HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2002-07-16BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 16, 2002,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendeii Amos, Bill Horton,
Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Ed McKinney, and Dominick Taddonio
Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners Kitchen, Horton, Pohl, Amos, and Taddonio
Town Board Liaison Habecker, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph,
Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Wiiiiamson
Commissioner McKinney
Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
Bob Joseph welcomed the new Commissioner Biii Horton.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Estes Vaiiey Planning Commission Minutes dated June 18,2002, with the correction of “in”
to ‘is” on page 3 first sentence.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it
passed unanimously with one absent. H
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3' ^^CntL.?.E.Y!Pjy.?2JLs.H.!p,HERD ofthf mountains luthfran church, lot 7
Planner ShTrk revitldfhestaTrennrt^ Shepherd ot the Mountain Lutheran Church
Lutheran Church to build a new chwrrh af th 'S- requ?.st by the ShePherd of the Mountains Road, within the ToL of Estes Pa* The hn frl^ " u P,armi9an Trai' and Dry Gulch
structure, but has been designedSfo^armax!rnurn build ouTof*!!! hnn ” SS a F°0 Square f00*
includes a rezoning of the property from “E-1” Estate to “RM" M5w-0tfqUairefeet‘ Thls ProPosal
with the design and intent of thesubdivisionan^tin R^- Mul[,-Fami|y. which is consistent
platted as Lot 2 of the Good Samaritan qnhHiw-a-nd .anrrexatlon P,at- The proposed site was
includes provision for classrooms fellowship area° small aCer^be|[-tOi2001‘ The bui,dln9 design
Except for Sunday school, no schools or davoarT 'Ce kltchen'offices-and restrooms,
includes an extensive landscaping plan Exterior nahtrLPw?i°hed’ • The deve,0Pment P'an
requests an extension to Section sIe of th^Estes Va^av n'a f m,nim,zed- The aPPlicant
that If an applicant fails to apply for a buildinn Deve/,0Pment Code (which statesdevelopment plan shall automaSy la^e a9ndPrc^m^^^^^ fr0m rezonin9- su^h
year time period, which is consistent wi?rtha ^ and V0,d) to a,,ow for a three (3)
applicable standards of the E^tes Val ^ Dp-iI r,gbt® Pariod- The proposal meets the
Standards, Religious Assembly Use Reiulatfonr 9n^en|tDC0de^ including: Zoning District
Standards. The development is an Sal part General Development
Samaritan Subdivision and is consistent w»h inl ?V+tra develoPmant of the Good
proposal would have no adverse Impacts on mbnc fSies and® Comprehensive p'an. This
environment would be minimal. This proposahs S ipf. n?and the effect on the
less impervious coverage, minimizing the?ut and fi^^rm^nfmt Ji1 d,ng area than al,owed.
way parking lot design will minimize vehicSfor codnfl ^ a ^ thf dlsturbed area. and a one-
finished slope (50%). which will require spedal^rosfoStnrn°i S'te Wil'C°ntain a ste^^
includes adequate sidewalks, which will tVinto he npd ? maaaures. This proposal
neighborhood. The landscape plan meets he reau?rSf circulation system of the
frontage, parking lot interior and perimefor and C°de an^
request has been submitted to allaoXahip b coverage requirements. This
comment. No significant issues or concerns were exorens9SprihnCy staff for consideration and
compliance or the provision of public services. P sed by reviewmg staff relative to code
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page 2
4.
2.
3.
Ross Stephens of Cornerstone Engineering was present to represent the applicant. Mr.
Stephens stated they had no objection to staff conditions. This site currently has no trees or
shrubs. This proposal would add 91 trees and 213 shrubs. Mr. Stephens suggested that three
(3) trees from the original landscape plan could be moved from the perimeter to satisfy staff
condition 7c stating that three (3) trees shall be placed on the northeast portion of the building.
Public Comment:
Dan Mangier, pastor of the Shepherd of the Mountain Lutheran Church, was present to give
some background on the site selection. He also thanked the Commission for their time and
consideration.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Town Board of
Trustees of the Special Review 02-03, Rezoning of Lot 2 from “E-1 ” Estate to “RM” Multi-
Family; and. Extension to Section 3.3.E “Effect of Approvals and Lapse” to allow a three
(3) year time period to apply for a building permit. Shepherds of the Mountain Lutheran
Church, Lot 2, Good Samaritan Subdivision with the following conditions, and it passed
unanimously with one absent.
1. Application for building permit shall include specific details regarding erosion control
(wind and water), and a detailed grading plan providing for restoration of disturbed
areas in accordance with standards set forth in Section 7.2.C “Restoration of
Disturbed Areas” of the Estes Valley Development Code.
The limits of site disturbance shall be fenced in the field prior to construction activity.
Elevation Certificates — Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) at foundation inspection and
height at roof framing inspection - prepared by a registered land surveyor shall be
presented to the Building Official in a format acceptable to the Building Department.
4. Should the church propose daycare in the future, additional Special Review will be
required.
5. Exterior lighting not required for security will be used only during times when the
facility is occupied. Security lighting shall be limited to building mounted fixtures.
6. Parking lot lighting shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height, and shall be directed
toward the parking lot to minimize spillover.
7. Submittal of a revised Development Plan incorporating the following:
a. Compliance with Public Works Director’s memo dated July 1,2002.
b. The design of the one-way intersection shall be subject to review and approval
of Public Works, and shall include M.U.T.C.D. “one-way, do not enter” signs.
c. Submittal of a revised landscaping plan to include provision of three (3) 12 foot
coniferous trees located near the northeast portion of the building.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 02-16 AND REZONING. TAHARAA MOUNTAIN LODGE. PORTION
OF SECTIONS 2 & 11, T4N. R73W OF THE 61” P.M.. APDlicant: Ken & Dianp Harlan
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to expand the Taharaa Mountain
Lodge from the existing 12 units (plus two employee units) to a proposed 20 units (plus two
employee units). The property currently exceeds the maximum development density allowed in
the A-1 Accommodation zoning district by one unit. The applicants, Ken and Diane Harlan,
request rezoning to the “A" Accommodation zoning district to allow for the proposed expansion!
This request is in conjunction with annexation to the Town of Estes Park. The existing lodge
was built in 1997, and was permitted under the old Larimer County Land Use Code. The
conditions of this area have not significantly changed since the comprehensive valley wide
rezoning two years ago. Those changes were made as a reflection of the Future Land Use
component of the Estes Valley Plan. The site is located above the water service “blue line”, and
therefore would need a water service system designed by a professional engineer'and
approved by Public Works. Additional access permits would need to be obtained from CDOT if
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - Juiy 16, 2002 Page 3
the development is approved. The proposal includes building a 37 foot high building, which may
exceed the maximum allowed building height. A variance from the Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment may be necessary to allow this height, should this proposal be approved. The
average slope of the lot is 23 percent; as a result, the base density is subject to adjustment per
Section 7.1.A “Density Calculation for Development on Steep Slopes in Excess of 12%.”
Rezoning to the “A” Accommodation zoning district would allow 85 units to be built on the site.
Staff waived several submittal requirements at the pre-application meeting. As a result, a
condition of approval should be submittal of a complete development plan subject to staff level
review. Appeals would be made to the Planning Commission. The revised development plan
should address parking, landscaping, driveway access, drainage, and adequate public facilities.
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and
comment. Public Works, CDOT, and the Town Attorney had comments regarding this proposal.
A boundary line adjustment to increase the lot size is a feasible alternative to rezoning, and
would allow for the proposed expansion.
Bill Van Horn of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated that
the property was purchased by the Harlan’s under the County “A” zoning. The Harlan’s were
under the impression they would not be affected by the new Estes Valley zoning. The Harlan’s
property exceeded the “A-l” Accommodations when it was rezoned and the property should
have been rezoned “A” Accommodations. Mr. Van Horn stated the Harlan’s were unaware their
property was non-conforming to the “A-1 ” Accommodation zoning district, and that they did not
have the right to develop more units without getting a variance. He also stated that it has been
determined by the Town Board there is a need for accommodations. This is the kind of
accommodation that we as a community should be promoting and therefore it needs to expand
in order to survive. Mr. Van Horn advised placing a limitation on this property through the
annexation agreement would not be wise. Additional development for this property would have
to come back to the Planning Commission for further consideration in any case. He stated this
is an existing use that was placed in the wrong zoning district, that is a recognized need in the
community and that is only a fraction of the units in the surrounding area. It is not reasonable to
ask the applicants to acquire more land and it is not economically feasible. He asked the
Commission for consideration of the owners and to realize there has been a taking of
development rights in this situation.
Commissioner Amos questioned why accommodations are condominiumizing if there is such a
need for accommodations. Bill Van Horn stated the older accommodations are not viable due
to their age. VVe need to have the newer higher standard accommodations to draw in the
visitors. Commissioner Amos asked why the older accommodations are not modernizing Mr
Van Horn stated it has to do with location.
Director Joseph asked if the owners would be interested in entering into an annexation
agreement that would limit the number of units on site. Mr. Van Horn stated the Harlan’s would
be interested: however there should be flexibility so that more units can be developed if there is
a need in the future.
Planner Shirk advised that an annexation agreement which limits the number of units on site
can be amended by the Town Board at a later date to allow for additional units. Director Joseph
stated that a rezoning without restricting the “use by right” limits the Town’s ability to deny the
development proposal when it satisfies the standards of the zoning district. The annexation
agreement places an additional restriction on the rezoning to allow the Town further discretion
on the future development of this property.
Commissioner Taddonio stated that community interest is not limited to commercial interest.
We have to follow the Estes Valley Development Plan that calls for the feathering of
development from the core of the city out. Mr. Van Horn stated this community needs to
recognize that this is a need that brings in tax dollars to provide the services available to the
residence in the Valley.
Commissioner Amos questioned whether or not a development plan was needed in order to
recommend approval of the rezoning. Director Joseph read §3.3 “Code Amendments”. The
code states that all rezoning applications shall be accompanied by a development plan. The
zoning request is tied to the development plan approval. An annexation agreement should be
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page4
entered into that would strictly limit the “use by right” to this development plan.
Commissioner Amos asked if the full development plan would come later once this request for
rezoning was approved by the Planning Commission and the Town Board. Attorney White
advised there was no need for all the development plan information up front because without
approval of the rezoning the project would not go forward. He stated this was a better approach
for the applicant. The full development plan will be reviewed by the staff if the rezoning is
approved.
Commissioner Kitchen stated that perhaps it would be advantageous to have a zoning district
between the “A” Accommodations and “A-1” Accommodations. She feels the “A-1”
Accommodations is to limiting at times and that the “A” Accommodations might be too broad at
other times.
Public Comment:
Diane Harlan, owner of the Taharaa Mountain Lodge, came to Estes for the quality of living.
They found with their research that Estes needed the quality of a luxury property. They bought
the land in 1994 knowing it was zoned “A” Accommodations and didn’t build until 1997. They
believed they would grow with the Town. The expansion is needed to take advantage of a
growing corporate business base and to remain a viable accommodations business. They feel
they have added something to the community. She stated they need the rezoning to make this
property viable and would not have developed in 1994 if they knew only 12 units could be built.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
Director Joseph replied to the assertion that the rezoning of Taharaa to the “A-1”
Accommodations was in error when it took place in 2000. He stated there was no attempt to do
site specific density calculations. He pointed out this was a valley wide rezoning process. He
suggested that when you look at the “A-1 ” Accommodation density potential of 4 units per acre
as compared to the “A” Accommodation density potential of 8 or more units per acre, the “A-1 ”
Accommodation was the right decision for this property. An “A” Accommodation zoning would
have allowed these properties with slopes in excess of 20 percent, wildfire hazards and
inadequate public services a “use by right” for a higher density. The rezoning to “A”
Accommodation would have been against the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning was a very
public process and specific contact was made with the property owners. There was no intent or
action to do this behind the back of the property owners. The recourse for any property owner
is to come to the Planning Commission with a rezoning request. Director Joseph recommended
that the Planning Commission not approve this rezoning without an annexation agreement to
limit the density. He stated that without the limitation put in place at the time of rezoning, the
property owners would have a “use by right” for a higher density and neither the Planning
Commission nor the Town Board would have the discretion to deny a plan for higher density if it
conformed to the development standards.
