HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2001-09-18BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
September 18,2001,1:30 p.m.
Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
'^)yce Kitchen> Commissioners Wendeil Amos, DeeDee Hampton
Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio
TaddronioChen, Commissioners Arn°s, Hampton, Pettyjohn, Pohl, and
Town Board Liaison Habecker, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph
Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Wheatley
Commissioner McKinney
Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1- CONSENT AGENDA
a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 21,2001
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3.i^^'AAppToa",;:UeTn°sFKLnB?o:n9 1S ftND 1?’ BL°nK 1n °F THF PC
2001CmeetingPhAUhe Augusf2?V20oniSmepte S'recommenda,ions ,rorr> the August 21
property hadproblems wHh their’leS areess to thfflvLn801^® T!Ila, the adioinin9
was advised that the consideration9should be forMsoHPo PeUy; Jhe Plannin9 Commission
nphts Of access as they have bee!! Sd?deJSdquTt^^^^^^^^
access a0n°dh ufflrtyTasSts havltoennshownPoPn1hfotete TSh Ured 'hat the reoorded
pedestrian easement on the east side of the oroopriv ah ^ at They W,,l add the 10'foot
Wrth Mr. & Mrs. Wands wiil be finaiized prior t^g^o ?ownWS.,ntenan0e a9reemen‘
Public Comment:
Mrs. Wands, ad'^sLd^hTag^e^CTtwiihMTBrn & ?u?on9’ le9al representative for Mr. &
the condition that a wrftten aSe“rS2d hin°,beer/inalized^
Wands indicating their approvai of the dimSns on mfni Br°.JWn and Mr- & Mrs-
histone access to their property prior tl. finaTaSlyThfToPJnBnoa0rrr ,0 PreS6rVe 'he
Second Amended Plat to the Town of Estes Park with thof5!!3"1?17’ BIOOk 10 of ,he
passed unanimously with one absent k fo»owing conditions, and It
access prior^Vfinal'SIffon bytheeTovm Sd®9 °n 'he Plat rePresems Tract A's legal
adjacent to MacGregor AvenuPedeStnan easement alon9 the existing foot trail that is
Sanitation DistriotdatedA'ugust flaxiT*3 33 Set ,0rth 'n 'he letter from Estes Park
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 18, 2001 Page 2
4.
9.
10.
11.
4. The Dedication Statement shall be changed by the deletion of the term “outlets” and the
addition of the term “private access easement.”
5. The ingress, egress, and utiiity easement shown on the plat shall be changed to private
access and utiiity easements.
6. The water service line(s) shall be shown.
7. A driveway maintenance agreement shali be added to the Plat or recorded on a separate
document. If recorded on a separate document, the document shall be submitted to the
Town within 30 days of recording.
8. The name of the subdivision shall be changed, and shall comply with Larimer County
standards.
9. A written access maintenance agreement between the applicant and Mr. And Mrs.
Wands shali be submitted to Staff prior to Town Board action.
PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP. LAZY R COTTAGES. PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 26 AND
35, T5N, R73W. Applicant: James Mark Whittlesey
Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present representing the applicant. The
proposal is to convert 9 existing units to condominium units. Item 1 b recommends adjusting
the property line. The applicant is only part owner and this amended plat would require all
owners to agree. He does not wish to adjust a lot line for a setback requirement. The
overhead power lines serve only these cabins and do not need an easement. It is difficult to
locate and determine the size of the sewer lines as they have been in the ground for so
many years. The applicant feels this is an unreasonable request for the platting process.
The sewer lines will be replaced if they are the original clay pipes or found to be inadequate.
Water pressure was tested and found to be adequate; however, the water lines have not
been located.
Director Joseph read and revised the staff recommendations based on Mr. Kochevar’s
statements.
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hampton) to recommend approval to the Town Board
corLmonrJnH ilhe Pre|lminary Condo MaP for Lazy R Cottages with the following
conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. M
1. An amended plat shall be submitted for Tract 14 to clarify that it is one legal lot,
2' fhpeF.tCiauil^n Sr?a 1et'ne “a“orrimodations use” and shall use the same definition as
the Estes Valiey Development Code Section 13.3.6.
3. A note shall be placed on the final condominium plat stating, “Any power lines that need
t0 i?? n^°vecl or upgraded will be done so at the owners’ expense.” Also to be noted “It
will be the property owners’ responsibility to maintain the culvert in the highway riqht-of-
way at the access point on the driveway.” y y y
4 standard^1106 Shal1 be up9raded t0 the uPPer Thompson Sanitation District’s current
5. The preliminary condominium plat shall show the location of water service lines.
6. A drainage plan shall be submitted, by a licensed engineer, which adequately addresses
the existing erosion of the driveway on site.
7. The Planning Commission recommends that the Town Board, as the Decision-Makinq
Body, waive the transportation requirements per Section 7.12.H,1.b.
8. An engineer’s estimate of the cost of Adequate Public Facilities upgrades shall be
submitted.
An Improvement Agreement, Guarantee and Warrantee shall be filed with Staff prior to
approval of the final plat for the adequate public facilities improvements.
All units shall be individually addressed and the addresses shall be physically posted
prior to approval of the final condominium plat.
A note shall be placed upon the final condominium plat stating, “Approval of this
condominium map by the Town of Estes Park does not change or alter the non-
conforming status of those units for encroachment into the applicable setbacks.”
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 18, 2001 Pages
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The preliminary and final condominium map shall show the areas reserved for future
expansion and the property owner shall demonstrate compliance with the Floor Area
Ratio and Lot Coverage requirements.
A maintenance agreement with the neighboring property, Lazy R Cottages, Tract 13, for
the non-exclusive access easement shall be prepared and submitted with the application
for Planning Commission review of the final condominium map.
The non-exclusive access easement will be recorded by separate instrument at the same
time the final plat is recorded.
The final map shall contain a certification that the map contains all the information
required by the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act.
An attorney’s certificate that the Lazy R Condominiums East-Owners Association
complies with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (§38-33.3-101 et seq.
C.R.S.) shall be submitted prior to approval of the final plat.
5- preliminary PLAT. SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION. Applicant: Frederic and Susan
Carlson. The Preliminary Plat for Solitude Subdivision is continued to the October 16 2001
meeting at the applicant’s request.
6- preliminary plat and rezoning, good SAMARITAN FIRST AND SECOND
ADDITION, Applicant: The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society.
M^iyn Tande, representative for the applicant, introduced the Good Samaritan team (1400)
and gave a resume of their organization. They began their search for property in the Estes
Valley 6 years ago. Good Samaritan was founded in 1922 and now has over 240 facilities in
25 states. Early meetings were held with the North End and Hillcrest Estates property
iTh u.r concefns were considered and incorporated into the master plan. Five
dditional public meetings have been held. Assisted living is a need in the Estes Valley
People have had to move from here to the Loveland Good Samaritan in order to receive the
needed services. Staff housing is also an issue, so the team has worked wkh thrEstes
sahrLHherrinf9thP M0ritytt0 US6 L0JSi and 4 °f th® ProPertyfor affordable/attainable housing,
f d I f|tht Mou,^ta,ns needed a church site so Lot 2 has been set aside for that Eight
the9northem n^fg^s0"9 n0rthem bounda,y line t0 buffer and helP «ew impacrtto
acres to the south will be developed by the Estes Park Housing and 3 8 acres inS On theGondT6rvevas3churchSite,0rSd®Pherd9ofthe2untelnsLuS
buh;rgan0dnaneassrdSgaSdirPUS ther6 ^ 23 dUP'eX Uni'S’ 3 COn9re93te
Sam Setters Executive Director of the Loveland Housing Authority and the Estes Park
Housmg Authority, reviewed their plan for the 9.6 acres of Lot 3 and 1 The proposed olan
attiinThiP lUniTti-half Wl11 be for affordable home ownership units anPd half wif be
iK/inn entalS-, 18 °r?e of the last 9reat opportunities to accomplish senior assisted
hving in E^es Park. In addition, the need for affordable/attainable housing in Estes Park is
ScommSl°3n«/USn9 h3Ve increased siSnificantly and wages have not. In the Estes
Park community, 30 /o of wage earners earn less than $22,000 per year The chanoe in thp
zoning is significant, but there are more than 6,500 acres in the North End and this
mprises tess than 1 % of the total. This proposal meets some very compelling needs andS lSovfhrptl0n2 ?.eed t0 be made- The Good Samaritan team is seSe to thfneeSs
the neighbors and they are here for the long run. They are committed to makina the
project compatible to existing neighborhoods. ^
Mariyn Tande described how the Good Sam campus would work. The congregate buildino
is core and will house staff, nursing call system, housekeeping services, mealpreparation9
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 18, 2001 Page 4
and amenities, such as a pool, beauty shop, etc. By having staff in the congregate building,
people are able to live more independently in the duplexes and congregate building longer.
Services and staff from the surrounding area to help with the services provided will be
needed.
Kerry Prochaska advised that it had been a team effort. The Good Samaritan people are not
developers, but they have a clear vision about community. This proposal fulfills a number of
needs in the community. They had several meetings to determine what the community
wanted and needed. Twenty-five percent of the population in Estes Park is over the age of
65. Neighborhood meetings were conducted to mitigate concerns with the result that a 50
foot setback was used along the property line adjacent to Hillcrest Estates on the 8 lots to
the north. Colors will be kept consistent with the master plan. Mr. Prochaska revealed a
photo simulation, which was to scale, of the view from the Hillcrest Estates of the congregate
building. Wildlife considerations were taken into account with a migration route provided
and limitations on pets.
Kerry Prochaska, Marlyn Tande and Sam Betters answered questions from the Commission.
Pathways and trails were outlined. The affordable housing will be turned over to the
Housing Authority to administer but it was hoped that some of the staff would find housing in
this location. When the campus is finished, 20 to 30 people will be employed. Guidelines
or attainable housing will follow the fair housing rules and regulations. Mr. Tande reviewed
QameC|+and_costs (based on Loveland’s facility) to qualify for residency in the Good
anf M1 / S u?1 Buetters advised that the Estes Valley Development Code requires
that affordable/attainable housing stay affordable for 20 years; however, the Colorado
?nvpar9QanA ^‘nance+Ayth0/,ty 'f'hich wHI be providing some of the grants has a restriction of
riox/Q?nnS' At c<?nc?pt plan for the affordable housing portion will be available before the
development plan is approved for the Good Sam campus.
Director Joseph reviewed the staff report and recommendations for the rezoning request
rnm^Mni°Pn entiP an f°r Go°d Samaritan campus is available for public review^n the
rh unity Development Department. There is no development plan yet available for the
rhM^ph th6 attfmadle bousing. Staff recommends that the development plan for the
church can be deferred as well as that for the Housing Authority Director Joseoh reviewPri
the code criteria for the zoning request which made reference to
The special considerations and issues for the North End were delheated and included
0 Utl llieS’ pres®rvation °f wetlands, wildlife habitat and native vegetation as well as
maintaining a low-density character. This proposal is contrary to this list qoaTasiTao^
om the lowest density to highest density zoning designation. On the other hand a
aSWdequate 'he ComPrehensive includes the need for
inable housing supply, adjacent to town limits, with adequate utilities and access It
would serve the needs of existing valley residents. This proposal S servt a coSinn
TOTOerTO of HlfNoertehdFn!3iCh ®uPfcedessPecifl<! neighborhood wants and desires The
V+hu ^ End residents regarding the need to protect the existing low-densitv
^ar^ter of the land now zoned RE-1 are entirely valid. For this reason it is extremelv
important that this rezoning request, if approved, should not be used as a precedent for
0f RB'1 land t0 allow b'Sher density market-rate residential development
that would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of
he rezonir^ in 2 parts: the first for Lots 1, 2 and 5 through 12, the second and separate
for aoDrovaf TthP 0fr,l]e H2US(h 9 Au,hority’s Lots 3 and 4- Add as an additional co^^dltlon
dBvofnnmll ff h ,' f .pa.rt' th® aPProval bV Planning Contmission of the submitted
development plan for Lot 1 and the approval of a development plan for a church as
described on the Statement of Intent for Lot 2.
Public Comment:
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 18, 2001 Page 5
Group representatives were asked to speak first:
Chuck Huddleson of Dwyer, Huddleson & Ray, legal representative of the Hillcrest
Homeowners Association - spoke in opposition.
Terry Parent!, North End Property Owner — spoke in opposition.
Patricia Washburn, a pastoral associate at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church and the
chair of the Senior Concerns Task Force of the Community Resource Coalition - spoke in
support.
Bob McCreery, 2725 Devils Gulch Road, representing the North End Property Owners
Association - spoke in opposition.
Rita Kureija, executive vice president of the Estes Park Board of Realtors - spoke in
support.
Bill Wyatt of Wyatt & Martell, legal representative for The Reserve and the North End
Property Owners Association (zoning attorney) — spoke in opposition.
Arthur Becker, retired minister - spoke in support.
Dick Brown, President of the Stanley Heights Property Owners Association - spoke in
opposition. K
Greg Burke, President of the Chamber Resort Association - spoke in support.
spSke<ifJpSnaPPOinted by ,he PreSiden, 0f the HillCreSt Homeowne's Association -
Beveriy Todd, reading a letter from Toby Hale - in support of the project.
Bill Van Horn, Van Horn Engineering, North End property owner - in opposition.
Ned Linegar, chairman of Development Committee at the Senior Center - spoke in support.
Judy Haggard, President of the League of Women Voters - spoke in support.
John Depoy, president Beaver Drive Homeowners - opposed to rezoning.
Larry Bonnar, Park School District — spoko in support.
Walter Richards, president of the Board of the Senior Center - spoke in support.
Betty Becker, member of Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church - spoke in support.
support6’1263 Broadview’ president of ,he Es,es Valley Community Coalition - spoke in
Phil Edwards, neighboring property owner - spoke in opposition.
Mary Bauer, Davis Hill — spoke in support.
Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane - spoke in opposition.
Michael Kellum, 1170 Meadow Lane — spoke in support.
Judy Lamy, 338 Rock Ridge Road - commented on both sides.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 18, 2001
Patrick Cipolla - spoke in support.
Page 6
Eiaine Hostmark, 1252 Community Drive - asked for the identification of the owners of ali
adjacent properties. Director Joseph provided the information.
Chair Kitchen called for a 5 minute recess. The public hearing was resumed at 4:35 p.m.
George Niessen, 901 North Lane - asked if some acreage could be given up from golf
course.
Beverly Todd, 1352 Mary’s Lake Road - spoke in support.
John Solomon, 1741 North Ridge Lane - spoke in opposition of the Dry Gulch location.
Public hearing was closed.
Town Attorney White commented that rezoning requests require a development plan which
is meant to assist the governing bodies to see the intent for the rezoning. Staff may waive
this requirement. Rezoning is a quasi-judicial act recommended by the Planning
Commission and acted upon by the Town Board or County Commissioners. Town Board
cannot take action on the rezoning until the Development Plans have been submitted
Zoning is not a vested right.
Commissioner Amos spoke in support of the proposal.
Commissioner Pohl reviewed his concerns for the neighboring properties.
Commissioner Hampton gave her reservations about various issues.
there wasTrTaltemltive eXpreSSed his oonoern t0 render justice to everyone and asked if
Town Attorriey White advised the Planning Commission that the proposai had been heard
and a decision should be made before sending it to the Town Board.
?SLTJ°hner Pettyk!0Jin expressed concern that we do not have a development plan for the
takti^g a vo?e USin9 bef°re th6 Commission and wished to have more information before
K was moved and seconded (Pohl/Pettyjohn) to table this as the plan Is Incomplete and
requires a development plan for the attainable housing on Lots 3 and 4.
Town Attorney White advised that the rezoning could go forward as this was onlv a
de\!^Iopt^leriteplan0wasVrleqm^^1^C^trimiss?ot^erSpettyjoh*n wimdr^hrer sec'o^d.*^31 '
ced an?* se<l?nded (Amos/Hampton) to recommend approval of the rezonIng of
foMow°ng Qnd SeC°nd Additi°n t0 thG T°Wn Board °f Trustees wlth the
reg .ardin9th® r®z°ning from RE-1 Rural Estate to RM Multi-Family Residential on Lots 1
and 2 and approval of rezoning from RE-1 to E-1 for Lots 5 through 12:
• Execution of an annexation agreement with the Town of Estes Park.
• Approval of the subdivision plat.
• Approval by Planning Commission of the Development Plan for Lot 1 and subsequent
submittal and approval of a Development Plan for Lot 2.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 18, 2001 Page 7
• Deed restriction of the single family lots to prevent future subdivision.
Part II regarding the rezoning from RE-1 Rural Estate to RM Multi-Family Residential on
Lots 3 and 4;
• Submittal and approval of an attainable housing development plan for Lots 3 and 4,
consistent with the statement of intent contained in the August 29, 2001 letter from
Mr. David Lingle on behalf of the Estes Park Housing Authority.
It was a tie vote with Amos, Hampton and Pohl voting “yes”, and Kitchen, Pettyjohn and
Taddonio voting “no”. The rezoning request will proceed to the Town Board without a
recommendation from Planning Commission.
Meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Meribeth Wheatley, Recording(^cretary