Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2000-07-18BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 18, 2000,1:30 p.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Attending: Chair Edward Pohl, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Joyce Kitchen, Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, and Dominick Taddonio Chair Pohl, Commissioners Amos, Kitchen, McKinney, Pettyjohn and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Board Liaison Habecker, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:None Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and opened the floor to any person wishing to speak directly to the Commission on subjects not related to the agenda items. Frank Theis - there are not enough incentives for affordable housing, the time limit to allow for appreciation is a deterrent to buyers. Limited definition of kitchens does not allow for fixtures that conserve water use. 1. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated June 20,2000. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pettyjohn) that the consent agenda be accepted as presented and it passed unanimously. 2. DEVELOPMENT PLANS 1. Development Plan 00-07, Lot 3, Mary’s Lake Subdivision, Applicaiit: Frank Theis. Frank Theis was present and gave a review of the history of the subdivision and the Development Plan for Mary’s Lake Lodge. Phase I is almost completed and is the renovation of the existing lodge. Phase II will be the rebuilt south wing. Phases III and IV are the expansion of additional condominium dwelling units. Sr. Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance to increase the allowed Floor Area Ratio from 25% to 29% and to increase the height of the new south wing to the historic height of the original structure of 50 feet. There are some wetlands on the site and staff does support a reduction in the set back10 3J-5 feet Staff recommends acceptance of the landscaping plan which allows the applicant to replace some of the required bushes with trees. The sUe will be at the 50% impervious coverage and approval is based on the coridition that t e shared access shall be accomplished before the final phase. It is important to be consistent with the architectural theme throughout the development. Al Sager - member of Board of Adjusfment, questioned whether the Board of Adiustment should not have previously reviewed the vanance on me wetlands setbaokforthe parWng lot. Sr. Planner Joseph advised Planning Comm's^on had the authority to allow a variance of up to 25% in the setbacte. If more than that, it wiil need to go to Board of Adjustment. If the Board of Ad{nstmf n* does not give the variance, the appiicant must return to the Pianning Commission with a revised development plan. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 18, 2000 Page 2 Frank Theis noted they had 9 more parking spaces than required and if the variance was not approved, another arrangement could be applied. It was moved (Amos) to approve Development Plan 00-07, Lot 3, Mary’s Lake Subdivision, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The proposed subdivision plat (Mary’s Lake Subdivision) shall be approved to reconfigure this lot as shown on this development plan. 2. The developer shall obtain a blanket drainage easement from the adjacent property owner prior to issuance of new building permits. 3. The developer/owner of the Lodge shall agree to accept undetained developed flows from the property adjacent to the west, as per Bill Linnane’s memo. 4. The service drive behind the main hotel building will require curb and gutter to carry drainage around the building. 5. All conditions of the Annexation Agreement pertaining to the development of this site shall be met, including Public works approval of the water system prior to application for the First Certificate of Occupancy. 6. All conditions of Bill Linnane’s Public Works memo dated May 23, 2000 shall be met. 7. An improvement guarantee for construction of the north public street connection to Mary’s Lake Road shall be provided prior to issuance of any new building permits. 8. All walkways shown on the plan shall be hard surfaced. All parking areas and access drives shall be hard surfaced, except for the existing drive to the cabana building. 9. New underground utility easements shall be dedicated across this site. They shall be clearly labeled on the plan, and shall be dedicated prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy’s for new buildings. lO.SIope stabilization and revegetation details shall be provided pertaining to all cut and fill slopes steeper than 50% (2:1). 11 .Parking lot and road dimensions shall be added to the plan. 12. The access to the final phase crosses adjacent property (Tawney). A recorded easement agreement and maintenance agreement must be provided prior to issuance of a building permit for the final phase. 13. The parking near the wetlands lies within the required setback, and the applicant must receive a variance from the Board of Adjustment for this 14. Labeling for the final phase, whether Phase III or Phase IV, needs to be consistent on the plan. 15. Trash dumpsters shall be secured against bears and other animals. 16. Planning Commission recognizes the encroachment in the wetlands setback and approves up to the 25% allowance. 17. The applicant shall provide a deed restriction for the three employee housing units within the Lodge. 