Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2005-10-18=1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 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 Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, Kitchen, and Pohl Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Commissioner Amos, Planner Shirk; one vacancy Chair Kitchen 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 September 20, 2005. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Hull) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 3 & 4, Hillcrest Estates Subdivision, 1710 & 1711 Stonegate Drive, Applicant: Patricia Barnett Commissioner Hull recused herself from the discussion and the vote, stating a possible conflict of interest. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to vacate thirty feet of the existing sixty-foot right-of-way between Lots 3 and 4, and a request to vacate the northerly ten feet of the sixty-foot right-of-way between Lots 4 and 5, Hillcrest Estates Subdivision. The proposai complies with all applicable sections of the Estes Vailey Development Code. When Hillcrest Estates was originally platted in 1992, the right-of-way between Lots 3 and 4 was intended to allow for future street connection. Since that time, the property to the south has been deveioped with the Good Samaritan campus, and the right-of-way between Lots 3 and 4 connects to a platted “no-build” area. Based on that fact, planning staff recommends the thirty-foot portion of right-of-way adjacent to the applicant’s property be vacated. Because there is stiil the potential for an extension of Stonegate Drive, staff does not support vacation of the entire sixty-foot easement between Lots 4 and 5. Staff recommends retaining a fifty-foot right-of-way, which would meet the required right- of-way width standard for local streets, and allowing vacation of ten feet instead. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent neighbors for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Estes Park Pubiic Works Department, Town Attorney White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and the Larimer County Engineering Department. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 provision of public services. Larimer County Engineering supported the fifty-foot right-of-way width between Lots 4 and 5, provided the applicant can determine that a typical subdivision road can be built within the fifty-foot right-of-way at that location. Estes Park Public Works also agreed to the width reduction between Lots 4 and 5. A letter was received from neighboring property owners Jimmie and Betty Lynne Hull, requesting the thirty-foot portion of the right-of-way on their lot (Lot 3) be included in the right-of-way vacation process. Public Comment: Rick England, England Surveying, was present to represent the applicant. In response to a question from Chair Kitchen, he stated the fence along the east side of Lot 4A would be removed by the applicant. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hix) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 4 & 5, Hillcrest Estates Subdivision, and vacation of the right-of- way described thereon, 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 unanimously with one abstention, one absent, and one vacancy. CONDITIONS: 1. Lot “5B” shall be labeled “4A,” and the dedication statement amended accordingly. 2. The dedication statement shall comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix B of the Estes Valley Development Code. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 05-05, STREAMSIDE OF ESTES, Lot 2 of the Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Subdivision, and Tract 59A, Fall River Addition, 1260 & 1350 Fall River Road, Applicant: Streamside Cottages, LLC Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to develop a single two-story building containing twenty-four units, each 322 square feet, with a pool and offices on approximately one acre of vacant land north of Fall River. The site is zoned A-Accommodations and the proposed use is permitted. The entire property is currently two separate lots totaling approximately sixteen acres. An amended plat application was approved by the Town Board of Trustees on August 23, 2005 and is pending recordation with Larimer County. The proposed density conforms to the slope-adjusted density standard. The applicable river setback is thirty feet. The applicant requests, and staff supports, a minor front-yard setback variance to provide enough room for vehicles to back out of the parking spaces along the north property line due to the relatively limited space between the river and Highway 34 (Fall River Road), although staff recommends that the thirty-foot river setback area should be designated as limits of disturbance. The site contains important river-corridor riparian habitat and staff recommends that installation of fencing or other permanent structures within the thirty-foot river setback be prohibited. A ten-foot-wide, concrete, non-motorized trail along the north property line should be constructed with the proposed building at the developer’s expense. Construction of the trail will trigger the requirement for trail construction on the adjacent property. Bear Creek Condominiums. The proposed parking meets the requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code and all parking areas will be paved. The proposed parking along the east access drive is in conflict with an existing access easement. A condition of approval should be the elimination or relocation of this future right of access, with the corresponding consent of the parties involved. n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 Access to the proposed development will remain the same as the current access via the existing driveway off Highway 34. A traffic impact study performed by Matt Delich, dated July 2005, indicates the increase in traffic associated with this proposal triggers CDOT’s threshold for an auxiliary westbound left-turn lane to be provided at the site access. However, the threshold will be only minimally exceeded for short periods of time at peak hours during the tourist season. Planner Chilcott noted the nearby intersection of Highway 34 and the Highway 34 Bypass needs improvement; such improvement would have a much greater impact than the addition of a left-turn lane close to an already confusing intersection. Therefore, staff does not recommend any highway improvements. If the recommended conditions of approval are met, the proposed development plan will comply with all applicable standards of the Estes Valley Development Code and will be consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and other relevant plans. 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 White, Estes Park Sanitation District, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. No written comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Eisenlauer) to approve Development Plan 05- OS, Streamside of Estes, Lot 2 of Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Subdivision, and Tract 59A, Faii River Addition, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. CONDiTIONS: 1. The thirty-foot river setback area shall be designated as outside the limits of disturbance. 2. Installation of any fencing or other permanent structures within the thirty-foot river setback shall not be permitted. 3. A ten-foot-wide, concrete, non-motorized trail along the northern property line, as shown on the plan, shall be constructed or guaranteed concurrent with the proposed building at the developer’s expense. 4. The easement recorded at Reception No. 92015096 shall be vacated or otherwise revised to remove any potential future conflict with the easterly parking. 5. Recordation of the Amended Plat, Streamside on Fall River, Lot 2 of the Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deercrest Subdivision, and Tract 59A, Fall River Addition. 6. A stop sign shall be shown on the development plan and provided at the entrance/exit of the development. 5. REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 00-07B, MARY’S LAKE LODGE CONDOMIN­ IUMS, Lot 3, Mary’s Lake Subdivision, and Lots 3A and 3B of Mary’s Lake Replat, 2625 Mary’s Lake Road, Applicant: Ram’s Horn Development Co. Chair Kitchen recused herself from the discussion and the vote due to the possibility of a perceived conflict of interest. Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report, stating this is a proposed revision to Development Plan 00-07A, which was approved by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2005. Planning staff recommends this revised development plan also serve as a revised condominium map. The proposal increases the total number of r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 units by decreasing the number of residential units and increasing the number of accommodations units. The proposed configuration of the units is also changing. There will be a slight change in the parking area proposed for the southern portion of Lot 3. Total development on all three lots will include sixty-six accommodations units, eighteen residential units, a restaurant, a spa, and a gift shop. All residential units can be used as accommodations units, but accommodations units may not be used as residential units. The proposed uses, i.e., accommodations and residential uses, are permitted in the A-Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning district, and the proposed density does not exceed the maximum allowable. Impervious coverage, landscaping, and parking were calculated based on the total development area. Staff supports this method. A maximum of 50% impervious coverage is allowed; 49.3% is proposed. A total of 176 parking spaces are required, and 178 are proposed. Some overflow parking spaces, as well as the access to the pool, are to be constructed of pervious pavers to help address the impervious coverage limitations. Sidewalk shown on the development plan is intended to connect to trails on or adjacent to Lots 2 and 4 and provide public pedestrian access across Lot 3B to Lot 3. Concerns cited by Chief Building Official Will Birchfield regarding handicapped access have been addressed by the applicant. Four fully-handicapped-accessible units will be provided, as well as seven handicapped-accessible parking spaces, including one van-accessible parking space. If the recommended conditions of approval are met, the development plan will be consistent with the Estes Valley Development Code and with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant land use, parks and trails, capital improvement, and other similar plans. The application was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Estes Park Public Works Department, Chief Building Official Birchfield, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Letters of support were received from neighboring property owners Susan Mathre, Emmo Jo and Emory Smith, Catherine Tyree, Vicki and Jim Parrish, Frank Theis, Seth and Emily Hanson, Richard Archilla, and Steve and Janene Hawkins. Public Comment: Don DeBey, owner of Maiy’s Lake Lodge and developer of the property, was present to answer Commissioners’ questions; none were asked. Emma Jo Smith, homeowner at Mary’s Lake Lodge and board member of the Mary’s Lake Lodge Condominium Association, stated her and her husband’s support of the proposed development. She also stated the homeowners’ board would like to see the project expedited and feels it will be an asset to the town. Joe Ford, adjacent property owner at 2800 Kiowa Trail, stated all his original concerns have been addressed. He is very supportive of the proposed development and would like to see it started and completed as quickly as possible. Jim Tawney of 1820 Fall River Rd, adjacent property owner of Lot 4, stated the revised development plan proposal is consistent with the intent of the original development plan and encouraged its approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 It was moved and seconded (Hix/Hull) to approve Revised Development Plan 00-07B, Mary’s Lake Lodge Condominiums, Lot 3, Mary’s Lake Subdivision, and Lots 3A and 3B of Mary’s Lake Repiat, and that the revised development plan also serve as a revised preliminary condominium map, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed uanimousiy with one abstension, one absent, and one vacancy. CONDiTIONS: 1. Compliance with Pubiic Works’ memo dated Sept. 23, 2005. 2. A detailed grading plan demonstrating positive drainage shail be submitted for staff review and approval prior to submittal of building permits. The grading plan shall be at a scale of 1” = 10’ with two-foot contours. 3. Sidewalk shall be extended to connect to sidewalk/steps that lead to the main lodge and a public pedestrian access easement shall be recorded on Lot 3B prior to final development plan approval. 4. A note shall be added to the landscaping plan stating that trees shall not be planted within five feet on either side of a water or sewer main. 5. A cut sheet for the proposed lighting fixture shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Accessible parking-space striping and signage and curbs required with the original development plan shall be completed prior to issuance of the first buiiding permit. 7. Public Works’ approval of the electric plan shall be a condition of finai development plan approval. 6. REZONING REQUEST, AMENDED PLAT, and DEVELOPMENT PLAN 05-04, GRAVES AVENUE BUILDING, Portion of Lot 34, Bonnie Brae Addition, 1200 Graves Avenue, Appiicant: John & Peggy Lynch Director Joseph reviewed the staff report, stating this is a request to rezone one lot from RM-Multi-Family Residential zoning to CO-Commercial zoning, combine the rezoned lot with another lot via an amended plat, and it is also a request for development plan approval to build a new commercial office building that will include one employee/caretaker unit. The new building would become part of the adjacent commercial office complex. He stated this would be a good use of the property in light of the fact that the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan identifies a shortage of commercial property. The proposed new building would be located on the southern portion of the property, is proposed to be a two-story, 5,100-square-foot building, and would provide a substantial improvement to the site. A variance to ailow the southwest corner of the building to be located within the side-yard setback was approved by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on August 9, 2005. All other setback requirements will be met. The proposal complies with the maximum density and impervious coverage limits and with the floor-area ratio requirement of the Estes Valiey Development Code. The proposed parking is functional and space-efficient. The Estes Park Police Department recommended that a solid fence be piaced around the perimeter of the development to mitigate problems with trespassing and vandalism that have occurred on this property. Planning staff is recommending that typical fencing requirements for landscaping and “elk openings” be waived; Colorado Division of Wildlife Officer Rick Spowart has agreed to this concept. The development would enhance the functionality of the pedestrian and bicycle connections aiong Graves Avenue. The applicant shows two freestanding signs on the development plan proposal, but Director Joseph noted the sign code aliows only one. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 If all recommended conditions of approval are met, the proposals will comply with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valiey Development Code and will be consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The application was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Estes Park Public Works Department, Estes Park Building Department, Town Attorney White, and Estes Park Sanitation District. No written comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public Comment: The applicant, John Lynch, stated his full agreement with the staff report. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the Rezoning Request, Graves Avenue Building, Lot 34A, Bonnie Brae Addition, from RM-Multi-Family Residential to CO-Commercial Outlying zoning 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. Approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 34A, Manford Addition, and Lot 34A, Bonnie Brae Addition. 2. Approval of Development Plan 05-04. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hull) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat, Graves Avenue Building, Lot 34A, Manford Addition, and Lot 34A, Bonnie Brae 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. 2. 3. Approval of the proposed rezoning of Lot 34A, Bonnie Brae Addition from “RM” Multi-Family to “CO” Commercial zoning. Approval of Development Plan 05-04. The dedication statement shall be amended to reflect the requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hix) to approve Development Plan 05-04, Graves Avenue Building, Lot 34A, Bonnie Brae Addition, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed uanimousiy with one absent and one vacancy. CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of the rezoning of Lot 34A, Bonnie Brae Addition, from “RM” Multi- Family to “CO” Commercial zoning, and approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 34A, Manford Addition, and Lot 34A, Bonnie Brae Addition. Compliance with memo from Public Works to Dave Shirk dated September 23 2005. A graphic scale shall be provided on each plan sheet. The “zoning map” shall have an outline box and a north arrow. The legal description shall reflect the new legal from the amended plat. The proposed freestanding signs shall comply with the sign code. The wheel stops will need to be located 2.5 feet from the curb edge. The devel­ opment plan shall be amended accordingly. The bike rack location shall be relocated to the same location as the ADA parking spaces. 9. A curb detaii shall be provided. 10. The top-of-wail and bottom-of-wall elevations shail be a larger font for clarity and to determine if they must be engineered. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 11. The following landscaping note shall be included: “All plant material shall meet the American Association of Nurserymen specifications for Number 1 grade, and shall comply with the quality standards of the Colorado Nursery Act, Title 35, Article 26, C.R.S., as amended.” 12. The configuration of parking, the bicycle lane, and sidewalk along Graves Avenue shall be subject to Public Works and Community Development Department approval. 13. The landscaping plan shall be amended as follows: District Buffer (south side of building): 8 evergreen trees, 11 shrubs Parking Lot Interior: 4 trees, 9 shrubs Total: 12 trees, 20 shrubs. 7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 05-07, WONDERVIEW VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS, Metes and Bounds, 120, 130, & 140 West Wonderview Avenue, Applicant: Longs Peak Development, LLC Director Joseph reviewed the staff report, stating this is a request for development plan approval to build seventeen dwelling units, each with a one-car garage. The applicant proposes to combine four lots into one and remove the existing development. The property is zoned RM-Multi-family Residential; the proposed development is consistent with the requirements of that zoning district. The proposed density of 7.45 units per acre is less than the maximum density allowed of eight units per acre, based on the assumption the four lots will be combined into one; therefore, a condition of approval should be the combination of these lots through the amended plat or condominium process. The proposed impervious coverage of 41% is less than the maximum allowed of 50%; the floor area ratio of .24 also meets the requirements for the RM zoning district. The development will be accessed via proposed Willowstone Drive, a private drive off the Highway 34 Bypass. An adjacent property to the south is accessed via the private drive and a recorded access agreement will need to be provided by the applicant. Planning staff recommends construction of sidewalk from proposed Willowstone Drive east to the driveway that serves 377 MacGregor Avenue, as well as along the south side of Willowstone Drive and south to the property line. The purpose of the sidewalks is to create functional connectivity to the downtown area currently via MacGregor Avenue and in the future via a possible link to Virginia Drive. Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 7.2, Grading and Site Disturbance Standards, applies to this development. Staff has requested submittal of a revised landscaping plan to reflect retention and protection of a tree between proposed Units 3 and 4, to show all the trees proposed, to reflect screening and engineering of the proposed retaining walls, and to provide information on proposed fencing, including wildlife openings, materials, and landscaping. Planning staff recommends that the north side of a proposed retaining wall be backfilled so that landscaping, rather than the wall, is visible from the street. Street signs that meet Town standards must be installed, including a stop sign and street identification sign at each intersection with Wonderview Avenue. The eastern spur of Willowstone Drive should be renamed Willowstone Court, and the adjacent property that is accessed via Willowstone Drive will probably have to be readdressed. Planning staff supports the proposed width reduction of Willowstone Drive from twenty-four feet to twenty feet, provided the recommended sidewalk is built along the south side. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 8 If all recommended 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 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The application was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Estes Park Public Works Department, Chief Building Official Birchfield, Town Attorney White, and the Estes Park Sanitation District. The sanitation district noted the location of some sewer connections for nearby properties that cross this site are unclear. The sanitation district will work with the applicant to address these concerns as the sewer main is extended and connections to serve this property and adjacent properties are installed. No written comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public Comment: Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant is in agreement with the staff’s recommended conditions of approval. The applicant intends to condominiumize this project and will seek to combine the four lots into one in order to do so. The applicant will address the easement for the adjoining property, which is also owned by the applicant, at that time. The applicant is working with the Estes Park Sanitation District and will be providing a significant amount of new sewer line. He stated it would be possible to move Unit 4 to preserve the large tree and there is no problem in backfilling the retaining wall. Commissioner Pohl questioned whether the tree to be removed for the driveway of Unit 5 could be saved. Mr. Kochevar stated the unit could not be realigned because it is already situated against the minimum setback required. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Hull) to approve Development Plan 05- 07, Wonderview Village Condominiums, Metes and Bounds, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed uanimousiy with one absent and one vacancy. CONDiTIONS: I. The applicant shall submit a complete application to combine the lots through the amended plat or condominium process within three months of Planning Commis­ sion approval. This shall be included in the required Development Agreement. Copies of applicable state and federal permits (access and stormwater dis­ charge) shall be submitted with the first building permit application. Compliance with memo from Public Works to Dave Shirk dated September 23, 2005. 4. Compliance with memo from Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated September 21, 2005. Per Section 7.2.B.6, retaining walls over four-feet tall must be engineered. The following note shall be placed on the development plan: “Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 7.9 “Exterior Lighting” of the Estes Valley Development Code.” 7. The cost estimate shall include revegetation costs and the postal cluster box. 8. The tree between Units 3 and 4 shall be retained. 9. The area of tree protection fencing shall be clearly delineated on the develop­ ment plan. 10. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include provision for screening of the proposed retaining walls, as required in Section 7.2.B.6. II. The landscaping plan shall be modified to include all trees in the landscaping calculations and shall be subject to Staff review and approval. 12. The landscaping plan shall include the exact location of the proposed fence. 2. 3. 5. 6. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 13. MUTCD stop signs and street identification signs shali be installed at each inter­ section with Wonderview Avenue, and a street name identification sign shali be installed where the eastern spur intersects with the traffic circle. The eastern spur of Willowstone Drive shall be renamed “Willowstone Court.” An address sign shail be posted at the drive to the private off-site dweiiing unit, and that address shall be changed to a “Willowstone Drive” address. 14. Wiiiowstone Drive requires a four-inch base with three inches of asphait. 15. Wiiiowstone Drive shali be widened from eighteen feet to twenty feet. 16.Sidewaiks shall be built from the east Willowstone Drive east to the driveway that serves 377 MacGregor Avenue and aiong the south side of Willowstone Drive, beginning at the driveway just east of Unit 12, extending westeriy to the open area, then southeriy to the property line. 17. Sanitary sewer service shaii be shown for Unit 12. 18. Compiiance with the memo from Estes Park Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated October 12, 2005. Any necessary changes to the development plan shall be subject to staff review and approvai, with any appeais being made to the Planning Commission. 8. REZONING REQUEST and DEVELOPMENT PLAN 05-08, NORTHEND STORAGE, Tract 1, Hillery Parrack Exemption, 1775 Wildfire Road, Applicant: Longs Peak Development, LLC Director Joseph reviewed the staff report, stating this is a request for rezoning from CO-Commercial Outlying to CH-Commercial Heavy zoning to allow the construction of eighty “mini-storage” units. He noted there is a procedural provision in the Estes Valiey Development Code for the pairing of a specific deveiopment proposai with a rezoning request based on identifying changes in the neighborhood that would support the need for a rezoning request. He stated the surrounding neighborhood has changed significantly since the implementation of the Future Land Use Pian in 2000, including deveiopment of the Good Samaritan campus. Talon’s Pointe, Vista Ridge, and the recent approvai of The Neighborhood Subdivision and the Salud Clinic. There will be over 280 residential units in the area at full build-out; many are multi-family units with iittie storage. Additionaily, the property immediateiy to the west was recently rezoned to CH-Commercial Heavy zoning. It is the pianning staff’s opinion that the development plan addresses a need that has arisen due to the changes in the area, and the rezoning provides an opportunity to impose restrictions on the use of the property, the hours of operation, the building design, and the exterior lighting. The current CO zoning of the property provides a long list of uses by right, mariy of which would entail higher noise and traffic levels than will be associated with mini-storage units. If the proposed rezoning is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the developer will have one year to obtain a building permit. If a building permit is not obtained within that time frame, it is the perogative of the County Commissioners to rezone the property to whatever zoning they perceive is most appropriate. Director Joseph noted this property may be annexed to the Town of Estes Park in the future. The appiicant proposes to retain the buildings currentiy on the property, including a manager’s quarters, which is allowed in the CH zoning district as an accessory use. The proposed deveiopment pian meets the required setbacks and the impervious coverage limit, with 62.3% impervious coverage proposed and a maximum of 80% aiiowed. The totai proposed floor area of the storage units is 22,700 square feet. The floor area ratio is proposed to be .24, while .50 is aiiowed in the CH district. The proposai mitigates undesirabie aesthetic impacts through the use of very dense plantings around the perimeter of the deveiopment, which wiil eventualiy provide a soiid screen of trees and shrubs. Per the 1996 Estes Vaiiey Pian, staff also RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 10 recommends that all metal portions of the proposed buildings be a matte finish and all walls visible from off-site be constructed of wood, stone, or faux stone. The proposed buildings will not have any lighting, nor is additional security lighting proposed. The light on the existing building will be required to comply with the exterior lighting standards of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), and must be shielded and downcast. Staff recommends that the hours of operation be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and that no additional exterior lighting be allowed. A traffic impact analysis was submitted with the proposal. It is based on typical use statistics for mini-storage units of this type and indicates an average of twenty-two trips per day and two trips per peak hour for this developoment. A typical single­ family dwelling generates ten trips per day. The applicant proposes to extend the paved portion of Wildfire Road to the entrance of the development. The existing house will utilize the Upper Thompson Sanitation District; no sanitary sewer service is proposed for the new buildings. Similarly, the existing house will continue to utilize the on-site well; the new buildings will not have water service. The submitted ISO calculations indicate there is adequate fire flow available from existing hydrants. If all recommened conditions of approval are met, the development plan will comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC and will be consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The application was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Estes Park Public Works Department, Chief Building Official Birchfield, Town Attorney White, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Numerous letters of opposition were received from residents of the adjacent Vista Ridge development sighting concerns about the potential for negative impact on property values, changes in the nature of the area, traffic impacts, the potential for storage of hazardous substances, noise, setting a precedent for future commercial expansion, opposition to the proposed rezoning and potential future use of the property, and general opposition. These letters were received from Jean Michael, 866 Crabapple Lane; Karla Van Drie, 869 Crabapple Lane; Michael and Deborah McNeill, 872 Crabapple Lane; Elaine Hunt-Downey, 874 Crabapple Lane; Debbie Richardson, 879 Crabapple Lane; and Susan Jackson, 889 Crabapple Lane. Chair Kitchen questioned whether outside storage would be allowed, such as motorhomes or boats. Director Joseph noted the necessity to clarify that point, stating his belief that the applicant had not proposed any outside storage. Commissioner Mix left the meeting at 3:05 p.m. due to a prior appointment that could not be rescheduled. Public Comment: Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant has reviewed the staff’s recommended conditions of approval and agrees to them. He reiterated that there could be a much more intense use of the property in comparison to the anticipated trip generation, the number of people on the site, and so forth, noting this is a very low-impact use. He stated the proposed development plan locates all structures as far from the property lines as possible, as much as forty to fifty feet. The proposed trees are located outside the fencing except on the west side of the property, where a fence already exists. He stated town water will be used for irrigation, and therefore the developer will apply for annexation. Discussion followed among the Commissioners, the staff, and Mr. Kochevar regarding protecting the trees from the wildlife and the proposed colors of the buildings and roofing materials. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 11 It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Pohl) to recommend approval of the Rezoning Request, Northend Storage, Tract 1, Hillery Parrack Exemption, from CO-Commercial Outlying to CH-Commercial Heavy zoning to the Board of County Commissioners, and to approve Development Plan 05-08, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed uanimously with two absent and one vacancy. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING FROM GOTO CH: 1. Approval of and compliance with Development Plan 05-08. 2. Use shall be limited to the approved development plan for the North End Storage (Development Plan 05-08). Any change in land use shall require approval of the Governing Body. 3. The applicant shall file for annexation to the Town of Estes Park within three months of approval of the rezoning and development plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 05-08: I. Approval of the rezoning of Tract 1, Hillery Parrack Exemption from “CO” commercial to “CH” commercial. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. No additional exterior lighting shall be allowed. The light on the existing building shall be retrofitted to comply with Section 7.9 prior to issuance of a building permit for the new structures. All metal portions of the buildings shall be a matte finish to minimize reflection of light. All freestanding walls or retaining walls visible from off site shall be constructed of wood, stone, or faux stone. Copies of applicable state and federal permits shall be submitted with the first building permit application. The area of tree protection fencing shall be clearly delineated on the develop­ ment plan. 9. A drainage easement between Lots 18 and 19 of the Neighborhood subdivision shall be recorded prior to any site work. 10. Details of the swale design between Lots 18 and 19 shall comply with the Best Management Practices set forth in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual and shall be submitted for review and approval prior to any site work. II. Compliance with the memo from Public Works to Dave Shirk dated September 23, 2005. 12. Compliance with the memo from Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated September 21,2005. 13. No outside storage shall be allowed. 2. 3. 4. 6. 8. REPORTS Director Joseph stated all items recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Monday, October 17, 2005 had been approved. He also stated two applications for the current Estes Valley Planning Commission vacancy had been received. The Board of County Commisioners will interview the two applicants and request that the Planning Commision Chair be present for the interviews. Planner Chilcott stated The Neighborhood Subdivision final plat and The Links of Estes Park preliminary condominium map had been approved by the Town Board of Trustees. Discussion about the date of the December Planning Commission meeting followed. The meeting may be moved from December 20, 2005 to December 13, 2005 due to the Christmas holiday, depending on the number of applications received for the December meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18, 2005 12 Chair Kitchen stated it was unusual for the Planning Commission to have unanimous votes on all agenda items, noting the Estes Valley Development Code is apparently working. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Itchen, Crtei- Juli^oedereryRecording Secretary