HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2004-03-16RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
March 16, 2004,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Homeier, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Judy Haggard,
George Hix, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, and Edward Pohl
Chair Homeier, Commissioners Amos, Haggard, Hix, Horton,
Kitchen and Pohl
Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and
Recording Secretary Williamson, Town Board Liaison Habecker
present at the study session
Planner Chilcott
Chair Homeier called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated February 17, 2004.
b. AMENDED PLAT OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 PARK
HILL SUBDIVISION, AND LOT 11 OF THE REPLAT OF A PORTION OF PARK
HILL SUBDIVISION, Mall Road and Joel Estes Drive, Applicant: Van Horn
Engineering
1. The dedication statement shall be changed to dedicate rather than reserve
perpetual easements.
2 2004PlianCe With mem0 fr0m the DePartment of Energy dated February 9,
tt was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) that the Consent Agenda be accepted
and It passed unanimously. ciuuepiea
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3.
Applicant: Mountain view Vacations, LLC ’ 8 k Canyon Drive'
Tt3errChJnvnrrnWe? ,he st.aff rePort- The Planning Commission approved the
Sd ?orrreDSrarunn ,sP on T3piILTPNuTl^tberr1ha’ 20°3-t Tha‘aPpr0Val
r:rfocr°s.r T:i r r f~
Buildings “C” “E 6anda‘Gt°inHiwt^^.on!1l:>[lance 0'' the provision of public services
Public Comment:
None.
1. Compliance with Development Plan 03-12 “Thunder Canyon”.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
March 16, 2004
2. Compliance with EPSD memo dated February 27, 2004 referencing the
private sewer line and plant investment fees.
3. Compliance with Public Works memo dated February 26, 2004 (except
numbers 1 and 2).
4. Section 22 of the Condominium Declaration shall be amended to refer to
seventeen units instead of twelve.
5. The declarations shall be modified to prevent cars from being parked in those
areas that would hinder the traffic flow.
4. AMENDED PLAT OF CARRIAGE HILLS 4TH FILING, LOTS 4, 5, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36 AND 97, BLOCK 10, AMENDED PLAT OF CARRIAGE HILLS
4TH FILING, 1031 Fawn Court, Applicants: Sol & Judith Bassow
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to combine twelve lots into
a single lot and vacate the currently unimproved Driftwood Lane, a cul-de-sac that
was platted to provide access only to lots being vacated with this proposal. Staff
recommends a condition of approval for the vacation of the right-of-way would be to
dedicate a trail easement along Fish Creek Road. This is in an area planned for an
expansion of the trail system. The vacated right-of-way would become a part of the
applicant’s property.
Joe Coop of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. He
stated the applicants feel they are doing public good by combining the lots in
perpetuity and filing a conservation easement. The recorded conservation
easement does not allow a trail; however the easement could be amended to allow a
trail with the approval of the Estes Valley Land Trust. The applicants feel it is
feasible for the Town to place the trail between the current right-of-way and Fish
Creek Road. Mr. Coop advised that the applicants believed Driftwood Lane had
already been vacated, and if the trail becomes an issue they will not vacate
Driftwood Lane. He stated there are no firm plans for the placement of the trail. Mr.
Coop spoke to the difficulties in placing the trail along the west side of Fish Creek
Road, i.e. willows along the creek, narrowness between the creek and the roadway,
and already developed lots along Fish Creek Road.
Planner Shirk advised the trail easement would allow the trail to be placed away
from the road outside of the right-of-way. Commissioner Kitchen asked if it might not
be better to locate the trail along the east side of Fish Creek Road due to the
development along the west side of the roadway. Planner Shirk advised the current
trail is to be extend to Scott Avenue this year along the west side and to cross over
to the east side would create a traffic hazard.
Director Joseph stated it has been the practice of staff to request trail easements
when the opportunity presents itself. Commissioner Homeier asked if the easement
was granted it may never be used. Director Joseph stated yes, the trail might be
located on the opposite side of the road.
Public Comment:
Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering stated the trail easement should not be a
requirement for this amended plat. He advised the applicarits would back out of the
Driftwood Lane right-of-way vacation if the trail easement is a requirement for this
plat. His client is willing to discuss the trail easement at a later date when there is a
definitive trail location proposed.
Mike Menard, owner of Lot 27, Block 10, Amended Plat Carriage Hills 4th Filing,
spoke in opposition to the trail easement. He stated if a 20 foot trail easement were
placed on his lot he would have a small building envelope in which to build.
Ed Kitchen was present to represent his father who is a neighboring property owner.
He feels the trail should run along the east side of the road in this area because
there is more room and the houses sit back farther from Fish Creek Road.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
March 16, 2004
Director Joseph stated a slope easement could be granted instead of the trail
easement to allow for some grading outside of the right-of-way. Attorney White
advised if the applicant is agreeable to this compromise then staff should negotiate
the easement agreement and recorded it through a separate document. Mr.
Sheldon feels the applicants would be hesitant to grant a slope easement without
knowing where the trail will be placed.
Attorney VVhite advised the Town has had difficulties building trails even with an
easement in place. He feels this is a proper avenue for obtaining an easement.
Commissioner Kitchen is worried if this easement is granted it may become a land
locked easement.
Commissioner Pohl feels the applicants are asking to replat their property for a tax
future and he d0eS n0t See any guarantee the trail easement will be granted in the
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Amos) to recommend approval to the Board
of County Commissioners the Amended Plat of Carriage Hills 4th Filing, Lots
Carriaop Hmc34th3pV32’ ?n4.3l’ 35’ 36 and 97, BIOCk 1°’ Amended Plat of
Carriage Hills 4th Filing, 1031 Fawn Court with the following conditions, and
Poehr?ho1pPupre »mT u0ting “YeS” Ha9gard> Hix> Homeier, Amos and
Pohl. Those voting “No” Kitchen and Horton.
1. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements).
2. Change dedication statement to “dedicate” rather than “reserve” utilitv
3. Remove references to building setbacks.
4. A 20 foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the eastern property line.
5‘ PLAT 0F L0T 10A 0F THE aMENDED plat of lot 1 AND LOT 10
lnt^reec»?onAnf p?TSJ’3j BL°CK 2’ LAR,MER TERMINALS SUBDIVISION
Development,<LLC m an Kenwood Lane- Applicant: South Bend
Commissioner ratchen abstained due to a conflict of interest. Pianner Shirk
renewed the staff report. This is a request by South Bend LLC to amend four lots
fordKVeanwmd Lane n ThIVy ri?t!t-of-wa>' (unimproved) and reaiign right-of-way
intoUpdropoViCdaS ?e " rrti0n °Sf0''^d
l Lo*3-. Ivy Lane ls unimproved, and to the best of staffs knowledoe it
has been unused since the original platting of Larimer Terminals in 1957 thp^
riXnai,n0l^deS trequest to reai'9n the Kenwood Une rfgTo^^ay to provide a
Width The'^r^SM^11!1- E'mwRoad’ and t0 vacate 5 feet from the current eOfoot
Shsho1Jied b'e1in^rratorrb:r^^^^^ opinion the'
Public Comment:
91,i JuniPer Lane, spoke in opposition to the vacation of Ivy Lane Heduntoer Lanr He'losrafHl"9. h'S l0' 0ff °f lvy Lane ,han the in^sing^ busy
the north of his bt. VaC 9 'Vy Lane Would land ,ock the ProPerty ^
from JuntirUn 1 y ^ ^ PlanS t0 USe Lane and Wi" gain access to thair l°‘
J°j?inthDonahf. 911 Elm Road. spoke in opposition to the vacation of Ivy Lane He
feels there is too much traffic on Juniper Lane. y
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
March 16, 2004
Commissioner Horton questioned the need to vacate Ivy Lane. Mr. Klink stated that
because Ivy Lane had not been used in the past and was not going to be used in the
future it made since to vacate the right-of-way and put the “I” zoned land to better
use. Mr. Klink would like to continue this proposal a month to discuss the vacation
of Ivy Lane with the neighboring property owners.
It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to continue the item at the appiicant’s
request to the Aprii 20, 2004 Pianning Commission meeting and the motion
passed with Commissioner Kitchen abstaining.
6. REPORTS
Director Joseph and Planner Shirk attended the Rocky Mountian Land Use
Conference last week. Planner Shirk reported on the recent Town Board and Board
of County Commissioner actions.
There being no further business, meeting was adjouriipd at 2:51 p.m.
Richard Homeier, Chair
Jad^uel^ Williamson, Recording Secretary