HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1983-09-20BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission
September 20, 1983
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman Al Sager, Members Duane Blair, George
J. Hix, Margaret Houston, Steve Komito, Richard
A. Wood, Craig Meusel
Chairman Sager, Members Blair, Hix, Houston,
Komito and Wood
Public Works Director Widmer, Planner Cole,
Secretary Jensen
Craig Meusel
Chairman Al Sager introduced Anne Moss, Urban P.enewal Authority
commissioner, and stated that Ms. Moss would the liaison person
between the Estes Park Planning Commission and the Urban Renewal
Authority. mI Lss asked tha? the Planning Commission be mindful
on how their decisions will affect the lmPlement®^:L°"
Renewal Plan. She also stressed the importance of the
commission and Urban Renewal Authority core area'
guidelines on «hat should "L Mosrstated
and what steps need to be taken in din the pian and ifthat she will attempt to answer questions g g t b k to
she does not know the answer, she will find out and reporr o
the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on August 16, 1983,
were approved.
Chairman Al Sager opened a public hearing on thJa||°P°S^^djrion-nLots
of Lots 1 through 11 and a portion of Lots 21 through
1 and 2, Cyteworth Resubdivision; and p Residential to
25, Riverside Subdivision from r. rne^ representing Mr. and Mrs.
R-1 Residential. specific situation! to be considered
Frank Gunter, stated that the sit P slope of the property,
are access to the property and the f the property is about
Mr. Zier estimated that the d d Cyteworth Road, which he
50 percent. The principal access ro^d. ^disputed. He
believes is a private road - altho;;ghntk^^dha^he!rare Still problems stated that even if this were a Pftoad,otherehareitchbacPs _
with width and slope ^he ^oad rs ^ ments for roaas. significant
the radius is one-half of tna there were an attempt to
scarring of the property violation of the Comprehensive Plan,
widen the road, which would be i would permit condominiums
Mr. Zier stated that the present g • hbori100d. He believes
which would be out of character wi 0rror Mr Zier asked the
the original zoning of the area was ' tbi; property is onlyPlanning Commission to the fact that this pr p Ys,tes as
suitable for limited residential ^evelopment^on^ih hazards_ £ire
stated in the Comprehensive requested that all aspects of
hazards, and drainage problems. g part of the record - i.e.
the file be regarded and met a^d d ^he map of the area, etc.
State Statutes, 9omPrehenJiVthe1!ezoning: Fra!k Gunter, Leonard
Others speaking m favor of ^°;j^n^nd Gaylen Parracks. Attorney
Savory, representing the D* j k irwin, Mr. and Mrs. Ralph
Walter Brown, rePresent^ngM^InOpposed the rezoning. Mr. Brown
R™lLXspLf 4 co;sid4rableaSmount of time and effort in doing a plan
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - September 20, 1983 - Page 2
for multiple family housing. In a letter dated December 10, 1981,
the Town Attorney stated that multiple family housing was allowed
in this area under the current zoning ordinance and that a building
permit could not be denied. Mr. Reeves abandoned the project. In
the spring of 1982, the property was sold to Jack Irwin, Jack Callaway
and Ralph Greb, with the assurance that the property was zoned R
2 multiple family residential. These individuals invested a substantia
amount of money in trying to work with a suitable plan for the R-
2 zone. They have invested $90,000 for land costs, $60,000 in Pljns
andmodels, Ld over $15,000 in engineering and dirt work. Rezonrng
this property would eliminate the feasibility of getting a return
on their invLtment and would be going against the
Mr. Brown stated that rezoning of the Property would be unfair ®nd
is not needed to protect the Town and the people of Estes Park. Others
sSeaking in opposition were: George Wieland. The following
correspondence in favor of the existing zoning was received from.
. . 9/03/83John L. Bridges .....................................................
s“.r. s1;.”: :r:;r;.Ksr
was received:
...................... 7/14/83Town Planner..................19/10/81Town Attorney, legal opinion, dated ..................
Public Works Director Widmer stated.or1maynnot°be
SpUcIbLrtrtoen?eLnSg.:LnaaSan Sager declared the hearing
closed. Member steveKomito moved t5j®tathenrezoningnO LQts 1 and
through 11 and a portion Tri+.e; 9i throuah 25, Riverside Subdivision2, Cyteworth Resubdivision; and Lots 21 throughi25^tRii favorably
from R-2 Multiple DuaneRBlair seconded the motion,
recommended to the Town Board. Saaer Duane Blair and Steve
TKSmietoT0tSL:Yv;tifg'^-~ MembersHMargaretaHouston and Richard Wood.
RE ZONING - MOUNT VIEW PARK - PUBLIC HEARING^.
Chairman Al Sager opened a public ^aa^^JJ?°nRagJdentiainto0R Residential.
View Park Addition from ^:2 McCracken representing
Those speaking in favor of th® Johnson Cliff Scofield and Stephanie the signers on the petition Mike Johnson, Clis whiteside/ Irene Thomas,
Westfalia. Those speaki g of the Biack canyon, Allen
Bill Van Horn, raPJesent;Ln^rth5° Horn stated that the Black Canyon
Clauson and Janet Romer-_Mr* Avenue, which is the entrance
is located on the east side of commercially. Mr.
to the Black Caay°n. ^8f rezSning is approved, he would like
van Horn requested that isgpart of the Black Canyon
the rezoning to exclude lot 1 ^hic p he was not for or against
property. Ms. Jo Schroeder s v-irs11+- -hhe orivate property owners
?he rezoning, but she was zoning? would cost the property
SSfrSs; The KiroeitnhgaL?resroiLnfeWLZ?avo? of the rezoning was
received from:
...................9/20/83
Don and Jody Magnuson ...•••• .. .9/20/83
Gary and Vickie O'Connor .................................. 9/20/83
Stephen Swickard ............................................
The following correspondence in opposition was received from:
. . . .9/10/83
Opal Whiteside...................................* *..................9/10/83
Doris E. Stitch............................................ .9/10/83
Ilo Mae Thompson .........................................................
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - September 20, 1983 - Page 3
Public Works Director Widmer stated that a building permit has been
issued for a four-plex on a portion of Lot 13 and regardless of the
outcome of the proceedings, there would be a four-plex unit at that
location. Chairman Sager declared the hearing closed. A discussion
followed. Member Duane Blair moved that the rezoning of Mount View
Park Addition be unfavorably recommended to the Town Board. l^ho®e
voting "Yes" Members Blair, Houston, and Wood. Those voting No
Members Sager, Hix, and Komito.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 5 - FAIRWAY CONDOMINIUMS PHASE i;y_
Mr. Tom Brown, representing B-L Partnership, appeared before the
Commission to present the Site Development _Plan for the
of 4 0 condominiiam units adjacent to the existing Fairway Condominium
(a portion of Lots 5 and 6, South Saint Vrain Addition). Correspondence
was received from the following:
National Park Service............................................V/VJ/W
Light and Power Director........................................q/nq/R^
Public Service Comapny ........................................
Water Superintendent..................................................
Highway Department.........................................................Jn V/9.\
Public Works Director.......................................
Planner....................................... • : ......................o/on/Qq
Upper Thompson Sanitation District.................Q/on/oq
Estes Park Fire Department.....................................
A discussion followed on the Highway Department ■StlatternWhichnrequested
a right-turn deceleration lane on y , lit f development
letter which addresses landscaping, the °rroad a
from the street, and an access easement oat° Mr. Brownlengthy discussion and <3h-tron and answer period fallowed.f s
fsl^:?aSS^ and S^S^LnS pt5an
ro!e|Ve0STOr^hfyere^o^SLWd00t^ oli^urjes Lh.ect to
the following conditions:
project.
2. Landscaping should be shown on the site plan in the
approximate location and amount.
the first building permit for this pro:ecr la y
access and road maintenance.
4- surfacing°materialsaof<^the ^rrelifaifpfr^^nrLSl
as either asphalt or concrete.
5. The engineer's stamp on the site plan should be signed
and dated.
December 31, 1984.
7. A note be placed on the site development plan generally
as follows:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - September 20, 1983 - Page 4
"Building permits shall not be issued for any units
except units 1 through 6 until either: 1. Arrange
ments are made by the developer suitable to the Town
Board for stormwater detention on the golf course or
2. Engineering construction plans are submitted to
and approved by the Town Engineer for the detention
area shown on this plan. Construction of this detention
area shall be complete prior to completion of unit ±4.
8. The site plan sheet showing.the utilities needs to be
modified to indicate the revised drainage details dis
cussed with the engineer on September 13, 1983.
Member George Hix seconded the motion and it passed by the following
votes- Those voting "Yes" Members Duane Blair, George Hix, Margare
HcS?OT, A^laSr Kichard Wood. Member Steve Komrto left the
meeting before the vote.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 6 - RIDGEWOOD AT LONE PINE ACRESj_
Mr. Roger Thorp, representing flof?LbcSns?ruc?ion
Coni;1:Srbpl^reSseno^ ^^r4?e^?br3!tLoirpfn; Lres. The following
correspondence was received:
...................... 9/16/83
Town Attorney . 9/07/83
National Park Service , . • • • • • • • 9/08/83
Light and Power Director ............................. 9/08/83
Public Works Director ................................... 9/08/83
Public Service Company ........................................ 9/13/83
Highway Department ................................................ 9/13/83
Water Superintendent...........................................*.9/15/83
Planner ......................................................................
site plan.
Member Margaret Hou^on -c°nded the
following votes: Those voting Yes RMemara wooa_ Those vQting „KO
Hix, Margaret Houston, Ai sag
none.
COUNTY REFERRALS:
Thunder^iouivtainPa|ki^^UiD^_^^Si^^^jr^^^ -rM!S!S ."Sfstf/SSf^
---- ^rrecti tS!
l73WaSfethen6thD?M, Larimer _ County^ Mr^ following*1 individuals to
representing Thunder Mountain Jal1® . Kochevar, who explained the
Jnrther explain the development: Paul.^°C^®ter and sewer, and also
development and_discussed sources^^ BrQwn whQ discussed access^^
doiS?Uort? roadn6SI.a^dthfePpa?ingareqeUiremennts: KentwBranen. _
DwightSDannen,^one^^of3the 0inPro"°n ?o t“isarrirent
“?reIp“denol“asare«ived from the following people.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - September 20, 1983 - Page 5
Roe Johnston (against)................................................q/?'o/r?
Bryan Michener (against) .............................ViWigX
Town Planner..............................................................
A petition was received with 112 signatures of adjacent property
owners who expressed opposition. The Planning Commrssron members
each gave his view on the project:
Ceorae Hix - feels that the project is worthwhile and will enhance
the value of the Estes Valley without disrupting geaUty*
The only concern is to make sure the tunnel water g
be adequate for their water supply. Not concerned about fire
hazard.
arssrs.’SJ; “ s.-sr
a lot more traffic.
Margaret Honston - concurred with ^e“?™“m"orTboih
anS h^SnrS I?vi.d°Soi concLned about fire hazard
or the road. The County should improve the road.
A1 Sager - they h^e "ta|^?™SSeaSo ^ome’^troSf “uS
provide a viable development for P P there should be require-
Ld he hopes it can be a°ne-t„raf timlf even if it requires
ments to PrOTia%!affat;hrHLSnf Commission Members for the
several storage ^ nroiectand he does not feel the
most part have endorsed the project ana
need to do more than that.
' a n R Q p-ypQ-] Boulder Coloay
Blue Spruce Village, p-p;°; linnj —f »nd nariene ~
subdivision:. Mr. H Hr BlL Spruce Village on Spur
Ferdinandts^n, presented th® P-U-Dp ses 27 condominium units.66 toward the YMCA Camp. The P.U.D^^^prop ^ over the river
A discussion followed on t river The Planning Commission
re^bfrsTarShririS^inq0"?--”
Margaret Houston - in i^^?oairaTufilSea!derTh:yhS«
"nSt^Stngiowft^efald sd liLs what they are proposing.
Blair - positive about the development, but sorry that the
“ubfic iiil nofhave access along the river.
George Hix - he lihes the development. Ho negative concerns
at all.
itotiSinaTrwi1l"LfhPer?SV thft "tre0?^^!?^
should have access to the river.
Richard Wood was not present to comment.
letter dated August 29, 1983, from the
TThor?iyanCn0erret:POthdeenhCaeriWmaeSr So^nty Planning Bepartment.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - September 20, 1983 - Page 6
Amended Chalet Estates P.U.D.; Planner Cole stated that the Town
of Estes Park has reallocated unspent funds from a H.U.D. Imminent
Threat Grant to the Estes Park Community Cooperative to be used for
site improvements costs. The funds in the amount of appoximately
$64,000 were approved for reallocation because of the need for affordable
housing in Estes Park. Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing the Estes
Park Community Cooperative, presented the amended Chalet Estates P.U.D.
which proposes 84 dwelling units between Highway 7 and the Chalet.
Those people speaking in favor of the P.U.D., Giles Gere representing
the Estes Valley Improvement Association. Those speaking in opposition;
Jim Martel, representing the opponents to the project. A lengthy
discussion followed. The following correspondence was received; A
letter dated September 15, 1983, from Planner Cole to the Larimer
County Planning Office, and a letter dated September 14, 1983, from
B. Kent Snapp, who is opposed to the development. The Planning Commission
Members had the following comments;
Al Sager - feels that ample electricity and sewage could
be supplied and it has been inferred that water can be
supplied. The distance to schools is no problem. He did
express concern over the square appearance of the project
and the density.
Margaret Houston - distance from Town is a minor issue as
far as schools and fire protection is concerned. The Town
does need low cost housing. Eighty-four units seems high
but she is in favor of the development.
George Hix - he shares the same concerns as Chairman Sager.
He would be in favor of a lower density of 69-70 units.
He is also concerned about the grid appearance. He has
concerns for the adjacent property owners, but does not
know of any other acreage that could be used. He is in
favor of the project but not at the proposed density of
84 units.
Duane Blair - in favor of this development. He is disap
pointed in the grid appearance but is not concerned about
the 84 units as long as they go by the County guidelines.
Al Sager stated that Richard Wood expressed his opinion
before he left the meeting. He would like an elevation
perspective prior to its final approval and requested
that the County return it to Estes Park before its final
review.
Member Duane Blair moved that the last two items on the agenda be
tabled. Member George Hix seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Ann E. Jensen;ix Town Clerk