Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1996-02-20BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission February 20, 1996 Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chairman A1 Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, John Gilfillan, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas All Trustee/Liaison Dekker, Community Development Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Clerk O'Connor None Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. 1. ELECTION OF 1996 OFFICERS. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Burgess) A1 Sager be elected Chairman, and it passed unanimously. Chairman Sager acknowledged that his current term expires in April, 1996. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Brown) Alma Hix be elected Vice Chairman and it passed unanimously. It was also noted that a representative from the Town Clerk's Office would serve as Recording Secretary. 2. MINUTES. Minutes of the meeting held January 16 and the Special Meeting held February 6, 1996 were approved as submitted. Chairman Sager read the Rules of Conduct. 3. SUBDIVISIONS. 3. A. Amended Plat of a Portion of Lot 46, Grand Estates Subdivision. Don McEndaffer/Applicant. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two lots slightly larger than one acre each. The Planning Commission approved a Preliminary Plat for this proposal in December, 1995. Applicant's representative Paul Kochevar reported that the owners are working with adjacent property owner Jess Nielsen to answer Mr. Nielsen's concerns for no visible power lines or other utility services being installed; a note could be added to the plat that all easements will be available for underground utilities only. Director Stamey reviewed the staff report advising that he discussed the above-referenced note on the plat with Mr. Nielsen and it is believed the note will be acceptable to Nielsen. A letter was also received from E. Lauren Hillquist - the plat note should also be sufficient for this property owner. There were no comments from the audience. Finding that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, that the exception is necessary for the preservation and the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner; 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, it was moved and seconded (Brown/Burgess) the Amended Plat of a Portion of Lot 46, Grand Estates Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees, subject to the following, and it passed by the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 2 following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, Burgess, Gilfillan, A. Hix, Sager, and Thomas. Those voting "No" Commissioner Pohl: 1. Identify monumentation for north lot line of Lot 1. 2. Identify Lots as 46A and 46B. 3. Add bearing basis. 4. Water service to Lot 2 be added to the plat. 5. Add a note to the plat stating that all utilities extended to the site be placed underground. Commissioner Pohl stated that during Preliminary consideration, he had personal concerns relative to the "findings (3)", those same concerns still exist. 3.B. Amended Plat of Lots__Lt Subdivision. (Estes Park 2 and 3. Prospect Village Brewery) Ed&Gisela Grueff/Applicant. The Amended Plat combines two existing lots into one lot. In a separate action, the Planning Commission will also review a Development Plan for lot Owner's representative Bill Van Horn noted that the amended plat will result in a net decrease of one lot, with the purpose being to bring an existing use and building into conformance and allow a storage structure with the existing brewery; future parking is also being proposed. Director Stamey reviewed the staff report, noting that staff s previous recommendations of approval have been met and/or addressed. There were no comments from the audience. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2 & 3, Prospect Village Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon the following, and it passed unanimously: 1. Modify dedication statement. 2. Clarify area of easement being vacated. 3. A drainage easement be provided along the west property line of Lot 1. 4. Modify the plat description to read Lots 1, 2, and 3.C. Amended Plat of Lots 3 and 4. Mountain Technologic^ center. John El3ev/Applicant. Chairman Sager declared a conflict of interest as he is an adjacent property owner, transferred the gavel to Vice Chairman Hix, and vacated the room. This Amended Plat combines two lots into one lot for development purposes. Bill Van Horn, Applicant's representative, stated 2 lotf a^e being combined to eliminate an existing lot line to facilitate the construction of a building. There is no other impact, and other lot lines are not being reconfigured. A development plan will be considered later in the meeting. Mr. Van Horn confirmed that relative to the signature block, a trust is involved and that a title company is resolving the form as contained on the plat. In addition, a tax statement will be BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 3 utilized to verify inclusion in the NCWCD. There were no audience comments, and all other staff concerns were met and/or addressed. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) the Amended Plat of Lots 3 & Technological Center be favorably recommended Board, and it passed by the following votes: "Yes" Commissioners Brown, Burgess, Gilfillan, and Thomas. Those voting "No" none. Those Chairman Sager. 4, Mountain to the Town Those voting A. Hix, Pohl "Abstaining" Chairman Sager resumed his position on the Commission. SPECIAL REVIEWS: 4.A. Special Review #96-2, Mummy Lane Subdivision, Johanna Gender/Applicant. Chairman Sager opened the public hearing. This application is for a bed and breakfast use at 663 Chapin Lane. Section 17.16.030, E. provides that a B & B use may be permitted in an E-Estate District by Special Review provided the number of persons does not exceed five per day. Paul Kochevar, Applicant's representative, reported that the owner intends to use two existing bedrooms for the B & B operation, there will not be an additional structureand parking is adequate. Mr. Kochevar presented a letter petition which was circulated to all adjacent property owners—all adjacent property owners signed the petition supporting the proposal. In a separate letter dated February 16, 1996, Gerrie Babion, the abutting property owner was also in favor. The owner believes the B & B operation is a good use of the property and the operation is not adverse to the wishes of the neighborhood. Commissioner A. Hix questioned the suitability of the proposal relative to the Applicant's Letter of Intent Item #3 - "unmet community need" as both former B & B operations in the vicinity have ceased operation. Mr. Kochevar responded that other existing operations are very busy and there remains a high demand for this type of accommodation. There is adequate parking for two guest vehicles, and two additional spaces to the east of the garage slab. In addition, the Applicant is aware of additional required tap fees; the Health Dept, does not require kitchen modifications due to the guest limit. Director Stamey had no further comments. As there were no comments from the audience. Chairman Sager declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Brown questioned how a B & B operation relates to access, i.e. the requirement that any commercial accommodation must abut an arterial street? Staff confirmed that , a commercial accommodation is allowed in an R-M zoning district if the frontage is on an arterial street. In the recent past, a B & B was approved on the Highway 34 Bypass which was located on an arterial street, this was the primary reason the proposed use was approved. Two previous B & B's were approved in this neighborhood, and staff received numerous complaints on one operation. In addition, an allowed accessory use limits the number of guests to no more than 5 people/night. Discussion followed on the difficulty in administering the enforcement provisions. Attorney White confirmed that with the Special Review, the Planning Commission may attach appropriate conditions for approval, i.e. limited use of two bedrooms and limit of 5 guests/night—such conditions would "run with the land unless otherwise limited." The aforementioned should be recorded for any future purchaser of the property. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 4 Commissioner Burgess noted she is opposed to the submittal as the other B B's located in E-Estate have not been successful; there is no evidence or need for this type of accommodation in this particular area, particularly as the zoning district is E-Estate. Commissioner Thomas questioned and received clarification when a kitchen must be renovated (when the number of guests exceed 5/day). Commissioner A. Hix noted that she also had not been persuaded to approve a commercial use in the E-Estate District. Concluding all discussion, it was moved and seconded (Brown/Gilfillan) Special Review #96-2 for Lot 2, Mummy Lane be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon strict conformance to existing provisions limiting a Bed and Breakfast use to no more than 5 guests/day. If any violation to the Municipal Code is found, the "license" will be automatically rescinded without further review. Said note is to be placed on the plan. The motion passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, Gilfillan, Sager and Thomas. Those voting "No" Commissioners Burgess, A. Hix and Pohl. Commissioner Brown added that the original proposal may change; however, any violations will be considered by the Municipal Court, there is no injunctive relief. The additional enforcement provision attached to approval should strengthen the enforcement provision. In addition, staff confirmed that the Applicant will be required to purchase a 1996 Business License. 4.B. Special Review #96-1. Lot 1. Block 1. Lake View Tracts, David Habecker/Applicant. Chairman Sager stated that the Applicant is requesting the Planning Commission reconsider their decision of January 16, 1996 (denial). In Chairman Sager's opinion, the Planning Commission's previous decision was complete and fair, the Applicant was given an opportunity to state his views, and the Commission made a motion which was seconded and carried. With this opinion of the Chairman and upon advice of staff, it is not necessary to reconsider Special Review #96-1. 5. DEVELOPMENT PLANS: 5.A. Development Plan #96-1. Lot 1, Block 1, Lake View Tracts, David Habecker/Applicant. The Applicant has amended his former application by changing the eight units along the east portion of the site from accommodations to dwellings. This removes the project from Special Review. The Development Plan proposes a combination of condominium units and accommodation suites, as follows: Bldg. A: 8 units, 2-story, 2 & 3 Bedroom condominiums with attached garage to be used only as dwelling units. Bldg. B: 8 units, 1-3 story, 1 & 2 bedroom suite lodging with attached garage. Bldg. C: 5 units, 2-story, 1 & 2 bedroom suite lodging with office. Future Bldg. D: 2-story meeting room with garage under. Opt. Bldg E: Swimming pool enclosure. A portion of the six-foot high cedar privacy fence originally proposed for the east property line has been changed to landscaping. 1- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 5 Mr. Habecker confirmed that development plan review considers physical development; this plan is exactly the same as presented at the January meeting, the only change is the stated use of a building from commercial accommodation to residential dwelling. Therefore, the square footage is below the 16,000 sq. ft. requirement, thus the proposal does not require special review. All previous modifications have been met and notes added to the plat, the only change is the sq. ft. calculations. The Applicant will discuss the Postal cluster box item with the Post Office; however, the Applicant does not desire a visible unit. The Applicant's intent is to utilize the units along the east side (8 units) for long-term rental, not less than 30 days. Attorney White clarified the definition of transient public and landlord/tenant law regarding nightly accommodations. Director Stamey clarified the difference between a special review application, and a development plan. Attorney White explained that should the Town Board reverse the Planning Commission decision on the special review, that the special review application, not an approved development plan, would control the site. Staff acknowledged a letter from Bob Peterson/Four Winds Motel dated February 18 which was distributed to the Commission whereby Mr. Peterson opposed reconsideration of the special review application by the Commission. Comments were also heard from Mr. Peterson who referred to his previous objections, and questioned the original design, and allowable slope projections for the driveway relative to public safety/inclement weather. Staff confirmed that a note on the plat indicates a 2% slope at the entrance, with a maximum 10% slope the remaining distance - the plan does comply with requirements. The Applicant confirmed that the reference to "as conditions allow" relative to regrading the bike path will be 10% maximum slope. Chairman Sager reiterated his suggestion to stagger the roof line. Mr. Habecker responded that the primary consideration is with the level of the driveway in attempting to maintain a 10% slope, and Unit #9 which is designated as a handicapped unit. Commissioner Pohl questioned the relevance of Notes L & M to the plat and suggested same be removed. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Brown/Pohl) Development Plan #96-1 be approved contingent upon the following conditions, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes", Commissioners Brown, Gilfillan, Sager and Pohl. Those voting "No" Commissioners Burgess, A. Hix and Thomas. 1. The existing bike path along Highway 34 be regraded to a maximum grade of 10%. 2. Obtain CDOT Access and Utility Cut Permit and coordinate access construction with the CDOT Highway 34 widening project. 3. Postal cluster box and location be provided in conformance with Post Office requirements. 4. To ensure conformance with the change in dwelling units from commercial to residential, a note be added on the Development Plan as well as the condominium declaration that for the eight residential units, no nightly rentals will be allowed—rentals will be for 30 days or more, there BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 6 5. is to be no transient status. The Town Board has the authority to enforce this provision, and the covenants cannot be rescinded or modified without prior approval of the Town. Notes L & M be removed from the Plan. Attorney White confirmed that provisions will be included to address a potential change in definition by the Trustees for Item #4 above. 5.B. Development Plan #96-2, Lot 3A, Mountain Technological Center. John Ellev/Applicant. Chairman Sager declared a conflict of interest, conveyed the gavel to Vice Chairman A. Hix, and vacated the room. The Applicant is proposing to construct an 80' x 100' building for use as a repair shop. Ten outside and five indoor parking spaces are initially proposed. Outdoor storage has not been identified. Bill Van Horn, Applicant's representative, reported that the 80'xlOO' building will be used for truck repair, there is no outside storage associated with the business. Concerning parking, Mr. Van Horn confirmed that the Applicant is agreeable to a note being added to the Plan that if parking demand exceeds first-phase parking, that the owner will construct the additional parking upon notification by the Town. A 2" asphalt treatment will be applied on all constructed parking. The Applicant desires one unpaved driveway due to turning movements of large trucks and work on "track" equipment. Van Horn identified the unpaved driveway on the plan. Vehicles will be hauled-in by trucks, unloaded, and moved inside; the only exception may be when propane trucks are being serviced (Code does not allow work on such trucks inside a building) . Otherwise, the Owner will refuse work on vehicles that would not fit in the building. Discussion followed on the transition from the paved to the unpaved portion of the driveway, with Commissioners expressing concern with drainage, effect of an unpaved driveway in the neighborhood, and dust problems not currently in the neighborhood. Public Works Director Linnane advised he has no objection to the unpaved portion of the driveway. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Burgess) Development Plan #96-2 for Lot 3A, Mountain Technological Center be approved subject to the following, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, Burgess, Gilfillan, A. Hix. Pohl and Thomas. Those voting "No" none. Those "Abstaining" Chairman Sager: 1. A 15' street setback be noted on the plan. 2. With the exception of the first 10' upon leaving the public way, the Applicant is allowed to have the northern driveway unpaved. Chairman Sager resumed his postion on the Commission. 5.C. Development Plan #96-3 Estes Park Fire Station, Town of Estes Park/Applicant. This proposal is to construct a new fire station on land owned by the Bureau of Reclamation pOR) . The building is currently proposed at 9,278 sq. ft., with 26 parking spaces. The Bureau lot is also available for overflow parking. Roger Thorp, representing the Town, Fire Dept. & BOR, noted BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 7 that the building is identified as the Estes Park Fire Station #1. The building was initially designed as called for in the Master Plan; however, plans have now been updated based upon today's requirements for equipment, while accommodating this particular site. A public meeting was held February 7 at Town Hall to review drawings, etc. A number of people attended the meeting and discussed issues such as: the rear appearance of the building, materials to be used, and whether there is an adequate turning radius into the building. All comments were taken into account and, following Planning Commission review, Mr. Thorp is prepared to proceed with the construction documents. Design issues: this particular site has utilities available or extendable to it; as the station will be constructed on BOR land, the Town must meet various BOR requirements; there is an existing large power line across the site, between the proposed station and Highway 36; setback compliance is based upon the powerline location; other utilities will be extended to the property, Mr. Thorp is working with EPSD to revise existing sewer lines in the area; the Landscape Plan was prepared by Senior Planner Joseph and is now complete; native materials will be utilized as much as possible, and the intent is to enhance existing native material and the entrance view. The building will be situated to help block the view of the BOR utility area/plant; it will contain a native moss rock veneer, stucco in a sagebrush color, forest green metal roof, low profile, and hip-roof. The building will have 10 bays, hose washing area inside, and the intent was to design a building that will serve the Fire Dept, into the 21st century. Director Stamey noted that 26 parking spaces have been provided, plus the BOR lot is available for overflow. In addition, the signature block must be modified to add BOR signatures. Comments were heard from: Ass't. Town Administrator Widmer, who reported that the public notice included a statement from the BOR that anyone with comments or concerns on this Project would have until March 20 to submit same to the BOR. Such follows BOR procedure in order to grant an easement. Fire Chief Rumley believes all federal requirements and the like have been addressed, and that while the people of Estes Park will be proud of the new fire station, it also will be functional for at least 50 years. In addition, handicapped- accessibility will be included on the ground floor, and the station includes a state of the art exhaust system. Chairman Sager questioned whether the turning radius is adequate for large trucks, 32' long. Chief Rumley responded that drive- through bays have been provided. Commissioner Pohl expressed concern with trucks making two turns around the corner to the highway, and whether any consideration was given to re-orient the building? This item is being considered; however, during emergencies, vehicles can go cross-country if need be. Rumley confirmed that he was aware of the EPSD comments relative to the proposed sewer line and sand filtering system. As there were no audience comments, it was moved and seconded (Hix/Burgess) Development Plan #96-3 be approved, contingent upon the following, and it passed unanimously: 1. Modify owner's signature block. 5.D. Development Plan #96-4 Castle Mountain Lodge, Warren & Ruth Clinton/Applicant. The Applicant is proposing to construct a new structure for a laundry building and two dwelling units for employee housing. A screened outdoor equipment storage area is also identified. Paul Kochevar, Applicant's representative, stated that there are 30 existing BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 8 units on this 29-acre site. The proposal is for one structure with a new laundry and two employee housing units. The remaining time of year, the units will be so constructed to serve the need of the owner (separate for ass't. manager's quarters, etc.). Sewer and water tap fees have been paid for the new construction, and evidence of inclusion in the NCWCD has been provided. Concerning a CDOT Access Permit, Mr. Kochevar confirmed that if projected traffic volume increase is not over 20%, CDOT does not require a permit. Mr. Kochevar will request verification from CDOT on this issue. Access to the new construction is via a gravel road, and the Applicant desires it to remain so to indicate a service-type area; guests should followed the paved road. During the winter months, this existing gravel road is plowed and, as it will have minimum use, dust or drainage are not a concern to the owner. Commissioner Brown noted that a potential preferred use may arise in the future, and that in his opinion, the road should be paved—it would also be consistent with other developments; signage is a deterrent rather than a paved V. gravel surface. Discussion followed on parking spaces, with the owner stating he is essentially taking employee parking and moving it down to the construction area, and one space will be added. Parking remains available for all affected units. Mr. Clinton confirmed that the proposed laundry facility is to service the lodge, not for use by the guests. Staff had no further comment, nor were there any comments from the audience. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Thomas) Development Plan #96-4 for Castle Mountain Lodge be approved subject to the following conditions. A question was raised by Commissioner Brown relative to consistency in requiring paving, with staff noting that paving of a gravel road was not previously required for Streamside Cottages. The motion passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Burgess, Gilfillan, A. Hix, Pohl and Thomas. Those voting "No" Commissioners Brown and Sager. 1. Additional sewer and water tap fees be paid by the Applicant. 2. Proof of inclusion in the NCWCD be provided. 5.E. Development Plan #96-5, Sixth Fairway Condominiums, Lot 2, Hartland Subdivision (Miles Cottages), Richard Lawrence/Applicant. The Applicant is proposing to construct four additional dwelling units in two duplexes. Four detached double car garages are proposed along with these units. A "Future Garage Bldg. A (optional)" is also shown west of the existing four-plex. Applicant's representative Paul Kochevar reported that access to the site is from Highway 7 and that the proposal is to add four new units plus 2-car garage structures. As an option, four single-car garages were also identified. Regarding access, if projected traffic volume increase is not over 20%, CDOT does not require a permit. Mr. Kochevar will request verification from CDOT on this issue. The Applicant will provide verification that the site is included within the NCWCD, and the owner will work with the Public Works Dept, on drainage prior to the building permit stage. All utilities will be underground, and Kochevar is currently modifying the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 9 landscape plan. Pursuant to contact by adjacent property owners concerning the siting of the garages, the Applicant is proposing an alternative location for the structures - a drawing was provided to an adjacent property owner and the Commission; with the exception of Harry Piper, the adjacent owners have reviewed and approved of the drawing. However, discussion is still taking place on placement of the garages. The Applicant intends to offer the accommodations strictly for long-term use; handicapped accessibility will be designated for one unit, however, the exact unit has not yet been identified. Existing units are currently being used for the transient public, however, this use will cease, and the owner will not oppose language being added to the condominium declarations/covenants to limit rentals to more than 30 days. Mr. Kochevar will discuss the issue of a cluster box with the Post Office. Staff acknowledged a letter dated February 7, 1996 issued by the EVRPD calling attention to the Number 6 fairway which is adjacent to the east property line of the proposed development—erosion, drainage, excess water, and the service road for golf maintenance. Audience comments were heard from: Maurice Worley, owner of an adjoining unit and President of the Fairway Club Homeowners Association - Mr. Piper did received both the original and amended plan for garage placement. Mr. Piper is primarily concerned with the view to the southwest (Mr. Piper has installed special decking which has enabled him to gain access to the view to the southwest—Long's Peak & Meeker; the kitchen window provides an identical view). All affected parties were aware of the zoning for this site, the only issue is with the optional garages. Speaking as a realtor and appraiser, Mr. Worley stated that, in his opinion, the chances of purchasers of the existing units opting to build garages is remote; however, should they elect to do so, Mr. Piper would be negatively impacted. Mr. Kochevar confirmed that the owner intends to condominiumize the existing 8 units and the purchasers could build garages if they (the garages) were approved. Susan Baptista/Miles Cottages, raised concern with increased traffic, and public safety issues as the Motel is already experiencing problems such as high speed with existing renters. Ms. Baptista confirmed that access to the proposed development is gained through the Motel property via an access easement. Mr. Kochevar responded that maximum density on Lot 2 is ten units total, the Owner is proposing eight. All eight owners would have to approve the garages. The condominium declarations could also include a provision to control traffic. Virginia McIntyre, 1241 Holiday Lane expressed her opposition to the entire development based upon truck traffic, noise, and density. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Pohl) Development Plan #96-5 for the Sixth Fairway Condominiums be approved with the following conditions, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, Burgess, Gilfillan, A. Hix, Pohl and Sager. Those voting "No" Commissioner Thomas: 1. The Applicant is to specify in the covenants that the dwelling units not be used for transient lodging; said language to be added to the Development Plan. 2. Obtain verification from CDOT that an Access Permit is not required. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 10 3. Provide verification that the property is included in the NCWCD. 4. Finalize detention calculations and a drainage design with the Public Works Dept. 5. The handicapped parking space be identified on the Development Plan. 5.F. Development Plan #96-6. Estes Park Brewery, Prospect Village Drive, Ed & Gisela Grueff/Applicant. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 1,728 sq. ft. building for use in conjunction with the existing brewery. It is staff's understanding that this building would be utilized for storage of production materials. Bill Van Horn, representing the Applicant, confirmed that construction materials consist of a metal building that may include some decorative features such as a facade; however, such features will be insignificant. New construction will be compatible with the existing building, identical style. Staff confirmed that the 1,700 sq. ft., building will be used for storage in the brewing operation; the owner is proposing to re-organize the area and add 17 parking spaces if needed. Asphalt paving of the enlarged parking area is proposed to comply with current regulations. Site improvements must be installed or guaranteed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. There were no comments from the audience. Mr. Van Horn confirmed that the proposed configuration does allow a reasonable building site plus parking. Mr. Van Horn could not confirm whether all current outside storage will be alleviated with construction of the proposed building. Staff confirmed that the Commission could require screening to address the outside storage issue. Discussion followed on site improvements not being installed/guaranteed in a timely manner. Mr. Van Horn reported that the Applicant is cognizant that the improvements were not installed and that approval for further development cannot occur without said installation and/or guarantee; the public is adequately protected pursuant to current regulations. Chairman Sager stated he is convinced staff is aware of and recognizes the past delinquency, and that an effort is being made to ensure this project is monitored and regulations will be complied with in the future. Staff confirmed that the current plan supersedes the previously submitted plan. Commissioner Thomas noted that the Owner did attempt to comply with the previous plan by installing a limited number of planting, however, said installation is incomplete. Commissioner A. Hix noted that in her opinion, the design of this building—a white metal building with a red roof is out of character in Estes Park, and thus, unacceptable. Commissioner Burgess concurred with Commissioner Hix. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Burgess) Development Plan #96-6 be approved, subject to the following, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, Burgess, A. Hix, Pohl, Thomas and Sager. Those voting "No" Commissioner Gilfillan: 1. Increase area of Lot 2A by 7,125 sq. ft. (this would require moving the lot line to the north approximately 45 feet). BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 11 2. All site improvements and landscaping installed or guaranteed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Any outside storage must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to installation. 6. REPORTS. There were no reports at this time. Following completion of all agenda items, Chairman Sager adjourned the meeting at 3:51 p.m. Vickie O • Connor, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk