Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commission 1999-04-20BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission April 20,1999 Commission; Attending: Absent: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Stephen Gillette, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Gillette, Pohl and Thomas Commissioner Hix Trustee Liaison G. Hix, Town Attorney White, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley None Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES of the March 16,1999 were approved as presented. Chair Sager welcomed the public and reviewed the rules of conduct for a public hearing. 2. SUBDIVISIONS a. Amended Plat and Rezoning of Tract 69, Fall River Addition, North of Highway 34, West of Nicky’s Restaurant, Rocky Mountain National Park Associates (Curt Buchholtz)/Applicant. This is a 35-acre tract of land now zoned E-Estate. The proposal is to create a new 28.33 acre tract (Lot 69A) to be given to Rocky Mountain National Park as permanent open space. Tract 69B would be limited by this plat to a maximum of 10 dwelling units. This lot is also proposed to be rezoned to R-M, Multi-Family. This zone now allows either single family subdivision, multi-family development, or commercial accommodations since it is located on an arterial street. It is expected that 69B will be re-sold to a developer. No specific development proposal for 69B is being made at this time. Bill Van Horn was present representing the applicant. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report and recommendations. Mr. Van Horn noted that the comments made by the Public Works Director will be addressed in the development plan. It was also noted that this tract is a significant sheep habitat and that this was a public/private attempt to permanently set aside a large portion of this area. The National Park prefers not to have park property right along the highway. The legally required private access and utility easement to Lot 69A will be in the hands of the National Park and will in all likelihood be limited to pedestrian access. Mr. Van Horn advised that there were no problems in meeting all of the staff recommendations and that there will be documentation of the transfer to the Park. All of the land is currently under contract to be sold to Rocky Mountain National Park Associates. The commission inquired if Lot 69A could be designated as a non-build lot. Mr. Van Horn agreed that it would be. Town Attorney White asked for confirmation that this would not create problems with tax ramifications. Mr. Van Horn confirmed that it would not. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 2 Audience Comments: Pieter Hondius, 1996 Uplands Circle, owns property east of this property. He feels this is an intelligent land use giving the sheep habitat a buffer from the road, while at the same time allowing the owners to receive some benefit from the property. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Gillette) that the Amended Plat and Rezoning of Tract 69, Fall River Addition, be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees subject to the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. A private access/utility easement must be provided from Highway 34 to Lot 69A with this plat, and the dedication statement revised accordingly. 2. The existing power line easement should be labeled as such. 3. The proposed restriction on future development shall be clarified, and construction of single detached units, or duplex units shall be further restricted or prohibited. 4. Adequate assurance of the transfer of ownership to the National Park of Lot 69A should be provided prior to Town Board approval. 5. A note shall be added to the plat indicating that Lot 69A is non-build. 6. Rezoning of Lot 69B to RM - Multi Family, be concurrent with the transfer of ownership of 69A to the National Park. b. Final Plat, Dill Subdivision, a portion of Lot 5, Section 1, Arapaho Meadows Addition, located at 2381 South St. Vrain Avenue, Rick & Cathy Dill/Applicants. Paul Kochevar representing the applicants reviewed the proposal. The existing lot would be divided into 3 lots with access for Lots 1 and 2 being from Arapaho Road, and Lot 3 from Highway 7. CDOT prefers a shared access with the lot adjacent to Lot 3 and negotiations are being held with the neighbor. Should negotiations for the shared access fail, CDOT has agreed to allow a direct access to Lot 3. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the recommended conditions with the change that Item 5 include the entirety of the access be vacated. Mr. Kochevar advised that the westerly line of the access easement belongs to a neighboring property and can’t be vacated. The northwesterly line is only proposed and can be eliminated. There was no public comment. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) the Final Plat of Dill Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees subject to the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. A construction plan for the shared driveways to Lots 1 and 2 shall be provided prior to town Board. A driveway apron maintenance agreement shall also be provided, and it shall be the developer’s responsibility to construct the shared portion of the driveways as per the approved construction plan. 2. A CDOT access permit is needed for Lot 3. This access permit shall be obtained prior to Town Board approval of this final Plat. In the event this access point is shared with the property adjacent to the east, a shared access easement shall BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 3 4. 5. be added to the Final Plat as required, and a draft of a shared access maintenance agreement shall also be provided prior to Town Board. A temporary access easement shall be prepared and recorded that provides for the temporary access of Lot 2 across Lot 3 to Highway 7. Provisions for the expiration of that access easement and the removal and revegetation of the existing road should be included. This document should be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney prior to Town Board approval of the Final Plat. The proposed access easement on the northwest property line shall be removed from this plat. The dedication statement shall be revised as per Greg White’s memo, and shall be reviewed by Mr. White prior to Town Board. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS a. Amended Development Plan 97-16, Lot 2, Block 4, Fall River Estates, Fall River Road and Fish Hatchery Road, Craig & Keeiey Hansen and Marjorie Oliver/Applicants. Paul Kochevar representing the applicants reviewed the amended development plan. The two duplex units on the south side of Fall River have been combined to create a fourplex. On the north side of Fall River a duplex unit has been placed to minimize the loss of trees. The swimming pool has also been removed. The applicants have no problem with staff recommendation. The Army Corps of Engineers has granted a permit to construct an electric conduit and sewer line to cross beneath the Fall River. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed staff recommendations and added two additional conditions: (1) Based on DOW’s comment that this area is frequented by bears, the trash enclosure or dumpster should be secured against bears; and (2) Approval of this amendment does not extend the expiration date of the original plan completion date. He also reviewed a letter from Keith Keenan of Alpine Anglers/Trout Unlimited and noted that the first two staff recommendations are aimed at his first two comments. The Town Engineer’s comments are included in the staff recommendation by reference. It was clarified that any activity below the high water line of the river requires an approval and is regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. A bridge that is above the high water line does not require a permit from the Corps. Audience comments: Patrick Cipolla (632 Aspen Avenue) requested clarification of who was Town Engineer and what permits are used by the Town to provide quality control over developments. Director Stamey identified Mr. Bill Linnane as Town Engineer and reviewed floodplain permits. Keith Keenan (2501 Big Thompson Canyon) approved the river crossing recommendation and requested that similar requirements be implemented for all river crossings on both the Big Thompson and Fall River. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Pohl) the Amended Development Plan 97-16, Lot 2, Block 4, Fall River Estates, be BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 4 approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. The following note shall be added to the approved plan; “Approval of this plan and subsequent issuance of a building permit does not authorize any construction activities within the river channel. Construction activities in the river channel are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers and all such activities require a Town flood plain construction permit and a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and must conform to the conditions of the permit.” 2. The construction detail submitted by the applicant’s engineer (dated April 13, 1999 Job#3016) showing the utility river crossing method, (or an equal alternative prepared by a qualified professional engineer) shall be submitted with the application for a floodplain construction permit, and shall be adhered to by the developer and his contractors and sub­ contractors. A copy of this detail along with a copy of the flood plain construction permit, and all other required permits shall be on site in the possession of the contractor responsible for performing the work in the river channel at all times. The Town shall be given two working days notice prior to actual commencement of work in the river channel, and the developer shall be responsible to retain a qualified professional engineer to perform on-site inspection of both the work in progress, and the completed construction. This engineer shall then provide written verification of compliance with all required permits relating to work in the river channel prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. All requirements outlined in Bill Linnane’s memo dated April 12, 1999, shall be complied with, and no structure shall be allowed to encroach into the sanitary sewer easement. 4. All trash enclosures and dumpsters shall be bear resistant. 5. Approval of this amended development plan does not extend the expiration date of the original plan completion date. b. Development Plans 99-04 and 99-05, Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates, Fish Hatchery and David Drive, Randy Coiiins/Applicant. This is a proposal to build 16 multi-family attached dwelling units in four buildings on Lot 3 and 22 multi-family attached dwelling units in four buildings on Lot 4. There would also be a separate office/laundry building and a separate 1280 s.f. recreation/meeting building with associated parking on Lot 4. The units may be managed for overnight accommodations when not occupied by the owners. Since Lot 3 is adjacent to Lot 4 which is also under consideration for the same intended use with the same owner and applicant, it was decided to review both Lots 3 and 4 at the same time. There is no river crossing involved in this property and no encroachment into wetlands. Fire protection brought into the vicinity is adequate for both properties. Applicant is in agreement with staff recommendations. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The density calculation gives full credit to the church parking lot which is leased to the Methodist Church. Due to this. Staff recommends that a note be placed on the plat that no future non-conforming lot splits be permitted. Staff recommendation No. 4 regarding any activity in the river channel will be a general note on BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 5 any development plan that has river frontage. Staff also recommends the additional condition regarding bear resistant dumpsters. It was noted that the Town has no obligation to fulfill the proposal noted in Mr. Kochevar’s letter dated January 26, 1999, to create a public trail and pocket park in exchange for an increase in density. Commissioner Thomas commended the staff for the inclusion of Recommendation #4 and requested similar regulation regarding run­ off into the river. Staff advised that this would be addressed in a pre­ construction meeting as an administrative policy. Audience Comments: Jeanette Villers (1720 Avalon Drive) expressed concern that the new accommodations would also use the church parking lot on weekends when it is already crowded. Mr. Kochevar advised there was no connection between the church parking lot and the development. The applicant’s intention is not to use the church parking lot and sufficient parking is provided in the development. Cindy Younglund Lydell: asked for clarification regarding the use of the church parking lot in the density calculation. Keith Keenan (2501 Big Thompson Ave.): Expressed concern about development impacts on water quality and wildlife habitat. He also noted that Randy Collins (applicant) is under litigation for his involvement in the fish kill on his other development downstream. Town Attorney Greg White advised that the Town has taken all the possible legal steps to address these concerns. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Gillette) that Development Plan 99-04, Lot 3, Block 4, Fall River Estates, be approved with the following conditions, and it passed with the following votes. Those voting “Yes” - Commissioners Burgess, Gillette, Pohl and Chair Sager; those voting “No” - Commissioner Thomas 1. 2. 3. A planting schedule providing required plantings and showing species, size, and quantities be provided. Bear resistant dumpsters be provided for the project. Plat be noted that no future non-conforming lot splits will be permitted. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Burgess) that Development Plan 99-05, Lot 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates, be approved with the following conditions, and it passed with the following votes. Those voting “Yes” - Commissioners Burgess, Gillette, Pohl and Chair Sager; those voting “No” - Commissioner Thomas. 1. A planting schedule providing required plantings and showing species, size, and quantities be provided. 2. Bear resistant dumpsters be provided for the project. 3. Plat be noted that no future non-conforming lot splits will be permitted. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 6 Chair Sager called a 5-minute recess to allow the next applicant to set up. SPECIAL REVIEW a. Concept Plan, Special Review 99-01, Wildiife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition, south side of Highway 36, west of RiverRock Townhomes, International Concept Management/ Applicant. Paul Kochevar began the presentation by introducing the International Concept Management team from Grand Junction: Roger Reynolds, CEO; Scott Sullivan, CFO; Bill Watts, architect. Bill Zigler, animal consultant and John Palmquist, attorney. Mr. Reynolds reviewed their concept for the Rocl^ Mountain Interpretative Wildlife Center. There would be educational displays as well as living exhibits. Their intent in design and concept is for unparalleled educational opportunity with classroom children as well as the general public. Mr. Reynolds acknowledged that dealing with animals in captivity is an emotional issue, but their hope is to see our native wildlife survive and flourish. Education about wildlife and their habitat is an important part of becoming good stewards of our world. Their building is designed to look and feel like a mountairi lodge with minimal impact to the property which is zoned commercial. They are not removing any of the existing trees and the building is 140 feet from the river’s edge. Less than half of the exhibits are living exhibits. The remainder includes a classroom setting, changing exhibits guest lectures and demonstrations, an art gallery, sculpture garden,’gift shop and small cafe. Their end result will be a better understanding of all living things and their environment. There would be a total of 47 species including reptiles and amphibians. All animals are captive bred. Birds of prey will be on exhibit from a Denver non-profit organization and these birds cannot be released into the wild for various reasons. The air quality was mentioned as a concern. The exhaust system will be similar to the Mills Mall in Ontario, California, which greatly diffuses any odor. There will be ozonators that neutralize nitrates and nitrogen, which is the main cause of odor. Feces disposal would be taken to a local landfill weekly or bi-weekly in quantities that will not require outside storage. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report and advised that this is only a concept plan. A more detailed development plan wi come back to the Planning Commission for review. Correspondence received: The National Park ,^?rvice concerned with the message of approaching wildlife. DOT commented on wildlife habitat disturbed asking that some consideration be given to restricting any use of fencing that wou^ restrict movement of deer and elk to me river corridor LetteJSJh°^ residents generally expressing objections and oppositions. Kath'y' Reed (Goodlettsville, TN); Dr. Celeste Lasky (2441 Long View Drive)- Anne Buttner (1520 Upper Broadview); Joanne Wein (695A Homestead Lane); and EVIA. John Heniy (401 R'verside Drive) expressed concern about removing vegetation along the over. Mr. BRADrORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 7 Joseph reviewed Mr. Kochevar’s letter of April 17, 1999, which summarized traffic projections. A full traffic study is pending. Audience comments: Gaylord Villers (1720 Avalon) - there is enough wildlife in the area without bringing in caged ones. Traffic congestion would also increase. Patrick Cipolla (632 Aspen Avenue): Where will the water be diverted? Current proposal does not Include that feature. Commended the applicant on the design, but opposed traffic congestion and caged animals. Education Is already being provided by the Park. Jim Martel (RiverRock Condominium Association): Concerned that this proposal is of sufficient intensity of impact to require more details at this stage. RiverRock is zoned commercial but is residential, and that is what should be compared. Traffic will impact adjacent property with long waits to get into RiverRock. Need to review social and community needs as well as economic needs. Noting there may be minimal benefits economically to Town. Accommodation use is called for In the Comprehensive Plan, not greater development. He suggested the Planning Commission defer decision until the traffic study is complete. Paula Conn (514 Grand Estates Drive): This is a beautiful center. We need business in winter; too bad they’re planning to close then. What are the fee charges which might affect the success of this project? Mary Jo Morra: Her concern Is for the animals since she has worked at zoos and seen what captivity does to animals with people coming in, the noise from people to animals causes suffering, they pace and become traumatized by too many people. Where will the animals go at night? A major wildlife area is being removed by allowing this development. Don Burback, Telemark: There had been a proposed RV park in this location which was declined due to traffic concerns. Burrowing animals will find their way out to neighboring areas. Sonja McTeague, Glen Haven: Where and when did we change the meaning of nature and natural. Zoos in any form belong in cities. Nature and commercial are oxymorons. Any development is permanently destroying nature. Steve Todd (2715 Lory Lane): Commends their beautiful buildirig and their intention of appreciation of the natural world and emphasis on education; however, this is a paid tourist attraction. We need to look carefully at whether it is education or commerce. If we collectively decide to be against it, what might be a replacement? Light pollution, traffic, and potential for runoff from parking lot into the river all need to be addressed. Pauline Bustamanti (2599 Big Thompson Canyon Road): Educator for over 25 years who came for the natural wildlife. Our greatest BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 8 resource is our closeness to Rocky Mountain National Park. As an educator she would prefer to go out into the real nature. Animals in a cage give a wrong impression on how we view wildlife. Will the traffic study be in the height of tourist season? As stewards, we need to go slow to make good decisions. We cannot put back open fields (once they are developed). Pieter Hondius (1996 Uplands Circle): Property rights need to be defined. There is a right to request consideration of a special review use, but this does not guarantee the use. The Honda School (Eagle Rock) was similar, but they allowed a large conservation easement. If this fails, what is it going to be? What’s left for the community? Jane Dable, Greenwood animal Sanctuary in Lyons: This proposal is not educational. Wild animals do not have interaction with humans. These animals will be depressed, lethargic. These animals are bom and bred to be in captivity. It is not natural. Susan Wolf (425 Ski Road, Allenspark) ecologist who has worked with animal rescue groups for 20 years: Animals cannot interact indoors without sunshine and fresh air. Feces volume removal is greatly underestimated. Alan Oliver: Those opposed should remain to become more organized. David Habecker (221 Big Horn Drive): We do need to mitigate problems but this is a quality development. The Town needs this project. Maybe quality developers will reject Estes Park. What else will there be instead—RiverRock II? Chris Hazelton: Personally supports the development. No better education resource to benefit residents and tourists. Has rehabilitated wildlife and has seen how having a child look into the eyes of a real animal creates appreciation. Would be a welcome addition to our town. Cherie Pettyjohn (513 Grand Estates Drive): Sales tax is needed to avoid high property taxes. Those going to MacGregor Ranch have had a good experience. This proposal would be preferable to condos. Open space is great but there is tax expense. People could buy the property and leave it as private open space. Beverly Briggs (1840 North Ridge Lane): Excited about this development. It’s a terrific educational opportunity. Something will be built there sooner or later. This is aesthetically pleasing and a place for animals that cannot make it in the wild. Better than Estes Park becoming known as a condo city. Meredith Sloan, 4th generation resident and adjacent property owner: As far as choices , this is a great project. Children do learn from going to zoos. Response from Roger Reynolds; The animal compotient creates an emotional issue. The initiai feasibility study looked at traffic, BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 9 Highway 36 is a main artery with a tremendous of use during summer months. They would not be adding to the traffic count. They have visited other living museums which has helped on how to consider the problems of smell and other concerns. They have not yet determined to close in winter. The center will be open through the winter the first year. Open until Christmas is guaranteed. January through March is questionable for future years. Paul Kochevar updated traffic projections. In discussions with CDOT, drainage was not a problem since it all drains away from the road. In the traffic study they estimated 200 cars turning left per hour, which is an over projection. They will have the full transportation study before going to Town Board. Julia Lamy (Rock Ridge Road): Requested clarification on a boundary issue. Ricki Ingersoll (RiverRock): This will never be a RiverRock West because It is too expensive for condos. National Park Village North is also going to be a wildlife education center. During the summer, there is bumper to bumper traffic. There is no sales tax from admission. Accommodations would bring in four times the revenue to the Town than the snack and gift shops. Director Stamey noted the procedure is that this concept review by Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Town Board, then a development plan would be presented to Planning Comrnission after Town Board approval. However, the use itself cannot be reviewed again. Commissioners Pohl and Thomas felt there was information to make a decision at this time. insufficient It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Thomas) that the Concept Plan, Special Review 99-01, Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First addition be continued to the May Planning Commission meeting, and it passed unanimously with one absent. Chair Sager called for a 15-minute break. 5. WILDFIRE RIDGE PRESENTATION Town Attorney Greg White noted that Wildfire Ridge was annexed pursuant to an annexation agreement, site specific development. Any amendment to that annexation agreement must have approval from the owner and the Town Board. Peter and Ricki Ingersoll of Pinnacle Homes & Design and Rusty Collins of Neighbor to Neighbor (a non-profit organization organized ,n J970 |n Larimer County) presented an informal review regarding affordable housing. As a citizen and developer, they wanted dialogue with the Town regarding the possibilities for affordable housing. They reviewed the definitions for various levels of low income based on the area income. Low income is considered by the government as below 80 /o of AMI. Less than 60% AMI, there is no possibility for home ownership. Their focus was in the 60-80% bracket. Tools for affordable home BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 10 ownership: tax exempt mortgages, down payment assistance, grants, donation of materials, density. Density supports affordability. Any policy meant to support affordable housing must address both rental and home ownership. Rental Housing target - 40 to 60% AMI; Home Ownership target - 60 to 80% AMI. Chair Sager expressed his appreciation for the presentation. Audience comments: Ralph Nicholas (1660 North Ridge Lane): The average selling price may be in the $220,000 range, but the median price was around $180,000. He commends the Planning Commission on their approach to provide affordable housing. Asking to deviate from the original development plan is asking a lot. John Zollman (1741 North Ridge Lane): Question - where are the price subsidies and tax exempt mortgage rates they mentioned? Peter Ingersoll - The price subsidies do not exist—meant to include any other source, but there are none. There are assistance programs that do provide lower mortgage rates. This illustrates the price gap between what a working family can afford and what real estate costs. There were no comments from the Commissioners. 6. ADJOURNMENT J *u 4There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 6:28 p.m. Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary