Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commission 1999-05-18BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission May 18,1999 Commission: Attending: Absent: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Hix, Pohl and Thomas None (Commissioner Gillette appointed to Town Board) Trustee Liaison G. Hix, Town Attorney White, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley None Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES of the April 20,1999 were approved as presented. Chair Sager reviewed rules of conduct. Commissioner A. Hix declared a conflict of interest and was excused from the meeting. 2. SPECIAL REVIEW a. Concept Plan, Special Review 99-01, Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition, south side of Highway 36, west of RiverRock Townhomes, International Concept Management/ Applicant. This concept plan special review was continued from the April 20, 1999 meeting. Senior Planner Joseph commented on the Traffic Study prepared by Matthew Delich and the revised layout and letter from Paul Kochevar dated May 18, 1999. He also reviewed the additional public correspondence received since the last Planning Commission meeting. Letters had been received from Congressman Scott Mclnnis in support, Carol Graham, C. Frank Hix, Hugh and Sonja McTeague, Terry and Elloise Chambers, Ann Reichhardt, Peter Ingersoll, and Patsy Cravens in opposition. Scott Sullivan, Director of Finance and a principal of ICM introduced Roger Reynolds, CEO, Bill Zeigler, consultant and John Palmquist who were also attending. Mr. Sullivan reviewed their corporate profile. International Concept Management has been in existence for four years; however, the principals of ICM got their start in the early 1980’s working through the related company, Reynolds Polymer Technology, with Disney at Epcot in Orlando, Florida. Brochures describing both companies have been distributed to the Commissioners earlier today. ICM and Reynolds Polymer are located in Grand Junction employing over 170 employees. Private financial consultants have given confirmation of viability of this project. A core group of employees will be required to maintain the facility year-round. Projects such as these are located in eco- tourism areas. This project has been modeled after existing projects. Economical and education benefit to communities has been shown. The conceptual drawing is indicative of the high quality of this project and its exhibits. There is a misconception regarding BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 2 the traffic. The project is possible because of the current traffic that exists. The development will not add more cars to the road. They will be marketing to increase attendance in the shoulder- and off­ seasons. There will be minimal Impact on the environment. This project is unique and unlike anything else in Estes Park. Paul Kochevar with Estes Park Surveyors reviewed the traffic study. The traffic study was initiated after meeting with CDOT. A revised layout was created to utilize the new access location. Mr. Kochevar introduced Matt Delich, the traffic engineer who performed the traffic study. Matt Delich, 2272 Glen Haven Drive, Loveland, CO, is a registered professional engineer in several states and has been doing traffic studies for about 23 years in Colorado and other states. Traffic studies are usually done on a peak hour basis. Traffic circulation for peak hour condition was provided by the applicant, 134 cars in and 134 cars out. Mr. Delich reviewed how he developed the assumptions regarding the study. Long range condition is for year 2020. Level of service (A through F) is a qualitative measure used by traffic engineers to describe the delay experienced by motorists. D is considered acceptable. For stop sign controlled Intersections, Level A has 0 to 10 seconds delay, B - 10 to 15 seconds, C - 15 to 25, D - 25 to 35, E - 35 to 45, F - greater than 45 seconds. Turning vehicles have turn lanes to avoid hold up of through traffic. The tables on Page 14 of the Traffic Study reflect the anticipated levels of service for each lane of traffic for the short range (2001) and the long range (2020). The least satisfactory traffic flow is shown for the northbound left turn lane out of the site which showed a D level in the short term and E level for the long range. He responded to questions from Commissioners regarding traffic flow, technical expressions, seasonal changes, state highway access code, and peak hour factors. Typically, traffic engineers do not use absolute peak conditions of any given year. They design for the 30th highest hour and that’s what this study is based on. Public comments: Bob Quick, RiverRock Townhome Development, expressed it is a very undesirable project. In summertime it’s practically impossible to turn across traffic into River Rock. Also concerned about the odor that will attract other wildlife. Living Desert in Palm Desert has all of these problems. People come to Estes to see animals In the wild. Main objection is the traffic. Jim Martell, representing RiverRock Townhome Association, feels traffic study is not sufficient since it is based on certain assumptions that may not apply. This particular use is not referred to in any manuals or books and the engineer relied on information from the applicant. We do not have a 365-day year, but rather a 100-day summer season where most of this traffic will occur. Currently cars are backed up during peak periods that will prevent cars from crossing the traffic lanes to get into the Wildlife Center. John Zollman, 1741 North Ridge Lane, asked about a bypass from 34 to 36. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 4 Regulated and inspected by at least 3 agencies during the year. USDA administers the Wildlife Protection Act. SP Joseph reviewed the public correspondence received, all but one in opposition. Based on the following findings, it was moved and seconded (Pohl/Thomas) to recommend denial of Special Review 99-01 Concept Plan for the Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition to the Board of Trustees due to the following conditions, the vote resulted in a tie with one abstention (Commissioner A. Hix). Those voting “Yes” - Commissioners Pohl and Thomas. Those voting “No” - Commissioners Burgess and Sager. Project did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 17.36.030, Special Review Procedures, as follows: (f) (1) Suitability of the proposed location for this proposal, taking into consideration the following wherever germane: a. Nearby land uses, and whether they would be supported by or damaged by having the proposed use nearby, b. Adequacy of roads, water, sewerage and drainage facilities serving the location, and c. Environmental characteristics of the site and related areas, and the consequences of the development as proposed for public safety and the natural environment; (2) The building and site design, and how well they: a. Avoid visual, noise or other intrusion into adjacent premises or departure from the established character of the vicinity, and b. Avoid unnecessary damage to the natural environment through design adaptation to the particularities of the site; (3) The social, economic or community needs which are served by the proposal. Commissioner A. Hix returned, declared a conflict of interest with the following agenda item, and was excused from the meeting. b. Special Review 99-02 Development Plan, Wildfire Ridge, Lot 1 of the Wildfire Ridge First Addition, 1/2 mile north of Highway 34 on the west side of Dry Gulch Road, Wildfire Development, LLC/Applicant. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The developer is asking to amend the existing development that was previously approved with the annexation agreement. A total of 61 Multifamily Dwelling Units are proposed in nine buildings. These one, two, and three bedroom units are to be sold as condominiums. Thirty-three of these units are proposed to be affordable (see statement of intent). This site is currently approved for forty-four units under an existing annexation agreement, and construction of roads and utilities is underway. The existing kennel is proposed to be removed upon expiration of the lease in June 2001. This is a concurrent concept plan/development plan review. A density bonus of eleven units is being requested. This is allowed by Special Review under Section 17.20.020 provided the Planning Commission BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 3 Mary Lamy, 336 Rock Ridge Road - This project is alien to RMNP, natural habitat. Appalled at the size of the project and large asphalt parking lot. Lighting at the go-cart is very intrusive already. Public comes to see animals in the wild, not in cages. Allen Oliva, 2155 Carriage Drive, we should not have them (zoos) here in the mountains. Project benefits only the tourists and creates more traffic. Pauline Bustamonte, 2599 Big Thompson Canyon - opposed to the concept of the wildlife center, already the area is rich with wildlife. Questions the placement in an area already heavy with congestion. People will stop going to places where traffic is congested. Leonard Arnold, 1380 Mathew Circle, Elk Ridge developer, there is a need for educational facilities. The occasional visitor does not always get to see the wildlife. Visited with ICM in Grand Junction. This is a tremendous commitment of finances. They are a very large company, quality is incredible. They feel it’s an economically viable project. Would like to have their project in our community. Ricki Ingersoll, 507 RiverRock, asked several questions of the applicant regarding their operation, and made comments regarding comparable facilities. Matt Delich responded to some questions regarding the traffic study and trip generation. One percent increase is supported. The traffic backup caused at RiverRock will not occur at the Wildlife Center since this project has a left turn lane. The number of trips remains the same over the years because the facility cannot accommodate more than that number per hour. Paul Kochevar reviewed other uses that might occur at this site. Residential and accommodation uses would have approximately twice the hard surface coverage that this project would. Scott Sullivan commented that Reynolds Polymer Technology and ICM have been profitable in every year of their existence. Reviewed a few of their current projects. Bill Zeigler, wildlife biologist consultant, for 21 years managed Miami Metro Zoo. No odor problem in the Ontario, California indoor zoo. Most odors come from soured ground. Ground must be scraped. Interior buildings with proper ventilation system have ozonator boxes, which neutralizes odors. Solid wastes will be bagged in a biodegradable bag before taking outside. Less than 450 pounds of solid waste per week - 3-4 waste containers. Will also use deodorizers. Believes the residents in the area will not have an odor problem. Great educational value. Commented on exhibit display. Scott Sullivan/Bill Zeigler - They will initially have the facility open all year. Will see if it is economically feasible. Core staff of people will be there year round to take care of the animals. Described passive and guided tours. Interpretative talks would be done by ICM staff. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 5 and Town Board find that the proposal’s benefits to the Town will outweigh any adverse affects for the Town or vicinity based on the criteria found in Section 17.36.030. Bill Van Horn representing the applicant reviewed the status report to staff recommendations. They will do one drawing which will detail the location of all utility lines. The holding pond has been removed for improved drainage. The traffic study resulted in less than a 7% increase of traffic on the state highway. The area where the kennel is currently located will become open space. Commissioner Burgess asked for clarification on building identification. Ricki Ingersoll responded to questions regarding the design of the units, sidewalks, and parking. Affordable housing to service the 60-80% AMI. Peter Ingersoll answered questions regarding the affordable housing determination and how to avoid speculative purchasing. Director Stamey commented that this is the first presentation for affordable home ownership rather than rental. A comparison between the approved development plan and the proposed development plan was made. Public comments: Ralph Nicholas reviewed his letter dated May 18, 1999. He made additional comments regarding the proposed zoning code and the comprehensive plan. Beverly Briggs - not against affordable housing, but is against the density bonus. This project is not realistic. Condo living does not fit family living. Prefers affordable rentals. Concerned with fire safety, density, and public services with the new proposal. Patrick Cipolla - Why are we being asked to subsidize professional people (teacher, nurses, policemen)? Density bonuses are nothing more than entitlements. John Zollman — reviewed Board of Realtors statistics. One-third of all residences in 1998 was sold for “affordable” prices. We do need low income housing, but we need to review the definition of affordable. Commissioner Pohl commented that the date of the revised drawings was dated prior to the approval of the annexation agreement. John Spooner from Van Horn Engineering advised that these came from the prior engineer and the revised date was not shown. The density bonus is not 50%, more in line with 20%. Commissioner Burgess requested an estimate of prices of affordable housing. Peter Ingersoll commented that all affordable units must be below $150,000. Affordable units will be targeted between $100,000 and $150,000. Further limits are made by HUD and Fannie Mae and other agencies. Mr. Ingersoll responded to public comments. There are no taxpayer subsidies. The project has 60% open space. Single family homes are ideal, but unaffordable; condominium development is a compromise. Town requires only a 10-year affordability period; they are doing 30 years. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18,1999 Page 6 Chair Sager reviewed the public correspondence received from the Estes Valley Inter-Agency Council and Eric Blackhurst, both supporting the proposal. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Special Review 99-02 Development Plan for Wildfire Ridge First Addition be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees subject to the following conditions, and it passed with one abstention (Commissioner A. Hix). Those voting “Yes” - Burgess, Sager, Thomas; those voting “No” - Pohl. At least ten working days prior to Town Board consideration, the following revisions shall be submitted for staff review: 1. The site grading plan as submitted contains a number of errors that relate to drainage, accessibility of the units and the parking, these shall be corrected, and finish floor elevations shall be clarified and coordinated with the grading plan to demonstrate accessibility and conformance to the 30 ft. building height limit. 2. 30-ft. building setbacks/planting buffers are required for bonused multi-family development. The existing site plan shall be revised to conform to this requirement. The interior planting of the parking lots shall be revised to conform to the minimum code requirements. 3. A lighting layout plan and notes or details describing fixture height and type in conformance with the code shall be provided. 4. General note #3 shall be revised to contain the requested vesting schedule. 5. The affordable units and market rate units shall be identified In the plan in a manner that assures conformance with the density calculation as the project builds out. This could Include preparation of a separate project phasing outline. 6. Notes on the plan that refer to 25 ft. setbacks shall be revised to read 30 ft. 7. The proposed intersection right of way dedication shall be revised in conformance with the proposed density calculation. This must be approved by Public Works prior to Town Board. 8. A note should be placed on the Plan requiring removal of the kennel building prior to project build-out. This phasing should be clearly identified on the plan. 9. The drainage easement across the adjacent property to the east shall be provided. Also, a companion plan sheet showing all required utility easements shall be prepared, and revisions to the construction plans shall be made as required to conform to the recommendations found in Bill Unnane’s memo dated May 11,1999. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18,1999 Page 8 drainage plan. Mr. Kochevar advised this will be done within a week. Commissioner Thomas asked the applicant to consider adding additional trees to the area between the units and the river due to the number of trees being lost. Drainage easement should be shown on the final mylar. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) the Development Plan 99-06, Lot 2A, Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, be approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The following note shall be added to the approved plan: “Approval of this plan and subsequent issuance of a building permit does not authorize any construction activities within the river channel. Construction activities in the river channel are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers and all such activities require a town flood plain construction permit and a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and must conform to the conditions of the permit.” 2. All grading plan errors and omissions shall be corrected on the Rnal Development Plan mylar, and a detailed site construction and grading plan prepared and stamped by a professional engineer shall be submitted with the building permit. Any required drainage and sanitary sewer easements shall be shown and recorded prior to application for a building permit. A note shall be placed on the Plan identifying the nine commercial accommodation units by number and location. Also, this note shall provide that the motel units shall not be individually transferred. A note shall be placed on the plan requiring the dumpster enclosure to be secured against bears. A note placed on the plan regarding lighting and quantity of plantings. Handicap parking shall be relocated closer to the approoriate unit. Note placed on the plan that the sign shall be shared. 4. SUBDIVISIONS Final Plat, Pawnee Meadow Subdivision, west of the intersection of Carriage Drive and Colorado Highway 7, Scott Miller/Applicant. -withdrawn 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at D.'oo p.m. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Menoeth Wheatley, Recording^Siecretary