HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1983-05-17BRADFORD PUBLISHING COM DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
► Planning Commission
May 17, 1983
Commission:Chairman Al Sager, Members Duane Blair, George
J. Hix, Margaret Houston, Steve Komito, Craig
W. Meusel, Richard A. Wood
Attending:All
Also Attending:Town Administrator Hill, Public
Widmer, Secretary Jensen
Works Director
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on May 5, 1983,
were approved.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING:
Chairman Al Sager opened the public hearing on the proposed
amendments to the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bill Van
Horn, representing the Estes Park Community Cooperative, appeared
to state that the Cooperative members had reviewed the proposed
amendment as written by Public Works Director Widmer and they
concurred with the changes. Mr. Jack Hickey, President of the
Estes Park Community Cooperative, gave a presentation on the reasons
for the formation of the Cooperative and the need for affordable
housing in Estes Park. Mr. Hickey then showed a slide presentation
on pre-manufactured housing and read the Protective Covenants as
adopted by the Cooperative. Mr. Allen Wallis, a Professor of
Architecture and Planning at the University of Colorado in
Boulder, and acting as a consultant.to the Cooperative, appeared
to explain the Housing and Urban Development standards which are
put on pre-manufactured housing exceed the Uniform Building Code
standards. Mr. Wallis stated that HUD sponsored research shows
that mobile homes with tie downs are safe up to 100 M.P.H. winds.
He also explained that location, condition and the quality of the
units led to appreciation of the units rather than the depreciation
experienced by mobile homes in "trailer parks". Mr. Wallis stated
that Phase I of the development would have 73 lots with 10,000
square feet for each lot. He stated that the development would
conform to the topography of the land and the larger units would
be placed at the bottom of the site. The units would be located
parallel to the street and they would look like regular homes,
have gravel parking spaces for two cars, and have an additional
area for gardens, etc. Mr. Van Horn then went on to explain the
planning that, went into this proposed development and explained
how the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan requirements were considered
when going through this process.
Mr. Dennis Zwagerman, Planning Consultant representing numerous
property owners and hired by George Sykes and Bob Bigler, appeared
to respond to the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
in order to allow pre-manufactured housing. Mr. Zwagerman read
and discussed an 11-page document which was prepared to refute
the change to the Comprehensive Plan. The main issues addressed
concerned site location. Mr. Zwagerman stated that his clients
realized the need for inexpensive affordable housing in the
community, however a detailed housing study should be completed
showing the type and numbers of specific housing types needed.
He stated that any proposed project should be located inside the
Town limits and should be in strict compliance to the Town's
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should not be amended
to provide for increased densities in undesignated areas until
a complete community study is completed on the issue, and the
proposed site should not be designated as a future development
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - May 17, 1983 - Page 2
due to concerns regarding high winds, traffic noise and congestion,
the aesthetics of the area, and the concern that the area has been
determined to be an important wildlife migration route. He also
stressed that under no conditions should the proposed site be
indicated and designated as a high density land use classification
with densities of four units to the acre. During his presentation,
Mr. Zwagerman introduced speakers on the following topics; Wind,
Mr. George Sykes, Mr. Sam Younghein, Mr. Jack Ewald, Mr. Tom
Patrick, Mr. George Sykes speaking.for Mr. Charlie.Baker, Mr.
Cheyene Cross for Marion Pickens; Wildlife, Mr. Dave Steven, from
Rocky Mountain National Park; Property Values, Mr. Tom Hyland.
Others speaking in opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment: Mr. Don Cheley, Dr. Sam Luce speaking for him and his
wife. Dr. Julia Marten, Mr. B. Kent Snapp. Mr. Zwagerman asked
the audience to stand if they were in opposition to the proposed
amendment. A total of 25 people stood up.
Mr. Bill Van Horn, presented a rebuttal to the issues addressed
by Mr. Zwagerman. He stated that there are adequate utilities
to serve this proposed development and regarding site location,
he stated there were no ideal sites in Estes Park and there was
a need to take into consideration the features of the site.
Regarding traffic congestion, he stated that this location has
easy access to both ends of Town and that convenience cannot be
measured by miles. He stressed the need for affordable housing
in Estes Park and stated that since the Comprehensive Plan was
originally adopted, several economic factors have presented the
need for affordable housing which were not present then. In
response to the aesthetics, he stated that only Mr. Snapp would
be able to see the site from his property. He stated that the
stigma associated with "trailers" is difficult to overcome. The
wind factor is a problem in many areas of Estes Park but the P^e_
manufactured housing exceeds the Uniform Building Code standards.
Regarding the wildlife migration route, this was not designated
as an elk migration area in the Comprehensive Plan. Those persons
speaking in favor of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment:
Ms. Cheryl Matto, Mr. Giles Gere, representing both the Upper
Thompson Sanitation District and the Estes Valley Improvement
Association, Betty Blain, who presented a petition with 94
signatures of people in favor of the amendment, and Roberta Willpy.
Mr. Jack Hickey asked the audience to stand if they were in favor
of the proposed amendment. A total of 14 people stood up.
The following correspondence in favor of the amendment was received
from the following:
Eddie T. Rowe...............................................................
Maurice R. Thompson ............................................V/cn/oX
C. Jane Guerney.....................................................X/na /lX
Lee E. Kessler...................................1 * ;. * InV/ll
Paul Strom, Human Resource Center Board . 5/11/83
Lynn and Betty Blain....................................................
Roberta J. Willey ........................................ c/Io/qr
Jack and Kathleen Hickey..................
Jack Hickey, President E.P. Cooperative . 5/15/83
Josephine Wegner...............................................
Howard, Margaret and Daniel Polk ....
James and Jessie Gardner ............................... r/17/83
Barbara M. George ........................................ 5/16/83
Kym Gasper R/ifi/Ri
Richard J. Ward........................................................5/16/83
Wayne Newson ......................................................... 5/17/83
Dorothy Edwards ..................................................... 5/16/83
Louise R. Korman .......* 5/15/83
Kenneth Whipperman ............................................
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - May 17, 1983 - Page 3
The following correspondence in opposition to the amendment was
received from the following:
Jack Ewald ............................................................. 5/10/83
Sam A. Luce.............................................................5/10/83
Muriel B. and Clifford L. Noll.....................5/16/83
J. D. and V. J. Barnes...................................5/14/83
Lamar Griffin ......................................................... 5/16/83
B. Kent Snapp.........................................................5/13/83
Carl R. Waldeck.....................................................5/16/83
Anika Waldeck ......................................................... 5/16/83
Dean and LaWanda L. King...............................5/16/83
Cheyene and Judy Cross...................................No date
The following telephone calls were received in opposition to the
amendments:
Mary Anne Stegman . . ........................................5/16/83
Dave and Renee Martig ........................................ 5/17/83
Jim Bangs .................................................................. 5/17/83
Darrel Barnes ......................................................... 5/14/83
Howard Barnes ......................................................... 5/12/83
Irene Thomas ......................................................... 5/17/83
Janet West, Marion Larson, Barbara Lyle . 5/17/83
Nancy McClure, Marion West ........................... 5/17/83
Lucie, Elsie, and Florence Anderson . . . 5/17/83
Muriel McCormick ............................... .. 5/17/83
Debbie Bangs .......................................................... 5/17/83
Gerald Parker ......................................................... 5/17/83
Public Works Director Widmer stated that the Planning Commission
was not considering the rezoning of the property at this time.
The reason this was on the agenda was to consider an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan which was requested by the members of
the Estes Park Community Cooperative, which would allow the type
of development that has been described. He stated that all the
discussion regarding designated and uridesignated areas was a result
of the fact that at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted,
the Town water service was unable to serve the area due to the
elevation of the property. Had the Town considered that Crystal
Water could service this area, the land would have been a designated
area and there would not be a need to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan submitted by Estes
Park Public Works Director Widmer and Larimer County Planning^
Director Baker were read. A lengthy discussion and work session
followed regarding the precise wording for the Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Chairman Al Sager declared the public hearing cplosed.
Member Richard Wood introduced the following resolution, with
Exhibit A, and moved it be adopted by the Estes Park Planning
Commission and referred to the Board of Trustees and the Larimer
County Commissioners:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN
OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
WHEREAS, a request has been filed for an addition to the Estes
Park Comprehensive Plan dated May 17, 1977, with regard to undesignated
areas set forth in said Comprehensive Plan; and
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.t DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - May 17, 1983 - Page 4
WHEREAS, a proposed addition to said Plan is attached hereto
as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on said proposed addition was set
for May 17, 1983, and said public hearing was held before said
Estes Park Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Estes Park Planning Commission desires to adopt
the addition to the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan as said addition
is set forth on Exhibit A.
IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED, That Exhibit A is hereby adopted
as an addition to the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan.
EXHIBIT A
The Future Land Use Plan designates those areas for future
development as being land which is under 30 percent slope, is below
the elevation established as the limit of water service (8,100
feet) and is not in an extreme wildfire hazard area.
Land which has been undesignated for development therefore
has one, or a combination of several, of the problems mentioned
above. This is not meant to imply that the undesignated land
should never be allowed to develop, but rather a close scrutiny
of any proposed development in an undesignated area should be made
to determine:
1. Whether the factor which led to the non-designation
originally is still valid; and
2. If still valid, whether adequate mitigation measures
have been taken to alleviate the factor.
It is important to view each proposed development in a non-
designated area as it relates to the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and to identify any impacts on existing
neighborhoods, public facilities, utilities, transportation, and
public services.
If it is determined that these impacts are either insignifi
cant or that measures as proposed will mitigate them to an accept
able level, and that any other planning concerns have been addressed,
the proposed development may be allowed. In such cases, the allowable
residential density of the proposed development shall be in general
conformance with adjacent densities designated in the Comprehensive
Plan, and with characteristics of existing residential development
BRADFORD PUBLISHING COM DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - May 17, 1983 - Page 5
in the area, but shall not exceed the maximum density allowed for
adjacent areas in the Comprehensive Plan.
Affordable Housing. Developments providing affordable housing,
employee housing or housing for those in economic need may be per
mitted a maximum density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Evaluation
of appropriate density shall be based upon the criteria established
in the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan pages 68 - 69 for higher-
density development and upon site characteristics.
Member Steve Komito seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
The documentation presented at this public ion
in the office of the Secretary of the Estes Park Planning Commission.
ZONING ORDINANCE - R-2 ZONE - SET PUBLIC HEARING DATESj_
Member Margaret Houston moved the ®hildca?fifntrrr^?9spLjri?rv?::1nCSrR-rCSpirFa“?rResii„tia1
“isLIot for jLeP21, 1983, and the Town Board of trustees s^edule
a oublic hearing on the same proposal for June 28, 1983.
George J. Hix seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Chairman A1 Sager conducted a public pe?It!Lers,
appeared before the ^e^?r?«jrL™lrcSrDStrict off
°of CaenfeGraiSsaAv;nue. urtf9^
i2nianes^'in?hrbowling =®nt®^Pwo"^^rh°3S®a5sr®oui“Stpravided!'1'
nursery and game areas. Parking ° review* Mr. Elmer Graham
andSMsSPBettygBroughT°rThosehspeaking1in opposition, none.
Correspondence wasgreceived from the following:
. 4. ... 5/06/83Public Works Director ...*••• 5/09/83
Colorado Highway Department ......................
Chairman Sager declared the Pu^llc^®a^Qng4i1^gefavorably recommended
Hix moved that Special Review .^^l^'^ovisISns noted from
to the Board of Trustees with the fo g P following
the Town Engineer’s letter, items 3I 4' and b, a ^
items noted from the State Hl^h^aJh°eP ti n and it passed unanimously. Member Margaret Houston seconded the motion and it p
CUVCTAT. REVIEW RFOURST NO. 42 - SET.R-STORAGE WAREHOUSES - PUBLfC HEARING
Chairman A1 Sager conducted ® 5j®®r“^ue"t|nrpermisIion
Request No. 42 submitted by Dick St commercial District,
^construct self-storage =“a^p5iedtol special review
Mr. Statham stated that h! baSaaPKo™ on the Site plan
to build self-storage warehouses anfTaaag a^_ved but no completion
two buildings, buiiaing. He is now submitting
thHirsrfrre4! c °nd
SiPneaoppSgsitlon:Vronef t?LS?oCliring correspondence in favor of
the special review was received from:
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.t DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - May 17, 1983 - Page 6
Becky Key ..... ............................................ 5/11/83
Arliena and Arlen Olmsted ............................... 5/11/83
F. Ross Brown............................................................5/12/83
Larry J. Helmich....................................................5/12/83
A letter from Public Works Director Widmer dated May 6, 1983, was
received. Chairman Al Sager declared the hearing closed. Member
George Hix moved that special review request No. 42 be favorably
recommended to the Board of Trustees. Member Margaret Houston
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE - SET PUBLIC HEARING DATESr
Public Works Director explained that floodplain maps for the Beaver
Point addition, annexed last year, needed to be adopted by the
Town. Larimer County has the floodplain maps of this area and
the Town needs to officially adopt them. Member Richard Wood moved
the Planning Commission schedule a public hearing on the adoption
of the Beaver Point Floodplain maps for June 21, 1983, and the
Town Board of Trustees schedule a public hearing on the same subject
for June 28, 1983. Member George Hix seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
LARIMER COUNTY REFERRALS:
RATHSACK VARIANCE - Request to establish and operate a State licensed
day care center in an A Accommodations Zone at Fish Creek Road
and Highway 36 (Landmark Motel). Ms. Ruth Rathsack and Ms. Donna
Griffith spoke on behalf of the day care center. Letters were
received from Ruth Rathsack dated May 1, 1983, and from Nelda and
Charles Jamieson dated April 29, 1983. Member Richard Wood moved
that this variance be favorably recommended to the Larimer County
Board of Adjustment. Member George Hix seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Ann E. JeiTseh^ Secretary