The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2005-04-19RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission April 19, 2005,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, George Hix, Bill Horton, Betty Hull, and Edward Pohl (one position vacant) Commissioners Amos, Hix, Horton, Hull, and Pohl Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Chair Kitchen, one vacant Commissioner’s position. Planner Shirk Acting Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Vailey Planning Commission minutes dated March 15, 2005. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Horton) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. . PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, MARY’S LAKE RIDGE, Metes and Bounds, 825 Little Prospect Road, Applicant: Crystal Creek Development, Inc. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The applicant has submitted a request to subdivide a 3.75-acre parcel into six lots. The property is zoned “A-1” Accommodations, which allows either single-family residential or accommodations use. The base density of four units per acre has been modified to meet slope- adjustment standards. Proposed lot sizes range from .42 acres to .63 acres; the base minimum lot size for the A-1 zoning district is .25 acres. Restrictions on lot coverage and floor area ratio will be enforced with individual building permits. Building envelopes have been configured to protect significant trees located on the northeast portion of the site. Although there are no open space requirements for this proposal, an open space of 1/3 acre located on the south side of Little Prospect Road will be dedicated. Little Prospect Road will be paved from Mary’s Lake Road to the eastern property line and the units will be served by the proposed Silver Tree Lane, a private driveway. Both roads will be improved to meet current standards and public right-of-way will be dedicated for both. While Silver Tree Lane will be placed in a public right-of-way, it will remain a private road and wili be privately maintained. Stormwater from Little Prospect Road will be conveyed to an existing swale system on the west side of Mary’s Lake Road. Runoff from Silver Tree Lane will be conveyed to a detention pond located near the northwest corner of the subdivision. Director Joseph noted that the stormwater management plan for this project should greatly improve the existing situation in terms of drainage and erosion. Staff has approved a modification to ailow all six units to access a private driveway—Silver Tree Lane—and will require that access for the units be solely from Silver Tree Lane. This proposal complies with the other applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 19, 2005 subdivision. There is one existing fire hydrant near the southeast corner of the site; an additional hydrant will be added to satisfy fire flow requirements. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff 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 request was also submitted to adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Three letters were received from neighbors—Merilyn and Ferrell Ingram and Jan Taylor; Lee and Marjorie Angle; and Michael Alan Smith, Patricia Jo Smith, Robin Sterling Smith, and Timothy Pallady Smith. The letters generally indicated that the proposed density is too high for the area. Director Joseph noted that prior to adoptKjn of the Estes Valley Development Code, the area was zoned “T” Tourist, which had no density limitations; it would have allowed dramatically higher development densities. Nearby neighbors, Dan and Pataricia Barkey also expressed concern about the overall impact of the development. Neighbor Theresa Oja expressed concern about additional stormwater runoff. Two nearby propertv thTn rSHtate+d trat there may be a Private deed restriction on this property. A copy of reLlct!onrStriCil0" WaS providlfd by the Pr°ject engineer, Paul Kochevar. The dLd restrict on states, ...no more than one dwelling house to be constructed on or to be maintained on each full one-half acre.” Staff has advised the concerned citizens that rnm^?S Va 6 h Devel°Pment Code. Planning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners have no authority to enforce private deed restrictions However staff COtmmfnd required “Disclosure Notice” to prospective buyers mention;».ss’rsK.'s, ~ ..sirs Public Comment: applicant!1 H^lstetedthts*:agireement0wrthrthp^n^'neerS.4WaS PreSen',0 represent ,he agreed to add a sewer line easement across loSe fiSi Sa?"3 0f aPPr°Val and drainage from theC^,eveloomCTtOV'sS’ her concerns regarding the impact of increased drainSe probterrn he aLqUshSouW?heWh0 W0U'd bS for occurred on her property in the wake If ota h yJ?CCUr'notin9'f131 ,loodin9 has installation of sewer line ol TroSpem Roa^^f k' dkevetoPm3ot and9 the drainage will be altered: it will be convS rtlvTn fhe Mr' }50chevar stated that the into a barrow ditch. He stated that the a Wn !^e,Paved roacl rather than running Instead, it may be reduced oUtor ioseoriotd thT0",Wil1 not be increased9 design drainage plans that' meet the stanrialric^n th?I ,!censed engineer must Stormwater Management Planand that thf ^ df prc;';ided .,n th® Larimer County from the developer to Insure that the plans a^eTo^lowed8 30 improvement guarantee Preliminary Subdivis1on°PlSf Ma?/snUkrRid^^^ approvai of the Board of County Commissioners wffh Jhp’ and Bounds’ to the recommended by staff, and the motion f"?dm9s and conditions and the foiiowing conditions. * P d unan,mousiy with two absent area raffoTiid^mp^lousCoverage3treeC^nc^veqetat‘0Win^ limitations on floor requirements, and the limit of one9curb cuf i'00 protection- landscaping Larimer County). Access to all lots shall S rSricLd tcflLprT,VeriiS 9ranted by utility improvements,Proad and stormwater ™Ude the ,ollowin9: landscaping, removal of the existing terbed-wl?e“ S'Sl' P'ans’ anci guarantee will not occur until receint nf onr.- re fase of the improvement improvements have been constructed Ys PerThrerg^Ieeff dtig^Iginlit^ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 19, 2005 3. 4. 5. 8. approved or as subsequently modified by a professional engineer and approved by a Larimer County engineer. A road, landscaping, and drainage facility maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the final plat. Compliance with the memo from Greg White dated February 14, 2005. Compliance with memos from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated February 11,2005 (Ron Witt and David Brand). Compliance with the memo from Town of Estes Park Public Works (Greg Sievers) dated February 10, 2005. Compliance with the memo from Larimer County Engineering (Roxann Hayes) dated April 12, 2005. Dedication of a sewer easement on Lot 4 for the existing sewer service line to the house on Lot 5. Provision of access via right-of-way or an access easement for the driveway that crosses the proposed open space. 5. REPORTS a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Periodic Review Director Joseph stated that the members of the Larimer County Board of County Comniissioners will meet with the Estes Valley Planning Commissioners immediately following the Planning Commission meeting in order to conduct a periodic review. b. Sky Kiva Director Joseph reported on an agreement that is being crafted that would allow the owner of the north end property known as Sky Kiva to build a new residence with an attached accessory dwelling unit and a horse/RV-storage barn, as well as trad1t1^^fl|the hHtoriC buildings located on the property, without going through the trai^tional subdiv'sion process. The forty-acre property is located at92120 McGraw Ranch Road and currently holds two historic summer cabins that do not conform to density standards. The property is zoned RE-1, Rural EsL/e whS wnniH1! !. a+Cre minin;i,m lot size- Rather than Subdividing the property, the owner nrnno J!ke ^ 9r°IiP th.0 dwellll19s in a “fami|y enclave” and hold the bulk of the property in an undeveloped state via a deed restriction. The homes would not hPrented nor used year-round. Ridgeline standards would be adS t^and the net density would not exceed the inherent amount allowed on S land Thi! proposal will be reviewed by the Larimer County Commisstonerr There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Acting Chair Julfe Roederer, Recordin/secretary