Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commission 1999-10-19BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission October 19,1999 Commission: Attending: Absent: Also Attending: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Margaret Clark, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Pohl and Thomas Commissioner A. Hix, Clark Town Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 1. MINUTES of the September 21,1999 were approved as presented. 2. SUBDIVISIONS a. Amended Plat and Rezoning, Outlot A and Lot 44, Block 1, Fall River Estates, Fall River Estates, IncVApplicant. Paul Kochevar from Estes Park Surveyors, representing the applicant, present^ an update of this application. In 1969, the outlets in the Fall River Estates Subdivision were designated as outlets with no other specifications. It was the intent that these outlets would come under the ownership of the homeowners, which is scheduled to happen around the first of the year 2000. Covenants reference the use of the outlets by the homeowners. The main goal of this request is to protect the wetlands with the outlot and move the building site out of the wetlands area. The current outlot is owned by a non-profit organization. Fall River Estates Community Non-Profit Corporation. Fall River Estates, Inc., owns the current Lot 44. The revised P'at indicates the location of the culvert crossing the road and Jhe drainage easement which is mainly on the outlot, with a small portion crossing Lot 44a. Access from Fall River Court would begin close to the bridge with the applicant now proposing to provide a pedestrian easement along the river to be added to both lots. Senior Planner Joseph made staff comments that any dev®’°pi71®^! on either of these lots would have some real impact on the local environment. On balance the trade off between the possible impacts to the wetlands if not approved outweighs the concern raised by neighboring land owners with regard to their reasonable expectations of the permanence of the outlot. Kpn Czarnowski 2180 Blue Spruce Drive - provided a letter with a,lnoh"f;he Commission. “Outlor is deflned in BlaokcS Law Dictionary as something other than a building site. y Assessor’s Office advised that the outlets are considered open solcfor green space. Taxes paid on this particular lo were at a rate for limited use which was much less than for vacant land in E- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 2 b. Estate zoning. The Corps of Engineers has not made any decision regarding the possible development of the current Lot 44. Tom Ewing, 1070 Camelot Court, Unit 1, - Resident of one of the condo units in Fall River Estates and owns a piece of property which adjoins two of the outlets. He is president of the Condominium Association. Feels it is a bad precedent for swapping lots. Property owners have been paying taxes on these outlets. Katherine Speer, 1361 David Drive - Purchased their lot in 1986. Mr. Lieneman promised those outlets and that was one of the reasons that they purchased their property. Patricia Taylor Czarnowski, 2180 Blue Spruce Drive - Owns Lot 3 across from the current open space. This exchange would remove the buffer from the proposed commercial development for them. Del Lieneman, developer of Fall River Estates - When this property was developed, outlets were not required. The developer put in outlets so that people would have access to the river to fish. The ownership of the outlets will be transferred to the homeowners on January 1,2000. The new outlet would still allow access to the river. The landscape will change because if the lots aren’t exchanged, the development will occur on the current Lot 44. Mr. Lieneman clarified that he signed the application as the developer, president of Fall River Estates, Inc., and as president of the non-profit corporation. Katherine Speer, 1361 David Drive - Commented that a president, vice-president and secretary/treasurer have been appointed for the Fall River Estates Community Non-Profit Corporation. Del Lieneman - This is the only outlot that would benefit from an exchange, because it preserves wetlands. There is '^tent 1 exchange other outlets. Change in the landscape is inevitable. Ken Czarnowski - Does not understand how Mr. Lieneman can act as developer and president of the non-profit organization. Tom Ewing, 1070 Camelot Court - The newly created outlot may still front the river, but access will be much more difficult. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) toA rec°l|imte"d denial of the Amended Plat and Rezoning, Outlot A and Lot 44, Fall River Estates, and it passed unanimously with 2 absent. AmanrioH Plat Lots 10 & 10A of the Amended Plat of the Elkhorn Club Estates Addition, Charles J. McCreary/Applicant Lonnie Sheldon from Van Horn Engineenng was Prese"‘ represent the applicants. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed ^he request to combine these two existing lots mto one lot. Th applicants wish to make an addition to the existing home over the current lot line to be removed. Mr. Sheldon commented on t fourth condition of the staff recommendation regarding the survey of utilities located In the existing easements. Due to the additional cost BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 3 to the applicant, they requested the Commission to remove that particular condition. Senior Planner Joseph advised that this is required information for both a Preliminary and Final Plat under the Municipal Code. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Pohl) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 10 and 10A of the Amended Plat of the Elkhorn Club Estates Addition. Motion passed unanimously with 2 absent. c. Preliminary Plat, Big Horn Second Subdivision, Tract 46, Fall River Addition, Pinnacle Homes and Design/Applicant. Lonnie Sheldon from Van Horn Engineering was present representing the owner, Charles F. Hix. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This applicant received approval of a subdivision adjacent to this current proposal in 1994 (Lot 41 A, and 41B, aka Big Horn Subdivision”). The applicant also requested and received an exception to the required minimum lot area with approval of this subdivision In 1994. At the time that this subdivision was being reviewed, and granting of the lot size exception was under consideration, the applicant provided a letter addressing the lot size analysis. This letter contained the following statement: ‘The tract to the north is large and will most likely never be developed because of the terrain.” The “tract to the North” referenced in this letter is now proposed to be subdivided and developed. There are two access issues that need to be addressed. Access to the current proposed new Lot 46B is proposed via an existing private drive crossing Lot 41B It appears that no provision for access across Lot 41B to serve the now proposed Lot 46B was made with the Plat of 41B, Big Horn Subdivision.” The applicant should submit documentation of this right of access to the Town Attorney for review and comment. The applicant is also requesting an exception to the requ'rementfor submittal of a Preliminary Plat of the entire contiguous ownership It is their intent to further subdivide in the future by using an existing access easement on Lot 10A, Fall River Addition. No other means of access to Lot 46A is proposed at this time. The aPPl'can^ ^so owns 38 acres adjacent to the north in unincorporated Larimer County. This property is now land-locked; however, Lar,mer County has recommended provision of adequate access and ut y easements to the 38-acre tract with this plat. Mr Sheldon responded to the staff report. The odd configuration of the lot is due to the steepness of the slope on the upper portio^ The comment that the tract to the north would mofb® developed was not a condition of the prjor aPP^'aaddoesnot relate to this development. Future development and access concerns were noted. It is hard to predict how an access could occur to the 38 acres to the north due to the steePness °f f^lO nnqsiblv from the north or east. Regarding the access for the 10 Lre property the owner of the private easement is willing to revise the easement to comply with staff’s request. The notation on the orfqinal plat may be corrected with an affidavit of correction. Mr Sheldon asked that the plan be approved Provide an affidavit of correction to clearly grant the access acros BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 4 Lot 41B on the 1994 replat. (2) Label the 30-foot easement across Lot 41A and B as an existing access and utilities easement. (3) Provide a revised easement across Lot 10A to reflect the permanent access for possible future development on Lot 46A and show that recording information on the plat. (4) Provide cross-hatching on the entire area of Lot 46 and correct the vicinity map to reflect the entire boundary of the plat. Town Attorney White added one other condition: It be required that the access to the remaining portion of the property meet the state highway access code. A subdivision plat must provide that all lots and parcels created by the subdivision will have access to the state highway system in conformance with the state highway access code. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the public correspondence received from John Phipps, Charlotte Miller, Georgia Bihr, Sharon Nordic, and George and Karen Crislip. Public Comments: Ann Racine, 461 Big Horn Drive - Her property is just south of the private driveway. The steepness of the driveway would not support another lot. There would be a safety issue in backing out of her driveway. Gary Brown, 415 W. Wonderview - His property is just south of the proposed development. In the 1994 request for division of Lot 41, the easement for water and sewer was to have run through his property. There was not a defined easement; however, it became a condition. They are now moving that easement to the east and this should be noted. The statement that the property to the north would not be developable was a consideration of the Planning Commission and adjacent property owners in the 1994 request, ^ncerned now for runoff from the proposed new development. Objects to the petition as it is filed. Harry Uvingston, 625 W. Wonderview, Lot 10A - Adjacent to the Hix property in the southwest comer. When he avowed Frank H|x he easement on the east side of his property, Mr Hix advised thaU^e subject property were to be deveioped, it would be for no more than two lots. Opposed to the application. Lariy Jones, 535 W. Wonderview - South of s“bie,;, Pr°Pe'jl^„ u® never gave easement by title or use across his land for the Hix property to the north. He gave drainage easement at the time he requested a lot split. Worried about rock stability since there are several balancing rocks on his property and property to the north. Opposed to the application. Connie Phipps, 585 Wonderview - Adjacent to the Hix property to the north Th^re is an environmental aspect to consider because this is a major wildlife habitat with birthing areas. Road bui,d'n9 ^ erosion would be highly destructive to this habitat. Opposed to t application. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 5 Don Widrig, 505 Big Horn Drive - Bought Lot 41B in 1995 and wishes clarification regarding outlot 46D, since he currently has an access easement over that lot which he would like to continue. Pinnacle built an extension to the private driveway to access 46B in April of this year without referencing the neighbors. The access easement to the north on his property was not designated. He was also speaking for Sharon Nordic, owner of Lot 41 A. He indicated on the plat how 6 lots currently use the private driveway. Opposed to the proposal. Bill Van Horn - The easement was labeled as an access and utility easement. There was no limitation on this easement as to how Mr. Hix could use it. Kitchen & Company did get a grading permit to put in the driveway extension. Just because the land was not subdivided in the past should not affect the right to subdivide at present. Don Widrig - Restated that in 1994, a letter stated that there would not be further development to the north. The driveway is already nonconforming with more than 4 lots. Commissioner Pohl noted the letter in 1994 stated “would most likely” not be developed. Georgia Bihr, 509 Big Horn Drive - Drainage from the subje^ property is diverted into two culverts under the drive. She is concerned about water coming in and around her house from new development. Opposed to the proposal. John Phipps, 585 Wonderview - Asked for clarification on utility easements. Utilities are proposed to come up the driveway. This is a complex issue due to the major rock outcropping and drainage area.m HeX opposes this development. Ask the Town to considera aeoloaic stability study before any development occurs anrl that t cosi°beCdtvtded among the developer and the neighbors. Opposed to the proposal. Town Attorney White noted several legal concems^^regardingthe subdivision of the property, access easements, nurnber of dwelli g units that can be served from a private driveway and the access off the highway. Further review is needed before rendering an opinion. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Burgess) teat tf'epi_elimina^ Plat for the Big Horn Second Subdivision, Tract 46, Rlv®f Addition, be continued, and it passed unanimous y absent. After «5hort break Chair Sager reconvened the meeting at 4:40 fr!r Commissioner pS requested that letters from the public be delivered earlier than the day of the meeting to allow Commissioners an opportunity to review them. The practical deadline would be the Thursday prior to the meeting. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19,1999 Page 6 d. Preliminary Plat, Kiowa Ridge Subdivision of the proposed Kiowa Ridge Addition, William G. Van Horn, Bill & Donna Pike, and Robert Koehler/Applicants. Bill Van Horn was present representing all the applicants. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This proposal is being made concurrent with the annexation request, along with a request for Town E-Estate zoning. An annexation agreement is contemplated. This agreement will reflect the approved Preliminary Plat. A total of 29 building lots and two unplatted tracts are proposed. A water tank is also proposed to serve the new lots. Lots 1 through 28 will take their access off of Mary’s Lake Road and Highway 7. Lot 29 will take its access off an existing private drive further south on Highway 7. A revised plat was distributed reflecting the additional required access; however, CDOT has not had an opportunity to review this drawing. Approval is anticipated based on preliminary conversations with CDOT. A wetlands report has now been accomplished by a qualified consultant. Street lighting has been shown on the original submittal. Fixture type should include appropriate shielding. ISO requirements and corresponding setbacks need to be addressed by the developer. Mr. Van Horn responded to staff comments. The Highway 7 access was in the original plan, was denied and then later approved by CDOT The consultant expanded on the wetlands area. The sensitive areas and view corridor down the middle will be a conservation easement. He reviewed the topography and uti ity corridor of the site. Some changes will be made regarding the drainage. Their intent is to underground the overhead power line and they are working on a public/private agreement to do that A new and separate access dedication for the Tawney and Ma'y s Lake Lodge properties has been arranged. Fire and ISO requirements will be handled by using building anvalopes spaced 100 feet apart All lots will end up below the eventual bluelme. The w°mr tankPsize may be increased in the future which would ai^ for an amended plat to resize the building envelopes to less than 100 kDofTeparatiom^ Town is doing a water lift ^tation and the Upp^ Thompson Sanitation District will approve a sewage lift stat,or^; ma'mtpnance costs will be billed back to the homeowners association, which all property ownersarerequiredtoioim A private maintenance agreement for the private drives should be prepare and submitted with the final plat. Public Works Director Linnane requested a 30% increase in the size of the tank to eliminate the 100 foot setbacks. Public Comments: Andv Andrews 3131 Highway 7 - He is totally supportive of this protect This ’development is an enhancement of the v®' eV orotects the peak. Steep areas of the Pike property as well as h s property are governed by ihe Estes Valley Land Trust covenants. Frank Theis president of the company which bought Mary’s Late [odge H^s also very cooperative and supportive of this pro,ect. Planning on annexing his property after this one. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 7 Jim Tawney, 1820 Fall River Road - He owns the 30 acre parcel that surrounds Mary’s Lake Lodge, and is also supportive of this development. He has no specific plan for development of his property at this time. Mr. Van Horn requested that instead of continuing, the plat be approved with all the necessary conditions. Staff advised against a conditional approval noting that a comprehensive list would be too difficult to prepare on short notice. The developers were anxious not to delay the project another month. Senior Planner Joseph suggested reviewing the preliminary plat along with the final plat at the applicant’s risk at the November meeting which was acceptable to the developers. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) that the Preliminary Plat for Kiowa Ridge Subdivision of the proposed Kiowa Ridge Addition be continued. Motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. ANNEXATION AND ZONING a. Kiowa Ridge Addition, William Van Horn, Biii & Donna Pike, and Robert Koehler/Applicants. Mr. Van Horn requested that the annexation and zoning be reviewed immediately before the review of the final plat at the next meeting. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Thomas) that the Annexation and Zoning for the Kiowa Ridge Addition be continued. Motion passed unanimously with two absent. 4 a.EVEDevdo^nient man 99-08, Lot 44, Block 1, Fall River Estates, Fall River Estates, IncJApplicant. Chris Kuglics representing e applicant withdrew the development plan. S. SPECIAL^REVIEWiew gg o3 The Carrjage Connection, Don & Gardner/Appiicants. Don Gardner, the applicant presented his request forPLrriage rides in Estes Park. Senior Planner Joseph rSed the staff report. In 1996 the Planning Commission approved the Black Canyon Carriage Rides. This business is no longer in operation and Mr. Gardner has purchased their horses with the9 intent of continuing the carriage rides on the same routes approved in 1996. Approval needs to be obtained from the prop authority (EPURA) in regards to using the Conference Center. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) to recommend approval of Special Review 99-03, The Carriage Connection wrth the following9 conditions, and it passed unanimously with two absent. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 8 1. Applicant shall provide a copy of a Certificate of Insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with the Town to be named as additional insured. 2. The applicant shall obtain a business permit from the Town. 3. The applicant shall obtain written permission from property owners for specified stops on private property. 4. Town staff shall approve any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops. 5. No signage on public property. 6. If traffic conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public stop locations, the Town staff is authorized to restrict operations until the problem is corrected. 7. That portion of the proposed route that runs through Stanley Heights shall not be allowed, and is deleted from the approved route map. 8. The horses will be diapered. 9. If Town property is used for staging, approval must be obtained from the proper authority. MOCCASIN SADDLE SECOND ADDITION ANNEXATION, Town of Estes Park. Senior Planner Joseph presented the staff recommendation. This is an annexation of the right of way of Moccasin Bypass and is already Town property. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) to recommend approval of the annexation of Moccasin Saddle Second Addition, and it passed unanimously. There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. ecretary