Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2001-06-19BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission June 19, 2001,1:30 p.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipai Buiiding Commission: Attending: 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 Aiso Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:Commissioner Hampton Chair Kitchen caiied the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated May 15, 2001, with the removal of “Acting” from Director Joseph’s title. b. Amended Plat, Lots 25A & 27A, Venner Ranch Subdivision, Applicant: Mary J. Costello - Reconfiguration of three lots into two lots. This item is removed to answer questions posed by the owner of Lot 28. c. Amended Plat, Lot 21 A, Quasebarth Resubdivision, Applicant: Robert & Diane Howell - Reconfiguration of lots into one commercial lot. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Amos) that the Consent Agenda be accepted with the removal of Item b and it passed unanimously. 2. Amended Plat, Lots 25A & 27A, Venner Ranch Subdivision, Applicant: Mary J. Costello - Reconfiguration of three lots into two lots. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. Rob Costello spoke regarding this proposal. The purpose of the plat is to remove the lot line that the house sits on. No additional traffic is expected through the access easement at this time. The access easement will not change in any way by the approval of this plat. it was moved and seconded (Amos/Taddonio) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners the Amended Plat of Lots 25A and 27A, Venner Ranch Subdivision, with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. 1. A signature block shall be provided for the County Health Agency. 2. Placement of the following notes on the plat: a. Lot 26A is within an identified ridgeline protection area, as delineated in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). b. Lots 25A and 26A are within identified wildfire and geological hazard areas, as delineated in the Estes Valley Development Code. c. The portion of Prospect Mountain Drive adjacent to the northerly line of Lot 25A has not been constructed. Larimer County assumes no responsibility for the construction, repair or maintenance of the streets shown hereon °rnJlie streets shown upon the “Replat of a Portion of Venner Ranch Estates (2 ). 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Page 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 01-02. RIVERROCK TOWNHOMES. PHASE XI, TRACT 4, BEAVER POINT FIRST ADDITION. 550 Moraine Avenue, Applicant: RiverRock Townhomes, LLC. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The intent of this application is to seek approval for the final phase of the RiverRock Townhome development that was originally planned for 24 units, with 16 now completed and sold. This request is to build the originally planned eight remaining units, to be contained within four duplex structures. The original development plan was approved in February 1995 with a two-year time extension granted in 1998, and that approval has lapsed. The applicant’s request for an additional time extension from the Town Board in December 2000 was denied. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as calculated by the applicant is 26.5%. Correspondence from Wendell Walker was reviewed regarding parking and drainage. The parking situation will not be worsened by the addition of these proposed units. The original development plan used a single lane, one-way drive which is not wide enough to accommodate street parking. Lonnie Sheldon made additional comments. There are 47 current parking spaces; the new addition will add 24,17 more than required. The applicant is agreeable to all the conditions; however, it would be complicated to measure the current homeowners’ floor space. Director Joseph advised building permits could be used to determine second story square footage. Town Attorney has reviewed current correspondence from some of the other homeowners in the development regarding the homeowners’ declarations; however, neither the Commission nor the Town can make determinations regarding these issues. Public Comment: Wendell Walker, RiverRock condo owner - asked what is being done about the drainage problem. Mr. Sheldon advised how the new development would deal with drainage for this phase, but changes to the drainage of the existing units is not planned. Bob Quick, 512 RiverRock Circle - spoke in opposition. Director Joseph reviewed the Floor Area Ratio and the exemption for levels below grade. Board of Adjustment allowed the interpretation proposed by Mr. Bill Van Horn to be used. This interpretation applied the 50% to a two-dimensional measurement of the floor area only. Bill Van Horn spoke regarding his interpretation. Prior to the EVDC, there was no FAR. Open space is not affected by the FAR. That is determined by the impervious coverage ratio. Commissioner Amos expressed his concern over the Board of Adjustment s ruling. As a member of the commission that developed the Code, the intent was 50% of the volume. An amendment to the Code will be one recourse to change the interpretation. Kathy Reed, 524 RiverRock - asked about the mud problem. Mr. Sheldon advised that the planting and further development should help prevent further soil washing into her driveway and redirect drainage around to the east property line. Town Attorney White advised that there is a homeowner’s association to deal with problems within the private development. This is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission nor the Town of Estes Park. The fact that this is not a public street limits the Town’s involvement. Wendell Walker, 506 RiverRock Circle - spoke in opposition. Jim Knox. 510 Moraine Avenue, neighbor to the east - spoke in opposition. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Pages In response to questions from the Commissioners, Director Joseph advised that there are no requirements in the Code that would require a sound barrier from the highway. ADA requirements are the deveioper’s responsibility and he will have to provide certification prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy that these requirements have been met. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) to approve Development Plan 01-02, RIverRock Townhomes, Phase IX, Tract 4, Beaver Point First Addition with the foliowing conditions, and it passed unanimousiy with one absent. 1. A revised Development Plan Mylar shall be provided showing all as-built footprints for all units, along with total floor area noted for each unit, prior to issuance of any new building permits. 2. A pedestrian easement has been dedicated along the highway. The developer shall be required to accomplish the rough grading for the future walkway with the completion of this final phase of construction. The RiverRock sign shali be removed from the walkway. 3. The developer shall add to the plan that all applicable accessibility standards have been met prior to issuance of the final C.O. 4. Any exterior lighting associated with the development shall be required to comply with Section 7.9 of the Estes Valiey Development Code (EVDC), Exterior Lighting, which provides that ali lighting be shielded. 5. The developer shall be required to provide the arterial frontage plantings as set forth in Chapter 7 of the EVDC. A planting plan for this area shall be submitted along with an improvement guarantee prior to application for any new building permits. This plan shall include slope stabilization details per Chapter 7 code requirements. A short recess was taken at 3 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 3:10 p.m. 4. CASTLE RIDGE MINOR SUBDIVISION. TRACT 65A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 65 & 66. FALL RIVER ADDITION. Applicant: Van Horn Engineering. Bill Van Horn, the applicant, reviewed the history of this proposal. Development of the upper portion would have a very high impact, so the Cook family trust started donating on an incremental basis to the Estes Valley Land Trust. It was the intent to gift all of the property, however, their financial situation changed. Current situation is 23 acres is owned by the Estes Valley Land Trust and 7 acres owned by Mr. Van Horn. In the future, the 7 acres will be developed. This plat will establish the resultant boundaries of the property as they exist at the end of the incremental gifting process to the Estes Valley Land Trust. Since this is a new subdivision and not an amended plat. Staff recommends changing the names of the lots from “Tract 65B” and ‘Tract 65C” to Lot 1 and Lot 2, respectively. This will also require a change to the dedication statement. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Amos) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision with the following condition, and it passed unanimously with one absent. n 1. The names of the lots shall be changed from ‘Tracts 65B and 65C” to Lots 1 and 2. 2. Current ownership information of the lots shall be removed from the plat. 5. PARK RIVER WEST a. Development Plan 01-08, Park River West, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition, Applicant: Richard H. Wille Trust. j Bill Van Horn was present representing the applicant. All three items will be reviewed at the same time. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is an application for a rezoning and development plan in conjunction with a subdivision for a 66-unit condominium project. Due BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Page 4 to the multiple approval requirements of the proposal, approval of the development plan must be conditioned on Town Board approval of the rezoning request and accompanying subdivision plats as reviewed at this time. All three (development plan, preliminary plat and rezoning) will be reviewed at one time and then voted on separately. The applicant, the Richard H. Wille Trust, proposes to develop a 66-unit, 31 building multi­ family condominium project on Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition to the Town of Estes Park. The proposal will be similar to other projects by the developer, utilizing the same engineer, designer, and landscape designer as past projects. The units will average 2,240 square feet and include attached two-car garages. The applicant proposes to place the first level of 28 of these units below approximately 2-3 feet of fill material, thus taking advantage of gross square foot exemption as per Board of Adjustment decision, with a resultant .24 FAR. The project will have an impervious coverage of 41.5%. Stormwater drainage will be filtered to reduce pollutant runoff. It appears the proposal satisfies community-wide policies regarding housing and land use, though fails to address policies regarding community design and mobility and circulation, as set forth in the Estes Valley Plan. Community Wide Policy 4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan is to “promote street system connections between developments and promote an interconnected roadway system throughout the community which minimizes cul-de-sacs.” Community Development has suggested providing for a right-of-way connection to the property to the west, which could be utilized for future development of that parcel, and requests a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The revised TIA should examine the traffic impact on Moraine Avenue and within Park River West assuming full development of Park River West with and without a western connection and assuming a multi-family development of the same density as Park River West for the parcel immediately to the west. Regardless of the TIA results, a secondary emergency access should be provided. This should be subject to approval by the Public Works Director and the Fire Chief. Section 7.6.E.2.a states “to the maximum extent feasible, wetlands shall not be included as part of a platted development lot.” Due to the development of the property as a condominium project under single ownership and development plan. Staff supports waiving this standard for the wetlands located along the river. In regards to the rezoning from “A” to “RM”, multi-family housing is a use by right in the “A” district. However, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the “A” district is .25, while the FAR in the “RM” district is .30. In addition, the “RM” zone district has side yard setbacks of 10-feet as opposed to the “A” district, which has side yard setbacks of 15-25 feet (25 feet in this particular instance). The proposal meets the density requirements, FAR, setbacks, and impervious coverage standards for the “RM” zone district. Du© to proximity to zoned setback lines, the units located along the east and west property lines will require submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. The submittal exceeds the 15% open space requirements for the “RM” district. The proposed open space is listed as 21.8% of the total area. The open space is divided into two separate areas: the area around the water feature and landscape berm, and the area south of the existing sewer line near the Big Thompson River. A revised landscaping plan delineating plant sizes, and location, location and type of proposed fencing, and full compliance with landscaping standards as set forth in Section 7.5 of the EVDC should be submitted and subjected to Staff level review and approval. Staff suggests including a pedestrian path/trail to access the water feature, and an addition^ pedestrian path/trail located near the center of the development from the interior ring road south to the proposed “river trail.” The site has a substantial credit for trees protected along the river. Street frontage, district boundary, and arterial frontage landscaping requirements will be met. The proposal is within an identified Wildlife Habitat Protection area and satisfies the review standards set forth in Section 7.8 “Wildlife Habitat Protection.” The proposal will meet the requirements of Section 7.9 “Exterior Lighting” of the EVDC. Fire Chief Dorman has BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Page 5 reviewed the submitted ISO calculations and development plan and had comments regarding street name and address system and additional fire hydrants. The submitted proposal appears to comply with applicable accessibility requirements in terms of number of units and exterior accessibility. The driveway curb cut on the south leg of the ring road serving the interior lot is measured at 72-feet wide, more than twice the maximum. This portion of the site should be redesigned to meet driveway standards. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to the provision of public services. The EVDC provides that “if an Applicant fails to apply for a building permit and commences construction or operation with regard to the rezoning approval consistent with such development plan within one (1) year from the effective date of the amendment, such development plan shall automatically lapse and become null and void. At its discretion, the Town Board may institute rezoning proceedings pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this Section [§3.3.E] to rezone the affected land areas.” In regards to the Preliminary Plat, the proposal fulfills the setback requirements but the lot created in the center does not meet minimum lot size. The grading and site disturbance plan includes a pond detainage system and a silt fence and blanket filters to protect the stream corridor. An erosion control plan is required. Limits of disturbance delineated on the plan places the wetlands outside those areas of disturbance which effects the same result as placing the wetlands in a separate outlet. Bill Van Horn pointed out that pulling traffic from the highway into a residential neighborhood is a bad idea. This property should not be dependent on adjoining properties’ development. The wetlands will be owned by the association and setting it in a separate outlet will have no change. Some physical delineation on site would be a better way to protect them. It is their intent to silt fence the entire length of the property to protect river drainage. The Board of Adjustment interpretation does not have an impact on this project. The zoning change was recommended by staff and applicant agrees that RM is more appropriate. They are willing to provide the secondary access if it is an emergency access only. In response to a question from the Commission, Amy Plummer of Van Horn Engineering advised that the sidewalk along the highway would be 8 ft wide, the second sidewalk along the inner road would be five feet wide, and the river trail with crushed gravel finish would be three feet wide. Bill Linnane advised that this private street acts like a cul-de-sac with the corners having a 50-foot radius. If it were categorized as a through street, 100-foot radius corners would be required. Public Comment: ^ __ . Dale VerStraeten, property owner directly across the river - concerned with the trees and vegetation along the river being removed. Laura Orris, RiverRock condo owner - spoke in opposition. Alex Joseph, 507 RiverRock - inquired as to long-term traffic planning on Moraine Avenue, and to drainage from the property. Director Joseph reviewed the difference between a private driveway and a private street as RiverRock Circle was developed as a private driveway. Landscaping includes the transplanting of a selection of trees from the river area into the development. A report should be done to make sure that the riparian habitat is not affected by this removal. Bill Van Horn advised that the trees to be replanted are flagged. If a neighbor has an objection, they would review a request to keep certain trees in place. The grading plan is done so that drainage should not be going into RiverRock. The loop design of the road is more functional than a T-connection to the west. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Page 6 Planner Shirk noted that without the TIA, the impact of having a road connection to the west cannot be known. Director Joseph commented that while this loop is superior to a typical cul de sac, in the Code interconnections are encouraged. There is also a limit of 12 dwelling units on a cul de sac. Because this is a multi-family development, this standard becomes a gray area as to interpretation. This might set a precedent as to how we interpret the Code in future similar developments. If the option of a connecting street is desired, it must be done with this plat. Bill Van Horn responded that a good design should be preferable to meeting Code standards. Town Attorney White commented that this plan does not meet the Code based on 2 items: (1) the lot in the middle does not meet minimum lot standards, and (2) if this is a cul de sac, the dwelling units should be limited to 12. It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) that the meeting be adjourned and remaining discussion and items be continued to the July 17, 2001 meeting. Motion passed unanimously with one absent. Meeting was adjourned at 5:21 p.m. Meribeth Wheatley, Recording36cretary