Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1973-05-22RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission Meeting May 22,1973 Commission:Chairman Prosser;Members Wagner,Steele,Petrocine, Hix,Miles and Blair Attending:Chairman Prosser;Members Wagner,Steele,Petrocine, Hix and Blair Also Attending:Secretary Dale G.Hill,Town Planner and Engineer Van Horn Absent:Member Miles The minutes of the meeting held on April 17,1973,were read and approved. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION(public hearing-annexation): The Estes Park Planning Commission proceeded to conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed annexation of the area known as the Fall River Addition to the Town of Estes Park,Colorado. There were no persons present speaking in opposition to the hearing and the following spoke in favor of the hearing:Michael Marden.The Secretary read into the record of the public hearing letters in opposi tion to the annexation from the following:Mrs.L.Darwin Stark,Bertha E.Wingo,R.A.Nassimbene and Byron L.,M.H.and F.K.Adams. The Secretary also introduced into the public hearing the annexation petitions that have been completed in regard to this annexation.The Secretary and the Town Planner reviewed the petitions for annexation that included all of the requirements and conditions. Chairman Prosser declared the hearing closed. Member Blair introduced the following resolution and moved it be passed and adopted: R E S 0 L U T I 0 N BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,COLORADO: That the Planning Cortunission of the Town of Estes Park,Colorado, recommends to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,Colorado, after hearing and considering the evidence presented at a hearing held this 22nd day of May,1973,in the Town Hall,Estes Park,Colorado,and in accordance with the provisions of Section 139—21—9,Colorado Revised Statutes,1963,as amended,makes the following findings of fact and conclusions regarding the annexation of certain territory,to be known as Fall River Addition to the Town of Estes Park,Colorado,as more particularly described in a Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees on April 23,1973,which description is hereby incorporated by reference: That the applicable parts of Sections 139-21—3 and 139-21—4 of Colorado Revised Statutes,1963,as amended,have been met because: 1.The area seeking annexation is eligible to be annexed to the Town of Estes Park,Colorado,because not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the Town of Estes Park,Colorado,and that at least two of the following conditions have been met: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission Meeting May 22,1973 Page two FALL RIVER ANNEXATION(continued): (a)More than 50 percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed use some of the recreation,civic, social,religious,industrial or commercial facilities of the municipality and more than 25 percent of its adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality; (b)Less than one-half of the land proposed to be annexed is agricultural or,if it is agricultural,less than one- half of the landowners of the total area have expressed an intention under oath to devote the land to such agri cultural use for at least five years; (c)It is practical to extend urban services which the municipality normally provides. 2.The following limitations have been complied with: (a)In establishing the boundaries of any territory to be annexed,no land held in identical ownership,whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate of two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate,has been divided into separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the landowner or landowners thereof, unless such tracts or parcels are separated by a dedicated street,road,or other public way. (b)In establishing the boundaries of any territory to be annexed,no land held in identical ownership,whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate comprising twenty acres or more which,together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon has an assessed value in excess of two hundred thousand dollars for ad valorem tax purposes for the year next preceding the annexation,has been included without the written consent of the landowner or landowners. Cc)That no annexation proceedings have been commenced for the annexation of part or all of such territory to another municipality. (d)That the proposed annexation will not result in the detachment of territory from a county or a school district. 3.An election is not required under Section 139-21-6 (2), Colorado Revised Statutees,1963,as amended. 4.That no additional terms and conditions will be imposed upon the territory to be annexed. 5.That the said territory be annexed by ordinance to the Town of Estes Park,Colorado,and that the same be known as Fall River Addition to the Town of Estes Park,Colorado. Member Hix seconded the motion.Upon roll call the motion passed by the following votes.Those voting “Yes”Members Hix,Petrocine,Prosser, Blair,Wagner.Those voting “No”none. nfl Planning Commission Meeting May 22,1973 Page three Member Steele arrived and took his seat on the commission. ZONING: The Planning Commission proceeded to conduct a the zoning of the proposed Fall River Addition Colorado. public hearing regarding to the Town of Estes Park, Planner Van Horn reviewed the present county zoning resolution as it applies to this area as well as the Town of Estes Park zoning districts that may apply to this area. The following people spoke to the their zoning preferences: R.Byron Shewfelt George M.Booth - George W.Myers - J.Roland Miller - Hosie Gill,Jr.- Joe Whanger representing Igor B.Polevitzky and wife - David Webb - Robert E.Tholl - William F.Green - John R.Seybold - Kenneth R. Whipperman - Ernest F.Altick - Jean Stanford representing Edwards Investment Company - Michael Harden - George W.Myers representing Ethel Reichelderfer John $chell,Jr.- Lester W.Caswell, Jr. 1ultiple Family Restricted Commercial Restricted Commercial Restricted Commercial Multiple Family Multiple Family Multiple Family Multiple Family Residential Restricted Commercial R Residential R Residential R Residential R Residential R Residential C-2 Restricted Commercial R-2 Multiple Family Pauline B.Linthicum Chas.Hix R Residential C-2 Restricted Cotmnercial(portion) R-2 Multiple Family(remainder) Mr.Stark,representing his mother,Mrs.L.Darwin Stark,requested R-2 Multiple Family.Mrs.Stark’s property is not in the proposed annexation but is adjacent to the property of R.Byron Shewfelt. The Secretary read into the record the following zoning requests: George H.Booth,George W.Myers and Pieter Ilondius.Mr.Hondius requests that a strip of land 330 feet wide adjoining the highway be zoned R-2 Multiple Family and the remainder of his property be zoned E-l Estate or E-2 Estate. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission and recommended R-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R C-2 Chairman Prosser declared the hearing closed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Counnission Meeting May 22,1973 Page four Member Blair moved that the Planning Commission recommend the zoning as indicated on the map as prepared by the Town Planner,with the following exceptions: The lix property north of U.S.Highway 34 By-Pass be zoned R—2 Multiple Family instead of C-2 Restricted Commercial and that the commercial area south of U.S.Highway 34 By-Pass be zoned R-2 Multiple Family instead of C-2 Commercial and that all of the Hondius property be zoned E-2 Estate. There was no second to the motion and Member Blair withdrew the motion. Member Petrocine introduced the following resolution and moved it be passed and adopted: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,COLORADO: That the following recommendations for zoning be submitted to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,Colorado: ZONE TRACTS INClUDED E—2 65,66,69. That portion of Tract 64 lying north of a line that is parallel to and 300 feet north of the center line of U.S.Highway 34. R 1 through 54 and 83 through 96 R-2 55 through 63;67,68;70 through 82. All of Elkhorn Estates. All of James McIntyre Subdivision. That portion of Tract 64 lying south of a line that is parallel to and 330 feet north of the center line of U.S.Highway 34. Member Wagner seconded the motion.Upon roll call the motion passed by the following votes.Those voting “Yes”Members Petrocine,Prosser, Steele,Blair,Wagner.Those voting “No”Member Hix. LOT SPLIT -LOT 9,BUENNA VISTA TERRACE: A letter,dated April 27,1973,from Mr.Lloyd M.Hess,Jr.,owner of Lot 9,Buenna Vista Terrace Addition,was presented to the Planning Commission.This letter requested permission to divide the above men tioned lot as per the submitted plat.Member Petrocine moved this request be denied.Member Blair seconded the motion.Upon roll call the motion unanimously carried. LIBRARY ADDITION: The Secretary read the letter from the Estes Park Public Library Board to the Town of Estes Park,dated April 20,1973,regarding a proposed addition.After considerable discussion and as suggested by the Estes Park Public Library Board,Member lix moved that this request for addi nfl Planning Commission Meeting May 22,1973 Page five space be referred to the Town’s Planning Consultant for reconunenda Member Blair seconded the motion.Upon roll call the motion unani carried Dale C.Hill,Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS LIBRARY ADDITION(continued): tional tion. mous ly There being no further business,the meeting adjourned.