HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2004-01-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 20, 2004,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipai Building
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners Judy Haggard, George Hix,
Richard Homeier, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, and Edward Pohl
Chair Amos, Commissioners Hix, Homeier, Horton, Kitchen and
Pohl
Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner
Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Habecker and Recording Secretary
Williamson
Commissioner Haggard
Chair Amos called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Estes Valiey Planning Commission Minutes dated December 16, 2003.
b. Preiiminary Condominium Map, EPCO Condominiums, Lot 1, EPCO
Subdivision, 220 Virginia Drive, Appiicant: Dennis K. Brown
1. Compliance with Development Plan 02-03.
2. Article XI1.12.1 “Enlargement” shall be amended to read “... shall not exceed
thirteen units ... “ instead of “... shall not exceed fourteen units ... “
3. The condominium map shall clearly designate which is a limited common
element (LCE) and which is a general common element (GCE). This includes
the garage located in the northwest corner of the property, and the
“approximate boundary of 4 additional units”.
4. Utility services to all units, including utility mains and associated easements
(from Public Works memo dated January 6, 2004).
5. Compliance with Estes Park Sanitation District letter to Dave Shirk dated
December 31, 2003, regarding individual service lines and system investment
fees.
6. A certificate by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of
Colorado that the condominium association, condominium map and
declaration comply with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (§38-
33.3-101 et seq., C.R.S.) shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Homeier) that the Consent Agenda be
accepted and it passed unanimously with one absent.
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Horton) that Commissioner Homeier be
nominated for Chair and it passed unanimously with one absent.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Horton) that Commissioner Kitchen be
nominated for Vice-Chair and it passed unanimously with one absent.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Horton) that the Community Development
Administrative Assistant or designee be appointed as Recording Secretary
and it passed unanimously with one absent.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
4. REZONING OF LOT 3, SKOOG SUBDIVISION AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, A REPLAT OF LOT 3 AND LOT 4 SKOOG
SUBDIVISION, 1925 Homestead Lane, Applicant: John Skoog
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 20, 2004
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to rezone Lot 3 of the
Skoog Subdivision from “RM” Multi-family to “E-1” Estate, adjust the common
property line between Lots 3 and 4, and subdivide Lot 3. This subdivision review is
for the preliminary plat. It is staff’s opinion the rezoning from “RM” Multi-family to “E-
1” Estate would be in the best interest of the neighborhood. This proposal complies
with minimum lot size and width standards set forth in Table 4-2 of the EVDC. A
portion of the subdivision is located above the “blue line” water service elevation.
The site is within a mapped geologic hazard area. Staff recommends waiving the
requirement for a professional geologist. This request has been submitted to all
applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Approval of
development is conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities and
services.
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Horton/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the
Town Board of Trustees the Rezoning Request for Lot 3, Skoog Subdivision
from “RM” Multi-Family to “E-1” Estate with the following conditions, and it
passed unanimously with one absent.
1. Approval of the requested Deer Ridge Subdivision.
It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town
Board of Trustees the Preliminary Plat of Deer Ridge Subdivision, a Replat of
Lot 3 and Lot 4, Skoog Subdivision with the following conditions, and it
passed unanimously with one absent.
1. The northern most existing cabin on proposed Lot 3 shall be removed prior to
issuance of a building permit for proposed Lot 3.
2. The two southern most existing cabins on proposed Lot 3 shall be deed
restricted to restrict uses to those accessory uses allowed in the Estes Valley
Development Code. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the final
subdivision plat.
3. The two southern most existing cabins on proposed Lot 3 shall be
disconnected from water and sanitary sewer systems prior to issuance of a
building permit for any new structures within the subdivision.
4. Approval of the requested rezoning to change the zoning of Lot 3, Skoog
Subdivision from “RM” Multi-Family to “E-1” Estate.
5. The proposed sewer line shall be routed such that it will not interfere with
existing significant trees or rock outcroppings. This shall be clarified on the
construction drawings.
6. Compliance with Public Works memo (“Light and Power” and ‘Water”
sections) dated December 8, 2003.
7. Final Plat submittal shall require an improvement guarantee including, but not
limited to, the following items:
a. Driveway design and build costs (shall include relocation, compaction, and
revegetation).
b. Drainage improvements.
c. Utility improvements (hydrant, sanitary sewer, water mains and service
lines, revegetation).
d. Cabin removal, deed restriction, and plumbing alteration.
e. Construction drawings.
8. Road/Driveway Maintenance and Snow Removal, and Drainage Facility
Maintenance agreements shall be submitted for recording with the final plat.
9. Submittal of a revised preliminary plat incorporating the following:
a. 20 foot wide utility easements shall be centered on the “buried electric,
telephone, CATV” crossing proposed Lots 3 and 4. These shall require
distances and bearings.
b. Tract “89” of the Betton BLA shall be changed to “Tract 87".
c. The building envelope in the southeast corner of Lot 3 shall be labeled.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
January 20, 2004
5. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCK 7, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR
ADDITION, 505 & 507 Driftwood Avenue, Applicants: Karl Ropp & William
Lockhart
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a minor subdivision (amended
plat) to adjust the shared lot line between two “R” Residential zoned lots. The house
on Lot 21 was built over the Lot 21/22 shared side lot line. The patio is also built
over the lot line and the fence lines are in significantly different locations than the
property lines. The existing and proposed lots do not comply with minimum lot size
requirements for the “R" Residential zoning district. Typically staff recommends an
even land swap when nonconforming lots are involved. In this case, the proposed
lot lines closely follow the existing fence lines. This amended plat decreases the
degree of nonconformity for Lot A and increases it for Lot B. Proposed Lot B does
not meet the sixty foot minimum lot width requirement for “R” zoned lots, nor does it
meet the thirty foot minimum lot width requirement for all new lots. The amended
plat adjusts the shared side lot line and changes the side setbacks for each house.
The Town has not required upgrades to the infrastructure since no new lots are
being created. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency
staff for consideration and comment. Planner Chilcott read into record a fax from
Rick England stating that applicant Ropp is in agreement with the conditions of
approval. She stated it is very important to both applicants that this request moves
forward.
Commissioner Pohl questioned what would happen if utilities and/or easements are
found along the new property lines. Planner Chilcott stated that a condition of
approval should be added to place all utility lines in an easement.
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Pohl) to recommend approval to the
Town Board of Trustees the Amended Plat of Lots 21 & 22, Block 7, Country
Club Manor, 505 & 507 Driftwood Avenue with the following conditions and it
passed unanimously with one absent.
1. Compliance with Greg Sievers’ January 6, 2004 memo to Alison Chilcott.
2. Compliance with Greg White's December 30, 2003 letter to Alison Chilcott.
3. Compliance with James Duell’s December 31, 2003 letter to Alison Chilcott.
4. Compliance with items #2 and #3 in Dave Gaul’s January 14, 2004 letter to
Alison Chilcott with the exception that the address referred to in item #3
should not be placed on the plat.
5. The overhead power line that is not contained within the USBR easement
shall be relocated into a utility easement or an easement shall be dedicated
for the line in its current location.
6. The lot sizes shown on the plat do not total correctly and shall be revised.
7. The ten foot wide sewer service easement shall be labeled as a private
easement and the dedication statement shall be revised to dedicate this
private easement in addition to public easements.
8. This plat shall dedicate ten foot public utility easements along all property
lines with adjustments where the existing house on proposed Lot B is closer
than ten feet from the property line.
9. The applicant shall comply with EVDC §10.5.1 Monuments.
10. Private utility easements shall be dedicated for any utilities that cross the
shared property line.
6. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, RANCH MEADOW II CONDOMINIUMS,
LOT 16, RANCH MEADOW SUBDIVISION, 1630 Raven Circle, Applicant
Richard H. Wille Trust
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a proposal to condominiumize units
on Lot 16, Ranch Meadow Subdivision which were approved with Development Plan
01-07 to allow for individual sale of the units. The submitted preliminary
condominium map complies with the approved development plan. Public Works has
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
January 20, 2004
requested a stop sign be installed at the driveway exit. The Department of Building
Safety had comments regarding setback certificates and compliance with adopted
building codes and accessibility requirements. Upper Thompson Sanitation District
had comments regarding plant investment fees.
Public Comment:
Winston Richards, 1535 Raven Circle Unit A, spoke in opposition of the proposal.
He stated this proposal is inconsistent with the rest of Ranch Meadows, a single
family residential neighborhood, and inconsistent with the covenants.
Rich Wille, applicant, stated that the original development plan allowed Lot 16, which
was exempt from the original Ranch Meadows condominium declarations, to be
added to Ranch Meadows at a later date. The lot was not added to the development
due to finances.
Phil Balcomb, 1519 Raven Circle, Unit I, spoke in opposition of the proposal. He
stated the Ranch Meadows covenants requires a 6 month lease for those who chose
to rent their unit. This proposal is not consistent with the rest of the subdivision.
George Weaklim, 1555 Raven Circle Unit G, spoke in opposition of the proposal. He
is concerned with the increased traffic and noise this proposal may bring to the
neighborhood.
Sarah Wille stated 2 of the 12 units have been sold to long term residents.
Director Joseph stated that nightly rentals are allowed with a proper business license
in all residential zoning districts pursuant to a Town Ordinance.
It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town
Board of Trustees the Preliminary Condominium Map for Ranch Meadow II
Condominiums, Lot 16, Ranch Meadow Subdivision with the following
conditions, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
1. Compliance with Development Plan 01-07.
2. Compliance with Greg Sievers’ memo to Dave Shirk dated January 6, 2004.
3. Compliance with Will Birchfield’s memo to Dave Shirk dated January 9, 2004.
4. Compliance with Ron Witt’s memo to Dave Shirk dated December 30, 2003.
7. CONCEPT PLAN, SIXTH GREEN ESTATES, PORTION OF LOT 9, SOUTH ST.
VRAIN ADDITION, 1380 South Saint Vrain, Applicants: Joan Van Horn & Robert
L DokkoTi
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a concept plan for the potential
subdivision of a 2 acre “E” Estate zoned flagpole lot. The purpose of the concept
plan is to request that Planning Commission grant a modification to the limit of four
units being served by a private driveway. The existing driveway serves three units,
a house and two units of a four-plex. This proposal would raise that total to five
units. Appendix D of the Estes Valley Development Code allows the Town Engineer
or Designee to grant modifications or waivers to the Road Design and Construction
Standards provided the requested modification/waiver either: advances the goals
and purposes of (the EVDC); and/or, results in less visual impact, more effective
environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in
developing a site, or results in the use of superior engineering standards than those
required by (the EVDC). It is staff’s opinion the requested modification does neither.
Commissioner Pohl questioned the advisability of taking action on this request
because it is not a complete application. He does not feel there is enough
information and would like to see it come in front of the Commission as a complete
submittal before taking any action. Commissioner Homeier asked if it was normal
practice to have a concept plan come before the Commission. Director Joseph
advised it is not standard practice: however it is not barred by the code.
Commissioner Horton stated he does not feel it is inappropriate to look at concept
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
January 20, 2004
plans.
Joan Van Horn and Bob Dekker, applicants, were present. Ms. Van Horn stated
they were advised by staff that this would be a feasible approach to see if this one
issue would be a problem before spending a lot of money on a full proposal. Mr.
Dekker stated the access would be paved improving access to the current dwellings.
He reiterated that they are trying to see if the Commission would have issue with this
one item before spending a lot of money on a full proposal.
Public Comment:
Sid Hoskins, 1240 Holiday Lane, spoke in opposition of the proposed concept plan.
He thinks the plan fails to show how this modification meets the criteria of the code.
He feels additional homes in the area would change the character of the
neighborhood.
Robert Citta, 1140 Holiday Lane, spoke in favor of the proposed concept plan.
Commissioner Homeier and Amos are not in support of concept plans as an
appropriate applicaton to be heard by the Planning Commission. Commissioner
Kitchen and Horton are in support of reviewing concept plans in the future.
Commissioner Hix is concerned with the overall project and with setting a
precedence. Chair Amos stated the Commission would not like to have concept
plans brought in front of them in the future.
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Homeier) to disapprove the Concept Plan,
Sixth Green Estates, due to the inappropriate presentation and the lack of
information and it passed with one absent. Those voting “yes” Pohl, Homeier,
Amos and Hix. Those voting “no” Kitchen and Horton.
8. FALL RIVER VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT, LOTS 1, 6, 7, PORTIONS OF LOTS
16 & 17, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION, 511 West Elkhorn Avenue, Applicant: The
Lane iil Group, Inc.
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report.
Rezoning Request
This is a request to rezone all land within the boundaries of the Fall River Village
Preliminary P.U.D plat to the “CO” Outlying Commercial zoning district with the
Planned Mixed-Use PUD-M overlay district. The rezoning request meets the three
criteria for rezoning in §3.3.D of the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff believes
the planned unit 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. The minimum parcel size allowable for lots to qualify
for the “PUD-M” overlay district is three acres. This parcel is 7.051 acres and
exceeds the minimum requirement. The investments on the part of the Estes Park
Urban Renewal Authority for construction of Performance Park and the Town for
construction of the riverwalk extension are intended to stimulate this type of
development.
PUD #04-01 (Preliminary Subdivision & Development Plan)
The preliminary subdivision plat subdivides a 7.051 acre property into eight lots and
2 outlots. Lots 1 through 7, on the upper portion of the property, are proposed for
single-family development. Lot 8, on the lower portion of the property, is proposed
for sixty-four accommodations units. The applicant plans to condominiumize Lot 8
and sell the accommodations units as time-share condominiums. The Estes Park
Urban Renewal Authority is supportive of the PUD application. It is staffs opinion
that the development is well designed, including the proposed building design, and is
supportive of the plan. Staff questions the need for gated access points, but the
gates do not prevent compliance with Town regulations. This application involves
redevelopment. There are 33 mobile homes, seven of which are owned by Robert
A. Filbey, and one single-family home on the property. These homes provide low-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
January 20, 2004
income housing for Estes Park. Redevelopment will involve removal of these mobile
homes and the single-family home, requiring current residents to relocate. Outlet B,
a portion of Fall River and the associated riverfront, will be dedicated to the Town for
non-motorized access. This will protect this portion of the river corridor and protect
wildlife habitat. The subdivision provides pedestrian linkages by dedicating public
pedestrian access on the internal private driveways and streets. A sign easement is
proposed on Outlot B for the accommodations business on Lot 8.
Noel Lane, applicant and son-in-law of Robert Filbey, gave a brief history of the
family’s ownership of the land and his father-in-law’s concerns through the years for
those who lived in the mobile home park. They were approached a year and a half
ago by the Town to provide an easement along the river in order to continue the
riverwalk along Elkhorn Avenue. He stated the family saw an opportunity to
preserve the river and the land along the rivers edge by dedicating a 1 acre park to
the Town with the redevelopment of the property. With the knowledge that the
riverwalk is a pedestrain park, they took the effort to design the new devleopment as
a pedestrain friendly environment. Mr. Lane agrees with staff comments and
recommendations. He advised there will be no short term rentals or overnight
rentals allowed on the single-family lots. The private roads will not be converted to
public right-of-way. He stated 60 percent of the units will be ADA accessible and
sprinked in accordance with the International Building Code.
Commissioner Horton questioned the purpose of the gates. Noel Lane stated there
were 3 gates initially planned for the development, 2 of which are being eliminated.
The gate at Sunny Acres Court/Far View Drive intersection will remain with separate
access to pedestrains. Commissioner Kitchen feels the gate is a mixed message.
Commissioner Horton does not feel the gate is necessary. Mr. Lane stated the gate
lets the public know the street is private.
Steve Lane of Basis Architecture gave a 3 dimensional architectural presentation.
Public Comment:
Gerald Allmer of the Colorado Coalition for Mobile/Manufactured Home Resident
Rights (CMR2) stated this proposal will impact 33 families. He expressed concern
that the proposal has not addressed the relocation of the people who have lived in
the trailer park for many years. He advised there is no other place in the Estes
Valley to move the trailers. Mr. Allmer stated there needs to be a provision made as
part of this development to assist those that need to relocate their homes
Enda Mills Kiley, spoke in opposition to relocating.
Patricia Washborn, Community Services Coalition, stated they have formed a task
force to help find residents of the mobile home park new homes. They would like a
time extension for the removal of the trailers. She stated it would be their preference
to keep these people in the workforce here in Estes Park.
David Bye, Colorado Legal Service, was present to represent Stan Kessman. He
stated the proposed development will remove 33 affordable housing units in the
Estes Valley, which is a cost to the community. He advised that the developer has
been in discussions with the Town for a year and a half with no notice to the
homeowners. During this time trailers have been sold with the assurance they could
stay. He stated the Commission should consider the cost and how it should be
allocated so the poorest of the poor are not the ones bearing the cost of this
development.
Christina Cabeza, Multicultural Connections, stated that someone needs to look out
for these people who are being displaced.
Earl Matson, Community Services Coalition, stated that low income/affordable
housing in Estes Park is going to be impacted by this project. The coalition would
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
January 20, 2004
like a time extension for the relocation of the mobile home park residents.
Eryn Mills, 511 W. Elkhorn Avenue #77, stated she needs more time to find a place
for her grandmother, who is on a fixed income, to live. Her grandmother is currently
on the waiting list for low income housing.
Helen Smith, renter at the trailer park, spoke in opposition to the proposed
development. She feels it will be a loss of a community.
Steve Spry, 260, 265, 267 Sunny Acres Court, spoke in favor of the proposed
development. He is an adjacent property owner and welcomes the redevelopment.
Stan Kessman, 511 W. Elkhorn Avenue #47, spoke in opposition to the proposed
development.
Robert Cressy, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He stated he has
no means to move the trailer that his mother lives in. He feels they should have
been notified earlier that the park may close.
Rita Kureija, Estes Park Housing Authority, advised there are 110 low income
housing units in Estes Park that are currently full; however the waiting list is not long.
She stated her office also has 44 Section 8 vouchers for which the waiting list is
long. The Authority has been trying to obtain additional vouchers without success.
Denna Aver, 553 W. Elkhorn Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed
development. She owns a trailer in the mobile home park for employee housing.
She stated it is difficult to find affordable seasonal housing in Estes Park.
Bryan Michner, EVIA, stated affordable housing is a communtiy wide issue. He feels
that given more time to discuss potential options that a solution could be found for
the residents of the mobile home park.
Noel Lane stated he has heard the concerns of the residents. He stated the Estes
Park Housing Authority has only received 2 applications from the residents of the
mobile home park for assistance. Since the notices went out to the residents, 70
percent have not paid their rent. Given that the park runs on a tight budget, this is
placing a burden on his family. Mr. Lane stated they will assist in any way they can
but it has to go both ways.
Commissioner Amos stated the overriding statement seems to be the need for more
time to relocate the residents. He questioned whether or not Mr. Lane would
consider moving the May 31, 2004 deadline. Noel Lane stated the deadline is to
meet the legal requirements of the Mobile Home Act which requires a 6 month
notice. He has discussed placing a date on the plat or through a developer’s
agreement defining how long trailers could remain. The developer’s agreernent may
allow up to a 24 month period, from the date of approval, in which the trailers may
remain.
Commissioner Homeier stated he has heard those who have spoken and requested
more time. He feels that there may be more that can be done to provide more time
but this Commission does not have the power to correct this situation. He advised
that the Planning Commission is asked by the Town Board and the County
Commissioners to review plans to make sure they meet the requirements of the
Estes Valley Development Code. Commissioner Kitchen agrees with Commissioner
Homeier’s statements.
It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town
Board of Trustees the rezoning request to “CO” Outlying Commerciai zoning
district with the Pianned Mixed-Use PUD-M overlay district for Lots 1, 6, 7,
Portions of Lots 16 & 17, Sunny Acres Addition with the findings and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 20, 2004
8
conditions recommended by staff, and it passed unanimously with one
absent.
1. Town Board approval and recordation of the proposed Planned Unit
Development #04-01.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Town
Board of Trustees the preliminary subdivision plat portion of PUD application
#04-01, Lots 1, 6, 7, Portions of Lots 16 & 17, Sunny Acres Addition with the
findings and conditions recommended by staff and all waivers and
modifications listed in the staff report, and it passed unanimously with one
absent.
1. Town Board approval of the development plan portion of PUD application
#04-01.
2. Approval of this plan shall include approval of waivers/minor modifications
discussed in the staff findings section of the staff report.
Waivers/Modifications
a. No density bonuses were granted.
Single - Family Lots 1 through 7 and Outlot A
a. District landscaping buffer standards are waived.
b. The “CO” Outlying Commercial zoning district setbacks are waived.
c. Flagpole lots are not permitted in the “CO” zoning district. This standard is
waived to allow proposed Lot 3 as a flagpole lot.
d. The requirement for flagpole lot driveways to be designed to allow
vehicles to drive out forward is waived.
e. The minimum lot size in the “CO” zoning district of 15,000 square feet is
waived for Lots 1 through 6.
f. The floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25 is waived.
g. The 65 percent maximum impervious coverage requirement is waived.
h. The requirement to have written permission from neighbors to locate a
driveway within three feet of a property line is waived.
i. The requirement to provide a sidewalk along Sunny Acres Court is
waived.
j. The Town Engineer has the ability to waive EVDC Appendix D standards
in certain situations and may have waived or modified standards at the
staff level.
Accommodations Lot 8
a. The “CO” zoning district minimum building/structure setbacks for Lot 8 are
waived.
b. The thirty foot height limit is waived for Lot 8 to allow buildings to be no
more than thirty-two feet high.
c. The prohibition of off-site signs is waived to allow an off-site sign in the
Outlot B sign easement for the Lot 8 accommodations sign.
d. The requirement to provide landscaped buffers between was waived with
the exception that district landscaping buffers are required with the “RM”
zoned lot to the west.
e. The requirement to preservation vegetation in the river corridor is waived
to allow removal of vegetation as shown on the development plan.
f. Clearing, excavation and grading on slopes greater than thirty percent
(30%) is expressly approved for the two spa areas.
g. The requirement to provide two-way directional arrows on the paving at
the property entrances is waived.
h. The Town Engineer has the ability to waive EVDC Appendix D standards
in certain situations and may have waived or modified standards at the
staff level.
3. Compliance with Will Birchfield’s January 8, 2004 memo to Alison Chilcott.
4. Compliance with Greg Sievers’ January 12, 2004 memo to Alison Chilcott.
5. Compliance with Greg White’s December 30, 2003 letter to Alison Chilcott.
6. If the access easement recorded with Reception Number 97003184 is to be
vacated with this plat all those owners benefiting from this easement shall
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 9
January 20, 2004
sign the plat or the easement shall be vacated through a separate document
recorded at the same time as the plat.
7. A note shall be added to the plat stating that the floor area ratio standards do
not apply to Lots 1 through 7.
8. The sewer easement recorded at Book 1859 Page 849 shall be vacated by
separate document and a new easement dedicated prior to issuance of a
building permit for buildings to be located on top of the easement and with
review and approval by the Estes Park Sanitation District.
9. The ten foot utility easement recorded with Book 2069 Page 640 has an
arrow to an area much wider than ten feet. The location of this easement
shall be clarified. There is a dashed line on the west side of Lot 8 next to the
words “Filbey Court." The purpose of this line shall be identified or it shall be
removed.
10. A drainage easement shall be added to Lot 8 to accept drainage from Lot 4.
11. Fire lane striping shall be provided in the areas requested by the Fire Chief.
12. This capacity of the bridge shall be shown on the development plan and shall
be posted on the bridge.
13. The applicant shall comply EVDC §10.5.1 Monuments.
14. The plat shall clarify who benefits from the sign easement, i.e. Lot 8. A note
shall be added to the plat or a separate document shall be recorded with
Town review and approval addressing items such as assigning landscaping
and irrigation maintenance responsibilities to the developer or the Town.
Staff’s opinion is that the easement shall allow one off-site sign to advertise
the business on Lot 8 only and shall not be used to advertise other off-site
businesses and that this use shall be clarified.
15. The dedication statement shall be reworded to clarify which easements will be
dedicated to the public and which easements are private.
16. Emergency access shall be provided between Sunny Lane and Filbey Court
will any required easements dedicated on the plat. Any additional height
variance that may be required as a result of grading for the emergency
access shall be reviewed and approved by Town Board.
17. The subdivision covenants shall address whether or not short-term nightly
rentals are allowed on Lots 1 through 7.
Commissioner Horton stated he would like to have all gates removed from the
development. He feels the gates serve no purpose.
It was moved and seconded (Horton/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the
Town Board of Trustees the development plan portion of PUD application #04-
01 with an amendment to removal all gates from the development, Lots 1, 6, 7,
Portions of Lots 16 & 17, Sunny Acres Addition, with the finding and
conditions recommended by staff and all waivers and modifications listed in
the staff report. The motion faiied with one absent. Those voting “yes
Kitchen, Horton, and Amos. Those voting “no” Hix, Homeier and Pohl.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Homeier) to recommend approval to the Town
Board of Trustees the development plan portion of PUD application #04-01,
Lots 1, 6, 7, Portions of Lots 16 & 17, Sunny Acres Addition, with the findings
and conditions recommended by staff and ali waivers and modifications listed
in the staff report and it passed with one absent. Those voting “yes” Kitchen,
Hix, Amos, Homeier and Pohl. Those voting “no” Horton.
1. Approval of this plan shall include approval of waivers/minor modifications
discussed in the staff findings section of the staff report.
2. A note shall be added to the development plan stating that all “CO” zoning
district standards apply to this development plan unless specifically waived
with this development plan. See preliminary subdivision plat condition #2 for
a complete list of waivers.
3. The Floor Area Ratio and Density Calculations section refers to Outlot C.
This shall be changed to Outlot B. The impervious coverage for Lot 8 shall be
added to the development plan, including the total square footage of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 20, 2004
10
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
impervious coverage and the percentage of impervious coverage. The net
density calculation shall refer to guest units less than or equal to 800 square
feet rather than guest units less than 800 square feet. The net density
calculation for Lot 8 shall not subtract out private streets since no private
streets are proposed.
Detailed grading plans for the two spa areas, stamped by an engineer, shall
be submitted with the final PUD submittal for staff review and approval and
shall address slope instability.
If retaining walls are proposed in the spa areas they shall be required to
comply with EVDC §7.2.B.6. Also EVDC §7.2.B.2 prohibits changes to
natural grade of more than ten feet. This requirement shall apply to the
proposed spa areas.
Best management practices shall be used to filter water prior to release into
Fall River and details of filtration devises shall be provided.
A note shall be added to the development plan stating that rock cuts for the
spa areas and utilities shall comply with EVDC §7.2.C.6. Cut Rock Treatment
which requires that “Disturbed areas resulting in rock cuts shall be treated
with a rock-staining agent to the extent necessary to match the predominant
colors of the surrounding soils or rocks.”
Extra care shall be taken to ensure survival of the spruce tree in front of the
existing single family house and between proposed Buildings 1 and 2. A note
shall be added to the construction and landscaping plans that require an
arborist to oversee installation of utilities near the spruce tree between
Buildings 1 and 2.
Private open area shall be shown on the development plan. Private open
area shall be permanently reserved as open area, and ongoing maintenance
ensured. Staff recommends accomplishing this by designating perrnanent
open area on the first condominium map, ensuring maintenance in the
declaration and conditioning preliminary condominium map approval on this.
10.The landscaping plan sheet L1.1 shows nine evergreens and four ornamental
trees for a total of thirteen trees and no shrubs. Landscaping plan shall be
revised to provide the required number of trees and shrubs. Also staff
recommends increasing the number of birch trees and reducing the number
of pear trees.
11 .The trash enclosures are required to comply with EVDC §7.5.F.2.c and EVDC
§7.5.H concerning screening and a sketch of the proposed screening shall be
submitted to staff for review and approval prior to approval of the first building
permit.
12. Where solid fencing/walls are proposed abutting public roads the landscaping
plan shall be revised to comply with EVDC §7.5.F.2 FencesAAfalls Abutting
Public Roads which states in part “Where opaque of solid fencing will abut a
public road, it shall be screened from the road. Breaks in the screening shall
be created and changes in fence setbacks, heights or materials shall also be
utilized to provide visual diversity” Options include varying the height of the
wall, obtaining permission to plant trees and shrubs in the right-of-way,
providing more variety in the wall design. Since the wall will be lower than the
Far View right-of-way it will be less visually imposing than if it were on the
same grade as the right-of-way.
13. A detail for the security fencing shown on L1.1 shall be added to the plans for
staff review and approval.
14. Construction details are provided in the construction drawings for concrete
walls. These walls shall be shown on the development plan if proposed and
shall be reviewed and approved by staff.
15. The plan shall be revised to comply with the fencings/wall standards in the
Estes Valley Development Code.
16. General Note #7 shall be revised to require garbage containers for the Lots 1
through 7 to be bear resistant as recommended by the Division of Wiidlife in
their January 2, 2004 letter.
17. The bicycle rack locations in front of Building 6 and 8 shall be reconsidered
since shrubs are proposed in these locations.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
January 20, 2004
11
18. One-way directional arrows shall be provided for the landscaped island near
Buildings 3-5.
19. A note on the development plan shall state that the gate to The Willows shall
be reviewed and approved by the Town Fire and Police Department.
20. The development plan shall clarify that the sight distances called out for the
West Elkhorn Avenue and Far View Drive are minimum sight distances.
21. Text that is overlapping and difficult to read on the development plan shall be
reworked. All sheets that are part of the development plan shall be labeled as
# of 7. The first four sheets are labeled as described.
22. A scale shall be added to the landscaping plan sheet LI .1.
23. The general location description on sheet 1 of 7 of the development plan shall
be consistent with the legal description on the preliminary plat, e.g. the
development plan refers to Lot 17B and a portion of Lot 17A. The plat does
not refer to Lot 17B and refers to all of Lot 17A.
24. The parking lot shall be redesigned to provide adequate emergency access
for emergency vehicles.
Preliminary Condominium Map
This item was overlooked and will be heard by the Commission at the Febraury 17,
2004 meeting.
9. REPORTS
None.
There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Wendell Amos, Chair
cqu%lyn Williamson, Recording Secretary