The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1986-11-18BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners David Barker, Duane Blair, Mark Brown, Mike Dickinson, George Hix, Steve Komito Chairman Sager, Commissioners Barker, Brown, Dickinson, Hix Town Attorney White, Town Administrator Hill, Town Planner Stamey, Town Engineer Widmer, Secretary Anderson Commissioners Blair and Komito 1. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held October 21, 1986 were submitted and approved. 2. SUBDIVISIONS 2.a. Prospect Mountain Subdivision, P.U.D. Amended Concept Plan and Proposed 7th Filing: Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing the owner, presented the aforementioned request. Planner Stamey summarized the staff report. The proposed 7th filing would result in the following: o 3.98 acres would be added to the P.U.D., resulting in a total P.U.D. of 35.65 acres. o Proposed open space of the total P.U.D. would be 14.43 acres, or 40%. o 12 dwelling units are proposed in the 7th filing. o The number of proposed dwelling units on Outlot B has been reduced from 7 to 4. o Access to the 7th filing would be via a cul-de-sac off Peak View Drive. o A private drive extended from the cul-de-sac would serve 6 dwelling units. The original P.U.D. was approved by the Town in October, 1981 and since approval of the original concept plan, there have been six separate filings. Section 17.60.110 of the P.U.D. ordinance states, "A planned unit development plan may be amended by the addition of adjacent land, or the original design may be amended; provided that all procedures followed are the same as those required for initial approval....; and provided that the basic concept of the plan is preserved. Planner Stamey advised that the key question is whether or not the basic concept of the original P.U.D. is preserved with the addition of the 7th filing. He addressed the following points: o ACCESS: One of the primary aspects of the original P.U.D. concept was that Darcy Drive was planned as a through street, to be extended through and provide a connection for the property to the west. With the 6th filing, Darcy Drive was terminated in a cul-de-sac and the opportunity for this access connection was lost. o PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS: In addition to the Darcy Drive termination, the 6th filing resulted in land being BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - November 187 1986 - Page Two added to the P.U.D. Three additional building sites were gained with that amendment. The 6th filing changed the basic original concept and eliminated the rationale for adding the proposed 7th filing. The purpose of the P.U.D. regulation is to encourage total planning of land tracts. Other than adjacency, the proposed 7th filing is not functionally related to the original P.U.D. o DENSITY; The original concept plan proposed a maximum density of 37 dwelling units. The proposed 7th filing would increase this to 46 units. o COMMON OPEN SPACE; Common open space must be accessible to all residences of the P.U.D. The 7th filing is poorly related to the open space. There are no apparent pedestrian connections from the 7th filing to the open space. If the 7th filing had been included in the original concept, better open space distribution and access points could have been incorporated. The location of the open space does not provide density relief, break up building mass or buffer the property to the South. Planner Stamey further stated that, in his opinion, the proposed 7th filing does not preserve the basic concept of the original P.U.D. and should be denied. Discussion continued regarding Special Review criteria and application to this development proposal. Planner Stamey acknowledged receipt of the following correspondence; Town Engineer.........................................November 12, 1986 Town Attorney.........................................November 4, 1986 Light and Power.....................................October 31, 1986 Estes Park Fire Department...............November 12, 1986 Public Service Company..................... November 4, 1986 It was noted that the Town Engineer recommended the private drive be constructed to public street standards; and, that the Fire Department requested provisions for emergency access from Darcy Drive and a wider private drive. Mr. Van Horn submitted a written response to the staff report and provided the following: o The amendment results only in a net gain of 9 dwelling units. o The Concept Plan Amendment is a logical extension of the P.U.D. as the water system was designed to serve 52 units above Peak View. o The overall proposed density (1.29 units/acre) is below the allowed 3 units/acre. o The proposed addition has access rights across the adjacent government owned land which provides access to the common open space. o The proposed private drive is 20' in width with a 22h' turn around radius. A private drive is exempt from Town street standards. o The P.U.D. impacts the property less than other forms of development. o A 25' setback from Peak View will be provided. o The project has been successful. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - November 18, 1986 - Page Three Additional discussion followed regarding access, open space, access across government land, density and landscaping. Commissioner Hix moved the Amended Concept Plan of Prospect Mountain Subdivision, P.U.D. be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees, subject to the following conditions; 1. Prior to Town Board consideration, the following needs to be shown/added to the Concept Plan: o Signature blocks for owner, lienholder. Town Board approval. o Engineer's stamp/signature, o Correct acreage of P.U.D. o Proposed water and sewer service. 2. The developer negotiate the final width of the private drive with Town staff. The developer work out the details of the turn around radius of the private drive, and emergency access across lots 29 and 30 from Darcy Drive with the Fire Department. 3. The development plan and final plat incorporate the following (which should be reflected by note on the Concept Plan); Dedicate 101 and parallel additional right-of-way adjacent to to the north side of Peak View Drive. Utility easements as specified by Light and Power, Public Service and other utility companies be dedicated. Minimum building right-of-way of 25'. setback from Peak View Installation of fire hydrant to Department requirements. meet Fire 5. o Landscaping along Peak View to be in accordance with new Section 17.24.020. o Street design and building location consider efforts to preserve mature vegetation. o Cut and fill slopes to be revegetated, except where prohibited by features such as solid rock. o Submission of new drainage study. o Detailed grading plan is also required at this stage. The maximum number of units for the entire P.U.D., including Outlet B, not exceed 46 dwelling units. Provide assurance of access by 7th Filing to common open space, by appropriate easements across government land and lots 29 and 30, 6th Filing. Commis sioner unanimously. Barker second the motion and it passed BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - November 18, 1986 - Page Four 3. COUNTY REFERRAL: 3. a. Estes Valley Memorial Gardens - Exemption Plat: Mr. Tom Brown, representing Estes Valley Memorial Gardens presented the request for exemption. Attorney White stated this was a process commonly used by Larimer County. Motion was made by Commissioner Brown that this exemption be favorably recommended to the Larimer County Planning Commission and Commissioner Hix seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous. 4. REPORTS: 4. a. Zoning Regulations: Mr. Dave Habecker requested time to address the Planning Commission regarding the 25' setback requirement in the new zoning ordinance. He expressed concern with establishing numerous non-conforming buildings within the Town with this new requirement. Mr. Bill.Van Horn expressed similar concern. Planner Stamey will provide some options for Planning Commission consideration. 4.b. String Lights - Proposed Sign Ordinance Change: Town Attorney White prepared a suggested ordinance for use of string lights. Motion was made by Commissioner Hix that the Planning Commission recommend to Town Board that hearing dates be set to consider the proposed ordinance change. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown. Chairman Sager read exerpts from Intent and Purpose section of the existing sign code and stated he felt the existing sign code was adequate. The Motion passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes", Commissioners Barker, Brown, Dickinson, Hix. Those voting "No", Chairman Sager. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Carolyn Aaderson, Secretary