2. Development Plan 00-08, Location & Extent Review, SW V4 of Section 20, NW y4 Section 29, T5N, R72W, Lake Estes Marina, Applicant: Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District. John Spooner of Van Horn Engineering was present with Stan Gengler, Exea Director of EVRPD, the applicant. Bureau of Reclamation, the owner of the property, is in favor of the proposal. Planner Shirk reviewed the s aff report The existing building is approximately 50 years old and does not meet the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 18, 2000 Page 3 existing building code or ADA requirements. Additional landscaping and dust control was recommended. There was no public comment. John Spooner responded to questions from the Commissioners. Construction of the building will be similar to the restroom building and expect the lifetime of the building to be around 40 years. Future use could possibly change; however, camping was dropped from the plan due to the cost of maintenance requirements and the required number of sites. The new site for fuel storage has been reviewed with Chief Dorman in order to comply with the fire code. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks Board of Development Plan 00- 08, Lake Estes Marina, and it passed unanimously. 3. SUBDIVISIONS 1. Amended Plat, Lots 42,43 & 46, Fall River Addition, Applicant: Charles Franklin Hix, Jr. Trust; Alma & C. Frank Mix, Jr. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff analysis regarding the presentation given at the June 20, 2000 meeting by the neighbors. Applicant Rebuttal: Bill Van Horn was present representing the applicants and addressed the driveway and the hazards issues as follows: Tract 46 exists today and is a legal building site. It also had a legal access prior to 1950 with the driveway being constructed in the 60’s. There has always been an historic access to the property. If an exception is denied, several scenarios are possible. A building permit could be issued fora building in the proposed envelope on Tract 46 as it exists today. Then a subdivision by right could be applied for where the driveway would riot be an issue. The applicant is not expanding rights but does not wish to diminish any of their rights. Ridgeline, rockfall and geologic hazard require further investigation and corrections made to the report. The proposed building envelope is outside the Robinson rock fall area and a new lot is not being created. Michael West’s report actually expanded the hazard area to where the rocks would go which appears to include all the Al Fresco Subdiyisiori. Using a slide show. Bill Van Horn reviewed the rock fall hazard terrain and gave examples of various rock formations and the stability of those rocks. Risk is not the same as hazard. Chair made note that Commissioner Kitchen was abstaining. Opposition rebuttal: x ^Anne Racine, neighbor - advised that the lower portion of the dnveway is not owned by Mr. & Mrs. Hix. John Phipps - local property owner, questioned staff regarding the statement that this is not a subdivision. Sr. Planner Joseph noted that the Preliminary Plat requirements did not apply since this application is a boundary hne adjustment. The adjacency requirement is listed under the Preliminary Plat process. Minor subdivisions and boundary line adjustments are not required to show all continguous ownership. The exception to the driveway grade is due to the fact that this is an existing road that cannot be rebuilt so a staff exception to the grade limit of 12% is not applicable. Mr. Phipps also made comment on the wildfire and geologic hazard and the exception to the driveway. Clarification from staff pointed out that the dnveway exception would go hand in hand with the boundary line adjustment. Requirement that a BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 18, 2000 Page 4 geologic review be performed prior to Town Board action does not require that the actual mitigation be performed. A report that there is a geologic hazard does not make this lot unbuildable or prevent a use covenant by the applicant. It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommend to the Town Board to approve Amended Plat, Lots 42,43 and 46, Fall River Addition, with conditions, and the motion failed. Those voting yes - Commissioners Amos and McKinney. Those voting no - Commissioners Pettyjohn, Taddonio and Pohl. (Commissioner Kitchen abstained.) It was moved (Taddonio) to amend the motion to include that no accessory dwelling be allowed, which failed for lack of a second. 2. Amended Plat, Lot 1, Block 2, and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Third Amended Plat of Lot 2, Block 2, Windcliff Estates Fourth Subdivision, Applicant: Ken Migdalski. Chris Kuglics from Estes Park Surveyors wp present representing the applicant and reviewed the proposal. Planner Shirk gave the staff report. This is a request to rearrange open space and two lots and to rotate an existing lot line. The modification of lot location will be accomplished in a fashion that changes the surrounding open space lot configuration, but not its size. There was no public comment. Mr. Kuglics responded to questions from the Commissioners. It was confirmed that the size of the open space did not change. K was moved and seconded (McKlnney/Pettyjohn) to recommend approval to the Board of County commissioners, and it passed unanimously. ' 3 ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Modifications - Since there was no comment, the Chair continued this discussion until the August 15,2000 meeting. 4’ BE»ssioner Amos made a procedural recommendation to end discussion at S p m if there was a significant amount of discussion remainmglnaddition.^bhc c^rrients should be limited to five minutes, or three minutes if there were many wishing to speak, it was the general consensus of the Commission to approve these recommendations. There were no other reports. There being nofurther business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 4:37 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Sdefetary