HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1985-11-19BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
/ Planning Commission
November 19, 1985
Commission;Chairman A1 Sager, Members Duane Blair, Mark
Brown, Mike Dickinson, George Hix, Steve
Komito, Richard Wood
Attending;Chairman Sager, Members Brown, Dickinson,
Hix, Komito. Wood
Also Attending:Town Administrator Hill, Town Attorney White,
Town Engineer Widmer, Town Planner Stamey,
Secretary O'Connor
Absent;Member Blair
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held October 15,
1985 were submitted and approved.
2. COUNTY REFERRALS:
2.a. Lewis Exemption Request - East Forkf Fish Creek: Mr.
Bill Van Horn, representing the owner, submitted the Lewis
Exemption Request stating the intent was to divide one lot
into two lots. Size of the site is 38.20 acres; Tract 1 =
19.10 acres; Tract 2 = 19.10 acres. Planner Stamey sum
marized the staff report which addressed "Major Concerns and
Issues" including slopes exceeding 30%, elevation above the
Town's "Blue Line", and severe wildfire hazards. Chairman
Sager advised the Lewis Exemption Request was originally
considered by the Estes Park Planning Commission on April
19, ^ 1983; a favorable recommendation was issued to the
Larimer County Planning Commission. The Larimer County
Planning Commission denied the request, stating their desire
was not to set a precedent of subdividing other 40-acre
tracts through the Exemption Process. Discussion followed
with Member Brown moving the Lewis Exemption Request be
favorably recommended to the Larimer County Planning Commis
sion subject to the condition that the applicant provide
adequate information to mitigate any identified hazards at
the time of building permit application. Member Wood
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
3*a* Development Plan #85-5, Estes Village Motor Inn, Lot
_Block 1, Lake View Tracts, 1040 Big Thompson Avenue; Mr.
Paul Kochevar, representing the owner, presented Development
Plen #85—5, Estes Village Motor Inn. The applicant is
requesting approval of a development plan for the addition
of 12 motel units, one employee living unit (maid), one
family meeting room and one game room. The development
would result in a total of 43 units on the site and would
connect the two existing buildings into one structure.
Planner Stamey summarized the staff report acknowledging
receipt of the following correspondence which addressed "key
issues" concerning the development plan;
Town Engineer Widmer.............................11/12/85
Town Water Superintendent..................11/12/85
Department of Highways.........................09/09/85
Garth W. Rogers/Allen, Rogers,
Metcalf and Vahrenwald....................11/08/85
Discussion followed concerning the proposed construction
schedule, advisability of building in a drainage swale and
the increase in size of the water service line. Member Wood
moved the Estes Park Planning Commission approve Development
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 19, 1985 - Page two
3,
4,
6,
7.
8.
10,
Plan #85-5, Estes Village Motor Inn, subject to the follow
ing conditions;
1. Correct the Title, Notes and "building footprint"
to reflect the addition of a total of 13 units.
2. Install a fire hydrant on the existing 8" water
main located on the north side of Highway 34.
Designate the east driveway as a "Fire Lane."
Add a note to the plan regarding compliance with
landscaping requirements including an installation
time schedule. Installation should be at the
earliest appropriate season upon building com
pletion. Arterial and sideline planting areas
should be identified on the plan.
Indicate the location of the litter dumpster,
screening with a 6' high solid, wood fence.
Indicate major vegetation that will be removed.
Indicate maximum building height on Sheet 1.
Indicate development "start" and "completion"
dates on Sheet 1.
Indicate proposed grading of driveway located on
the east.
Indicate that the "family meeting room" and "game
room" are to be operated solely for occupants of
the motel. (Applicants were advised that addi
tional land area and parking would be required
should the use of these areas change to include
actiyities such as retail sales and meetings,
rawing people from off-site, or conversion to
motel/living units).
Indicate drainage details, including detention and
^1®v^^ion of walls, structures, grading, outlet details and emergency overflow.
Indicate "cross-section" of bicycle path, indicat-
ing saw-cut edges and reshouldering. Bicycle path
should remain a minimum of 8' wide.
Should the addition exceed 195 fixture values, the
size of the existing water service line will have
to be increased.
14. The lienholder must sign the plan prior to issu
ance of a building permit.
Member Hix seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
~rf!lf>pinent Plan #85-6, The Riverhouse, Lot 59A, Fall
^ver Addition, Highway 34/Fall River Road; mF; Paul
Devel?Pment Pfan #85-6, The Riverhouse.
JPPllcant IS requesting approval of a development plan
for the construction of nine (9) residential units in one
UrJ* The, Riverhouse will initially be operated as an
XT???11??61111 comPleJx'. with the possibility that the complex
will be converted into condominiums at some later date. Mr.
rec3uested , clarification concerning Town Attorney
S rec°niinendatien that the applicant provide architec
tural elevations and cross-sections of typical buildings
11,
12,
13.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 19, 1985 - Page three
pursuant to Section 17.80.030 A. 2. Mr. Kochevar informed
the Commission construction is not eminent. Based upon the
construction schedule, Town Attorney White deleted his
recommendation. The applicant expressed concern regarding
staff recommendation #2 which recommended a note be included
stating The Riverhouse shall not be operated as a commercial
accommodation (i.e.; units rented on less than a
month-to-month basis). The project would prove uneconomical
to operate on a night-to-night basis; they desire to operate
the complex on a week-to-week basis. The applicants oppose
staff recommendation #6 which recommended the dedication of
10' of additional right-of-way for Highway 34 because the
dedication would cause the elimination of one unit and
require revision of the three parking spaces located in the
northeast corner of the lot. Further discussion followed
concerning the specific definition of "commercial accommo
dation", clarification between a "dedication" (which would
allow the 10' of additional right-of-way to become State
Highway property) and "reservation" (which would require the
State Highway Department to pay for the land should the
Department determine the land is essential for their use -
the landowner would be prevented from building on the
right-of-way.), and building setback. Member Wood moved the
Estes Park Planning Commission approve Development Plan
#85-6, The Riverhouse subject to the following conditions:
1. The note referring to the "dumpster" should
include enclose with "6, high solid, wood"
fence."
6,
7.
4.
Include in Note #2: "The Riverhouse shall not be
operated as a commercial accommodation."
Include in Note #4: "Required landscaping shall
be installed at the earliest appropriate season
upon building completion."
The required planting areas should be graphically
delineated on the development plant.
Include a note stating - Prior to excavation, 30'
river setback shall be verified with Town staff.
Indicate location of the proposed project sign.
Indicate elevation of 12" drain pipe located at the river bank.
8. Include a note stating - 12" drain pipe shall be
screened or treated to blend-in with adjacent
river bank materials.
mSIJ^ly. Dickinson seconded the motion and it passed unani-
The Planning Commission also recommended that a letter be
sent to the State Highway Department stating that the
additionelbUh-ldhng se.tbKack of 60' accommodates the need for
additional highway right-of-way in the future.
^SEYPxrl(iiNjrl^IltRKS DEPAR™ENT ~ presentation of "ESTES
nf; Cameron, Park Planner, Larimer County Parks
Department presented the proposed "Estes Valley Trails
.iThe C°unty is developing a non-motorized recreation-
al trails plan for the Estes Valley. The Plan was initiated
through the efforts of the Estes Valley Trails Coalition, a
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 19, 1985 - Page four
citizen's group interested in preserving trails located in
the Estes Valley. The Plan has been coordinated with the U.
S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District, the Town of Estes Park and
Larimer County. In order to achieve the goal of providing a
system of non-motorized recreational trails for the enjoy
ment of the general public, objectives have been outlined as
follows:
1. To preserve and improve public access to public
lands.
2. To provide safe access to public lands for pedes
trians, equestrians and bicyclists within road
rights-of-way through high traffic areas.
3. To facilitate the inter-agency coordination and
cooperation necessary to implement such a Plan.
The Estes Valley Trails Plan proposes a 170-mile recreation
al trail system and encompasses approximately 300 square
miles in the study area. A "Trails Inventory" list was also
presented. The list contained three major areas of informa
tion: Trail Information (i.e.: land ownership). Trail
Evaluation and Recommendations for Problems/Improvements.
Implementation of the Plan will emphasize cost-effective
methods of acquisition, development and maintenance. An
Estes Valley Trails Committee will be established which will
consist of staff representatives from the five aforemen
tioned agencies. Through the Committee, an annual review
will be made of the trails inventory to include revisions,
additions and/or deletions.
In an effort to present the Plan to all interested citizens
and receive comments, Ms. Cameron advised the Commission, a
Public Workshop has been scheduled for December 5, 1985 in
Room 203 of the Municipal Building, at 7:00 P.M.
Member_ Brown moved the Estes Park Planning Commission
recognize the effort spent to date in preparing the Estes
Valley Trails Plan as being extremely positive, and en
couraged the continuation of the development of the Plan.
Member Komito seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
5. REPORTS:
Chairman Sager informed the Commission of a letter dated
November 12, 1985 submitted by Mr. Henry R. Baker, Planning
Director, Larimer County Planning Department. The County
was seeking participation on the Comprehensive Plan Review
Committee which will be reviewing the Larimer County Compre
hensive Plan which was adopted in 1978. The names of
hairman Sager and Member Hix will be submitted to Larimer
County for consideration for appointment to the Comprehen
sive Plan Review Committee.
During review of the Residential Regulations, an effort will
be made to better define "commercial accommodation."
Members of the Estes Park Planning Commission attended the
Planning Commissioners and Planners Workshop" held in
Keystone November 14th and 15th, 1985 sponsored by the
Colorado Chapter A.P.A. The Conference was very worthwhile
and beneficial to all attendees.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Vickie O'Connor, Secretary