HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2002-01-15BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 15, 2002,1:30 p.m.
Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton,
Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio
Chair Kitchen, Commissioners Amos, Hampton, Kitchen, McKinney,
Pettyjohn, Pohl, and Taddonio
Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and
Recording Secretary Wheatley
Absent:None
Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and presented a thank you card to
Meribeth Wheatley for her service.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 18 & 20, 2001.
b. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. LOTS 2 & 3. TENBROOK SUBDIVISION.
Applicant: Stephen Paul Chamberlain - withdrawn for additional revisions to be
resubmitted at a later date. ,
c. REQUEST REQUEST. LOTS 13 & 14. BLOCK 8, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR,
Applicant: Stephen & Kathleen Babion - Rezone from R - Residential to RM - Multi
family Residential.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) that the Consent Agenda be accepted
as presented.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3 development plans 01-17 AND 01-18. DRY GULCH VILLAGE, LOTS 3 & 4, G0_OD
SAMARITAN SUBDIVISION. Applicant: Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA)Sam Betters" Executive "DTreSor for the Estes Park Housing Authority, gave a brief
presentation of the development plan. Dave Lingle, Design Consultant, 9aY® ® ®t
floor plans and exterior elevation designs. Roofing material would be cons'stentthrough^^^
the development. Main levels are all handicap accessible. Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone
Engineering was also present.
Planner Shirk reviewed both staff reports. Development Plan 01-17 for Lot 3 is a proposalto
develop 44 attainable rental units. This development plan includes a commumty building,
Dlav area basketball court, and the postal cluster boxes to serve the entire development.
Development Plan 01-18 for Lot 4 is a proposal to develop 48 attainable owner-occupied
unte dispersed mroughout nine (9) four-piexes and tjro (2) six.plexes.
nian includes a play area and picnic shelter, and all units have ®tJfche<i gai?g®s'
Condominiumization will require review by the Planning Commission and Town Board, an
will include clarification of maintenance of the private drive.
The remaininq comments apply to both lots and development plans. The EPHA ^a
mWmur ^mSTwith the EVDC deed restriction requirement as required by Section
11.4.E.5 -’DeedRestriotion Required.” This deed restriction wiii be P'®“d
nrior to buiidino permit appiication. This proposai satisfies appiioabie density, floor area
raflo °mpervious »verageP and setback requirements, it is Staffs opinion the proposal
satisfies "Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements” set forthln
submitted landscaping plan exceeds the minimum landscaping requirements setforth in the
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15,2002 Page 2
EVDC. The development is located within a mapped elk corridor, and will meet the review
standards set forth in the development code; specially, the proposal will provide adequate
buffers, will use only native vegetation, will comply with fencing regulations, minimize
exterior lighting, and provide bear-proof refuse disposai for the multi-family and church use
areas. The proposal will meet exterior lighting, parking, and adequate public facilities
requirements set forth in the EVDC. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by
reviewing staff reiative to code compiiance or the provision of public services. Public Works
Director Linnane has commented that the final construction drawings, including streets,
utilities, and stormwater drainage, should be submitted within 30 days of Planning
Commission review. The improvement guarantee should include landscaping, roads and
sidewalks, utility infrastructure, wetiands restoration, postal cluster box, and reimbursement
to Eagle Rock School. In addition, a road reimbursement agreement should be submitted
with the improvement guarantee. All should be subject to review and approval by the Town
Engineer. Addressing should be subject to review and approval by Building Department and
Fire Department. This should be finalized prior to application for first building permit. This
development is required to comply with Section 24-65.5-103 C.R.S., which requires for
various development proposals to give notice of their application to ail mineral estate owners
where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. The property owner is
in the process of doing so.
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hampton) to approve Development Plans 01-17 and
01-18, Dry Gulch Village, Lots 3 & 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision with the following
conditions, and it passed unanimously.
Conditions for Development Plan 01-17, Lot 3:
1. The Estes Park Housing Authority wiil, at a minimum, comply with the Estes Valley
Development Code deed restriction requirement as required by Section 11.4.E.5 “Deed
Restriction Required.” This deed restriction shall be placed upon the property prior to
building permit application.
2. The postal cluster box pullout area shall be designed for positive drainage.
3. The final construction drawings, including street, utilities, and stormwater drainage, shall be
submitted within 30 days of Pianning Commission review.
4. The Improvement Guarantee shall include landscaping, roads and sidewalks (including that
portion of Redtail Hawk Drive extending north to Ptarmigan Trail), utility infrastructure,
wetlands restoration, postal cluster box, and reimbursement to Eagle Rock School, and shall
be subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer. In addition, a road reimbursement
agreement shall be submitted with the improvement guarantee. All shall be subject to
review and approval by the Town Engineer.
5. Addressing shall be subject to review and approval by Building Departrnent and Fire
Department, and shall be finalized prior to application for first building permit.
6. A letter from the property owner verifying compliance with Section 24-65.5-103 C.R.S. shall
be submitted prior to application for first building permit.
7. The following note shall be placed on the development plan: “The trash dumpster shall
comply with Section 7.5.F.2c Service areas."
Conditions for Development Plan 01-18, Lot 4:
1. The Estes Park Housing Authority will, at a minimum, comply with the Estes Valley
Development Code deed restriction requirement as required by Section 11.4.E.5 Deed
Restriction Required.” This deed restriction shall be placed upon the property prior to
building permit application.
2. The final construction drawings, including street, utilities, and stormwater drainage, shall be
submitted within 30 days of Planning Commission review. *
3. The Improvement Guarantee shall include landscaping, roads and sidewalks (including that
portion of Redtail Hawk Drive extending north to Ptarmigan Trail), utility infrastructure,
wetlands restoration, postal cluster box, and reimbursement to Eagle Rock School, and shall
be subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer. In addition, a road reimbursement
agreement shall be submitted with the improvement guarantee. All shall be subject to
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15, 2002 Page 3
4.
5.
review and approval by the Town Engineer.
Addressing shall be subject to review and approval by Building Department and Fire
Department, and shall be finalized prior to application for first building permit.
A letter from the property owner verifying compliance with Section 24-65.5-103 C.R.S. shall
be submitted prior to application for first building permit.
4.AMENDED PLAT AND REZONING. LOT 48 AND A PORTION OF LOT 47. STANLEY
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. Applicant: Larry and Donna Coulson
Commissioner McKinney advised he would have to recuse himself from the discussion and
vote.
Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The applicant has submitted a rezoning
application to rezone the property from “RE” Rural Estate, with a 2.5 acre minimum lot size
to “E-1” Estate, with a one acre minimum lot size. The applicant has also submitted an
amended plat application for two legal lots. The staff views this amended plat application as
subdividing one approximately four-acre lot into two approximately two-acre lots. All letters
and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff are incorporated as staff findings. The
rezoning and amended plat applications satisfy all Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
requirements except those described below. Per EVDC Section 3.3.B.1, staff may waive the
requirement to submit a development plan in conjunction with the rezoning application if staff
finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or other factors associated with
the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver. Staff has waived the
development plan requirement for this rezoning application. Staff recommends granting a
minor modification to allow the amended plat application to be reviewed through the minor
subdivision process although the resultant lots will not front onto an existing street and the
subdivision involves the extension of utilities. Approval of this application by the Planning
Commission and County Commissioners will include approval of this minor modification. Lot
1 and 2 meet the minimum lot standards for the “E-1” zoning district, unless the septic
system remains on Lot 2 and/or a septic system is installed on Lot 1. The minimum lot size
for a septic system is two acres. Lot 1 is 266 square feet smaller than the minimum and Lot
2 is 51 square feet smaller. Staff considers the reduction below the minimum lot size to be a
minor modification. However, all septic systems require review and approval by the Larimer
County Environment and Health Department. The applicant has indicated a desire to extend
the Estes Park Sanitation District sewer service to the two lots and the applicant is
discussing this possibility with EPSD. If extension is not possible, the aPP,,ca|1.t needjo
install a septic system on Lot 1. Lot 2 has an existing septic system. If Estes Pa k
Sanitation District sewer service is extended, a Subdivision Improvement A9reanJer)Jif
be filed or all improvements completely installed prior to approval of the amende plat and
two-yea^vrarranty for workmanship and materials per Section 10.5. K. Other staff comments
are incorporated into the conditions of approval.
Town Attorney White reviewed the background to the request. Mr. & Mrs. Coulson bought
the property in September of 2000. In February of 2001, they spoke with the County
regarding a building permit. In speaking with the County staff, they were advised that
approva|9would be required through the Estes Park Community Development Departrnent
On May 22 2001, Director Joseph sent a letter to John Phipps advising tl^t Parcel
2519205059 is a single buildable lot, not two. On May 29,2001, John Phipps, atto^ey ^
the Coulsons requested an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of staff
determination.’ Staff determined that this appeal should be io\he ^®t|s ^^l^eyig0B0da°df
Adiustment On July 17,2001, John Phipps requested an appeal to the E^es Valley Boa
of Adiustment. On August 7,2201, the Estes Valley of Adjustment heart ^
Which resulted in a tie vote. Discussion was continued to the September 11,2001, meeting
at which time the Board denied the appeal and upheld Staffs determination that it wa
sinale buildable lot. On October 5, 2001, Larry and Donna Coulson filed a complaint in
Larimer County District Court challenging the Board of Adjustment’s decision. Dec®^^e^. ’
2001 upon advice of counsel the Coulsons submitted a rezoning and.ai?^e"fehd .Jf1
aoplicationtothe Community Development Department. The court case is to be hddin
abeyance until this application is reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15, 2002 Page 4
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. If the rezoning is allowed, the two
proposed lots would comply. To his knowledge, there are no other parcels in Stanley
Heights that have this set of circumstances and should set no precedence for future
developments.
John Phipps, attorney, was present representing the applicants. Coulsons will pay for the
extension of the sewer service which would also allow for 6 additional properties to have
sewer service. Lot to the north is also a 2 acre lot and the zoning for The Reserve directly to
the east is also zoned E-1.
Public Comment:
Dick Brown, vice president of the Stanley Heights Property Owners Association, spoke in
opposition to the rezoning.
James Durward, resident of Stanley Heights, spoke in opposition to the subdivision and
supported maintaining the 21/2 acre minimum lot size requirement.
George Niessen, resident of Stanley Heights - spoke in opposition to the rezoning and lot
split; sewer line could be used to further subdivide.
Norm Carver, new property owner in Stanley Heights, spoke in opposition to the subdivision.
Chair Kitchen closed the public hearing.
John Phipps advised that when Mr. & Mrs. Coulson bought the property, they were under the
assumption they were buying two lots. The parcels are joined for tax purposes only.
George Niessen, one of directors of the Stanley Heights Property Owners Association,
advised that Mr. Coulson came to the Board and asked to build a new house and then tear
down the existing house. The association board approved the propositiori that the Coulsons
could live in one house while the other house was being built and at that time the first house
would be torn down. They do not approve the lot split to allow the two houses.
Mr. Coulson advised this was not the truth.
Commissioner Amos advised he was not in favor of the propos^ and felt this would be
setting a precedent. Town Attorney White advised Commissioner Taddonio that covenants
of the subdivision association are not enforceable by the Planning Commission. Director
Joseph reviewed the background for Staffs decision that this was only one bui dable lot It
was Staffs determination that the division of property which occurred in was ^
boundary line adjustment and did not create a third buildable lot. Covenants in
time reauired a minimum of 2 acres. The resultant triangular portion of Lot 47 was
approximately one acre. Staffs recommendation of approval is an alternative to resolving
this in the court system. Town Attorney White confirmed that this dec'sionwouldnot create
a orecedent Mr. Brown, the vice president of the homeowners association, advised the
association had not legally determined the current status of the association s covenants.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hampton) to recommend approval to the County
Commissioners of the Rezoning of Lot 48 and a portion of Lot 47, Stanley Heighte
Subdivision from “RE” Rurai Estate to “E-1” Estate, and it passed. Those votmg yes .AmorHamJton Pohl. and Taddonio. Those voting “no”: Kitchen and Pettyjohn.
Abstained: McKinney.
Town Attorney White advised the Commission to continue action on the amended plat
until the County Commissioners make their decision on the rezoning.
Chairir Kitchen cailed for a 5 minute recess. At 3:15 p.m. the meeting was resumed.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15, 2002 Page 5
5. DEVELOPMENT PLANS 02-02. DUDZINSKPS GARDEN CENTER. 920 Dunraven Street.
Applicant: Mike Dudzinski
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a development plan review for
a landscaping business and plant nursery (two principal uses) and associated employee
housing unit (accessory use) located within an established commercial neighborhood. The
business has been in existence since 1998, and has been in violation of the EVDC, the
previous Estes Park zoning regulations and the Uniform Building Code. Approval of this
development plan would bring the site into compliance. No significant issues or concerns
were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public
services. Access to Estes Park Sanitation District’s manhole in the Dunraven Street right-of-
way should be maintained at all times. The statement of intent indicates the necessity of
compliance with Building Code requirements for residential use on the property. Approval of
the Development Plan should contain a time limit on when the applicant will meet all Building
Code requirements. It is Staffs opinion the proposal meets the outdoor sales and display
requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. This proposal includes the
provision of one employee housing unit. This will require compliance with Section 5.2.C.2.a
“Employee Housing”, including a dedicated parking space for employee housing and a
restrictive covenant subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney. All signs shall be
required to comply with the Municipal Sign Code (Section 17.66), including acquisition of
applicable sign permits. No sign permits for this business are on record in the Community
Development offices. This proposal does not currently meet the intersection site distance
requirements set forth in Appendix D of the EVDC. A condition of approval should be
compliance, which may include the redesign of the existing landscape display in the
northeast corner of the lot. The existing fence may be within dedicated right-of-way. A
setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor verifying the fence is entirely on
the site should be submitted prior to application for building permit. This proposal satisfies
the off-street parking requirements set forth in the EVDC. This proposal does not require a
loading space pursuant to Section 7.11.N. However, Staff recommends the gravel drive
area along the west side of the building should be used for a loading space, which would
allow for unloading of vehicles without interfering with traffic on either of the three streets
surrounding the site. This area would be used for the employee housing unit and employee
parking when not in use for loading. The proposai includes two separate outdoor storage
areas, one for each principal use. The storage area for the landscape business should be
reconfigured and screened in accordance with Section 7.13 of the EVDC.
Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present represetiting the applicant. They agree
to comply with all the conditions. The street to the east is not identified since more than one
name has appeared on various plats.
Jim Dueil of Estes Park Sanitation District identified the location of the manhole in the right-
of-way and advised it should cleared.
Mike Dudzinski advised that when they resurfaced the road, loose asphalt was used around
the manhole cover.
Jerry Elley, owner of 351 S. St. Vrain, adjacent property owner to the east, expressed
concern that parking on the north would extend into the right-of-way. Also trash and buildmg
materials which are stored on the applicant’s property have blown onto Mr. Elley’s property.
He requested that the fencing be such that it would prevent materials from leaving the
subject property.
Planner Shirk advised that in this neighborhood parking has been in the right-of-way, but not
into the driving lane of the paved street. The sight distance at the intersection is the
applicable requirement that is in the Code. Condition #4 applies to parking as well as the
planting.
It was moved and seconded (McKinney/Pettyjohn) to approve Development Plan 02-02,
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15, 2002 Page 6
Dudzinski’s Garden Center, with the foiiowing conditions, and it passed unanimousiy.
1. All signs shall be required to comply with the Municipal Sign Code (Section 17.66),
including acquisition of applicable sign permits.
2. The following note shall be placed on the development plan: “All building code
requirements shall be met within three (3) months of approval of this development plan.”
3. No building permits shali be issued prior to compliance with all other aspects of the
development plan.
4. The site shall comply with site distance requirements set forth in Appendix D of the
EVDC.
5. A surveyor’s certificate verifying no fences are located within the right-of-way shall be
submitted prior to application for buiiding permit.
6. A deed restriction for the employee housing unit shall be submitted for review and
approvai by the Town Attorney prior to application for building permit. All other
requirements of Section 5.2.C.2.a “Empioyee Housing” shall apply.
7. All landscape business outdoor storage shall be located within a fenced area not to
exceed 3,003 s.f., shall be located within the southern portion of the lot, and access to
the sewer manhole shall be maintained.
8. The gravel drive located along the west property line shall be used for loading and
unloading of trucks in addition to employee parking.
9. No permanent or temporary storage shall be allowed in any public right-of-way.
6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) that Cherie Pettyjohn be nominated Chair
and Deedee Hampton be nominated as Vice Chair, and it passed unanimously. The
Community Development Secretary or designee was appointed as Recording Secretary.
7. REPORTS
There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary
iAcCkOec.'.J H UiVUL'-AM.iOM