The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1986-08-19BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Coitunission August 19, 1986 Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chairman A1 Sager, Commissioners David Barker, Duane Blair, Mark Brown, Mike Dickinson, George Hix, Steve Komito All Town Administrator Hill, Town Attorney White, Town Planner Stamey, Secretary O'Connor Town Engineer Widmer Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held July 15, 1986 were submitted and approved. . SPECIAL REVIEWS: 2.a. Special Review #86-6 - Photo Safari Tours: Mr. Rick Archibald, General Manager, presented the aforementioned special review request. Planner Stamey summarized the staff report stating the tours, of approximately one hour in length, would be conducted through downtown Estes Park and adjoining areas utilizing a double-decker English bus. ™I/T^ryo Slr-ettS include Elkhorn Avenue, Big Thompson Ave- S^ono;J'f=i^ig S* ?i?hway 34 By-Pass and Mall Road.Proposed drop-off/pick-up points include: • Stanley Hotel • KOA Campground • Municipal Parking Lot #1 • Area south of Municipal Building (when completed) • Tregent Park Loading Zone • Elkhorn Lodge • Corner of Park Lane and MacGregor Avenue • Holiday Inn In-town headquarters have not been identi f i crxteria established the hE reVleW 1. The applicant has obtained a P.U.C. License for thf^ proposed operation (#07383). r the 2‘ local^streets. 0peration wil1 adversely impact 3‘ se;erPaTl0aS„edduUsees.C0Ula PrOVl,3e SUpp0rt 4. The proposed use could lend Interest to the oommuni- spondenoe tfrom referTl^tgenolSs!15’* °f thS f°llowin9 corre- ?os^ratPta:L^yrb5^1r!!?^rhority... Building Inspector Jones ...i!;;;............. 08/04/fifi State Highway Department .................................. 08/nfi/flfi Larrmer County Planning Department i!;;; 08/08/86 iSterMestedMO?nnald a'Jdressed the Commission stating he was interested in an identical operation and questioned ttO BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 19, 1986 - Page two Town's public safety regulations with regard to the tour vehicle. Town Attorney White advised a license for such an operation is obtained and regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. Mr. McDonald also requested a copy of the proposed route and was advised a copy would be available in the Planning Department. Chairman Sager questioned if the "idling" would adversely affect the environment? Mr. Archibald responded the bus would idle approximately two minutes, long enough to drop-off and pick-up customers. The bus would not idle an undetermined length of time. Mr. Archibald also stated that the bus would be stored overnight so as not to be visible from public streets. Mr. Archibald stated Photo Safari Tours could meet all staff recommendations. Commissioner Brown moved Special Review Request #86-6 Photo Safari Tours be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees with the following conditions; 1. Eliminate the Park drop-off/pick-up point. Lane/MacGregor Avenue 2. 3. 4. Should interference with normal public usage occur at the drop-off/pick-up points on public property, the applicant, shall, upon notification by the town, modify the operation to correct identified problems. Signage shall not be placed on public property. All signage on the bus must pertain only to Photo Safari Tours. Commissioner Barker seconded the motion and it passed unani mously. 3. SUBDIVISIONS; •a• .—Prospect Mountain P.U.D., 6th Filing and Replat of a ggrtion of the Third Filing; Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing the owner, submitted the aforementioned subdivision. Planner Stamey summarized the staff report. The 6th Filing contains mZ7 aCy?f; gth .Filing and Replat contain 1.84 acres. Three (3) new building lots and one enlarged lot will be created. Existing zoning is R-Residential and P.U.D. Access is achieved by Darcy Drive. The existing Lot 15 of the Third Filing IS enlarged through the addition of Outlot E, which was designated as a non-building site in the Third Filing. Outiot D, Third Filing, which was designated as a non-building site, is proposed as Lot 28. Darcy Drive, which was originally proposed to be extended to the West, is now terminate in a cul-de-sac. Two lots have been added at the West end of the proposed Darcy Drive cul-de-sac. re.sul't of the modification is an increase in three building sites within the P.U.D. The applicant has proposed to reduce the number of units to be built on Outlot B from 10 . . 7 to offset the density increase on this portion of the site. Planner Stamey acknowledged receipt of the following correspondence from referral agencies; Town Engineer .................................................... 08/12/86 Town Attorney .................................................... 08/05/86 Light and Power Department ............................ 08/05/86 Discussion followed concerning the staff recommendation pertaining to the extension of Darcy Drive. The proposed length of the cul-de-sac is approximately 675 feet. The Town Is Subdivision Regulation limits cul-de-sacs to 500 feet. Section 16.16.060 Street—Dead-end states "Dead-end streets shall ordinarily be not more than five hundred feet in length." in Mr. Van Horn's opinion, the regulation was BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 19, 1986 - Page three expressly written in this manner to allow flexibility. At the time the sixth filing was discussed, the owner had no intention of further development. When the concept of the permanent cul-de-sac was discussed with staff, it was in the context that this would be the last filing of the Prospect Mountain P.U.D. Staff believes future development is being planned west of the 6th Filing with an entrance road proposed off Peak View Drive. Staff expressed concerns regarding ease of maintenance, snowplowing and emergency vehicle access. Mr. Van Horn provided a sketch indicating that, in his opinion, more efficient snow remowal would occur in plowing two cul-de-sacs in lieu of a through-street. Testi- mony, in opposition to a through-street, was heard from the following neighborhood residents; Bennett Penn, Ed Green, President/Prospect Estates Townhome Association (submitted a letter containing the signatures of eleven property owners), and Don^ Brown. Mr. Maurice Worley, Real Estate Brok er/Appraiser stated Prospect Mountain Estates is twice the average value of property in the area. The cul-de-sac achieved the highest land use. Commissioner Brown moved the Prospect Mountain P.U.D. Sixth Filing and Replat of a Portion of the Third Filing be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon the following conditions: 1. A building setback of 25' from Peak View Drive be designated for Lot 28. 2‘ n ^>1-,a-,Ced 0n the plat stating that density on Outlot B shall not exceed seven (7) dwelling units. 3. Revised engineering drawings for Darcy Drive be submitted. J 4 5, Darcy Drive become a permanent cul-de-sac. approPvra°lP.erty PinS mUSt bS SSt prior to Town Board 6. Provide "fill slope" easement along Darcy Drive as required by the Town Engineer. Y Town Attorney White questioned the status o-F with respect to Outlots D and F ownership the P.U.D. Mr. Van Honn ^he land bein5 added to appropriate Attorney's CertificateSwould ha8 C°I™;j,ssion an purpose. Chairman Sage^ questioned if thePr6S 1?- 1f°r thi^ Replat would conclude anv Fn^^v;^ a -■ th 6th Flling and Mountain Estates pud ’ Mr Van rel°Pr:entaf0r ProsPaot recognize a problem in aiding land to ?he PUD hG did n0t following11 votesr:kerThoseniitinae -^0ti..°nrand- it. passed bY the Brown, Dickinson Hix KoTnit- ^ Coimnissioners Barker, Commissioner Blair. ' t and Sa5er- Those voting "No" 4. REPORTS: Discussion of. various coIra„uS?“st-aari^^0^" request of various communitier reqardTna t^^^ reported on a survey Sifoiriws ?repared by Builain9 Inspector Jones Str-1-n3-llghtSResults areas follows: Prohibition against string lights, p?oMM?Id. ' feStlVe l00k ; blinking-types9 ari BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 19, 1986 - Page four Vail - Prohibited, along with blinking and neon. Breckenridqe - All lighting approved by staff, based upon loose guidelines; holiday lighting allowed - "sign framing" prohibited; "twinkling" allowed - "blinking" prohibited. Loveland - No prohibition of string lights; however, blinking or flashing is not allowed. Boulder - Prohibits strings, blinks, winks, wind signs and flags. The existing Sign Code allows strings of lights in connection with traditional holiday decorations. Staff recommends a steady burning, clear bulb, midget light (18 watts maximum per set of lights) be allowed should the Commission desire to revise the Sign Code. Commissioner Blair moved the Planning Commission not revise the Sign Code to allow string lights! brtheS10fnot^oKOmit0 teCOnded the motion and it was deflated Blair V?teS! TS?Se V°tlng ”Yes" Conmissionars Barker r™ ann.d, ?a9er- Those voting "Ho" Commissioners the Plannina Cn^i^Q1I?SOn/nd HlX* Conmissioner Brown moved rne Planning Commission direct staff to oreoarp a ordinance including appropriate review and limitations KD^Sionsa°„"d publicZhearin^e^c!m!^:^nincf7 ChlairiJ)an .Sager reconvened the among the Commission, Cons^ltfnraSd staff011 S pfir discaasion reported the public hearinrr h ff* Planner StameyP.M. and continued to tSilanninaP ^^USt 18' 1986 at 7:30 19, 1986 at 1:30 P.M. h Planner Stam^1SS^q°npmeeting Au5ust Herr have discussed thp Stamey and Consultant Philhearing. Planner Itamey l?a?l™SthrPere1S,Sea- “ the Public required independent oonsfdRr.**1^ following four topics residential zoning revisions: 1 m that o£ the Review procedures requirements). subdivisions!:OVemen^ Guarantee: (notification, procedural and improvements in • Zero Lot Lines and Townhouse Development, card of Adjustment Procedure. gestions made by the geSra? onhifoeCe.1Ved suPP°rt. Sug- topics are items worthv o-F ^1C include the four unreasonable to delay tL ia±nVhnT' h°wever£ it would be nan?f* It is anticipated revisionc Y 05 .th.e ProP°sed ordi- FnUld ^fke Place inunediately with perJ:.aining the ordinance for public review by September 2 draft available moved the public hearing to conQ-i!!086* 4-i.CoinTi:ilssioner Brown nuance be continued to the Plann,r proposed zoning scheduled for September 16 1986 i Coimnission meetingHix seconded the motion and i^ nL^^ 1:30 .P-M* Commissione? cina It passed unanimously. ?re^\i1Tnee r;?4vea4-\o:iac"ansRf BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 19, 1986 - Page five topics. Mr. Retrum was advised a deadline could not be given at this time, however, the topics would be addressed as soon as possible. Tom Brown - Suggested additional consideration be given to apply the zero lot-line guideline to multi-family zoning districts. Greg Rosener - Stated it was extremely important to address the zero lot-line provision in the proposed R-M Zoning District. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Vickie O'Connor, Secretary