HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1998-07-21BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission
July 21,1998
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair A1 Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, Alma
Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas
All
Trustee Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph,
Recording Secretary Botic
None
Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
1. APPROVAI-. OF MINUTES
Minutes of the May 19,1998, meeting were approved.
2. CONCEPT PLAN
2.a. Homestead Ridge Concept Plan, In Larimer County at the NW corner of
Dry Gulch Road and Wildfire Lane (Vz Mile N on Dry Gulch Road on the
Left), Pinnacle Homes & Design, LLC/Applicant. This concept plan involves
a proposal for development consisting of residential, commercial and
accommodations. Commissioner A. Hix declared a conflict of interest and was
excused. Applicant Peter Ingersoll stated the project cannot be designed any
better, he is taking the lead in addressing affordable housing as there is no
current mechanismin place. Mr. Ingersoll presented a slide show explaining the
proposal consists of a system of private streets/pedestrian oriented. He
acknowledged the dilemma to balance asphalt and creating density and believes
this is a judicious use of land planning with alleys and garages in the back
creating a large open space (common green area) which is a community focal
point. This proposal is based on the award winning Popular Street Project m
Boulder. Any change in setbacks wiU collapse the design. To createasense of
community there are no back doors. The designs will be modified for Estes
Park by changing the color pallette to earth tone colors, removing the Victorian
touches (brackets, turn posts, lattice work, i.e. ‘gingerbread’), and having a
rustic, muted, maintenance free fence color. He noted this proposal does not
feel the intrusion of automobiles, it is like a ‘Garden of Eden’ which looks good
from all sides with residents utilizing their porches like living rooms.
Commissioner Brown questioned the written statement regarding ‘residents
from the R’3 School District and Mr. Ingersoll explained they would be m
compliance with the Fair Housing Act, however, through covenant or application
process they would weigh criteria to local residents. Mr. Ingersoll explained
they have explored affordability and overall economics, noting the pressure on
working people. He requested approval for a well-conceived project.
Senior Planner Joseph stated the proposal is currently located m the County and
a Petition for Annexation has been received and a Public Hearing will be held
at the August 18, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Joseph noted the
project w8as reviewed by Larimer County on November 6,1997 and those
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21,1998 Page 2
comments were included in Commissioner’s information packets. Mr. Joseph
continued reviewing his staff report dated July 21, 1998 and identified
correspondence from Public Works Director Linnane, Town Attorney White,
Police Chief Repola, Fire Chief Dorman, CDOT, UTSD, Estes Park Post Office
and Public Service Company of Colorado. He summarized by noting the
Applicant has presented a concept plan that involves exceptions to existing Town
standards in the following categories: 1) Minimum lot area density calculations,
2) Setbacks and landscape buffer (30' required), 3) Dedication of Public Street
Right-Of-Way, 4) Street alignment, 5) Drainage detention and 6) On street
parking to serve commercial buildings. The Planning Commission should
identify (in the form of a motion) those categories of exceptions (if any) which
the Commissioner considers justifiable within the context of the concept plan.
Mr. Ingersoll explained the proposal is significantly different since going
through the County process (setbacks, commercial parking, improved access to
property). He is cognizant of the view corridors and buildings have been placed
accordingly, public landscaped areas will be created, as well as a water
detention pond will be created. The pond’s height can be raised to allow
additional water accumulation with a possible small wetland area. The County
does have a PUD process, this proposal doesn’t meet all the standards. Mr.
Ingersoll did not realize the street r-o-w would be deducted and would sign an
agreement to never ask the Town to maintain the ‘alleys . If street area was
added into calculations and single family was changed to inulti-family, the
proposal would be closer to meeting requirements. He can’t guarantee the
college will come. A significant effort has been made to create planning
buffers and they have tried to give as much information as possible. It would not
be a problem to place ‘no parking’ signs in requested areas. He stated all
ordinances can’t be met and he doesn’t believe the design can be improved and
is requesting information on whether the Planning Commission would support
this project.
Audience comments: Patrick Cipolla: expressed disapproval of this project
noting it is in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan. The developer s appeal
based on affordable housing for service workers is inconsistem with a cost ot
$150 000-$160,000. Affordable housing is already available. The Code neeas
to be rewritten to reflect Estes Park not Larimer County and address low
income if that is required. He requested the Commissioners listen to the
people, stating growth should pay its own way.
Ralph Nicholas: reviewed his June 23,1998 letter to the Commipioners and
editor of the Trail Gazette. He emphasized a density bonus may begrante ,
stated deed restrictions are meaningless, does not favor flag pole annexations
and requested the Commissioners either vote “no” or table this issue to t
Estes Valley Planning Commission. He provided a different view of density
which he distributed to the Commissioners.
Mary Zollimn: upon the suggestion of Mr. Ingersoll she recently visited the
Popular Street project in Boulder. She also asked how many o
Conunissioners have visited the project; Burgess, Pohl and Sager acknowledged
tey have. While visited the site she took pictures which she made availab e for
the Commissioners. She stated the pictures illustrated very high density o
toee "ne Z traffic, with parking on both sides of Popular Street wtth
small setbacks. She did not observe anyone on the ‘green area nor did she see
any signs of recent usage. Mrs. Zollman then explained how much water it
would take to maintain the ‘green’ area and quesuoned the cost and availab y
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21,1998 Page 3
of so much water. Trees give privacy and will not grow as fast in Estes Park. In
Boulder the children went to a nearby park, which would not be available here.
She questioned how accessible/safe narrow streets will be for snow plows,
ambulances, fire trucks etc. In Boulder she observed people storing their
possessions on all sides of their homes, on porches and garages which created
many cars parked on the streets. She requested less density, regulation sized
streets and two entrances off Dry Gulch Road. She questioned the homes only
having one door and requested annexation not be considered until changes are
made.
Rowland Retrum: encouraged Commissioners to read his letter dated July 1,
1998. He also noted the property in question is not entitled to be annexed as it
is not contiguous, it is too expensive for low income families, any increase in
allowable density is flexible enforcement, questioned why conversion to high
density is so popular by developers and approval would set a pattern. He
requested denial of the proposal.
Yvonne Cocchi; explained she wanted a ‘face put to affordable housing’. She
has maintained multiple jobs simultaneously and cannot afford the proposed
housing and neither will her co-workers. She requested the Commissioners say
‘no’ as this will not help the low income housing problem.
Rusty Collins, of Neighbor to Neighbor, noted there is a housing continuum
(homeless - homeowners). Any housing provision along the continuum is
helpful. He noted buying power has decreased and a Larimer County Study
shows the average median income for the Estes valley is between $30,000-
$40,000. He is impressed by this proposals viability, architecture, the
aesthetics, and believes it will benefit the community. Pinnacle Homes is
invested in this community and this is an effort to provide housing for all people
along the housing continuum.
Ann Vernon; is opposed due to density and requested Applicant submit a pro
forma’ as he is applying to high density. She expressed concerns with expends
over time and who would be responsible. She stated Applicant had land m town
which could have been utilized for this project. Mrs. Vernon questioned having
a college in this mountain community and requested the Commissioners vote
‘no’ on the proposed annexation.
Steve Todd: questioned density and the decision making process regarding
annexation, upzoning and granting variances.
David Habecker: questioned who is responsible for low income housing. He
served was on the Town B oard when the Lone Tree property was purchased and
the citizens criticized the Board.
Bill Van Horn; stated everyone likes municipal services and fhls Pr°P°sa^
would provide housing for this type of employee. He su^g^^ted waiving^ilding
permit and tap fees to be supportive of this proposal. If this location is not
appropriate, locate one. A well-done mobile home park is also needed.
Mr Ingersoll responded to previous audience remarks. He noted he has
reservations of 48 interested parties. He questioned the location of
good piece of land. His proposal is attempting to create home ownership. M\
buildings will have full basements and there will be landscaping similar
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21,1998 Page 4
RiverRock. He is stepping forward to bring a junior college facility and
affordable housing. He can’t create affordable housing and meet all the
ordinances. He doesn’t know what the cost will be, possibly between $90,00 0 -
$140,000 depending on finding a nonprofit affiliate. No one is stepping
forward, if this is not approved, there is no solution for the future. He requested
an affirmative vote.
Director Stamey noted correspondence has been received from Deedee
Hladick who is concerned with density. Form letters of support were received
from: Mark/Jean Tasker, Dr. Carol Johnson, Mike Smith, Fred Ely, Karen
Lynch, Julie McDaniels, Mariann Oepping, Merlin and Karen Reeves, Army
Sargent, Bob Van Nest, Susan Vosler and Debbie Slinkard. Ahandwritten letter
of support for the community college was received from Bob Jones. Mr.
Stamey clarified the Town zoning ordinance density bonus which states: “For
each lot or dwelling unit (up to the basic number) assured for at least ten years
through covenant or other means to be used for dwelling units to be sold at a
price of not more than three hundred percent of the County median family
income or rented for not more than thirty percent of that income: one-half
dwelling unit” (17.20.020.6e). He noted a good definition of price has not been
heard today and gave information related to the Boulder/Popular Street project.
Lone Tree, Trail Ridge Apartments and Evergreen. Mr. Stamey noted the
average income for Lone Tree is $15,600 and noted the Commission has not
heard what income level is being targeted.
Mr. Ingersoll noted the importance of the subsidies from town, state and
government and sweat equity to the Boulder project. He cannot bring subsidies
to this proposal without a true housing partner.
Commissioner comments: Commissioner Pohl clarified the purpose of
today’s review as noted in the staff report (Project Review, #3). Chair Sager
responded and Director Stamey stated the concept plan is a Pack;ge ’
CoLission may accept or not. Mr. Ingersoll agreed with 1^. Stamey s
comments noting if changes are requested, the plan falls apart and the plan can t
be improved much beyond the on-street parking request detention and
landseape. Mr. Ingersoll requested a direction to pursue noting he could request
a permit today from Larimer County. Commission Brown stated it is not fair
to^characterize the Commission as having no ‘appetite for affordable housing
as<they may not approve of this particular approach. Comimssioner Brown
requested clarification of his understanding that the required squur6 footag"
exceeds by nearly Va does include the bonus and questioned un^r what auth ^
the Commission would be authorized to approve thls_, D ° rQSpthfli
responded Chair Sager stated the importance of having a 30 penmeter setback
to protect future neighbors. Chair Sager stated the Popular Stteet Project was
^‘pretty cute project’ and would look terrible in Estes Park. He reques ed
seeing what the proposal would look like with the verbal changes mentioned at
this meeting CoPmmissioner Thomas stated this proposal had been reviewed in
November 1997 by Larimer County and addressed many issues heard expressed
today; neither County Staff nor the Planning Department was able to support a
recommended denial to County Commissioners. He questioned what
specifically is different with the current proposal. Mr. Ingersoll stated t
following- increased setbaeks on Dry Gulch, a separate commercial entry way
was created, four units were removed, units were imdesmal^.additiond^e^
space, some units were moved, less conunerc.al,
roads and water coUection. Commissioner Burgess noted the east-west streets
around the single family homes will view alleys and ‘backs . Mr. Ingersoll stated
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21,1998
he does not see a difference.
Page 5
Commissioner Thomas stated this is the wrong place for this type of
development and Mr. Ingersoll has forgotten the key rule (location, location,
location). The density is way out of line, there are problems with setbacks and
landscape buffer. He is not as concerned with the street alignment, drainage
issues. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Brown) to refer Mr. Ingersoll
back to the drawing table to make revisions, to deny approval as presented
today for Homestead Ridge Concept Plan in Larimer County at the NW
corner of Dry Gulch Road and Wildfire Lane, and it passed unanimously with
one abstention.
Commissioner Burgess noted “every member of the Commission is not opposed
to affordable housing. Commissioner Brown stated “that while the community
has in the past and continues to wish to encourage housing for our work force,
this plan does little to advance this objective” with Commissioner Thomas
concurring.
Mr. Ingersoll expressed his intent to proceed with his annexation petition.
Chair Sager stated there would be a break with the meeting resuming at 4.22
p.m.
3‘ 3 a Amended Development Plan 98-01, Lot 1, Beaver Point Third Additio^
Jack Williams/Applicant. Commissioner A. Hix resumed her position on t
Commission. Applicant requested his disagreement with Condition #5, _9,
1998 “All new tree and shrub plantings shall be irrigated with an autoim
sorinlder system” be discussed at this meeting. Applicant’s representative, Pau
Kochevar reviewed the history of this proposal and his recent correspondence
inT^o^i^StaffTl^tter to Town Clerk dated June 4, 1998 and letter to Director
Stamev dated July 13,1998). Applicant does not believe ‘automatic irrigation
code (Section 17.24.030) nor has it been consistently
required.
Senior Planner Joseph explained his original recommendation was due to this
residential development which will be sold as condominium ownership. Sta
wanted to avoid a situation where the required planungs wereinsta11®1] by
developer without irrigation and then homeowners would be required to ha
water the planting. Also, staff did not want to be in the position of requiring t
CSrs association to replace dead trees and shrubs where no irrigation
system had been installed by the developer.
Commissioner Thomas slated he supported the original motion as jt
fnr thp new Code and that even native plants take 2-3 years to necuii
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21,1998 Page 6
being posted for 3-4 years was suggested by Commissioner Brown.
Recognizing the Applicant’s good intentions/plans for irrigation, it was moved
and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) to delete the word ‘automatic’ from
Condition #5 of the original motion on May 19, 1998 for Amended
Development Plan 98-01, Lot 1, Beaver Point Third Addition, and it passed
with the following votes. Those voting “Yes”: Commissioners Brown, Burgess,
Pohl, Sager and Thomas. Those voting “No”: Commissioner A. Hix.
4 COUNTY REFERRALS (Due to Mr. Breth’s traveling from out of town, the
following items were reversed from the Agenda.)
4 a Olympus Village PUD & Rezoning, 29-05-72; S of Highway 34 at the
Olympus Lodge, David and Kathe Mizer/Owner and Marty
Breth/Applicant. This referral is a sketch plan review to divide a 2.46 acre
tract into two parcels; one parcel to be rezoned to M-Multi Family for 20 units
in four plexes and one parcel to remain A-Accommodations for the lodge. The
submitted sketch plan was incomplete. Applicant Marty Breth responded to the
points of the staff report acknowledging additional details will need to be shown
on later plats (i.e. utility lines and easements), currenfly there is ■n,en"° “P
into Town water, however, additional informauon will be needed to pv de
adequate fire flow/fire protecUon. Density calculaUons were made before the
10' r o-w was determined. Mr. Breth explained parking Umitations only allow
for cross parking easements, the owners don’t intend to seUfscpiuate piuce s^
There is not enough space for a buffer and vehicles exiung (CDOT doesn t
anticipate widening the highway). Parking for the Tea Room may need to be
addreLed. New units are planned to be long term independent rental units with
no sublease or condominiumized owner ownership.
Chair Sager stated sidewalks, landscape, etc. would be required if this proposal
were in Town. Director Stamey explained the comments received from the
Estes Park Planning Commission are advisory to Larimer Couny. .
transmit the ^accc^ssibility/availahility, and aU
County, and it passed unanimously.
4.b.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21,1998 Page 7
Modifications include smaller, clustered lots ranging from .4 -.82 acres, more
green spaces, consideration for access point - traffic study conducted, one cul-
de-sac shortened and one eliminated, some building envelopes have been
identified so they do not infringe into drainage ways, proposed r-o-w for Ken-
Road on the South end. Director Stamey questioned if the PUD proposal
conforms with County allowances, Mr. Stephen responded it did. There were
no audience comments. Commissioner A. Hix stated she regrets losing the
assisted living project, however, noted this is a very good proposal. It was
moved and seconded (A. Hix/Brown) to favorably recommend this proposal
(Willow Ridge PUD Resubmittal, NW14 02-04-73) and forward the above
comments as well as the staff report written by Senior Planner Joseph,
dated July 16,1998 to Larimer County, and the motion passed unanimously.
5.REPORTS - none.
6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m.
Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary