replacing a water main in the near future along Landers Street, where the existing right-of-way is only twenty feet wide. They have requested the dedication of additional right-of-way along Landers Street with this amended plat. Ms. Pederson has agreed to dedicate an additional ten feet of right-of-way along Landers Street provided the unused portions of the Driftwood Avenue, Columbine Avenue, and Ponderosa Drive rights-of-way adjacent to her property are vacated. 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 agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Written comments were received on October 12, 2006 from Joan Banker stating her objections to the vacation of rights-of-way and requesting that the vacations be denied. Planning staff recommends approval of the amended plat. Public Comment: Amy Plummer of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent Ms. Pederson and Ms. Gulliksen. She stated that the unused portions of rights-of-way in Country Club Manor Addition were platted in 1939, before the development of Hyde Park, when it was unknown what future street connections would be. When Hyde Park was platted, road connections were made in areas that were not as steep and rocky. She stated that road construction in these unused rights-of-way would be expensive and require the removal of mature trees, would cause scars on the landscape and drainage problems, and would be difficult to build to meet existing code standards. She stated that Aspen Avenue provides the best access to Ms. Banker’s Lot 3, that an upper-level entry to Ms. Banker’s lots would be more attractive to future landowners, that building roads through these rights-of-way would devalue properties in the area, and that vacating the rights-of-way provides opportunity to obtain needed right-of-way along Landers Street. She stated that access to Ms. Banker’s lots from the downhill (north) side would involve a grade of approximately twenty percent. Adjacent property owner Joan Banker, 663 Aspen Avenue, stated that the existing rights- of-way are valuable to her property and that until development on the vacant lots takes place she cannot determine in what areas access may be needed. She expressed her disappointment in the engineer she hired to evaluate the rights-of-way, stating he had never contacted her with his findings, and requested that his opinion be stricken from the record. She questioned what use the applicants could make of the additional land added to their lots by vacating the rights-of-way. She reiterated her objection to the requested vacation of rights-of-way, indicating it would be harmful to her property because two of her lots are not yet developed and future owners may wish to utilize those rights-of-way. Further discussion ensued between the Commissioners, staff, Ms. Banker, Ms. Plummer, and Ms. Pederson and is summarized as follows: • Easements would remain for purposes of utility access; required setbacks on Ms. Pederson’s and Ms. Gulliksen’s lots would shift due to the shift in property lines. • Ms. Banker and Ms. Pederson are willing to consider private access easements in the general areas of the rights-of-way and will meet with planning staff to discuss. • Ms. Pederson agreed to continue the request to the November 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting to allow time to discuss the possibility of private access easement(s) with the involved parties. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to continue the request for an Amended Plat of Lots 18, 19, 36 & 37, Block 8, and Lot 31, Block 7, Country Club Manor Addition to the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 2006, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ,4b. Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 October 17, 2006 4. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 4 & 5, Stanley Heights, 881 & 931 West Lane, Appiicant: Don Goodheart Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to reconfigure two existing lots from a north-south orientation to an east-west orientation. The applicant owns both lots, one of which has an existing cabin. The second lot is currently undeveloped. The applicant desires to realign the common lot line in order to build a second residence on the western portion of the site. A shared driveway access is proposed, therefore reconfiguration of the lots will result in one less driveway on West Lane. It will also move the building site to the west where it will not encroach on a small drainage swale that crosses the undeveloped lot. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 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 agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Town Attorney White requested a minor change to the dedication statement. The Light and Power Department stated the need to run underground primary electric to the lot line to a pad-mount transformer; this would be required for an additional residence, regardless of the amended plat, because the present service line does not provide enough amperage to serve the existing cabin and a new residence. Estes Park Sanitation District requested that twenty-foot-wide public utility easements be dedicated along all lot lines and that a note regarding extension of the sewer main be removed from the plat. In addition, a driveway maintenance agreement should be submitted and will be subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney. Erosion issues at the intersection of the existing driveway and West Lane should be addressed with the issuance of a building permit, and Larimer County has requested the access easement be widened from twenty feet to forty feet. Jeff and Kris Rogers, owners of the property to the north of the applicant’s lots, inquired about the request but expressed no concerns after planning staff explained the proposal. Staff recommends approval of the amended plat. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He noted the new residence will use a septic system. He stated the applicant’s objection to providing a forty-foot-wide driveway access easement because the driveway is a narrow dirt drive that serves only one additional lot. He requested the easement remain twenty feet wide. Discussion followed among Commissioners, planning staff, and Mr. Sheldon about the access easement, with Planner Shirk noting the county staff had requested the increased width only “if possible.” It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 4 & 5, Stanley Heights to the Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff with the exception that the access easement shaii remain twenty feet wide, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDiTIONS: 1. Erosion issues at the intersection of the existing driveway and West Lane shall be addressed with the issuance of a building permit for the new house. Specific methods shall be proposed at that time. Possibilities include either a driveway drainage swale or a culvert, shaping of a roadside ditch, and revegetation. 2. Compliance with memo from Light and Power dated September 19, 2006. 3. Compliance with memo from Greg White dated September 20, 2006. 4. Compliance with memo from EPSD dated October 11,2006. 5. A driveway maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the plat mylars. This agreement shall be subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney. 6. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements). RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2006 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-06 & PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, Bobcat Ridge, Lot 2A, Shanafelt Subdivision, TBD S. St. Vrain Avenue, Applicant: Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to develop five multi­ family residential units—two duplexes and one single-family residential unit—on a lot that was subdivided earlier this year. The property is zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential and the proposed use is a use-by-right in this zoning district. The development plan application meets the requirements for staff-level review but is being reviewed by the Planning Commission due to the concerns voiced by neighboring property owners when the property was subdivided. The proposed development meets the minimum-lot-size requirements. Patios for the units were added after the original plans were submitted; these patios encroach into the ten-foot setback. If they are constructed, patios must be at grade level and cannot encroach into the setback more than thirty percent. Decks cannot be constructed. Planning staff does not recommend the construction of trail or sidewalk. Staff recommends revising the plans to protect the root zones of significant trees; this may involve locating utilities along the side of the driveway and/or shifting one of the proposed units. The southern building setback is shown incorrectly on the plan and should be revised to show a setback of fifteen feet rather than ten. No paving or buildings are allowed in that setback; the plans show parking encroaching into the setback and should be revised. A fifteen percent open-space area is required by the Estes Valley Development Code, but the plans do not show the area clearly. The location of a dumpster must be shown on the plans, or access to each unit should be redesigned to allow ingress/egress space for a trash truck. The proposed driveway needs to be redesigned to provide workable access in and out of garages. The proposal meets adequate public facilities requirements. Fire Chief Dorman has recommended installation of an additional fire hydrant and fire lane striping or signage; ISO requirements have been met. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Department of Building Safety, Public Works Department, Town Attorney White, Fire Chief Dorman, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. If the proposal were recommended for approval at today’s meeting, planning staff has thirty-s'x recommended conditions of approval. Given the number of items to be addressed, staff recommends continuance of this application to the December 19 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He stated applicant is amenable to a continuance. His firm will work to revise the plans to address staff’s concerns. tho^DrJr 0^ed a,id s®cor)ded (Amos/Klink) to continue Development Plan 06-06 and thf nl imiI!aryif0onn<Lmin,Um Map, Bobcat Rid9e> Lot 2A, Shanafelt Subdivision to the December 19, 2006 Estes Vaiiey Pianning Commission meeting, with the thirtv- six recommended conditions of continuance shown in the Bobcat Ridoe romm Pment Pla? #06'06 Staff re.p0rt PrePared for the October 17, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 6. REPORTS a' 1 Review Development Plan 06-07, All East Elkhorn Addition, 363 E Elkhorn Avenue, Appiicant: Sprint Nextel & MacTec Planner Shirk stated Sprint Nextel and MacTec submitted a development plan to place new antennas on the WestStar bank building. These antennas will be very similar to existing antennas on the Real Mountain Theater building; they are very inconspicuous. Planning staff has approved the development plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 17, 2006 b. Staff-Level Review—Development Plan 06-05; Lot 6A, Beaver Point Heights Addition; 945 Moraine Avenue; Applicant: Xanterra Parks & Resorts Planner Shirk stated the All Budget Inn has been purchased by Xanterra Parks and Resorts, which will be running the Alpine Visitors Center store. Xanterra plans to use the inn as employee housing. They will remove the sign, tidy up the site, address drainage issues, and add a 2,000-square-foot dining hall at the back of the lot. Planning staff has approved the development plan. c. Accessory Kitchens Discussion Director Joseph stated his desire to move the accessory kitchens discussion forward by proposing changes to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)—specifically, to strike the minimum lot size requirement for accessory dwelling units, to provide that the ownership of an accessory dwelling unit may not be separated from the principal dwelling, and to require that the property owner reside on the same property on which the accessory dwelling unit is located. Currently, the Estes Valley Development Code requires a lot to be at least 1.33 times the minimum required lot size in a zoning district in order to allow construction of an accessory dwelling unit, and the unit must be attached to the principal residence. The proposed change makes unity of ownership explicit, which is important because the code currently does not require new condominium maps involving only two units to be reviewed. Requiring occupancy of the owner on the same property as the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is fairly standard, according to the American Planning Association. The proposed changes reinforce the intent of the existing code language that an ADU is accessory to a principal unit; is for non-paying family, friends, or a care provider; and is not an income-producinq rental property. a Discussion among the Commissioners and staff followed and is summarized as follows- • If the principal unit was rented, the ADU could not be rented to a separate party. ’ • Proposed changes would reduce the need for planning staff to be the “kitchen police” when reviewing ADUs. • compliedSth1 C0Uld be in0lUded in an ADU’ provided other standards are • t^enf..rniS0mmiSSi0ners stated a sePara,e 0uest house would be advantageous to property owners. a Enforcement would still be an Issue, as It may be difficult to determine whether auestCofThapnnmnanrtADU 'S rentin9 C"'n0t' °r whe*her the occuPant's a relative or guest of the property owner. Removal of the minimum lot size requirement would allow ADUs on any lot in the planning area, provided other requirements are met, not just on large lots or areas where expensive homes are/will be built. 9 • 2pmUin?9atnhADU t0 be attached rather than detached provides a self-poiicing e-en>as homeowners are likely to be choosy about those they must share walls with versus guests/family members who are removed from them. Perhaps policing of rentals should not be the responsibility of Town staff. The number of rentals units is a concern of hotel/motel owners in the area. • Allowing detached ADUs may increase density. • Current standards in the EVDC were adopted to protect the nature of sinqie- fpmiiy r®SIC,eatla, ar®as- Property owners in those areas assume the single- famiiy character of their neighborhood will be preserved. If detached ADUs are ^pacted the CharaCter 0f sin9|e'fami|y neighborhoods could be negatively Utilities in single-family residential areas were not designed for muiti-family use. °^tv''ard physical character of neighborhoods may change. If every lot has a detached ADU, neighborhoods will look very different. This may not be palatable to residents. Multip'e additional cars may be parked on properties; this issue may need to be addressed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 October 17, 2006 • Development codes are citizen-driven. If enough people request a change, there should be public debate. Public Comment: Betty Nickel of The Porfolio Group stated the desire of many of her clients to have guest houses and guest quarters, and noted they are standard in custom-built homes across the country. She stated current code standards have caused problems for her and her clients. Property owners may build “studios” or other conforming accessory units and convert them without building permits at a later date. Her clients want detached ADUs and, given the money they spend on their homes, would not rent them out for additional income. Vice-Chair Hull called a straw vote on whether the planning staff should delve into the accessory dwelling unit issue and present the pros and cons of allowing accessory dwelling units, specifically attached versus detached units. All six Commissioners present voted in favor. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Huii adjourned the meeting at 3:33 p.m. Betty HufrVice-Chair ederer/Recording' Secretary