HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1983-12-20I Insert th^riter._ ^ (pev r
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
/ Planning Commission
December 20, 1983
. Commission;
Attending;
Also Attending;
Absent;
Chairman A1 Sager, Members Duane Blair, George J.
Hix, Margaret Houston, Steve Komito, Richard A.
Wood and John Carmack
Chairman Sager, Members Hix, Blair, Wood and
Carmack
Town Administrator Hill, Public Works Director
Widmer, Planner Cole, Secretary Jensen
Members Houston and Komito
Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings held November 15, 1983 and
December 5, 1983 were approved.
BURBACH ADDITION, ANNEXATION PLAT;
Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing the petitioners, presented the annexa
tion plat for the Burbach Addition (a portion of Section 22, Township
5 North, Range West of the 6th Prime Meridian). This six acre parcel
is west of the Homestead Subdivision. Since 100 percent of the owners
of the property signed the Petition for Annexation, a public hearing
was not required for this annexation. The following correspondence
was received;
Water Superintendent ..........................................12/16/83
Fire Department.......................................................12/09/83
Public Works Director.....................................12/09/83
Light and Power Director...................................12/13/83
Town Attorney...........................................................12/13/83
Mr. Van Horn responded to the Water Superintendent's letter by stating
that should the property be developed, the sizing and placement of
utilities would be done. In response to the Public Works Director's
letter regarding the road easement, Mr. Van Horn stated that the
current road through Tract 1 connects with the Henningsen Addition.
The road has a prescriptive right and cannot be closed. Mr. Van Horn
stated that the Burbach's would be willing to put in whatever wording
the Town feels appropriate regarding the road dedication. Member Hix
stated that he would like to see the "blue line" shown on the plat.
Member Richard Wood moved the Burbach Annexation be favorably recom
mended to the Board of Trustees with the following conditions;
1. The following minor revisions be made to the plat;
a. In the dedication legal description; second line;
N00°09'18"W should be S00°09'18"E; last line
S00°09'18"E should be N00°09'18"W.
b. South line of Tract 1; S85°22'13" 125.70 should
be S85°22'13"W 125.70.
c. Middle line of Tract 2;
be N71°15'51"W 283.60.
N71°15'51" 283.60 should
d. East line of Tract 2 inside Town limits;
S01°44'08"W should be S01°44'10"W.
e. The unused signature and notary blocks should be
removed.
f. The word "Proposed" should be removed from beneath
I
Planning Comihi on - December 20, 1983 - Page 2
I
"Henningsen Addition".
The existing Town boundary should be shown
bordering the Burbach Addition on the east.
as
2. The southwest corner of Tract 1 needs to be redrawn to
reflect a 10' offset and the west line redimensioned so
Tract 1 will close mathematically.
3. Show road easement as a "private road easement"
allowing the Town Attorney to word the dedication to be
placed on the plat.
4. The existing roads and the house on Tract 2 should be
shown on the plat.
5. The "blue line" should be reflected on the plat.
Member George Hix seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
BURBACH ADDITION, ZONING - PUBLIC HEARING;
Chairman A1 Sager conducted a public hearing regarding the zoning for
the Burbach Addition. Mr. Bill Van Horn spoke in favor of R-2 Multi
ple Family Residential zoning because of the way the zoning affects
property values. He stated that this property lends itself to R-2
Zoning because of the proximity of the property to the highway and
because of the slope of the land. Others speaking in favor of R-2
Zoning, none. Those people speaking in opposition to the zoning
request, none. The following correspondence was received;
Lloyd and Christel Burbach (R-2)..........................11/08/83
Town Planner (R-Residential)...................................11/08/83
Chairman A1 Sager declared the hearing closed. A discussion followed
on the Town Planner's recommendation to zone the property
R-Residential. Public Works Director Widmer stated that if the
property were zoned R-Residential that a Planned Unit Development was
still possible under that zoning. Planner Cole stated that because of
the character of the land and the surrounding zones, it would be a
mistake not to zone the property R-Residential. Member Richard A.
Wood moved the Planning Commission recommend to the Town Board the
Burbach Addition be zoned R-Residential. Member Duane Blair seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
BLACK CANYON SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT;
Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing the property owners, presented the
preliminary plat for Black Canyon Subdivision, which proposes dividing
Lot 1, Mount View Park and a portion of Meyer's Addition into three
parcels. Mr. Van Horn stated that all but two old buildings on Lot
3 will be torn down. Mr. Van Horn stated that the purpose for the
subdivision is to allow Tract 2 to be developed and have financing
separate from that of the restaurant. The owners would like to put
approximately 40 condominium units on Lot 2 and Mr. Van Horn stated
that they will probably be starting the Site Development process in
January. The following correspondence was received;
Highway Department..........................................................12/06/83
National Park Service ..................................................12/07/83
Public Works Director....................................................12/07/83
DMJM, (Water Consultants)...........................................12/14/83
Estes Park Fire Department.........................................12/09/83
Town Planner .....................................................................12/12/83
Light and Power Director ...........................................12/16/83
Town Attorney ...................................................................12/13/83
r
Planning Coirani=-MDn - December 20, 1983 - Page 3
A lengthy discussion followed on the Water Consultant's letter on
water line sizing and placement, the Town Attorney's and Public Works
Director's letters regarding road access and dedication, and the fact
that Lot 1 is split by Black Canyon Creek in violation of Section
16.16.030 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Louis O'Riordan, taxpayer,
stated that he was concerned with the road problems and did not like
the development. He stated that he felt the preliminary plat should
be tabled. Member Hix asked what the next step was if the plat were
approved with conditions. Director Widmer stated the preliminary plat
stopped with the Planning Commission and the petitioners could
incorporate the conditions and present a final plat. Member George
Hix moved the Planning Commission accept the Black Canyon preliminary
plat with the following conditions:
1. The plat shows a private road as the access to all of
the lots in the proposed subdivision. The Town should
require that said private road be dedicated to the
public but not accepted by the Town of Estes Park. The
purpose of dedication for the public would be to insure
that adequate public access is available to all of the
lots of the subdivision. However, the Town, by not
accepting the dedication, is not liable for any mainte
nance of the road and it does not become a part of the
Town's road system.
2. Adequate arrangements should be made for maintenance of
the road through the use of a Homeowner's Association
or other entity to insure that other maintenance is
adequately addressed. Review of those documents by the
Town Attorney should be a prerequisite to final ap
proval of the plat.
3. The parcel designated "Gill Property" appears not to be
part of the subdivision. As a matter of clarification,
a note should be attached to the plat specifying the
matter.
4. The Comprehensive Plan designates MacGregor Avenue as a
Major Collector street and suggests an 80-foot total
right-of-way width. If the Town wishes to be consis
tent with this designation, it should require the
developer to "reserve" an additional ten feet of
right-of-way along the west line of Lot 1.
5. The owners should submit a Petition for Exception of
the Subdivision Regulations regarding Black Canyon
Creek splitting Lot 1 and 2.
6. The buildings to be removed on Lot 3 should be
designated.
7. A street name should be selected to facilitate future
development.
8. A ten foot (10') utility easement should be provided
parallel and adjacent to the northernmost 231.91' of
proposed Lot 1 and parallel and adjacent to the north
ern and eastern property lines of proposed Lot 3.
9. The subdivider shall work with the Town staff to see
what measures can be taken to mitigate the slope and
problems with the road.
10. The owners should submit a Petition for Exception with
regard to road standards.
11. The property is zoned C-2 Restricted Commercial. This
allows a wide range of use from small businesses to
light manufacturing and motels. For domestic uses the
6-inch main proposed is probably adequate. However,
depending on the use of the property, it could be
Planning Comitii on - December 20, 1983 - Page 4
warranted to install an 8-inch main to provide a
greater amount of water in case of fire.
12. The plat indicates that there are easements for the
existing water line through the property. This should
be verified. If there are no easements then the
easements should be granted upon filing the final plat.
13. The proposed 6-inch main serves only Lot 2. Depending
on the use for the other lots it might be necessary to
upgrade the existing 4-inch line in other areas than
that indicated.
14. Possibly it could be beneficial to keep any proposed
new mains in the existing road easements as opposed to
being outside the road easements as shown.
15. The lot line for Lot 3 should be restructured to make
Lot 3 a conforming lot or the lot should be eliminated.
Member John Carmack seconded the motion. A discussion followed on the
road "reservation" rather than a road dedication. Member George Hix
amended his motion by changing condition 4 to read ..........."dedicate an
additional ten feet of right-of-way along the west line of Lot 1"
rather than "reserve". Member John Carmack agreed with the amendment
and seconded the motion. Those voting "yes" on the amended motion:
Members A1 Sager, George Hix, John Carmack, Richard Wood and Duane
Blair. Those voting "no" none.
REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing the owners, presented a Petition for
Exception to Section 16.16.080 (B) of the Municipal Code regarding
street grades in the Saint Vrain Center Subdivision. Mr. Van Horn
explained that the reason for the exception was to provide enough
cover over the water line. The water line was installed across
Highway 7 and into the subdivision at the Code required 60 inch depth.
However, when the final road grade was completed, the cover over the
water line was only 38 inches. Mr. Van Horn presented a cross section
to the road grade requesting the street grade requirement of 4 percent
maximum within 100 feet of the intersection be waived to a maximum of
6.5 percent. The following correspondence was received:
Town Attorney ..................................................................12/16/83
Water Superintendent ...................................................12/16/83
Public Works Director ................................................12/12/83
A lengthy discussion followed. Member John Carmack moved the request
for the exception to the Subdivision Regulations be denied. Member
Richard Wood seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
LARIMER COUNTY REFERRALS:
Vacation of Highway Avenue in Ferguson Subdivision -Mr. Bill Van
Horn, representing the property owners, presented a Petition request
ing the public "vacate" Highway Avenue in Ferguson Subdivision. The
Petition contained the names of the adjoining property owners, with
the exception of Ruth I. Freeman, owner of Lots 5, 8, 9, 12, 13 and
16. Mr. Van Horn stated that the County is preparing a release for
Mrs. Freeman's signature. The following correspondence was received:
Town Attorney ..................................................................12/16/83
Light and Power Director ..........................................12/19/83
Water Superintendent ...................................................12/16/83
Fire Department ..............................................................12/09/83
Town Planner ....................................................................12/12/83
A telephone call was received from Mr. Giles Gere, representing the
Estes Valley Improvement Association, stating that the EVIA had no
problem with the "vacate". Member George Hix moved the Planning
Commission favorably recommend the vacation of Highway Avenue to the
Planning Commi:December 20, 1983 - Page 5
Larimer County Planning Department subject to the following con
ditions ;
1. It appears that Lot 18 has been divided with Charles L.
and Golda Klingelhoffer owning the Southern portion. A
review of the map of the area shows that only the
Northern portion of Lot 18 is served by a public road,
namely. Middle Broadview. Section 43-2-303 (2) ,
C.R.S., provides that no roadway or part thereof shall
be vacated so as to leave any land adjoining said
roadway without an established public road connecting
said land with another established public road. A
determination should be made whether or not Lot 18 has
been divided and whether or not the Southerly portion
of said Lot has access to public road prior to ap
proval .
2. The Estes Park Fire Department has no objections to the
road vacation as long as the road is not blocked to
emergency response equipment.
3. This area is likely to be annexed into the Town, the
road should only be vacated if the Planning Commission
is assured that the right-of-way will not be needed to
provide vehicular access or utilities that could not be
met through an easement.
Member John Carmack seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF LARIMER COUNTY REFERRALS;
Planner Cole, Director Widmer and Chairman A1 Sager met with the
Larimer County staff to discuss the issue of County Referrals. It was
agreed between the Town and County that:
1. The present procedures should be simplified.
2. The Town will review subdivision, P.U.D.'s and Master
Plans as we have been reviewing them in the past.
3. The County will receive a packet with Town Staff
letters regarding the County Referrals under
consideration.
4. A County Planner will attend the Estes Park Planning
Commission meetings when a referral is under consid
eration.
5. The Town will continue to review matters that are in
our Comprehensive Plan area, but a line will be drawn
around the Town, which will represent the area that may
be annexed into Estes Park. The County will seriously
consider the comments from the Estes Park Planning
Commission regarding referrals in this area.
Planner Cole and Director Widmer will draw the preliminary map of the
area around the Town to be considered by the County, but the map will
be reviewed by the Planning Commission before final approval. The map
will be considered by the Planning Commission in February or March,
1984. Larimer County Planner Russell Legg will send a copy of
Proposed Procedures for County Referrals.
Planner Cole distributed the rough draft copies of the Development
Manual to the Planning Commission members. The Manual explains the
different review processes required by the Town. Director Widmer
stated that the staff would like the Planning Commission comments on
the Manual before it goes any further. Chairman Sager asked the
Planning Commission members to review the Manual and submit their
comments by the January 17, 1984 Planning Commission meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned,
Ann E. Jansen, Town Clerk