HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2002-11-19BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
November 19, 2002,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bill Horton,
Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Richard Homeier, and Dominick Taddonio
Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners Kitchen, Horton, Pohl, Homeier, and Amos
Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and
Recording Secretary Williamson
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Town Board Liaison Habecker, Commissioner Taddonio
Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
Chair Pettyjohn welcomed the new Commissioner Richard Homeier.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
rMENDEoVT^TSTretutsScI rLAofSUBDlS - withdrawn at the
request of the unni= ,N, uF art CARRIAGE SERVICE - withdrawn by staff.
ESSSssHr2KennetiTs Jacqueline Oldham - Combine 2 parcels of land into a single parcel.
Conditions of Approval:
3, Cornphance - Town Attorney White's co—^ Sumbine
2 'ots into t lot.
CO“ ptAnS Town Attorney White's comments dated October 29,2002.
„was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitohen) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it
passed unanimously with one absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3- ?3TTDySot"^^^^ Diane S:
Rumsey, Jananne McPhearson, Elise s{ to adjust the boundary line between
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff r®P _ . ..oc- RUrai Estate. In reviewing the boundary
iwo parcels. Parcel 1 and Parce 2 b°thJro;.f
line adjustment between Parcel 1 and . Darceis with the dedication of a sixty foot
of Parcel 3. Parcels 2 and 3 were divided regard to the location of roads
wide riqht-of-way for Little Valley Road. If Hiwiriinn the lot this may not create a legal lot.
and riaht-of-way is later dedicated to the County divid g th,rou h the |ot an(j right-of-way is
However, if a lot is created and the County lajerpl^ Va^,ey Road Was in this location prior to the
dedicated, this may create a legal lot. p ei 3 js not a legal lot and should be designate
lot being created, staff has determined that P Valley Board of Adjustment
as nonbuildable on this ^te^^owTgtbdfvi^^^^^^^ §10'5 Af ^§l0-5TChX9r5
|ioTe.4 anda§10C5.E.6 through §10.5.J fooluflmreaSInts ateng all property
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 19, 2002 Page 2
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Public Comment:
Joe Coop of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He is in agreement
with staff recommendations.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Horton) to recommend approval to the Board of
County Commissioners of the Boundary Line Adjustment of West Vz of Section 6, T4N,
R72W of the 6ht P.M., 1390 Tyrolerne Road and 2930 Little Valley Road with the following
conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. ^ ^ ^ . u oo onno
1 Compliance with Dale Greer’s memo to Van Horn Engineering dated October 22,2002.
- Compliance with Ed Dragon’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated October 21,2002.
Parcel 3 shall be designated as a nonbuildable outlet and Note #4 on the plat shall be
removed. The applicant could add a note to the plat providing for removal of Parcel 3 s
nonbuildable outlet status. Removal shall be conditioned on: (1) combining Parc®'3
the oarcel to the south, and (2) restricting the parcel south of Parcel 2 to one lot. The
wording of this note shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to County Commission
AnotesfhtalfbPeaadded to the plat stating that approval of this plat does not affeet the
nonconforming status of the structure located on Parcel 1 with regard to the northern
A nSfon the plat shall address the nonconforming status of manufactured home on
Parcel^l, 2 and 3 shall be labeled Lots 1, 2, and 3. The newly created lots shall be
labeled Lots 1A and Lots 2A. nf n 41 acresof riqht-of-wayin
pt EVDC §10.5.E.5, the applicant shall dedicate ten foot wide utiiity easements aiong
Town of Estes Park.
800 MacGregor Avenue. Applicant Jim SIoan jna condominium map application to
Planner Chilcott reviewed the st.fff ' s P also reserves the right to build
condominiumize seventeen units in b 9 • COmmoninterest community and withdraw
additional units for a total of seventy-five th b shown Qn the condominium map
land from the condominium assoc a!4l°npnfrTueATown should carefully consider the implications
are areas reserved for future dev®loPhr^cea ;7nhneti;° cSndomN map review. This language in
of the reservation of development r|9hts d ^ subdivision of the land and a reduction in
the declaration provides for the possib.lrty of f<^rtheroSub^^^^^ association. This should be
the common elements, e.g. land, owned by . . aD revjew. if the declarant wishes to
carefully reviewed by the Town ‘ndominiurnized with the initial condominium map.they
develop additional units beyoad^b°®® theCo^dominium declaration in accordance with the
must reserve development rights in the condoi^n^ review and approvai 0f a condominium
Colorado Common Interest Ownership Ac . . tee that development rights can
map with areas reserved for future f ve,0P^ for compliance with the
EL exercised, as the Town has not reviewed^^^^^^^ amto?Sshed for these development
Estes Valley Development Code. Vested rights ar ade uate pubr,c facilities review,
rights. Condominiumizing additional ,an for the Black Canyon Inn on March 21,
The Planning Commission approved | devebp DevtP,o t can occur in accordance with this
rights and compliance with then current land use codes.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 19, 2002 Page 3
Commissioner Horton questioned whether or not Town Attorney White’s comments had been
fully addressed. Attorney White stated that not all of his concerns had been addressed to date;
however he has been working with the applicant’s attorney and believes that his concerns will
be addressed in the final wording of the declaration. He stated that the Colorado Common
Interest Act requires the declarant to designate and specify the parcels of land that will be
developed in the future and tHe number of future units at the time the condominium is
established.
Public Comment: j • w
Paul Kochevar with Estes Park Surveyors was present to represent the applicant. He advised
that the condominium plat states that the boundary of the property will be under one ownership,
and that there was no intention to subdivide the land into 3 separate parcels. The final drawing
will show that the entire property will be condominiumized. He stated that the intent of labeling
the areas A and B was to describe the two areas to be developed in the future. The
does not have any concerns with staffs recommendations except for condition16 which
discusses the subdivision of the land into 3 parcels. This condition is not required since there
will be no subdivision of the land.
Town Attorney White stated that during the review of this plat the areas ,Tiarke^ A Wt^et
thought to be under separate ownership from the condominium association. He advised that
basedon Mr Kochevar’s comments condition 16. which states approval shall beconditioned on
To\wn approval and recording of a subdivision plat that is consistent with the condominium map
application, could be removed.
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Amos) to recommend approval ‘° *h® 7°”" B°arui,?sf
Trustees of the PreHmina^ Condominiurn Map forp‘ohi^ioLn°d09fe |^'eyer.s Addln, 800
MacG°^orAve'nue with r^llS conditions, and I. passed unanimously with one
abientCompliance with Will Birchfleld’s memo ^
Compliance with Greg White s memo o “reserved for future development,"
rO nOtlewol these8 aOeas vOll occur'^A OS shall be added to the condominium
The '^'^'^c'^tions shall be submtted in ron^^ance w^th Srott^rmarijs^rne^o to
rsnn“Ce°rcr n?SS^fy rdaSSl^operty shall be upgraded to comply
TOO maDdCs§h1arbeE uOgSed to current road standards, unless some or all of the
standards are waived or modified bVth® Tc«h easement to the public
The applicant shall dedicate a ^e"tV.,00‘The applicant shall also
St.'S
improvements in compliance with EVDC §10.5.K buoaivisiui
SSrnreprrinSr Pri- — the “
condominium map. dedicated to all properties that use the private road
crossing Lot 1, Mount View Park is pJ°P®r'ygL individually owned condominium units
condominium units of any required business licensing fe .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. A
8.
9.
J
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 19, 2002 Page 4
11. An attorney’s certificate that the map and declaration complies with the Colorado
Common Interest Ownership Act (§38-33.3-101 et seq. C.R.S.) shall be submitted prior
to approval of the final condominium map.
12. Article VI - Reservation of Development Rights - Section 3 - Withdrawal Rights shall be
amended to state that a subdivision plat must be approved by the Town and recorded at
the Larimer County Clerk and Recorders Office prior to withdrawal of land from the
condominium association. Town staff should approve the wording.
13. Article VI — Reservation of Development Rights — Section 4 - Supplernent to
Condominium Map shall be amended to state that regulations may prohibit the
construction of additional units. Town staff should approve the wording.
5. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS . ^ c ^
Director Joseph reviewed the proposed Highway Corridor Design Standards, Block 5 code
revisions. He asked to make a few modifications. He would like to change the mawmum
chroma in 2.j.2. for body color to a maximum chroma of six (6), trim color to a maximum chroma
of eight (8), and accent color to a maximum chroma of ten (10). He suggests adding an item 6
to 2.j. that stated the color scheme shall use complimentary hues.
Commissioner Pettyjohn questioned what would trigger these standards. Director JosePh _
stated any non-resiLntial and multi-family development within 100 feet of an °r state
highway including new construction or redevelopment will be subject to these standards^
However, the scope of redevelopment will determine which of these standards are t^ngge ed
and each case should be looked at individually. These standards for redevelopment could
be added to the applicability section.
Commissioner Pohl questioned how far along the highway corridors would these standards
encompass. Director Joseph stated these standards would run the length of the corridor
within the Estes Valley Planning Area except for downtown.
Chair Pettyjohn closed the Public hearing.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) to recommend acceptance to Town Board of
Se^and loard of County Commissioners of the Highway Corridor Design
Standards to the Estes Vaiiey Deveiopment Code. Block 5, with staff modifications to
apoiicabiiity triggers and coior hue standards and it passed with one absent. Those
vo«ng “ye^ Horton, Amos, Homeier. and Pohi. Those voting “no” Kitchen and
Pettyjohn.
6' Planne’Jshirk reported that the Board of Adjustment has requestedstafftocontact homeowners
Tn the Windcliff ^Subdivision, 5* F^'-g regardi=n,ngeoHherr propeartyjs ThteseiIOetSd^re
Sng fills aJbdivision to wliToh would more.^“®^yS®0si“r°fof
There being no further business, meetiim wa'^^journed
Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary