Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2004-12-211 II RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Chair Homeier, Commissioners Wendell Amos, George Hix, Bill Horton, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Edward Pohl Chair Homeier, Commissioners Hix, Horton, Hull, Kitchen, and Pohl Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Habecker present at study session, Larimer County Engineering Department staff member Roxann Hayes and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent:Commissioner Amos, Planner Chilcott Chair Homeier called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated November 16, 2004. LZaLmrfd and se^onded (Hix/Pohl) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3' LOTS 2INf I? 7P«EoIMam^RY SUBDIVtSION. MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION wasrrJern1eSr2ot^^ Low-Intensity and^ prooosed Lot fid tin n ^ftfte_fro/'J1 A'1 Accommodations/ Accommodations/Highway Cotridor from ^A-1 ” AccornmodaU^^Low^Intet^ity!0 “A" Rocky0rMountain0Evangelical Church Si;bdiViSi0n " UndeVe,0ped' but the Ma^'s Uke Suhrtiuk" amended condominium map appiication to combine Lols acclmottr^lr^irsidrtiaTSSL56^^ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004 on Outlet A was transferred to existing Lot 2 with approval of the Mary’s Lake Subdivision plat. Director Joseph stated that the steepest portions of existing Lot 5, which have the highest risk of wildfire and geological hazards, would be down-zoned from “A-1” to “E.” This land, which could be developed with approximately thirteen accommodations/residential units, would be developed with just two residential units. The less steep portion of Lots 4 and 5, a total of 9.514 acres in proposed Lot 6 and Outlot C, would be up-zoned from “A-1” to “A.” Twenty-two accommodations/ residential units are proposed on Lot 6, three more units than the current zoning. A total of six accommodations units in three duplexes are proposed on Outlot C, four more units than allowed by the current zoning. Rezoning and subdividing the property would cluster the originally planned development on lower portions of the site. This density transfer would move the development off the steeper, problematic areas of the site. Staff supports reconfiguration of the lots and rezoning to accomplish this density transfer and finds that the development is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. A revised development plan for Mary’s Lake Lodge that anticipates combining Outlot B & C with Lot 3 is in the concept stage and has not yet been routed to adjacent property owners. The rezoning request addresses the placement of proposed Lot 7 into a conservation easement and is necessary to help achieve goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Promontory development plan was routed to adjacent property owners in December and will be reviewed, with revisions, by the Planning Commission at the January meeting. Director Joseph noted that interconnected street systems are required by the EVDC. One way this is achieved is by limiting the length of cul-de-sacs and requiring road connections such as the Kiowa Trail extension. The proposed right-of-way will create a more functional, interconnected street system than the currently platted Kiowa Road right-of-way. The platted Kiowa Road right-of-way requires steep cuts up to fifteen feet, into the mountainside behind Mary’s Lake Lodge and significant tree removal. A long loop road would have been built to access land behind Mary’s Lake Lodge that has limited development potential due to the steep slopes. The proposed rezoning further limits this development. The proposed right-of-way includes the Promontory Drive cul-de-sac and the Kiowa Trail extension. Promontory Drive would follow the existing deteriorated driveway that connects Mary’s Lake Lodge to Mary’s Lake Road and would continue west beyond the Lodge to access proposed Lots 6 and 8. No change in the location of the Mary’s Lake Lodge access is proposed. Promontory Drive has been designed with minimal impact to the land and may be further redesigned to save a significant tree near Mary’s Lake Lodge. Kiowa Trail is an important street connection to make for interconnectivity of the street system and concerns that have been expressed by residents of Kiowa Ridge Subdivision are best addressed by directing Church traffic directly onto Mary’s Lake Road from Promontory Drive after large Church functions and by the addition of traffic calming on the proposed Kiowa Trail extension. The proposed Kiowa Trail extension would connect Promontory Drive to Kiowa Drive. The road would run through a relatively flat and treeless area below Mary’s Lake Lodge and would be located next to land with high-density development potential. Staff is supportive of the proposed vacation and dedication of right-of-way. This plat proposes removal of 410 square feet of wetlands for construction of the Kiowa Trail extension. A waiver of the driveway spacing requirement from Public Works is requested to allow the proposed Kiowa Trail to be spaced closer than 150 feet from the pavement edge of the Mary’s Lake lodge western entrance. Public Works has not expressed any concern with this request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004 Director Joseph stated that the request has been submitted to adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A letter from six lot owners in the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision, including Joseph and Deborah Ford, Gilbert “Tom” and Carol Gresslin, William and Judy Howell, Harold and Judy Haines, William and Shirley Webber, and Chris and Chris Pisciotta, dated December 13, 2004 primarily expresses concerns about the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail. Staff has met with Joe Ford and Tom Gresslin a number of times to discuss the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail. A letter from Dave and Jane McAfee and an e-mail from Ginger Juhl were also received by staff. During the meeting, Joe Ford presented e-mails from additional Kiowa Ridge lot owners Eldon and Pat Cassell and Bruce Specht. Staff also received a phone call from Bruce Specht, owner of Lot 11, Kiowa Ridge Subdivision, who called at the suggestion of Joe Ford to express his concerns about the proposed Kiowa Trail extension and its impact on traffic in the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision. Staff explained the proposal for directing Church traffic and traffic calming. Gilbert “Tom” Gresslin and Bill and Judy Howell also submitted letters to the Mayor. All of the comments noted above expressed opposition to the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail. The request was also submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The location of wildfire and geologic hazards (steep slopes) are shown on the preliminary plat and comments were received from Tony Simons, Wildfire Safety Specialist with Larimer County, and TC Waite, Engineering Geologist with the Colorado Geological Survey. Most of the land in wildfire and geologic hazard areas are protected from development. The property is in mapped elk habitat. The plan was sent to the State Division of Wildlife for comments; none were received. Compliance with the requirements for wildlife habitat protection will be reviewed with submittal of development plans. The protection of the wetlands and steeply sloped areas helps protect wildlife habitat. The subdivision will be served by existing eight- and twelve-inch water mains and a proposed main extension will connect to the Kiowa Ridge pump station on Lot 28 of Kiowa Ridge subdivision and run through proposed Lots 6 and Outlot C. A pump station will be installed on Lot 5 to serve proposed Lot 5 and some units on Lot 6. An improvement agreement, guarantee, and warranty are required for all adequate public facilities improvements prior to recording the final plat. A shared maintenance agreement for the pump station should be submitted for staff review and approval and recorded with the final subdivision plat. ISO calculations have been provided and the Fire Chief has not expressed any concern about these calculations. Upper Thompson Sanitation District has not expressed any concerns regarding the sewer plans. A stormwater drainage plan was submitted for review by Public Works with the Mary’s Lake Subdivision plat in 2000. Director Joseph noted that an updated traffic impact study has been prepared. This study shows that improvements are required to the Mary’s Lake Road/Highway 7 intersection to meet Colorado Department of Transportation standards, i.e. a northbound left-turn deceleration lane and a southbound right-turn deceleration lane. Approval of this subdivision should be conditioned on construction of these road improvements and road improvements internal to the subdivision. Submittal of the improvement agreement, guarantee, and warranty is required prior to recordation of the plat. Mary’s Lake subdivision owners are working together to develop a cost­ sharing agreement among the owners and it is anticipated they will request the Town share in the cost of these improvements. This request would be reviewed by the Public Works Committee and Town Board. Frank Theis of CMS Planning was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the property owners in the area have worked together for many years to produce a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004 reasonable plan for development of the property. He stated that the intensity of the proposed development is significantly less than what it could be, noting the proposed conservation easement. Mike Dugan, property owner at the adjacent Mary’s Lake Lodge, was present. He stated his concern about access to proposed units on Lot 9. Director Joseph noted that while there is legal access at the south end of the lot the proposed access is planned to be located to the north on Lot 3. Public Comment: Debbie Ford, Kiowa Ridge property owner, was present. She stated her concerns about the extension of Kiowa Trail and requested that the original plan for a loop road be implemented if some other compromise could not be reached. William Webber, Kiowa Ridge property owner, was present. He stated that there is already an existing problem with traffic on Kiowa Trail. He noted that delivery trucks use the road to access Mary’s Lake Lodge and stated his concern regarding increased use of Kiowa Trail if the extension of the road is built. William Howell, owner of Lot 14, Kiowa Trail, was present. He stated his opposition to the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail and noted that the incline on Kiowa Trail encourages traffic to reach speeds of 40 to 50 m.p.h. He stated that he has seen an increase in traffic on the existing Kiowa Trail in the fourteen months that he has lived there and expressed his concern about traffic generated by the church and by the increased development around Mary’s Lake Lodge using the proposed extension as a nothbound short cut through Kiowa Ridge, a residential neighborhood. He noted that there are no sidewalks in his neighborhood. Judy Howell, wife of William Howell was present. She stated her objection to the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail and her concern that it would be a northbound thoroughfare. Director Joseph noted that the extension is designed as a sub-local street: persons using the street would encounter three stop signs rather than the single left-hand turn required if they used Highway 7. He stated that there will be traffic “calming” consisting of a pedestrian crossing, including a change in pavement surface, a “yield to pedestrian” sign, etc. to slow the speed of traffic. Joe Ford, Kiowa Ridge property owner, was present. He requested alternatives be considered to building the proposed Kiowa Trail extension. He noted that the loop road planned in 2000 provided legal access to all the lots. He stated his belief that the traffic generated by the church would cause major problems, including the back­ up of traffic exiting the church and turning on to Highway 7. Commissioner Horton noted that the church has agreed to provide mitigation. Jim Tawney, developer of Lot 2 and Outlot A, was present. He stated that there are not an infinite number of alternatives for construction of the road, noting code restrictions and limitations caused by the wetlands. Don DuBai, owner of Mary’s Lake Lodge, was present. He stated that traffic from the church would use the originally-planned loop road if it was built instead of the proposed Kiowa Trail extension. Bob Koehler, developer of The Promontory and Kiowa Ridge subdivision, was present. He stated that building the loop road behind Mary’s Lake Lodge would create an eyesore and that the road would be steep and expensive to construct. He noted that development in the area will still impact the use of the existing Kiowa Trail and that eliminating the Kiowa Trail extension would not eliminate the problems. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004 Chair Homeier closed the public hearing and called a ten-minute recess at 3:15 p.m. Members of the Planning Commission discussed alternatives to the proposed Kiowa Trail extension. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Rezoning and Preliminary Subdivision, Mary’s Lake Subdivision, Lots 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and Outlot A, and the motion passed with one absent and the following conditions. Those voting for: Kitchen, Horton, Hix, and Homeier. Those voting against: Pohl and Hull. REZONING Conditions: 1. Town Board approval of the final subdivision plat for Mary’s Lake Subdivision Lots 2, 4, 5, and Outlot A. 2. Placement of proposed Lot 7 in a conservation easement prior to final approval of the rezoning. 3. Rezoning of proposed Lot 6 shall be conditioned on Planning Commission approval of The Promontory development plan and development of no more than twenty-two units. 4. Rezoning of proposed Outlot C shall be conditioned on Planning Commission approval of the Mary’s Lake Lodge revised development plan and development of no more than six units. SUBDIVISION Conditions: I. Plat approval shall be conditioned on comments in the affected agencies memos, letters and emails referred to in the staff report. Plat approval shall be conditioned on approval of a variance by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment to allow wetlands removal. The existing nonconforming uses, i.e. the water tank on Lot 8 and shed on Lot 6, shall be addressed in the subdivision improvement agreement, guarantee, and warranty. Proposed utility service line locations for Lot 8 shall be reviewed and approved by staff to determine if any or all of the utilities can be routed along the shared driveway to the south of the lot rather than cutting into the steep hillside to the north. Construction limits of disturbance shall be addressed on the road construction plan. Ownership and maintenance of open areas, i.e. Outlot A and Lot 7 shall be addressed with final plat submittal. The Outlot A maintenance plan shall address drainage issues such as culvert maintenance and repair. Geologic hazard and wildfire hazard reports shall be submitted with the final plat addressing comments in the letters received from the Larimer County Wildfire Safety Specialist and the Colorado Geological Survey. A shared maintenance agreement for the pump station shall be submitted for staff review and approval and recorded with the final subdivision plat. Construction barrier fencing shall be installed to protect the wetlands when the sewer line is installed. A note shall be added to the sewer plan stating this. 10. A detailed drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval with the final subdivision plat. II. Approval of this subdivision shall be conditioned on construction of required Highway 7 road improvements and road improvements internal to the subdivision. 12. Any proposed road reimbursement agreement shall be submitted with the final plat application for review and approval. 13. A private access and maintenance agreement for the Lot 5 access easement shall be submitted with the final plat application for staff review and approval and recorded with the subdivision plat. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21,2004 14. An access and maintenance agreement for the Lot 7 access easement shall be submitted with the final plat application for staff review and approval and shall be recorded with the final plat. 15. Access easement and maintenance agreements shall be submitted for Kiowa Court and the shared driveway to Lot 8 with the final subdivision plat application for staff review and approval and shall be recorded with the final subdivision plat. 16. Access to Outlot C from the Kiowa Drive right-of-way that terminates at Outlet C shall be prohibited and a note shall be added to the plat stating this. Access to this lot shall be through Lot 3 and an access and maintenance easement agreement shall be submitted for staff review and approval with the final plat application and shall be recorded with the final pat. 17. Approval of development plans on Lots 2 and 4 shall be conditioned on building design that does not result in long, blank walls facing a street. 18. Road construction plans shall show curb and gutter. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-12, BEAVER BROOK, LOT 2, SPANIER SUBDIVI­ SION, AMENDED LOT 6 & A PORTION OF E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, 5N, R73W OF THE 6th P.M., 1738 Highway 66, Applicant: New Spall, LLC Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a development plan to build twenty multi-family residential units, dispersed throughout five tri-plexes, one four-plex, and one manager’s unit. He noted that the development will consist of apartments rather than condominiums. The plan also calls for a laundry/storage building. The site has a burial ground located in the middle of it; this is not owned by the applicant and will remain. Beaver Brook flows through the property. The applicant proposes to maintain it in a natural state and locate units such that the majority of them will have access to the stream; the remainder of the units, save the manager’s quarters, will have frontage on the Big Thompson River. This property is in the “A” zoning district which allows for both residential and accommodations use. The required setbacks will be met. The maximum allowed density for this lot is nineteen multi-family units. The manager’s quarters are allowed as additional density so long as a deed restriction is recorded. The “A" district allows a maximum impervious coverage of 50%. In this case, the building footprint and paved areas total 43.63%. Table 4-8 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requires provision for interconnections with existing or planned trails, as well as a requirement for sidewalk construction. The applicant proposes internal sidewalks, with a connection crossing Beaver Brook. Section 7.2 of the EVDC applies to this proposal. Significant trees to be preserved will be fenced for protection in accordance with Section 7.3.E. In addition, silt fences will be installed to protect Beaver Brook and the Big Thompson. It is the staffs opinion that these measures are sufficient. All disturbed areas will need to be restored in accordance with Section 7.2.C, “Restoration of Disturbed Areas.’’ This proposal meets landscaping requirements. Staff recommends additional trees be planted between the parking lot and Highway 66 and the applicant has submitted a landscape plan detail sheet addressing this. The proposed development will be subject to lighting standards set forth in Section 7.9, which requires exterior lighting be shielded and downcast. The proposed twenty units require forty-five parking spaces; the proposal satisfies the parking requirements. Public facilities will need to be either installed or guaranteed before issuance of the first building permit. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for this proposal and submitted to Larimer County Engineering and CDOT for review and comment. The realignment of the entry directly across the highway from Mills Drive aids in the traffic flow for this proposal. The applicant proposes to connect to an existing Upper Thompson Sanitation District main. The southern stormwater quality basin should be redesigned to not interfere with the existing sanitary sewer. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004 This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Comments from the Estes Park Public Works Department will be included as conditions of approval. Town Attorney, Greg White, noted that if the applicant does not wish to detain the additional stormwater runoff, the adjoining neighbor will need to enter into a written agreement. Rocky Mountain National Park requested that the project utilize the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan performance guidelines to the extent possible and the site design satisfies several of the performance guidelines. Paul Kochevar, representing New Spall, LLC, the owners of property, was present. He stated that the owners are in agreement with the staff conditions. Public Comment: Sue Lamb, owner of the adjacent property to the west. Skyline Cottages, was present. She stated that she would like a gate or other access through the fence that adjoins their properties. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hull) to approve Development Plan 04-12, Beaver Brook, Lot 2, Spanier Subdivision, Amended Lot 6 and a Portion of E !4 of the NE V*. of Section 34, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M. with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent, one abstention, and the foiiowing conditions. Commissioner Pohl abstained from voting. 1. The memos from Ron Witt to Dave Shirk dated December 7, 2004 and from David Brand dated December 3, 2004 should be incorporated as a condition of approval. This requires revisions to the development plan to keep the area between units 16 and 17 free and clear of improvements (bike rack, light fixture), and the sidewalk in that area shall be a minimum of 8” thick. In addition, the southern stormwater quality basin shall be redesigned to not interfere with the existing sanitary sewer. 2. Compliance with Estes Park Public Works memo dated December 17, 2004. 3. Construction Plans shall be reviewed and approved by Estes Park Public Works and Larimer County Engineering prior to issuance of the first building permit. These shall include utilities, drives and retaining walls, erosion control plans and root protection, and the postal cluster box. A landscaping cost estimate shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the first building permit. A 20-foot-wide trail easement shall be dedicated along Highway 66 through a separate instrument prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. A deed restriction for the manager’s quarters shall be recorded, and a copy submitted to Community Development, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that unit. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include additional trees along the highway, as proposed with the document faxed from Estes Park Surveyors to David Shirk on December 14, 2004. The adjoining neighbor shall enter into a written agreement to allow additional stormwater to cross their property. A copy of this agreement shall be submitted before issuance of the first building permit. 4. 6. 8. 5. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, BUGLE POINT, LOT 3 AND LOT 4, BLOCK 4, FALL RIVER ESTATES, 1516 Fish Hatchery Road & 1480 David Drive, Applicant: Jim Randy Company, Inc. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary condominium map application to condominiumize sixteen residential/accommodations units on Lot 3, Block 4, Fall River Estates and 22 residential/accommodations units, an RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21,2004 8 office/laundry building, and a recreation building on Lot 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates. Development Plan #99-04 for Lot 3 and Development Plan #99-05 for Lot 4 were approved by the Estes Park Planning Commission on April 20, 1999 and existing units have been built in accordance with these development plans. Between 2000 and 2002, the property owner recorded condominium maps and declarations for these lots without the required Town review and approval. When staff became aware of this. Town review and approval of the condominium maps were required. The applicant proposes dedication of a trail easement on Lot 3, dedication of “pocket” parks easements on Lot 3, dedication of a trail easement on Lot 4, and construction of trail on Lot 4, with the exception of the portion of the trail that will cross Fall River. In return for dedication of the “pocket” parks, the Town would construct trail on Lot 4 and the section of trail on Lot 3 that crosses Fall River. Town staff recommends accepting this proposal. The applicant has proposed an eight- foot-wide trail on Lot 4. Staff may require the width to be increased to ten feet. Any approvals required by the United Methodist Church of Estes Park for these easements should be obtained by the applicant. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff were incorporated as staff findings. This request has been submitted to neighbors and condominium unit owners on Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates for consideration and comment. No comments were received. Greg Sievers, Estes Park Public Works, presented comments from his memo dated December 17, 2004. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staff conditions and requested the opportunity to work with staff on the details of Mr. Sievers’ memo. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Horton) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Preliminary Condominium Map, Bugle Point, Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 4, Fail River Estates, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. All problems identified by the Town with the final condominium maps shall be corrected prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for new units on Lot 4. 2. Drainage problems, i.e. erosion, between units and where culverts daylight near the river shall be corrected prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for units on Lot 4. 3. The location of the trail easements and proposed trail design shall be shown on the preliminary condominium map and the easements, including the park easement, shall be dedicated prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for new units on Lot 4. The location of the easements, including park easements, shall be reviewed and approved by staff and trail design shall be reviewed and approved by staff. Any approvals required by the United Methodist Church of Estes Park to allow dedication of these easements shall be obtained by the applicant. 4. Ten-foot-wide utility easements shall be dedicated along all property lines prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for units on Lot 4. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004 9 5. As needed, staff shall withhold building permits and inspections for any projects developed by Randy Collins to ensure that progress is being made to address these conditions. 6. All problems identified in the Public Works memo dated December 17, 2004 shall be addressed with staff. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-13, HENRY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOT 51 A, 2ND AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 CANAIY SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION OF LOT 51, GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 1690 Big Thompson Avenue, Applicant: PT Properties, Inc. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a development plan application to construct a 5,765-square-foot, two-story office building to accommodate Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying and Basis Architecture’s offices and to construct a 1,079-square-foot, one-story banquet hall addition and a 256-square-foot deck addition on the south side of Hunter’s Chop House restaurant. Both uses are permitted in the “CO" Outlying Commercial zoning district. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Estes Valley Development Code, Section 4.4D.2.a, requires that the main entrance of all buildings in the CO district shall face the highway. Given the existing lot shape and building location, it is not possible for the new building to meet this requirement and also have a functioning parking layout. The existing accesses do not meet Code requirements for the number or spacing of driveways. Only one driveway access is permitted for lots less than 200 feet wide; there are currently two driveways. Also driveways are required to be spaced at least 200 feet apart. The applicant has redesigned and improved access to become as Code compliant as possible. Due to the narrowness of the lot, the driveway spacing requirement cannot be met; there is another driveway less than 250 feet away to the east. However, reducing the number of driveways from two to one and shifting the remaining driveway to the east does move closer towards Code compliance. The Colorado Department of Transportation strongly supports the proposed access consolidation. There are no access points on the north side of Highway 34 with which this driveway will need to align. Staff supports limitation to one access. Staff is concerned that there may be insufficient on-site parking if both the proposed office building and restaurant expansion are constructed. Staff recommends that a note be added to the development plan stating that if, after construction of the office building, staff determines there is insufficient on-site parking to accommodate the restaurant expansion, a permit will not be issued for the expansion until a plan is approved by staff addressing parking, e.g. an off-site parking plan. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff were incorporated as staff findings. This request has been submitted to neighbors for consideration and comment. No comments were received. Steve Lane of Basis Architecture, the applicant, was present. He stated that he feels the two uses of the property will be complimentary. Public Comment: None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004 10 It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to approve Development Plan 04-13, Henry Development Plan, Lot 51 A, 2nd Amended Plat of Lot 3, Canaiy Subdivision, and a Portion of Lot 51, Grand Estates Subdivision, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent and the foliowing conditions. 1. If staff determines that after construction of the office building there is insufficient on-site parking to accommodate the restaurant expansion, a permit will not be issued for the expansion until a plan is approved by staff addressing parking, e.g. an off-site parking plan. A note shall be added to the development plan addressing this. Fifty-three parking spaces are shown on the development plan. The development plan notes stating, “Total Provided 54” and “51 Spaces Proposed” shall be corrected. The landscaping calculations shall be corrected to show forty-two trees and 109 shrubs. 4. A copy of the CDOT access permit, if required by CDOT, shall be submitted prior to final development plan approval. Note #8 concerning compliance with the handicapped-accessibility requirements in the I.B.C. shall be revised to state compliance with the Town Building Code. Compliance with Estes Park Public Works memo dated December 17, 2004. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, HENRY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOT 51A, 2ND AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 CANAIY SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION OF lot 51, GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 1690 Big Thompson Avenue, Applicant: PT Properties, Inc. Planner Joseph recommended that the Henry Development Plan 04-13 also serve as the preliminary condominium map, conditioned on approval of Development Plan 04-13, because the preliminary condominium map requires compliance with the same adequate public facilities standards with which the development plan must comply. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Map, Henry Development Plan, Lot 51 A, 2n Amended Plat of Lot 3, Canaiy Subdivision, and a Portion of Lot 51, Grand Estates Subdivision, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. Cornpliance with Henry Development Plan #04-13 conditions of approval. 2. Dedication of ten-foot utility easements along the northern property line and a five-foot utility easement along the southern property line. 8. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES Planner Shirk reviewed Item #2 of the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code. This item relates to Section 3.14, Neighbor Notification; the change would require notification of all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property, expanding the boundary from the current 100 feet. It was determined that item #1 was ineligible for review due to lack of legal publication. Public Comment: None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004 11 U was moved and seconded (Pohl/Horton) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners acceptance of changes to Block 7, Section 3.14 of the Estes Vaiiey Development Code, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 9. REPORTS Shir,kofpo^®d °n the staff-level review of the YMCA Mountainside Lodge rS?n thenLnnvna?4'11f’,hhl!:h.JWaS apProved staff- The development plan will result in the reriovation of the lodge and installation of a water line. Comments were heard frorn Matilda Ashland on behalf of adjacent property owner, Joan Foot as well thefre:sSoMrPerty °T!r’ Bryan Michener- Bothyexpressed^ncem ^bout the springTil'thS IrL 3 P°SSibili,y °f ‘he Water line installa,ion disruP«n9 There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Richard Homeier, Chair 'Julj^Roed^r^r, Rewrdihg Secretary"