Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1997-05-20BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission May 20, 1997 Commission: Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, John Gilfillan, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Attending: Chairman Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Pohl and Thomas Also Attending: Trustee Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Secretary Botic Absent: Commissioners Brown, Gilfillan and A. Hix Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES 1.a Minutes of the April 15, 1997 meeting were approved as presented. 1 b Final Plat, Prospect Highlands Subdivision, Portion Tract A, Prospect Estates Addition Due to no action for months, it was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Final Plat, Portion Tract A, Prospect Estates Addition, to be known as Prospect Highlands Subdivision, be withdrawn, and it passed unanimously. 1.e. Preliminary Plat of Tract 2, Arapaho Meadows Addition Due to no action in the past months, it was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Preliminary Plat of Tract 2, Arapaho Meadows Addition, be withdrawn, and it passed unanimously. 1.d. Addition to Development Plan 91-4, Lot 15. DeVille Subdivision, Manford Addition, 1260 Manford Avenue, Rick Dill, Applicant It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) the Kennel Addition to Development Plan 91-4, 1260 Manford Avenue, be continued to the June 17, 1997 meeting, and it passed unanimously. 2. DEVELOPMENT PLANS 2 - Amended Dev,_ comment Plan 93-12, Lot 1, Amended Plat Tract A, Booth Resubdivision, 525 Fall River Lane, John and Sandra Gilfillan/Applicant This is a request to modify the original request from two duplexes to a single triplex and one duplex. Applicant's representative, Paul Kochevar, stated this will complete the Riverwood Phase II project, the footprint size will remain the same with one floor level and one bedroom. They are modifying the construction drawings to comply with the request from the EPSD. Director Stamey reviewed the staff report noting the request will result in one additional unit from the original request, the proposal does meet the density calculation and correspondence was received from EPSD. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) Amended Development Plan 93-12, Lot 1, Amended Plat of Tract A, Booth Resubdivision, 525 Fall River Lane, be approved with the following condition, and it passed unanimously. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. Planning Commission RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 20, 1997 Pas • Sanitary sewer service to be modified as requested in EPSD's letter dated May 14, 1997. 3 , S'fj1N'Pv RP..PRR1;AT, 3 a Keep Minor Land Division (MLD), SW 14_35-05-73, 1120 and 1121 Griffith Court, Elizabeth and David KpimpApplicant This is a request to divide a 2 acre parcel with two dwellings into a .90 acre lot with a single family residence and a 1.03 acre lot with a single family residence. Applicant's representative, Bill Van Horn, reviewed the request stating they are in agreement with the staff report request to have both tracts served with public water and sanitary sewer with separate services. He has questions about the status of the street shown on the original Ferguson Subdivision Plat in view of the recent access easement. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report stating a 25' width for the R-O-W would be inadequate; staff would like to see clear dedication with a wider width. Additionally, staff is not sure of how the existing road is currently maintained and would like to have the owner's participate in a maintenance agreement. Mr. Van Horn stated the Keeps cannot dedicate a road across property (Switzer) they do not own. This is not a request to allow new building sites, there will not be an additional use of utilities and Mr. Van Horn requested guidance regarding the width of the street. Director Stamey responded that smaller developments require 45' wide R-O-W. Mr. Van Horn stated that the Applicant does not have the ability to extend R-O-W in either direction. Maintenance has been voluntary and there will be County requirements if there is a change. Audience comments were heard from Applicant Virginia Keep. She is considering placing adjacent land to the west into a conservancy, is opposed widening/dedicating the road, and anticipates retaining the land in the family. In response to Commissioner Pohl's question of maintenance, Mr. Van Horn stated there is no formalized maintenance agreement and Mr. Switzer would not be involved. Commissioner Thomas emphasized the obligation for the Planning Commission members to plan for the future and foresee potential concerns. Discussion continued with Director Stamey stating this is an opportunity to resolve access problems. Commissioner Burgess reminded everyone this is a MLD request. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Burgess) Staff be directed to advise Larimer County the Planning Commission finds this request acceptable with the following recommendations, and it passed unanimously. • Both tracts shall be served with public water and sanitary sewer with separate services. • A public street R-O-W (25' width) shall be dedicated to provide access through the proposed tracts. Street R-O-W shall extend from the east line through to the west line of these tracts to provide for future extension of public street access from Marys Lake Road to serve the parcels to the west. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - May 20, 1997 Page 3 4. REPORTS/OTHER 4 a. Development Plan Submittal Checklist Senior Planner Joseph stated the Checklist was distributed to Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers, Inc., Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. and Thorp Associates P.C. approximately 3 weeks ago with a cover letter explaining the expectation of requiring a completed Checklist with each submittal beginning with the June Planning Commission meeting. Staff's approach to the Checklist is for clarification and elaboration of criteria and is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The Checklist will need to be completed and accompany each submittal which will result in fewer 'housekeeping items' (submittals without a completed Checklist will not be accepted). Staff recognizes some items may not be pertinent to every development plan, engineers should contact staff prior to the submittal to receive a clarification/exemption/waiver before submitting, reducing last minute revisions. Paul Kochevar, Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers, Inc., had the following concerns/comments with the Checklist. 1. This will help with organization of Development Plans. 2. The Checklist will not change a concept design, for example water lines will not show what material will be used. 3. Add drainage outlets in detail requested by Public Works 4. Cluster Box problems 5. Request to have legal description in title block - not enough room. 6. Add Calculation of ISO rating as this has been requested by Fire Chief Dorman. 7. Number 5 (maximum building height) - he requested they be allowed to continue to note "30' maximum building height" on plans and delete "Where building designs are to be made only at a later stage, maximum building height shall be indicated on the site plan." S. What is purpose of having lienholders sign when property is not dedicated? 9. He disagrees with #5 under Statement of Intent. 10. Number 6 under Statement of Intent - second sentence is extra verbiage. Bill Van Horn, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, stated the Checklist is being received positively and appreciates the standardized list and Staff's work. He had the following comments. 1. Appropriateness of title block. 2. Lienholder's signatures are a burden. 3. Approach development plans and special reviews with 'broad brush' approach. 4. He agrees with Mr. Kochevar's other comments/concerns. Chairman Sager would appreciate more information on Vicinity Maps and Commissioner Pohl suggested identifying the date of such map. Mr. Sager also noted that some communities use a vicinity map with their public notice. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to endorse use BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - May 20, 1997 Page 4 of the Checklist with all applications submitted. 4 b. Jim Duncan Video Director Stamey and Chairman Sager announced a video presentation by Jim Duncan, consultant for Larimer County, would be shown after the meeting for anyone interested. 5. B1)1QIT R There being no further business, Chairman meeting at 2:50 p.m. Roxanne S. Botic, SON MAY 2 7 1997 TOM: ; OF ESTES PAf s3ARD OF TRIMES Sager adjourned the Recording Secretary