HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1985-03-19BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
/ Planning Commission
March 19, 1985
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman A1 Sager, Members Duane Blair, Mark
Brown, Mike Dickinson, George Hix, Steve
Komito, Richard Wood
Chairman Sager, Members Blair, Brown,
Dickinson, Hix, Wood
Town Attorney White, Town Administrator Hill,
Planner Stamey, Town Engineer Widmer,
Secretary O'Connor
Member Komito
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting held December 18,
1984 were approved. Chairman Sager stated the following meetings
where held by the Estes Park Planning Commission regarding the
Commercial Zoning Revisions: two work sessions - January 4th and
18, 1985; one public hearing - January 29, 1985, and one public
meeting - February 8, 1985.
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Member Hix nominated Al Sager as Chairman of the Planning Commis
sion. Member Brown seconded the motion. Member Blair moved the
nominations be closed. Member Brown seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously with Member Sager abstaining from the vote.
Member Hix nominated Richard Wood for Vice-Chairman and Member
Brown seconded the motion. Member Blair moved the nomination be
closed. Member Hix seconded the motion and it passed unanimously
with Member Wood abstaining from the vote. Member Hix nominated
Vickie O Connor as Secretary. Member Brown seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
3.COUNTY REFERRALS:
■^•a*----Parrack Variance Request: The request is essentially to
amend" the conditions under which a variance was granted in
TnnJ* request was to allow the applicant to construct a
100 x50' building to be used as a shop for the applicant's own
construction business. Mr. Parrack's 1985 request is to be able
to lease or rent-out a portion of the building for shop/storage
for use by others. Planner Stamey stated a letter of transmittal
dated February 22, 1985 was submitted by John A. Pedas, Code
Enforcement Officer/Larimer County Planning Department. Planner
Stamey read his memorandum dated March 19, 1985. Discussion
followed regarding Planner Stamey's recommendation concerning a
landscaped buffer in order to "soften" the use for Lone Pine
Acres. The "District Boundary Requirement" recommends one
tree per 30 linear feet and one shrub per 3 feet. Member Wood
moved the Parrack Variance Request be favorably recommended to
the Larimer County Board of Adjustment contingent upon the
following:
_ All commercial uses developed on-site be wholly con
tained within the existing shop building.
2. No outside storage.
Uses should meet the following standard:
No sound, noise, vibration, odor, or flashing shall be
observable without instruments more than 200 feet from
the boundaries of the originating premises.
Provision of a landscaped buffer in an area south of
the shop building, approximately parallel to the road, to
3.
4.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - March 19, 1985 - Page two
visually screen the shop building from Lone Pine Acres.
This provision is intended to soften the visual impact by
specifying four trees 6' in height to be staggered in the
area south of the commercial building and to be continually
maintained.
Member Brown seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
4. NEW BUSINESS:
4.a. RICCIARDI SUBDIVISION - LOT SPLIT; Mr. Todd _Plummer,
representing the owners, submitted the Ricciardi Subdivision Lot
Split. The size of the site is 16,035 square feet; Lot 1 con
tains 0.11 acres - 4,822 square feet; Lot 2 contains 0.26 acres
and 11,213 square feet. The purpose of the lot split is to
separate the ownership and to enhance the maintenance and con
tinued use of the property as it now exists. Planner Stamey
identified the comments of the referral agencies which included
the: Town Engineer, Light and Power Department, Water Depart
ment, Estes Park Fire Department, Estes Park Sanitation District,
and the Colorado Department of Highways. Additional letters were
received from Town Attorney White and the Estes Park Sanitation
District. Mr. Plummer stated as long as the existing sewer
service serving both lots operated properly, it was not necessary
to install separate sewer lines. In the future, should the need
arise, the sewer line would then be separated. Regarding the
access point concern expressed by the Colorado Department of
Highways, Mr. Plummer stated there is no other possible access
point for this property. No one spoke in "favor" of or in
"opposition" to the lot split. Member Wood moved Ricciardi
Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Town Board subject to
the following conditions:
1. Indicate the total acreage in the written legal descrip
tion;
2. Indicate "found" monumentation at southeast, southwest,
and northwest corners of subdivision;
3. All property pins set prior to Town Board approval;
4. Provision of separate sanitation sewer service lines to
the residential buildings on Lots 1 and 2, prior to the
closing of sale of either parcel.
5. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property;
6. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and
the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the peti
tioner;
7. That the granting of the exception will not be material
ly detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
other property in the neighborhood in which the property of
the petitioner is situated or in conflict with the purposes
and objectives of Title 16.
Member Hix seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
5.b. HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION - SUMMERSET SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
#16: Mi"! Jan Mode land, representing the owners, presented the
Summerset Site Development Plan #16, Homestead Subdivision. The
site data is as follows:
Size of Site.................................6.503 Acres
Number of Lots.............................1
Number of Dwelling Units....29 Condominium Units
Proposed Density........................4.5 dwelling units/acre
BRADFORD PUBLISHING COM DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - March 19, 1985 - Page three
Proposed Parking........................2 spaces/dwelling unit (minimum)
Existing Land Use......................2 single-family dwellings
Existing Zoning..........................R-2 Multiple Family
Water Service...............................Town of Estes Park
Sewer Service...............................Upper Thompson Sanitation
District
In November, 1983, the Planning Commission and Town Board ap
proved Site Development Plan #9, Homestead Condominiums, Phase
II. That development proposed 44 dwelling units for this site.
The Summerset Development Plan is a revised development plan for
the same site containing 29 dwelling units. Ms. Modeland stated
there was "no problem" with Staff recommendations. Discussion
followed regarding the homeowner's association bylaws, private
roads (access for other development), greenbelt and highway
right-of-way. Those speaking in "favor" of the development plan:
Giles Gere, representing the Upper Thompson Sanitation District.
Those speaking in "opposition" none. Planner Stamey identified
the comments submitted by the following referral agencies: Town
Engineer, Town Attorney, Light and Power Department, Water
Department, Estes Park Fire Department and the Colorado Depart
ment of Highways. Planner Stamey also acknowledged receipt of
the following letters: Upper Thompson Sanitation District and
the National Park Service. Member Brown moved_Homestead Subdivi
sion, Summerset Site Plan #16 be approved, subject to the follow
ing conditions:
1. Planning Commission signature block.
2. Identify privacy fencing setback from Fall River for
Units 8-19.
3. Indicate zoning district boundaries.
4. Due to the fact that flood elevations are not available,
a note should be placed on the development plan as follows:
"No building permits will be issued for Units 20 - 26 until
the revised floodplain is established and conformance to
said floodplain is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Town's Floodplain Administrator."
5. Provide a typical architectural elevation and floor plan
of proposed buildings, and note maximum building height on
development plan.
6. "Statement of Intent" should describe how the proposed
development relates to the purposes of the development plan
review procedure.
7. Indicate drainage flood patterns and cross-section of
drainage swale between Units 12 and 13.
8. Widen Dawn Lane to 24 feet from the cul-de-sac to
Homestead Lane.
9. Verification by Town Attorney that homeowner's asso
ciation documents provide for continued maintenance of
private streets and landscaping. Attorney White stated he
will provide the necessary amendment to the documents.
10. A note that that survey line on the west side of the
.71 acre tract is not a lot (property) line. Graphics for
this line should be different than the project boundary
line.
11 Prior to additional construction, discuss actual
placement of powerlines and electrical equipment with Light
and Power Department.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.» DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - March 19, 1985 - Page four
12. Note that four units will be designed and constructed
to be handicapped accessible.
13. All the above conditions must be accomplished prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
Member Wood seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The
Estes Park Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the
proposed radius of the cul-de-sacs (private), and provision of
access to the north and south. The Planning Commission would
like the developer to consider cul-de-sacs that meet Town
standards, and provisions for access to the north and south.
5.DISCUSSION;
5.a. PROPOSED PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS; Planner Stamey read his
memorandum dated March 19, 1985 which recommended revisions to
the proposed Parking Design Standards prepared by Philip B. Herr
and Associates. The standards reflect current parking design
practice for small car, mixed size car and handicapped parking
spaces. There were no persons speaking in "favor" of or in
"opposition" to the proposed Parking Design Standards. Member
Wood moved the Estes Park Planning Commission adopt the Parking
Design Standards, as follows;
1. Small Cars. Allowable percentage = 25%. This figure
could be revised, if appropriate, in the future. Also, the
Planning Commission can still authorize a larger percentage
upon documentation by the applicant;
2. Dimensions.
a.
b.
Eliminate the category of "Segregated Large";
Stall Width;
Mixed Size = 9,0";
Segregated Small = S'O";
Aisle Width;
1.
2.
1.
2.
60° = 18'
45° = 13'
d. Overhang. Include a footnote stating that overhang
shall not obstruct pedestrianways;
and that the Commission review the standards periodically, having
the time elapsed no longer than two years. Member Blair seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
5. b. WORK PROGRAM ON URBAN GROWTH AREA STUDY; Planner Stamey
stated discussions have been held with the Larimer County Plan
ning Department for the past several years in an effort to
initiate an "Intergovernmental Agreement for the Estes Park
Development Area." Planner Stamey presented, and read, a draft
which is the first step in formalizing this process. The
proposed work program included; Purpose, End Product, Methodo o-
gy, and Work Schedule. It is anticipated the agreement will be
presented to the Town and Larimer County in December, 1985. A
formal working relationship with Larimer County will benefit the
entire Estes Valley. Member Hix commended Planner Stamey for nis
effort in preparing the draft, and moved the Estes Park Planning
Commission accept the Work Program and make a determined effort
to follow it through in its entirety. Member Wood seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Vickie O'Connor, Secretary