HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1996-10-24BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission
October 24, 1996
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown,
Harriet Burgess, John Gilfillan, Alma Hix,
Edward Pohl, and David Thomas
Chairman Sager, Commissioners Burgess,
Gilfillan, A. Hix, Pohl, Thomas
Trustee Liaison 1 G. Hix, Attorney White,
Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph,
Secretary Botic
Commissioner Brown
Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Minutes of the September 17, 1996 meeting were approved as
presented.
2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. a. SUBDIVISION - Preliminary Plat. Portion Tract A.
Prospect Estates Addition. Stephen Walt Solomon and Cynthia
Solomon Curry/Applleant. This is a request to divide 66.218
acres into 15 lots for single family development to be known
as Prospect Highlands Subdivision. Applicant's
representative, Kerry Prochaska, reviewed the proposal. He
stated Outlet C is being dedicated as open space and will
adjoin another open space area. Outlet A contains 33 acres
and will be a conservation easement with the top 1,000' feet
of Prospect Mountain left open with no future plans. The area
is zoned R-S Residential and is proposed to be restricted to
single family. The maximiun niimber of lots will be 18, and 15
lots are being proposed at this time. Shared driveways are
planned for some lots. Mr. Prochaska has consulted with David
Habecker and building is feasible. He reviewed the storm
drainage history, associated problems in 1995 and the drainage
report. The proposal contains provisions for drainage basins,
swales, and ditches to disperse water. Engineering will be
approved by the Town Engineer. The Prospect Mountain pumping
station will no longer be necessary which will result in
reduced costs. Regarding only one entrance/exit, he stated no
problems have occurred with emergency situations in areas such
a Crags Subdivision, the Uplands and Rockwood Estates, and
requested an exception to allow 15 lots which exceeds Town
Code of 12 lots. Applicant will comply with all items in the
Staff report. In response to Chairman Sager's concerns on
construction management to mitigate geological hazards, Mr.
Prochaska stated the area will be studied, impacts will be
mitigated and contractors who perform blasting must be
certified by the State. Specialists/experts will be employed.
Director Stamey reviewed the Staff report and stated that
Curry Drive would need to be dedicated from Peak View Drive to
the eastern property line. The preliminary plat as presented
will require an exception from the Municipal Code and Mr.
Stamey concurred with Mr. Prochaska's earlier comments of
ground water problems in 1995. He also recognized
correspondence received from the following: Harley T. Godard,
477 Peak View Drive, Estes Park, CO; Chris Rosenberg, 555
Darcy, Estes Park, CO; Ralph Kienker, 15647 Quail Meadows
Drive, Chesterfield, MO; Douglas S. and Margaret G. Chapin,
465 Marcus Lane, Estes Park, CO; Paul C. Eide, 471 Marcus
Lane, Estes Park, CO; Harriett and Laurence Paddock, 470
Marcus Lane, Estes Park, CO; and Nancy Stevens, 461 Marcus
Lane, Estes Park, CO.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - October 24f 1996 Page 2
Audience comments were heard from Frank Parks, 555 B Devon
Drive, who asked if there would be drainage across Marcus Lane
and whether the Town would accept liability. Town Attorney
White stated improvement guarantees are required for
developers and the Town does not require private contractors
to be bonded.
David Habecker, 221 Big Horn, of Habecker Designs, Inc. stated
he recently inspected the property and as a building designer
he has had more challenging requests. It was his opinion that
building is possible and requested the building envelopes not
be fixed. He suggested using setbacks or 'suggested'
envelopes. Director Stamey suggested the Final Plat would
need to have building envelopes and that perhaps a note could
be developed that would allow for some flexibility (e.g. a
note stating they may be enlarged in length or width by x' or
x%).
Chris Rosenberg, 555 Darcy, expressed concerns with liability,
extensive blasting, ground water flow and urged caution. Jack
Dreibus, 1720 Dekker Circle, expressed his opposition,
requested additional information on drainage, and stated he
was also speaking on behalf of Emma Carlson, 610 Longs Drive.
John Phipps, an attorney representing the Prospect Mountain
Townhouse Association, submitted a packet of information to
the Commissioners. He submitted a letter from Terracon
Consultants Western, Inc. of Ft. Collins, which stated
detailed geological and geotechnical studies, rockfall studies
and engineering studies by an independent agency should be
required before the project continues. He emphasized the
Association desires the report prior to Final Plat approval.
He submitted a list of items required for a development plan
and requested that development plans be required for all lots
in the Subdivision. He noted 4 lots would have driveway
grades which would exceed 14%. Mr. Phipps expressed concern
with excavation of driveways and average slope. He noted
there is a lack of clarity of the grade of the proposed street
which supports his request to have a development plan for each
lot. He then reviewed 11 items which, in his opinion, would
need variances and/or exceptions from the Municipal Code, and
a definition of a P.U.D. from Larimer County. He stated three
utility easements would be needed across the Bureau property.
Mr. Phipps requested denial of the Preliminary Plat.
Margaret Nusser, 468 Marcus Lane, stated she sustained water
damage in 1995 and questioned the effectiveness of a detention
pond and asked how historic runoff is calculated. Mr.
Prochaska responded. Bob Allsop, 555 Devon Drive, questioned
if the increased flow in the cul-de-sac which would be
collected in a holding pond would go across or under Peak View
Drive, how the developer would sell lots, and concerns with
Outlet A becoming a guaranteed open space. He could not
envision the building envelopes and requested the
Commissioners go on site. Director Stamey stated before any
construction would begin, the Final Plat would need to be
approved. Sandy Lerner, 463 Marcus Lane, stated Marcus Lane
met the requirements of the Town and there are drainage
problems now. He was told when he bought his home no homes
would be built above and expressed concerns with the effects
of the swale for those below and requested information on
plans to protect those who live below the proposed lots.
Hancel McCord, 685 Peak View Drive, stated his opposition to
the proposal due to the destruction of the scale of the
neighborhood and natural landscape. Harriett Paddock, 470
Marcus Lane, expressed concerns with the detention pond
between Lots 33 and 35 and questioned how the Town addressed
the wetlands. George Hockman, 1625 Prospect Estates Drive,
stated he is a retired professional geologist and has many
concerns regarding drainage and rock stability. John Murphy,
912 Elk Hollow Court, spoke in support of the proposal. He
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - October 24f 1996 Page 3
stated Outlet A will be donated to the Land Trust and
submitted a letter.
Mr. Prochaska stated the water problem on the south side would
not be solved with this proposal. However, this proposal will
take care of its own drainage requirements, and would not
adversely affect or exacerbate problems. Regarding the letter
from Terracon and the statement that 'some rocks have fallen
in recent historic time', he believes it has been a long time
since rocks have fallen and he has seen 4 rocks which have
migrated off this site onto the Bureau property. He stated no
variance is being requested on the length of the cul-de-sac.
He stated the roads grades will be 12.4% and if requested by
the Public Works Director, the 0.2% section can be changed to
0.4%. Regarding the radius of the curve, he noted Public
Works indicated 75' would be acceptable. If the plans are
incorrect regarding the turn-around radius, they will be
corrected. Regarding the BMLA, he stated Lots 14 and 15 could
be combined and used for a duplex. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7
property lines could be extended into Outlot A, resulting in
larger lots, and reduced open space, however, he doesn't
believe that would be 'good planning.' The runoff from Lots
1-5 will be controlled with minimal increase in the historic
runoff which is now channeled down Peak View Drive.
Public Works Director Linnane stated the developer plans to
construct a very large pond that will reduce the flow rate
across the cul-de-sac. There will be a slight increase of
flow along one section of Peak View Drive. He recommended the
Town be given a 3 year improvement guarantee to allow for any
problems to be covered and that RMC or the developer be
available to answer individual questions. Mr. Prochaska
stated he would be available for questions in the coming
weeks.
In response to Commissioner Gilfillan's questions. Attorney
White stated the 1991 annexation map identifies properties and
roads. The dirt road in question was not identified and a
'trail' is not considered a road and is without status.
Commissioner A. Hix stated her displeasure with this proposal
and noted the regulations for enforcement of good planning are
not available, however, the proposal does meet minimum
requirements and she is convinced it will have appropriate
controls and thus it was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Sager)
Preliminary Plat, Portion Tract A, Prospect Estates Addition,
to be known as Prospect Highlands Subdivision be approved with
the following conditions, and it passed with the following
votes. Those voting "Yes", Commissioners Sager, Gilfillan, A.
Hix and Pohl. Those voting "No", Commissioners Burgess and
Thomas.
1. A development plan be submitted for Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 14
and 15 at the time of final plat submittal. The
development plan needs to demonstrate the feasibility of
building on each lot.
2. A geological hazard report be submitted.
3. Lots 13, 14, 15 be shown as Outlot D and be reserved for
future development of 3 lots maximum.
4. Clarify status of Outlots A and B - open space, who will
own them.
Even though Curry Drive is to be dedicated as a public
street, the Town of Estes Park would not maintain said
street until it is connected to a through street to the
north and east.
The developer shall engineer and construct all shared
driveways (Note #5).
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - October 24, 1996 Page 4
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Driveways for all lots to be designed by an engineer, and
said design be submitted with building permit
application.
Building envelopes be dimensioned, and a site disturbance
limit note be added to final plat.
The trail along the west property line to be placed in an
access easement.
Approval of the Preliminary Plat does not create a vested
property right. Note #2 and Notice of Approval should be
removed from the Preliminary Plat.
The Certificates of the Town Engineer and Board of
Trustees should be removed from the Preliminary Plat.
Approval of Survey Plat should also be removed.
Show western utility easement across Bureau property.
With Final Plat, submit information on slope
stabilization and revegetation.
Modify note for Outlot B - "reserved for 3 lots maximum."
Verify whether culvert at entrance discharges into a
drainage easement. A detention at the southwest corner
of the site is needed.
The developer to provide an engineered drainage system
and a 3 year, $10,000 improvement guarantee for this
system.
Waterline easement from William Watson.
Not more than 12 lots be allowed.
Drainage from detention pond to be underground through
the P.U.D., if this improves conditions. (RMC will
examine both ditch and underground systems.)
Outlets B and D shall not be developed until there is an
approved through street to the North and East.
Add the following note to the Plat: "All drainage
facilities to be maintained by the Subdivision property
owners."
Chairman Sager called a recess at 3:30.
at 3:40 p.m.
The meeting resumed
2.b. REZONING
Lots 1—4, 7—50, 7B — 16B, Buenna Vista Terrace Subdivision
Lots 1 and 2. Schuster Subdivision. Lots 1 and 2 Hess
Subdivision. Buenna Vista Terrace Subdivision. Property
Owners/Applicant. This is a request to rezone Buenna Vista
Terrace Subdivision from R-S Residential to E-Estate. Gerald
Mayo, 265 Lookout Street, stated the property owners want to
preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and don't want the
character changed. Odd Lyngholm, 220 Lott Street, believes
that approval would change the character and urged denial.
Helen Culpepper, 260 Courtney Lane, expressed concerns about
allowed business uses. She believes the Comprehensive Plan
will address the properties and urged denial. Judy Lamy,
owner of 5 lots in this area, and Ralph Guild, 260 Davis
Street, expressed concerns with timing and requested approval.
Dick Williams, 141 Courtney Lane, stated he and his wife have
the existing Bed and Breakfast and with the proposed
Comprehensive Plan, they are opposed to the rezoning. Paul
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Conunission - October 24, 1996 Page 5
Kochevar, Estes Park Surveyors, stated all lots would be non-
conforming if approved and an increase in setbacks could cause
future problems which would require variances when residents
apply for a building permit. He reviewed the submitted
petitions and believes people were misled and submitted a copy
of the letter which was sent to property owners. Mary Baurer,
251 Mountain View Lane, expressed her concerns with the
proposed change in setbacks. Orie Vae Williams, 141 Courtney
Lane, owner of Estes Park Bed and Breakfast, stated that some
of the people who signed the petitions have apologized to her
and misunderstood what they were signing. She has never been
notified by mail of the proposed rezoning and believes 80% in
favor may be inaccurate.
Those opposed to this request are: John and Carolyn Bible,
Bill and Helen Culpepper, Alice Hess, Odd & Diane Lyngholm,
Cindy Spalsbury, Dick and Orie Vae Williams. (A copy of the
Subdivision Map is attached to the minutes.)
Commissioner Pohl stated the homeowners can control their own
destiny by forming a homeowners association and thereby police
themselves. He believes the upcoming Comprehensive Plan will
address this and the proposed rezoning is an added burden and
expense to the town. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/
Gilfillan) denial of Rezoning of Lots 1-4, 7-50, 7B - 16B,
Buenna Vista Terrace Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2, Schuster
Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 Hess Subdivision, be recommended to
the Board of Trustees, and it passed unanimously.
2.C. SUBDIVISION
Amended Plat, Lots 1 and 2, Hess Subdivision. Alice M. Hess/
Applicant. This request is for a boundary adjustment between
two existing lots. Applicant's representative, Paul Kochevar,
reviewed the proposal and reminded Commissioners of the
comments at the September 17, 1996 meeting. He stated the
Applicant would comply with Staff recommendations. The
wetlands have been identified, however, they are not on the
Plat and are not regulated. The sanitation easement will be
placed on the Plat. Director Stamey reviewed the staff
report.
Audience comments were heard from Gerald Mayo, 265 Lookout
Street, who stated this proposal would not be allowed under E-
Estate and should be denied. Ralph Guild, 260 Davis Street,
stated neighbors have said they are opposed to a duplex which
may not be built if the lot line remains unchanged and he
requested an opportunity to review new information submitted
to the Commission. Director Stamey stated there would be no
density change with the approval of the boundary change, just
a change in positioning of density.
Commissioner Thomas stated he had heard no compelling reason
to change the boundary line and thus it was moved and seconded
(Thomas/A. Hix) denial of Amended Plat, Lots 1 and 2, Hess
Subdivision, be recommended to the Board of Trustees, and it
passed with the following votes. Those voting "Yes",
Commissioners Burgess, Gilfillan, A. Hix, Pohl and Thomas.
Those voting "No", Sager.
3.a. ANNEXATION
The Elm Road Second Addition. Town of Estes Park/ Applicant.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 96-14
Elm Road Second Addition. Lot 3. Town of Estes Park and A-1
Trash Service/Applicant.
The requests are for Annexation of The Elm Road Second
Addition and expansion of the existing Transfer Station with
related new facilities, office, recycling building, storage
and reconstruction of the detention pond. Town Attorney Greg
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - October 24f 1996 Page 6
White reviewed the annexation request which is being proposed
in conjunction with the development plan. Elm Road Second
Addition will be zoned I-l, Restricted Industrial. Spencer
and Megan Smith are the owners of the A-1 Trash Service
business and have met with the Town. The Town will retain
ownership of the site and will enter into a long-term lease
agreement with A-1 Trash to construct and operate the expanded
facility. The Town will be the reviewing authority and has
been in contact with Larimer County.
Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report stating there
is a town boundary error which requires correction. Dave
Knecht, owner to the west, has voiced industrial zoning
concerns to Mr. Joseph. Two phases are proposed: Phase I
will include initial expansion of the recycling service and
outside storage and a new garage building to be completed by
October 15, 1997. Phase II will include building expansion
for indoor storage of porta-johns, construction of a new
recycle center building and outdoor truck storage parking area
with a completion date of October 15, 1999. Mr. Joseph
acknowledged and read a letter from A. Durand Jones,
Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park.
Commissioner Gilfillan questioned the request to waive the
requirement to pave all parking and outside storage areas.
Paul Kochevar explained that due to the minimal nature of the
traffic, there would not be enough activity to require
pavement. In response to Commissioner A. Hix's question on
future development, Mr. Joseph responded that future uses are
to be developed by agreement. Mr. Joseph recommended that
prior to a building permit being issued, construction plans
are to be reviewed, erosion control and slope stabilization
are to be identified. Audience comments were heard from Judy
Lamy who was representing Nancy Chamberlain and Patsy Cravens
who own land east of the site. Ms. Cravens intends to build
a home on her land in the future. Ms. Lamy expressed concern
with screening and potential trash problems. Ike Krasniewicz
spoke on behalf of the Cravens family. They are not opposed
to the proposal, however, have concerns with debris and
requested a barrier on the east to alleviate the problem. Mr.
Krasniewicz brought a bag of trash he had collected earlier in
the day. Developer Spencer Smith stated some of the trash
collected by Mr. Krasniewicz will be eliminated with approval
of this proposal. It was Smith's opinion that a taller fence
with a slanted top would solve the blowing debris problem.
It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) approval of the
Annexation of The Elm Road Second Addition and I—1 Restricted
Industrial Zoning be recommended to the Board of Trustees, and
it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Burgess) that Development
Plan #96-14 be approved with the following conditions, and it
passed with the following votes. Those voting "Yes",
Commissioners Sager, Burgess, A. Hix, Pohl, and Thomas. Those
voting "No", Commissioner Gilfillan.
1. Appropriate debris containment fencing on east and south
side required during Phase I. Effectiveness of this
screen to be evaluated following construction and initial
use of outdoor storage area. Pine trees may be necessary
along east and south fence line to provide additional
screening as part of Phase II.
2. Colors of new building surfaces and roof to blend with
the natural background colors of the site and be made of
non-reflective materials.
3. Paving requirements for outside storage areas are waived.
Parking spaces serving the business office will be paved.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - October 24f 1996 Page 7
4. The existing access off Elm Road to other Town property
will be maintained.
5. The following be added to the agreement, "The Developer
(A-1 Trash) agrees to accept all offsite upstream flows,
and the Developer will maintain and repair all drainage
facilities."
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction
plans are to be reviewed and erosion control measures be
required to protect slopes until new vegetation is
established.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. a. Amended Plat, Tracts 4 & 5. Beaver Point Second
Addition. Gary Mitchell/Applicant. This is a request to
realign lot lines. Applicant's representative, Paul Kochevar,
reviewed the request stating they would comply with staff
recommendations. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff
report. There were no audience comments. It was moved and
seconded (Burgess/A. Hix) to recommend approval of Amended
Plat, Tracts 4 & 5, Beaver Point Second Addition, to the Board
of Trustees, and it passed unanimously.
4.b. Development Plan #96-12. Tracts 4 & 5. Beaver Point
Second Addition. Gary Mitchell/ Applicant. This request
proposes to redevelop the existing service station. The
existing building will be removed and a new building proposed
to contain a gas/convenience store, an indoor restaurant with
drive thru window, with additional parking to the sides and
rear. Applicant's representative, Paul Kochevar, reviewed the
proposal and stated the owner does not agree with staff's
recommendation for a frontage sidewalk. The owners do not
believe parking and the drive-thru waiting line will be a
problem. New traffic volumes have been submitted to CDOT.
Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report explaining the
recommendation for a 8' sidewalk. A discussion followed on
the need for a continuous sidewalk with staff emphasizing the
importance of sidewalks and this opportunity to set a
precedent, while recognizing it will be fragmented at this
time. However, in the future the sidewalk will be complete
and fully functional. Commissioner Burgess pointed out
concerns expressed by A. Durand Jones, Superintendent of Rocky
Mountain National Park. Mr. Kochevar stated owners are aware
of concerns and are taking them into consideration.
Commissioner Thomas concurred with Commissioner Burgess'
concerns and was pleased to hear the Park's recommendations
would be incorporated. Mr. Kochevar stated the building would
have a mansard roof to a pitched roof, facade changed at a
certain height with a river rock veneer, colortone glass to be
added and architectural features with many angles. Responding
to Commissioner Gilfillan's concerns, Mr. Kochevar stated the
canopy lights will be shielded including the edge. Mr.
Kochevar stated Mr. Mitchell has concerns with the sidewalk
request and doesn't feel staff is being consistent and cited
examples where sidewalks have not been required.
Audience comments were heard from Mary Murphy, Lower
Broadview. She stated this business has made many
improvements and they have good intentions and she would
prefer no walkway which she considers an urban feature.
Director Stamey explained the safety concerns with mixing
vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the need for separation.
It was moved and seconded (Burgess/A. Hix) that Development
Plan #96-12 be approved with the following conditions, and it
passed unanimously.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - October 24f 1996
1.
Page 8
An 8' wide handicap accessible concrete sidewalk, raised
and separated from vehicular drives by a 6" curb line, is
required along the street line.
2. Sidewalk and curb ramps are required and ADA required
ramps must be constructed before a building C.O. will be
issued.
3. New asphalt or concrete paving for the drives and parking
to be noted on the plan.
4. The existing access off Highway 36 is to be maintained.
5. Trash enclosure to be on the southwest corner of the
site.
6. Old photo building to be removed.
5. SUBDIVISION
5.a. Amended Plat. Portion of Lots 19 and 20, South St. Vrain
Addition. Susan Kay Sanford/Applicant. This is a request for
a boundary adjustment between two lots. Applicant's
representative, Paul Kochevar, reviewed the proposal. In
response to Commissioner Thomas' concerns with Highway 7
improvements, Mr. Kochevar explained he was not familiar with
the impact of the improvements and stated some of the large
blue spruce trees will be removed along the highway and some
r-o-w will be needed. The owner is negotiating with CDOT.
Zoning will remain multi-family. Mr. Kochevar also stated the
Applicants agree with the staff recommendation to prohibit
commercial accommodations use on either lot. Senior Planner
Joseph reviewed the staff report, stating CDOT does not object
to this request provided it does not result in an additional
point of access on Highway 7. It was moved and seconded
(Thomas/A. Hix) approval of Amended Plat, Portion of Lots 19
and 20, South St. Vrain Addition be recommended to the Board
of Trustees with the following conditions, and it passed
unanimously.
• Note restricting access be added to the Plat as per staff
recommendation.
• Note on Plat prohibiting commercial accommodations use on
both of the new lots.
6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
6.a. Development Plan #96-13. Lot 2A. Replat of Lots 1 and 2.
Block 3. Fall River Estates. Doug and Linda Cook/Applicant.
This is a proposal to develop a residence/office for the owner
or manager, 9 motel units without full kitchen facilities, 3
motel units with full kitchen facilities. Applicant's
representative, Paul Kochevar, reviewed the proposal and
stated the Applicant would like an exception to allow gravel
for the driveway and parking which may be required per the
Code. The proposed sign was inadvertently located in the
pedestrian easement and will be relocated; some trees will be
removed and new ones planted and handicap parking spaces were
clarified. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report
and recognized correspondence from Mack and Audrey Hunt,
neighboring land owners. They are not opposed to development,
but they expressed concerns regarding the unnecessary removal
of trees.
It was moved and seconded (Gilfillan/A. Hix) that Development
Plan #96—13 be approved with the following conditions, and it
passed unanimously.
1. A note identifying the access drive and parking surface
as asphalt to be added to the plan.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission >- October 24f 1996
2. A paving schedule to be provided.
Page 9
7,
8,
The Office to be accessible from the parking with curb
ramps provided and stairs avoided in conformance with ADA
requirements.
CDOT access permit must be obtained prior to the first
building permit.
A note to be placed on the plan stating the bridge is
privately owned and maintained.
New easement for related sanitary sewer line to be shown
on the plan. A four foot separation between electric
and gas to be maintained.
Sign to be relocated out the pedestrian/bike easement.
Dumpster to be shown on plan.
7. REPORTS
Chairman Sager reminded everyone of the Open House on October
29, 1996 where updated information will be given on the
Comprehensive Plan.
There being no further business, Chairman Sager adjourned the
meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary
LOT.50
41B32 ■
HCIVWE
r*’v
5J,55;/
3 ■ v2 J.0i-J '
V •!I ».- Iv"
■ ■' IQ, :'■ *.*'’19 frv) ■ o' .2 .'4 _•
7its4raz <S n 41 " i .
113
ssirzyw
“18.67
120
Ko»lif-DylU^lgk^
I—SS
.03;.7Bcjp
" 25
STflCfj-
^r"‘«fa B' -■
^ • J ,,;. -V
0a<'id ’Cui lltQitf ■ •<^||
■trT • ; V
wl ; >’•;{■, . A 1 fi
05«r ■■'’
Si>i.pi
J i . 'i' ■ ■'•.l'.:
2?i33<r
6>cUi'
plane D'e.it
1
<o Sei^Htiky^
99
'<* —
Jlt-llein'.
4« .•• X
! 99:''99 __
Oi'cKi'- ■
Uuise ■
sit'in, •'
S 3S ,)
, J.
■■
3
99
t_UJJ4-
<S/CA-/
^•.•304.2 J ■■“
P<xifiCTtt . ■ f?
21 : ‘vb
'.I4S
ijiRffT Tfiii.:,!Corfiljii{_
y)o\ciin5 ••
jSr<4yrtijfi5rtȣ
y^‘ jj^ "■»
^1 k.» •* ar*..>-.\c
7k;^9i%.-S,
%;H3r»i7“
2?^^'7t3 ®
...
«rs5t;
: V 22 •;:
'e-rfS S
fORTION
acpR PL*T.
rOP.MCA 9
V •.iJ- i;.. -.* i/
S
■ 14
J)‘ly\ e.d&
i W v^-Shff'tS-■M .%y4
*y T:. f>;‘- •■
^1- • Ik • . • . a '
*1)1 Ue,- i ■9^'Tor'
:?iv\'f(-- o^posecl
— UiaKaou^'^