HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commission 1999-07-20BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission
July 20, 1999
Commission;
Attending:
Absent:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Margaret
Clark, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas
Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Clark, Hix, Pohl and
Thomas
None
Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner
Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley
Trustee Liaison G. Hix
Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. MINUTES of the June 15,1999 were approved as presented.
Chair Sager welcomed the public and reviewed the rules of conduct.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLANS
a. Development Plan 99-07, Lot 44, Block 1, Fall River Estates, Fall
River Estates, IncVApplicant. A letter from the applicant’s
engineer requesting the development plan be tabled was noted.
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hix) the Development Plan 99-
07, Lot 44, Block 1, Fall River Estates, be tabied without date,
and It passed unanimously.
b. Amended Development Plan 97-15, Lot 6, Amended Plat Lot 6A,
am. Plat Lots 6, 7, & 8, 2nd Amended Plat Pine River
Subdivision, Marie Cenac, DVM/Applicant. Dr. Cenac was
present to answer any questions regarding her request. Senior
Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The applicant wishes to
adapt the prior approved development plan (97-15) to accommodate
the current proposed use as a veterinary clinic with accessory
grooming and indoor kennels. The building footprint and the position
of the building and parking on the site is essentially unchanged
except for the following revisions: 1) The building will be limited to a
single story, 2) The parking on the north side of the building will not
be constructed since change of use will require less parking, (The
parking area on the north side of the building will be reserved if
additional parking is required in the future.) 3) The property will be
fenced on the north side of the building to prevent pets being
exercised on leash from running off the site. Pets walked outside
will be walked individually on a leash. Pets will not be left
unattended outside the building. This plan proposes construction of
a one story 3,100 s.f. commercial building. The entire lot lies within
the 100 year Flood Plain. There is a need to meet the flood proofing
requirements. The parking area on the north side of the building will
be reserved if additional parking is required. Public Works requests
that a note be added that the owners of Lot 6 shall be responsible
for maintenance of the drainage facilities. Also, the owners must
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 20, 1999 Page 2
obtain a drainage easement for the discharge of the culvert across
Lot 7. Staff recommends approval with conditions.
Dr. Cenac responded to questions from Commissioners. The animal
exercise area will be cleaned daily and waste removed. There will
be a walk running from the northeast corner door to the exercise
area. If a special trap for sanitation is needed, it could be required at
the building permit stage. There will be an outside dumpster and
this should be secured against bears.
Public Comment: Patrick Cipolla encouraged approval of this project
as this is a needed service for this community.
Senior Planner Joseph reviewed comments from neighboring
properties (letter from Joy Liljestam, conversations with Brenda
Morrison, Ed Grueff and Scott Boyatt) all of which have been
supportive.
Commissioner Pohl requested that the revisions being made should
be noted on the Plan and be Initialed. Senior Planner Joseph noted
that the current owners are co-applicants of this request and,
therefore, the current development plan is applicable.
It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) the Amended
Development Plan 97-15, Lot 6, Amended Plat Lot 6A, am. Plat
Lots 6, 7, & 8, 2nd Amended Plat Pine River Subdivision, be
approved with the following conditions, and it passed
unanimously.
1. That a note be added stating the owners of Lot 6 shall be
responsible for maintenance of the drainage facilities. Also,
that the owners obtain a drainage easement for the discharge
of the culvert across Lot 7.
2. There are wetlands on this site and the developer shall be
required to obtain the necessary permits from the Corps of
Engineers prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. The finished floor elevation be raised two feet above the 100
Year Flood elevation.
4. Pets walked outside by staff shall be walked individually on a
leash within the enclosure provided on the north side of the
lot. Pets shall not be left unattended outside the building.
5. Any future addition of accessory outside uses to the site, such
as outdoor runs or kennels, shall require Planning
Commission approval of a Development Plan amendment.
6. The area on the north side of the building shall be resen/ed as
a future parking area to be built if the parking demand
exceeds the available parking on the south side of the
building.
7. The dumpster be placed in a bear proof enclosure.
8. A six foot fence will be required on the north end of the
property.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 20, 1999 Page 3
SUBDIVISIONS
Preliminary Plat, Pawnee Meadows Subdivision, Scott
Miller/Appiicant. Mr. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was
present representing the applicants. It is not the applicant’s intent to
further subdivide Lot 5 at this time. It may occur, however, some
time in the future. This plat does contain a preliminary plat for the
entire contiguous ownership. His intention is not to provide a street
right-of-way to connect with Cherokee Meadows. There are two
outlots that are indicated to preserve the option to subdivide Lot 5. If
staff recommends continuing this proposal, Mr. Kochevar
volunteered to postpone his presentation.
Senior Planner Joseph inquired about the statement in the
Statement of Intent that the outlots were being preserved to allow for
future subdivision of Lot 5 to lots less than 60,000 square feet. Mr.
Kochevar confirmed this was an option for Planning Commission to
consider but not part of this proposal. Town Attorney White pointed
out the difficulty for Planning Commission to review this proposal
with outlots inferring further subdivision without showing that
subdivision. The two issues before Planning Commission to
consider is whether or not the plat as proposed would be acceptable
as It doesn’t dedicate a through street and there is a potential for
future division of Lot 5 using outlot credit.
It was determined Mr. Kochevar should proceed with his
presentation. Mr. Kochevar stated this proposal is to divide 15 acres
into 5 lots and all meet minimum lot size requirements. In addition to
that there is an open space easement and 2 outlots to protect a
wetlands area. This plat terminates in a cul-de-sac and meets all of
the town requirements in its construction standards. Applicant made
cost estimates on the earlier proposed and approved plat and found
it not cost effective. Site Is long and narrow and is less developable
than surrounding developments. The applicant does not have a
problem with providing the right-of-way through to the connecting
street, but the actual construction of the road would be too costly for
him. There is a separate Issue with using the outlots to help reduce
the lot size requirements in a possible second filing. The annexation
agreement for Arapaho Meadows was between the Town of Estes
Park and Sam Luce and applicant was not party to that agreement.
Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. This is a proposal
to subdivide 15 acres into five (5) single family residential lots and
two (2) open-space outlots. A new 50 ft. wide, 950 ft. long, cul de
sac would extend from Highway 7. The site contains a large area of
wetlands that are proposed to be Included within a conservation
easement held by the homeowners association. The last sentence of
the last paragraph of the statement of intent reads as follows:
“Outlots are also Indicated to preserve potential for future division of
Lot 5 into lots smaller than 60,000 square feet.” Staff feels that the
future subdivision of Lot 5 should be shown on the preliminary plat.
Section 16.12.050 (a) states “A preliminary plat shall include the
entire contiguous area under the same ownership,...” The applicant
should provide Preliminary Plat information showing the future
subdivision of Lot 5 at this time, as referred to in the Statement of
Intent. This should be required now In order to clearly establish the
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 20, 1999 Page 4
desired link between the proposed Outlets and the reduction in
minimum lot area to be allocated solely towards the future
subdivision of Lot 5.
Regarding Street Connections, Section 16.12.00 (t) Future street
dedication reads as follows: ‘The Town shall determine, whenever a
street is necessary for future additions or subdivisions, but which
street is not presently warranted for construction, that the necessary
dedication for such future street be provided on the map or plat.”
The Annexation Agreement prepared in 1985 identifies the need for
“A sixty-foot wide right of way from the east line of Tract 5, easterly
across Tracts 2, 3 and/or 4, to Colorado Highway No. 7.” The
Planning Commission and the Town Board have consistently
pursued this street connection in reviewing and approving
subdivision plats in this area since this objective was established in
1985.
Staff recommendation for a continuance was to allow applicant
additional time to provide the following information:
1. The Statement of Intent mentions the “future division of Lot 5”,
therefore the applicant should provide Preliminary Plat
Information showing the future subdivision of Lot 5 at this time,
as referred to in the Statement of Intent, and the
corresponding Development Phasing information and
schedule should also be provided, (as required in section
16.12.050 (a) and section 16.12.050, (e), 9).
2. A density calculation should be submitted that clearly
establishes the applicant’s expectations and intent with regard
to the propsed outlets as they relate to section 17.20.020 5a
flexible development. This should relate directly to the
preliminary plat information provided for the future division of
Lot 5 noted in item #1 above.
The Planning Commission should reaffirm the prior finding that a
through street connection is needed and required. Assuming this is
the case, the following condition should be applied to any future
approval of a Preliminary Plat: “Dedication of street right of way
through the subdivision connecting with Cherokee Meadows shall be
required with the first filing of a Final Plat.” A revised Preliminary
Plat should be submitted which provides for this future street
connection.
Town Attorney White confirmed that the Arapaho Meadows
Annexation Agreement was only signed by Dr. Luce.
The width of the roadway would be based on whether it was
determined to be a collector street or a local street. If there are more
than 300 vehicle trips per day, it is considered a collector street
rather than local. Public Works Director Linnane advised the traffic
count on Cherokee Drive two weeks ago was counted and was less
than 300 vehicles per day. Future designation may change due to
increased traffic as the area is developed.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 20, 1999 Page 5
Public Comments:
Howard Heck, 275 Solomon Drive, Prospect Estates, noted that a
great deal of land has not yet been developed. There are about 95
lots south of Prospect Estates. Prospect Estates is one of only two
outlots for this area and the other outlet is not used to any great
extent. There are children playing in the streets in Prospect Estates.
Traffic would be funneled into the Prospect Estates area He asks
that Planning Commission continue to work to find a way to provide
a road connection to Highway 7. Ross Stephen’s comment in the
statement of intent that a more heavily traveled road reduces the
desirability of the lots applies to Prospect Estates as well.
Sam Hewson, 1694 Prospect Estates, noted there are 95 lots in
Prospect Estates with only one outlet. Three main concerns - a stop
or yield sign needed in this area, one narrow street, and the
increased traffic as the 200 lots in the area are developed. There
were 60 homeowners from the area at a meeting in June in support
of a new street connection to Highway 7.
Ann Leonard 2039 S. St. Vrain, % of her property is around this
property. Asked for clarification on the statement “A right of way
extension to the west would be considered by the Millers.” Mr.
Kochevar advised it would be any direction west of the cul de sac,
but not intended to cross Ms. Leonard’s property.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the statement “A right of way
extension to the west would be considered by the Millers” would not
satisfy Town requirements. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed a
similar situation for Cherokee Meadows which dedicated the right of
way for Pawnee Drive but did not require street construction since
they had not platted the lots in Phase 2. The difference in this case
may be that the applicant might decide not to divide Lot 5.
Town Attorney White noted the precedent that developers are
required to construct a road when lots are developed.
Mr. Kochevar stated that the Millers are not opposed to a ROW
going through the property if it has a value to them that justified the
expense. If the Planning Commission forces them to build that road,
there won’t be a final plat because economically they can’t afford to
do that. The lot value isn’t there. Director Stamey referred to the
previously approved preliminary plat with the street ROW and
suggested a first filing where pail of the road would be built and the
remainder of the road built under a 2nd filing. Mr. Kochevar
commented that there was not a great deal of savings in phasing.
The cost of development increases with lot value so that it would
take a long time to make it economical to proceed with a phase two.
Director Stamey commented that this site, being long and slender, is
not as efficient to develop as one that is more rectangular.
Mr.Kocehvar advised that the applicant was aware of that when he
purchased the property and has been laboring ever since to make it
work knowing that the Town wanted a right-of-way through the
property. If there were one more lot (10 lots total), it would be
economically feasible. Town Attorney White commented that would
be possible through flexible development. Mr. Kochevar advised it
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 20, 1999 Page 6
4.
5.
was not possible to get 10 lots out of the property through flexible
development. Director Stamey suggested a density bonus based on
open space or wildlife preservation. Mr. Kochevar advised they had
considered that; however, the Town and this Board has not
accepted any of the criteria in flexible development in the recent
past, so a density bonus request for the additional lot has not been
pursued. Chair Sager expressed regret that a stalemate had been
reached. Mr. Kochevar commented on the contrary, the Planning
Commission can’t negotiate the street right-of-way.
Rollie Hinze, 500 Pinewood Lane, feels that the public opinion does
not want higher density.
Chair Sager noted the correspondence from Mr. Ed McKinney.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Burgess) the Preliminary Plat
for Pawnee Meadows Subdivision be denied with the staff
report included by reference, and it passed unanimously. Motion
(Mix/ Burgess)
REPORTS - There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at
3:09 p.m.
Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary