HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1987-11-17BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission
November 17, 1987
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners David
Barker, Duane Blair, Mark Brown, George
Hix, Steve Komito, Richard Wood
Chairman Sager, Commissioners Barker,
Blair, Brown, Hix, Komito, Wood
Mayor Dannels, Town Administrator Hill,
Town Attorney White, Town Planner
Stamey, Town Engineer Widmer, Secretary
Jones
Absent;None
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held October 20,
1987 were submitted and approved.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - C-D Downtown Commercial
Parking Regulation. Chairman Sager_ opened the public
hearing which was to consider amending the C-D Parking
Requirement. Planner Stamey reported the current parking
requirement was adopted in February, 1985. The previous
Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board was
determined not to be on firm legal ground and the Town Board
referred this item back to the Planning Commission. Those
speaking regarding the parking regulation were as follows.
Charles Phares - Mr. Phares speaking as Chairman of EPURA
stated EPURA supported removing the present parking fee
requirement. He said to-date this requirement has
generated any funds and EPURA favors creation of a Special
Improvement District or construction of parking by EPURA.
Peter Marsh - Mr. Marsh feels the parking requirement
not helping the town and is discouraging development of new
businesses in the downtown area.
Seymour Graham - Mr. Graham believes .theo
requirement is preventing downtown development thatcoul
otherwise occur. He believes the downtown area is too
expensive to build parking.
Mike Haber - Mr. Haber stated that most downtown business
owners, "real estate experts, and the Urban Renewal Authority
are all opposed to the parking fee requirement. Feels the
fee has caused hardship among downtown business people and
also has prevented some businesses from expanding.
Ross Brown - Mr. Brown suggests the fee be
the good of the downtown area. Said he knows of sever
investors who have delayed development because of the
parking fee requirement.
Gerald Swank - Mr. Swank stated that the majority of people
who have spoken at the public hearings have been against the
fee and he feels the town should take a different approach
to raise money for parking.
Rowland Retrum - Mr. Retrum stated the Comprehensive Plan
favors development of the downtown area. He feels there are
mSn? fne?LtiL In the present parking
that there are no guarantees the payment of the parki g
will directly benefit the business paying the fee.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 17, 1987 - Page 2
Bill Van Horn - Mr. Van Horn addressed the Commission saying
that parking is necessary for the downtown area, but
questioned how the burden could be distributed in an
equitable fashion. He feels that businesses should be
responsible to provide for their own needs and that it would
be inequitable to completely remove the parking requirement
from the C-D District. Mr. Van Horn also stated that it
costs more than $2,000 per space to develop parking. If the
fee is retained, property values will adjust to reflect the
fee. If the fee is removed, an Improvement District should
be created.
Maureen Marsh - Mrs. Marsh stated that the town runs on
sales tax and feels that an increase in business would give
the town more funds for services.
Dave Habecker - Mr. Habecker stated there would always be
some inequities in any kind of parking plan. He feels the
town should establish a parking plan to consider the number
of spaces needed, how much additional parking would cost,
where it should be, who should pay for it.
Planner Stamey acknowledged receipt of a letter from T.
Russell McCahan, downtown property owner, comparing the
effects of pre-tax and post-tax reform on redevelopment of
older properties. The letter stated that downtown renova
tions are crippled with tax credit reductions and the loss
of industrial development revenue bonds. Further, that the
added burden of a parking fee stifles an already sluggish
construction business and that parking should be spread
among the downtown businesses, not just new construction.
There being no further testimony. Chairman Sager closed this
portion of the public hearing.
Comments from members of the Planning Commission are
summarized below:
Commissioner Hix: Would like to see the $2,000 fee elimina-
ted from the ordinance. Need to encourage redevelopment.
EPURA has potential to build more parking.
Commissioner Brown; Stated that the Commission should
recognize what the Comprehensive Plan sets forth toward
development paying its own way. In the past, lOO-s of
downtown parking was provided by the general tax base. He
said a benchmark was established in 1985 wherein the public
would no longer be responsible for paying the total cost.
He strongly supports redevelopment in the downtown area ana
believes it has continued. He further stated the cost of a
parking space is about $6,500 and believes the downtown
landowners should share one-third of the cost of what
parking actually costs. He also stated that the town uses a
number of fees to support services and that it would not be
equitable to eliminate them.
Commissioner Barker; Concern was expressed with removing the
iTid having new development come in and_ saturate the
parking. Believes a fair and equitable compromise should be
established that will not stifle downtown construction.
commissioner Wood; Believes development should pay it'3
way and feels the $2,000 fee is only a small portion of cost
of a parking space. Believes present fee is valid.
Alternatively, an Improvement District could be a funding
source.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 17, 1987 - Page 3
Commissioner Blair: Said he has
argument for over seven years.
been hearing this same
If development isn't
happening in the downtown area, fee should be removed.
Commissioner Komito; Commented that the parking ordinance
came into effect after enormous expansion of retail space in
the town and during a period of down turn in the national
economy. Believes the parking fee has not stopped develop
ment in the downtown area.
Chairman Sager; The majority of days each year there are
parking spaces available. His main concern is that we have
adequate parking during our prime season. Parking spaces
are extremely limited during summer months. More parking
will be needed for the future. Believes new development
should share in providing adequate parking.
After further discussion. Commissioner Hix moved to recommend to
the Board of Trustees that the $2,000 parking fee be eliminated
from the ordinance. Commissioner Blair seconded the motion and
the vote was as follows: Commissioners Hix and Blair in "favor"
of deleting the fee requirement; Commissioners Barker, Brown,
Komito, Sager, Wood "opposed". Motion defeated.
After conferring with Town Attorney White, Chairman Sager stated
that a recommendation needed to be made to the Board of Trustees.
Additional discussion followed with Commissioner Brown moving the
Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Trustees a parking
fee be retained and the Board of Trustees consider examining the
fee on an annual basis to determine its adequacy in proyiding for
public welfare. Commissioner Komito seconded the motion and it
passed by the following votes: Those voting "yes". Commissioners
Barker, Brown, Komito, Sager, Wood. Those voting "no'
sioners Blair, Hix.
, Commis-
2.b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - C-O Containment and Multi-
family density calculation
Chairman Sager opened the public hearing. Commissioner Hix moved
that this public hearing be continued until the Planning
Commission meeting on December 15, 1987. Commissioner Wood
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.
2.C. Request for Rezoninq - East 95 ft. of Lot 6,—Buenna Vista
Terrace Subdivision (Applicant: Harmony Foundation).
Chairman Sager opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Kochevar of
Estes Park Surveyors represented the applicant. Harmony Founda
tion. Planner Stamey summarized the staff report stating
applicant is requesting rezoning from R-S Residential to C-D
Downtown Commercial. Lot 5 and Lot 6 are contiguous and under
one ownership. Lot 6 is zoned C-D and Davis Street was installed
over the western portion. In a separate request, applicant is
requesting to adjust lot lines between lots 5 and 6 with an
east/west lot line configuration. The result would be two lots
with two different zoning classifications. The Comprehensive
Plan generally shows commercial development along Moraine Avenue
to this site.
Planner Stamey acknowledged receipt of correspondence from George
and Grace Ludlum, owners of Lots 15B and 16B, opposing the
rezoning request. There were no comments from the audience.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 17, 1987 - Page 4
Chairman Sager declared the public hearing closed. Commis
sioner Hix recommended the rezoning of the East 95 ft. of
Lot 6, Buenna Vista Terrace from R-S Residential to C-D
Downtown Commercial be favorably recommended to the Board of
Trustees. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
3.SUBDIVISIONS
3.a. Amended Plat of Lots 5 and 6, Buenna Vista Terrace
Subdivision (Applicant; Harmony Foundation).
Mr. Paul Kochevar, representing the applicant. Harmony
Foundation, stated the purpose of the amended plat was to
readjust the lot lines between lots 5 and 6 and to allow for
separation of buildings on these lots. Planner Stamey
reviewed the staff report stating that applicant is propos
ing a boundary line adjustment between lots 5 and 6 and, in
a separate but related application, is requesting rezoning
from R-S to C-D so the zoning will be uniform across the
revised lot configuration. He stated that separate water
service needs to be provided for each lot.
Planner Stamey acknowledged receipt of the following
correspondence:
Colorado Div. of Highways............November 3, 1987
Public Service Company..................November 4, 1987
Light and Power Dept......................November 6, 1987
Town Engineer....................................November 9, 1987
Town Attorney....................................November 9, 1987
Estes Park Sanitation....................November 13, 1987
Town Engineer Widmer commented that the _ existing sidewalk
along Moraine is in need of repair. Public Service_Company
requested a gas line easement across Lot 6 be provided for
the gas line serving lot 5. Town Attorney White recommended
the signature block on the plat have lines for signatures of
both President and Secretary of the Corporation.
Mr. Kochevar stated that separate water service would be
provided and the rock curbing along the sidewalk would be
repaired. He also stated that an improvement guarantee
letter of credit for these improvements would be provided to
the town. Mr. Kochevar also commented that the status of
sanitary sewer service to each lot had not been verified.
If there is a common service for both lots, the owner would
either separate service or work out an acceptable agreement
with EPSD.
Mr. Ned Linegar, who resides at 340 Davis Street, expressed
concern with parking and traffic hazards where Davis Street
intersects Moraine.
Mr. Doug Bruinsma addressed the Commission stating he is
planning on purchasing the southern part of this property
from Harmony Foundation in order to open a mail order
business. He stated there was ample parking space available
and that 90% of his business would be mail order therefore
not generating much walk-in traffic.
After further discussion. Commissioner Brown stated that the
qranting of the exception would not be materially detrimen
tal to the public welfare and injurious to other property in
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 17, 1987 - Page 5
the neighborhood in which the property of the petitoner is
situated, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of
Title 16, and moved that this request be favorably recom
mended to the Town Board with the following conditions:
1. Vicinity map and lot acreage be added to plat.
2. Title and lot numbers modified to read "Amended Plat of
Lots 5 and 6, Buenna Vista Terrace".
3. Separate water service be provided for each lot and
secured by a letter of credit.
4. All property pins set prior to Town Board approval.
5. Signature block on plat have lines added for signatures
of President and Secretary of Corporation.
6. The rock curbing along sidewalk be repaired and
improvement secured by a letter of credit.
7. A 10 ft. utility easement be dedicated for gas line
across Lot 6.
8. Provide separate sanitary sewer service for each lot,
or acceptable agreement with EPSD.
Commissioner Hix seconded the motion and it passed un
animously.
3.b. Amended Plat of Lots 1 through 9, and the East 21 feet
of Lot 10, Block 5, 2nd Amended Plat of the Town of Estes
Park.
Commissioner Hix asked to be excused from the meeting at
this time.
Mr. Art Anderson, Executive Director of EPURA, presented
this amended plat and stated the purpose of this request was
to develop the area at the Southwest corner of Elkhorn and
E. Riverside as park and plaza space.^ Planner Stamey
presented the staff report and stated this^ request is a
combination boundary adjustment and lot split. Pedestrian
access is from Elkhorn Avenue and East Riverside Drive. A
new pedestrian access easement would be provided across a
portion of Lot 3 from Elkhorn Avenue to the confluence area.
A 12 ft. emergency access easement will also be provided
along the north property line of Lot 5 from E. Riverside
Drive to the rear of Lot 4.
Planner Stamey acknowledged receipt of the following
correspondence:
Colorado Div. of Highways..............November 3, 1987
Public Service Co..............................November 4, 19
Town Engineer......................................November 6, 1987
Light and Power Dept........................November 6, 1987
Estes Park Sanitation......................November 13, 1987
Public Service Company stated that the existing gas lines
supplying17144, 156, and 160 E. Elkhorn are located at the
lot lines of the respective lots, therefore, a 4
utilitv easement would be necessary. Town Attorney White co™enLr?harSpon ccmPletion of ^he rlwr Improvements
the property along the riverbank should
an amended plat filed which accurately depicts the rear
boundary lines.
After discussion. Member Barker stated there are special
nlcltitmol a?^r^^SIe^rat?rnPeanrih^ enjS;
grantingStoft^the^rexception^^will ^ro/5^^
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 17, 1987 - Page 6
property in the neighborhood in which the property is
situated or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of
Title 16, and moved that this request be favorably recom
mended to the Board of Trustees with the following condi
tions :
1. Subdivision be tied to 1/4 corner with appropriate
bearings and diminsions.
2. All necessary property pins be set prior to Town Board
approval.
3. Upon final completion of the river improvements, an
amended plat be filed which accurately depicts the
boundary lines.
Commissioner Wood seconded the motion and the vote was
unanimous. Commissioner Hix was absent.
4. REPORTS
Chairman Sager commented that in May, 1987 the Comprehensive
Plan was ten years old. At that time. Planner Stamey
submitted an Executive Summary to the Commissioners for
review. It was moved by Commissioner Woodthat staff
comments and suggestions on Page 38 of the Executive_Summary
regarding the Comprehensive Plan, be incorporated into the
Planning Commission minutes and made a part hereof.
Commissioner Barker seconded the motion and
unanimously. Commissioner Hix was absent. (Staff comments
from Executive Summary are attached).
Planner Stamey advised the audience and Planning Commission of a
Transportation Advisory Committee workshop and meeting to be held
on Wednesday, November 18, 1987, at 3:00 and 7.30 P.M., p
tively.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 17, 1987 - Page 7
STAFF COMMENTS
The Comprehensive Plan will be ten years old in May, 1987. Since
1977, the Town has nearly doubled in land area, from 1,698 acres
to 3,191 acres. The Town's population has increased
approximately 46% since 1977 (1977 population estimate = 2,320);
and, in fact, the current estimated population has almost reached
that projected (medium population projection) for the year 2000 -
3,399 (July 1986, Colorado Department of Local Affairs) compared
to the projection of 3,929. Based upon past growth trends, the
projected year 2000 population could be expected to be reached by
1991.
Several of the basic concepts, guidelines and recommendations set
forth In the Plan are still valid today. Some sections of, the
Comprehensive Plan are out of date. It would be important to
update population/demographic information and existing land use
information. It would also be of great benefit to do more
detailed mapping on sensitive lands such as slope
characteristics, v/ildlife habitat, etc,, and to prepare a series
of composite maps which illustrate sensitive lands and
development concerns.
\Several sections of the current plan do not necessarily need to
be incorporated within a Comprehensive Plan. Some of these
sections have been supplanted by more recent subject-specific
plans, e.g.; Water Master Plan, Urban Renewal Plan, Library
Master Plan, Facilities Study, Stanley Parle Master Plan.
I believe the Comprehensive Plan should be considered for
updating in 1988. The type of document could vary from the
traditional type of plan the Town now has, to a shorter, more
concise plan which provides a comprehensive statement of policies
and criteria against which to evaluate development proposals.
Policy statements could address issues such as; development on
certain types of lands, e.g.: steep slopes, north-facing slopes,
open meadows; density, e.g.; where should high-density be, what
makes it suitable; annexation; special districts; drainage;
circulation and access standards; natural resources, e.g.:
scenic, views; development adjacent to Rocky Mountain
National Park; criteria for commercial lands.
\
Additionally, this document could set forth certain development
principles and guidelines which could significantly influence the
character of development and provide a statement as to what the
Town of Estes Park would like to see.
-38-