HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1990-05-15BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission
May 15, 1990
Commission;
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman A1 Sager, Commissioners David
Barker, Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, Polly
Garrett, George Hix, Richard Wood
Chairman A1 Sager, Commissioners David
Barker, Mark Brown, Polly Garrett, George
Hix, Richard Wood
Community Development Director Stamey,
Town Administrator Klaphake, Public Works
Director Widmer, Town Attorney White,
Secretary Jones
Commissioner Burgess
Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held April 17,
1990 were submitted and approved.
2. SPECIAL REVIEWS
Amendment to2.a. Special Review 90-1, Go-Cart Tracks
Development Plan, Applicant; Lynn Kinnie
Chairman Sager opened the public consider
amendment to the aforementioned Special Review.
commissioner Hix c°™"ented on a le1t9t9e0r ^here^n1aC“nfliSt of
the Town Board dated Februa y , p^oposeci development was
interest for Commissioner d Pthat he had no conflict
questioned. .Coi™';!-sslo5^®^rH JttorneY white affirmed that Mr.
nL'fad'coLultfd1 with" him and the aforementioned statement
was accurate.
Mr. Bill van Horn, .representing Mr Klnn^ie stated
Town Board, at their February 27 , 1990 ^mee^ting,^?^ of these
conditions of approval on p d river setback/access are
conditions regarding landscapi g amended development
the only items being revxewed ^nhatshlmSetai^ftdhe town staff to
plan. Mr. Van Horn stated that. ha.SoP ei: apd river setback
review the lands^ap^-ng'dPbJcaule of the magnitude of theserequirements in detail, and beeau d b the planning
=lionitagrLS. rThfSeH?iSoirrM^t^^^^ -
fSunf nol 5taorkbeUrSnoomputnce with the Estes Park Downtown
Redevelopment Plan.
The proposed amendment to the development includes the
following:
0 The parking area 1b-"£oraed30f.amtnL™Teptarat!i?
Thompson River providing tor a
from the river.
O outlet A is proposed to be dedicated as public open
space.
o A portion of Prospect Village Drive 13 to be vacated and
used for parking area and access.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - May 15, 1990 - Page 2
o Parking has been increased from 38 to 50 spaces.
o A new landscape plan has been submitted which shows
locations of proposed plant materials, sizes, and
quantities.
Town Attorney White emphasized that although town staff
participated in the modifications to the plan, these changes
were part of the Urban Renewal review of the project.
Attorney White also commented on a letter received^ from
Attorney Bill Wyatt, who represents Mr. Kinnie, wherein it was
stated that "the only reason for the current review is that
the town staff felt uncomfortable in finalizing the plan with
the changes resulting from their recommendation without
Planning Commission review, and the adjusted lot lines require
amending the subdivision plat." Attorney White advised that
this statement is inaccurate, that the reason for this review
is for changes that were made as part of the Urban Renewal
process. He further advised that the Urban Renewal process
had not been completed, therefore Mr. Kinnie's rights were not
vested. Mr. Van Horn noted that these changes vjere a
of interaction with town staff and agreed upon by the Urban
Renewal Authority staff.
Attorney White advised the Commission of the procedure to be
followed in reviewing this amended development plan,
that the review shall be limited to those aspects of the
development plan that were changed from the plan
the Planning Commission on February 20, 1990, th ____0
being limited to the change in the parking area, °Pen
area access to the development, and landscaping. He advise
the audience that anyone wishing to comment should limit thei
discussion to these items.
correspondence was acknowledged from VB' a3°S|fen
airadS,' KeymsS 0LrconceLrrS4i^chanfreHero?
appropriate under this review.
Sdrdel\T^JmertVt!rn^nTlantd^^^^^^^^
the following:
The public access and utility_ easement through the
parking area needs to be identified.1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
surface of parking area and track be indicated on the
development plan.
. ^ rro-rart building have a maximumgrade31^ a8%C.eSSThe0 rt?vee^0arkrntote and boundary line he
deleted.
The minimum size culvert for drainage be 15".
The narrow leaf cottonwoods planted around the n°r|hS the parking lot have a matj^mum spacrng of 30 feetnOn
center. All landscaping be instaliea prioi.
of a Certificate of Occupancy.
?lnSn?LpfaricwaSrpoLlbSw??i9SLineiirfencIng
being discouraged.
Guard rail material should be specified.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - May 15, 1990 - Page 3
8. Sign location and height should be identified.
9. No outdoor storage.
10. Lighting detail (type, intensity, height), and locations
be identified.
11. Building to be constructed in accordance with
architectural rendering previously submitted.
12. No fuel storage on site.
Mr. Van Horn responded that items 1 - 4, as noted above, have
been addressed. In regard to Item No. 5 (planting of narrow
leaf cottonwoods around the north side of the parking lot),
Mr. Van Horn stated that in discussions with Urban Renewal,
it was noted that a pocket park is contemplated and URA would
design and improve this area at that time.
Regarding type and location of fence, Mr. Van Horn advised
that the fence has been modified to wind in and out of
landscaping, with a minimum height of five feet proposed for
insurance purposes. He suggested a green chain link fence
would be the least obtrusive.
Items 7 through 9 were addressed by Mr. Van Horn advising that
the guard rail would be constructed of 10" black ABS PiP®;
there would be no freestanding sign; there would be no
storage. Discussion followed regarding lighting and Mr. V
Horn stated that an illuminary analysis was done by ^
consultant and in order to minimize the number of fixtures and
poles (for aesthetic purposes), a 40 ft. pole isLch loop with four 1,000 watt flxtui.re+S °n. i/shorte? 25
total of four poles. Mr. Van Horn st1a,te.dax^^a^01^eS5°JrSLed ft. lights were used, the number would have to be increas
to 8 lights.
that 0beTng11vac!ied?aaiTaSrgter
JanHs being dedicated to the Pf
being made available to the public, and the river coma
concerns have been addressed.
comments were heard “i\S|S^i°1lir9qSeIti^^^^
storage.
conditions as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The public access and utility easement through the
parking area be identified.
surface of parking area and track be indicated on the
development plan.
gradealQf a8rSSThe° r?veer9walk "noS^^rgoSr? lr“
deleted.
The minimum size culvert for drainage be 15".
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Conunission - May 15, 1990 - Page 4
5. The narrow leaf cottonwoods planted round the north side
of the parking lot have a maximum spacing of 30 ft. on
center. All landscaping to be installed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
6. Green chain link fencing be electrostatically painted and
not exceed five feet in height.
7. Guard rail be constructed of 10" black ABS pipe.
8. No freestanding sign. Sign will be a flat one attached
to the building.
9. Note placed on plat stating there will be no outside
storage.
10. Four, 40 ft. high light standards be installed as
indicated on plat.
11. Building be constructed in accordance with architectural
rendering previously submitted.
12. No on-site storage of fuel.
Commissioner Brown seconded the motion and the vote was as
follows:
Those voting for approval - Commissioners Barker, Brown,
Sager, Wood. Commissioners Hix and Garrett advised they
would abstain from voting at this time, and would reserve
their vote at the time this is considered by the Town Board.
3. SUBDIVISONS
Amended Plat. Lots 5A & 9, Prospect Village Subdivision^.
Applicant: Lynn Kinnie
The amended plat proposes to vacate a portion of Prospect
Village Drive north of proposed Lot 9A and combine thls
section with Lot 9A. Resulting Outlet A is proposed to be
dedicated to the Town of Estes Park. Mr. /an Hor ,
representing applicant Lynn Kinnie, requested th
restriction9on use of this Outlet A be noted in the deed of
dedication.
Director Stamey reviewed the staff ^eP°rt n0J;LJ)fi.^^aparktfor
A ic proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Estes Park for
open space and access. He stated that in correspondence
deceived from Town Attorney White it was recoinJnerided
Sutlot A be deeded to the Town by a separate deed of
to™ by a d-/. t-cIfPtan^1tee Which
removal.
being met.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Conunission - May 15, 1990 - Page 5
Commissioner Brown noted 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 for approval of
this amended plat for Lots 5A and 9, Prospect Village
Subdivision, with the following conditions:
1. Outlot A be deeded to the Town of Estes Park by an
acceptable deed of dedication prior to recording of the
plat. An appropriate note be placed on the plat regarding
dedication of Outlot A.
2. A note be placed on the plat that the access & utility
easement is not repaired or maintained by the Town of
Estes Park, and the Town is not responsible for snow
removal. A written agreement be executed between the Town
and property owner which addresses in more detail the
maintenance, access, parking, snowplowing, and access to
Big Thompson River.
3. The portion of Prospect Village Drive which is proposed
as the public access and utility easement, be vacated by
the Board of Trustees prior to recording of the plat.
4. Common easement for access and utilities be labeled as
a public easement for access and utilities.
5. A note be placed on the plat which prohibits driveway
access to Lot 9A from East Riverside Drive.
Commissioner Wood seconded the motion and the vote was as
follows:
Those voting for approval: Commissioners Barker, Brown, Sager
Wood. Commissioners Hix and Garrett advised they would abstain
from voting at this time, and would reserve their vote at the
time this is considered by the Town Board.
4. TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
4.a. Review of Estes Park Element of Larimer County Transit
Development Plan (TDP) 1991 - 1995
Mr. Harv Neeley, representing Larimer County Human
Development, summarized the Larimer County transportation
plan, noting that a five year Transportation Development Plan
(TDP) has been recently completed which includes all areas of
Larimer County, with the exception of the city limits of Fort
Collins. He advised the Estes Park plan, which expires in
1992, has been extended to 1995. By adopting the TDP, the
Town of Estes Park and the Estes Park Senior Center will
continue to be eligible for federal funding through the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) through 1995. He
advised that funding to implement the Estes Park component for
the TDP is programmed to come primarily from existing sources.
If UMTA funding is utilized, additional matching funds will
be required. The Estes Park Senior Center is programmed to
purchase a replacement vehicle in 1991 using 70% federal
funds. If needed, another replacement vehicle could be
purchased in 1995.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to recommend the
Town Board endorse the Larimer County TDP update.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - May 15, 1990 - Page 6
5. REPORTS
Public Works Director Widmer updated the Commission on the
design of the Conference Center. He stated that at the time
the plan came before the Planning Commission, concern was
expressed with the height of the building. He advised that
a change in design has been made which takes ten feet off the
pyramid height of the entry structure and three feet off the
height of the roof by removing a section of brick aboye the
windows, which brings it more in scale with existing
structures in the area.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:18 p.m.
nes,