Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2002-09-17BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission September 17,2002,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipai Buiiding Commission: Attending: Aiso Attending: Absent: Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohi, and Dominick Taddonio Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners Kitchen, Horton, Pohl, and Taddonio Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Pianner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Town Board Liaison Habecker, Commissioner Amos, and Planner Shirk Chair Pettyjohn caiied the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valiey Planning Commission Minutes dated August 20, 2002. b. AMENDED PLAT LOT 3, BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, 2222 Highway 66 - continued to October 15, 2002 meeting at the request of the applicant. c AMENDED PLAT LOTS 3 & 4, GREY FOX ESTATES, GREY FOX ESTATES AT CEDAR RIDGE, 1ST FILING, Section 1, T4N, R73W, of the 6th P.M., Applicant: Richard Bariow - Adjust Internal Lot Line. 1. The notation “former easements” shall be amended to read “Former Easements Vacated by this Plat.” 2. Note 14 shall be amended to read “This plat subject to all sections of the Estes Valiey Development Code.” It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimousiy with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 72 & 73. BLOCK 12. CARRIAGE HILLS 5TH FILING. 905 & 907 Rambling Drive. Applicant: Tomas & Margy Lininger. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request to combine two existing lots of record, both legally non-conforming as to size, into a single lot of record, which conforms to the “E” Estate minimum lot size. This amended plat will alleviate not only the non-conforming lots but a non-conforming side yard setback, and aiiow greater flexibility in future additions to the house. This amended plat will also lower the density in the neighborhood by one singie-family residential lot. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Taddonio) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Amended Piat of Lot 72 & 73, Biock 12, Carriage Hilis 5 Filing, 905 & 907 Rambiing Drive, with the foliowing conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Compliance with Biil Linnane’s memo dated September 16, 2002. 4. AMENDED PLAT PORTION OF LOT 100 & 101. AL FRESCO PLACE ADDITION. 461 Bighorn Drive. Applicant: David & Ann Racine. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request to combine two existing lots of record into a single lot of record. Limits of disturbance have been established with this plat. Removal of the internal lot line will provide greater design flexibility for any future additions to the existing house. This plat establishes limits of disturbance that set aside several rock outcroppings from future development. Public Comment: BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 17,2002 None. ■Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Amended Plat Portion of Lot 100 & 101, Al Fresco Place Addition, 461 Bighorn Drive, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 5. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS. SOLITUDE CONDOMINIUMS I & VI. LOT 1 & LOT 6, SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION. 600 Fish Creek Road. Applicant: Fish Creek Properties, LLC. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. Development plans for Lots 1 and 6 were reviewed at staff level and conditionally approved on May 21, 2002. Lot 1 will contain 10 resort lodge/cabins. Lot 6 will contain: five resort lodge/cabins; one office which may be converted to a cabin or manger’s unit; five kitchenette/employee units; and a laundry/storage area. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Maps, Solitude Condominiums I & VI, Lot 1 & Lot 6, Solitude Subdivision, 600 Fish Creek Road, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. If the development plan is revised and is no longer consistent with the condominium map a revised condominium map shall be submitted for Town review and approval. 2. Compliance with Bill Linnane’s memo dated September 16, 2002. 6. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP. CEDAR RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS III. LOT 4. BEAVER POINT THIRD ADDITION. Elm Road & Moraine Avenue. Applicant: Cedar Ridge at Estes Park, LLC. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The Town of Estes Park Planning Commission approved the Cedar Ridge Development Plan, Phase III on March 21,2000, before the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. The buildings are currently under construction, and the submitted “preliminary condominium map” complies with the previously approved development plan. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Taddonio) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Map, Cedar Ridge Condominiums III, Lot 4, Beaver Point Third Addition, Elm Road and Moraine Avenue, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Compliance with Bill Linnane’s memo dated September 16, 2002. 7. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP. LAZY R COTTAGES CONDOMINIUM WEST. TRACT 13, BEAVER POINT SECOND ADDITION. 895 Moraine Avenue. Applicant: Mark James Whittlesey Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary condominium map application to reserve the right to build five resort lodge/cabin units and to condominiumize the three existing resort lodge/cabin units. The building envelopes are shown on the condominium map. This is the first condominium map on the Planning Commission agenda that reserves development rights to build additional units. If the declarant wishes to develop additional units beyond those condominiumized with the initial condominium map, they must reserve development rights in the condominium declaration in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. However, review and approval of a condominium map with areas reserved for future development is not a guarantee that development rights can be exercised after the Development Plan Expires. The development plan proposed by the applicant does establish a limits of disturbance that protects most of the rock outcroppings on this site. Staff will review the need to further define the limits of disturbance around Unit 18 during the development plan review. The applicant has submitted a development plan for the five proposed units. This development plan review will require that adequate public facility requirements are met. The development plan and the condominium map should be consistent. If the development plan is BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 17, 2002 Page 3 3. 4. revised and is no longer consistent with the condominium map a revised condominium map should be submitted for Town review and approval. Joe Coop of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Coop asked for clarification regarding Mr. Whittlesey’s inability to sell the development rights individually. Town Attorney White stated that per the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act in order for a condominium to be deeded it has to be defined as an air space unit with vertical and horizontal dimensions. These units do not have as built drawings, and therefore can not be defined. Town Attorney White does not have a problem with Mr. Whittlesey contracting out the development rights. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Map, Lazy R Condominium West, Tract 13, Beaver Point Second Addition, 895 Moraine Avenue, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. If the development plan is revised and is no longer consistent with the condominium map a revised condominium map shall be submitted for Town review and approval. 2. The condominium map shali contain a note stating that exercising development rights reserved in the declaration is subject to the regulations in effect at the time the declarant chooses to exercise the rights. The note shall also state that all reserved rights shall be held in undivided ownership until such times as the respective units are constructed. The wording of this note shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. The building envelopes shall be labeled on the map as such. A note shall be added to the plat indicating that approval of the condominium map does not change the non-conforming status (setbacks) of any existing structures on the property, which are currently non-conforming. 5. The appiicant shail submit a description of how Unit 16 and 18 wili be placed on the rock and how site disturbance will be minimized. This shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 1 6. The preliminary condominium map shail be conditioned on approval of the submitted development plan. 8* REZONING, ROCKMOUNT cottages minor subdivision, a Portion of the E1/2 of Sec .34, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M.. 1852 Highway 66. Applicant: Raymond & Shirley Reetz Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. In August 2002, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the Rockmount Cottages Boundary Line Adjustment. A part of that request was to include rezoning of two portions of that land. One portion, the small triangular lot on the north side of Spur 66, must be rezoned from the “A” Accomniodations district to the “A-l” Accommodations district in order to provide compliance wrth minimum lot sizes. The other portion to be rezoned is the northeast portion of proposed Lot 2. This small area is zoned “A-l”, and the remainder of the lot is zoned “A”. This request is to rezone that small portion from the “A-1 ” to the “A” district, which would provide a single zoning designation for the entire lot. It is staff’s opinion the rezoning is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Horton) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Rezoning of proposed Lot 1 North of Spur 66 from “A” to “A-1 ’’ and Rezoning of Northeast portion of proposed Lot 2 from “A-1 ” to “A”, Rockmount Cottages, A Portion of the E 1/2 of Sec 34, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M. with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 9. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REViSiONS Director Joseph asked that the Public hearing be opened. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commlssion^^S^tembeT17^2002 Page 4 Public Comment: John Spooner, chair of the garage committee for the Estes Car Club, was present to review the clubs position on the proposed code amendments. He stated that the car club members wrote a letter to the Planning Commission Members, Town Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners raising their concerns over garage size and parking. Mr. Spooner suggested that the codes definition for parking needed to be cleaned up in order for its intent to be clear. The car clubs position is that a building is a building, and that there should be no distinction on what is placed inside of that building. He stated that house size is not regulated, and therefore the square footage attached to a house should not be regulated. The car club does realize that the size and total gross square footage of all the accessory structures on a site needs to be regulated. The car club is pleased with the drafted changes to the code regarding garage size and has been pleased with the response they have received from the staff in this matter. Norm Carver, resident of Stanley Heights and a member of the car club, stated that he would like the staff to review the code changes regarding parking. He feels the code revision is to generous in regards to the number of parked cars allowed. Commissioner Taddonio questioned the rationale of storing or parking 12 cars on a piece of property as an incidental or customary use. Director Joseph stated that this particular part of the code refers to the use and that garages are customarily found with residential uses. The code revisions that Planning Commission is considering today will set a standard for the Estes Valley. Director Joseph stated that the current code was fairly limiting in the garage space that people could build. The proposed code changes try to strike a balance by allowing people the option to park items inside a garage instead of parking them outside. This was done with the hope that it might improve the neighborhood overall by having vehicles parked in a garage. Attorney White advised that the phrase “the accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and customarily found in connection with the principle use” is used in zoning codes throughout the country and has been interpreted by courts for years. It really goes to the incidental use of vehicles, boats, motor homes, etc. that are used by the family. A commercial use of the garage is not an incidental use and is not customarily found in a residential neighborhood. He stated that the matter of size is up to the Planning Commission and is not a function of the use. Commissioner Pohl asked Mr. Spooner how many cars each member of the car club owns Mr Spooner stated that the average was 4.4 cars with a high of 13 cars. Commissioner Pohi aLPeohapS a fi?ure of 6 cars Parked outside would be more reasonable than that a hardship fn thp does not feel that a lesser number than 12 parked outside would be garage h P * th Ub members- Car club members are going to park their cars inside a /ndividualsSni^hnil^li8 discus®ion shuould be directed Awards the homes that have 6 or 8 individuals living m one house and may have more cars parked outside He is also conrpmpd Urat theRM ri- kT9 diStriCt that might have 10 or 12 units on one lot. Planner Chilcott stated v,?r!ednand,seconded (Horton/Pohl) to continue the Block 4 Amendments to the Chair Pettyjohn called for a 5 minute break at 2:50 p.m. Meeting reconvened to order at 2:58 p.m. lot d'efinition" HeSsta?eri rh2thXPreSS h'S con?erns regarding the code revisions to the separate lot aetinition. He stated that there are a number of unrecorded subdivisions such as Dunrax/pn Heights and Sanborn Acres that am referred to in deeds and usedbysu^ystodeterneTot BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 17, 2002 Page 5 boundaries. In a few cases the lot description in a deed will refer only to the unrecorded subdivision plat. He believes if a plat is recorded the Town should consider that it was recorded legally. Town Attorney White advised that there are plats that were recorded without Town or County approval, that were required to go through the subdivision process at that time to be approved. Bill Van Horn questioned if those lots would be illegal lots. Town Attorney White stated that we would have to look at them individually. Mr. Van Horn discussed the definitions of subdivisions in Senate Bill 35 that was enacted May 5,1972. He feels we are going beyond the intent of the Bill. Director Joseph stated that the proposed code changes are a product of staff’s recent experience. The changes were to provide bases in the code for what staff was doing in practice without limiting it in the future. Town Attorney White advised that we are trying to determine intent. The Town was never subject to Senate Bill 35; however it has always used the subdivision definition from the Senate Bill. Director Joseph stated that there have been Boundary Adjustments that have been recorded where there was no intent to create a new lot. Therefore, it is his opinion that unless the parcel meets minimum lot size requirements and other code standards it can not be considered a legal lot, if there was no intent to create a new buildable lot. Town Attorney White stated that Boundary Line Adjustments do not create new lots. Individuals have done these adjustments in the past and are now claiming that they are separate lots. That is what the proposed code changes are trying to address. Mr. Van Horn stated that the proposed code amendment states that staff will be making the legal lot determination. He questions what body will hear appeals to the staffs decisions. Attorney White advised that the Board of Adjustment would hear the appeals. 10. ESTES VALLEY SIGN CODE REVISIONS Director Joseph stated that if the Planning Commission objects to the use of the sign code to control outdoor display, then perhaps the Commission can move the rest of the code fon/vard to the Town Board. Commissioner Kitchen is satisfied with the sign code except for the outdoor display language. Director Joseph questioned Commissioner Kitchen if she objects to the use of the sign code in this manner. She stated that she objects to penalizing the good displays. Commissioner Pohl does not feel that there is anything in the current language that penalizes merchants that follow the intent of the code. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the revisions to the Sign Code without the outdoor dispiay language; however the outdoor display language will be forwarded on to the Town Board of Trustees for their consideration without a Planning Commission recommendation, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 11. REPORTS Commissioner Ed McKinney resigned from Planning Commission after the August 2002 meeting. This currently leaves one Town appointed Planning Commission seat vacant. There being no further business, meeting wab^adjourned at Cherie PettyjqJ:>rC Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary