Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2000-11-21BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 21,2000,11:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Edward Pohl, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton, Joyce Kitchen, Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, and Dominick Taddonio Chair Pohl, Commissioners Hampton, Kitchen, McKinney, Pettyjohn and Taddonio Town Attorney White, Director Stamey, Larimer County Chief Planner Legg, Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Commissioner Amos Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated October 17,2000. b. Preliminary Plat, Horse Creek Ranch to be continued to the December 19, 2000 meeting at the request of the applicant. c. Preliminary Plat, Bristlecone Subdivision to be continued to the December 19, 2000 meeting at the request of the applicant. d. Amended Plat, Sleepy Hollow Subdivision, Applicant: Gary Connely. Relocation of the shared private drive access to Lots 1 & 2 and 9 & 10. e. Amended Plat, Lot 11 and a portion of Lot 12, McCreery Subdivision, Applicant: George Young. Combines two lots into a single lot of record. f. Boundary Line Adjustment, Lots 32 and 20, Dunraven Heights, Applicant: David Fairbanks. Adjusts a boundary line between Lot 32 and Lot 20. g. Amended Plat, Lumber Yard Subdivision of Lots 5 & 6, Deville Subdivision and a portion of Lot 36, White Meadow View Place, and a portion of Lot 5, Manford Addition, Applicant: Estes Park Lumber Company. Combines four existing lots into one new lot to provide for expansion of the lumberyard use on the subject property. It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/McKinney) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as presented and recommended to the respective Board, and it passed unanimously with the abstention by Commissioner Kitchen on the Sleepy Hollow Amended Plat. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 2 3. REZONING Brown Property, 1272 & 1280 Giant Track Road, Applicant: Dan & Nancy Brown. Russ Legg, Larimer County Chief Planner, presented the staff report and represented the agreement made with the applicants who were absent. This rezoning as restricted represents the agreement that was reached with the applicant during the Valley-wide rezoning that was enacted by Legislative rezoning in November, 1999, but which could not be approved at the time due to the legislative status of the process. This rezoning as restricted is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, and consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. This rezoning as restricted permits the continuation of the existing uses on the property as conforming uses. Public Comment: Steve Shorland, 1011 Sutton Lane - asked for clarification of the number of units and access roads to the site. The applicant has not requested any additional dwelling/accommodation units from the 13 existing units. Additional development would require the applicant to return with a development plan to the Planning Commission. Access to the property has not been reviewed as earlier building permits were issued under the prior County’s Land Use Code. Any additional development would require that adequate access be established. it was moved and seconded (McKinney/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Rezoning of the Brown property from A-1 to A Accommodations with the foiiowing conditions and it passed unanimousiy with one absent. 1. High intensity accommodation uses such as hostel, hotel/motel, RV parks or campgrounds shall not be permitted. 2. No additional units may be constructed without review under the provisions and standards of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. If the Brown’s current active building permit expires (including the possible 6 month extension), then they will be required to reapply in accordance with the EVDC. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 am and reconvened at 1:30 p.m. after a iunch recess. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Deveiopment Pian 00-09, Estes Park Lumber Company, 400 S. St. Vrain, Appiicant: Estes Park Lumber Company. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a proposal to remodel and expand the existing retail building, add a new storage building, and relocate outside storage to the easterly portion of the property along Woodstock Drive. The applicant has received two variances from the Board of Adjustment. One variance is to exceed the 50% maximum lot coverage limit to 58%; the other is to allow the outside storage to be only partially screened from the property lines with plantings as shown on the submitted landscape plan. On site detention is being provided as per the submitted drainage report. All existing significant trees will be protected. There is a requirement to buffer the north property lines where it abuts a residential zoning district and the landscape plan meets this requirement as does all other required street frontage plantings. The entrance on Manford Avenue has been moved approximately 60 feet further west from the intersection with Highway 7. The proposed plans are substantially in conformance with applicable code requirements given the fact that this is a redevelopment of an existing business. A traffic study has been completed by Matthew Delich, P.0., which indicates that the traffic will not be negatively impacted by the redevelopment. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 3 Bill Van Horn was present representing the applicant. He reviewed the history of the Estes Park Lumber Company and commented on the landscaping and view comdors from Highway 7. All metal roofs and material will be non-ref lective and exterior colors will match the existing building. Applicant understands and agrees with the staff recommendations. Public Comment: None It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Taddonio) to approve Development Plan 00-09, the Estes Park Lumber Company, with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. All existing and new exterior lighting shall be shielded as per Section 7.9 of the EVDC. 2. A 24”x36” plan sheet showing drainage construction details shall be provided. 3. ISO/Fire Protection: Buildings must be sprinkled as per submitted ISO calculation. 4. Full compliance with Table 4-8 of the EVDC as applicable, specifically the provision for sidewalks between parking spaces and adjacent building walls. 5. The existing driveway entrance on Manford Avenue is not required to have the 250 ft. separation from Highway 7 due to grade and utility problems. 6. The driveway width shall be reduced to a maximum of 30 feet and the entrance geometry should direct traffic in and out at a 90 degree angle with Manford Avenue. 5. SUBDIVISIONS a. South Lane Minor Subdivision and Rezoning, Lot 33 and Portions of Lots 32 and 34, Staniey Heights Subdivision, Appiicants: David & Nancy Bargen and James & Faith Tempie. Bill Van Horn was present representing the applicants. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a proposal to rezone two lots in Stanley Heights from RE to E-1. Lot 32 (Temple) is 1.11 acres. Lot 33 & 34, the Bargen property, is also proposed to be subsequently subdivided. The “Future Land Use” component of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan identifies the North End, including this site, for low-density single family residential land use. This low-density residential land use designation has been implemented with the “RE-1” and “RE” zoning districts as delineated on the Official Zoning Map of the Estes Valley, adopted November 3, 1999. This area in particular is zoned “RE” Rural Estate, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. This subdivision would create 2-acre lots, which would not conform with the RE zoning minimum lot area. Therefore, the applicants are requesting to rezone the property to E Estate, which would allow a minimum lot area of one acre. There has not been any significant change in this neighborhood that provides a basis for this request. Piecemeal, or spot rezoning to allow lot splits is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or the Estes Valley Development Code. Therefore, Staff recommends disapproval of this request. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the public correspondence. Correspondence was received from: Opposition James Dunward Kurt & Gail Lewis David Richards Gregg & Cindy Petersen Gary Selan Richard F. Brown, Stanley Heights Property Owners Association Supporting Rose Forrister Karen Page Crislip John & Lorraine Roberts BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Van Horn reviewed the request. The appearance of the Bargen property is that of two lots and separated by a fence. He pointed out that the Temple lot is now non-conforming. There is a hardship case involved with the Bargen’s house burning down. He does not feel this is spot zoning as it is adjacent to the E-1 zoning to the south. The applicant would be willing to limit any further subdivision. Public Comment: Jeane Cole, 851 Panorama Circle - spoke in favor of the request. David W. Richards, 820 West Lane - advised that the Schlagle’s and the Wehr’s as well as himself are opposed to the rezoning. Bill Kirk, Broadview Subdivision - spoke in favor of the request. Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane - spoke in opposition of the request. Richard Brown, 871 East Lane, President of Stanley Heights Association-spoke in opposition to the request, noting that South Lane is a private street. Gary Selan, 870 West Lane - spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Van Horn responded to some of the comments of the public. Nancy Bargen, the applicant, advised that the neighbors had been contacted by herself or Faith Temple. , his farc^-k voWlWe Bus Schageman, Lot 9, West Lane - spoke in opposition to the request. Chair Pohl closed the public hearing. Director Stamey reviewed the ownership and lot sizes within Stanley Heights. Commissioners made comments regarding the appropriateness of the rezoning and difficulty of the situation. it was moved and seconded (McKinney/Hampton) to recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners of the Rezoning for Lot 33 and portion of Lots 32 and 34, Stanley Heights Subdivision and it passed. Those voting yes (to deny) - McKinney, Hampton, Pohl and Taddonio. Those voting no - Kitchen and Pettyjohn. As the required rezoning request was denied, the application for subdivision of Lot 33 was not considered. b. Ayerie Minor Subdivision, SW of the NE V4 of Section 34, Applicants: John Scott Weber & Lori Ann Weber. Bill Van Horn was present representing the applicants. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is an application for a minor subdivision to divide one lot into two lots pursuant to Section 10.1, B.2 of the EVDC. The property is fully developed. In accordance with Section 3.7, A.2.b, the applicant requests a minor exception for the proposed Lot 1 to allow for a minimum land area of 46,770 square feet In lieu of the 54,450 square feet required for five units in the “A-1” Accommodations district. Public Comment: Sawnie Robertson, owner of the two north lots - spoke in opposition to the lot layout and requested the lot line be continued to the west. Nina Kunze, 2125 Eagle Cliff Road - spoke in opposition to the property line location also. Also the “shed” on the smaller lot should not be allowed to become BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 a dwelling unit. Page 5 John Scott Weber, owner, advised that improvements had been made on the property, and the additional structure on Lot 2 could not be used as a dwelling unit, but only as a storage unit or workshop. Mr. Van Horn commented that a revised lot line would probably not deter trespassers. Staff advised that a revision to the plat of the lot line would not delay its presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Pettyjohn) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Ayerie Minor Subdivision with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 2. The lot line will be redrawn from the angle to the west, instead of the north, with staff approval, consistent with the Planning Commission discussion. 3. The Dedication Statement should be revised to read as follows: ‘To hereby subdivide the same into Lots and Blocks, streets, utilities, and private access easements as shown on this Plat and hereby designate and dedicate the streets and the utility easements to and for public use and for the installation and maintenance of utilities, irrigation and drainage facilities and to hereby designate the same as....” 4. The ingress and egress easements should be designated as private. A note shall be added to the Plat stating that the approval of the Subdivision Plat does not affect the non-conformity of the structures located on the premises with regard to setbacks. 5. This involves a minor modification to lot area and the site is fully developed. No additional dwelling units will be allowed on either lot. A note to this effect shall be placed on the plat. 6. The note that the access easement requires a shared maintenance agreement with the property owners to the north shall be removed from the plat. c. Waldo Minor Subdivision and Zoning, Lot 4 located In the NW V4 of the NW % of Section 31, Applicants: William & Evelyn Waldo. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request to annex into the Town of Estes Park and subdivide the existing 2.6 acre tract into two lots of 1.35 acres and 1.25 acres. The zoning is to remain E-1, Estate. The proposed subdivision will meet all of the applicable code requirements and is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present representing the applicant. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (PettyjohiVTaddonio) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Waldo Minor Subdivision with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Annexation into the Town of Estes Park with E-1 Estate zoning. 2. Sanitary sewer must be extended from Lexington lane to serve this subdivision. An improvement guarantee shall be required for the sewer extension. 3. This property must petition to be included in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal Subdistrict. 4. All existing easements should be noted on the plat and should be labeled as such with the corresponding book and page, or reception number noted. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 6 5. The lots shall be labeled as Lot 1 and Lot 2 (rather than 4a and 4b). 6. The area of the public road dedication shall be shown on the plat. 7. Delineation of lot property lines and monumented comers shall be corrected. 8. Utility easements shall be provided per Estes Park Sanitation District requirements. d. Preliminary Plat, Pratt Subdivision, tract located in the NW of Section 9, Applicant: Charles Pratt. Charles Pratt was present and reviewed the history of the property. At the time of an estate settlement in 1986, the property was illegally subdivided. A legal lot status is needed in order for the sale of the property, which is currently under contract to Mr. Meadon, property owner to the west. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The purpose of this preliminary plat is to obtain legal lot status for a 4.12 acre parcel of land that has been physically divided from the original parcel. The original parcel was illegally divided out of an estate in 1986. Subsequently, the Meadon and Parker parcels were approved through a boundary line adjustment, leaving the 4.12 acre tract isolated as an illegal lot. The proposed access is via a private drive crossing the YMCA, Head, Parker, and Meadon properties. A private access easement is proposed that would restrict the use of the road, and it would also restrict the physical width of the road. The property will be served by the private YMCA water system, and will also require use of a septic field. The minimum lot area requirement will be met. The proposed water and septic service will be adequate for single family domestic use, however, ISO fire flow requirements will not be met. Signed and recorded shared access and maintenance agreements are required to demonstrate legal access to the proposed lot. This request involves two exceptions to applicable road standards: (1) There will be more than four dwellings served by a private drive and (2) the required easement and private drive minimum road width will not be met. Public Comment: Warren Parker, 3108 Rainbow Drive - asked clarification of the access and water easements. Senior Planner Joseph advised that the County’s Environmental Site and Access Specialist will review the private road and will make recommendations and issue a Private Road Construction Permit. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pettyjohn) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Preliminary Plat of Pratt Subdivision with the foiiowing conditions and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 1. The subject property shall be rezoned to RE, Rural Estate, from A-1 at the time of the Final Plat. 2. Signed and recorded shared access and maintenance agreements shall be provided as required to demonstrate legal access to the proposed lot. 3. The owner shall petition to be included in the Northern Colorado Conservancy District and the Municipal Subdistrict. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Private Road Construction Permit from Larimer County’s Environmental Site and Access Specialist, Scott Cornell, prior to the County Commissioners’ hearing. 5. The Estes Valley Planning Commission supports the applicant’s request for exemption from the County’s private drive regulations. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 7 6. REPORTS Staff Review, Rocky Mountain Nature Association. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the action for the Planning Commission. There being no further business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m. y "D /• Edward B. Pohl, Chair ^JUuJ>€tL [r Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary