Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2006-03-21RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 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, Hull, Kitchen, and Klink Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Homeier, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer 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 Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated February 21,2006. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Eisenlauer) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. AMENDED PLAT, Mary’s Meadow Development, Lots 2, 4, and Outlot A, Mary’s Lake Replat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-01 and PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, Mary’s Meadow Development, Proposed Lot 4A, Mary’s Meadow Replat of Mary’s Lake Replat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, East of Mary’s Lake Lodge at the intersection of Kiowa Drive and Mary’s Lake Road, Applicant: Mary’s Meadow Development, Inc. Director Joseph stated this is an amended plat, development plan, and preliminary condominium map proposal that would allow the development of thirty-five single­ family and multi-family units located on proposed Lot 4A. Due to an accident involving the engineer of this project, final plans are not ready for Planning Commission review, and the applicant has requested the continuance of these items to the April 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Additional written comments were received on March 14, 2006 from Deborah P. and Joseph W. Ford of 2800 Kiowa Trail, which primarily object to the proposed location of the common building. Because it was stated at the February 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting that additional public input on this application would be taken at the March meeting. Chair Pohl opened the session to public comment. Public Comment: William Howell of 3025 Sioux Court in Kiowa Ridge Subdivision stated his concerns regarding the deterioration of other co-housing developments and presented photos of said developments as an addendum to his letter of February 13, 2006 to the Planning Commission. He stated his objections to the proposed location of the common building and that the developer had not been receptive to requests to consider relocating the building. Joe Ford of 2800 Kiowa Trail stated his disagreement with planning staffs definition of the development as a multi-family condominium complex. He urged the Planning Commissioners to consider the use, design, and implementation of the proposed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2006 development as well as its impact on surrounding property. He stated his objections to the proposed uses of the common building, particularly as a community gathering place for daily meals. He reiterated his objection to the proposed location of the common building. Attorney White stated that planning staff attempts to mitigate the impact of proposed development on surrounding neighborhoods and that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to determine where the proposed common building will be located, provided it does not violate specific standards, such as building setbacks, contained in the Estes Valley Development Code. Director Joseph stated his belief that Mr. Ford misunderstands the terminology and that co-housing fits easily within the broader umbrella of residential use. Chair Pohl pointed out that as an accommodations-zoned property, the development could be much denser and could include a commercial restaurant. No representative of applicant was present. At the applicant’s request, it was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to continue the Amended Piat request for Mary’s Meadow Development, Lots 2, 4, and Outlot A, Mary’s Lake Replat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, and the Deveiopment Pian 06-01 and the Preiiminary Condominium Map requests, Mary’s Meadow Repiat of Mary’s Lake Repiat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, to the Aprii 18, 2006 Pianning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 1 & 2, Larimer Terminals Subdivision, 901 Juniper Lane, Appiicant: Hawf & Mechem, LLC Planner Shirk stated this is a request to amend two lots by vacating a portion of unused right-of-way and an unused horse-trail easement that were platted with the original subdivision of Larimer Terminals in 1957. The horse-trail easement was not dedicated to the public but was a reserved right of the subdivider. As such, the Planning Commission does not have authority to remove the horse-trail easement. The owner is currently working on a quiet title to vacate the horse-trail easement and has requested continuance of this application to the April 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hull) to continue the request for an Amended Plat of Lots 1 & 2, Larimer Terminals Subdivision, to the April 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, Streamside Condominiums Phase I, Lot 1, Streamside Amended Plat, 1260 & 1350 Fall River Road, Applicant: Streamside Cottages, LLC Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a preliminary condorninium subdivision proposal to divide existing units into individual ownership and provide for the potential development of additional units in the future. The property is currently operated as Streamside Cottages. Development Plan 05-05, which provides for twenty-four units, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 18, 2005. This request contemplates those units and provides building envelopes for the potential development of an additional twenty-four units. Approval of this preliminary condominium map would not provide a vested right for the additional development, which would be subject to full review at the time it is proposed. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Public Works, Engineering, and Light and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21,2006 Power Departments, from Town Attorney Greg White, and from Estes Park Sanitation District. No written comments were received from neighbors. The Estes Park Sanitation District noted the existing service line is inadequate and needs to be replaced; the upgrade is currently in progress. Town Attorney White’s comments were regarding the condominium declaration documents. A variety of comments from Town departments were received regarding the condominium subdivision as well as future development. The bridge on the property must be brought up to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards: replacement of the bridge will be tied to future building permits for new units. All comments from affected agencies were included as suggested conditions of approval. Public Comment: Zach Hanson of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He stated there is a generalized access easement across the property to provide access to the home located adjacent to the southeast portion of the site. The applicant is working with the homeowner to finalize a specific access easement. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map, Streamside Cottages Phase I, Lot 1, Streamside Amended Plat, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with memo from Estes Park Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated February 17, 2006. 2. Building envelope 5 shall not encroach into the building setback/easement. 3. Article 4 of the Declarations shall be amended to clarify that any additional units shall be subject to approval of the Town of Estes Park in accordance with applicable regulations of the then current Estes Valley Development Code, and that approval of this map does not in any way imply approval of the proposed number of units. This amendment shall be subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney. 4. Article Vlll(a)(1) of the Declaration shall be amended as to what the residential and commercial designations refer to, and how it relates to the units, and also how applicable regulations of the Estes Valley Development Code are affected by this provision. This amendment shall be subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney. 5. The Declarations shall be amended to address the existing units in building envelopes 5 and 6. This amendment shall be subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney. 6. Compliance with memo from Greg Sievers (Public Works) to Bob Joseph revised February 17, 2006. The AASHTO bridge will not be required until such time as a building permit for a new unit on the south side of the river is applied for. 6. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, The Pines Condominiums at Estes Park, Lot 2, Pine Knolls Subdivision, 1155 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Applicant: Pines Condominiums Development, Inc. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this request is to allow the former Pine Knoll Apartments, which were built in 1982 as affordable senior housing units, to be subdivided and sold as individual condominium units. The Farmers Home Administration (FHA) funding requirements that the property be managed as affordable housing have expired. No additional development is proposed. The site is approximately 2.5 acres and is zoned RM — Multi-Family Residential. The lot contains forty-eight units in six buildings, a club house, and a parking lot. If built today, the development would require eighty-four parking spaces; fifty-four are provided. The construction of additional parking spaces is not required because this is an existing development: however, planning staff recommends the condominium RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21,2006 declaration address parking in order to prevent conflicts among future owners. Planning staff also recommends that the access easement crossing the northeast corner of the property be further delineated. Estes Valley Development Code adequate public facilities standards are reviewed and must be met with all condominium subdivisions, whether new construction or conversion of existing units. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department and from Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Public Works’ comments regarding drainage, the electric metering plan, water fixtures, and driveway entrances have been included as recommended conditions of approval. Upper Thompson Sanitation District requirements include upgrading the sewer collection system to current standards and that the applicant provide a copy of the existing Joint Use and Easement Grant with adjacent property owners Craig and Carol Rouch. No comments were received from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) or from Town Attorney White. Neighboring property owner Ada McCracken contacted planning staff to inquire about the proposal but voiced no concerns when she understood that the request does not include any additional construction. No written comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public Comment: Mike Sollenberger, general partner of Estes Park Apartments, LLP, reviewed the history and current status of the funding and operation of Pine Knoll Apartments. He stated the partnership’s desire to condominiumize the units and that they are in agreement with staff’s recommended conditions of approval 1 through 6, but object to conditions 7 through 11. He referred to a letter from Attorney Lynn S. Jordan, one of the five authors of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CClOA), which states the staff findings and recommendations cannot be imposed when the change under consideration is only in the form of ownership of the property. Town Attorney White stated he had reviewed Attorney Jordan’s letter. This legal question has been raised numerous times in regard to the Estes Valley Development Code since its adoption in 2000. He stated the development code’s adequate public facilities requirements have been consistently applied throughout the Estes Valley planning area, both within and outside of Town limits, and that CClOA does not limit the Town or County’s ability to impose adequate public facilities requirements as conditions of approval for subdivision into condominiums. Adequate public facilities requirements apply to any subdivision process. He noted this issue remains untested in Colorado or U.S. courts. Mike Todd of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying commented on the Upper Thompson Sanitation District requirement to upgrade the sewer line to current standards, stating the existing sewer collection system meets the requirements of the 2003 International Plumbing Code. Director Joseph recommended the applicant present their concerns directly to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District Board of Directors for their review. Commissioner Hull stated her concerns about lack of adequate parking and questioned Mr. Sollenberger where overflow parking would occur. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a disclosure item to purchasers would be the limitation of only one vehicle per unit. Commissioner Kitchen questioned who would be responsible for the driveway improvements since CDOT had constructed the driveway pans. Greg Sievers of the Public Works Department responded, stating that even though the Highway 7 right- of-way is owned and maintained by CDOT, it is the property owner who is responsible for upgrades and maintenance of private driveways, including the connection to the highway. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2006 Adjacent property owner Ada McCracken, of 1089 Pine Knoll Drive, stated her objection to the proposed conversion of this property to condominium ownership. She noted that parking will be inadequate and there will not be a place for visitors to park. She stated her objection to the potential loss of tranquility in the neighborhood and the impacts of additional traffic on Highway 7. Director Joseph stated it is not within the power of the Planning Commission to require that the development remain a senior-housing complex. Discussion among the Commissioners followed regarding the applicant’s option of appealing the sanitation district’s requirement to upgrade the sewer system directly to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District Board of Directors prior to review by Town Board on April 25, 2006. Commissioner Kitchen stated she disagrees with recommended conditions of approval 7 through 11; Commissioner Klink concurred, particularly in regard to the requirement to upgrade the sewer system. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map, The Pines Condominiums at Estes Park, Lot 2, Pine Knoll Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Pohl. Those voting against: Hull, Kitchen, Klink. CONDITIONS: 1. The north arrow shall be corrected. 2. The access easement crossing the northeast corner of the property shall be further delineated with a tie to a lot corner, distances, and directional bearings. 3. The condominium declarations shall include a section that regulates parking. 4. A water and electrical metering plan shall be submitted with the final map. 5. If future design or changes occur resulting in additional Fixture Value or Dwelling Units, the property shall be required to increase the size of the water service line; any cost associated with the increase in the water service line size shall be the responsibility of the condominium association. Any new water service line or existing service line replacement shall require a Service Line Permit from the Building Department. The sewer collection system shall meet current UTSD standards. Per comments from the Upper Thompson Sanitation District, a Joint Use and Easement Grant between 1151 S. St. Vrain and this project should be submitted with the final map. 9. Typical concrete curb/gutter/cross pan details at the driveway connections shall be provided. 10. Driveway width sizing shall meet Estes Valley Development Code standards found in Appendix D. 11 .A stormwater plan shall be provided with the final map. 6. 7. 8. Chair Pohl called a five-minute recess at 3:10 p.m. 7. PROPOSED CHANGE TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.4.D AND SECTION 13.3 TO ALLOW OUTDOOR ATMs AND INTERNET/COMPUTER KIOSKS IN THE CD-Commercial Downtown ZONING DISTRICT Planner Shirk stated that a variance request approved in the summer of 2005 prompted planning staff to propose the addition of language in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow (automated teller machines (ATMs) arid internet/computer kiosks in the downtown area. He noted that banks are allowed in the CD zoning district, but they can’t offer outside ATMs. There is already an existing exception in the EVDC for outdoor seating and dining in the CD district; a portion of the language for this proposed change was taken directly from the current EVDC. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2006 The additions would be made to Section 4.4.D.1.a.(3), Additional Zoning District Standards, and to Section 13.3, Definitions, as follows: §4.4.D Additional Zoning District Standards. 1. Operational Requirements. a. Outdoor Sales. Use. Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District. (3) Exceptions. (e) Automated Teller Machine (ATM) and Internet/Computer Kiosks along an exterior building wall intended to serve walk- up customers only. ATMs or kiosks shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians through plazas, along adjoining sidewalks, or through other areas intended for public usage. §13.3 Definitions 128.5 Internet/Computer Kiosk shaW mean a device that allows the public to access the internet, send and retrieve e-mail, or access a computer. These shall be integrated within existing buildings and shall not be used to provide off-premise signage for other businesses. The display shall comply with the adopted sign code. Discussion followed, with Commissioners raising a variety of questions, including whether other localities have similar language in their regulations; who would own, operate, and maintain the proposed ATMs/kiosks; whether they could be free­ standing; and whether the ATMs/kiosks would be regulated under the current sign code regulations. Staff agreed to further define the proposed changes and present them to the Planning Commission at the April meeting. Public Comment: None. In order to allow staff to provide additional information, it was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to continue the proposed additions to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4.D and Section 13.3 to allow outdoor ATMs and Computer/Internet Kiosks in the CD-Commercial Downtown zoning district to the April 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. 8. REPORTS None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:43 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair ulie Roedere/ Recordi/g Secretary