Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2005-08-16RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2005,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Joyce Kitchen; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, and Edward Pohl; one vacancy Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, and Pohl Town Attorney White, Larimer County Chief Planner Legg, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer Chair Kitchen; one vacancy 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 July 19, 2005. b. Amended Plat, Goldmann Lot Combination, Lots 17 & 44, Thunder Mountain Park PUD, 2727 Nimbus Drive, Applicant: Stephen & Joyce Goldmann c. Preliminary Condominium Map, Rocky Point Condominiums, Lot 17A, Amended Plat of Lots 17, 18, & 19, Greeley-Boulder Colony, 2327 Highway 66, Applicant: Crystal Creek Development, Inc. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. REZONING, NYTES PROPERTY, Tract 2, Hillery Parrack Exemption, 1753 Wildfire Road, Applicant: Larimer County Larimer County Chief Planner Russell Legg reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to rezone a 2.33-acre lot from E-Estate to CH-Heavy Commercial zoning. Prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, the lot was zoned C-Commercial and had been granted a Special Exception from the county on February 24, 1998 to ailow construction of a single-family dwelling and a shop building on the commercially zoned lot. The conditions of the Special Exception are as follows: 1. No outside storage of materials shall be allowed on the property; 2. No outside storage or maintenance of vehicles shall be allowed; and, 3. The shop building shall be an earth-tone color. When the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan was adopted on November 2, 1999, the property was rezoned from C-Commercial to E-Estate. During the notification process prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the property owner, Mr. Hillery Parrack, requested that the adjacent lot remain zoned for commercial use but did not object to the Estate zoning of this lot. The current property owner, Mr. James Nytes, contends that he was unaware of the proposed change in zoning when he RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2005 purchased the lot from Mr. Parrack and during the one-year period following the Plan adoption when property owners could request consideration of potential zoning errors. When the county brought zoning-violation action against Mr. Nytes on September 20, 2004 for violation of Special Exception condition #2, he requested “reinstatement” of the C-Commercial zoning for the property. Following discussions with the County Attorney, the County Commissioners, and Estes Park Community Development staff, it was agreed that the guiding principal during the valley-wide rezoning had been to zone according to use; at that time, Mr. Nytes asserts that he had already established his business use of the property. Therefore, Larimer County staff is bringing this rezoning request forward under the same provisions that were in effect during the one-year timeframe following the valley-wide rezoning. Staff, with the concurrence of the applicant, believes that the full range of uses allowed under CH-Heavy Commercial zoning would not be appropriate. Staff is recommending the rezoning be approved only for the existing uses on the site, which include a single­ family residence (employee housing), the shop building, and storage of two construction trailers. Additionally, the limitations imposed by the Special Exception approved in 1998 will apply, with the exception that a limited amount of vehicles and equipment shall be exempt from the definition of outside storage. Public Comment: The property owners, James and Billie Nytes, were present. Mr. Nytes stated they have no objections to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Amos questioned the number of vehicles and equipment that would be stored outside on the site. Mr. Nytes agreed to limit the outside storage of equipment and vehicles to no more than four pieces of equipment and no more than eleven vehicles. Ed Floering, adjacent property owner of 1851 Wildfire Road, and Nathan Parrack, adjacent resident at 1775 Wildfire Road, each stated that he had no objections to the current use of the property or to the proposed rezoning. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) to recommend approval of the request to Rezone the Nytes Property, Tract 2, Hillery Parrack Exemption, from E- Estate to CH-Heavy Commercial to the Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. CONDITIONS: 1. Permitted uses are the employee housing (existing single-family residence), maintenance and repair services associated with the construction materials business, including the shop building, as shown on the site plan. 2. Equipment storage shall be limited to four pieces of equipment and eleven vehicles. 3. No outside storage of business or construction material shall be allowed on the property. 4. No outside maintenance of vehicles shall be allowed. 5. The shop building shall remain an earth-tone color. Acting Chair Pohl called a brief recess from 2:00-2:03 p.m. to allow the sound system to be reset. 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 Rachei Jarvis Planner Chilcott stated this request was continued at the July 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to attempt to resolve a discrepancy in the easement required to access the property. The easement is along the north RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2005 boundary of the Eagles Landing property, which lies between the applicant’s property and State Highway 7. The applicant has submitted a second easement dedication and staff examined the recorded condominium map for Eagles Landing; both show an easement along the entire length of the northern boundary of the Eagles Landing property. A driveway maintenance agreement between the applicant and Eagles Landing is one of the conditions of approval for The Links of Estes Park Development Plan 05-02. Attorneys for both parties have been reviewing drafts of the maintenance agreement and planning staff expects it to be finalized in the near future. Staff recommends 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 in July 2005. 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 Valley Recreation and Park District, Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. Beverly Christenson, Eagles Landing Homeowners’ Association president, met with planning staff. Public Comment: Beverly Christenson, president of the Eagles Landing board of directors, stated the homeowners’ association agrees that a legal easement exists to the applicant’s property. The association has a draft maintenance agreement that has been given to the Jarvises for review with their attorney and the association will negotiate terms of the maintenance agreement in good faith. Ross Stephen of Cornerstone Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He reiterated that a draft maintenance agreement has been provided to the Jarvises and that no difficulties are anticipated. He stated the applicant is continuing to work on meeting all other conditions of approval of the development plan. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hix) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map, The Links of Estes Park, Portion of Lot 3, South Saint Vrain Addition, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of The Links of Estes Park Development Plan #05-02. 5. BUILDING ENVELOPE CORRECTION, Lot 4, Mary’s Lakewood Court, Applicant: Richard & Sherry Fianery Lake Estates, 565 Planner Shirk summarized the staff report, stating this is a request to clarify the location of a platted building envelope. The site is located at the intersection of Mary’s Lake Road and Lakewood Court. The plat of Mary’s Lake Estates subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1996 and included building envelopes. However, the building envelopes do not include any distances or directional bearings and are not tied to a property line. The building envelopes “float” within platted lots, and this particular building envelope appears to be located over a large rock outcropping. The proposed location of the building envelope will meet required setbacks and promotes the limits of disturbance standards set forth in Section 7.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code, which protect wetlands, rock outcroppings, and trees. Although the Estes Valley Development Code allows RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2005 planning staff to grant minor modifications to approved final plats, this building envelope was created through the public hearing process, and staff felt this correction should also be subject to a public hearing and the associated neighbor notification. The application 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. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the Building Envelope Correction, Lot 4, Mary’s Lake Estates Subdivision, to the Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed uanimously with one absent and one vacancy. CONDITiONS: 1) Exhibit “A” shall be modified as follows: a. The format shall be 8.5” x 11 ”. b. The new building envelope shall reflect the stakes as set in the field. c. The new building envelope shall include bearings and distances, include a tie to a lot corner, and be a different line weight and type than the former building envelope. d. The distance between the property line and the new building envelope shall be clearly delineated. e. The “former building envelope” shall be labeled as such, and the “new building envelope” clearly labeled as such. f. Lakewood Court shall be delineated and labeled. g. The lot size shall be shown in acres. 6. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT, KINGSWOOD SUBDIVISION, Lot 24, Little Prospect Mountain Subdivision, TBD Stanley Circle Drive, Applicant: Mike Kingswood Planner Shirk stated this request to divide an existing lot into two lots was continued at the July 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to provide a site drainage plan and building envelopes. The 1.55-acre lot and the surrounding properties are zoned E-Estate, which provides for a half-acre minimum lot size. Approval of this subdivision would allow construction of one additional house and would provide site-specific “limits of disturbance” standards that do not apply to the existing lot. The revised drainage plan has been submitted. Planner Shirk stated that although the applicant has not provided building envelopes, acceptance of Figure 1 in the staff report, which provides for increased limits of disturbance, as a condition of approval preserves significant rock outcroppings and trees while still allowing site- specific flexibility for development. Because the property has an average slope greater than 12%, the required minimum lot size is increased. Lot 1 has an average slope of 23.05% and is proposed to be 28,370 square 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% and is 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. Planning staff is supportive of the minor modification because it will not result in additional building sites and will provide a more logical lot-line configuration. I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2005 The applicant will be required to widen the paving width of Stanley Circle Drive to twenty-two feet. Due to a history of stormwater issues in the neighborhood, planning staff recommends dedication of an easement for the drainage-detention swale on proposed Lot 1. The swale will be required to be designed to minimize adverse visual impacts and should look like a natural feature of the land. Planning staff has received a number of contacts from adjacent property owners in opposition to the proposal, the most recent of which was received from Laverne and Doris Jean Mertz on August 12, 2005. Other property owners who commented on the proposal were listed in the July 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Public Comment: Mike Todd of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant is requesting the limits of disturbance recommended in the staff report be reduced and the drainage easement be eliminated to allow more flexibility in the placement of future homes and driveways. Gary Matthews, 139 Stanley Circle Drive, stated that many property owners in the neighborhood are concerned about this proposal, noting the addition of two homes and driveways has a greater impact than one and reduces open space. He supported the staff’s recommended limits of disturbance if building envelopes are not required. The applicant, Mike Kingswood, requested a compromise on the staff’s recommended limits of disturbance, stating his willingness to work with staff to reach such compromise. The Commissioners and staff discussed the applicant’s right to divide the lot and the limits of disturbance that should apply. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision Fiat, Kingswood Subdivision, Lot 24, Littie Prospect Mountain Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and an additional condition that the iimits of disturbance shall be determined by an agreement between planning staff and the appliant. Foilowing further discussion, the motion was withdrawn. It was agreed to allow the applicant to try to reach a compromise agreement with planning staff on the required limits of disturbance. If an agreement cannot be reached prior to submission of the application to the Town Board, the staff’s recommended limits of disturbance will prevail. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision Plat, Kingswood Subdivision, Lot 24, Littie Prospect Mountain Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent and one vacancy. CONDITIONS: 1. The Limits of Disturbance shall be amended as per Figure 1 set forth in the Staff Report unless an agreement can be reached between the applicant and planning staff modifying the limits of disturbance to the satisfaction of both parties prior to submission to the Town Board for final approval. 2. Limits of Disturbance spelling shall be corrected. 3. The following note shall be placed on the plat: “Limits of Disturbance shall apply unless modified by a site-specific development plan.” 4. A drainage easement shall be dedicated for the proposed drainage swale across Loti. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2005 5. The weir system for the proposed detention pond should be shown on the plat, and shall comply with Section 7.2.B7, which states “adverse visual and aesthetic impacts on the natural landscape and topography shall be minimized to the maximum amount feasible.” 6. The subdivider shall install required electric service. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by Light and Power. 7. Stanley Circle shall be widened to 22 feet along the length of the subdivision. Road plans shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works prior to construction. 8. The required Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall include all required improvements, including road upgrade, electric, drainage, and monumentation. 9. The dedication statement shall dedicate the utility easements to the public in the form required by the Estes Valley Development Code. 7. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, Resubdivision of Lot 1, Seifert Addition, 470 Moccasin Circle Drive, Applicant: Fred Wojcik Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to subdivide a 2.63-acre lot into three lots. The property is zoned R-2-Two-Family Residential and is character­ ized by steep, north-facing slopes and identified wildfire and geologic hazards. The applicant has worked closely with planning staff, revising the design three times, to craft very specific building envelopes that will ensure all development is located in the lower portion of the property, where the slope is not as steep. While the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan encourages infill of older core areas, it also includes a variety of scenic and environmental-quality policies intended to discourage development on steep slopes, many of which are codified in the Estes Valley Development Code. The R-2 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 18,000 square feet for a single-family residence and 27,000 square feet for a duplex. Because the average slope of the property is greater than 12%, the minimum lot size has been increased. The average slope of proposed Lot 1 is 17.7%, and therefore requires a minimum single-family lot size of 23,700 square feet or a minimum duplex lot size of 32,700 square feet. Lot 1 is proposed to be 51,515.95 square feet, which would allow a duplex to be built on this lot. The average slope of proposed Lot 2 is 32.9% and therefore requires a minimum single-family lot size of 38,900 square feet or a minimum duplex lot size of 47,900 square feet. Lot 2 is proposed to be 31,191.6 square feet. The average slope of proposed Lot 3 is 34.9%, which requires a minimum single­ family lot size of 40,900 square feet or a minimum duplex lot size of 49,900 square feet. Lot 3 is proposed to be 31,632.9 square feet. The applicant is requesting a minor modification to the adjusted minimum lot size for Lots 2 and 3 from the Planning Commission, which is allowed under EVDC Section 3.7.A2b. Approval of the minor modification will not result in a density increase. Planning staff recommends that proposed Lots 2 and 3 be rezoned to E-Estate to prevent future buyers from believing a duplex could be built on the lots when there is not enough land area to do so. Planner Shirk stated the proposed subdivision is also subject to limits of disturbance standards and noted the application adequately satisfies the majority of these standards. However, in order to minimize visual impact, design standards should be submitted that address building materials and colors, which must be natural materials of wood, brick, or stone in muted colors, as well as requiring that each structure be individually designed, and limiting the footprint of each dwelling to 1,500 square feet. While the property is not in a mapped geological-hazard area, it has I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2005 been field-identified by planning staff and the Colorado Geological Survey as such, with shallow bedrock and the associated ground water identified as a potential hazard. The applicant proposes to abandon the existing driveway and provide a new paved driveway near the western property line, which will be shared by all three lots. 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. The Larimer County Wildfire Safety Specialist stated that a note should be placed on the plat stating “Wildfire mitigation in accordance with the Estes Valley Development Code shall be required prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.” Public Comment: The applicant, Fred Wojcik, stated he met many times with planning staff and considered many alternatives for the site. He noted his desire to develop the site tastefully with minimum disturbance to the surrounding area and stated his acceptance of the staff’s conditions of approval. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Design stated the proposed driveway is on an 11% grade and meets the Code standard for driveways. The Commissioners and staff discussed the proposed building envelopes and staff’s recommendation to limit the building footprints to 1,500 square feet. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Piat, Resubdivision of Lot 1, Seifert Addition, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed uanimousiy with one absent and one vacancy. CONDiTIONS: 1. Lots 2 and 3 shall be rezoned to E-Estate (1/2-acre). This shall be at no cost to the applicant and shall be presented to the Town Board for consideration with the Final Plat. 2. Design standards shall be submitted for recording with the final plat. These shall address building color (muted colors) and materials (natural materials of wood, brick, or stone), require that each structure be individually designed, and limit the footprint of each dwelling to a maximum of 1,500 square feet. A driveway maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the final plat. The cost of driveway construction shall be born by the applicant and shall be included in the Development Agreement to be submitted with the final plat. The applicant shall install a street sign for the proposed Robin Meadow Lane. All service lines shall be installed to the property line prior to the paving of the drive. The subdivider shall install the electric service and distribution system. Plans shall be finalized with the required construction drawings to be submitted with the Final Plat. The existing dwelling shall connect to the Estes Park Sanitation District line located under Moccasin Circle. The applicant shall petition to get out of the Upper Thompson Sanitation District area and into the Estes Park Sanitation District area. This process shall be completed prior to submittal of the final plat. 9. Details of the driveway drainage swale shall be included with the Final Plat. 10. The driveway radius shall be delineated, and the driveway opening shall not exceed thirty (30) feet at the street line (per Appendix D). 3. 7. 8. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission August 16, 2005 8 11. The access easement shall be revised so it does not encroach onto Lots 2 or 3, with the exception of a small portion in the northeast corner of Lot 2. The easement shall also be labeled as a drainage easement. 12. An easement shall be dedicated to provide for the electric service across Lot 1. 13. “Base Zone Lot Size Requirements” shall include specific lot numbers in addition to directional descriptions. 14. The “Project Timing” outlined on the Grading Plan shall be revised to reference 2006. 15. Ten-foot-wide utility easements shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the subdivision. 16. Proposed building envelopes shall tie to a lot corner. 17. Distances from the lot lines to “Proposed House” shall be removed. 18. The labeling in the area south of the proposed driveway to the existing house shall be clarified. 19. The grading plan shall be redesigned to ensure drainage from the lowest portion of the driveway will be directed east and not into the road. 20. The following notes shall be placed on the plat: a. “Wildfire mitigation in accordance with the Estes Valley Development Code shall be required prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.” b. “Lots 2 and 3 shall be subject to Section 7.7 of the Estes Valley Development Code, regarding Geologic Hazards with an emphasis on drainage and slope stability.” 8. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated that staff has approved YMCA Development Plan 05-03, a staff-level review of a proposal to build a new water-treatment facility to serve the needs of the YMCA of the Rockies-Estes Park Center. The building will be 1,100 square feet; a proposal of 10,000 square feet or larger requires Planning Commission review. Director Joseph stated the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Block 7 amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code. He also announced that Member Horton has resigned his positions on the Estes Valley Planning Commission and Estes Valley Board of Adjustment due to his professional commitments. He noted that the County Commissioners’ office has been notified and is taking applications to fill Mr. Horton’s positions. Elaine Johnson, neighboring property owner to Rocky Point Condominiums, inquired about the Preliminary Condominium Map. Director Joseph noted the item was on consent agenda. Ms. Johnson agreed to speak with Planner Shirk regarding her questions about the condominium map immediately following the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Acting Chair Julie wederer. Recording Secretary