Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commission 1974-01-15CASTLE MOUNTAIN ESTATES January 8, 1974 ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION: We, the undersigned, being the duly registered'property owners, do hereby petition the planning commission for the approval of Lot 2A, as shown on a Plat Map of the NE h of the SEk Sec 22, T5N, R73W; 6 P.M., surveyed December 1952 for H. P. Sharits by Paul Van Horn. This lot lies in Tract #73 as shown on the survey map of the Town Engineer of the property annexed by the Town of Estes Park in 1973. The approval of the lot is requested so that it can be used for a one family residential dwelling. Lot 2A has not had separate title description as it has been under one ownership along with the other property in tract #73, as of the survey of 1952. Lester W. Caswell Dorothy Caswell 'Rosalie Bushnell STATE OF COLORADO) )ss COUNTY OF LARIMER Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8th day of January, A. D. 1973 by L'ester W. Caswell, Dorothy D. Caswell and Rosalie Bushnell. ...... -.. My poiimussion expires Jan. 6, 1975 Ahj/Knl /maJiu Notary Public '/ -" = "/ -•’ •n, ^ x<-r/- ■-...........V ' j -, .'vc* -. j " o'' .. . A... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1974 Commission: Attending: Absent: Chairman Prosser; Members Wagner, Steele, Petrocine Hix, Miles and Blair Secretary Dale G. Hillj Town Planner and Engineer Van Horn, Town Attorney Ernest G. Hartwell none The minutes of the meeting held on December 18, 1974 were read and approved. KINNIE ANNEXATION: | Chairman Prosser proceeded with the consideration of the annexation map as submitted by Lynn W. and Dorothy M. Kinnie. Town Attorney Hartwell described the procedure that was to be followed at this meeting. Mr. Joe Jenkins, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Kinnie, informed the Committee that the Kinnie's desired C-2 Restricted Commercial zoning. Mr. Jenkins also stated that there will be submitted a request and special review to allow outdoor activities on the proposed annexation. Mr. Lynn Kinnie, one of the owners of the pro­ posed annexation, described the plans for the use of the land. Mr. Kinnie stated that a paddle boat and go-cart tract would be installed first, and that other amusements would be applied for at later dates. Mr. Kinnie described the land leveling and clearing operation that he conducted on this site. The Secretary of the Planning Commission read the names and dates of all correspondence received regarding this matter and stated that copies of these letters had been given to the Planning Commission members. Mr. Gerald Swank submitted copies of all the letters regarding this matter that had appeared in the Estes Park Trail Gazette. The following people in the audience spoke in regards to the annexation: Gerald Swank opposed the annexation and questioned the street name; Wilbur Larkin - questioned as to the,need for zoning and annexation; Henry Pedersen - ^opposed to the proposed land use - amusements; suggested the Town follow its Master Plan;. Dale Kosewick - commented on Kinnie1s snow removal procedures; Harper Glezen - Jim Swickard Milton Meyer Perry Blain Lois Schmidt Harvy Coleman - Loren Lane Duane Reed M. D. Holt questioned as to whether the annexation was necessary; answer by Jenkins; !I in favor of commercial zoning; ! opposed to the proposed land use; in favor of annexation; questioned the Master Plan and source of water for fishing pond; j questioned the design map presented by Mr. Kinnie; answer by Hartwell; questioned the rezoning; answer by Hartwell; opposed to annexation; questioned the legal ownership and filed a letter dated January 10, 1974, from Security Title Company; also suggested the Town follow its Master Plan RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1974 Page Two (2) Steve Komito Tom Brown questioned the availability of Town water for this area; answer by Hartwell; stated the C-2 zoning would comply with Town policy on concentric zoning; in(favor of annexation; Carl Holmgren - the C-2 zoning would conform with the Master Plan; Town Planner Van Horn - the annexation map should include the entire street. Crags Drive; Utility: easements should be provided on the West and Riverside boundaries. Mr. Van Horn also stated the annexation of a portion of a piece of property is not good planning; Town Attorney Hartwell - recommended that if the plat is given approval, it should be conditional for the inclusion of all of Crags Drive; j Dale Shreve, Lord & Associates - Committee should consider land use, drainage easements, other rights-of-way and Master Plan. [ Member Petrocine moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park that the Lynn Kinnie annexation not be approved because it only includes a portion of the property, the land is not platted, easements are not provided and the proposed land use is not in harmony with the Town's Master Plan. :[ Member Harry Miles seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion unanimously carried. FINE REZONING: The Planning Commission proceeded to continue from the December 18, 1973, meeting, the proposed rezoning of a portion of Lot 20, Little Prospect Mountain Addition. Mr. Ed Kelly appeared representing Mr. and Mrs. Fine and spoke in favor of rezoning this land from its present R-1 Residential District to R-2 Multi Family Residential District. Mr. Kelly states that the present Coca Cola Warehouse located on this property would be phased out. Mr. Larry Zellner spoke in favor of the rezoning. Planner/Engineer Van Horn described the character of the neighborhood and stated that the rezoning was compatible with the Master Plan and made no recommendation to the Planning Commission. There were no persons present speaking in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Donald Fine spoke in answer to a question and stated that the proposed i development will blend in with the surrounding area and that he is looking for a new location for the Coca Cola Warehouse. Town Attorney Hartwell spoke in answer to a question and stated that the proposed zoning is spot zoning, and that it is a poor planning practice. Member Blair moved that the petition for annexation be denied. Member Wagner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion was defeated by the following votes. Those voting "No" Members Miles, Hix, Petrocine, Steele, Those voting "Yes" Members Prosser, Blair and Wagner. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1974 Page Three (3) Memher Miles moved that the petition for rezoriing be approved and that it be recommended favorably to the Board of Trustees. Member Petrocine seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed by the following votes. Those voting "Yes" Members Hix, Miles, Petrocine, Prosser and Steele. Those voting "No" Members Blair and Wagner. j LORD & ASSOCIATES REPORT; The attached letter dated January 14, 1974, contains a preliminary report from Lord & Associates on Phase I of the present planning contract. j AMENDMENT CHAPTER 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE; | The Planning Commission proceeded to conduct a public hearing regarding a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code. Engineer/Planner Van Horn read the ordinance in full and explained its need. Engineer/Planner Van Horn and the Town Attorney also spoke in favor of the ordinance. There were no persons present speaking in opposition. I1 Member Wagner moved that the proposed ordinance be recommended favorably to the Board of Trustees, Member Hix seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion unanimously carried. iI SANDERS ADDITION DIVISION OF LAND; j Mr. Paul Van Horn appeared on behalf of Alvin and Thomas Sanders and sub­ mitted a petition dated January 8, 1974, with accompaning map showing the proposed changes in boundaries of the following described property; Lots 29 and 30 and the East 100 feet of Lot 11, University Heights Subdivision. j Mr. Paul Van Horn pointed out that the existing three parcels of land will^ become two parcels. Member Wagner moved that the requested property division be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval and that the Planning Commission does find the following facts with respect to the petition; ■ I 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property; 2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner; 3. 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 this title. ■ i ! Member Hix seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion unanimously carried. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission January 15, 1974 Page Four (4) STANLEY HOTEL PROPERTIES SUBDIVISION; Mr. Bud Hunt of dbh Partnership appeared on behalf of the owners and requested that consideration of the preliminary plat and the public hearing regarding the rezoning be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Chairman Prosser granted the request and ordered the hearing continued. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Glenn Prosser, Chairman Dale G. Hill, Secretary R. V. LORD 6* ASSOCIATES INC. 3250 Walnut SL/P.O. Box 335 / Boulder, Colo. 80302 (303) 4A3-04I3 January 14, 1974 ■ Mr. Dale HM1 | Town Administrator P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado Subject: Monthly Status Report, Estes Park Comprehensive Plan, Phase I Dear Mr. Hi 11 : ! The work on Phase I, Survey of Community Issues, has proceeded very well and we have completed the Newspaper Survey, Mail Survey, and Personal Interviews. The analysis is in process and will be submitted in report form. We are very pleased with the response to the questionnaire, especially considering that it was conducted during the holiday season, during especially bad weather and at a time when other surveys were being conducted or just completed. To date we have received 152 responses to the news­ paper questionnaire and 229 to the mail survey! The direct mail response has been about 30%. The personal interviews were conducted by appointment where possible and we attempted to limit these to people who had not responded to the earlier questionnaire; however, there was some duplication in a few cases. The personal interviews were especially helpful in that we gained better insight into the citizens' concerns from a variety of views. We feel that continued citizen input of this type during all phases of the program is essential. We would like to set up a public meeting for presentation of the survey results near the end of this month. Possibly this can be scheduled at a regular Planning Board hearing or a special meeting if necessary. A final report will then be printed which will include the results of the questionnaire and of the meeting. Very truly yours, ■ R. V. LORD AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ■ Dale D. Shreve, Architect Vice President, Planning DDS:ns ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNERS