The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1972-06-20RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission Meeting June 20,1972 Committee:Chairman Glenn Prosser;Members Harry B.Tregent,N.T. Petrocine,Robert F.Wagner,Chas.Hix,Harry Miles, Marvin L.Steele Attending:Chairman Prosser;Members Hix,Steele and Wagner Also Attending:Secretary Dale G.Hill,Town Planner and Engineer Bill Van Horn Absent:Members Tregent,Petrocine and Miles The minutes of the meeting held on May 16,1972,were read and approved as read. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LAND ANNEXATION: Mr.Elmer Graham presented the possible annexation of two Bureau of Reclamation land parcels. Number one parcel is that portion of Lake Estes and surrounding Bureau of Reclamation property not now within the Town of Estes Park. Number two parcel is that area of Bureau of Reclamation land near the Prospect tunnel. Mr.Graham stated the Bureau of Reclamation will agree to the Town zoning the property. Mr.Paul Van Horn questioned the title to a portion of Fish Creek road. The Chairman of the Planning Commission obtained an informal approval for this annexation from the members present. COUNTRY CLUB MANOR ADDITION REZONING: The Chairman of the Estes Park Planning Commission announced the Com mission would now continue the public hearing regarding the proposed rezoning of the following described property:Out Lot No.1;Lots 1 through 6,inclusive Block 11;all Lots in Block 1 through 5 inclusive, from the existing C-l Commercial District to R-2 Multi-Family District. The following spoke in favor of the rezoning:Mr.J.R.Hickam,owner of Block 4,Mr.Prentice Fisher,owner of Block 2.Also Mrs.Tanguay, Mrs.Weston,Mrs.Schanhals,Mrs.West,Mrs.King,Mrs.Wilson,Mrs. Boehmer,Mrs.Heinze and Mrs.Lichty. The following spoke in opposition to the rezoning:Mr.Stan Roberson, representing Dr.Mezen. Mr.Roberson also spoke as the Deputy State Real Estate Commissioner, stating their legal counsel advised him that the original Country Club Manor platconstLtuted a legal contract. Mr.John Prescott also spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Chairman Prosser declared the public hearing closed. nfl RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission Meeting June 20,1972 Page two Planning Commission Member Wagner moved the proposed rezoning be recommended to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park for adoption.Member Hix seconded the motion.Upon roll call the motion carried by the following votes.Those voting “Yes”Members Hix, Prosser and Wagner.Those voting “No”none.Member Steele abstained. HOSPITAL ADDITION REZONING: The Planning Commission proceeded to conduct a public hearing regard ing the proposed rezoning of the Hospital Addition from the existing C—i Commercial District to R-l Residence District. Mr.Paul Van Horn spoke in favor of the rezoning. There were no persons present speaking in opposition to the rezoning. Chairman Prosser declared the hearing closed. Member Hix moved the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park the Hospital Addition be rezoned from the existing C—l Commercial District to R—l Residence District. Member Wagner seconded the motion.Upon roll call the motion unani mously carried. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE 12 .6-D-1: The Estes Park Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the following amendment to the Municipal Code: l2..6—D—l Use Restrictions: 1.One-family dwelling or two-family dwelling. 2.Reserved. Town Planner Van Horn explained the need for the above change. Member Wagner moved the above code amendment be recommended to the Board of Trustees for adoption.Member Hix seconded the motion.Upon roll call the motion unanimously carried. JOSEPH BRUCE OWEN -LOT LINE CHANGE: Mr.Owen,owner of Lots 26,27 and 28,Fort Morgan Addition,submitted the attached petition and plat to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Planning Commission Member Hix moved the lot line changes as outlined in the attached petition and plat be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval and that the Planning Commission finds the following in respect to the petition: (a)That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission Meeting June 20,1972 Page three (b)That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. Cc)That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which the property of the petitioner is situated or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this chapter. Member Steele seconded the motion.Upon roll call the motion unanimously carried. CUM40RRAH SUBDIVISION: Larimer County Planning Director,Dwight Whitney presented the preliminary plat of Cummorrah Subdivision for the recommendation of the Estes Park Planning Commission. In addition to Mr.Whitney,Mr.Bigler,Mr.Paul Van Horn and Town Planner Bill Van Horn spoke in regard to this plat. After considerable discussion,Planning Commission Member Steele re commended to the County the approval of this plat subject to the follow ing conditions: 1.Proper road dedication be obtained for access to the subdivision. 2.Surface road width of twenty-four feet be provided where possible. 3.Road be dedicated to within one foot of the west property line for future extension on through the Crag’s property. Member Hix seconded the motion.Upon roll call the motion unanimously carried. RURAL REZONING: Mr.Dwight Whitney explained the Counties desire to rezone the rural land around Estes Park from E-l and E-2 to E Estate District.The attached sheet explains the reasoning.Planning Commission Member Wagner moved the Estes Park Planning Commission go on record of being in favor of this proposed rezoning.Member Hix seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed by the following votes.Those voting “Yes”Members lix,Prosser and Wagner.Those voting “No”none.Member Steele abstained. There being no further business,the meeting adjourned. I Dale G.Hill,Secretary ‘?217m%-Je!77?:T)-?/2‘?.“l-,7-L7;r7zi)y2y’_--%)7771/7/7-%7_-‘-/‘-7,--A-;-i/r‘‘‘(7—12772-77’7-77’-77t-7-2--yz7t?72?27-?Yt-j---;‘-‘C</-‘c—’rt,/7t-IJ%-1’7)2/)27)%i7f47Y)2171/(?(f,2’-)7//?%1_-77L1---%Q271)‘,Z2y‘6/%•;f)772?77%/,)7127Y(4% 1.Virbually all rural area in Larimer County except that around Estes Park as of January 31,1972 has a minimum lot size of 100,000 square feet.This is based on an amendment to the County Zoning Resolution setting a minimum lot size for all Zoning Districts not previously having a specific minimum lot size.This type of minimum lot size noJvirtual1y surrounds all cities and towns in Larimer County except Estes Park.The present petition accomplishes this goal.The E—Estate District was chosen as it is more nearly oriented to the Estes Park area than other zones and because of the large amount of existing Estate zoning in the area. There are many reasons for requiring larger lot sizes in the County than in a ?iunicipality. a)Availability of sewer and water b)Availability of police protection tEstes Park area served by two (2) deputies)full time while Estes Park has approximately ten (10)full time policemen.) c)Availability of fire protection a)Road maintenance —higher density =more dollars for maintenance and higher standards required. e)High density should be concentrated in an area where services (shopping,entertainment,etc.)are most readily available. f)Unique quality of Estes Park area with rugged terrain,short growing season,and fragile natural growth dictates that density in outlying areas should be maintained at a low level if the beauty and desirability is maintained. g)The Upper Thompson Sanitation District will not be detrimentally affected by the change in zoning as many areas already are developed which in themselves justify and make feasible its existence. h)No existing legal use of platted lot will be rendered unusable by this rezoning whether currently developed or not.