HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2002-08-20BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
August 20, 2002,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bill Horton,
Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Ed McKinney, and Dominick Taddonio
Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners Kitchen, Horton, Pohl, Amos, McKinney, and
Taddonio
Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary
Williamson
Absent:Town Board Liaison Habecker, Planner Chilcott
Chair Pettyjohn caiied the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated Juiy 16, 2002.
b. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 19 & LOT 20, BLOCK 11, AMENDED PLAT CARRIAGE HILLS
4TH FILING, 2616 SUNRISE COURT, Applicant: Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers,
Inc. - Combine 2 Lots into 1 Lot.
1. The lot should be labeled as Lot 1, Block 11 (per Larimer County Building
Department). j
2. Monument descriptions that do not pertain to this plat should be removed from the
legend (per Larimer County Engineering Department).
c. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 3, 4 AND 7, CARRIAGE HILLS 3RD FILING, 2410 SPRUCE
AVENUE, Applicant: Lohren Thompson - Combine 3 Lots into 1 Lot.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it
passed unanimously.
2. PlIRLIC COMMENT
None.
3 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. ROCKMOUNT COTTAGES, A PORTION OF
■ SEC 34. T5N R73W OF THE 6TH P.M.. 1852 Hiqhway_66, Applicant: Raymond & Shirley
banner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is an appiication fora, ™"°:
Joe coop of Van Horn Engineering was presentto represent theapptontHestatedthaHf the
appiicantwas required to dedicate Jhe ent^ “^eTuTgesTs thf erhaps9^^^^^ teef^lgh^be
make Tract 1 non-conforming as to lot size. He suggests mat p p
rantete'ttie bounda^"^net*^Justmentt^atement ^So^'in^ilyRequested in Town Attorney
White’s letter to Mr. Shirk.
Public Comment:
None.
Commissioner Taddonio asked for Director Joseph’s opinion regarding the fifteen (15) foot right-
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20,2002 Page 2
of-way. Director Joseph stated that the forty-five (45) foot right-of-way is reasonable and fits the
standards. He suggested that perhaps the adjacent property to the north would be obligated to
give more right-of-way than the property to the south due to the historic placement of the road
on the property to the north. Director Joseph stated there is a legitimate argument that the
property to the north owes more right-of-way than the property to the south. He also suggested
that the property could be placed in a different zoning district where it would meet the minimum
lot size. He feels it is important that the full forty-five (45) feet right-of-way should be
established. Planner Shirk stated that it is more important to get the full right-of-way at the
corner to improve the intersection in the future. He suggested that less right-of-way would allow
for the house to set farther off of Spur 66.
Bill Van Horn stated that Eagle Cliff Road came about to accommodate the division of the
property to the north of the quarter section line. As the original owner sold off pieces he
burdened the other properties with access to the north. He stated Eagle Cliff Road did not
serve the properties to the south that have access from Spur 66. The road only serves the
division of the properties to the north.
Planner Shirk stated that he believe fifteen (15) feet would be enough right-of-way dedication.
Commissioner Taddonio stated that staff should maximize the area that is to be dedicated for
the right-of-way and make it as wide as possible. Director Joseph advised that the motion
create a minimum conforming lot area and dedicate the rest of it as roadway.
Wayne Brown a property owner without Eagle Cliff Road frontage was present. He questioned
whether other properties along Eagle Cliff Road would have to relinquish their property for
conformance to right-of-way. Director Joseph stated that nothing done today can bind a party to
the north. Town Attorney White advised there are no requirements for a private property owner
to relinquish anything until such a time when the County acquires right-of-way through the
purchase of the property or condemnation of the property or the property owner decides to
redevelop the property.
It was moved and seconded (McKinney/Amos) to recommend approval to the Board of
County Commissioners of the Boundary Line Adjustment, Rockmount CotJages, A
Portion of the E 1/2 of Sec 34, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M. with the foilowing conditions,
and ^t ppl|J;g"lt,^ha|| provide contact information for the businesses advertising on this
2. Dedication of a 15 foot wide pedestrian access easement along the northern property
line of proposed Lots 1 and 4 (south side of Spur 66). ac
o Reconfiourinq Limits of Disturbance to include the wetlands and river setbacks, as
SniSreTS the staff report. These limits of disturbance shali be augtnented
with the foifowing note; “Limits of Disturbance shali appiy unless modified by site
4. Com'^torewThTubik! Works Director's memo dated August 14,2002.
to'lot of 15,000 square feet
7 ?he deSon statement shall be amended to read “Have by these presents caused
the same to be surveyed and subdivided into LOTS to be known as the plat of
Rockmount Cottages Subdivision, and do hereby dedicate and convey to and for public
use forever hereafter the streets AND EASEMENTS ... .hrtivisinn labelino
8. Placement of a %" hatched border around the “f *h® *““3and
PYi«itina easements with book and page number, renaming the tracts \ois , di redeVme the 80 foot wide easement so as to wrap around the existing buildings and
label it as “private.”
TRACT 16 OF4. PRELIMINARY CONnOMINIUM MAP g!VFR!
and vote due to a conflict of
interest.
Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary condominium map
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20, 2002 Page 3
application to condominiumize the lot, the seven existing cabins and workshop. The
declarant, i.e. the current owner - Tom and Sue Fisher, has not reserved the right to
develop additional units, nor does the condominium map provide for expansion of existing
units. The property is zoned “CO” Outlying Commercial and the existing multi-family
residential use is nonconforming. Per EVDC §6.3.C. a nonconforming use shall not be
altered or extended. This prohibits alterations to the existing units, including changes to
interior partitions, doors, windows, means of ingress or egress or any enlargement of
diminution of a building or structure, whether horizontally or vertically. Condominium
conversion will not prohibit the conversion to conforming uses; however, it may make
conversion more difficult as ownership will be divided. An access easement should be
dedicated providing vehicular access to the east. This access easement should be
submitted for review and approval by staff and should be recorded prior to submittal of the
final plat application. The applicant should dedicate ten (10) foot utility easements along all
property lines. The existing water lines do not meet current standards. The applicant has
proposed new water lines and the installation of a new fire hydrant. A Subdivision
Improvement Agreement, including the guarantee and warrantee, should be submitted.
Staff recommends that the applicant submit a Well Abandonment Report, Form No. GWS-
09 to the Office of the State Engineer for the well near Unit A. This office requires that the
Well Abandonment Report be submitted when a property receives Town water. Within
twelve (12) months from the date of the final approval of a preliminary condominium map,
the developer shall submit an application for final subdivision plat for either all or at least one
(1) phase of the proposed subdivision. This property is situated on the Big Thompson River
between existing Public Pedestrian Access Easements. Staff recommends dedication of a
20 (twenty) foot wide non-motorized Public Access Easement along the river.
Amy Plummer of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. She stated
there is enough flow from existing fire hydrants to satisfy ISO calculations as stated in Scott
Dorman’s memo and therefore the additional fire hydrant is not needed. She also stated the old
water lines being replaced will not be removed but will be plugged on both ends.
Tom Fisher the owner was present to address staff recommendations. He handed out a written
statementto the Cottimissioners regarding the parking lot rf S'1 ®nd “re
of a twenty (20) foot wide Public Access Easement. He stated that all of the P^rking'°^sr5ar®
Hefinpd exceet those between Units D and E. He advised that all the utilities run down the road
and the parking lot; therefore if the road was paved it would require digging up the pavement to
access theukikies Mr Fisher does not feel there is an issue with erosion because the road is
Enacted and level. He stated that they do not have 20 feet from the edge °'‘,!e r'''er t° d t
Sags On the east end of the property they have 3 feet to the ;|yfr^®d9peoafnd°rnvtahredWeHS(!
S t rol'^oroortcfZst bfan^iternative to the twenty (20) foot
wide trail otherwise people will be walking through their yard.
commissioner Amos questioned if the applicant would be'n's^e^t
wilHn^to d’^cuss^ it.^ He suggested that hewould be willing to give an easement near Unit F for
a bridge to the other side of the river.
Commissioner McKinney thanked the applicant for providing the Commission with the graphic
material.
altema'fcro^Sh'e feel's'thaTpeSrhapsnthere?houWCbe1urther^discussyon before'aVeci'sionts
made requiring the access easement entirely on the applicant s property.
Director Joseph stated that we could have a
that is anticipating the staff and the applicarit coming to an agreemenj to come t() an
agreVment than the'prS'wn'aiy'cotSominium map would come back to Planning Commission.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
-Page4-Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20,^2002
paint on pavement. Director Joseph agrees with the appiicant that there would be minimal
erosion. He stated that especially in condominium conversions it is beneficial to have the
parking lot and spaces well identified in order to limit disputes in the future for the new owners.
Mr Fisher stated the parking for each unit is well defined except for unit D and E and does not
feel painting lines on asphalt would help define the parking spaces any further. He believes he
can delineate the parking spaces for each unit with signs or fencing.
Commissioner Horton stated that he does not agree with the applicant’s argument regarding
paving or not paving due to the possibility that it might be dug up for maintenance oj the util^es
He does however believe that pavement might ruin the atmosphere of the property. He feels
the city needs to make other arrangements regarding the public trail access due to the build g
proximity to the river.
Commissioner Pohi questioned staff if there is a iegai requirement or code requirementthatthe
orooertv be paved. Director Joseph stated there is a code requirement. He advised that if this
was a new deveiopment being built there would be no question that paving woulc) ^aired^
nfstated this is a site speciflc variance and feels this would be an appropriate body to grant
such a variance.
Public Comment:
None.
the presentation to the Town Board.
,t was moved and seconded (Amos/PohO of
Pettyjohn, McKinney and Pohl voting yes. Horto 9 . deciaration to comply the
1 'O aU Chiicott. At a minimum, the
declaration shall address the following. discontinued for more than 12
a- 'foteenc2SvC:“s^heeolTrym0unst ^occupy the unit with a conforming use (see
EVDC §6.5). . ripstroved by fire, flood, wind, etc. and
b- restoratton'isno/stSted within o™e year the unit owner looses the right to rebuild,
c. l,Srunit that fs^noiiconforming as to setbacK iSvdestroyed and no. rebuilt in a year, the
d UHnrw”rcolSeTciTuL\han0dTJiential uses coexist on the same site, for example
2. The aPP'ic?'^t"Xa«yc^latd^i'shallbe
correSed prior to approval of the bg provided for access to the east.
3. A twenty-four (24) p review and approval by staff and shall be
The reCeP,i0n nU
Ibd parking
4 The applicant shall dedicate ten (] 0',°°| U“iJ[“,^rtdomi«cwater standards and all
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20, 2002 Page 5
6. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement, including the guarantee and warrantee, shall be
submitted which complies with EVDC §10.5.K.
7. Prior to placing the final condominium map application on the Town Board agenda, an
attorney’s certificate that the River Bend Condominium Owners Association, Inc.
complies with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (§38-33.3-101 et seq.
C.R.S.) shall be submitted.
8. Unless otherwise noted, any conditions of approval shall be "1ne‘by np'?;
September 3. 2002 in order to be piaced on the September 10. 2002 Town Board
9. Anagreement shaii be reach between the staff and the owiier as to a
Pedestrian Public Access Easement as required by section 10.5, a Sidewalks,
Pedestrian Connections and Trails before being presented toth® Town ®oaLd-,
10. Comply will all requirements identified in Bill Linnane s memo of August 14,200 .
3:33 Chair Pettyjohn called a 5 minute break.
Meeting reconvened to order at 3:40 p.m.
5 ncMCi npimPMT PI AN 02-17 AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, VISTA F^IDGE’|-°-
5- n° mPAnniTroM to tmp TOWN OFESTFS PARK. Northwest Comer of Dry Gulch,
•■'■■ur:_r->:intareor'tinn Anniicant: Estes Investors, LLu
Gulch
wiirtfirn Ridoe Intersection. APPllcaat;Es*aa gtr due to a conflict of
Commissioner Kitchen excused herself from the discussion ana voie
interest.
Sam Betters, Director of the Lovelandproject. He introduced the design and fhS'ne® ‘aa-T ^0erkTng hal3 topmpose a
private/public partnership. He advifedjha . nts and be a marketable product. It was
product that would meet the current c?de J.edU^ t al, the current code requirements it would
determined that if this project was designed tom iect He stated that is would be
not be economically feasible to go forward vy . .|.f^ll^ r|^etrateunits as compared to the
substantially more .Pro“le!°[1{be!1^?v® XuSeulite. The Housing Authority would like to
proposed 50/50 mix of affordabto a nrndljct available this coming summer. Mr. Betters
Eric Blackhurst a commissioner for *be b° gS^"|^*^°yty,^a|tated that the average price of a
studies and the needs assessment for ‘he Estes Valley^ vjsta Ridge |ow
single family home on the market $160000, He expressed a
s:rr=eho«^^
will supplement the affordable units.
Dave Lingle of Adler-Lingle Arch'‘et?s^® pr®y kas teervrarWnr^^^^ tot
the Vista Ridge project. Hefa?edb'sri^u^Sfnayconceptual designs that would meet the current
come up with a development plan and building rancepiuai a previousiy installed through
development code. They have tried "‘al" "|TuSey have a variety of 2 and 3
the approval of the original developme p • .. jownhouse styles with attachedbedroom units and a variety of j^uJiAuthority has a commitment to
garages. He stated that as the p j affordable rate houses to the public at the same
bring the same number of market rate a q market and affordable rate housing. Lot 1
time; therefore each of Jhe|° ® a. n its W1n pe Townhouse style with attached s^91®
will be phase 1 of construc ion and a l units units for the entire project. Mr.Lingle
naraoes There will be 9 fully adaptable and/or accesslf'® ' H ,s0 diSCussed the access
discussed the layout of lots and the ba*ld*n5J[{)gba°gd driVeways, Crabapple Lane as a public
“tatod units are identica,: theref0re y0U Can 00116,1 Wh,Ch Um 8
are affordable.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20, 2002 Page 6
John Spooner of Van Horn Engineering was present to discuss the site plan. He stated that the
lot has been over-lot graded and therefore, the original grade is no longer present He advised
that certain infrastructure has been completed such as a water hne that runs the length of
Wildfire Road and a sewer system that was constructed from Dry Gulch all along Wildfire Road,
aswel^as atongCrabapple Lane across to the middle of Lot 1. He stated it was a considerable
challenge to redesign the property without abandoning the infrastructure already m place and
that every effort wa9s made to place the building footprints within the setbacks. Mr. Spooner
acfvised that non *ofSthe building setbacks are less than the 25% that Planmng Comm,ss,on can
grant as a variance.
development of this site. This is a P|[plim!l?ary ^ oP.bmitted a development plan application to Addition into three (3) lots. The applicant has a so ^ f dTahf ®!®ln0e73e17^^^ the Snits will be
build sixty-one (61) residential units on the th ( ) of the Larimer County Median
affordable to households earning eighty f®°^Pw dthirty/30)unitswill be market rate.
Income and remain affordable for ninety-n|ne( )y current annexafion/development
The development plan is submitted as requesting an atta^able
agreement that controls development °”f|^^-‘%Jdh|safP0Pl^'1ntc,rSersqe in density from eight
housing density bonus per EVDC §11.4, which p e The deve|0pnnent
units per acre up to 12 unrts per acre m RM MuUi-Fa^oning^^^ Town Board; therefore
plan shall not be amended or nnodiried, ®x“Pt.uP |0PpPment p|an and make an advisory
Planning Commission will review ® staff recommends that the subdivision plat berecommendation to the Town Board of Trustees Staff Th™ areas shouid be clearly
revised to show twenty-four (24) ,®®L0'PayPprpvided for the continued maintenance of
delineated on the plat and an agreennent sh p ment should be revised to allow for a
the open areas and trail. The ® p „ns|stent with the revised open space calculation, reduction in the open space [®du' e a^ to allow for a five (6) foot wide traJ
The development agreernent ®h°u^ ' ^ Jh development plan applicatiori shouW be
DevSopment S"o:^o1ZtSot!?evelo^ere to take advantage of this same density
bonus formula. j f th
Director Joseph stated the points of n°n|;;con[|pdanP^hhfhVe ‘eatity of the eOTnomtesm ff we were
type of product that gets marketedandhas to th t recomnnending waivers to the current
iSs8 wh. . bemg exceeded is the 50
percent mix instead of the 100 percent affordable.
Sam Betters stated the projectis d®^'®ti|n9/™^*?sda,yand“rdrw^^^ ltwas °ri9.invp^
approrvedCfoT61 unks withf}310affordable rale unks ^d linteyUcotuld ig"!^ a pri^dud
from'fte product type to meet the m®*®‘;“0dd%HbeutfwouW n®ver be built because it would
Public Comment: .
Rick Spowart. local District Wildlife Mana9®.r-HrSv.sed8STneglected to
this development would have ori the wild i wildlife management and also the
mention the possible impacts ‘h'sp;®'efiC *" mthenastthere has
impacts management might have f°i*®'esf ®n d Sombreo Ranch is the only property left nrrr ruSTSKsSiS ns.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20, 2002
hunting.
Page 7
Louise Olson spoke in favor of the affordable housing project. She read statements from the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan that supports the project.
Hillery Parrack, a neighbor to the west of the project, is concerned about sight distance at the
Wildfire Road and Dry Gulch intersection. He stated you can not see around the bank to the
north.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Taddonio stated that he is concerned about the variances that need b.®
in oreler to implement a project of this nature. He questioned why 61 unrts are being bull*“hen
the project Is vto^ting certain aspects of the code such as impe^iouscoverageopenspa^
f£TbyrcoHmer^rnSa^^^^^^^^
Town Attorney White stated this is the “nlV propa^n the W
agreement with vested rights that has not been P . ' . nt aqreement was reviewed
completed under their development agreeme Gulch or Good Samaritan projects,under the Estes Valley Developmen Cod® eed, a t^ed°,y®a™°°edcXce to be ^t by
paving only adds cost to the project. H QnHatinn number 5 He advised that there is
Bill Linnane, Public Works Director Sj^g^howeveThe^^^^
Town of Estees park, with to shiw twenty-four (24) feet of paved road on
the east half of Crabapple Lane. fii^tance measurements for each street
InterseoSon'sha^be^htw'n »drquired sight distance shall be set and
approved by the Public Works Direct^ unper Thompson Sanitation District
the Town Board).
The applicant shall propose how this area will be preserved in compliance §7,4.G.
Per EVDC §7.4.H the agreement providing for continuing maintenance of the open
2.
3.
4.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20, 2002 Page 8
6.
areas and trails shall be submitted to the Decision-Making Body (i.e. the Town
Board) for approval prior to the issuance of any final subdivision plat.
The Development Agreement shall be revised to allow for a reduction in the open
space requirement consistent with the revised open space calculation.
5. Per EVDC §10.5.G, the applicant shali provide a written guarantee that the property
owner will replace any required restoration landscaping that is damaged or dies
during the first two (2) growing seasons.
6. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement, including the guarantee and warrantee, shail
be submitted that complies with the requirements set forth in EVDC §10.5.K.
7. Unless otherwise noted, any conditions of approval shall be met by 12:00 p.m. on
September 3, 2002 in order to be placed on the September 10, 2002 Town Board
agenda.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommend approval to the Town Board
of Trustees the Development Plan 02-17, Vista Ridge, Lot 1, Wildfire Addition to the Town
of Estes Park, with the following conditions, and it passed with Kitchen abstaining.
1. Submittal of revised grading and architectural plans demonstrating building height
compliance on lots 2 and 3, or obtain any needed height variances from the BOA.
2. Final revisions to the Development Plans for Lots 2 and 3 shall be subject to staff
review and approval.
3. The following waiver of current standards needs to be approved by the Town Board
amending the Development Agreement for density, impervious coverage, open area,
floor area ratio, and building setbacks.
ESTES VALLEY SIGN CODE REVISIONS
Director Joseph asked that the sign code revisions be continued to the next Planning
Commission on September 17, 2002.
7. REPORTS
None.
5:25 p.m.There being no further business, meeting was adj
Cherie Pettyjohn.
J^6queVn Willia'mson, Recording Secretary