HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2005-05-17RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 17, 2005,1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike
Eisenlauer, George Hix, Bill Horton, Betty Hull, and Edward Pohl
Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, and Pohl
Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Town
Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer
Chair Kitchen, Commissioner Horton, Planner Shirk
Acting Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and weicomed new
Pianning Commissioner Richard Eisenlauer.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the
chronological sequence of the meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated Aprii 19, 2005.
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) that the Consent Agenda be accepted,
and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
3. REZONING REQUEST, MACGREGOR RANCH PARCEL, Metes and Bounds,
MacGregor Avenue, Applicant: Staff / Affected Owner
Director Joseph stated that a zoning map error involving a parcel owned by
MacGregor Ranch recently came to the attention of Community Development
Department staff. The vacant five-acre parcel is located immediately north of St.
Bartholomew’s Church. The property was zoned “RM” Multi-Family during the 2000
comprehensive rezoning, under the incorrect assumption that the church, which
requires “RM” zoning, was located on the parcel. This was an unintentional up-
zoning, and the Community Development staff now recommends the property be
rezoned to “E-1” Estate, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. This would
provide an effective transition buffer between the “RM” zoned land, where the church
is located, and the “RE-1” zoned land to the north, which has a ten-acre minimum lot
size. Mr. Bill Van Horn, Chairman of the MacGregor Ranch Trustees, as well as the
Board of Directors, have been notified of this corrective rezoning.
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Amos) to recommend approval of the
Rezoning Request, MacGregor Ranch Parcel, Parcel ID #35241-00-907, Metes
and Bounds, to the Board of County Commissioners, and the motion passed
unanimously with two absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 17, 2005
4. SPECIAL REVIEW 05-01, HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE
Downtown Estes Park, Applicant: Victor Anderson
CONCESSION,
Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a proposai for horse-drawn
carriage rides within the Town of Estes Park. Services are to include wedding
transportation, other special events, and carriage rides along a fixed route with
normal hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. daily. The proposed route
is one that has been reviewed by the Estes Park Police Department and planning
staff, and approved by the Town on prior occasions. It minimizes left turns as well as
conflicts with the general flow of traffic. The proposed public pick-up and drop-off
locations are limited to the Stanley Hotel, the Transit Center, and Tregent Park. The
route will begin at the Stanley Hotel and proceed south down MacGregor Avenue to
Bond Park then continue west on Elkhorn Avenue to Tregent Park. The carriage will
turn around in the Tregent Park parking lot and return along the previously traveled
route, returning to the Stanley Hotel. Other proposed pick-up and drop-off points for
private events include the Stanley Hotel, St. Bartholomew’s Church, and Our Lady of
the Mountains Catholic Church.
The proposal has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. The Public Works Department commented that the
applicant will need to provide water for the horses at their scheduled stops. Planning
staff recommends that any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops be
approved by Town staff including, but not limited to, the Public Works and Police
departments. The applicant will be required to obtain a Town business license and
provide a copy of a certificate of insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with the
Town named as an additional insured party. No signage will be allowed on public
property and the horses must be diapered during service.
Public Comment:
The applicant, Victor Anderson, was present. He stated his willingness to comply
with the staff’s recommendations. Director Joseph noted that the horses must be
stabled at a property that is zoned to allow horses. Commissioner Hull questioned
whether Mr. Anderson was concerned about the horses impeding traffic. Mr.
Anderson stated his opinion that the speed of the summer traffic would be consistent
with the speed of his horses.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of Special
Review 05-01, Horse-Drawn Carriage Concession, Downtown Estes Park, to
the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended
by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
CONDITIONS:
1. Applicant shall obtain a business permit from the Town Clerk. Prior to issuance of
a business permit, the applicant shall:
a. Provide a copy of a Certificate of Insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with
the Town to be named as an additional insured.
b. Obtain written permission from property owners for specified stops on private
property, including the Stanley Hotel, St. Bartholomew’s Church, and Our Lady
of the Mountains Catholic Church.
c. Submit a revised site plan incorporating the following:
• Signature block:
APPROVAL:
Approved by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees this
, 2005.
day of
John Baudek, Mayor
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 17, 2005
Any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops to be approved by Town
staff.
No signage shall be allowed on public property.
If traffic conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public stop
locations, Town staff is authorized to restrict operations until the problem is
corrected. This is intended to account for accidents, parade routes, periods of
heavy traffic, or other instances of traffic hazards or congestion.
5. All horses shall be diapered during times of service.
6. Horses shall wear a rubber overlay shoe.
7. Public drop-off shall be limited to the Transit Center and Tregent Park.
8. A copy of the business license and Special Review permit shall be kept with the
carriage.
3.
4.
5. SPECIAL REVIEW 05-02, CIRCLE OF FRIENDS MONTESSORI SCHOOL, Lot 1,
Saint Bartholomew’s Addition, 880 MacGregor Avenue, Applicant: Circle of
Friends Montessori School, Kay Lawson, Director
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow Circle of Friends
Montessori School to operate a child care center in Saint Bartholomew’s Church for
a maximum of ten children between twelve and thirty-six months old. The Montessori
school has moved out of its former location at the YMCA of the Rockies and is in the
process of searching for a more permanent location where they can expand their
programs. A temporary-use permit was approved by staff on May 5, 2005 to allow
the Montessori school to relocate to the church property for a thirty-day period while
awaiting consideration of their special review application.
The proposal was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and adjacent
property owners for consideration and comment. Comments received from the Chief
Building Official, Will Birchfield, included a list of recommended conditions of
approval.
Planner Chilcott noted that the proposed child care center is small, limited to ten
children, in an existing building that already provides Sunday school services to
children. Staff does not find any adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public
facilities and services, or the environment, with the exception that parking could
have created adverse impacts if the church and Montessori School had not agreed
to a shared parking plan to address parking during peak demand periods; the
Montessori school will cancel child care during times when the church needs extra
parking. The proposed location meets the minimum-lot-size requirements for child
care centers and the outdoor play area will be limited to the existing playground.
Commissioner Hix questioned what would happen if the Montessori school wished to
increase the number of students participating in its program. Planner Chilcott stated
that the applicant would have to repeat the review process with the Planning
Commission and Town Board. The applicant was not present at the meeting.
Public Comment:
None.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 17, 2005
It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) to recommend approval of Special
Review 05-02, Circle of Friends Montessori School, Lot 1, Saint Bartholomew’s
Addition, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff, and the motion passed uanimously with two absent.
CONDITIONS:
1. Compliance with the conditions in Will Birchfield’s memo dated April 25, 2005.
2. The application fee shall be submitted or a waiver granted by Town Board,
with review by the Community Development Committee prior to Town Board
review.
6. REZONING REQUEST AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REQUEST, THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, Metes and Bounds, 995 Dry Gulch Road, Applicant: Boyette
F. and Sandra A. Williams
Commissioner Amos recused himself from participating in the discussion and vote
on this agenda item due to his involvement with the Estes Valley Non-Profit
Resource Center, Inc. Acting Chair Pohl verified that the four Commissioners
remaining still provided a quorum.
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary subdivision plat
application to divide a 9.946-acre parcel into thirty-three lots. The proposed
subdivision will include thirty single-family residential lots on 5.734 acres. Fifteen lots
will be deed restricted for twenty years and sold to households earning 100 percent
or less of the median income. The remaining fifteen lots will be deed restricted for
twenty years and sold to households earning 120 percent or less of the median
income. In addition, two commercial lots, totaling 1.849 acres, will be donated for
development of a community services building by a newly formed nonprofit, the
Estes Valley Non-Profit Resource Center, Inc., and development of a building for the
Salud Family Health Center. The non-profit resource center will encompass Estes
Valley non-profits, including Victim’s Advocates, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts,
day-care providers, services for the children and elderly, and so forth. Approximately
2.3 acres of right-of-way will also be dedicated and a new road constructed to serve
the subdivision. The road is proposed to connect to Red Tail Hawk Drive to the north
and Crabapple Lane to the south. The existing home and accessory dwellings will be
removed. One home design is proposed for all thirty new homes. Their placement on
the lots, color, and garage location will vary throughout the subdivision.
The property is currently zoned “RE” Rural Estate, which requires a minimum lot size
of 2.5 acres. This is a request to rezone the western 5.734 acres to “R-1” Single-
Family Residential, which requires a 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size, and the
eastern 1.849 acres to “O” Office, which requires a 15,000-square-foot minimum lot
size. The “R-1” Single-Family Residential zoning district was established solely for
attainable housing development. The property to the north has been rezoned from
RE-1, Rural Estate, to RM, Multi-Family Residential zoning and includes the Good
Samaritan Village, Talons Pointe, plans for approximately fifty units to be developed
by the Estes Park Housing Authority, and plans for a Lutheran church. Talons
Pointe includes units for households earning sixty percent or less of median income.
The property to the south is being developed as Vista Ridge, a sixty-one-unit, multi
family residential development that includes thirty-one attainable-housing units for
households earning eighty percent or less of median income. Planner Chilcott noted
that the proposed development is compatible and consistent with the policies and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development
patterns in the Estes Valley. It will provide for a mixed-use development as well as
attainable housing. This is only the second time a private developer has offered to
provide affordable housing since the adoption of the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 17, 2005
The property lies within the unincorporated Estes Valley and the applicant has
submitted an annexation plat, titled the Bosan Addition, as well as a development
agreement, for Town Board review. The annexation/development agreement
includes a modification of the “R-1” Single-Family Residential zoning district
attainable-housing requirement that owner-occupied attainable housing be sold to
households earning eighty percent or less of median income. The proposal also
includes a waiver of the fifteen-percent-open-space requirement. This requirement
was waived for the Mangelsen Subdivision on Halbach Lane, which include R-1
zoned lots. Planning staff intends to recommend removing the open-space
requirement for R-1 parcels from the Estes Valley Development Code.
Planner Chilcott noted that the proposal does conflict with some of the North End
sub-area key issues and guidelines, including maintaining the low-density character
of the North End and preserving existing native vegetation while locating buildings to
minimize disruption and intrusion. Because the property is sandwiched between two
high-density developments and it does not push additional high-density development
farther into the North End, staff is supportive of the proposal.
All lots have legal access to a road and staff is supportive of the proposed road
design. No direct access to Dry Gulch Road will be permitted. The proposed plan
includes dedication of a twenty-five-foot-wide hike/bike path easement along the
eastern property line of Lot 2, Block 3. The applicant has agreed to add a twenty-
foot-wide public pedestrian trail easement on Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, to provide for
the possibility of public access to The Reserve open space in the future.
District buffer landscaping requirements are triggered for the single-family lots
abutting “CO” Outlying Commercial and “RM” Multi-Family Residential zoning
districts. Because the district buffer requirements provide for such dense plantings,
staff recommends spreading the proposed trees and shrubs along the property lines
to provide screening in the most needed areas and create a more natural landscape
design. Landscaping, except that in the landscaped islands, will be required to have
automatic-drip irrigation.
Additional review of adequate public facilities requirements, including water, fire
protection, sewer, transportation, and drainage standards will occur with the
submittal of final construction plans to ensure compliance. Stormwater drainage from
Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, will flow into the gutter on Red Tail Hawk Drive. The
remaining lots will drain into a culvert between Lot 8, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 3,
eventually crossing under Dry Gulch Road. Comments from the Public Works
Department regarding the stormwater drainage plan have been largely addressed;
Public Works will review the updated drainage plan and final drainage construction
plans.
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agencies and to
adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received
from the Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, Upper Thompson
Sanitation District, Larimer County Engineering Department, and the Larimer County
Department of Health and Environment. Comments were also received from Frank
Weale, 864 Crabapple Lane, Nancy Bergman, 870 Crabapple Lane, Elaine Hunt-
Downey, 874 Crabapple Lane, and Bob and Karen Umscheid, 885 Crabapple Lane,
who expressed concern about additional traffic on Crabapple Lane created by the
proposed development. Staff is supportive of the street connection to Crabapple
Lane because the Town has adopted regulations that require interconnected streets
between developments, where feasible, and has adopted regulations to limit the
number of houses on a cul-de-sac. When Crabapple Lane was platted in 2002, it
was designed to connect to this property once it developed. James Nytes, 1753
Wildfire Road, expressed concern about the sight visibility at the intersection of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
May 17, 2005
Wildfire Road and Dry Gulch Road, where property owners using Crabapple Lane
would exit onto Dry Gulch Road. Planner Chilcott noted that the Estes Park Housing
Authority intends to improve the sight visibility at that intersection when grading is
done in that area in the fall.
A traffic impact study was conducted. With the additional traffic generated by the
proposed development in the area, including the surrounding developments, the
estimated number of trips on Dry Gulch Road total 3,480 per day. Turning
movements at the Dry Gulch Road/U.S. Highway 34 intersection and at the Dry
Gulch Road/Red Tail Hawk Drive intersection will also be studied. The additional
traffic generated by The Neighborhood development is estimated to be 287 trips per
day for residential use. Of that, 108 trips per day are estimated for Crabapple Lane
with the remaining trips added to Red Tail Hawk Drive. The office lots are estimated
to generate 518 trips per day; ingress/egress will be solely onto Red Tail Hawk
Drive.
Public Comment:
Paul Kochevar, of Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers, was present to represent
the applicant. Commissioner Hull questioned whether the applicant had considered
building duplexes instead of single-family homes to reduce density and allow for
more landscaping. Mr. Kochevar stated the applicant had considered multi-family
units but had decided against them due to the existing number of multi-family units
currently on the market and because the costs to build multi-family units increase
enough to preclude making the proposed development attainable housing.
Nancy Bergman, 870 Crabapple Lane, stated that although she is supportive ofthe
proposed affordable housing. Community Resource Center, and Salud^Health
Center she has great concern over the impact of additional traffic °n Cr^b^pP
Lane She noted that Phase II and III of Vista Ridge have yet to be built, both wi
uS ihf nar?r Crabapple Lane for ingress/egress. She questioned whether a
pedestrian/bike trail between the proposed development and Vista Ridge would
meet linkage requirements of the EVDC.
Cathv Jensen 868 Crabapple Lane, also expressed concern about additional traffic
on Crabaoole Lane questioning whether access to The Neighborhood could be tror^
?hne western of’ Gray Haw9k Court or whether --“""sSedTaf the
Drooertv adjacent to the western end of the proposed development is The Reserve
rio?m1^lsr^e»rprr:^«^^mmmwmto the front property line than the rear property line and setbacks from the re
property lines varying from thirty-five to forty-five feet.wmmrnm
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 17, 2005
entire contents in approximately two hours; the water will flow into an existing drain
at the intersection of Red Taii Hawk Drive and Dry Gulch Road. Ms. Michael also
asked about the types, heights, and numbers of proposed buildings in the office
compiex. Planner Chilcott stated that preliminary plans reflect two buildings of
approximately 11,000 square feet. She noted that the development plan for the
office buildings will be reviewed by the Pianning Commission and that neighbors wili
be notified.
Wiiber Coyie, 1802 Ptarmigan Traii, stated his objection to the “cookie-cutter” styie
of the proposed homes, noting the adjacent residences in the Good Samaritan
development are attractively grouped and landscaped, with consideration given to
the contour iines of the surrounding land. He stated that the architectural impact of
the proposed development would be negative.
Jim and Biiiie Nytes, 1753 Wiidfire Road, stated their concern that increased traffic
on Crabapple Lane would flow onto Wildfire Road, noting that people park on both
sides of Wiidfire Road on days when Crossroads is busy. They stated their objection
to the density of the proposed deveiopment and the lack of a play area for children
and additional parking space for residents. They noted that the proposed office
buildings wili add to traffic congestion. They stated that although the North End is
supposed to be a low-density area, they are now surrounded by some of the
highest-density deveiopment in the Estes Valley.
Tara Steckline, 1670 Brook Court, stated that she and her husband are potential
purchasers of a residence in the proposed deveiopment. She noted that with two
young children, such development may provide the only option for their family to stay
in Estes Park and stated that she is very supportive of the project.
Commissioner Pohl referred to the recommended condition of approval that the “O”
Office land be rezoned to “RE” Rural Estate if construction of the Salud buiiding and
community services building is not commenced within a “set period of time,”
questioning who wouid determine that iength of time. Planner Chilcott stated that
discussion would be held with the Salud Foundation and the Estes Valley Non-Profit
Resource Center to determine their approximate time frame for construction. The
Town Board typicaiiy retains the right to rezone the property if construction is not
commenced within one year of the date of approval.
Wendell Amos addressed the Commission on behaif of the Estes Vaiiey Non-Profit
Resource Center. He stated that the start of construction on the Community
Resource Center is contingent upon the timing of Community Development Block
Grant funds from the government and will probably not commence until 2006. He
confirmed that access to and from the office buiidings wiil be from Red Taii Hawk
Drive and noted the Center’s support of pedestrian trail access if the hike/bike trail is
developed on the west side of Dry Gulch Road in the future.
Doug Frisbie, a member of Estes Park Saiud Foundation, stated that construction of
the Salud facility must begin by the end of the calendar year in order to meet
Community Development Block Grant requirements. He noted that pians for the
building are fairly well along and that the building will be a one-story structure with a
walk-out basement.
Eric Biackhurst, Chairman of Estes Park Housing Authority, and Sam Betters,
Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority, both gave their
commendations to the developer for the effort to bring more affordable housing to
Estes Park. Mr. Biackhurst questioned whether the twenty-year deed restriction for
affordability is long enough, noting that Housing Authority deed restrictions are for
ninety years. He and Mr. Betters asked who would ensure that buyers are income-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 17, 2005
8
qualified, both now and in the future. Mr. Blackhurst questioned whether a
homeowners association would be formed and who would be responsible for
maintaining landscaping in the development. Mr. Kochevar stated that the EVDC
requirement for deed restrictions on affordable housing is currently twenty years. He
expressed a willingness to look into the effect of extending the deed restriction on
the financing costs of the project. He noted that the details of the deed restriction,
i.e., who will ensure buyers’ qualifications, etc. have not yet been finalized but must
be complete prior to consideration by the Town Board on June 28, 2005. Mr.
Kochevar confirmed that a homeowners’ association will be formed and will have
responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and architectural control.
Mr. Betters noted the number of concerns raised about increased traffic on
Crabapple Lane, questioning whether access could cross The Reserve property or
whether the proposed Gray Hawk Lane could connect to Red Tail Hawk Drive at a
point closer to the office lots. Director Joseph stated that no public right-of-way
exists across The Reserve property: such access would have to be privately
negotiated. Mr. Kochevar reiterated that the slope is too steep at the eastern end of
the proposed development to add a connection to Red Tail Hawk Drive in that area.
Commissioner Hull stated her reason for voting against the preliminary subdivision
plat is her concern over the additional traffic that will be generated on Crabapple
Lane and Dry Gulch Road.
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the
Rezoning Request, The Neighborhood, Metes and Bounds, to the Town Board
of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the
motion passed unanimously with two absent and one abstention. Those
abstaining: Amos.
CONDITIONS:
1. Town Board approval of the Bosan Addition annexation plat and recordation
of the plat.
2. Town Board approval of an annexation/development agreement, addressing,
at a minimum:
a. the attainable housing deed restriction;
b. the open space waiver; and
c. Rezoning of the “O” Office land to “RE” Rural Estate if a development plan
for the Salud Medical Center and community services building is not
approved and construction commenced within a set period of time.
d. Town Board approval and recordation of The Neighborhood final
subdivision plat.
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hix) to recommend approval of the
Preliminary Subdivision Request, The Neighborhood, Metes and Bounds, to
the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended
by staff, and the motion passed with two absent and one absention. Those
voting for: Hix, Pohi, and Eisenlauer. Those voting against: Huli. Those
abstaining: Amos.
CONDiTIONS:
1. Plat approval shall be conditioned on comments in the affected agencies
memos, letters, and emails referred to in the staff report.
2. Construction limits of disturbance shall be addressed on the final road
construction plan.
3. Removal of existing structures shall be included in the improvement
agreement, unless they are removed prior to plat recordation.
4. Note #1 which states, “all areas outside the buiiding envelopes shall be
reserved as public drainage & utility easements” shall be revised to clarify
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 17, 2005
which lots have building envelopes and to clarify that easements will be
dedicated, not reserved.
5. Mixing the 100 percent and 120 percent deed restricted lots throughout the
subdivision shall be reviewed during building permit submittal.
6. Proposed sales prices shall be provided.
7. During development plan and/or building permit review for the “O” Office area,
a soils investigation shall be required.
8. Construction limits of disturbance shall be addressed on the final construction
plans submitted with the final subdivision plat.
9. To create a more natural landscaping design, the proposed forty-eight trees
and seventy-two shrubs shall be planted along the entire southern property
line between the Gray Hawk Lane/Crabapple Lane intersection and The
Reserve open space, grouping trees and shrubs to provide screening in the
most needed areas. District buffer landscaping shall be provided along the
northern property line.
10. Automatic drip irrigation shall be provided for the district buffer.
11. Waiver of the automatic drip irrigation requirement for the landscaped islands
shall be conditioned on staff review and approval of a revised landscaping
plan for the islands.
12. Refuse disposal shall be addressed in the homeowners’ association
protective covenants. The covenants shall be submitted for staff review and
approval prior to recordation.
13. Water service lines and sizes shall be shown on the final construction plans
submitted with the final subdivision plat.
14. Sewer service lines with line sizes shall be shown to all lots on the final
construction plans submitted with the final subdivision plat.
15. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District’s comments in their April 19, 2005
letter concerning overlapping drainage and utility easements, the proximity of
drainage and sewer improvements, and service line design shall also be
addressed on the utility plan submitted with the final subdivision plat.
16. Grading for the detention area shall be shown on Sheet 1 and a drainage
easement shown for the detention area. This shall be reviewed by staff to
determine if there is room for both a trail and detention area in the twenty-five
foot-wide strip; if not, a revised plan shall be submitted for staff review and
approval.
17. A traffic impact study shall be submitted which includes review of the Dry
Gulch Road/us 34 intersection. Trip generation estimates shall be submitted
and shall include an estimate of the number of trips added to Crabapple
Lane.updated to review the DGRd /US Hwy 34 intersection & DG Rd/RTHawk
intersection
18. Transformer sizes shall be noted on the final construction plans submitted
with the final subdivision plat. Primary and secondary service lines shall be
noted and proposed easements for all primary electric installations shall also
be shown on the final construction plans.
19. No direct access to Dry Gulch Road shall be permitted. Access to the “O”
Office zoned lots shall be from Red Tail Hawk Drive and access to all
residential lots shall be from Gray Hawk Court or Gray Hawk Lane. A note
shall be added to the final plat describing this, and general driveway locations
shall be shown for lots adjacent to the internal traffic circle and the four lots at
the end of the cul-de-sac on the final construction plans. A note shall also be
added permitting only one driveway curb cut per residential lot.
20. No access to Crabapple Lane shall be permitted until sight visibility is
improved at the Wildfire Road / Dry Gulch Road intersection.
21. A note shall be added to the plat clarifying that no public access to The
Reserve exists at the present time.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
May 17, 2005
10
7. REPORTS
Planner Chilcott reported on the Mary’s Lake Lodge Condominiums Revised
Development Plan 0-07A that was approved by the Planning Commission on March
15, 2005. The applicant has requested that condition #4, which requires that the
portion of Kiowa Trail needed to access units 10 and 11 be constructed prior to
issuance of building permits for those units, be changed to require the road
construction prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Planner Chilcott stated
that staff is supportive of this request.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:34 p.m.
Edward B. Pohl, Acting Chair
i^ecordin^Secretary