HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1987-03-17BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission
March 17, 1987
Commission;
Attending;
Also Attending;
Absent;
Chairman Al Sager, Members David
Barker, Duane Blair,— Mark Brown,
George Hix, Steve Komito, Richard Wood
All
Town Administrator Hill, Town Engineer
Widmer, Town Planner Stamey, Town
Attorney White, Secretary Jones
None
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held February 17,
1987 were submitted and approved.
SUBDIVISIONS
2. a. Amended Plat of Lots 5 & 6, DeVille Subdivision, Jim
Wehr ~ “
Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing the petitioner, presented the
aforementioned amended Plat. Planner Stamey presented the
staff report. Mr. Wehr is proposing to combine two existing
lots into one lot. The subdivision falls under the
requirements of Section 16.40 Exceptions and under this
section, the subdivision procedures (except for the provision
of a final plat) can be waived when one or more lots are
being divided for the purpose of adjusting boundary lines
between such lots. Receipt of correspondence from the
following referral agencies was noted;
Light & Power Dept..........................3/2/87
Town Attorney.....................................3/7/87
Fire Department................................3/9/87
After discussion. Member Brown stated 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 and moved that this request be favorably recommended
to the Town Board. Member Hix seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
2.b. Amended Plat of Lots 16 & 17, DeVille Subdivision,
Wilson E. & Romona Rains ””
Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing the petitioner, presented the
amended plat. Planner Stamey presented the staff report. The
proposed request falls under the requirements of Section
16.40 Exceptions and under this section, the subdivision
procedures (except for the provision of a final plat) can be
waived when one or more lots are being divided for the
purpose of adjusting boundary lines between such lots.
Petitioners are proposing to combine two existing lots into
one for the purpose of constructing an addition to the
existing building. Town Engineer Widmer noted that a 20' wide
drainage easement was requested because the utility plan
showed a sewer line in the middle of the existing 15'
easement and expressed concern about fitting drainage in.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - March 11, 1987 - Page Four
7. Provide maintenance agreement relative
separation of water service to both
subject to approval of Town Engineer.
to water &
properties.
Member Barker seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLANS
3.a. Amendment to Development Plan 86-4, Golden Eagle Resort,
Estes Highlands Limited Partnership
Mr. Paul Kochevar, representing Estes Highlands Limited
Partnership, presented the Amended Development Plan and
explained the proposed modifications. This development plan
was approved by the Planning Commission last July 15, 1986 and
the applicant proposes the following revisions:
A new parking lot would be developed north and west of the
existing sales office containing 43 parking spaces. , The
parking area in front of the sales building would be
eliminated. The tennis court would be relocated to the north
and west. In response to staff comments, Mr. Kochevar
presented a revised drawing which eliminated the proposed
Riverside Drive access, provided a modified tennis court
location that avoided an area of mature trees, and addressed
the water related comments.
Planner Stamey sximmarized the staff report and noted staff
concerns had been addressed.
Motion was-made by Member Brown that this amendment to
Development Plan 86-4 be approved. Member Wood seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
3.b. Development Plan 87-3, Rains Estes Park Ford.
Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing Hank Rains, presented the
development plan. Applicant is requesting approval for the
construction of a 5,250 sq. ft. addition onto the west side of
the existing building. Mr. Van Horn stated the illegal "shed"
would be removed. A variance request was approved by the Board
of Adjustment on March 12, 1987 granting a 20' setback for the
new addition.
Planner Stamey summarized the staff report. Concerns expressed
included defined curb cuts along Manford Avenue, screening of
outdoor storage, and landscaping. The following correspondence
from referral agencies was acknowledged:
Town Engineer...................03/09/87
Light & Power.....................03/02/87
Town Attorney.....................03/07/87
Fire Department.................03/09/87
Public Service..................03/04/87
A letter from Public Service noted that relocation of natural
gas facilities would be necessary and at the owner's expense.
Mr. Van Horn stated that an impoundment area had been shown on
the plan and that this area would be enclosed with a sight
impervious fence, a minimum of 6' in height.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - March 17, 1987 - Page Five
Discussion followed on whether or not landscaping should be
considered by the applicant. Applicant stated he did not feel
it would be appropriate and felt that trees would detract from
the car display. He felt the area should be unobstructed for
the most efficient use.
Chairman Sager asked that a motion be made to determine how
the Planning Commision felt toward landscaping being a part of
this development plan. Member Blair moved that landscaping
should be considered. Member Brown seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously. Consensus of the Planning Commission was
that planting areas could be utilized to define two curb cuts
along Manford Avenue.
Member Brown moved that this development plan be approved with
the following conditions:
1. That applicant submit a landscaping plan for review and
approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
2. That existing and proposed paving be shown on development
plan, along with gas pumps, parking layout, and correct
edge of asphalt along Manford Avenue.
3. That driveway entrances be defined.
4. That the impoundment area be screened with a
impervious fence a minimum of 61 in height.
site
Member Blair seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
4. SPECIAL REVIEWS
4.a. Special Review #87-3, Bed and Breakfast, 441 Chiquita
Lane, Judith Brown
Ms. Judith Brown presented the Special Review request to
operate a Bed and Breakfast in an existing single-family
residence in an E-Estate District. Planner Stamey presented
the staff report and also read correspondence received from
neighboring property owners, JoAnn and Wayne Van Slyke, Alma
Hix and William Burgess, all opposing this request. Receipt of
correspondence from referral agencies was acknowledged, as
follows:
Light & Power..................................3/2/87
E.P. Sanitation District..........3/6/87
Town Attorney..................................3/7/87
Building Inspector.......................3/9/87
Fire Dept...........................................3/9/87
Mr. Bill Van Horn, who owns vacant property with Robert
Dekker, spoke in favor of the request and stated he and Mr.
Dekker felt it was an appropriate use of the existing
residence.
Town Attorney White stated Mr. Richard Russell's signature
should be clarified to determine if Mr. Russell is, in fact,
signing on behalf of Home Federal as lienholder.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - March 11, 1987 - Page Six
Motion was made by Member Wood that this request be favorably
recommended to the Town Board. Member Brown seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
4.b. Special Review #87-4, Fun City Slide Modification, Lynn
Kinnie
Mr. Bill Van Horn, representing Lynn Kinnie, presented this
Special Review request for modifying the existing slide at Fun
City. Applicant is proposing to add a spiral slide onto the
south side of the existing slide. The new slide would be
approximately 48'8" above grade. Commercial amusements and
structures greater than 30' in height may be approved by the
Planning Commission and Town Board upon special review. The
new structure would be located approximately 15' from the Big
Thompson River. A setback variance for this was approved by
the Board of Adjustment on March 12, 1987.
Planner Stamey presented the staff report and identified
visual concerns and considerations which should be weighed in
evaluating this request. Correspondence from referral agencies
was acknowledged, as follows:
Town Attorney......................3/7/87
Light & Power Dept...........3/2/87
Fire Department..................3/9/87
EPURA........................................3/9/87
EPURA........................................3/17/87
The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority letter stated that the
slide addition would be in violation of Urban Design Guideline
#10, as set forth in the URA Plan.
There were no comments from the audience and no correspondence
received opposing this request.
Member Sager questioned the 48'8" height and asked Mr. Kinnie
if possibly it could be shortened. Mr. Kinnie stated that a
shorter spiral would detract from velocity of the slide.
Member Wood expressed concern about placement of flags, etc.
on top of the new structure. Mr. Kinnie assured there would be
nothing of this type on the proposed addition.
Discussion followed concerning color of structure. Mr. Van
Horn stated that a white slide with a blue spiral was
proposed. However, there were a number of available color
combinations which could be considered.
Member Komito spoke in opposition to the slide addition
stating he felt it could give foothold for another addition in
the future. He said the existing slide was approved more than
two decades ago and he felt public opinion has changed since
then and recommended this request be denied.
There was further discussion regarding benefits to the
community and Member Brown moved that this request be
favorably recommended to the Town Board with the following
conditions;
1. That the new structure not exceed 48'8" in height.
2. That the color be submitted at time of consideration by
Town Board.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - March 17, 1987 - Page Seven
Member Brown also stated that the benefits outweigh adverse
impacts, it serves an economic purpose, and that the
additional height was justified based on the explanation.
Member Barker seconded the motion and it passed by the
following vote: Those voting "Yes", Members Barker, Brown,
Hix, Wood, Sager; those voting "No", Members Blair and Komito.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.a. Request for of Tract A, Prospect Estates
Addition to the Town of Estes Park,Colorado, EXCEPT Prospect
Estates Subdivision and Prospect Mountain Subdivision, a
P.U.D., Filings 1 through 7.
Chairman Sager opened the public hearing which was for the
purpose of considering applicant's request for rezoning of
Tract A, Prospect Estates Addition, from E-Estate to R-S
Residential. Planner Stamey presented the staff report which
stated that the requested zoning is similar in lot area
requirements to the previous R-Residential zoning. The subject
property is approximately 87 acres, 25 acres on the south side
of Peak View Drive and 64 acres on the north side of Peak View
Drive.The portion of Tract A south of Peak View has an average
slope of approximately 12%, with areas approaching 14%-15%.
Thus, basic minimum lot size would range from 18,000 sq. ft.
to 21,000 for single family, or 27,000 sq. ft. to 31,500 sq.
ft. for two-family. These sizes would be comparable with the
existing lots in Prospect Estates Subdivision.
The portion of Tract A north of Peak View has relatively
moderate slopes in the area either side of the Prospect
Mountain access road, with slopes exceeding 40% on much of the
site. This site is similar in character to the Prospect
Mountain P.U.D. R-S zoning would allow similar type
development. With factors in the zoning ordinance that provide
lot size adjustments for slope, utility service, and bonuses,
the R-S zoning would meet the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Bill Van Horn represented the applicant, Neil W. Solomon.
Chairman Sager asked for comments from the audience, either in
favor of or in opposition to this request. There were no
comments. Chairman Sager closed the hearing.
Motionwas made by Member Wood that this request be favorably
recommended to the Town Board, Member Brown seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
5.b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Setbacks, Nonconforming
Buildings, Development Plan Applicability
Chairman Sager opened the public hearing. Three items were
continued from last month's Planning Commission hearing, these
being: A modification to setback requirements; alterations to
nonconforming buildings; clarifying Development Plan
applicability Each was considered separately at this meeting.
Nonconforming Buildings - Planner Stamey read the proposed
language modification for the nonconforming building section
(Section 17.16.040, Sub. para. 6) as follows:
"In the E, R-S and R-M Districts, structural alterations,
enlargements or extensions may be permitted provided the
Building Inspector and Town Planner make a determination that
said enlargement or extension does not encroach upon any
applicable setback."
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - March 17, 1987 - Page Eight
Mr. David Habecker and Todd Plummer stated that this should
also apply to commercial districts.
After further discussion Member Wood moved that this
modification be favorably recommended to the Towm Board.
Member Hix seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Setback Modifications - Planner Stamey reviewed the setback
requirements adopted in the new zoning regulations and the
proposed modifications.
Todd Plummer stated that he felt old subdivisions should
maintain the old setbacks and new subdivisions should come
under the new setback requirements.
Mr. Norman Ream and Roland Retrum spoke in favor of the 25',
20% setback rule and in opposition to reducing setbacks. Mr.
Ream stated there is a remedy for applying reduced
setbacks—granting of a variance.
Discussion followed concerning old setback requirements versus
new and how various subdivision would be affected by the
changes.
Member Barker stated he felt it would be premature at this
time for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation.
ore5SnL^Srain^X suggested that further study be done and presented to the Commission at the next meeting.
Development Plan Applicability
subdiviseion°f CO?cerned changing the term "residential
clarifi ^ developments". Also adding language to
two tfL-i h development plan review for single-family or
th° ofnTLffdSifgenoTSart.be reqUlred WhGn -siden/e ?s
considerationf0should beangivent toWaflternat?lired that m°re
Brown moved that this nort-ior, ^-f ternate language. Member
next meeting Member SBa??er snec°^derdeVt1heeK mboet,C°ntindUed t0 the
unanimously. ed the motlon and it passed
CarolynJbne Secretary