HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1981-10-20BRADFORD PUBLISHING COM DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission
October 20, 1981
Commission: Chairman A1 Sager, Members Duane Blair, Robert E
Attending;
Burgess, George J. Hix, Margaret Houston, Craig W.
Meusel, Richard Wood
Chairman Sager, Members Blair, Hix, Houston, Meusel,
Wood
Also Attending: Mayor Tregent, Town Administrator Hill, Town Engineer/
Planner Widmer, Secretary Van Horn
Member Robert E. BurgessAbsent:
Minutes of the September 15, 1981 Planning Commission meeting were
submitted and approved.
SPECIAL REVIEW REQUEST #30 - DE FRIES & PARKER - MASSAGE PARLOR:
A written request was received from applicants Patricia De Fries and
Adel Parker to table their special review request until November 17,
1981. They were unable to attend the public hearing due to an illness
in the family. Member Richard Wood moved the public hearing on Special
Review Request #30 be continued to November 17, 1981. Member Hix seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
WILSON SUBDIVISION - BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT - PORTION OF FALL RIVER ADD.:
Lynn Patton of Estes Park Surveyors presented a revised plat of the
Wilson Subdivision which reduces four tracts containing 13.6 acres
in the Fall River Addition to three tracts. All of the conditions
in the letters presented at the April 21, 1981 Planning Commission
meeting have been met and a letter dated October 19, 1981 was received
from adjacent property owners Bob Cheney, John Cheney, and Patricia
^avener approving the revised plat. Member Duane Blair moved that
the Planning Commission finds 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 Title 16 of the Municipal Code and therefore, recommends approval
of Wilson Subdivision to the Board of Trustees. Member Hix seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
SEPAHPUR SUBDIVISION - LOT SPLIT - LOT 13, GRAND ESTATES:
Lynn Patton, representing the owners, presented the Sepahpur Subdivision
which proposes dividing Lot 13, Grand Estates into two lots of .931
acres and .997 acres. Letters regarding the division were received
from the following:
Light & Power Director.....................October 5, 1981
Water Superintendent ........................ October 5, 1981
Town Attorney. . ..................................October 7, 1981
Town Engineer/Planner.........................October 7, 1981
Member Margaret Houston moved that the division be favorably recommended
to the Board of Trustees and that the Planning Commission finds the
following facts with respect to the request:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting
the property;
2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and the
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioners;
3. 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 petitioners is situated
or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of Title 16 of the
Municipal Code.
Member Blair seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - October 20, 1981 - Page 2
PROSPECT ESTATES SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT;
Bill Van Horn, representing the owners, presented Prospect Estates
Subdivision which proposes 48 lots on 37 acres located west of Majestic
Pines Subdivision. Correspondence regarding the proposed subdivision
was received from the following:
State Highway Department .
Light & Power Director . .
Colorado Geological Survey
DMJM-Phillips-Reister-Haley
Town Engineer/Planner . .
October
October
October
October
October
6, 1981
7, 1981
14, 1981
14, 1981
14, 1981
A telephone request was received from Western Area Power Administration
for the existing power poles to be platted. Bob Cheney of the Upper
Thompson Sanitation District appeared submitting the following comments:
1. If the proposed subdivision is not in the UTSD presently,
that it be annexed prior to sewer service.
2. Sewer plans and profiles be submitted and all sewer lines
be constructed according to UTSD standards.
3. A drawing of the sewer system "as built" be submitted.
4. All sewer lines and easements be deeded to the UTSD.
After reviewing the correspondence, Mr. Van Horn agreed that detailed
plans of the proposed water system would be submitted to DMJM-Phillips-
Reister-Haley, Inc. for its review. Member Duane Blair expressed concern
regarding the water system, fire protection, and drainage and moved
that Prospect Estates Subdivision be tabled. The motion died for lack
of a second. Member Margaret Houston then moved that the preliminary
plat of Prospect Estates Subdivision be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Water system plans be submitted to and approved by DMJM-
Phillips-Reister-Haley, Inc.
2. Drainage plan be siibmitted and easements for the four drainage
ways crossing the property be provided.
3. Plat the existing power poles as requested by WAPA.
4. 10' reservation be provided along Peak View Drive for a
possible future bypass.
Member Hix seconded the motion. Member Margaret Houston then moved
the motion be amended to include a fifth condition that a 50' access
easement be provided to the property to the south. Member Meusel
seconded the amended motion and it passed by the following votes:
Those voting "Yes" Members Hix, Houston, Meusel, Wood, and Sager.
Those voting "No" Member Blair.
PROSPECT ESTATES P.U.D. - CONCEPTUAL PLAN:
Bill Van Horn presented the conceptual plan of Prospect Estates Planned
Unit Development - Phase One which proposes 37 units on 29.4 acres.
15.25 acres would be developed and 14.15 acres would remain as open
space. Correspondence regarding the P.U.D. proposal was received from
the Town Engineer/Planner dated October 14, 1981 and from the Light
and Power Director dated October 7, 1981. The Planning Commission
discussed at length setbacks from Peak View Drive, the maintenance
responsibility of Devon Drive if constructed, density proposals, private
access drives, and visibility of west bound traffic on Peak View from
the Devon Drive entrance. Member George Hix moved the conceptual plan
be approved. Member Houston seconded the motion and it passed by the
following votes: Those voting "Yes" Members Hix, Houston, Meusel,
Wood. Those voting "No" Members Blair, Sager.
LARIMER COUNTY REFERRALS:
Mr,Lloyd McLaughlin of M & I presented the preliminary plat of Mary's
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.» DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - October 20, 1981 - Page 3
Lake P.U.D. and a rezoning request for the property located on Mary's
Lake Road north of Mary's Lake. The P.U.D. proposes eight dwelling
units on 6.2 acres to be served by Propsect Mountain Water Company
and the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. The parcel is currently
zoned Estate, Accommodations and Tourist and Estate District (El) is
proposed. Member Blair moved the preliminary plat of Mary's Lake
P.U.D. and the requested Estate zoning be favorably recommended to
the Larimer County Planning Commission. Member Wood seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
REZONING - LARSON - SET PUBLIC HEARINGS;
Member Richard Wood moved the public hearings for the request submitted
by N. F. and R. D. Larson to rezone a portion of Lot 15, Block 10,
Town of Estes Park 2nd Amended Plat from R-2 to C-1 be scheduled as
follows;
Estes Park Planning Commission . . . November 17, 1981
Board of Trustees....................................... December 8, 1981
Member Meusel seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
PLANNING CONFERENCE REPORTS;
Joan Van Horn reported on the Mountain Areas Conference held on September
19th in Central City at which the Mountain Areas Workgroup of the Front
Range Council presented recommendations regarding mountain area problems
and solutions to interested citizens.
George Hix and Richard Widmer reported on the Downtown Information
Meeting held in Georgetown on September 25th at which downtown development
financing, planning and implementation were addressed.
SALES TAX RESOLUTION:
The following resolution was introduced and Member Richard Wood moved
it be passed and adopted:
RESOLUTION
Since May 16, 1978, we of the Estes Park Planning Commission have
met numerous times with the objective in mind of determining ways to
better our community. We have participated with the representatives
from Estes Valley Improvement Association, Estes Area Merchants Associa
tion, Estes Park Board of Realtors, Estes Area Chamber of Commerce,
A.A.R.P., Accommodations Association, Business and Professional Women,
Rocky Mountain National Park, the Colorado•State Highway Department,
and many interested citizens.
We have conducted a survey, a questionnaire with a 30% response;
we receive considerable citizen input from letters expressing and pre
senting ideas. We initiated a Central Business District study; although
the majority of the recommendations were rejected, it still provided
us with ideas for many projects that should be given careful consideration.
We have most recently been considering special zoning for the C.B.D.,
a concept plan for River Front Development, and we are aware of earnest
requests for Stanley Park improvements, and a convention-conference
complex.
In every instance, it appears we must be progressive, we must
plan for the future to be able to meet the needs of a continual
increasing population growth along the front range.
The only way we can accomplish any of these ideas is by finding
a way to finance these projects as they become feasible.
It is our opinion the most equitable way this can be done is by
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.t DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - October 20, 1981 - Page 4
an overwhelming approval, by the voters of the Town of Estes Park,
of the proposed sales tax election on November 10, 1981.
Be it resolved, therefore, that we, of the Estes Park Planning
Commission, support this issue and move that this resolution be forwarded
to the Town Board.
Member Hix seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
trCL^^^
Van Horn, Secretary