The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2003-06-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission June 17, 2003,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners George Hix, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Richard Homeier, and Dominick Taddonio Chair Amos, Commissioners Hix, Horton, Kitchen, Pohl, Homeier, and Taddonio Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Williamson Town Board Liaison Habecker Chair Amos calied the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated May 20, 2003. b. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, SOLITUDE CONDOMINIUM VI, LOT 6, SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION, 1885 Sketch Box Lane - Withdrawn by staff. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Horton) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 14, BLOCK 6, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR ADDITION TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED 20 FEET OF FIR AVENUE ADJOINING SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE AND LOT 1, BLOCK 5, AMENDED PLAT OF BLOCKS 4 AND 5, AND LOT 4, BLOCK 3, HYDE PARK ADDITION, 610 Landers Street and 664 Aspen Avenue, Applicants: Bob Griffin and Kenneth & Maryella Pearson Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a minor subdivision (boundary line adjustment) to adjust the property line between two single-family residentially zoned lots. Lot 14, Block 6, Country Club Manor Addition is zoned “R” Residential and Lot 1, Block 5, Hyde Park Addition is zoned “E” Estate. This plat also vacates and dedicates utility easements. There is an existing single-family residence on Lot 14 and Lot 1 is vacant. The purpose of the minor subdivision (boundary line adjustment) is to provide more buildable area on Lot 14 for an addition to the existing house. Staff finds that the plat is not materially detrirmental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code, provided the conditions of approval are rnet. The house on Lot 14/proposed Lot 14A is nonconforming as to the required minimum ten foot side yard setback. A note should be placed on the plat stating that approval of this plat does not change the nonconforming status of this structure. The 2 lots are nonconforming as to minimum lot area currently and as platted with this request; however the new plat does improve the buildable area on Lot 14A with out impacting the buildable area significantly on Lot 1A. The Town has not required upgrades in water mains, fire hydrants, electric and street lighting systems, sanitary sewer systems, underground utilities, water systems, or fire safety for boundary line adjustments since no new lots are created. However, electric service is in an easement that the applicant has proposed vacating to create more buildable area. Since electric service must be relocated it needs to comply with current standards, e.g. electric lines must be buried underground and be located within an easement. Ten foot public utility easements are being dedicated along all property lines as requested by staff. Private utility easements should be dedicated for any private utility service lines that cross either lot. Staff recommends that the barbed wired fence be removed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 June 17, 2003 Paul Bennett of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. He stated the power lines will be rerouted. He has concerns regarding the requirement to place the overhead power lines underground due to the bedrock and steep slopes found on the lot. He does not feel that burying the lines will aid in the aesthetics of the neighborhood since the WAPA lines are overhead in the same location. He would like to leave the option open for the applicants to place the lines overhead if it is cost effective to do so. Director Joseph questioned whether or not Light and Power had a concern regarding the overhead power lines running underneath the WAPA lines. Mr. Bennett stated that as long as there is 12 feet between the two sets of power lines there would not be a safety issue. He advised the lines would be buried if 12 feet of separation could not be met. Mike Mangelson, Assistant to the Senior Electrical Engineer, stated that Light and Power has situations where the Town power lines run under the WAPA transmission lines. Light and Power would be open to having the lines above ground if burying the lines in not feasible due to the Penstock Easement/ROW. Mr. Mangelson stated they try to place lines underground when ever possible. Mr. Bennett stated he believes the landowner would remove when it came time to build. The Planning Commission suggests that the barbed wire be removed. RaylNifde,r1,600tLanders Street, owns the property to the west of Mr. Griffin. He Sid obfect to the recommendation that the barbed wire fence, which -s actuaH^ smooth wire, be removed. He stated people trespass on his property and he feels th^t removal of the fence would create a larger problem. The power 'metobe relocated also feeds his property. He believes it would be expensive to bury the line due to the amount of rock in the area. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Pohl) to [e“m™e"d/PP^^VciubVaTo" dMiLoironet,heefea,^n!ty o^umdergroundingfte e.ectric lines prior to the Town Board meeting, and it passed y- . #3 • hjs May 22, 2003 1 Compliance with Greg Siever’s comments #2 and ffd in nis iviay :yh“dSsuch "ghting system as shall be determined by the Town' e. rfns -"fs "d - WesterntlAreaapower'tAdmWstration tmnsmission line easement, approval 7 shPo7dPrd=d for any private utility service 8 fheSa“nfsh1S’»mply with EVDC §10.5.1 Monumen^ g d ?b^he"9sSTni^y including provision of an 11.fhPeTdtal9n"bnfesehIsiaate easements are being dedicated. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 June 17, 2003 12. Per Paul Bennett, the portion of the transmission line easement on Lot 1 is recorded at Book 888, Page 98. The portion of the easement on Lot 14 was obtained by act of condemnation in 1955. This shall be clarified on the plat. 4. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS Driveway Construction Regulations and Appendix D Director Joseph reviewed the code amendments. The existing code has a limitation of 1 curb cut per lot. He stated this has been problematic as far as enforcement. The proposed code amendment would allow 2 curb cuts per lot, except for arterial streets which would be limited to 1 curb cut per lot. Public Comment: ^ l ^ ^ Greg Round, 1805 Cherokee Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed code amendments that would allow 2 curb cuts. He feels there should also be literature attached to building permits that state the driveway limits. Judy Hughes, 800 Old Ranger Road, spoke in favor of the proposed code amendments that would allow 2 curb cuts. Director Joseph would like to come back next month with an uPdate^oy.e;;®to" °f Appendix D code amendments that would reflect the changes discussed by staff and the Planning Commissioners. Greg Sievers, Construction and Pubiic Facility Mana9f • 'f aBn°dar^oidf - in violation. Item 1 - W.»ianrt and Stream Protection, ^ - Features Allowed in Setbacks —------------------------- and Item 4 - Minor Subdivision Reviewfliitdoor SeatinItem 3 He stated the code revisions for Item 4SsSr'r"roUeCahdynto«e'= this month; however Items 1 through 3 are ready. Public Comments: None. It was moved and seconded (H'x/K'tchenMo^^reco^me^^^ aBoard of County code change to the T°wn B°ar . d stream Protection, Item 2 - Features rwtSriXfcra1nd “ . outdoor Seating to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 7 and it passed unanimously. lendix B -aces for Employ66 Housinlr,nV.n?Arkrm7-°Vr-ai- " - AttachmentB Public Comments^ None. was moved and s-onded (HomeiedH W tOerecommende ac=eptancecOfuthe code change to the Town Soacesfor Employee Housing, Item 6 - Commissioners of Item 5 ^ p _ Appendix B - Attachment B to the Development Plan Review Trie and Floor Area Ratio Director Joseph would like to Commissions consideration. Ariaqiiate Public Fat^ilities - Electricjt^ bring these items back next month f( RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 June 17, 2003 Pubiic Comments: None. Kennei Definitions Planner Chilcott stated the Municipal Code and Development Code are in conflict with each other. Mary Thacker, Animal Control Officer, would like the Town Codes to be in line with the County regulations, which state that any more than 4 adult animals is a kennel. She stated the proposed code amendments still need to be reviewed with Mary Thacker, Animal Control Officer, and Lowell Richardson, Chief of Police. Any revision to the Municipal Code needs to be reviewed by the Public Safety Committee. Chair Amos feels that the definition of animal needs to be clarified and state what species of animal. Commissioner Mix stated the Town should use the County regulations and definitions. Director Joseph stated there is a clear conflict with the Municipal Code and the Estes Valley Development Code. This was an attempt to make a simple reconciliation. Commissioner Kitchen stated the County definition of kennel would be appropriate and it is only a definition and not a regulation. Commissioner Pohl feels that the Commission is being selective and should be looking at the overall picture before making a decision on the definition of kennels. Commissioner Taddonio agrees with Commissioner Pohl’s comments. He feels the definition is being taken out of context. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Horton) to recommend acceptance to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners the definition of kennel as commercial or noncommercial use with indoor and/or outdoor facilities for the keeping, breeding, boarding or training of four (4) or more aduit canine or feiine animals, i.e. animals over the age of three months to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 7 and it passed. Those voting “yes” Homeier, Amos, Hix, Kitchen and Horton. Those voting “no” Pohl and Taddonio. Guest Parking Planner Shirk stated the current code requires one quarter guest parking space be provided per multi family unit. Developers have been counting the space in front of the garage as the quarter guest parking space. There is no set aside cumulative guest parking. Town Attorney White advised the code amendment would require the developer of a multi family development to provide separate guest parking. Director Joseph stated multi family developments generally have attached garages that provide parking for the occupants. In the past, the Community Development Department has recognized the space in front of the apron as the one quarter guest parking space per unit, and has not required guest parking to be segregated out into an assigned common parking area. He stated he is concerned this code amendment might go too far and create an excessive amount of paved parking that never gets used. 5. REPORTS There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m. Wendell Amos, Chair ^cqu^ n Williamson, Recording Secretary