HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2002-10-15BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
October 15, 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 Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio
Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners Kitchen, Horton, Pohl, and Amos
Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and
Recording Secretary Williamson
Town Board Liaison Habecker, Commissioner Taddonio
Chair Pettyjohn caiied the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a. AMENDED PLAT LOT 3, BLUE SPRUCE ViLLAGE SUBDIViSiON, 2222 Highway 66 -
continued to November 19,2002 meeting at the request of the applicant.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it
passed unanimously with one absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 17,2002
Commissioner Kitchen asked that the minutes be amended for item 7, Preliminary
Condominium Map, Lazy R Cottages Condominium West, with the removal of the words “and
blasting” from condition 5.
It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Amos) that the Minutes be accepted with the
correction to item 7, Preliminary Condominium Map, Lazy R Cottages Condominium
West, and it passed unanimously with one absent.
4. SPECIAL REVIEW 02-04. HOOF ‘N* HEART CARRIAGE SERVICE. Downtown Estes Park,
Applicant: Mike & April Gibson
Commissioner Pohl stated the item should be postponed due to staff questions that need to be
resolved before moving this item forward. The applicants were not present to answer questions.
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Horton) to continue the item to the November 19,2002
Planning Commission meeting, and it passed unanimously with one absent.
5. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS
Item 1. ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
Director Joseph stated that the limit of 1000 square feet for an accessory structure has proven
to be an issue for property owners building new single family homes, particularly those with
larger acreage. The idea is to have more flexibility with the size of an accessory structure based
on the lot size and the size of the principle structure. Director Joseph discussed the possible
equations for determining the size of an accessory structure.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15, 2002 Page 2
Pubiic Comment:
John Spooner, 527 Honidus Circle, was present representing the Car Club. He questioned the
use of the word accessory. Planner Chilcott stated that an accessory structure must be
detached. Mr. Spooner feels that the code needs to be clear on whether or not it is attached or
detached.
Director Joseph stated that Janice Bridge, 2314 Carriage Drive, addressed the
Commissioners during study session to state her concern regarding size and location of
accessory structures. She feels that accessory structures should not be placed in the front
yard of a lot.
Director Joseph stated that staff would like to rephrase the language in order to make it more
understandable and readable, and then present it to the Planning Commission next month for
their final consideration.
Item 2 SEPARATE LEGAL LOT DEFINITION
§13.3 Definitions on Words, Terms and Phrases - Updated to read:
135. Lot shall mean one of the following:
a. An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its
creation to be separately owned, developed, and othen/vise used as a
separate developable parcel that was platted by a subdivision plat
created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning
regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation and recorded in the
office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
b. An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its
creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a
separate developable parcel that was created by a legal conveyance of
said parcel prior to May 5,1972 and created in conformance with the
applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the
time of creation.
In determining whether or not the individual parcel was intended at
the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and
othenvise used as a single developable unit, the following factors
shall, where relevant, be considered, in addition to other relevant
factors:
i. Historic use of the lots, parcels or tracts in question. For
example, if a structure was built over the boundary line in
question, the individual parcel may not have been intended to
be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a
single developable unit;
Historic property ownership patterns. For example, if no portion
of the lots, parcels or tracts in question have been individually
deeded into separate ownership from the remaining lots,
parcels, or tracts at anytime prior to May 5,1972, the individual
parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned,
developed, and othenvise used as a single developable unit;
iii. Shape, size, and physical character of the lot. For example, if
the shape, size, or physical character of the lots, parcels or
tracts in question is not similar to other lots in the same
neighborhood, the individual parcel may not have been intended
to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a
single developable unit. Also for example, if the shape of one of
the parcels indicates that is was intended to be used for physical
access or for the provision of utilities, the individual parcel may
not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and
otherwise used as a single developable unit;
iv. Private restrictions in effect at the time the lot was created. For
example, if private covenants in effect at the time of conveyance
prohibited the creation of more than one lot, the individual parcel
II.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15,2002 Page 3
may not have been intended to be separately owned,
developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit;
V. If a deed refers to the parcel in the singular in the “operative
words of conveyance” and includes two or more contiguous
property descriptions of that parcel and other parcels, the deed
refers to one individual lot which may not have been intended to
be separateiy owned, developed, and othenvise used as a
single developable unit;
vi. If no portion of the lots, parcels or tracts in question was taxed
separately by the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the individual
parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned,
developed, and othen/vise used as a single developable unit;
and
vii. If the parcel in question is divided by a municipal or county
boundary line, the individual parcel may have been intended to
be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a
single developable unit.
viii. If the parcel in question was delineated on an unrecorded
subdivision plat, the individual parcel may have been intended to
be separately owned, developed, and othen/vise used as a
single developable unit.
c. Any parcel of 35 acres or more which when created was located within
unincorporated Larimer County, Colorado, and did not cause a parcel
of a less than 35 acres to remain.
146. Lot of Record - Definition deleted.
Note: All references in the EVDC to “lots of record
replaced
with “lots".
shall be removed and
Johrl'phiD^Tttorney, stated he is having trouble determining intent. The proposed
amendment S allow the government to determine somebody’s intent many years ago.
He believes that the word structure (subsection i) could be changed to pnmaiy structure. He
feels tliT^^Irdcriteria^wuld be used if it is used cautiously. He stated that cntena 4 through
^arVsi^biecttver ^rdainvUe litigation. He advised that many of the old subdivision covenants
Lve lxpi“d Xn Sg the fourth criteria staff would have to ask what the intent was in
letting the covenant expire. It may or may not have been the intent of the iand owner
them9expire The creator of the lot may not have known that the covenants were going to
expire He stated the fifth criteria deals with the singular versus the plural. He advisedthat
fn the oast deeds were created on a preprinted form that did not always contain a space for
the plural Many deeds did not have the blanks filled out, and years ago,0,d d?ed®.^er. ..
for actions taken in the past by unassuming property owners. 'Te wou|d not
subdivision was created before May 5,1972 and if zoning regulations at that t me would not
be vidatedThat the current setbacks could be met and utilities are available, then to deny
that it is a buildable lot would be unfair.
Bill Van Horn stated he agrees with Mr. Phipp’s statements. He feelsthat e Bill 35
defines a legal lot. He questioned whether or not the burden of proof would fall on me
owner and if so it would be very difficult for the owner to prove the lot is legal. Jow[’
evidence the lot was intended to be used as a separate buildable lot. Boundary line
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15, 2002 Page 4
adjustments were not meant to create separate lots and would not have been separated in
ownership. Mr. Van Horn feels the code revision is vague and places a burden on staff. He
questions whether or not the Town Board or the County Commissioners should hear the
appeals on this issue instead of the Board of Adjustment.
Director Joseph stated that the staff has done their best to respond to the concerns
expressed by the public when drafting the revisions. He advised that there is flexibility in
how staff uses these various criteria. This is subject to some judgment; however the staff is
already confronted with these judgments without the benefit of any criteria.
Chair Pettyjohn questions whether or not criteria 4 could be struck from the definition.
Director Joseph advised that we can use any of these criteria where they appear to be
relevant. None of these criteria would be a freestanding unilateral test. He fee's that
whether or not the covenants ever existed is objective information that could shed light on
the intent of the owner. Commissioner Amos questioned whether staff would use Just°r]® 0J
these criteria to determine whether a lot was legal. Director Joseph advised sta^would look
at all relevant facts. He stated this can not be a mechanical determination and that any one
of the criteria could be considered more compelling in determining legal lot status in a given
situation.
Town Attorney White stated the purpose of the criteria is to determine whether the owner of
a°ot intended^to create a new lot or simply adjusting the boundary lines of their property. He
feels this helps the individual property owner along with the staff in determining legal lot
Sluf Hetdvised marperhaPps the wording ‘operative words of conveyance" rn cntena 5
should be deleted.
SSHSSSSSS
and therefore eliminate the word intent.
It was moved and seconded (An.os/Pohl)to rec7™«"d
Trustees and Board of County Commissioners ofrtem2tohe Es^s v^iey Am0s, and
Code, Block 4. and It passed with one absent. Those voting yes Horton,
Pohl. Those voting “no” Kitchen and Pettyjohn.
Chair Pettyjohn called for a 5 minute break at 3:10 p.m.
Meeting reconvened to order at 3:15 p.m.
ifnm requirements for pre-application conference
tory for the ,o,,owin9
applications;
a. Special review uses;
b. Development plans;
c. Rezoning applications;
d. Preliminary subdivision plat;
e. Preliminary PUD plans;
f. Variances;
g. Minor Subdivisions; and
h. Annexations.
Item 4 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
§1.9.E Height - Figure 1-3 updated
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15, 2002 Page 5
HEIGHT UMIT FCUjOWS PROHU
Of EXBTINO NATURAL GRACE
40’ Maximum
EXISTNO NATURAL TERRAIN
PRIOR TO GRMMNG
NO PORTION OF
BLNLOMGMAY
EXT EM) ABOVE
HEIGHT LUMT
NOOHT UMTT POUOWS PROFILE
OF EXOTINO NATURAL TERRAIN
0’ MaximumEXISTING NATURAL TERRAM
PRIOR TO GRM3INO
CUT IN TERRAIN
EXlSlTNO
1.SEBUUXNG HEIGHT
§4.3.C Density/Dimensional Standards - Table 4-2 updated
Table 4-2
Base Density and Dimensional Standards
Residential Zoning Districts
Minimum Lot
Standards [1]
Minimum
Building/Structure
Setbacks [4][9]
Zoning
District
Max. Net
Density
(units/acre)
Area (sq
ft)
Width
(ft.)Front (ft.)
Side
(ft.)
Rear
(ft.)
Max.Min.
Building Building Max. Lot
Height Width Coverage
(ft.) £10](ft)(%)
[iSrSee Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of
buildings on slopes.
§4.4.C Density and Dimensional Standards - Table 4-5 updated
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensionai Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
Minimum. Land
Area per
Accommodation
or
Residential Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)
Minimum Lot Size [7]
Area
(sqft)
Width
(ft.)
Minimum Buiiding/Structure
Setbacks [4][8]
Front
(ft.)
Side
(ft.)
Rear
(ft.)
Max.
Buiiding
Height
(ft.) [91
Max.
FAR
Max. Lot
Coverage
(•/.)
[g^'see ChapteM f §1.9 E. which allows an increase in the maximum heigh, ef
buildings on slopes.
Item 6 SUBMITTAL following text was added.Appendix B.VII.A Submittal Requirements me to a ^ ihe Es(es Val|ey
12' Bfarr^Ad^usS sTg" fn a promin^n. area cn me lot ten (10) woridng
days prior to the Board of Adjustment public hearing.
Public Comment:
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15,2002 Page 6
Al Sager, 911 S. Saint Vrain, stated he has been an advocate for the signage of the property
requesting a variance. He would like to have the wording “in a prominent area added to the
requirements for placement of the sign. He stated there should be some consistency on where
the signs are placed.
Director Joseph stated that adding the wording would be fine. Planner Chilcott advised that the
current requirement states the sign must be placed on the property 14 days prior to the Board of
Adiustment meeting. She feels the number of days should be consistent with the staking
requirement which is 10 business days prior to the scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting.
Item? CRIMINAUCIVIL REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS
SI 2.4.A Civil Remedies and Enforcement Powers - The following text was added.
6. Guilty of Municipal Code Violation. A person shall be guilty of an Estes Park
Municipal Code violation upon conviction in any case where a violation of this
Code exists within the Town of Estes Park, where notice of violation
including any stop work order, has been properly served, and where such
person fails to comply with such notice or stop work order.
7 Penalty. Persons found guilty of a violation pursuant to this Soot'on. withm
the Town of Estes Park, shall be subject to the fines and penalties
established in the Estes Park Municipal Code.
§12 4 B Criminal Remedies and Enforcement Powers in the Unincorporated
3 It fhalTbe meTe^sponlSlUy ofthe9CountrAdttorney to bring any criminal
pnforeementactton Atthe discretion of the Board of County Commissioners,
it may appoint the District Attorney to perform such enforcement duties in lieu
of the County Attorney.
it was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) to recommendaccepte^ce ofjtems 3,4,5,6
with one absent.
Item 8 HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN STANDARDS
§4.5.C Highway Corridor Overlay District
commissioner Amos questioned whether o-*“lor Sam6
|“ .0 .e ne. study
session meeting.
accent color using the color charts.
Commissioner Kitchen statedthat ,^®r this from
using an inappropriate assortnnent of col would simply limit the number of hues
highway.
commissioner Kitchen questioned
stated it is to protect the visual environmentalong the tiignway^ atterition t0 the
situation where people areprohitntedfromu 9 8 b ||djng a neon color, the building
building. He advised that ,f fP™P®^S fs nrt^in? o prevent someone from using an
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15,2002 Page 7
Director Joseph stated this is not subjective to personai taste. He feels that along a
commercial corridor there is competition for visual prominence and that it is achieved
through contrast in the setting. This visual contrast should be limited.
April Olgaltree, affiliate member of the Board of Realtors, was initially under the impression
that the Commission was considering limiting the color for singly family residential housing.
She was afraid that everything in the community would end up looking the same. As a new
resident of Estes Park she has a vested interest in the appearance of the town.^ Shedoe
not feel that we should limit color combinations that people can use; however she agrees
with iimiting the brightness of color.
A| saoer questioned to what degree this provision would prevent the American Legion from
painting thefrSng red. white and blue. Director Joseph stated it would not preventthe
use of those colors. This standard would only prevent them from paint'ng those ra ore
hrinht as thev are currently. He stated that after the useful life of that coat of paint they Sd keep wlth?h“s?rne color scheme but they would have to use less intense colors.
Planner Shirk stated that the Planning Commission ran waive or mod.fy any of these
standards in conjunction with a site specific deveiopment pian.
i DCTp fil IRDIVISION. PLAT OF A PROTION OF SW % OF SF V. OF SEC 6, T5N.
• p79W 1575 Jacob Road. Applicant: Jerry & Maiyfann Petf b dal7 line adjustment
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is an_ pp ^ bui|ding |ots The property was
between two existing parcels; this pla wi p c,,bdivision did not meet minimum lot sizeoriginaiiy subdivided in 1969. However the subdivision d^ nm me cQm
standards in effect at the time. an1d/h®t h ' EstLTaile^^ Code Limits of site
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded C<ftchen/Amos)to pSoft
0%T%0frE%00fSeectr6dT5ryN, R72W. 1575 Jacob Road, with thefollowlng
conditions, and it passed “"^"^vVVhite's memobdate(i September 26,2002.
I S'lifnS S JS"Sorlinnands memo regarding water service dated
3 CompHance^with bSimer County Engineering (Daie Greer) memo regarding sunreying
4 srord?s\"\prbr;rphfrai^
5: -s^nTrrer^:y“^^^^^ sha"be
removed. , . _._t. n* o has a leqal right of access across
6-[Sr»nedte^^^^^^ -------
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15,2002 Page 8
7. The proposed private access easement shall be submitted with mylars for recording.
The easement shall include a graphic description and include provisions for maintenance
of any common driveway.
8. The recorded access easement of record shall be submitted with initial building permit
application.
9. A grading, drainage, and erosion control plan shall be required with all building permits
that include the addition of impervious coverage.
7. REPORTS
None.
There being no further business, meeting was adjournedat 4:28 p.m.
Cherie PettyjohiyCh^
Williamson, Recording Secretary