HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2006-12-19r
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 19, 2006,1:30 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendeii Amos, Ike Eisenlauer,
George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink
Chair Pohl; Commissioners Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, Kitchen, and Klink
Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Planner Shirk, Town
Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer
Commissioner Amos, Planner Chilcott
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 November 21, 2006.
it was moved and seconded (Hix/Hull) that consent agenda item “a” be accepted,
and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and Commission Kitchen
abstaining due to her absence at the November 21, 2006 meeting.
b. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-06, Bobcat Ridge, Lot 2A, Shanafeit Minor Subdivision,
Gary & Christine Shanafeit/Applicant
c. PRELiMiNARY CONDOMiNIUM MAP, Bobcat Ridge, Lot 2A, Shanafeit Minor
Subdivision, Gary & Christine Shanafelt/Appiicant
it was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Klink) that consent agenda items “b” and “c” be
accepted, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion
passed unanimously with one absent.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-06 CONDiTiONS:
1. Compliance with the comments in Will Birchfield’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated
September 20, 2006. This does not require any revisions to the application.
2. Compliance with Gloria Hice-ldler’s note dated September 19, 2006 on the All
Affected Agencies memo, which states “a new access permit must be obtained for
the increased traffic volumes and relocation of the access.” No revisions are
required to the application at this point. To comply with this condition, a copy of the
approved access permit shall be submitted with the first grading/building permit
application.
3. Compliance with the comments in Greg Sievers’ memo to Alison Chilcott dated
September 22, 2006. Public Works’ comments #5 and 6 require revisions to the
development plan.
4. A copy of the approved access easement and maintenance agreement showing
proof of recordation shall be submitted to staff prior to final development plan
approval, i.e., prior to the Planning Commission Chairperson signing the
development plan mylar.
5. The minimum required southern-lot-line setback for the Tranquil Lane right-of-way
shall be shown.
6. The size of the existing culvert shown at the southeast corner of the property shall
be shown correctly on both pages of the development plan, i.e., it shall be shown
as a fifteen-inch culvert.
7. The stormwater management system shall be revised to ensure that water from the
driveway leading to Units 1 and 2 enters the detention pond. The cross-slope shall
be increased.
8. The detention pond shall be located entirely on Lot 2A, unless the encroachment is
permitted by CDOT.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
December 19, 2006
9. Proposed utilities currently proposed behind Unit 5 should be located in the ten-
foot-wide easement on Lot 2B to assist in tree protection.
10. Gas lines shall be shown on the development plan.
Minimum Required
Landscaping
Trees Shrubs
Impervious Coverage 3 21
District Buffer for the Southern
Lot Line and
Street Frontage Buffer for
Tranquil Lane
5 Evergreen
Trees
+ 2T rees
13
Street Frontage Buffer - CO
Highway 7
8 19
Existing Trees Along District
Buffer
-1
Existing Trees on Site (Meeting
Applicable Standards for
Impervious Coverage)
-3 -21 (Although
there are only 2
existing shrubs,
the additional 23
trees on site can
be counted to
towards the
required number
of shrubs.
Total 14 32
If staff determines that the trees behind Unit 5 are protected, replacement trees
shall not required for any of the trees proposed to be removed.
12. The existing access easement was shown on prior versions of the plans but
removed from the latest version. This existing access easement shall be shown on
Sheet 1 of 2.
13. The access/utility easement shown on Sheet 1 of 2 shall be labeled “proposed” as
it was on prior versions of the plan.
14. The “mailboxes pad” label on Sheet 1 of 2 does not point to anything. The mailbox
pad shall be shown.
15. The “OHE,” “SS,” and “E” symbols used on the plan shall be included in the Sheet
1 of 2 legend.
16. The overlapping “drainage pan” text near Colorado Highway 7 shall be removed on
both sheets of the development plan.
17. Provision of animal-proof dumpsters is required, and the condominium declaration
shall address animal-proof dumpsters.
18. A final drainage report shall be submitted for review and approval with the first
grading/building permit.
PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP CONDITIONS:
1. Compliance with the Development Plan 06-06 conditions of approval.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Town Board Liaison Homeier acknowledged Commissioner Hix and thanked him for his
time, effort, and service to the Planning Commission, Town Board, and numerous other
local boards. He also recognized the service and commitment of Commission Pohl over
his 23 years of service to EPURA and the Planning Commission.
Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Court, provided comments on the proposed changes to the
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding vacation homes. He stated
residentially zoned areas should be for residential use only. Commercial enterprises,
including vacation homes, should not be allowed in these zoning districts. He noted there
is existing zoning for accommodations and business uses; operations that require a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
December 19, 2006
business license, such as vacation rentals, should be restricted to areas zoned as
Accommodations or Commercial. He emphasized the difficulty in enforcement of
regulations relating to vacation rentals. He distributed a written copy of his comments to
the Commissioners.
Don Gooldy, 1071 Fall River Court, also provided comments on the proposed changes to
the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding vacation homes. He objected to
use of the term “vacation home,” noting that vacation homes provide accommodations,
not residential living. He requested that no uses, accessory or otherwise, be allowed in
residentially zoned areas except residential use. He distributed written comments to the
Commissioners.
AMENDED PLAT, REZONING, DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-09, & PRELIMINARY
CONDOMINIUM MAP; Sunny Acres Condominiums; Lot 5, Amended Piat of Sunny
Acres Subdivision, and Metes and Bounds, a Portion of the SW 14 of the NW 14 of
S25-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M.; 260, 265, & 267 Sunny Acres Court; Applicant: Van
Horn Engineering representing Steven R. Spry
Director Joseph reviewed the staff report for the proposed amended plat, rezoning.
Development Plan 06-09, and preliminary condominium map proposed for this site. The
original plat of this old subdivision did not dedicate public streets for legal access, nor did
subsequent amended plats. When the adjacent Fall River Village PUD was approved,
access to the applicant’s lots was provided via Sunny Acres Court, a private street within
the PUD. Sunny Acres Court should have been platted as a public street because it
provides public access to an adjacent site, but it was not due to an oversight on the part of
planning staff. In order to address this issue, planning staff recommends that a fifty-foot
right-of-way for a cul-de-sac bulb be platted on the applicant’s property. The cul-de-sac
bulb will not be completed at this time, and Sunny Acres Court will remain a private street.
However, future landowners in the adjacent Fall River Village Estates lots, in conjunction
with future property owners of the applicant’s site, could choose to complete the cul-de-sac
bulb and dedicate the road as a public street. The future homeowners would pay for the
improvements to the road.
Prior to the valley-wide rezoning in 2000, the property was zoned RM-Multi-Family
Residential, but was rezoned to E-I-Estate and R-2.-Two-Family Residential because of a
earlier illegal subdivision of the lot that planning staff was unaware of at the time of the
rezoning. The applicant proposes to combine the two lots into one, which will eliminate the
non-conforming, illegally created R-2-zoned lot. The applicant also proposes to rezone the
property to RM, which staff considers a corrective rezoning, and to formally dedicate
access and utility easements. The rezoning will be conditioned on the final approval and
recordation of the amended plat. Provided the amended plat and rezoning requests are
approved, the applicant’s development plan (#06-09) would allow the expansion of the two
existing duplexes, as well as an additional single-family unit to be built. The applicant has
also submitted a preliminary condominium map proposal for these five units. Each
application is conditioned on approval of the others; if one is denied, all are denied.
Planning staff recommends approval of the requests.
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 Building Department, Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White,
and Estes Park Sanitation District. Written comments were received from neighboring
property owner, Noel West Lane III on behalf of the Lane III Group, Inc. on November 13,
2006, and via two emails on December 13, 2006, in opposition to the applicant’s requests.
Director Joseph stated that in a subsequent telephone conversion with Mr. Lane, Mr. Lane
withdrew his opposition.
Public Comment:
Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying stated the applicant has reviewed
staff’s recommended conditions of approval, is in agreement with them, and will submit
corrections as required.
Illllllllll 111 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
December 19, 2006
Mark Petrovich, representing Noel Lane and the Fall River Village Estates lots, stated Mr.
Lane is in support of the applicant’s proposals for Sunny Acres Condominiums, provided
the following information is correct:
• There will be no removal of Fall River Village Estates street improvements.
• Fall River Village Estates lots will stay separate and distinct from Sunny Acres
Condominiums, exactly as they are now.
• If future landowners wish to dedicate the private street. Sunny Acres Court, as a
public street, the decision to do so rests solely with future Fall River Village Estates
homeowners.
Director Joseph clarified that the most likely scenario is that the future landowners will
have to pay for the road improvements prior to acceptance of the road by the Town Board
into public right-of-way. However, the decision to do so will rest with a future Town Board,
which may or may not choose to help pay for the improvements. No action of the Planning
Commission can presume to bind any future action of the Town Board in this regard.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the request
for an Amended Plat, Rezoning, and Preliminary Condominium Map for Sunny Acres
Condominiums; Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, and Metes and
Bounds, a Portion of the SW !4 of the NW V4 of S25-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M.; to the
Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff,
and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
AMENDED PLAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Compliance with the amended plat comments in Greg White’s memo dated
November 21,2006. All new easements shall be dedicated.
2. Compliance with Greg Sievers’ memo dated November 27, 2006. The following
comments require changes to the amended plat.
a. To address comment #9, ten-foot-wide utility easements shall be dedicated
along all property lines as requested by the Public Works Department.
b. To address comment #12, a shared-driveway maintenance agreement shall be
submitted for staff review and approval and shall be submitted for recording
with the amended plat. The condominium declaration shall address stormwater
maintenance.
c. To address comment #13, a private non-motorized trail easement shall be
dedicated on the amended plat for the existing trail, which connects to the
riverwalk, for the benefit of Lots 3 and 4.
3. Compliance with Estes Park Sanitation District’s comment #2, which states, “The
shared service line agreement needs to be signed by all parties and filed with this
office. The District will have the document recorded, but the recording fees will be
the responsibility of the developer.” The amended plat shall not be recorded until
staff has received confirmation from the Estes Park Sanitation District that EPSD
has received an approved and signed shared-service-line agreement along with
the required recording fee.
4. The private utility easement “for the benefit of Lots 3, 4, and 5 Sunny Acres
Subdivision” shall reference Lot 5A rather than Lot 5.
5. The dedication statement states the size of the two parcels to be combined is
46,974.32 square feet (1.08 acres). The size is 50,902 square feet (1.17 acres).
The dedication statement shall be revised to reference the correct lot size.
REZONING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The Town shall reserve the right to rezone the property if the amended plat is not
recorded within the timeframes established in the Estes Valley Development Code.
PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Compliance with the Development Plan 06-09 conditions of approval.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
December 19, 2006
It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hull) to approve Development Plan 06-09 for
Sunny Acres Condominiums; Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, and
Metes and Bounds, a Portion of the SW Va of the NW Va of S25-T5N-R73W of the 6th
P.M., with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion
passed unanimously with one absent.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-09 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Compliance with the development plan comments in Greg White’s memo dated
November 21,2006. All new easements shall be dedicated.
2. Compliance with Greg Sievers’ memo dated November 27, 2006. The following
comments require revisions to the development plan:
a. Comment #5, which states, “access to the existing pad mount transformer
needs to be improved for future upgrade.” Demonstrate how the required
access will be provided.
b. Comment #10, which states, “the 15” culvert extends beyond the Limits of
Disturbance and does not have detention shown yet.” To address this, the
proposed limits of disturbance shall be revised to accurately reflect all areas
that will be disturbed and onlyXhe areas that will be disturbed with the proposed
redevelopment.
c. Comment #11, which states, “concrete pan shall not be poured any thinner than
4”.” To address this, the detail on Sheet 1 of 2 of the development plan shall be
revised to show a four-inch-thick pan.
3. The development plan shall be revised to demonstrate compliance with Will
Birchfield’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 22, 2006.
4. Architectural elevations and floor plans shall be submitted for the master-bedroom
addition to the 265/267 Sunny Acres Court duplex.
5. All calculations, e.g., building data, floor area ratio, average slope, and impervious
coverage calculations, shall be corrected prior to staff determining whether the plan
meets the required density and dimensional standards.
Examples of errors are listed below.
a. Building Data for the 265/267 Sunny Acres Court duplex shall be included on
Sheet 1 of 2 of the development plan.
b. The Building Data shows a Proposed Building Square Footage of 9,302 square
feet; however, when the square footage for the individual buildings is added
together the proposed square footage is 6,200. Does the 9,302 number include
the second duplex? This shall be clarified. If the total building square footage
changes, the floor area ratio shall be updated.
c. The building measurements shall be shown correctly on the development plan,
i.e., the 265/267 Sunny Acres Court entry is shown as two-feet wide and the
width immediately to the west is shown as 21.6 feet. These widths are not
correct.
d. The incorrect lot size was used to calculate the floor area ratio, i.e., 50,902 was
used rather than 46,974.32 square feet, assuming 46,974.32 square feet is the
correct lot size for proposed Lot 5A.
e. The impervious calculation shall be corrected. This includes verifying the
proposed roof coverage, e.g., is the 265/267 duplex included in the roof
coverage figure? If so, does it include the proposed master bedroom? Why are
patios included in the proposed impervious coverage number, but not the
existing impervious coverage? The correct lot size shall be used to determine
the impervious coverage. A lot size of 46,962 square feet is used. The
46,974.32-square-foot lot size shall be used, assuming this is the correct lot
size for proposed Lot 5A. The maximum allowable impervious coverage shall
be stated on the development plan, i.e., fifty percent.
The amount of required open space shall be shown accurately — 7,046 square
feet, rather than 7,044 square feet, is required.
The Gross Project Areas data shall be removed.
All errors in the average slope calculation shall be corrected, e.g., the correct lot
size shall be used (46,962 square feet is listed twice). Also, the correct land
area required per unit shall be used—in one location 8,610 square feet is
mentioned and in another 8,614 square feet.
f.
g-
h.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 19, 2006
6. The fifteen-foot and ten-foot setbacks shall not overlap adjacent to the right-of-way.
There are two locations where this overlap needs to be corrected.
7. The grading plan shall be re-reviewed and approved by staff after revisions are
made.
a. Actual elevations rather than assumed elevations shall be provided on the
development plan.
b. The Drive Cross Section A-A and the plan shall be consistent. The cross
section shows a four-foot-wide concrete pan. However, a concrete pan is not
shown at Section A-A in plan view.
c. The two drive cross-sections shall be consistent with each other. One mentions
bedrock as an option for the sub-base, and the other does not.
d. Some of the existing contours shown on the original submittal are no longer
shown on this plan and shall be shown, e.g., the 7,800’ contour shall be fully
shown.
e. A 7,896’ contour is missing at the northeastern end of the existing fifteen-inch
culvert and shall be shown.
f. The grading plan and the architectural elevations shall be consistent with each
other. The architectural elevations show that windows on the east side of the
proposed building will be set at an elevation of 7,804’ and the proposed grade
outside these windows will start at 7,808’.
g. Contours shall be shown for the existing driveway leading to the 265/267
duplex.
h. What is the 7,799’ contour line meant to represent? The remainder of the
contour lines on the plan are at even rather than odd elevations.
i. Sufficient spot elevations shall be provided to demonstrate that water runs in
the center of the existing main driveway and that the driveway has positive
drainage.
8. The location of the proposed fifteen-inch culvert and the four-foot-wide concrete
drainage pan with riprap at the outlet shall be revised to protect existing trees.
9. The number of existing and proposed trees and shrubs shown on the plan and in
the table on Sheet 1 of 2 shall be consistent with each other.
10. The minimum required landscaping provided in the staff report shall be shown on
the development plan.
11. The sizes of mature trees and shrubs shall be shown on the development plan. In
some cases, this plan shows small trees as being larger than the large trees, e.g.,
an eight-inch-diameter tree is shown as being larger than a fifteen-inch-diameter
tree.
12. References to hand watering in Landscape Note #6 shall be removed.
13. Provision of animal-proof dumpsters is required, and the condominium declaration
shall address animal-proof dumpsters.
14. Continuous curbs shall be provided to form a non-interrupted edge around
landscaped areas adjacent to parking and turn-around areas that are not protected
by wheel stops.
15. The EPSD states that the plan “...meets with their approval with one change. A
separate four-inch service line for Lot 3 needs to be extended to the property line of
Lot 3 at the time work is done for the proposed single unit. Tearing up and
replacing asphalt at a later date is not an acceptable cost-effective solution.” A note
should be added to the development plan addressing timing of sewer line
installation.
16. A final drainage report shall be submitted by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 2, 2007
that is stamped by an engineer and includes the certification block found in the
Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards Manual. The report shall review the
need for water quality filtration prior to entering Fall River.
17. The preliminary cul-de-sac bulb construction plans shall include actual rather than
assumed elevations, and the applicant shall ensure that as-built conditions for
Sunny Acres Court are shown accurately.
18. The preliminary cul-de-sac bulb construction plans shall include elevations of
utilities, and any utilities that will need to be relocated shall be noted.
19. Existing and proposed transformer sizes shall be noted.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 19, 2006
20. A note shall be placed on the development plan stating that the plan is conditioned
on recordation of the approved amended plat by the Town.
21. Labels that do not point to anything shall be removed, e.g., on Sheet 2 of 2 the
labels “existing gas line,” “existing 6” main not in use,” and “existing 4” service”
shall be removed.
22. The lot line and monumentation notes for the smaller, illegally subdivided parcel
shall be removed.
23. The Certification and Approval shall be removed from Sheet 2 of 2. This is a
duplicate of the information on Sheet 1 of 2.
24. An easement symbol shall be provided in the legend. “TC” shall be included in the
legend.
25. Erosion Control Note #6 and Landscape Note #4 shall be combined into one note.
26. The vicinity map on Sheet 1 of 2 shall show the adjacent lots and roads correctly.
27. A wildfire-hazard mitigation plan may be required at the building permit stage. A
note on the plan states that it will be required. This note shall be removed.
28. Paper copies of the revised plans addressing all conditions of approval that require
changes to the plans shall be submitted to staff by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January
2, 2007. This will allow staff time to review the plans prior to the deadline for
submittal of the mylar, i.e., 5:00 p.m., Thursday, January 18, 2007.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines
Subdivision, 1150 West Elkhorn Avenue, Applicant: Real Estate Investment Get I,
LLC
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a proposal to redevelop a site that
currently has twenty-six units with twenty-three units for accommodations and multi-family
use. The proposed plan includes widening the access road, adding a pedestrian trail along
the access road and Elkhorn Avenue, creating drainage ponds along the river, and
creating four driveways on the south side of the river and one on the north side. This
property and most of the surrounding properties are zoned A-Accommodations, which
allows residential and/or accommodations use. The applicant proposes either or both
uses. Properties to the south share the common access road with the applicant’s lot. An
amended plat application to combine two lots into one was approved for this property on
September 26, 2006, but was not acted upon and has since lapsed.
Planning staff based their review of this application on the plans submitted on December 6,
2006. Revised plans that addressed some of staff’s concerns were submitted for inclusion
with Planning Commission packets on December 13, 2006; however, the Planning
Commission must base their decision on the plans submitted for staff review on December
6, 2006. Planning staff recommends denial of this application due to noncompliance with a
variety of requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), and Planner Shirk
provided detailed information on areas of non-compliance. A brief summary is provided in
the staff findings shown below.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The submitted application fails to meet numerous requirements of the Estes Valley
Development Code, as specified in the Staff report. These include:
a. Limits of Disturbance Standards set forth in Section 7.2.D;
b. Landscaping does not include street frontage landscaping for the interior street,
fails to protect significant trees within twenty-five feet of streets, and uses incorrect
calculation requirements;
c. Unit 23 does not meet required setbacks. Units 8-11 do not meet required wetland
setback;
d. Stormwater ponds do not meet “BMP” (Best Management Practices) requirements,
aesthetic requirements of Section 7.2.B8, or required river setback;
e. Section 7.6.G regarding existing vegetation within required river setback;
f. Building height for units 16 and 21 appears to exceed limit. Other units are very
close to exceeding height limit; and,
g. In Staff’s opinion the grading plan fails to comply with Section 7.2.B3 “Cutting to
Create Benches.”
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 19, 2006
8
2. There are a variety of technical corrections that need to be made to the submitted
development plan prior to final review. These include:
a. Finalization of impervious coverage and density calculations;
b. Sidewalk width (need to ensure it will fit in allotted right-of-way);
c. Driveway design (width, intersection design);
d. Lighting plan;
e. Right-of-way width and associated setbacks;
f. Refine grading plan;
g. Certain landscaping plan changes (retaining wall landscaping, notes, clarify
symbols);
h. Off-Street parking design;
i. Utility design (including required easement);
j. Amend Limits of Disturbance to encompass all site work.
3. There are several technical corrections that could be made conditions of approval.
These include:
a. Road crown;
b. Postal box easement;
c. Crosswalk markings;
d. Corner radii;
e. Pedestrian easement near river;
f. ADA ramps;
g. Parking area curbing.
4. Staff recommends the southern drives be removed, per Table 4-7 and Appendix
D.III.6, unless the site can be redesigned to minimize proposed Limits of Disturbance.
5. The Town will not consider assuming public maintenance of the proposed street until a
cul-de-sac has been fully developed.
6. An amended plat will be required to be recorded prior to issuance of any permits.
7. The development plan is not consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the
Estes Valley Plan.
8. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver to Appendix D.II.E2 “Number of
Vehicle Trips Per Day,” because reducing the number of access points on West
Elkhorn Avenue advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC (minimize drives) and
would result in superior engineering (fewer drives on an arterial street).
9. Staff recommends disapproval of the requested waivers to right-of-way width (Table D-
1) because it would not advance the goals and objectives of the Estes Valley
Development Code and would impact future development of adjacent properties.
10.Staff recommends disapproval of the requested Minor Modification to Section 7.6.E2
(wetlands setback), because such modification would not advance the goals and
purposes of the EVDC and would not result in less visual impact or more effective
environmental or open-space protection.
11. Written comments from the Division of Wildlife received December 18, 2006 reflect
concerns such as the site is on critical winter range for elk, mule deer, and bighorn
sheep; any increased sedimentation or pollution from petroleum products due to runoff
from the site will degrade the riparian area (Fall River); all garbage containers should
be bear-proof; etc.
12. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the development plan. Per
Section 3.2.F, appeals to the Planning Commission decision may be made to the
Town Board.
This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring
property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the
Colorado Division of Wildlife, Town Attorney Greg White, Estes Park Sanitation District,
and the Town of Estes Park Building Department and Public Works Department.
Public Comment:
Mike Todd of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the
applicant. He stated that limits of disturbance on the site has been the primary issue
between the applicant and planning staff since the original pre-application conference in
April 2006. He provided a synopsis of the applicant’s submittals for this project. He listed
areas of staff concern that he believed had been addressed in the plans submitted on
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
December 19, 2006
December 13, 2006. He stated the applicant agrees to staff’s suggested changes except
those regarding limits of disturbance and the cutting and creation benches through grading
on the site. The applicant proposes to remove 88 of the 219 trees on the site. He
discussed the driveways for units 13 through 23, stating that in order for the property to be
marketable, the garages for the units need to be on the main living level. He stated the
applicant is not requesting any variances. In response to a question from Commissioner
Kitchen, he stated twenty-three units would be maximum number of units allowed on the
site, and twenty-three units are proposed.
Bryce Dallman addressed the Commissioners, stating he will be the contractor for the
project if it is approved. He stated there is nothing recommended by staff that he can’t live
with or work with except the issue of the trees. He stated more trees can be planted if the
Commissioners believe the applicant proposes removal of too many. He stated that the
proposed new units will look much nicer than the existing development on the site.
The applicant/property owner, Carl Towner, stated he has been working with planning staff
since April; no major concerns were raised by staff at the pre-application meeting in April.
He believes his engineer, Mike Todd, has addressed nearly all issues raised by planning
staff over the last seven to nine days. He stated the real issue is the limits of disturbance
and that he wants to develop the property. If trees are lost to development, he will replace
those trees.
Planner Shirk read from a letter he sent to the applicant on April 19, 2006, following the
pre-application conference. The letter addresses the need for the interior private road to be
constructed to public-street standards, calls out the required right-of-way width, street
width, and so forth. It also calls out limits of disturbance standards, notes that no attempt
has been made in the pre-application plans to save significant trees, and states that staff
will recommend disapproval of the application if it is submitted as shown.
Greg Sievers, Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, stated he would like to clarify
an item in his memo of September 22, 2006. Bridge design specifications are frequently
seen on development plans, but the applicant’s submitted plan does not show any
AASHTO or roadway bridge design information. This information can be provided at the
construction phase.
Discussion followed among the Commissioners and planning staff, with Chair Pohl noting
the application’s multiple areas of non-compliance with the EVDC and the need to balance
the property owner’s rights with the rights of the community. Commissioner Kitchen stated
consideration should be given to the fact that the site has already been disturbed by
development. Commissioner Klink stated limits of disturbance are not specifically defined
in the EVDC, that changes to the roads/driveways and impervious coverage may require
removal of a unit, and suggested continuance of this application to the January meeting.
Mike Todd stated the proposed limits of disturbance will be the same in future proposals
and that the applicant has not intended to change the proposed limits of disturbance since
the original proposal presented to staff in April.
It was moved by Commissioner Hull to disapprove Development Plan 06-08,
Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, due to non-
compliance with Estes Valley Development Code standards. The motion failed for
lack of a second.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to continue Development Plan 06-08,
Riverview Pines Deveiopment, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, to the January
16, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed
unanimously with one absent.
Chair Pohl called a recess at 3:35 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 3:42 p.m.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 19, 2006
10
thNON-MOTORIZED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT, All Section 15, T5N, R72W of the 6
P.M., less Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners MLD 93-EX0327, 2750
Notaiah Road, Applicant: Eagle Rock School/American Honda Education
Corporation
Director Joseph reviewed the staff memo. He summarized events leading to this request,
including the Eagle Rock School’s appeal to the Estes Valley Planning Commission on
July 18, 2006 to be relieved of an original condition of approval—that is, to provide a public
access easement to National Forest Service property. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of the request to the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners, who heard the request on September 11, 2006 and denied the appeal.
The County Commissioners further set deadlines for compliance, including the
requirement to provide a non-motorized public access easement proposal that would meet
the intent of the original condition of approval to the Planning Commission no later than
December 2006, with recordation of the easement to be completed no later than January
31, 2007. Planning staff has met with representatives of the school and the Estes Valley
Trails Committee, as well as had telephone conversations with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife, in an effort to advance discussions so Eagle Rock School could comply with the
original condition of approval.
Director Joseph provided a graphic presentation of the public access easement proposed
by Eagle Rock School (the “black-flag route”) and an alternate route proposed by planning
staff (the “blue-flag route”). Both routes were walked in the field and recorded using GPS
equipment. It is staff’s opinion that the black-flag route has serious flaws due to the
rugged, steep nature of the terrain and the fact that the route crosses adjacent private
property in more than one location. Staff believes the black-flag route does not adequately
accommodate the public’s right of access across the Eagle Rock School property in a way
that is consistent with the intent of the original condition of approval. Furthermore, Eagle
Rock School presented a draft “Grant of Easement Agreement” that includes language
which imposes a number of restrictions that are unreasonable and inconsistent with the
original intent for public access across the school’s property. It specifically prohibits hunter
access across the property. When development of the property was approved in the
1990s, hunter access across the property was a central issue. The draft easement
agreement also requires the County to screen the public and allows Eagle Rock School to
terminate the agreement for breach of enforcement. In staff’s opinion, the proposed
agreement is not workable and is destined to fail.
In staff’s opinion, there is a workable route that does not interfere with the school’s
operations on the campus—the blue-flag route. This route closely follows an historic trail
that was used for many years to access forest service property to the east of the school
property. The school has failed to come forth with a better alternative. Planning staff
recommends the Planning Commission create a finding that the proposed black-flag route
is unacceptable and the language of the proposed easement agreement is unacceptable.
Written comments were received from Dave Larsen, Trails Supervisor for Rocky Mountain
National Park, and from Ernst Strenge, Resource Specialist for the Larimer County Parks
and Open Lands Department, both of whom walked the two routes under consideration.
Both concur with planning staff that the black-flag route has serious flaws, including the
steep and difficult-to-navigate terrain and practical difficulties for trail construction. Each
recommends the blue-flag route.
Public Comment:
Robert Burkhardt, Head of Eagle Rock School & Professional Development Center, 2750
Notaiah Road, stated only 30% of the approximately 1.25-mile-long proposed trail is in
dispute. He requested the trail remain as far north on the property as possible due to
issues of intrusion and safety, noting the school uses all of the property. He stated the
school had designated a “sacred site” on the northerly portion of the property in 2001 and
expressed his desire to ensure the proposed trail does not interfere with the use of the site.
He stated there is no doubt about the school’s willingness to put in a trail easement;
however, the language of the original condition for an access easement does not specify
how easy access should be. He expressed concern that the blue-flag route would invite
people into the school and create safety issues. He stated his agreement that forest
J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 19, 2006
11
service lands to the east of the school property should be accessible but noted he is
extremely reluctant to allow firearms on school property. He encouraged the
Commissioners to consider providing for hunter access across the southeast corner of
Section 16 on property that was ceded to Rex Walker when the school was developed. He
disagreed that the language in the proposed access agreement is designed for failure. He
noted there is currently no right of access to the school’s property across adjacent private
property. When questioned by Commissioner Hull whether the Planning Commission
should consider the black-flag route as the school’s easement proposal when the route
crosses adjacent land privately owned by MacGregor Ranch, he stated he didn’t see how
they could.
Further discussion followed among the Commissioners, Mr. Burkhardt, and Director
Joseph. Director Joseph presented a graphic from 1992 showing a tentative trail location
that staff’s currently proposed blue-flag route closely follows. Commissioner Kitchen
pointed out that hunter access across the southeast corner of Section 16 (Rex Walker’s
property) would still require crossing land privately owned by yet another party.
Commissioner Klink stated the original agreement provided for limited hunting on the
Eagle Rock School property. Mr. Burkhardt stated the Memorandum of Understanding had
expired in 1997, with none of the participating parties moving to renew the MOU. The MOU
is null and void. He further stated some hunting abuses had occurred when hunting was
allowed during the construction phase of the school. Hunting has not been allowed since
that time.
Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, stated that
prior to development of the Eagle Rock School, the school property (Section 16) was
heavily hunted and was a very important elk harvest area. When the section came under
consideration for development of the school, the Board of County Commissioners required
a trail easement for public access as a prerequisite for approval and further required Eagle
Rock School to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service to address elk-harvest issues.
Disabled hunters were allowed to hunt on the school property for one season and a portion
of another prior to the time the campus was constructed. Upon completion of campus
construction, hunting was to be allowed only during school breaks when students would
not be present on the property. The disabled hunter access entailed no more than two
hunters restricted to vehicles and guided by hunter-education instructors. He stated he had
done his best to investigate the alleged hunter abuse, but could not find any Eagle Rock
employee who would come forward and tell him what the abuse was. Since that time,
approximately twelve years ago, only two elk have been harvested on the Eagle Rock
property. He stated the agreement with the County Commissioners was to provide public
access as well as hunting access, and that you can’t have a hunter access trail that
precludes carrying firearms. In considering the issue of safety, he noted that hunter access
is allowed across Rocky Mountain National Park property (formerly McGraw Ranch) where
the access is right through residential buildings used by research staff, as well as national
park property near Twin Sisters mountain, and a number of hunter access corridors to the
Valley. He noted there are many trail easements for hunter access across private land,
including the Cheley Colorado Camps property in Glen Haven. Firearms must be
completed unloaded from both chamber and magazine, which removes danger of
discharge from the firearms. This restriction has prevented problems from occurring on
these access easements. He stated that firearms on a trail easement thousands of yards
from the school campus, under this requirement, would not pose a danger. He expressed
concern that more and more land in the Estes Valley is being removed from hunting
access. The management tool for keeping the elk herd in balance is hunting. Forest
service trails to the north of the school property don’t come anywhere close to Section 15
(the forest service property adjacent to the Eagle Rock property).
Gary Matthews, President of the Estes Valley Trails Committee and resident of 139
Stanley Circle Drive, stated he was one of several trails committee members who walked
the two access routes under consideration. Neither black-flag nor the blue-flag route is free
from obstacles. He stated the area is beautiful and it is clear why hikers, hunters, and
horseback riders were very upset about loss of the access when Eagle Rock School was
developed. He noted there had been over 90 people in attendance at public hearings in
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 19, 2006
12
the 1990s. He stated the black-flag route would be very expensive to construct because it
crosses very steep, difficult terrain. He stated there is an historic trail in existence where
the blue-flag route is proposed. He stated this issue has been drawn out long enough and
that he does not want to see the original condition of approval abandoned. He noted that a
public access easement on the school property would attract outdoor recreation users and
be a great asset to the community.
Bob McCreery 2725 Devils Gulch Road, stated he had attended the Board of County
Commissioners hearing in September when Eagle Rock School’s appeal was denied. He
distributed copies of the statement he made to the County Commissioners. He stated his
great-grandfather had homesteaded in the North End in 1875; members of his family,
including himself, had often ridden on horseback over the Eagle Rock School property,
which was highly used by hikers and horseback riders. He stated the County
Commissioners had been quite stern in stating the school must mutually agree with the
Planning Commission on the proposed trail prior to January 31, 2006 and that the issue
should not be drug out into an indeterminate future. He stated the access from Highway 34
(via the southeast portion of Section 16) presents a straight-up wall of rock that is not very
conducive even to foot traffic and would not be negotiable by horses. He stated trail could
be constructed using existing historic trail that would not cause damage to the school. He
urged the Planning Commission to move forward to meet the deadline set by the County
Commissioners.
Dianne Betts, 2198 Devils Gulch Road, stated she and Dee Burr had ridden on horseback
on the “school section” (Eagle Rock School property) extensively from 1981 until it was
closed to public access and had attended many meetings to establish a trail to replace the
lost access. She noted the importance of maintaining historic access on trails and
providing access for horseback riders, stating the blue-flag route could provide such
access but the black-flag route would not. She noted the Estes Valley Trail Plan provides a
trailhead at the north end of Dry Gulch Road and trail along Dry Gulch Road. She stated
she supports the Eagle Rock School but is upset that the school has developed places on
the property that they now want the proposed trail to go around.
Findings:
Director Joseph stated planning staff requests the Planning Commission to consider
adopting a finding of non-compliance—that the easement alignments proposed by Eagle
Rock School to date fail to meet the requirement set forth by the Board of County
Commissioners that the school come forward through their own efforts and provide an
easement proposal that, in the judgment of the Estes Valley Planning Commission,
accommodates the needs of public right-of-access as contemplated in the original
condition of approval and as subsequently reiterated in September 2006. He also
requested the Planning Commission find that the proposed language of the school’s draft
easement agreement is flawed and also does not accommodate the needs of public right-
of-access as contemplated in the original condition of approval.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) to find that the Eagle Rock
School/American Honda Education Corporation has failed to comply with the
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners’ demand the Eagle Rock
School/American Honda Education Corporation propose a suitable alignment for the
trail by the December 19, 2006 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and to
also find that the language proposed in the draft agreement regarding the proposed
trail does not adequately accommodate the original condition of approval from 1992.
The motion passed with one absent. Those voting In favor: Eisenlauer, Hull,
Kitchen, Klink, and Pohl. Those voting against: Hix.
Director Joseph proposed that th# Planning Commission find that the blue-flag route
shown in the graphic he displayed will provide a suitable alignment across the Eagle Rock
School property. He explained the L-shaped area outlined in blue shown in the northwest
corner of the section, stating this bracketed area will provide a blanket easement 100 feet
wide and 400 feet in either direction to allow flexibility in the placement of future access
across adjacent private property. Town Attorney White suggested that future language in
the proposed easement agreement is an issue for consideration by the Larimer County
I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 19, 2006
13
Attorney rather than for the Planning Commission. Director Joseph noted that if this finding
is adopted, Eagle Rock School could still meet the January 31, 2007 deadline to record the
public access easement, provided the recorded easement is consistent with the graphic
alignment displayed, without having to return again to the Planning Commission.
It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Eisenlauer) that the diagram labeled “Eagle
Rock Blue Flag Trail Route as Established by GPS on December 13, 2006” be
accepted as the proposed access easement across the Eagle Rock
School/American Honda Education Corporation property (Section 16) accessing
U.S. Forest Service property (Section 15), and that this depiction of the trail meets
the requirement to provide a public access easement in this location and meets the
intent of the 1992 condition of approval #21 imposed by the Larimer County Board
of County Commissioners. The motion passed with one absent and one abstention.
Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Pohl. Those abstaining:
Hix.
6. REPORTS
Director Joseph stated he will be meeting with Town Administrator Randy Repola
regarding the possibility of soliciting input and guidance from the Town Board on the topic
of vacation homes. He noted he will be absent from the January Planning Commission
meeting due to his required presence in court to testify on a legal matter involving the
town; Town Attorney White will be absent from the meeting as well. Proposed Estes Valley
Development Code discussions regarding vacation homes and accessory dwelling units
may be postponed because of this.
Chiar Pohl stated that Commissioner Mix’s Planning Commission term expires at the end
of December, making this his last meeting as a Commissioner. He thanked Commissioner
Hix once again for his many years of service.
There being no further business. Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.
Edward B. Pohl, Chair