Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2004-07-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 20, 2004,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Homeier, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Judy Haggard, George Hix, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, and Edward Pohl Chair Homeier, Commissioners Amos, Haggard, Hix, Horton, Kitchen and Pohl Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson. Town Board Liaison Habecker present at the study session. Planner Shirk Chair Homeier called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated June 15, 2004. b. Estes Valley Development Code Changes - Street Lot Line Setbacks and Setbacks for Double Frontage Lots, Minimum Lot Width Requirements, Minor Modifications Allowed to Minimum Lot Dimensions, Separate Lot Determinations, and Landscaping. c. Development Plan 04-06, McGregor Mountain Water Storage Tank, NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 Section 16, T5N, R73W, of the 6th P.M., 2818 Fall River Road, Applicant: Town of Estes Park - Continue to August 17, 2004 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Amos) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. CHELEY RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, NE 1/4 SECTION 14, T4N, R72W AND SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 SECTION 11, T4N, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M., Between Cheley Camp and Baldpate Inn, Applicant: Cheley Camp. Planner Chilcott stated the recommedation would be to the Board of County Commissioners. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Horton) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners the Cheley Right-Of-Way Vacation, NE 1/4 Section 14, T4N, R72W and South 1/2 of the SW 1/4 Section 11, T4N, R72W of the 6th P.M. with the following conditions, and the motion passed unanimously. 1. Lots 2A, 23, and 26 shall be combined through the “Amended Plats - Lot Consolidation of Contiguous Lots" process. 4. DRIFTWOOD LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, DRIFTWOOD LANE, BLOCK 10, CARRIAGE HILLS 4TH FILING, Between 2139 Fish Creek Road and Brook Lane, Applicant: Sol & Judith Bassow. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. He stated the applicants are in agreement with the condition of approval. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Horton) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners the Driftwood Lane Right-Of-Way Vacation, Driftwood Lane, Block 10, Carriage Hills 4th Filing, with the following conditions, and the motion passed unanimously. 1. The vacated right-of-way shall be added to the existing conservation easement. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 20, 2004 5. MINOR SUBDIVISION, CITO SUBDIVISION, LOT 23, BLOCK 4, LAKE VIEW TRACTS SUBDIVISION OF A PART OF LOT 4, STANLEY MEADOWS ADDITION, 920 Vista Lane, Applicant: Donald and Bonnie Cito. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a minor subdivision application to subdivide an approximately one acre, “R-2” Two-Family Residential zoned lot on Vista Lane into two “R-2” zoned lots. Lot 23A is proposed as a duplex lot and Lot 23B is proposed as a single-family lot. The minimum required net land area for a duplex lot in the “R-2” zoning district is 27,000 square feet and the minimum for a single-family lot is 18,000 square feet. Town staff recommends dedication of a 7.5 foot wide strip of land along the northern property line for right-of-way. The applicant proposes dedication of a 2.5 foot wide strip of right-of-way and a ten foot wide nonmotorized public access easement that can be used for sidewalk construction. Staff does not recommend sidewalk construction at this time. A total of two units can be developed on the two lots with staffs’ recommendation and three units can be developed with the applicant’s proposal. Staff does not recommend a landscaped buffer between the residential lots and the “CO” zoned golf course. Submitted ISO calculations state that existing hydrants satisfy the fire flow requirements. All overhead utilities, including telephone lines, electric lines, and cable lines will be buried in a ten foot utility easement along the property line for the existing lot and the proposed lot. Both lots will also be served by public sewer. The stormwater drainage plan states that 126 cubic feet of storage is required; therefore detention should be provided. Commissioner Amos questioned if staff is asking the applicant to widen the road or just to provide curb and gutter at this time. Greg Sievers, Construction and Public Facilities Manager, stated they are asking the applicant to install curb and gutter along the current edge of the asphalt to direct surface runoff. Commissioner Kitchen stated if the curb and gutter were installed along the pavement then she feels the increased right-of-way may not be necessary. Mr. Sievers stated that right-of-way is also used for utilities. Director Joseph stated a legitimate question has been raised regarding the timing and sequencing of improvements. He feels an asphalt curb would be appropriate in this case. Bill Van Horn was present to represent the applicants. He stated the applicants do not have concerns with the added condition regarding the Estes Valley Park and Recreational District’s concern about golf course liability. The right-of-way is the main concern. Mr. Van Horn stated this is an infill subdivision, and the master plan encourages such infilling. He feels improving the roadway is not needed at this time, and this subdivision does not trigger road improvements. He stated Vista Lane is a short street that will not be extended to serve future developments. The applicant would offer the following options: 1) Dedicate 2.5 feet for right-of-way and place a reservation for the additional 5 feet of right-of-way to be used when and if it is needed at no cost to the Town; 2) Dedicate 2.5 feet of right-of-way and a 10 foot wide easement for a public walkway; or 3) Dedicate 2.5 feet of right-of-way, reserve 5 feet of right-of-way, and dedicate a 10 foot wide easement for a public walkway. Mr. Van Horn feels it is not appropriate to require the property owner to install an isolated section of curb and gutter that will be difficult to maintain. The applicants would prefer to deal with the drainage on site. Director Joseph is concerned that once the property is divided a point of discharge that was not previously identified could become an issue; therefore, a drainage easement needs to be placed on the plat for future drainage. Mr. Van Horn stated the applicant is not adverse to placing a drainage statement on the final plat. Town Attorney White stated if the Planning Commission were to accept the proposal to reserve the additional. 5 feet of right-of-way it should be recorded through a separate agreement and not placed on the plat itself. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 20, 2004 Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineeing stated it could be a condition of approval for the final plat to produce a drainage study that would answer the drainage concerns along with the design of the detention pond. Mr. Sievers believes sharing dedication of additional right-of-way 50/50 with the property owners on both sides of the road best reflects the direction of the development code. Public Works would prefer to have right-of-way dedicated rather than reserved because of past issues with obtaining the reserved right-of-way. He stated updated utilities are rarely placed back in the same line as the old utilities, which also supports their request for right-of-way dedication. Director Joseph commented that reservation of right-of-way is a tool that can be used when it is uncertain when and if the right-of-way might be needed. He would strongly caution the Commission about the precedence that might be created when using the reservation of right-of-way to manipulate the outcome of the density formula. Dedicating 5 feet of right-of-way will reduce both lots below the minimum required land area for “R-2” zoned lots. Commissioner Kitchen feels that a reservation of right-of-way would be an appropriate solution in this situation. Chair Homeier stated the road is not very wide and could be an issue with additional residences added to the road. Commissioner Amos does not feel it is necessary to make the property owners add an isolated section of curb and gutter just because it is in the code. Commissioner Horton feels it is important to infill in this area and to create more housing. Commissioner Pohl feels the motion is a means to circumvent the current code requirements for minimum lot size and density: and therefore, the motion is an inappropriate action. Commissioner Haggard agrees with Commissioner Pohl. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Amos) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Minor Subdivision, Cito Subdivision, Lot 23, Block 4, Lake View Tracts Subdivision of a Part of Lot 4, Stanley Meadows Addition with staff findings and the following conditions, and the motion passed. Those voting “Yes” Kitchen, Horton, Hix, and Amos. Those voting “No” Homeier, Haggard and Pohl. 1. A 2.5 foot wide strip of land along the northern property line shall be dedicated for right-of-way. An additional 5 foot wide strip of land along the northern property line shall be reserved for dedication to the Town of Estes Park for right-of-way at no cost to the Town under a separate agreement drafted by the Town Attorney and a representative of the applicant. 2. Detention shall be provided with the location and volume shown on the preliminary plat and approved by staff. 3. A note shall be added to the plat to address the Estes Valley Park and Recreational District’s concerns regarding liability. The notes shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 4. With final plat submittal a drainage study shall be prepared and approved by staff which includes on site, adjacent properties, and right-of-way historic and developed stormwater flows. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-05, BEAR CREEK LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS, 1280 Fall River Road, Applicant: SRG Properties, LLC. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a development plan application to construct a 3,750 square foot, two story building to accommodate two employee housing units, an office area and laundry facility. The property is zoned “A” Accommodations/Highway Corridor and the current use is accommodations. The existing 6,000 square foot, two story building houses six units. This building is currently under renovation. The proposed use of the property is accommodations and/or residential. Prior to purchase by SRG Properties, Inc. the use was accommodations. The property meets the density requirements for residential use. The corner of a hot tub placed on site this spring encroaches one foot into the thirty- foot-setback from Fall River. Staff recommends approval of a minor modification to allow this encroachment to remain. The applicant/owner has done a good job of site RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 20, 2004 planning to minimize impact to existing trees. Existing trees and shrubs on the property satisfy the intent of landscaping requirements, with the exception that service area screening should be shown on the plan for staff review and approval. Sufficient parking is provided for accommodations use. Residential use would require two more parking spaces for guest parking. These parking spaces should be provided. The existing driveway is 19.5 feet wide. EVDC §7.11 .K.2 requires that the driveway be twenty feet wide. Staff recommends approving a minor modification to allow the driveway to remain as is. Ross Stephen of Cornerstone Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the plans will change to reflect 20 parking spaces and the trash dumpster will be relocated. The applicant feels the request for construction of the trail is an unnecessary burden. The trail along Fall River is scheduled to be built this fall with Federal funds. He stated elevation and alignment with the current plans of the path place the trail in the highway right-of-way and not on the property. Public Comment: Nick Kane, an adjacent property owner, stated it appears the applicant is going to build on top of the access easement which serves the property to the south. He does not see how they are going to have ample parking. He is concerned with vehicular and pedestrain traffic, drainage and the removal of mature trees. Mr. Kane stated they have cut down quite a few trees and he feels they are going to cut down more trees. Being the past property owner, he has placed a ditch around the current building to divert the drainage from the basement. Director Joseph stated that it appears the rear parking area of the new building and a portion of the building itself significantly encroaches into an access easement. He feels this item should be continued. Mr. Stephan stated the drainage flow will not change and any improvements will be directed to the current drainage. The applicant feels the current drainage ditch is sufficient to handle any additional flow. Planner Chilcott advised the access easement was to be vacated originally. Jes Reetz of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying stated that the access easement is not being vacated. Director Joseph advised that the easement be vacated as planned or the plat must be adjusted to eliminate any significant encroachment. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Haggard) to continue the Development Plan 04-05, Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums to the August 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting due to encroachment Into the existing access easement and the motion passed unanimously. 7. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, BEAR CREEK LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS, UNITS 1 THROUGH 6, BUILDING A, FALL RIVER CHALETS AND PROPOSED BUILDING, 1280 Fall River Road, Applicant: SRG Properties, LLC. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary condominium map application to condominiumize the existing and proposed buildings. The property is condominiumized as the “Fall River Chalet.” This condominium regime will be terminated and a new map and declaration will be recorded for Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums. The water service line size for the existing building should be shown. If the line does not meet current standards upgrades are required. The applicant believes this line is in poor condition and is a shared service line with the property to the west. Plans are to upgrade the line and connect directly to the water main in the US 34 right-of-way. An easement should be dedicated for the sewer service line connection to the adjacent lot to the east. Ross Stephen of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying stated the water line will be replaced because it is deteriorated. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 20, 2004 Director Joseph questioned if the condominium declaration identifies who is responsible for the maintenance of the access easement that cuts across the property. Mr. Stephens stated he will make sure the declaration addresses the maintenance of the access easement. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Haggard) to continue the Preliminary Condominium Map, Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums, Units 1 Through 6, Building A, Fall River Chalets and Proposed Building to the August 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting due to encroachment into the existing access easement and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Homeier called for a 5 minute recess at 3:17 p.m. 8. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES Public Comment: Michael Kellam, 1160 & 1170 Meadow Lane, is concerned with some of the language in the code revisions in Section 5.1 Specific Use Standards, specifically that no one other than the resident shall be employeed on site and the definition of kitchens. He stated he currently rents his single-family residence nightly and cleans it himself; however he might want to hire someone in the future to clean the home. Staff will work on the language and come back to the Commission next month. 9. REPORTS Director Joseph informed the Commission that Judy Haggard has given her resignation effective October 20, 2004. Planner Chilcott stated staff has recommended conditional approval of a staff level review for an amended development plan 96-01, Appenzell Inn. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 3:42 p.m. /O'/? .f /r s j^qugiynWilriamson, Recording Secretary