Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2002-04-16BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2002,1:30 p.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Attending: Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Ed McKinney, and Dominick Taddonio Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners McKinney, Kitchen, Pohl and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Board Liaison Habecker, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:DeeDee Hampton, Wendell Amos Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 19, 2002. it was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Taddonio) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with two absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 02-03, EPCO, INC., Applicant: Dennis K. Brown Kerry Prohaska of Cornerstone Engineering was present representing the applicant. Mr. Prohaska gave a brief history of the project. He requested the development plan be continued to the May 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting due to the late notice received by the engineering company from the Attorneys involved. It was moved and seconded (McKinney/Kitchen) to recommend continuance of the Development Plan 02-03, EPCO, Inc. to the May 21,2002 Planning Commission meeting with the understanding if the applicant comes unprepared the Development Plan will be removed from the agenda, and the applicant must resubmit a new application. 4. SPECIAL REVIEW 02-01. ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHURCH. LOT 1. MARY’S LAKE SUBDIVISION. Applicant: Rocky Mountain Church Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a development plan/special review application for the Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church. The property is zoned “A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor and religious assemblies are permitted by special review in this district. Since this is a special review, the Town Board will review the application and serve as the decision making body. The applicant has submitted a plan for a well designed attractive church and does a good job in the selection of materials and colors that blend with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. This application was continued from the March 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting to the April 16, 2002 meeting at the applicant’s request. Since the March 19, 2002 Planning Commission, the applicant has submitted a revised Traffic Impact Analysis, which was completed by TransPlan Associates, Inc. on March 25, 2002. Director Joseph reviewed the Traffic Impact Study. He stated the operating level of service for the intersection at Highway 7 and Mary’s Lake Road with full build out of the available land would still be a Level A. Staff agreed as along as the level of service continued to be a Level A it wouid not warrant an intersection improvement. Staff’s recommendation to the Planning Commission therefore would be that the applicant does not trigger an intersection improvement to Highway 7 and Mary’s Lake Road. However, all recommended improvements to the Kiowa drive intersection should be constructed. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - April 16, 2002 Page2 Public Comment: Jess Mann, the senior Pastor of the Rocky Mountain Church, gave a history of the church. He discussed how the church has tried to involve the neighborhood and work with the community. It was moved and seconded (McKinney/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Special Review 02-01 Rocky Mountain Church, Lot 1, Mary’s Lake Subdivision with the foliowing conditions, and it passed unanimously with two absent. 1. Widen Kiowa Drive North to provide a separate right-turn lane. The right-turn lane shall meet or exceed SHAC requirements. Revised construction plans shall be submitted after review of the revised Traffic Impact Analyses and shall comply with requirements in Roxann Mackenzie Hayes February 20th memo and any additional requirements placed on the design by the Town or County. These plans shall be submitted, one paper copy and one digital copy, prior to the Town signing the development plan. Instead of modifying the existing development agreement between the Town and the developer of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, a new development agreement shall be reached between the Town and the developer of Rocky Mountain Church, as well as appropriate collateral. This agreement and collateral shall make up the difference between the original design and the new design with a right-turn lane. The agreement, guarantee and warranty shall comply with EVDC §10.5.K. 2. The electric utility easement shall be vacated and relocated as shown on the amended plat approved by the Planning Commission on February 19, 2002. 3. Retaining wall design shall be reviewed by staff when the building permit is submitted to ensure compliance with the EVDC §7.2.B.6.e Code requirement. 4. The applicant shall construct an eight (8) foot wide paved public trail/sidewalk along Kiowa Drive to the Mary’s Lake Lodge curb cut and along Mary’s Lake Road. Construction of this public trail/sidewalk shall not increase the impervious coverage over the fifty (50) percent maximum allowable; therefore, installation of the sidewalk may require a reduction in the parking lot coverage. 5. A cost estimate for the proposed landscaping improvements and guarantee shall be submitted with the building permit application. 6. Water line improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The water meter location and size shall be shown. Depending on the water main and ISO requirements, a possible water system reimbursement to the Kiowa Ridge developer may be required. Site-specific construction plans shall be submitted with the building permit application. Unless otherwise noted, any conditions of approval shall be met by May 7,2002 in order to be placed on the May 14, 2002 Town Board agenda. On-site road and sidewalk improvements (Kiowa Drive) shall be completed prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. This conditional approval shall include approval of a minor modification to the EVDC to allow construction of the handicapped parking/entrance area forty (40) feet from the wetlands, instead of the required fifty (50) feet. This is a twenty (20) percent variance from the wetlands setback requirements. 5. AMENDED PLAT, LOTS 18A. 18B AND 18C OF "LOTS 17A. 18A. 18B AND 18C. GREELEY- BOULDER COLONY SUBDIVISION. BEING AN AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 17.18 AND 19. GREELEY-BOULDER COLONY SUBDIVISION". 2395 Highway 66. Applicant: William & Toni Swanson Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request to vacate and relocate easements for an existing subdivision. The Greeley-Boulder Colony Subdivision was originally platted in 1918. The Board of County Commissioners approved an amended plat for lots 17,18 and 19 in February 2002 (File 99-SI 521). This amended plat will relocate easements; no boundary line adjustments or additional lots are proposed with this plat. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers was present representing the applicant. He stated the goal is to move the utility easement running through the middle of the lots to make the lots more suitable for building. 7. 8. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Pages 2. 3. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission - Aprin€r2002 Ellis Hattan a neighbor to the west, questioned whether he would incur interrupts in his power service Paul Kochevar assured Mr. Hattan the neighbors would be notified when there was an interruption in service. Mr. Hattan asked if he could have copies of the new utility plans. Director Joseph stated copies would be available as soon as they were approved. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the County Commissioners of the Amended Plat, Lots 18A, 18B and 18C of’Lots 17A, 18^186 and 18C Greeley-Boulder Colony Subdivision, being an Amended Plat of Lots 17,18 and 1^ Greeley-Boulder Colony Subdivision" with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with two absent. , 1 A driveway maintenance agreement for Lots 18A, 18B and 18C shall be submitted for recording with signed mylars. This maintenance agreement shall be subject to review and approval by Town Attorney White. Compliance with Town Attorney White’s comments dated March 21,2002. Prior to connection to Town water system, compliance with Public Works Director Linnane’s comments dated March 19, 2002, which includes ten line items. Compliance with Larimer County Engineering (Dale Greer) comments dated March 14, 2002. CONCEPT PLAN FOR LOTS 1-6. SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT: PLANS/PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS FOR LOTS 2-5. SOLITUDE SUBDIVSIOh^ Applicant: Fish Creek Properties, LLC ^ • Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a development plan and preliminary condominium map application for Lots 2, 3,4, and 5 of the Solitude Subdivision. These are four separate development plans and four separate preliminary condominium maps. A concept plan was submitted to provide an overview of the entire development, i.e. for informational purposes only. The entire Solitude Subdivision is zoned A Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The applicant is proposing to build and condominiumize ten (10) accommodations units on Lot 2; seven (7) units on Lot 3; seven (7) units on Lot 4, and six (6) units on Lot 5. The applicant submitted development plans for Lots 1 and 6 for review next month. Development on all lots in the Solitude Subdivision is limited to accommodations uses only. On October 16, 2001, the Planning Commission conditionally aPPr°ved the Solitude Subdivision preliminary plat. One of the conditions of approval was that The Protective Covenants shall restrict the use of each unit to accommodations use and shall use the same definition of accommodations use as the Estes Valley Development Code Section 13.3.6.” The Town Board approved the final plat on March 12, 2002. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers was present representing the applicant. He pointed out the inaccuracies in the site data tables and the staff findings. Mr. Kochevar stated condition 4 in the staff report does not give him the option to meet the parking code requirements without going to the Board of Adjustment. The staff condition limits his options. He has a new parking lot plan; however the new plan would eliminate a 10 inch tree. The initial design tried to leave as many trees as possible. Planner Chilcott stated Mr. Kochevar discussed with staff the requirements for the parking lot on Lot 2 after the staff report was completed. Mr. Kochevar submitted a number of parking lot options; however a preferred alternative was not established prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Al Sager is a member of the general public. He questioned the number of units being proposed. He feels this will have considerable impact on the neighborhood. He would like to see the Planning Commission make a concerted effort to limit the number of variances submitted to the Board of Adjustment. No action was required and none was taken on the Concept Plan. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - April 16, 2002 Page 4 It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/McKinney) to approve Development Plans 02-10,02- 11 and 02-12 for Lot 3, Lot 4 and Lot 5, Solitude Subdivision, and to approve Development Plan 02-09, Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, contingent upon a mutual agreement between the staff and the applicant with regard to the number and location of parking spaces, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with two absent. 1. In order to ensure that these resort cabins remain accommodations, the following conditions listed in Item #2 of Town Attorney White’s March 28,2002 letter shall be met. Also, the Site Data note stating, “[number] residential units are allowed and [number] residential units are proposed," shall be changed to read that “[number] accommodations (resort/cabin) units are allowed and [number] accommodations (resort/cabin) units are proposed." The note stating, “Required Private Open Space of 15% = ..." shall be removed. The Lot 5 Landscape Plan calls for 24 shrubs along the northern property line. These shrubs shall be shown on the plan. The Property Description for the Lot 2 Landscape Plan refers to Lot 3; this shall be corrected. Development Plan 02-09 and the Preliminary Condominium Map shall be contingent on the approval of the parking lot for Lot 2 between the staff and the applicant with the recognition that staff has the ability to approve a maximum 10 percent variance. A copy of the recorded private access and vehicle parking easement agreements for [1] the Lot 6 shared parking, [2] the Lot 2/3 shared parking, and [3] the Lot 4/5 shared parking shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit for any use served by the off-site parking areas. The Lot 6 agreement shall ensure that parking necessary to serve development on Lot 6 and development on Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 Is provided, i.e. in addition to the parking spaces required to serve development on Lot 6, parking spaces shall be provided on Lot 6 to serve development on Lots 2-5. 6. The parking sections shall be changed to show three (3) inches of asphalt for the driveways and two (2) inches of asphalt for the rest of the parking lot. 7. Site-specific construction plans shall be submitted with the building permit application(s), including a grading plan demonstrating compliance with the EVDC §7.2 Grading and Site Disturbance Standards. 8. The existing cabins on Lot 2 shall be removed prior to issuance of the first building permit for Lot 2. 9. Approval of this development plan includes approval of a minor modification of twenty-five (25) percent to allow driveway spacing of at least 112.5 feet from the pavement edge of any other driveway. 2. 3. 4. 5. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/McKinney) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Preliminary Condominium Maps for Lot 2 subject to the approval of Development Plan 02-09 by staff. Lot 3, Lot 4, and Lot 5 Solitude Subdivision, and it passed unanimously with two absent. 7. REPORTS None. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 4T37'p Chefie Pettyjohn yn Williamson, Recording Secretary