HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1998-08-18BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission
August 18,1998
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair A1 Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, Alma
Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas
Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, A. Hix, Pohl and Thomas
Town Attorney Greg White, Trustee Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey,
Senior Planner Joseph, Recording Secretary Botic
Commissioner Brown
Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Minutes of the July 21,1998 meeting were approved.
b. Amended Development Plan 95-03, Lots 22, 23 and Portion of Lot 16,
Sunny Acres Subdivision (Tbe Willows), Arnold, Jowayne and Roy
Johnson/Applicants. This is a minor amendment request to trade locations for
a tri-plex building and a four-plex building. These buildings are located on the
south end of the site. The river setback is maintained and the access is
unchanged with no net change in the density. It was moved and seconded (A.
Hix/Pohl) Amended Development Plan 95-03, Lots 22, 23 and Portion of
Lot 16, Sunny Acres Subdivision (The Willows) be approved, and it passed
unanimously.
c Amended Development Plan 97-16, Lot 2, Block 4, Fall River Estates,
Craig and Keeley Hansen, Marjorie Oliver/Applicants. This proposal is for
a minor amendment to Development Plan 97-16. The plan has been revised with
building site adjustments and a reconfigured parking layout °n slp ®
Fall River to save some trees. It was moved and second^ (A. ftx/Fohl)
Amended Development Plan 97-16, Lot 2, Block 4, Fall River Estates be
approved, and it passed unanimously.
VACATION RENTAL UPDATE ,.
Town Administrator Klaphake presented information to Commissioners a
proposed Ordinance to AmendChapter5.20,Business License pertamingtoRentao
Lsidential Properly. Mr. Klaphake stated previous options were ™ osed
rentals everywhere or grandfather existing uses for seven years. This P™Pos«a
ordinance liTbeen developed by Town Attorney While with ^ce
Baudek and Town Administrator Klaphake. At this Ume, if adopted this 0™inance
would only apply in Town limits and is proposed to become effective January . _
TOs is an attempt to license this portion of the Estes Park commeree with guidelines
and consequences.
Trustee Baudek noted that information received from Range Really, Anderson Realty
& Management, Windeliff Estates and Ponderosa Property Management show
tasSam number of complaints versus the number of weeks rentals are in effec
Mr Baudek also emphasized that Neighborhood Association Covenants in an area wi
mnersede tht Sanee. Mr. Baudek read the Ordinance, clarifying/commenting on
soL items. He emphasized the cap of 12 people (a home with six bedrooms is dealt
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998 Page 2
with in another section of the Municipal Code). Homeowners will be responsible for
purchasing a license.
Audience comments: Terry Parenti, requested clarification of violations, and
resulting penalty. Town Attorney White responded. Mr. Klaphake stated the proposed
ordinance will be discussed at the Town Board meeting on August 25, 1998. Chair
Sager expressed appreciation for efforts made regarding this issue and noted at this
time it will be only for “in town limits,” however, may be carried forth by Larimer
County to the Estes Valley. Commissioner A. Hix suggested adding “rentals should
only include the bedrooms included with the accommodation. Canqiers and
motor homes should not he parked and rented on the premises in conjunction
with the rental of a home.”
ANNEXATION/ZONING/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Homestead Ridge Addition (AKA Wildfire Ridge), In Larimer County at the NW
corner of Dry Gulch Road and Wildfire Lane (Vz mile North on Dry Gulch Road
on the Left), Pinnacle Homes & Design, LLC, Applicant.
Development Plan 98-02, Lot 1 Homestead Ridge Addition, (AKA Wildfire
Ridge) In Larimer County at the NW Corner of Dry Gulch Road and Wildfire
Lane/Pinnacle Homes & Design, LLC/Applicant.
Commissioner A. Hix was excused as she declared a conflict of interest. Chair Sager
read the Rules of Conduct. Town Attorney White clarified the proposal (annexation,
zoning, development plan). The first request is for a “flagpole” annexation along Dry
Gulch Road from Highway 34 to the north line of the subject property. Dry Gulch Road
is currently a county road that has never been formally dedicated as Public right °f way*
The subject tract to be known as “Lot 1, Homestead Ridge Addition” contains 6.214
acres with C-0, Commercial Outlying zoning requested. The second request is for a
multi-family project consisting Of 44 units (1 l-one and 33-two bedroom apartments).
The existing kennel is to be retained with a total of 83 paved parking spaces proposed
to serve the apartments. Parking spaces will be accessed via a looped dnveway off o
Wildfire Road. The five buildings have not been designed yet, but they are proposed to
be two and three story buildings containing eight or nine units each.
Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff report adding that comments were received
this date, from Fire Chief Scott Dorman. Applicant, Peter Ingersoll stated the name
will be changed to Wildfire Ridge Addition and noted staff s zoning suggestion (R-M)
would create a non-conforming use and noted they are not asking for any vanances, and
have included a 30’ buffer which is not required, and noted there will be a do wnstream
easement which will create two water quality mitigation areas as well as a laildscapc
feature and flood detention. A traffic study is in process, Mr. Ingersoll agrees with the
importance of ISO caleulations and is in general agreement with the sta
recommendations.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the access to the three-story aparment buiMingv
Mr IngersoUresponded and agreed that a hard surface entry would be shown on the plat
if required. Discussion/claiification continued regarding the plans, open space,
landscaping Mr. IngersoU stated there are no building plans for the NE comer of the
propertrrt this time and he has no intenUons of constructing addmonal eommercal
buildings (the ‘school idea’ will not work). There is a potenual for construction of 3-4
additional dwelling units.
Ricki Ingersoll, Design Director, stated at this time the plans include building shapes
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998 Page 3
with no established floor plans. She has clustered the buildings and will provide
handicap accessible units. If there are additional units they will probably be clustered.
The dog kennel will be retained and new construction will be architecturally pleasing.
Mrs. Ingersoll will remove the wording ‘open space’ in response to Commissioner
Pohl’s concern.
Chair Sager questioned why R-M zoning isn’t requested if Applicant does not intend to
add additional commercial buildings. Mr. Ingersoll noted that after discussions with
Staff they decided to not split the zoning and he believes a commercial designation
creates the least non-conforming uses.
Commissioner Pohl expressed concerns with the flag pole annexation noting there is
an excess of .7 or .8 miles along Dry Gulch , which would require the Town to be
responsible for repair and maintenance, including snow plowing of the road, and also
adding annual costs to the Town to maintain including future costs for resurfacing. Mr.
Ingersoll responded that an advantage would be an increased tax base and through staff
discussions he was not made aware of increased costs and noted public services are
already there. It is in response to Public Works they are requesting the entire length
of road be annexed.
Bill Van Horn, Van Horn Engineering, stated he has been involved with advisory work
on this proposal. Mr. Van Horn stated requested zoning is in accordance with the
Master Plan and no rezonings in the Estes Valley that have been annexed with a more
permissive zone. Flag pole annexations are approved frequently with highways noting
in the future the entire valley may be annexed. When receiving urban services from a
municipality, it is good to be annexed. With annexation approval, people in the
proposed apartments would have voting privileges.
Mr. Ingersoll stated at this time the 44 units are planned to be rentals in response to
Commissioner Burgesses question. Chair Sager expressed concerns with this flag pole
annexation, noting the burden is not appropriate to the citizens of Estes Park. Mr. Sager
expressed regret this is the only way to annex, stating maybe this is a little too soon.
Chair Sager would like to see the Valley included within the Town, however does not
believe this request is of interest to the community.
Mrs. Ingersoll stated annexation will occur through small parcels; the only way to have
a homogenous environment is to annex. She stated she could pull a permit tomorrow
from Larimer County. Annexation will add voters, increase the tax base through retail
sales and create additional homes, which is one of her personal goals. Annexation is
important for this area or it will become a commercial trash bin. Chair Sager shares
her goals; however, he doesn’t like ‘leap flogging’.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out the land along Dry Gulch is contiguous, and the
portion of road that is not contiguous is only 168 l.f. Chair Sager requested
clarification on development plan labeling regarding front and back setbacks.
Due to a family emergency Mr. Ingersoll was called from the meeting and there
was a ten minute break at 3:00 p.m. At 3:10 p.m. the meeting resumed and
subsequent Agenda items were discussed to allow for Mr. Ingersoll’s possible
return to the meeting.
At 4:40 p.m. all other Agenda items were completed and Mrs. Ingersoll stated
Mr. Ingersoll was unable to return. However, she requested the discussion
continue on their request.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998
Commissioner A. Hix was again excused from the meeting.
Page 4
Mrs. Ingersoll stated the plat would be modified to designate ‘private open space’ for
the area north of the kennel. Commissioner Thomas clarified that earlier he was not
requesting this, just questioning the Applicants defmition/intention. Mrs. Ingersoll
clarified the ‘open space’ on page 3 of the development plan will be a sprayed grassy
picnic and children’s play area. Due to FHAregulations they may encounter disability
related issues and will return to Planning Commission for a modification if necessary.
Steve Lane, staff architect for Pinnacle Homes and Designs, LLC, stated the units will
meet handicap access requirements based on the 1997 UBC Code and this will be
specified when applying for a building permit. The current proposed handicap space
location was due to a retaining wall, however, this location can be changed. Mr. Lane
clarified the access to the apartments. He also stated the Code does not differentiate
between definitions of multi-family (apartment or condominiums). He stated the
proposed annexation is within the boundaries of the municipal expansion area. There
will be Town utilities and reminded Commissioners this request is based on the current
proposal here and not based on future speculation; it is reasonable and meets
requirements. Director Stamey and Attorney White clarified the definition of multi
family and Mr. Stamey stated garages are not required.
Audience comments: Ralph Nicholas: expressed appreciation to the Ingersolls for
timely submission of a responsible plat which complies with zoning regulations. He
observed Elk Ridge has R-M zoning and questioned the request of C-0 for the entire
tract and suggested zoning reflect land usage. Mr. Nicholas requested the Commission
deny the flag pole annexation.
Patrick Cipolla: requested clarification on ‘contiguous’ and Attorney White
responded referring to State Statutes. Mr. Cipolla noted the tax payers will subsidize
additional growth and growth never pays for itself. He suggested establishing a fund
with contributions from developers.
John Zollman: questioned the Wildfire Road runoff and 100-year run off. Public
Works Director, Bill Linnane, stated staff has required detention, stating 100-year
historic drainage to the downstream property owner cannot be increased since it
discharges onto private property prior to entering Dry Gulch. The discharge will be
historic or less.
Hillery Parrack: (adjacent property owner to the west) requested an accel lane be
given consideration due to his experience with cars speeding and limited sight distance.
Mr. Linnane explained various options (including a traffic study) with regards to speed
on this road. Mrs. Ingersoll stated zoning changes are not necessary due to annexation,
they are working with Mr. Linnane and a traffic study is ongoing. Ralph Nicholas,
questioned if commercial zoning allows residential use by right.
Commissioner Discussion: Mr. Thomas stated he has changed his niind about the
annexation, he has no problem with the ‘small’ flag pole and this area is bound to be
annexed in the future. Mr. Sager expressed his concern with the .7/.8 of a mile along
Dry Gulch becoming an expense to citizens and the ‘leap frog effect’. Mr. Pohl stated
the increased tax revenue to the town will not offset the increased expense. Mr.
Thomas stated he understands the snow plow expense will be approximately
$1 000/year and the overlay will be approximately $15,000. Mr. Sager stated it is
wrong to have the ‘people’ pay. Mr. Thomas stated he did not recall a ‘snow plow
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998
expense’ discussion during the High Drive annexation.
Page 5
It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) the Annexation of Homestead Ridge
Addition, to be known as Wildfire Ridge Addition, be favorably recommended
to the Board of Trustees subject to the following, the vote resulted in a tie with one
abstention (Commissioner A. Hix). Those voting “Yes” - Commissioner Burgess and
Thomas. Those voting “No”- Commissioners Pohl and Sager.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The complete distance and bearing legal description for Lot 1 be added
to the Plat.
Perimeter utility easements around Lot 1 be added to the Plat and be
dedicated for public use along with dedication of Dry Gulch Road. (The
dedication statement should remain on the Plat.)
A note referring to the prior dedication of Wildfire Rd. for public use
and a note referring to the prior creation of Lot 1 as a single contiguous
parcel shall be added to the Plat. The dashed line around the kennel shall
be clearly labeled as a legal tie, (not a lot line).
The reference to “Wildfire Lane” shall be corrected to read ‘Wildfire
Road”.
The land area of Lot 1 should be labeled on the plan view.
The name of the addition should be revised to Wildfire Ridge Addition.
Revisions to the Annexation Plat must be made and submitted no later
than noon, Aug. 19,1998 to be considered at the Aug. 25th Town Board
Meeting.
Open space will be relabeled “Private Open Space” in the NE corner of
the Development Plan.
Prior to signing and recording the Annexation Map, the utility
construction plans and as builts (as per Public Works August 16 ,1998
Memo) shall be submitted to Public Works two weeks in advance for
review/approval.
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Sagcr) that the Zoning for Homestead Ridge
Addition, to be known as Wildfire Ridge Addition, be favorably recommended
to the Board of Trustees as follows: 1) the kennel (on a separate lot) be C-O,
Commercial Outlying 2) the Zoning for the proposed apartments to be Multi-
Family. The vote resulted in a tie with one abstention (Commissioner A. Hix). Those
voting “Yes” - Commissioners Pohl and Sager. Those voting “No” - Commissioners
Burgess and Thomas.
Due to the tie vote, Conunissioners Pohl and Sager withdrew the motion and Mr. Pohl
made the following motion.
It was moved and seconded (PohVSager) the Zoning (C-O, Commercial Outlying)
of Homestead Ridge Addition, to be known as Wildfire Ridge Addition, be
favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees with the following condition,
and the motion passed unanimously with one abstention (Commissioner A. Hix).
• Development proceed as set forth in the Development Plan proposed this
date.
It was moved and seconded (PohlTThomas) Development Plan 98-02 Lot 1,
Homestead Ridge Addition, to be known as Wildfire Ridge Addjtion, be
approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998
abstention (Commissioner A. Hix).
Page 6
1. Provide ISO calculations for review.
2. Provide Storm Drainage Calculations and construction details (as per
Public Works August lb* memo).
3. Provide a corrected grading plan at r’=20’.
4. Delete reference to Right of Way on Crab Apple Circle.
5. Delete note referring to safe and easy access.
6. Apply for inclusion in the NCWCD.
7. Provide temporary cul de sac (as per Public Works August 16th memo).
8. Add drainage facility maintenance note (as per Public Works August 16th
memo).
9. Provide traffic impact analysis and review with CDOT.
10 Provide utility construction plans and as builts (as per Public Works
August lb* memo).
11. The existing kennels shall be fully enclosed and soundproofed.
12. The Town Board approves the annexation and zoning request, with either
C-0 or R-M zoning.
13. Open space will be relabeled “Private Open Space” in the NE comer of
the Development Plan.
14. Site distance shall be improved on Dry Gulch Road.
15. Labeling will be “front”, “rear” and “side”.
16. The name of the addition shall be revised to Wildfire Ridge.
Chair Sager noted the minutes will be forwarded to the Board of Trustees and thanked
the public for their participation. Commissioner Burgess expressed regret that this was
not a ‘congenial’ annexation. Attorney White observed this will be an opportunity for
the Planning Commission to know how the Trustees feel about a flag pole annexation.
At 3:10 p.m. the Meeting resumed and Items 4 (a., b., c., d.) and 5 (a., b., c., d., e.)
were acted upon in order to allow Mr. Ingersoll time to respond to his family
emergency and possibly return to the meeting to continue Item 3. Mr. Ingersoll was
unable to return, however, at 4:40 p.m. Item 3 discussion was resumed. (See above
discussion).
4. development PLANS .nnn u-
a. Amended Development Plan 93-08, Lot 3, Lake View Tracts, 1000 Big
Thompson Avenue, Kimball Beery/Applicant. This is a proposal to place
parking with the required 25'street planting area. It was moved and seconded
(Pohl/Burgess) Amended Development Plan 93-08, Lot 3 Lake View Tracts
be tabled pending Board of Adjustment action on a variance request, and
it passed with the following votes. Those voting “Yes, “: Commissioners
Burgess, Pohl, Sager and Thomas. (Due to a family emergency. Commissioner
A. Hix had not yet returned to the meeting for this vote.)
At 3:12 p.m. Commissioner A. Hix resumed her position on the Commission.
b. Development Plan 98-03, Lot 17, Ranch Meadow Subdivision, West of
Lone Pine Acres and North of Grand Estates, Richard H. i e
Trust/Applicant. This is a proposal for multi-family development consisting
of nine dwelling units total in two buildings. As three similar Plans have been
submitted for this meeting, all three were discussed at this time. Bill Van Horn,
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998 Page 7
Applicant’s representative, agreed with all staff recommendations. Robert
Joseph, Senior Planner, noted the three submitted plans are very similar as well
as similar to past plans approved by this Planning Commission. Commissioner
Thomas noted a problem with the location of the concrete cross pan on Lot 17
and Mr. Van Horn stated the location would be corrected. There were no
audience conunents:
It was moved and seconded (Thomas/A. Hix) Development Plan 98-03, Lot
17, Ranch Meadow Subdivision, be approved with the following
conditions, and it passed unanimously.
• Comply with recommendations found in Public Works comments
regarding drainage.
• Identify handicap accessible unit.
• Provide ISO calculations.
• Correct concrete pan location.
c. Development Plan 98-04, Lot 18, Ranch Meadow Subdivision, West of
Lone Pine Acres and North of Grand Estates, Richard H. Wille
Trust/Applicant. This is a proposal for multi-family development consisting
of nine dwelling units total in two buildings.
It was moved and seconded (Thomas/A. Hix) Development Plan 98-04, Lot
18, Ranch Meadow Subdivision, be approved with the following
conditions, and it passed unanimously.
• Comply with recommendations found in Public Works conunents
regarding drainage.
• Identify handicap accessible unit.
• Provide ISO calculations.
5.
Development Plan 98-05, Lot 19, Ranch Meadow subdivision, West of
Lone Pine Acres and North of Grand Estates, Richard H. Wille
Trust/Applicant. This is a proposal for multi-family development consisting
of nine dwelling units total in two buildings.
It was moved and seconded (Thomas/A. Hix) Development Plan 98-05, Lot
19, Ranch Meadow Subdivision, be approved with the following
conditions, and it passed unanimously.
• Comply with recommendations found in Public Works comments
regarding drainage.
• Identify handicap accessible unit.
• Provide ISO calculations.
a p[*eliminary Plat Cherokee Meadows Subdivision, Soui?.0^Prospect
Estates/North of Arapaho Estates, Ron Gordon/Appheant. This Preliminary
Plat proposes to subdivide 43.940 acres into 28 single family lots and one 9-86
acre opL space outlot. Kerry Prochaska, APPlicant’^.rfpr.eSffpn^^^^^^^^
Sketch Plan was submitted early July to and Town staff identified critical issues
(interconnection of Cherokee Drive, connection to Highway 7, wetlands, and
future western connection). An evening neighborhood meeting was held on
08/05/98 and ideas from the meeting as well as staff comments have b^n
incorporated in the submitted plat. Regarding staff concerns/comments Mr.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998 Page 8
Prochaska stated he would return with an improved Phase II Plat and ISO
calculations will be submitted. He is concerned with landscaping for cul-de-
sacs which would subsequently be removed as future roadways are constructed.
He is in agreement with other staff recommendations.
Robert Joseph, Senior Planner, stated primary staff considerations are the open
space outlot (west end of development), street access and future street
connections, public trail connections, drainage and street design/R.O.W.
Initially a note will be placed on the plat stating the Outlot will allow for future
public trail connections for non-motorized trail use. During the earlier recess
of this meeting, Mr. Joseph received correspondence from the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) regarding a future westerly connection which would cross
BOR land. Mr. Joseph reviewed all staff recommendations. Public comment
and Commissioner discussion was requested at this time.
Audience comments: Sam Hewson (1694 Prospect Estates) attended the
08/05/98 neighborhood meeting and is representing that group. Concerns
include Lot 1, Phase I - one entrance may not be adequate. He is pleased
Pawnee Drive will go to Highway 7 and questioned if it would be extended
through Phase I and II. Senior Planner Joseph responded the R-O-W will be
platted which will secure the ability to make the easterly street connection. Mr.
Hewson also expressed concern with the future trail through the wetlands.
Judy Hoxey (1865 Ranch Circle, Lot 9, Venner Ranch Estates) is very
concerned with the elk migration route and wetlands protection. Senior Planner
Joseph stated two wetland crossings will be required for street connections
which will require an Army Corps Engineer Permit.
Ann Leonard (neighbor to proposed development) stated UTSD has an
easement from Highway 7 to Arapaho Estates and a part of the wetlands was
destroyed when the sewer line was installed which resulted in no water on her
property.
Ted Szalanski (1881 Ranch Circle, Lot 11 Venner Ranch Estates) stated he has
a problem on his lot line adjacent to Cherokee Meadows. There is a big pit
where rock shale was removed and he questioned how will this be removed and
expressed safety and liability concern with this 18’ hazard. Mr. Proehaska
stated this problem could be mitigated and the slope stabilized to prevent
erosion. Mr. Joseph stated he also has observed this old borrow pit which was
not reclaimed and is slowly eroding uphill, and he recommended
stabilization/erosion control.
Austin Condon - (1849 Ranch Circle) submitted a letter prior to this meeting
and requested the reference in his letter to Ivanhoe be correeted to Pawnee. Mr.
Condon expressed concerns for wildlife habitat, fencing, number of pets kept
or allowed outdoors, establishment of clearing and/or grading limits to prevent
excessive loss of native plant cover, timely reestablishment of palatable
vegetation on disturbed areas, establishment of building envelopes, dedication
of Outlot A (concerns have been addressed by Mr. Joseph today)and wetlands.
Mr. Proehaska stated a wetlands permit will be issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers and offered wetlands replacement in Outlot A. The borrow pit was
utilized in 1968 with material obtained for the Marys Lake campground roads.
There are no covenants in place at this time, however, he is obtaining covenants
from the adjacent areas which will be blended for this area, some current
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998
fencing may be removed.
Page 9
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Burgess) Preliminary Plat Cherokee
Meadows Subdivision, be approved with the following conditions, and it
passed unanimously.
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Phase II (Lots 5 - 13) of this Preliminary Plat shall be revised and
resubmitted to provide an alternative lot / road layout that will provide
public right of way access to these lots (except Lot 5) along with future
public street connections via dedicated public right of way connecting to
the Erickson and Miller properties. Approval of the first Final Plat of
this subdivision shall be subsequent to, or concurrent with submittal and
approval of a revised Preliminary Plat for Phase II (Lots 5 -13). (That
portion of Pawnee Court that connects to the Miller Property shall be
dedicated with the first Final Plat of this Subdivision.)
Phasing of the Final Plats for this subdivision will be allowed provided
that the total number of lots for sale do not exceed twenty-eight (28), as
presently proposed.
The 50 ft. wide-open space buffer shall be extended along Lots 14,15,
and 16. This shall be accomplished by designating a 50 ft. wide building
setback along the south property lines of these lots.
Ownership and maintenance of the Open Space shall be the responsibility
of the Home Owners Association. Provision for this shall be assured
with the Final Plat.
The extension of Pawnee Court from Cherokee Drive east 700 l.f. to a
point just beyond the original cul de sac location shall be provided with
the first Final Plat for a future eastern connection to Highway 7 through
the property adjacent to the southeast (Miller).
The two existing drainage ways that discharge out of Prospect Estates
and the Steele Subdivision east of Cherokee Drive shall follow dedicated
drainage easements through this subdivision.
Lots 1 - 4 shall be reduced to the 40,000 s.f. minimum to provide
additional R.O.W. width for Pawnee Court along Lot 4 to assure adequate
width for street construction outside of the wetlands.
The northwest comer of Lot 21 shall be adjusted to allow extension of
a future roadway alignment parallel to the contour of the slope.
The Developer shall apply for inclusion in the NCWCD prior to Final
Plat approval.
Prior to construction in the wetlands, an Army Corps of Engineers
permit shall be obtained.
Pawnee Court shall be renamed Pawnee Drive.
The wetlands shall be labeled.
The large stand of trees located along the 40 ft. drainage easement east
of Cherokee Dr. shall be noted on the revised Preliminary Plat for Phase
II.
The “Arapaho Meadows” notation shall be revised to read “Arapaho
Estates 2nd Filing”.
ISO calculations shall be provided.
Outlot A shall be included with the first Final Plat.
Wetlands loss will be mitigated.
Covenants will be established and recorded.
|3< Preliminary Plat of the Amended Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Arapaho
Estates Third Filing, At West End of Cherokee Drive, Robert F.
Koehler/Applicant. This Preliminary Plat proposes to divide existing Lot 5
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998 Page 10
into two lots (creating one new building Lot) and create a new Outlot for access
in the same location as an existing access easement. Paul Kocehvar, Applicant’s
representative, noted applicant has previously been granted approval for nine
lots, Applicant is in agreement with staff recommendations. Robert Joseph,
Senior Planner, stated staff has walked the property with Mr. Koehler viewing
building sites and access and Mr. Joseph reviewed staff recommendations.
There were no audience comments.
It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Hix) the Preliminary Plat of the
Amended Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Arapaho Estates Third Filing, he
approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously.
• An access maintenance agreement for the shared private drive shall be
recorded with the Final Plat.
• The hatch lines shall close around the perimeter of the area to be
included within this Amended Plat and the bearing basis shall be noted.
• The design of the road in Outlot A shall avoid point discharge of drainage
onto the adjacent lots.
• ISO calculations shall be provided, and the fire protection standards shall
be met.
• The developer shall construct and pave the shared private drive in Outlot
A.
c. Amended Plat, Pine View Subdivision (Tract 18, Beaver Point Second
Addition), West Moraine Avenue and Elm Road, David and Brenda
Lemke/Applicants. This Plat proposed to subdivide an existing lot into two
new lots in order to separate the commercial building from the other residential
buildings and access. Paul Kochevar, Applicant’s representative reviewed the
proposal and stated they will comply with staff recommendations. Recently the
old access road has been blocked with a new access road installed. At this time
there will be one owner. Commissioner A. Hix noted there have been previous
requests for commercial parking improvement with no results. Robert Joseph,
Senior Planner, noted that the owners should be advised that new building
construction on either of the proposed lots will require Development Plan
approval. Any paving or other increase in impervious coverage will require on
site storm water detention. Mr. Joseph reviewed staff recommendations. There
were no audience comments.
It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) the Amended Plat Pine View
Subdivision (Tract 18, Beaver Point Second), be favorably recommended
to the Board of Trustees with the following conditions, and it passed
unanimously.
• The following utility easements shall be added to the Plat;
a. gas easement across Lot 1 and Lot 2 (Public Service Company)
b. 10' public utility easement along both sides of both lots.
c. shared sanitary sewer service (if approved by UTSD)
• The Applicant shall provide a letter from each respective utility provider
approving the proposed platted easements and any shared service
agreements prior to Town Board approval.
• Any new service taps that may be needed shall be identified prior to
Town Board approval, and shall be installed or guaranteed prior to
recording the Plat. , „, , . ,
• Existing drainage fromElm Road onto this property shall be located and
reviewed with Publie Works. The route of this existing drainage across
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998 Page 11
the property shall be shown on the Plat and a drainage easement shall be
provided. A20’wide drainage easement shall also be provided along the
west property line of Lot 1.
The dedication statement shall be reviewed and revised if necessary and
approved by Attorney White.
d. Amended Plat of Lots 12,13, and 14, Block 1, Fall River Estates, North
end of Delmar Drive, D.A. Lienemann, Gary C. Goff and Karen L.
Harrison, Dale and Mary Ann Jobe/Applicants. The primary purpose of this
Amended Plat is to permanently reduce the required setbacks on these lots. The
B oard of Adjustment has previously granted a setback variance on Lot 13 which
has since expired (variances expire if construction is not started within four
months). This Plat will handle the reduction of setbacks in a coordinated,
permanent fashion with the consent of all the affected property owners. The
existing lots are very steep and difficult to access and/or build on. Approval will
also dedicate new private access easements and recognize an existing private
access easement. Paul Kochevar, Applicant’s representative, reviewed the
history noting at one time all three lots were owned by D.A. Lienemann. With
staff assistance they have submitted this request for all three lots and have
agreement of owners, providing for detailed engineering design. Mr. Kochevar
stated a sentence will be added to Note #4, (“Lot owner will prepare a design
for construction that will not adversely affect the adjoining property owner ).
Exact wording will be submitted to Staff for their review. Applicants are
appreciative of this process vs. the Board of Adjustment process Robert
Joseph, Senior Planner, reviewed the recommendations for approval. There
were no audience comments.
It was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Burgess) the Amended Plat of Lote 12,
13 and 14, Block 1, Fall River Estates, be favorably recommended to the
Board of Trustees with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously.
A.The notes on the Plat shall be revised to read as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
[)tes on the Plat snaii ne reviscu w “ . . ,
A soils investigation and report prepared by a qualified geologist
or registered engineer shall be required pnor to issuance of a
building permit on Lot 12, and no point discharge of drainage
shall be allowed from Lot 12 onto Lot 13.
A detailed site survey and grading plan for each Lot (12,13 a
14) shall be prepared by a registered engineer pnor to issuance
of a building permit. This plan shall address the loading and
stability of any cut and fill slopes proposed, utility service line
trench designs and drainage. Allretaining walls shall be designed
LaintagwSstnd aUcutor fill slopes shallbe setbackfromthe
property line by a minimum of six feet, (or greater if required y
foundation on the site and shall consider the location of the
nroposed building relative to adjacent existing structures.
Ksting shallbe supervised by a qualified
This Plat vacates an easement shown upon the Amended Plat ot
Lots 12 -16 and 23-35, Block 1, fall river Estates being more
pLlcularly labeled upon said plal as “20' wide road casement to
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Planning Commission - August 18,1998 Page 12
Lot 13".
B. The graphics delineating the existing access easement on Lot 12
shall be clarified to clearly distinguish between the easement
boundary and the property line.
C. The graphics and labeling of the revised building setbacks shall be
clearly delineated.
D. The dedication statement shall be reviewed and revised if necessary
as per Greg White’s memo.
e. Final Plat Lot 2, Vernier Subdivision, West End of Landers Street, Robert
E. and Iris D. Trumbull Trust/Applicants. This is a request to divide one
existing lot creating a new lot to construct a new single family residence.
(Southerly lot will contain the existing home and Northerly lot new single
family residence). The Preliminary Plat was approved August 19,1997 and all
conditions have been met. Paul Kochevar, Applicant’s representative, reviewed
the proposal. There were no audience comments. It was moved and seconded
(Burgess/Thomas) the Final Plat Lot 2, Venner Subdivision, be favorably
recommended to the Board of Trustees, and it passed unanimously.
6.REPORTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary