HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2001-08-21BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 21, 2001,1:30 p.m.
Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton,
Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio
Chair Kitchen, Commissioners Amos, McKinney, Pettyjohn, Pohl, and
Taddonio
Town Board Liaison Habecker, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph,
Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Wheatley
Commissioner Hampton
Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a, Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated July 17, 2001.
b. Development Plan 01-11, Estes Park Kingdom Hall, Lot 5, Block 3, Lone Pine Acres
(per Staff recommendations and conditions).
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pettyjohn) that the Consent Agenda be accepted
and it passed unanimously with one absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
a. Judy Lamy, member of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, made an apology for some
confusion regarding her vote during a Board of Adjustment meeting.
b. Larry Coulson, 970 East Lane, spoke in opposition to staff’s determination of his
separate lot status and invited Commissioners to attend the next Board of Adjustment
meeting.
c. Jean Smith, 2334 Highway 66, owner and operator of a small rental accommodation
business, spoke in opposition of short term rentals of condominiums and the inequity with
commercial businesses. Town Attorney White advised Ms. Smith that it would be more
appropriate to make her presentation to the Town Board and County Commissioners, as
they are the policy-making bodies rather than the Planning Commission. The
“residential/commercial” designation affecting property taxes is also determined by the
County Assessor.
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 01-08. PARK RIVER WEST, TRACT 5,
BEAVER POINT FIRST ADDITION. Applicant: Richard H. Wille Trust.
Bill Van Horn was present representing the applicant. The applicant is generally in agreement
with the staff conditions of approval. The requirement for a Setback Certificate on the western
boundary seems unnecessary. The tree issues along the river are minor and can be handled
with staff. Director Joseph reviewed the revised submittal and staff recommendations. Mr. Van
Horn asked for the option to remove a few selected trees from along the river with approval from
a registered arborist. Mr. Van Horn responded to questions from the Commission regarding the
conversion of the cul de sac to a through street to the property to the west at the time of their
development.
Public Comment:
Ralph Nicholas asked for clarification of the requirement for an engineer’s setback certificate
on the east and not on the west. The distance between the buildings and the western
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 21, 2001 Page 2
property line is sufficient enough to assure appropriate setbacks are met.
Director Joseph acknowledged Mr. Simonson’s letter dated July 17, 2001.
Mr. Van Horn advised that the tree report would be provided if required. An arborist from
Rocky Mountain National Park has advised that some trees should be thinned from the river
area. Concerns of the neighbors across the river were acknowledged. Tree relocation
couid be limited to those trees that have been noted on the landscaping plan and marked in
the fieid. The Code does ailow for removing dead and unhealthy vegetation.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pettyjohn) to recommend approval to the Town
Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Plat of Park River West Subdivision subject to
the approval of the Development Plan, and It passed unanimously with one absent.
It was nioved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to approve the Development Plan of
Park ^ River West Subdivision with the following conditions, and it passed
unanimousiy with one absent.
1. Buiiding permit applications shall include, in addition to other required information the
foliowing:
• Buiiding model (A, B, C, D).
• Detailed grading plan delineating finished floor elevation and finished grade
particularly for those units taking advantage of the square footage exemption for FAR
calculations.
• Exterior lighting fixtures.
• Detailed revegetation, planting and irrigation pians.
2‘ f UbThtIafln?ioa ReviS!d Duevf|°Pment Plan incorporating the following changes:
a. The foilowing note shall be added to the development plan:
* i?nliecthi?ir0Xim-ty t0 Zu0ned setback lines>the units located along the east property
shall require submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered landsaiSas?" "" “
b. A landscaping plan including the following:
• On man-niade slopes of twenty-five percent (25%) or greater plant materials with
?e7cer0sSotnr:fStShal1 ,be Sf“ that Wili ““n S
slopes sh^fbe Muded1 a^partoUhe tendscap?n^plan°^ cut-Bnd-fill bhcI graded
* s£¥r'flara"in"
TownaBoardalAny °hanae1innthR snhH P^r°Val a^comPanyiog subdivision plats by the
f•") .III.™ „
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 21,2001 Pages
Chair Kitchen and Director Joseph declared a possible conflict of interest and left the
meeting. Vice Chair Pettyjohn assumed the chair.
Paul Kochevar was present representing the applicants who were also present. Mr.
Kochevar reviewed the two modifications to the original development plan. The applicant is
requesting a time e)dension of one year and to remove the note from the plan to allow for the
individual ownership of all units. He requested clarification regarding the staff
recommendation to comply with the current Code sections in Chapter 7.
Pianner Shirk reviewed the staff report and read the staff findings into the record. The
original development plan allowed for the transferal of the four residential units. The nine
accommodation units were specifically labeled “may not be individually transferred.” This
request wouid eiiminme that provision. The approved development plan was reviewed
before the implementation of the EVDC. Staff recommends the accommodation units not
MmUoH at 2ny ,timu or built in such a fashion as t0 al,ow for conversion to kitchens,
k'tchens should be allowed. Approval of the time extension should include
th°e EVDCt0 mcorporate several environmental and site-planning standards established in
fr0m MaCk and Audrey Hunt was acknowledged. The comment that the list of
nmSytho ,?etrS '?/aS Inaccurate was discussed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
provide the list of names and addresses of adjacent property owners. It is not a leqai
requirement, only a courtesy, to contact adjacent property owners.
Mr. Kochevar stated that the primary issue is to ailow for condominiumization The time
extension is supplementai and they would be willing to withdraw their request for a one-vear
Hoc!neXtfnSI0?' T0Wn Attorney White advised that what would still be required would be the
esignation of accommodation units identified and built as accommodation units.
Public Comment:
None.
LoT2SAmSn3d FaS°Ster <r°,Tm0S.).?.a'’pr0Ve ,he Revised Development Plan 99^)6,
1' delL«eedonC°hep°adnati0n UnitS Sha" remain accommodation end be clearly
.rfas“Pui£bgm5?^
3. The sign location shall be shown on the development plan.
DirOTtOTJosephalscfr^umeTto^themeeting6 Chair and deC'ared a 5-mlnute --ss.
5- SsDBro:LnAT’ L°TS 1’2'15’ 17> BL0CK 1». ™WN OF ESTES PARK. AppHcant:
been In existence for sdme^iml ThJ^L c°nta,ns ^uc^erous rental cabins that have
additional rental cabins expected for sale as ^ndrlnt-dS t0 redeveloP the Property with
non-conforming as to density. Approve?of fh1sCplat does not affect the^gal non-conformkig
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Page 4t=stes Valley Planning Commission - August 21, 2001 ^
status, nor does it allow for an increase In density. The new lot line will alleviate the
rahin°se.!^acks and Provide established conforming setbacks only for the existino cabin located in the southeast corner of proposed Lot 1A The drive S ser^ef hp
hghfofra^c^^t^aTl?eCac^,r*^ Cr°SSeS °Vf ‘Tract A-” Staff rec°mmends the applicant verify
“Tract A ^ S easement through the plat should include a right of access fo^
renaming of the subdivision. mown area. Staff also recommends
negotiation wNhthePowne?omamA<rUardf™,threacmmenda,i0nS’ They are current|y in
District is agreeabie to wait unW bSo srtls a^6386"1!"'' Est“ Park Sanitation
easements. The applicant would DreferVe rterii^!,.^ *®?!!!611 ,or dedica*'on of utility
easement to be in the location of the current footnam^Il n m 10'foot wide Pedestrian
be established at the Development Plan stege P h 9 MacGre9or Avenue. This could
Public Comment:
property anddthe0futi^e^ve?opmen°pia!nSthe,1prooertv CHnCherns re9ardin9 access to his
being sold and asked when thev T1 ■ .proPerty- He has noticed that the units are
Sh1?f^3S5CSIS£,bM!lSS.f'Sl“'“d
sstasTssrasr •”» -»- <>«*.»«
"ss
unanimously with one absent. ’ h SeP,embe'-18.2001 meeting and It passed
Public comment? Nme” ~ con,lnue ,0 next month based on staff recommendations.
pl'ul'Kc:hf';:t:';;:®°°M'N',IM IAZY R 00TTAGF<T 881 Mmi iIiiL Applicant:
application a^^hue^toaltow^mfre'lkne toaddrSstaff f?nd!npVe<d>mmendet, tllat ,he
Public Comment: dresss,aff"dd'n9s and recommendations.
None.
allowed to precede the itemized review
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 21, 2001 Page 5
Public Comment:
Bill Van Horn spoke in opposition of the removal of the FAR exception. Without the
exceptions, the Floor Area Ratio calculation far exceeds the density limitation. The change
in density requirements with its additive effect continues to take away developable area,
which he considers as a taking. Mr. Van Horn stated there was a letter from the Town to
property owners at the time of Comprehensive Plan implementation that property valuation
would remain the same. He suggested that adjustment of boundary lines outside of
recorded subdivisions should not be treated as minor subdivisions as this can, in Mr. Van
Horn’s opinion, cause lots of problems. Monument records should not be part of the Code
as it is strictly administered through the County and State (refer to Lonnie Sheldon’s letter).
Town Attorney White advised that legally, as long as you allow a single family dwelling on a
lot, there is no legal taking. Staff will review the letters referred to by Mr. Van Horn.
Mr. Van Horn noted that the Code takes away developable area before the density
calculation is applied, which is his definition of ‘laking.”
The public hearing of the Estes Valley Development Code revisions was continued to the
September 18,2001 Planning Commission meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
P>-r:hL ^ )jjAjea
Meribeth Wheatley, RecordincKSsecretary