Pine Junction Village Center
Basic changes:
 Modify internal and external recommendation lines to follow parcel lines as closely as
possible.
Questions:
1) This area is zoned for Agricultural uses (A-2). It is currently being used as a residence. It
contains steep slopes, with significant portion 40% or over, and it only has access directly from
US 285, not from a side road such as Glen Drive or Mt. Evans Blvd. It is currently recommended
for Retail/Office uses. Should this be removed from the Center due to physical and access
constraints?








Agree, yes
Yes, terrain no suitable due to excessive slope
This area should be removed from the center due to physical and access constraints
Yes, it should be removed from the Center due to physical and access constraints
Most agreed that this should be removed.
It appears to me that NONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS SHOULD BE INCLUDED in
the planned "village center".....
Area #1, This area seems to me a tough one for someone to develop due to it's steep
slopes (particularly what the area would look like once it would be excavated. For the
look, please see what the storage area looks like just to the north...this appearance
would be very visible from 285....pretty unattractive).
Yes, exclude dud to slope and access.
2) The northwest corner of Glen Drive and US 285 appears to be very visible from the Highway.
It is recommended for Retail/Office. Should there be additional policies that would put stricter
design standards on new rezonings that may occur on this property? (A portion is already
zoned for Commercial uses so could be developed without having to do additional design.)







I think this should be left open for possible community center for the future.
This area tends to accumulate water further development will necessitate fill and
drainage considerations
Yes, there should be additional policies that would put stricter design standards
Yes, there should be additional policies added this area.
Drainage is a big issue on this site.
It appears to me that NONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS SHOULD BE INCLUDED in
the planned "village center".....
I am particularly interested in #2 which is adjacent to my property.....my family has
seen that valley look like the Platte River a couple of times so I would certainly hope
that anyone who had the slightest idea of developing it would be interested in knowing
that little known fact....certainly, the newer residents up here are unaware of it... I am



sure that we have pictures of that flooding in our old photos.
Area #2, We were a little surprised that this would have been included originally, as it is
in a pretty "wet" area. While it certainly does not seem likely that this would ever be
considered a "wetlands" it does currently have a pretty large culvert, and does collect
water from time to time...drainage could/will be a problem! I am not sure how the
CDOT folks will address this issue (without considerable cost).
The land adjoining Glen Dr and Hwy 285 needs to be developed to the fullest because
you very seldom find gentle ground in the mountains and it is at the center of Pine
Junction. The soil of that property is decomposed Granite not subirrigated soil. The
apprence of Pine Junction is what Aspen Park looked like before it was developed.
This area should be considered as part of the Center.
3) This is an area where parcel lines do not match the Center boundary. Much of the property is
currently being used for mining activities. The two southern properties are zoned for Heavy
Industrial uses. Should this be included in the Center to acknowledge the existing use and
zoning?







Agree, yes
Yes, makes sense
Yes
No, it should not be included in the Center on any level
It appears to me that NONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS SHOULD BE INCLUDED in
the planned "village center".....
Area#3, Hopefully you won’t add the new area in the Village Center, if anything, I would
image this area would be better served as a residential area. It seems like it would have
some of the same issues as area #1??
This area should be excluded from the Center, as visibility of this area from 285 is poor
and there is no easy access to turn left from 126.
4) This residential area is zoned for small lot residential uses. Most of this area is recommended
for Residential, with a strip along Pine Valley Road recommended for Retail/Office. It seems
more appropriate to concentrate retail and office uses closer to the intersection or along 285.
Additionally, Staff has created a new land use designation for residential areas that should
basically remain as is, called an Area of Stability. Staff would like to remove this area from the
Center and designate it as an Area of Stability. Should this area be removed from the Center?




Agree, yes – remove from activity center
Yes, Area appears to be fully developed as residential property. Unless lots are eligible
for subdividing and without greater access avenues – recommend this area be removed
from village/activity center.
Yes
This question refers completely to my neighborhood and the area currently
recommended for Retail/office is our property! Therefore, YES, this entire area should




be designated as an “Area of Stability”. This area is from Ella Avenue to the end of the
“purple line”; and east to 126 Pine Valley Road. Not only for the obvious reasons – it is
residential, water issues and wildfire issues, but there is a designated wetland within
our property boundaries; and it is also a wildlife migration area.
Yes, many at the meeting agreed that this should be removed from the Center.
There is a wetland in current area 3. 1 du/ac
It appears to me that NONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS SHOULD BE INCLUDED in
the planned "village center".....
Yes, remove from consideration. This is an established single family home community.
Additionally, this area is home to numerous foxes and coyotes, and is a migration route
for deer and elk. The area notes as “add to area (1) due to access and surrounding uses”
is also part of #4 and should remain residential. Changing this to be part of the Center
will add additional traffic in an existing single family community, which may lead to
increased criminal activity.
Ideas for visually sensitive policies:
The visually sensitive area along Hwy 285 should be encouraged to adhere to additional design
policies to enhance the visual appearance of development. New rezonings in this area should
consider adding the following provisions to their zoning.
1) Cluster buildings
2) Use more than one building material. One of the materials used should be stone, faux stone,
cultured stone, or timbers.
3) Use sloped roofs
4) Reduce visual disruption by having buildings appear to be two stories from arterial or
collector roads.
5) Utilize porches and/or overhangs requiring structure support for main entrances.
6) Construct only open-style fencing.
If non-residential, additionally:
7) Locate loading areas so not visible from arterial or collector roads.
8) Utilize stone, faux stone, cultured stone or timber in the sign façade.
9) Limit lighting for signs to lights behind solid letters or downcast lighting onto the sign
lettering or similar type signage with minimal lighting. Signs should not be internally lit plastic
box signs or up lit.
Other:
 No to the section by Ella Venue, which is designated as “Staff Proposals” to be added to
“Area 1”.This should not happen.
 Ella Avenue goes into residential and thus uses should be more residential in that area.
 I am assuming the rationale behind all of this, is the absurdity of having any type of
commercial/retail zoning in this area, considering that there is an outrageous amount of
empty buildings and empty retail/office spaces within a seven mile area.
 There is a lawsuit along the County line
 The area near here in Park County is in a growth area.





Kings Valley – there is vacant commercial space already available. Why do we need to
build now?
In the future – try showing a side-by-side comparison of what exists and what the
proposed changes are.
I don't agree to the suggestions for Pine Junction Village Center "additions / deletions /
special policies" for any of the properties along 285 Hwy until we know more about the
highway revisions and that impact on these areas.
Also, there is wildlife, especially deer, that travel through the area around Everette Ave
and Franks Rd. This is part of a safe zone on the west side of Hwy285, which helps
minimize deer crossing in an already hazardous highway area.
Consideration must be given to the current retail space occupancy/vacancy rates
between Conifer and Pine Junction. Additionally current available land for sale should
also be taken into consideration.