Commissioner Amos is disturbs that we are losing accommodations to condominiumization yet
developing new accommodations. He feels we are going to continue to see properties coming
in for rezoning in order to gain more density. He supports the rezoning of this parcel with an
agreement reached between the applicant and staff that would limit the “use by right” through
the annexation agreement.
Commissioner Horton feels we need to support the businesses of the valley because they
provide jobs and revenue that keep the town viable. He feels that not rezoning at all would be a
travesty and that there should be some kind of middle ground.
Commissioner Pohl restated that the annexation agreement by the Town and the property
owners can be amended. He would like to see the Commission forward this request to the
Town Board with an annexation agreement limiting the development to 8 more units at this time.
He also complimented the applicant and Mr. Van Horn on their presentations.
Mr. Van Horn stated the applicant would like to have a number of units that would allow them
future development without going through this process in the near future. Commissioner Amos
questioned what would be an adequate number of units. Mr. Van Horn feels there should be
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - Juiy 16, 2002 Page 5
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
some kind of compromise to allow the Harlan’s to develop units in the future. He would like to
suggest a total of 30 units be requested as a limit on the annexation agreement.
Attorney White stated that the approval of the current request for 8 additional units would be
limiting. He suggests that perhaps an annexation agreement that limits the development to 30
units, with the understanding that future development will still need to come through the
Planning Department for approval, would be an appropriate compromise.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of
Trustees the Development Plan 02-16 and RezonIng from “A-l” Accommodation to “A”
Accommodation, Taharaa Mountain Lodge, Portion of Section 2 & 11, T4N, R73W of the
6 P.M, with the following conditions, and it passed with one absent. Those voting yes:
Kitchen, Horton, Amos, Pettyjohn, and Pohl. No: Taddonio.
1. Submittal of a revised development plan subject to staff level review. This
development plan shall provide for the following:
a. Interior parking lot landscaping and street frontage landscaping standards.
The existing drive shall be regraded to a minimum of eighteen (18) feet wide.
Provision of parking in accordance with standards set forth in Chapter 7 of the
Estes Valley Development Code.
Approval of access permit from CDOT.
Compliance with Public Works Director’s memo dated July 1 2002.
ISO calculations.
Drainage.
Building perrnit application shall include specific details regarding erosion control
(water and wind), and a detailed grading plan providing for restoration of disturbed
areas in accordance with standards set forth in Section 7.2.C “Restoration of
Disturbed Areas" of the Estes Valley Development Code.
The lirnit of site disturbance shall be fenced in the field before construction activity
Any exterior trash receptacles shall be bear proof. ’
°lthe devel?P|?1ent P|an shal1 be contingent upon rezoning of the property
Estes p'arkACC0mm0datl0nS t0 A”Accommodations and annexation to the Town of
6. Approval of an annexation agreement limiting density to 30 accommodation units.
Chair Pettyjohn called a five minute break at 3:38 p.m.
Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting back to order at 3:55 p.m.
kilts.':!, r.:
cleCuCp:“XgZd"• Commissioner Pe«Viota 'hat perhaps we need to
5. ESTES VALLEY SIGN CODE REVISIONS
Director Joseph asked that Chair Pettyjohn open this item for public comment.
Public Comment:
nrnnf T•r+°f th? Twisted Pine, stated he displays his goods outside of his store. He is
proof pos't've that it works. He stated that he would need at least 600 to 800 square feet of
°UQt?'de dlsP ayt0 continue his current level of display. He feels that it would hurt his business if
there was a limit placed on the outside display of merchandise. He would like the Commission
to raise the allowable square footage being considered.
Commissioner Am°s asked what Mr. Glover would think if the Town removed the provisions of
outc^or displays for the businesses in Estes Park. Mr. Glover understands that we don’t want
the O'ook lke a flea market: however if he is not able to put the goods outside people
might think he is closed. Chair Pettyjohn asked if he puts his goods under the eves He stated
he does.
3.
4.
5.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - Juiy 16, 2002 Page 6
Dave Novic, owner of the Warming Hut, stated that this part of Town does not have sidewalks or
benches, and therefore signs are important in order to get customers in the door. He has
looked at the proposed 100 square foot limit on signs and feels the Commission needs to look
at this further. He stated that he had to build his sign to stand up to the wind and the supports
for the sign would be included in the overall 100 square feet allowable signage. This would
greatly limit the size of the signs.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
Director Joseph stated we have had enforcement issues every summer with outside sales. The
purpose of the code revision is to give the staff a tool to use when enforcing the code. Director
Joseph would like to recommend that all references to outdoor display of merchandise be
removed from the draft revision and forward the rest of the changes to the Town Board for
consideration. Staff will come back with a recommendation that will have a more accurate
locational standard regarding outdoor displays.
Commissioner Pohl suggested that the Commission wait and give a complete document to the
Town Board for consideration. He questioned whether it the code should be the same for
Commercial Downtown pedestrian signs and Commercial Outlying signs. Jeff Sigler stated that
the total signage is calculated based on a standard formula found in the Municipal Code which
covers all zoning districts; however the outlying areas have more store frontage and therefore
greater allowable signage.
Director Joseph stated he likes the idea of regulating the outside display of merchandise as
signage. The code needs to be clear enough so that it can be enforced in a consistent manner.
Chair Pettijohn asked if the Commercial Outlying areas could have a separate formula that
would hmit the outside display to the area underneath the eaves and also have a square footage
proposedeCt0r J°SePh Stated th3t hG felt 3 separate formula for the outlying area could he
Staff will give consideration to the comments heard today and come back to the Plannino
ommission next month with a recommendation regarding outside display of merchandise. 9
6. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS
Director Joseph reviewed the proposed revisions in Block 3.
Item 1.I®*!0 “ Th® maximum floor area ratio was revised for the “A" and “A-
1 Accommodation zoning districts in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidentlal Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
Minimum. Land
Area per
Accommodation or
Residentiai Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)
Minimum Lot Size Minimum Buiiding/Structure
Setbacks [4]Max.
Max.
FAR
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Area
(sq ft)
Width
(ft.)
Front
(ft.)
Side
(ft.)
Rear
(ft)
Buiiding
Height
(ft)
A
Accommodation
Unit =1,800 [1];
Residential Units:
SF = 9,000;
2-FamiIy = 6,750;
MF = 5,400
40,000 [2]100 [3]
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
15 [6]10 [6]30 N/A 50
A-1 10,890 15,000 [2]50 [3]
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
15 10 30 .20 30
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - Juiy 16, 2002 Page 7
Item 2. §13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases
106. Floor Area. Gross - definition
d. and e. were deleted and the remaining items were renumbered accordingly.
The following text was added:
The basement of a building where all enclosing exterior walls are exposed no more
than three (3) vertical feet above finished grade at any point and that does not have
direct access to the exterior through a door (e.g., the total floor area of a walk-out
basement in a building is included in the calculation of gross floor area).
Item 3. Lot Coverage - The maximum lot coverage was revised for the “CO”, “1-1” and
“A-1” zoning districts.
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
CO
I-l
A-1
Minimum. Land
Area per
Accommodation or
Residential Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)
n/a
Minimum Lot Size [7]
Area
(sq ft)
Lots
fronting
arterials =
40,000
[2];
Outdoor
Commer
cial
Recrea
tion/
Entertain
ment =
40,000 [2]
All other
lots =
15,000 [2]
Width
(ft.)
n/a 15,000 [2]
Fronting
arterials=
200;
All other
lots = 50
Minimum Building/Structure
Setbacks [4
Front
(ft.)
10,890 15,000 [2]
Fronting
Arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other
streets
=15
Side
(ft.)
Rear
(ft.)
15 [6]
50 [3]
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
Max.
Building
Height
(ft.)
Max.
FAR
15 [6]
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
10 [6]10 [6]
15
30
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
.25 65
30 .30 80
10 30 .20 30
Item 4.
Item 5.
Item 6.
updatedUtor6CadSSifiCati0nS,SPeCifiC US6 De,ini*ions and Examples was
2.b.1. Bed and Breakfa.qt Inn-
AccesToiy bundings!*(8) 9UeS'S may be accommodated a' any one (1) time.
rmilt!.d UseS “ Director Joseph asked to withdraw this proposed revision to
permitted uses in the “A” zoning district for future consideration.
§11.3.E. Development and Design Standards
4. Open Areas
a. lyiinimum Amounts Required - The chart was revised for the “RE-1 ” and
E-1” zoning districts.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Pages
Item 8.
Zoning District
Minimum Open Areas
(% of Gross Land Area)
RE-1 70%
RE 50%
E-1 40%
Item 7.Changes to Table 4-2 and Table 4-5
Table 4-2
Note [3] was removed from the “RE-1” and “RE” zoning districts.
Note [2] was revised to read: See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from
stream/river corridors and wetlands.
Note [9] was added: All structures shall be setback from public or private roads
that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from
the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or
recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be
the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is
not applicable in the “MF” district.
Table 4-5
Note [4] was revised to read: See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from
stream/river corridors and wetlands.
Note [8] was added: All structures shall be setback from public or private roads
that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from
the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or
recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be
the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is
applicable only in the “A-1” district.
Appendix B.ll Subdivision Submittal Requirements
^ Condominium Projects - Item 3 text was removed and replaced with the
following text, Item 6 was revised and Item 7 was added:
3. The draft articles of incorporation shall be submitted with preliminary subdivision
plats. A certificate from the Secretary of State stating that the Articles of
Incorporation have been filed, comply with Colorado law, and that the corporation is
authorized to conduct affairs within the State shall be submitted with the final
subdivision plat. And a copy of the filed articles of incorporation shall be submitted
with the final subdivision plat.
6. Any other information, maps or plats required by the Colorado Common Interest
Ownership Act (§33-33.3.101 et. seq., C.R.S.).
Jh ^+kertlfiC?e t!y-an attornf y du|y licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado
that the condominium association, condominium map and declaration comply with the
Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (§38-33.3-101 et seq. C.R.S.) shall be
submitted with the final subdivision plat.
Item 9.
Item 10.
Appendix B Submittal Requirements - Director Joseph asked to withdraw the
proposed additions to Attachment A “Form and Acknowledgement for Dedication”
and Attachment B “Forms for Ali Plan Certifications” for future consideration.
Appendix D Road Design and Construction Standards
LGeneral - was updated to include the following:
D. Modifications and Waivers. The Town of Estes Park Engineer or Larimer
county Engineer, or designee, shall have authority to grant modifications and/or
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page 9
waive standards set forth in Appendix D in conjunction with a site specific
development plan. Modifications and or waivers shall be presented to the Engineer
in writing prior to application submittal. Approval of requested modifications and/or
waivers shall require that the Engineer finds approval of such modification and/or
waiver:
1. Advances the goals and purposes of this Code; and
2. Either results in less visual impact, more effective environmental or open
space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in developing a site, or results
in the use of superior engineering standards than those required by this Code.
Item 11. §13.3 Definitions on Words, Terms and Phrases - Director Joseph asked to
withdraw the proposed revisions to Lot and Lot of Record for future consideration.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Taddonio) to recommended acceptance to Town
Board and Board of County Commissioners of the amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Block 3. Motion passed unanimously with one absent.
7. REPORTS
None.
There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
ie Pettyjohn, Clrair
—tL r Vj.. > . a /Wv />. - 1
J^quelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary