HomeMy Public PortalAboutPCM 1986-04-09April 9, 1986
Planning Commission
Klancke called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Board present were
C.B. Jensen, Joanne Yankovich, Sue Buchheister and Steve Holland.
Ed Opits reviewed his ideas for a 2nd access from the F.V. Center.
option #l. Permit the orginal site for the access into the center
with the need to obtain additional land of approx. 30'
on the ROW to the south. If speed were reduced and
a flasher, state might permit under the additional
conditions.
#2 Stop light at 72 that would allow for the 2nd access.
#3 Do a land trade between Drake and Skaf having the access
a some point in the middle of parcel c tract D. However
at closer look at this the land is two broken up for
any development.
#4 Push for John's Drive to be complete and access at the
bank.
Board preferred option # 1. Opitz will have a meeting with traffic
engineer of the state on April 18th at 10:00 a.m. at the site to
review these needs and to get input from the state. Wickliff will
be kept up to date so that they can go forward with permitting if
it is required from them.
Drake annexation proposal.
Fred submitted a memo on comments from the latest draft
language prepared by Opitz for Drakes on the annexation with language
relating to the problem of roads, water and densities as reviewed
at the last meeting.
Densities. As stated leaves the interpertation to open. Add language that
max. units to be 375 allowed in this 75 acre area. 5 units across
entire annexation per gross acre. or 8.6 units per acre.
Water issues discussed. Opitz reported that upon discussion with the state
engineer office, it is expected to b~ a 20% reduction from the figures
presented in the augumentation plan. Denver Water Board being~.~.an
objector. Opitz feels that with the reduction from 65 acre feet to 51
acre feet application that denver will sign of as an objector.
Agreements dealing with water discussed at great lenght. Concerns
on the implementation of the Aug. plan facility conditions being
important. Language stated that at the first sale of land money
would be set aside for the construction of facilities or upon the
subdivision of land this would be taken care of. Board wants an est.
figure for the construction of these facilities. And some method
to notify a buyer that this is a condition of sale, possible a
deed restriction as to the aug. plan construction. It was also
pointed out that the augumentation plan does not consider any water
needed for the proposed golf course. Before any golf course
was constructed Drake would then have to obtain a water right and plan.
This being of concern to board as the golf course makes the residential
and condos. marketable.
Excess water being transfered back to Drake. This is still of concern.
At what point it is ever know if there are excess rights is not known.
If a plan was approved that does tranfere rights back to lake it
will be at his expense. Add language to the agreement that if rights
were transfered back the golf course would have first call on these
transferes.
Due dic~i.gence of the annexation for phase one was discussed in regards
to water augumentation plans was discussed. It is not known if this
can relate to the entire plan as in the implementation of facilities.
Phase I should be considered as far a improvements cost of the plan.
Hartlaub will need to check this out. Board may require that Phase I
subdivisions pay there share of the facilities that are needed and start
collecting these improvement moneis.
Also discussed was that the decree of the augumentation plan may not
require a due deligence with regards to construction of facilities.
ýÿ
Planning commission
April 9, 1986
Page 2
Also pointed out that the augumentation plan as decreed does not provide
the physical water when needed for the development. Drake stated that
the board should look at that factor at each subdivision.
If board agrees to a consideration as to excess water, all construction
of facilities will be in place before any consideration given to excess
rights.
Language for the road improvements reviewed.
off-site c~~~LL«ents:
Par.15.012 add language to last sentence that Fraser will
phase construction or other method sees fit to accomplish
construction.
Par. 15.014.
Board would like the construction est. to be looked at again,
and make sure that there is an esclation of cost phrase of
adaquate means within this language. Would 50 units be
a trigger factor for the completetion of a gravel road??
Consider language that does not give a double assessment
on properties.
On Site- Proposed language within these sections was briefly
reviewed. Ed to go thru this at the next meeting .
Board set a special meeting on April 28th to continue this review.
to be held at 7:30 p.m.
Board discussed the May schedule. The meeting for the May 14 is
cancelled and set for May 19th at 7:30 p.m.
Fox reviewed and gave out latest memo from Martin on the Maryvale
annex. /zoning. and a packet from Wright Water engineers concerning
scope of work and results done by that firm to date.
Briefly Fox stated that Maryvale had requested a meeting for the 23rd
in Denver to review the latest information with the staff. Fox
would like to get together with the P.C. on some direction after
a review of this material before he attends this meeting.
~'ox presented the final text and map for the Comp. Plan changes.
Board set this Master Plan amendment for Public hearing at the regular
meeting on June 11th at 8:00 p.m.
No futher business meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
ýÿ