HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2005-07-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
Juiy 19, 2005,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Joyce Kitchen; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike
Eisenlauer, George Hix, Bill Horton, Betty Hull, and Edward Pohl
Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Horton, and Pohl
Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, and
Recording Secretary Roederer
Chair Kitchen, Commissioner Hull, Planner Shirk
Acting Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the
chronological sequence of the meeting.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated June 21,2005.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Amos) that the Consent Agenda be accepted,
and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 02-17, VISTA RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 3,
Vista Ridge Subdivision Phase IV, 820 - 862 Crabapple Lane, Applicant: Estes
Investors, LLC
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The original development plan approval
for Lot 3 required either approval of a height variance for the southern- and
easternmost building or a redesign to lower the building height. The site redesign
complies with the height requirements and staff is supportive of the revised layout,
which lowers the height of buildings adjacent to Dry Gulch Road and helps minimize
some of the impact of the high-density development. Revisions include a reduction
in the number of units from twenty-two to twenty, driveway redesign, and
construction of two buildings along the eastern property line rather than one. This lot
is subject to a development agreement, which includes waivers/modifications to
Estes Valley Development Code standards and specifies the attainable/market-rate
unit mix. Since the site design and unit mix are changing, revisions are needed to
the development agreement, and Town Board review of both the agreement and the
development plan are required. Planner Chilcott noted that if the recommended
conditions of approval are met, the development plan will comply with all applicable
standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code and is consistent with the
policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and all other relevant
plans.
The 1.835-acre lot is zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential and the proposed use is
permitted. The proposed density of 10.90 units per acre does not exceed the
maximum allowable. The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 32.1 percent exceeds
the maximum allowable of thirty percent, and the proposed impervious coverage of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Juiy 19, 2005
the maximum allowable of thirty percent, and the proposed impervious coverage of
approximately fifty-five percent exceeds the maximum allowable of fifty percent.
Planning staff is supportive of the proposed FAR and impervious coverage because
modification of these standards relieves practical difficulties in developing the site for
attainable housing. With the attainable-housing density bonus, more floor area and
impervious coverage is needed for the units and parking. All units meet the required
setbacks, with the exception of the southwesternmost unit in Building E3 and the two
northern units in Building G2. These units’ decks encroach into the setback a
maximum of four feet; the setback is internal to the property and does not affect
neighboring property. The proposed landscape plan meets the EVDC landscaping
requirements. Current erosion around the culvert on the east side of Dry Gulch Road
must be repaired, and grading to improve the sight visibility for the Wildfire Road/Dry
Gulch Road intersection will be required, prior to issuance of the first building permit
on Lot 3.
The proposed attainable units have one-car garages and one unenclosed parking
space in front of the garage; market-rate units have two-car garages and two
unenclosed parking spaces in front of the garage. Two additional guest spaces are
proposed for the attainable units rather than the three required; planning staff
supports this proposal due to the limited amount of space available for additional
parking. Although the total number of proposed parking spaces exceeds the
requirement of 2.25 parking spaces per unit, the market rate units have more than
2.25 spaces per unit and the attainable units have less than 2.25 spaces per unit.
The proposed driveway for the southwesternmost unit in Building E3 will be widened
by approximately five feet and a small, curb-high retaining wall will be added to
provide safer ingress/egress. The mailbox cluster units shown on the proposed plan
will serve only units on Lot 3.
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to
adjacent neighbors for consideration and comment. Comments were received from
Estes Park Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, and Upper
Thompson Sanitation District. No comments from adjacent property owners were
received.
Public Comment:
Dave Lingle of Aller-Lingle Architects was present to represent the applicant. He
stated the proposed revised development plan addresses grading and drainage
concerns as well as eliminating the need to request a height variance for two
buildings. He provided detailed information on the proposed attainable and market-
rate units as well as how the proposed plan meets ADA requirements.
It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to recommend approval of the
Revised Development Plan 02-17, Vista Ridge Condominiums, Lot 3, Vista
Ridge Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with
two absent.
CONDITIONS:
1. Compliance with the engineering comments in Greg Sievers’ June 17, 2005
memo, subject to staff approval.
2. Compliance with the comments in Greg White’s June 23, 2005 letter.
3. A fifteen-foot setback from Dry Gulch Road shall be shown rather than a twenty-
five-foot setback.
4. Additional detail shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance
of the first building permit on the retaining walls and areas adjacent to the walls.
5. The soil around the culvert on the east side of Dry Gulch Road has eroded, and
riprap is no longer in place. This shall be repaired prior to issuance of the first
building permit on Lot 3.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Juiy 19, 2005
6. After construction is complete, the engineer shall submit a certificate that the
grading and drainage was completed in accordance with the approved plan and
that the final structures and topographical changes will not result in or contribute
to soil erosion or sedimentation, will not interfere with any existing drainage
course in such a manner as to cause damage to any adjacent property or result
in the deposition of debris or sediment on any public ways, will not present any
hazard to any persons or property, and will have no detrimental influence upon
the public welfare or upon the total development of the watershed.
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the revised state erosion control
plan and application shall be submitted to staff, and the grading and erosion
control plan shall be updated to reflect the grading plan shown on the
development plan.
8. The existing trees on the southeast corner of the lot shall be noted on the
landscape plan as existing, the diameter of significant trees noted, and any trees
to be removed shown.
9. The landscaping plan shall be revised when detailed plans are submitted for the
retaining walls to ensure that landscaping is provided in retaining-wall terraces.
10. If different building lights are proposed than were used for prior buildings, a cut
sheet for the proposed lighting fixture shail be submitted for staff review and
approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. A metering/tap iocation plan (drawing) including metering sizing, metering
locations, tap locations, and addresses served by each shall be submitted to the
Water Department prior to issuance of the first building permit.
12. Sight visibility improvements are required for the Wildfire Ridge/Dry Gulch Road
(CR63E) intersection prior to issuance of the first building permit on Lot 3.
13. A safer location for the proposed mailbox cluster units shall be proposed for staff
review and approval.
4. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, THE LINKS OF ESTES PARK, a portion of
Lot 3, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1006 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Applicant: Bud
and Rachel Jarvis
Planner Chilcott recommended that The Links of Estes Park Development Plan 05-
02 serve as The Links of Estes Park preliminary condominium map because the
preliminary condominium requires compliance with the same adequate public facility
standards with which the development plan must comply. The development plan
was reviewed at staff level at the request of the applicant because less than ten
units were proposed; Development Plan 05-02 was conditionally approved by staff.
Planner Chilcott reviewed the development plan staff report. This was a proposal to
remove the existing buildings and build three residential duplexes on a 1.016-acre
lot zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential. If the conditions of approval are met, the
development plan will comply with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes
Valley Development Code and will be consistent with the policies, goals, and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant plans. The
development plan complies with all density and dimensional standards. Units 1 and
6 are proposed to be built up to the setback line, which is also the edge of a
proposed utility easement. The applicant proposed construction of a 948 c.f.
detention basin for stormwater management; the Estes Valley Recreation and Park
District expressed no concerns with the proposed pian. The septic tank currently
located on the property must be pumped dry, crushed, and filled with soil. The lot will
be served by the Upper Thompson Sanitation District; final approval of the sewer
easements will be required by the Town Board. The lot is served by Town water;
ISO calculations show that the three existing fire hydrants provide adequate flow for
fire protection.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 19, 2005
While the property has direct access to State Highway 7, the requirement for a traffic
impact study was waived because site visibility exceeds the maximum required in
each direction and a center turn lane (scramble lane) already exists on Highway 7.
Driveway width is required to be twenty feet; the proposed driveway is twenty feet
wide at the property entrance and then narrows to eighteen feet to help save an
existing twelve-inch conifer. The existing driveway on the Eagles Landing property,
which is used to access this property, meets the width requirements in all but one
area, where it narrows to fifteen feet near a landscaped island. Staff waived the
requirement that driveways serving multi-family development may provide access to
not more than 120 vehicle trips per day, finding the operation of the existing
driveway to be adequate, and in order to encourage infill development.
The request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent
neighbors for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Estes
Park Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, Upper Thompson
Sanitation District, Estes Valiey Recreation and Park District, Larimer County
Department of Health and Environment, and the Colorado Department of
Transportation. No written comments were received from adjacent property owners.
Public Comment:
Ross Stephen of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent
the applicant. He stated that the applicant has agreed to the recommended
conditions of approval.
Dennis King, president of the Eagles Landing Homeowners’ Association, was
present and noted the homeowners’ concerns regarding the access easement
across the Eagles Landing property. He stated that the deed from 1962 which
reserves the easement provides an easement of 207 feet. The homeowners’
association hired a surveyor to measure the distance from Highway 7 to the
applicant’s property and found the distance to be 301 feet. He stated there is no
prescriptive easement. He noted the homeowners’ concerns with increased traffic
from the new condominiums, safety issues during construction, and damage to the
driveway caused by increased traffic.
Town Attorney White noted that the length of the easement was not specified on the
development plan and that it is the responsibility of the private parties or the courts
to determine whether an adequate right of access exists. Director Joseph stated that
it would be in the public interest to resolve the easement discrepancy prior to
establishing individual condominium ownership and recommended the Planning
Commission and applicant consider continuing the request to the August meeting.
He noted that the development plan has been approved. Planner Chilcott stated that
a driveway maintenance agreement is one of the conditions of approval for the
development plan.
Mr. Stephen indicated his willingness to continue the condominium map application
to the August Planning Commission meeting.
Ashton Meliott, 1010 S. St. Vrain Avenue, #A1, was present and stated his concerns
regarding the notification process for adjacent property owners. Director Joseph
verified that the neighbor notification had been done in accordance with department
policies and that the correct legal terminology had been used in the letter mailed to
adjacent property owners.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 19, 2005
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) to continue the Preliminary
Condominium Map, The Links of Estes Park, Portion of Lot 3, South Saint
Vrain Addition, 1006 S. St. Vrain Avenue, to the Planning Commission meeting
of August 16, 2005 to allow the applicant time to attempt to resolve the
easement discrepancy, and the motion passed unanimousiy with two absent.
5 AMENDED PLAT, Lots 2 & 3, Sweet Minor Subdivision, and a Portion of Lots
' 11 & 12, West y2 of Section 6, T4N, R73W of the 6th P.M., 2930 Little Valley
Road, Applicant: Jananne McPherson and Eiise Sweet
Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request to realign the boundary
between two existing single-family lots, provide a concise legal description for a third
single-family lot, and create a non-bulldable outlet. On May 16, 2005, the Board of
County Commissioners found that the southern portion of the lot, proposed Lot 3A,
was a separate legal lot, provided it be combined with the northern portion of the lot
and a one-acre outlet be created. The size of the one-acre outlet is the difference
between the 1.5-acre Lot 3A and the 2.5-acre minimum lot size in the RE-Rural
Estate zoning district. This non-buildable outlet ensures no net increase in density
will occur. The proposal complies with all application sections of the Estes Valley
Development Code, and approval of this minor subdivision will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or
in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the Code.
This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and adjacent
property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns
were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of
public services. Pertinent comments from Town Attorney White and Public Works
were either addressed or are recommended conditions of approval.
Commissioner Amos questioned the future ownership of the outlet, the effect of
creating the substandard-sized Lot 3A, and whether Lot 3A could be rezoned in the
future Director Joseph stated a future purchaser of Lot 3A would not necessarily
become the owner of the outlet and that Lot 3A would be a nonconforming lot in the
existing RE-Rural Estate zoning district. The owner of Lot 3A could apply for
rezoning, but it would be unnecessary due to the fact that the lot will be recognized
as a legally nonconforming buildable lot. Town Attorney White clarified that this
proposed amended plat provides three lots and an outlet, none of which are
connected.
Joe Coop of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the
applicants. He requested clarification on two of the recommended conditions of
approval, including wording for dedication of the “horse" trai easement which s
recommended rather than required, and the requirement for inclusion in the Not*)]®"]
Colorado Water Conservancy District, which is not triggered unless the applicant
applios for a Town water tap.
Brad Rowher, adjacent property owner at 28 Centennial Drive, questioned who
would own Outlot A. Town Attorney White stated that it is jointly °wned
owners of proposed lots 2A and 4A. If the amended plat is approved, they may deed
the lot as a non-buildable outlot into the ownership of whoever they desire.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 19, 2005
1
2.
It was moved and seconded (Horton/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the
Amended Plat, Lots 2 & 3, Sweet Minor Subdivision, and a Portion of Lots 11 &
12, West of Section 6, T4N, R73W of the 6th P.M., 2930 Little Valley Road, to
the Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff, and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when
the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature, and the motion
passed uanimously with two absent.
CONDITIONS:
The “horse” trail easement shall be clarified as to its use, with the
recommendation that the applicant consider dedicating a multi-purpose (including
horse use), non-motorized, public trail easement.
At the start of the building permit process, if the properties are to be served by
the Town of Estes Park water system, the properties must show proof of
inclusion in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District prior to application
for Town of Estes Park water and an “Application for a Water Tap Outside Town
Limits” must be approved for each property at the start of the building permit
The following note shall be included on the plat: “Boundary lines indicated on
this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted
hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any
purposes. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be
considered an addition to, shall become a part of, and shall be conveyed
together with, each lot as shown.”
^t. Outlot A shall be labeled “Non-Buildable.” . * . A
5. The access easement shall include a specified width and shall reference Lot 4A
instead of Lot 3A. , . .....,
The dedication statement shall include the dedication of the private access/utility
easement and the reservation of perpetual easement for the installation and
maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities.
The former lot line shall be more clearly delineated.
One of the “County ROW” labels shall be removed.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
Chair Pohl called for a five-minute recess at 3:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at
3:33 p.m.
6. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT, KINGSWOOD SUBDIVISION, Lot 24, Little
Prospect Mountain Subdivision, Stanley Circle Drive, Appiicant: Mike
Kingswood
Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request to subdivide a 1.55-acre
lot in the E-Estate zoning district into two lots. Approval of this subdivision wou
allow construction of one additional house and would provide site-specific limits of
disturbance” standards that do not apply to the existing lot. The ProPos^'^r)/es !°
fulfill several policy statements found in the Comprehensive Plan, inJ;luc,in9
encourage infill of older core areas, encourage housing infill in the existing urban
area encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community
that ’ is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods, and
encourage urban land use within the Town limits of Estes Park.
The E-Estate zoning district has a minimum lot size of y2 acre. Because the property
has an average slope greater than 12%, the minimum lot size is
an average slope of 23.05%, which requires an increase of 11,054 square feet and
equates to a minimum lot size of 32,834 square feet. Lot 1 is Proposed to be 2^370
sauare feet which does not meet the slope-adjusted minimum lot size of 32,834
square feet.’ Lot 2 has an average slope of 18.68%, which requires an ir|orease
6^665 square feet and equates to a minimum lot size of 28,445 square feet. Lot 2 is
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 19, 2005
proposed to be 39,143 square feet, thus exceeding the adjusted minimum lot size.
The applicant is requesting a minor modification to the adjusted minimum lot size for
Lot 1. Such modification must advance purposes of the Code and does not lead to
higher density. Planning staff is supportive of the minor modification because it will
not result in additional sites and will provide a more logical lot-line configuration.
Limits of disturbance must be established; staff recommends that the proposed limits
of disturbance be increased to preserve rock outcroppings and trees, and to
increase the setback from Stanley Circle Drive. Staff recommends that the proposed
driveway access points shown on the submitted plans be removed.
The road should be widened to twenty-two feet. Sidewalk construction is not
recommended at this time because it would create an isolated section of sidewalk in
an area that is not planned for any sidewalk/trail construction. However, the Public
Works department recommended that a public easement for sidewalk be set aside.
A stormwater management plan has been submitted and must be reviewed and
approved by Public Works prior to Town Board review. Adequate public facilities are
available to serve the proposed subdivision. Approval of this minor subdivision will
not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the
neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the Estes Valley
Development Code.
This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and adjacent
property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns
^0f0 Gxpressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of
public services. Letters in opposition to the proposed minor subdivision were
received from the following adjacent property owners: James Lehman, 144 Stanley
Circle Drive; James Geron, 124 Stanley Circle Drive; Laverne and Doris Jean Mertz,
122 Stanley Circle Drive; Charles and Gordon Reno, 128 Stanley Circle Drive; and
Gary Matthews, 139 Stanley Circle Drive. Planning staff and Public Works staff met
with adjacent property owner Bertha West; planning staff also met with Gary
Matthews, Laverne Mertz, and Gordon Reno. Stated concerns reflected the adjacent
property owners’ desires to have wildlife corridors maintained, site disturbance
minimized, stormwater runoff mitigated, and the size of the building envelopes
limited.
Public Comment:
Mike Todd of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represerit the
applicant. He stated the applicant’s concerns with some of the additional limits of
disturbance (LCD) proposed by planning staff, noting that driveway access on
proposed Lot 1 as well as the options for home placement on proposed Lot 2 would
be impacted by the additional LCD. He stated the applicant is requesting that the
condition to widen the road to twenty-two feet be waived. He stated that the
applicant will address the stormwater runoff created by this property but noted it will
be difficult to plan for stormwater management when the future location of homes on
the property is unknown.
Director Joseph suggested the applicant consider identifying two building envelopes
and the access to those envelopes in order to address concerns about where the
buildings will be placed, what the limits of disturbance will be, and stormwater
drainage. Mr. Todd agreed that would reduce the variables but noted that the S|ze of
the structures and their roof lines would still be subject to change. He stated
applicant’s desire to work with the Town to create a responsible development that
fits in with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Amos questioned why the applicant didn’t choose to create hwo lots
that are conforming. Mr. Todd stated the applicant wishes to provde limits of
disturbance while providing each lot with natural outcroppings, trees, and so fort .
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 19, 2005
8
Adjacent property owner Gary Matthews, 139 Stanley Circle Drive, stated his
objection to the proposal, noting that all adjacent lots are over one acre in size and
that approval of the subdivision would be injurious to the character of the
neighborhood. He stated that the development code provides for protection of scenic
areas and ridgeline areas, noting there is a ridge on the property. He stated the
property is a wildlife corridor for elk and two homes would have a greater impact
than one. He requested that specific building envelopes be required if the applicant’s
request was approved.
Laverne Mertz, 122 Stanley Circle Drive, questioned why existing lots continue to be
split in the area. He also noted the lot is used as a wildlife corridor and the existing
ridge on the property. He objected to infill development and encouraged denial of the
request. Mr. Mertz’s wife, Doris Jean Mertz, also addressed the Commission
regarding her concerns about the applicant’s request to reduce the limits of
disturbance proposed by staff, noting especially the ridge on proposed Lot 2, and
asking that Lot 24 remain an intact single-family lot.
Rolf Arentzen, 137 Stanley Circle Drive, stated his concern about stormwater runoff,
noting that a lake forms at the top of his driveway when snow melts or it rains. He
stated he had observed a large granite formation when the water line was put in
several years ago and expressed concerns about potential blasting for construction
of a home on proposed Lot 2. He encouraged consideration of limited building
envelopes.
Director Joseph stated that limits of disturbance are intended to provide a guide for
the final site plan but are subject to modification through site-specific development
plan approval at the building permit stage.
Greg Sievers of the Public Works Department stated that Bertha West, 153 Weston
Lane, voiced concerns about drainage and requested that Mr. Sievers share those
concerns with the Planning Commission. She visited with both Mr. Sievers and
Planner Shirk and followed up with a phone call.
Mr. Sievers also commented on the applicant’s objection to the requirement to widen
the road to twenty-two feet. He stated the recommended road width is a safety issue
for both motorists and residents, noting that drivers tend to cut corners, especially on
unlined roads. He stated that staff had already compromised by reducing the right-
of-way to five feet and by waiving all curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements. He
stated that the stormwater drainage should be addressed by the developer; the
requirement for a stormwater management plan should not be based on issuance of
a building permit and thus on future homeowners.
Discussion among the Commissioners followed regarding statements in the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan that encourage infill development and their concern for
the rights of individual landowners and the rights of neighboring property owners.
Commissioner Pohl asked Mr. Todd whether the appliant would be willing to
continue the request to the August Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Todd stated
that the applicant would be willing to do so.
It was moved and seconded (Horton/Amos) to continue the Minor Subdivision
Plat, Kingswood Subdivision, Lot 24, Littie Prospect Mountain Subdivision,
Staniey Circle, to the August 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting to aiiow
the appiicant to provide a more detaiied drainage plan and the placement of
building enveiopes, and the motion passed uanimousiy with two absent.
n n
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
July 19, 2005
7. REPORTS
Director Joseph stated the Board of County Commissioners approved the Block 7
amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code at their July 18, 2005 meeting.
The Town Board of Trustees declined the proposed changes to the A -
Accommodations zoning district that would restrict permanent occupancy. The Town
Board directed planning staff to work with the Planning Commission to tie up loose
ends in the development code related to that decision, such as adjusting the density
formula to make it more workable, and examining parking and other compatibility
issues. Pianning staff intends to present those proposed code revisions to the
Planning Commission at the September meeting.
Commissioner Amos requested that Director Joseph review the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan’s policy statements regarding infill with the Town Board.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m.
Edward B. Pohl, Acting Chair
ulie:4:loedefer/Recordin6 Secretary