Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1996-08-20BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission August 20, 1996 Commission; Attending: Also Attending; Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, John Gilfillan, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl, and David Thomas Chaiman Sager, Commissioners Brown, Burgess, Gilfillan, Pohl, Thomas Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Attorney White, Assistant Town Administrator Widmer, EPURA Director Anderson, Secretary Botic 1 Trustee Liaison George Hix, Commissioner A. Hix Absent: Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. 1. MINUTES presented*3^ the July 16, 1996 meeting were approved as 2. REZONINC ^0tS ■1~4f J~'50f 7B ~ 16Bf Buenna Vista Terrace Sub. . Lots 1 and 2, Schuster Sub., Lots 1 and 2 Hess Sub.. v:ista Terrace Sub. Property Owners/Applicant. t^- Lrao ffloved and seconded (Brown/Burgess) Lots 1-4. 7-50 7n - 1_6B, Buenna Vista Terrace Sub., Loti 1 anH 7 gub. , Lots 1 and 2 Hess Sub, be continued to the September 17, 1996 meeting, and it passed unanimously. 3- SPECIAL REVIEW ?oSios:LtirVoiviricr *rrR\-oreTtiorarTshTcSle%\U4edwiSi!7%vli%^ SeiSrinesSaogrCond1uSed Heari?9 °Pen and j-• '-onaucTi. Mr. Widmer reviewed thp s-t-a-F-F Plan shonlrtah11:31:7 stations and stated the Development bu;£tsKlfia?a?“? the conununity will outweigh any Adverse regarding plans for hike and bike paths along the thfeM S.Pr0?,‘?Sed ■ln -the Master Plan, Mr. widmer respondedthJs aSreear tf6" t-he5.e should be a bike K?S In Du.e to the existing motel design east andrSStv,°fi,thlS ?lte' the design would probably5 be next to the highway with various loops to the rivert ^^LKocheva5, APPiicant's representative, responded to aff comments. He stated this proposal does utilize the existing dpveway to the north and with increased traffic will require review by CDOT which is currently in BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 2 process. CDOT will make recommendations for any highway approaches and improvements which must be accommodated or the access will not be used. The intersection cannot be utilized without CDOT approval. Applicant is considering widening and turning the bridge to allow easier and safer access for longer vehicles. This action will not remove additional trees in that area. The Plan does not show a water and sanitary station as each site is proposed to have individual water and sewer hookups. Some lighting will be added in addition to current lighting which will be relocated. Current light poles are an antiquated design and light fixtures can be modified to be a downcast, non-glaring, shoe box type of light. Mr. Kochevar emphasized the considerable amount of vegetation on the site which will be preserved, noting Lot 59A, Fall River Addition, is not well buffered, stating that it could be improved with additional vegetation adjacent to the river which they are willing to do. Regarding the R.M.N.P.'s comments on the deciduous trees versus conifers, the Applicant has recognized this and believes the existing 45 conifer trees add a good year round screen and would be willing to add additional trees if requested. Mr. Kochevar noted concurrence with Public Works comments that individual spaces are considered commercial accommodation units for the purpose of determining the water tap fee. Mr. Kochevar agreed with Public Works recommendations that the pavilion and laundry facility water tap fees will be based on fixture units and backflow preventers be provided for each RV hookup and after the master meter. Mr. Kochevar stated utility easements would be provided in accordance with the Light and Power Department request and the proposed road system would be private. Dialogue has begun with the Estes Park Sanitation District and Applicant is in agreement with their recommendations and will provide construction drawings. response to Commissioner Brown's questions on screening and pruning of trees on Spaces 7, 8, 9 and 10, Mr. Kochevar stated there would be adequate access between the trees on Space 7 and pruning would be necessary. Mr. Kochevar stated Space 9 would be a place to park an RV and he stated pruning would need to be done on most of the eastern spaces near the setback noting most of the spaces have a depth of 65'. No vegetation would be changed beyond the 75' setback. Commissioner Gilfillan questioned anticipated tree removal on Spaces 9 through 12 and Space 14. Mr. Kochevar stated at least one tree would be removed on Space 9; he did not anticipate any tree removal on Space 14 with pruning to approximately 12•. In response to Commissioner Thomas' questions, Mr. Kochevar stated there was no drawing of the cross section of the cut on the south part of the development and stated the maximum height of the retaining wall would be approximately 6' and maximvim cut in that area would be 4' if building was done all the way back to the retainincr wall. ^ Correspondence received via mail and fax was read by Mr. Widmer. Correspondence opposing the Special Review was received from the following: Del Lineman, P.o. Box 81407, Lincoln, Nebraska; Seymour S. Feder, 2745 N.W. 42 Avenue, Coconut Creek, Florida; Sally & Rick Brent, 1401 West 29 Street, Loveland, Colorado; Dean and Ginger Harris, 2803 Fall River Road, Estes Park; A. Durand Jones of the United States Department of the Interior/Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, Colorado and Jim Shultz of Deer Crest, 1200 Fall River Road, Estes Park. As Mr. Worley was in the audience and could add comments BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission — August 20f 1996 Page 3 later in the meeting, Mr. Widmer also read the last few paragraphs of a six page appraisal letter from Maurice C. Worley of the Professional Appraisal Services, Inc., P.O. Box 4529, Estes Park, Colorado. No audience comments were given in support of the project. Jim Martel, 222 W. Magnolia, Ft. Collins, Colorado addressed the Commission. He is an attorney representing Jan Felsman - owner of Lot 59A, Mr. and Mrs. Coffman - Streamside owners and Mr. and Mrs. Schultz - Deer Crest owners. He requested denial stating in 1978 the Town Board approved a Lot split conditionally upon Parcel B being combined to Tract 61 and 62 owned by Mr. Kane. In a letter to the Town Board, Mr. Kane indicated if Parcel A would be sold. Parcel B would become part of his property to the west and he intended to expand his present facilities in the form of tennis courts on Parcel B. A Lot Division Covenant was recorded on August 22, 1978. Mr. Martel distributed copies of the documents to the Planning Commission. Mr. Martel stated this proposal should be submitted as a Subdivision request first and be subdivided if this is part of Lot 61 and 62. It should then be analyzed by the Planning Staff as the density calculations would be different regarding three principal uses on one lot with density allocations to the restaurant and motel and the density to this development all existing on one lot. The zoning regulations that apply to RV Parks require that all internal streets be 20' wide and the proposed bridge is 15'. Mr. Martel believes the bridge needs to be 20 feet wide or a variance obtained from the Board of Adjustment. He expressed concerns with noise beyond the property and did not believe this proposal satisfies the requirements of the Special Review Ordinance. He requested the Commission's attention to the Ordinance section stating "the application shall be approved only if the Board of Trustees make a written determination that the proposal' s benefits to the Town will outweigh any adverse effect to the Town or the vicinity". He stated the Developer has not provided any evidence this will benefit the community economically. Other concerns expressed by Mr. Martell were compatibility with nearby land uses, environmental impact, loss of trees, business design, visual intrusion, problems with pets and motorcycles. He requested the Planning Commission recommend denial to the Board of Trustees. Chairman Sager asked Mr. Martel if he and his clients have seen and read the Statement of Intent. Mr. Martel stated in the affirmative. Susan Coffman, 1260 Fall River Road, current owner of Streamside Cottages stated she is against the project for the following reasons: 1) the RV park would be out of character, 2) incompatibility of RV travelers lifestyle with motel/hotel guests, 3) antagonism between RV travelers and motel/hotel customers, 4) noise/pollution, 5) pet problems, 6) around the clock arrivals, 7) visual impact, 8) vegetation destruction, 9) litter, 10) possibility of expansion from proposed 17 spaces to 64 spaces. Mrs. Coffman wanted to know how many trees would be removed. She doesn't believe this project will meet community needs or be an enhancement and stated it would be at odds with the Town's Master Plan and felt this would be a gross injustice to allow spot zoning. Chairman Sager requested Mrs. Coffman recognize the proposal is for 17 spaces and 64 spaces is not a possibility. Mrs. Coffman noted the number 64 came from Mr. Widmer and realizes the proposal is for 17 spaces. Mr. Widmer noted the number 64 did come from him as Ms. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 4 Felsman requested a calculation on the entire site. He stated the site is 13.2 acres, with the area from the river up the mountain having a slope of 38%. Mr. Widmer stated Mr. Kane would be able to return to the Commission requesting an additional number of sites which would require another Special Review and Town Board approval. Jan Felsman expressed her opposition to this project. She was a developer of Streamside and is still the mortgage holder of that property and owns Lot 59A to the north. She reviewed her 10 year history with the area, and expressed her concern with 1) lack of controls with the RV proposal, 2) removal of trees, 3) possibility of continued build-out, 4) compatibility issues of RV/motel users, 5) vegetation, 6) noise, 7) environmental and visual impact. She requested the Commission remember what was said at the Fall River Workshops: "residential scale development of a low density consistent with present development not altering the existing character." She stated additional camp sites became available in 1996 when the Blue Arrow Campground became a private non­ membership campground. Assistant Town Administrator Widmer clarified his calculation noting 64 units was for the entire site of 13.2 acres. The developable area of approximately 2.88 acres would have a theoretical number of 31 units which could be allowed. Debi Coleman stated she sells and lists real estate in Estes Park. She has observed a reluctance for purchases near RV sites and believes this proposal will negatively affect property values to adjacent owners and owners along the Fall River Corridor. Attorney White clarified that the Comprehensive Plan is the future Comprehensive Plan, it has not been adopted and this Commission will not take into consideration the future Comprehensive Plan as it has no legal standing. John Spahnle, 1900 Fall River Road, recently purchased Boulder Brook. He expressed concerns with compatibility of the project in the Corridor and with his guests and devaluation of his property. Maurice Worley, Colorado State Certified General Appraiser, reported he was speaking for Jan Felsman, the Coffmans and Shultzs and the impact of this proposal on their financial interests. Mr. Worley stated he appraised the Deer Crest Chalet property in 1992 and observed a well constructed, maintained, above average operated facility with a streamside setting. He stated the majority of people are living in the Estes Valley by choice, not by necessity and requested denial of the proposed development plan. Lois Rohrbaugh, 701 Castle Mountain Road, introduced her husband Darold noting they have been residents since 1964 and have built five hospitality lodgings in Estes Park. They have experience as managers of two RV Parks in Arizona and have observed the following problems with RV Parks: diesel pollution, late arrivals/early departures, noise, emptying of holding tanks, and space needed for dog runs. In addition to these concerns, Mr. and Mrs. Rohrbaugh are against the proposed RV Park for the following reasons: 1) removal of 20-40 spruce trees, 2) extra vehicles, possibility of late arrivals parking along the highway, 3) RV guests hiking on private property, 4) increased levels of sewage during peak season, 5) pollution and fiimes from grills, 6) compatibility with area. n BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 5 A1 Tallakson, 1070 Crestview Court, a former owner of Riverview Pines Motel and property owner on the north side of Fall River, is opposed to the proposal. Mr. Tallakson previously lived in an RV Park and noted differences between RV people and motel guests. Mr. Tallakson submitted and paraphrased a letter from his neighbors, Stephen and Debora Shaw, owners of 4 Seasons Inn. They are opposed and are concerned with the proposal. Mr. Tallakson also expressed concerns with the wetlands and Federal wetland regulations. Lucille Younglund, 2801 Fall River Road, and her husband Quentin have been in the accommodation business for years and believe this proposal would be detrimental to property owners. Two years ago she and her husband made an offer on Nicky's condos and Jan Felsman's lot which was refused by both parties; her interest has changed with this proposal. Mr. Kochevar had no rebuttal comments and Chairman Sager closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commission for their questions or comments. Attorney White stated it appears Mr. Kane did comply with the Town Board requirements in 1978 and placed a covenant on the Lots to incorporate them. He does not believe that has any impact on the present proposal. Mr. White stated if this is considered one lot, the 75' setback on the west side would not be appropriate, which would allow greater development. By considering the total property owned by Mr. Kane in all of the lots, he would not be over permitted density. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Kochevar if a study has been done on this site regarding the access pathways for wildlife. Mr. Kochevar responded in the negative and stated he has not been on the site enough and/or looking for a pathway to say it isn't there and recognized there are going to be elk and deer in that area. Commissioner Thomas asked if Mr. Kochevar or his client have considered doing a study comparing the ecosystem along Fall River and Mr. Kochevar responded they have not. In response to Commissioner Thomas' questions, Mr. Kochevar explained the RV Park season would be some time in April almost through Christmas and there would no storage of vehicles. Mr. Thomas noted the plan calls for a check­ in building, restrooms and laundry and asked if there is a place on the site for a resident manager. Mr. Kochevar stated there was not and management would be from the motel operation and at times reservations would be handled from the motel. Mr. Kochevar stated they did not believe on-site management/continuous supervision would be necessary. Chairman Sager reminded the Planning Commission to recognize the requirements of Special Review and allow that to be a portion and justification of the motion whether it be for approval or denial. Commissioner Brown expressed his concerns regarding the apparent significant pruning which would be done on established vegetation and asked Mr. Widmer if that could be adequately managed. Mr. Widmer stated screening to the east could be improved with berms or vegetation and could also be required along the north. Mr. Widmer suggested the Commission specify what screening height is desired and the Developer and Town Staff could work out the details of a berm, vegetation, fence or combination and submit that to the Town Board. Mr. Brown expressed his concerns with trees and the asphalt and asked Mr. Widmer to comment. Mr. Widmer stated this is a valid concern to raise and stressed all of the trees are interior to the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 6 site and in most cases are not part of the screening. He stated the risk is to the Developer, which could damage his amenities. The Developer is focusing efforts to minimize tree loss. Commissioner Brown questioned the cut that would be needed and the possibility of 30-40 trees being removed. Mr. Widmer responded that with Mr. Kochevar's approach to look at each site and do individual excavations, this number would be smaller. Commissioner Brown questioned if the topography lines on the plans are indicative of what will occur when construction is done. Mr. Kochevar concurred. He stated there are not 30 trees in that area and not all existing trees are shown on the plan, only large trees with a 10" and larger diameter. Mr. Kochevar believes 10 trees are at risk of being removed on Spaces 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Mr. Kochevar stated trees on the front, near the street of Spaces 5, 6, 7, 8 would probably be removed and agreed with Mr. Brown that they are not shown on the Plan as being removed. Commissioner Brown expressed his concern in this response and he was concerned with understanding what vegetation will remain. Chairman Sager stated "the Planning Commission reviews the application and shall report to the Board of Trustees regarding each of the considerations in subsection F. of this section, subdivision 1-5" so a motion was needed to consider all items 1 -5 either in the affirmative or in the denial. Commissioner Brown stated that in his opinion, the Commission did not receive adequate information as to whether the proposal would comply with all of the criteria, and asked if it was possible to continue this Application until next month, asking for additional information. Chairman Sager stated that according to the Ordinance the Planning Commission has 35 days to consider the proposal and Attorney White concurred. Commissioner Brown stated the reason for Special Review is to consider impacts of specified uses. The Commission is charged with balancing the rights of individual land owners and reasonable use of their property and surrounding land owners in the larger community as well as visitors. He could find very little distinction between accommodation and RV uses to negate compatibility, the site lends itself to RV use as well as any in the valley from the uses that surround it including the access, road infrastructure, utilities, screening and design elements. Site design is to be considered and stated several elements may be improved to ensure the maximum reasonable mitigation for off-site impacts. He believes additional information is needed regarding the trees and has concerns with the lighting and elimination of interior trees. He believes the cut on the south side is within the test for reasonableness of development. The screening from deciduous trees in the off season would be appropriate for what the Applicant has proposed. He stated the Applicant should return with a plan to widen the bridge to 20' to ensure safety. Chairman Sager requested a motion be made; Commissioner Brown stated he was not prepared to make a motion to deny or accept the proposal because he didn't have enough information to make a valid decision. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Sager) Special Review 96-5. Nicky's RV Resort. Tract 59B. be continued until September 17, 1996 so that additional information may be received. Those voting "Yes", Commissioners Sager, Brown, Pohl; those voting "No" Commissioners Burgess, Gilfillan, Thomas, resulting in a tie vote. Attorney White stated the proposal would be forwarded to Town Board without a recommendation and urged the Commission to reconsider. Commissioner Thomas stated he believed sufficient BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 7 information had been received and noted Staff stated that all existing land uses in the vicinity are nightly accommodations and that an RV Park is not out of character with these uses. He conceded this is a point of opinion; his opinion is that an RV Park is out of character with these particular uses that are in the neighborhood at this time. Another point under suitability is the bridge; he concurred that the Commission needed to consider a wider bridge. His experience has been that many of the people who drive RVs have little or no experience and no special licensing to operate these vehicles, and stated many people acquire the vehicles after a lifetime of driving a car and many have impaired driving ability before driving an RV, thus the wider the bridge the better. Continuing under suitability, item c. of the Staff report which stated no riparian impact is proposed and believed this statement was made without any apparent study being made of the area and the Applicant told Mr. Thomas he has made no study. The second item under Special Review is building and site design and how well they avoid visual, noise or other intrusion into adjacent premises. Staff stated the natural noise from Fall River should provide a buffer and Mr. Thomas disagreed stating that natural noise from Fall River nine months of the year would not provide any kind of sound buffer for the neighborhood. The Staff report also stated concentrating the recreational activities in the center of the loop would help reduce noise. Mr. Thomas stated that just because there is a picnic shelter or facility in the loop does not mean that is where the recreational activities are going to be centered. He concurred with Ms. Felsman who earlier pointed out that when children arrive at a campsite, the first thing they are going to do is go to the river or into the woods and disagrees with the Staff statement. Under point 3 of Special Review, regarding the social, economic or community needs which are served by the proposal, the Staff report refers to the Applicant's statement of Intent. The Applicant has stated the established character of the neighborhood for accommodating the tourists is the goal of this project and because Mr. Thomas disagreed with the first statement about an RV Park being out of character with these uses. The Applicant stated that a RV Park in this area is not being provided; Mr. Thomas suggested looking at the entire Fall River neighborhood as a whole as was done in the comprehensive planning, when the whole valley was divided into neighborhoods and noted this neighborhood extends all the way to the R.M.N.P. boundary and there is already a commercial campground on the west end of this Corridor. The Applicant also stated this site and this business is most appropriate in both location and need; Commissioner Thomas finds it difficult to agree with the statement due to the nvimber of commercial and federal campgrounds in the area. Commissioner Thomas disagrees with Staff comments which stated this development is consistent with district objectives. Commissioner Thomas neither heard nor viewed reports from either the proponent or Staff related to any historic resources that may be impacted. For these reasons Commissioner Thomas moved the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Special Review 96-5. Commissioner Brown questioned Staff's comment of "no riparian impact is proposed" and asked if a study was required. Mr. Widmer stated it was not a requirement under Zoning and he made his statement based on what the Development Plan indicates. Regarding historic resources, Mr. Widmer was not aware of any resources that are immediately adjacent or on this site which would be impacted by this proposal. Mr. Widmer noted that some of these items are traditionally matters of judgement and as BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Conunission — August 20, 1996 Page 8 Commissioners it is their right to disagree with Staff's conclusions. Mr. Widmer addressed his comments regarding the consistency with district objectives, and stated he would not argue that this would enhance the qualities of the streams, however, he would argue that the Developer has gone a long way towards integrating and using the natural assets of the area and that is why he made the judgement he did. Commissioner Brown stated in this case he cannot concur with Mr. Thomas' evaluation of the suitability and compatibility as far as the property value declining. It may decline slightly, but felt that perhaps the adjoining property owners have had an inordinate landfall in value gained over the years because they have been making tacit use of an undeveloped site that they weren't entitled to. Overall, this was a close call, he could not recommend denial as he did not think the case has been sufficiently proven and couldn't recommend approval at this point either. Commissioner Burgess stated a major point had not been addressed. As Planning Commissioners, they are to listen to the people; the people present very definitely were saying no, and not only neighbors spoke - people up and down the Fall River and people in Town are opposed. She recalled the neighborhood workshops and Fall River residents had good attendance and they were very explicit stating they wanted limited and upgraded development. Commissioner Burgess reminded the Commission when Boulder Brook was approved, the Commission's comments were "it was a lovely upgraded development and the type of thing we wanted on Fall River". She stated it is the Commission's responsibility to listen to the public. Chairman Sager asked Commissioner Burgess to remember this was not a popularity poll. Chairman Burgess stated she did not believe this is popularity, it is very dear to their hearts and part of their economic situation. Commissioner Gilfillan commented it was the Commission's responsibility to review Special Review applications and act accordingly. He supported denial on this request because he didn't believe there was suitability and has an honest difference of opinion with Commissioner Brown. The evidence offered by the opponents forms a basis for denial on the suitability issue on l.a. and on 2.a. the building and site design and how well they avoid noise, and other intrusion into adjacent premises or departure from the established character of the vicinity which Commissioner Burgess earlier emphasized. Regarding the economic needs of the community. Commissioner Gilfillan believes there is a strong difference between what the Applicant has stated and what other evidence indicates in terms of whether or not there is a need for an RV Park at this point in time and in this location. For these reasons he would concur with denial. Commissioner Pohl pointed out that if this recommendation of denial is forwarded to the Town Board, the Applicant still has the right to appeal this decision to the Town Board. Commissioner Brown wanted to clarify the reason for his vote and he was not prepared to vote with the current information. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) denial of Special Review 96—5, Nicky's RV Resort, be recommended to the Board of Trustees and it passed with the following votes. Those voting "Yes", Commissioners Sager, Burgess, Gilfillan, Pohl, Thomas. Those voting "No", Commissioner Brown. Chairman Sager called for a seven minute recess stating the meeting would reconvene at 12:20. The meeting BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission — August 20, 1996 Page 9 resvimed at 12:20 and Director Stamey resumed his place on the panel. 4.DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.a. Development Plan 96-11. Municipal Parking Lot, Block 11, Town of Estes Park, 170 MacGregor Avenue. Town of Estes Park/Applicant. Art Anderson, Executive Director/EPURA reviewed the Statement of Intent and Staff report, noting the project is major reconstruction and reconfiguration. The current parking lot is a north-south orientation and the proposal would change it to an east-west orientation with increased parking spaces. The parking lot has been failing for a number of years due to existing soil conditions. A geo-technical fabric was used 9 years ago in front of the Library and has not 'alligatored' and is evidence that this fabric will be effective long term. The parking spaces along Elkhorn Avenue will remain the same. The first island after the street will be heavily landscaped and lighting is being designed by the Town consultant. The Library had parking concerns and 9 spaces are being designated for their use. A space will be reserved by the book-drop for their Outreach employee. The two entry points will be widened to accommodate the flow of traffic. The Schedule is as follows: bids on August 23, 1996, the contract to be awarded September 11, 1996 with construction to follow and the date of completion on April 30, 1997. The parking lot will be broken into phases. Van Horn Engineering and Surveying will work with the contractor to keep the parking lot open. Mr. Anderson stated they will relocate as many trees as possible. Mr. Joseph, Senior Planner, explained they will begin spading the trees marked for relocation and based on the initial experience, judgements will be made accordingly. Proposed turning radius and traffic flow in the northwest corner is similar to what is currently available. Mr. Van Horn, Engineer for the project, stated a typical traveled highway is 24' and this will be 26' which will not allow high speed movements and will be technically adequate in terms of the state highway standards and turning templates. Commissioner Thomas noted Commissioner Pohl introduced an idea in the Study Session for restrooms and a shelter in the vicinity along Black Canyon Creek. Improved restroom signage is one option, and Mr. Thomas believes some type of shelter in this area would be appropriate. Mr. Van Horn said this was not part of the original plan, however, there would be space available for a shelter. Commissioner Pohl stated he did not bring his suggestion to this meeting as he felt his concern was addressed in the Study Session and he would submit his suggestion to Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson stated this suggestion would be taken into consideration with the design for landscaping. Chairman Sager requested clarification on the addition of an additional book drop and Mr. Anderson noted a pad could be added and called attention to the 15 minute parking spaces which will be available by the current book drop. Chairman Sager noted the Town regulation 17.24.020 requires one bicycle rack per 20 parking spaces. Mr. Anderson stated there will be a place for the appropriate number of bicycle racks. Chairman Sager complimented the project with appreciation for the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 10 flexibility to accommodate concerns and suggestions. Judy Hoxey, Director of the Estes Valley Library District stated the Library Board and Staff are pleased with the parking lot redesign. The Library has been involved in the process and has spoken with Mr. Joseph, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Van Horn. During this meeting she has heard Mr. Anderson address some of her concerns. The Library Board has expressed a serious concern regarding the safety for children with the two-way lane of traffic in front of the Library entrance and wanted their concern to be recorded. The Library Board also requested an increase from 9 designated spaces to 12 in accordance with the overall increase of spaces. Patrons and Volunteers complain, and the Library does open one hour earlier in the summer to help, however, they would like an additional three spaces. She explained that over $3,000 was spent on the book drop and the room where books enter from the book drop. The room was specially fire proofed and they feel the usage will be greatly diminished with the 15 minute parking spaces in front of the drop. She also noted the trash enclosure is in that area and there are delivery trucks daily and would like to be assured sufficient space will be available. She was pleased the space would be retained for their Outreach person. Mr. Anderson explained the traffic circulation noting the island would restrict the flow in front of the Library and efforts have been made to make this area as safe as possible. Sixty one parking spaces are available which allows for a person to walk to the Library without crossing a traffic lane. A one way circulation in front of the Library would have resulted in the loss of parking spaces and the project tried to optimize the parking lot uses. There will be a designated space for the Outreach employee, 4 additional spaces labeled as 15 minute parking places and delivery trucks will park in the drive lines. He did time a driver recently and found the delivery was done in less than 3 minutes and did not believe this will negatively affect the traffic flow. Mr. Anderson stated at the present time there is no ramp for the trash enclosure, with the new plan one will be available. Ms. Hoxey continued with concerns for a safe and convenient entry to the Library by handicap persons and had suggested an additional ramp. Mr. Anderson noted a standard ramp would be installed and noted that currently a standard ramp is not available. Ms. Hoxey reiterated safety is the Library's major concern with patron convenience their second concern. She expects many complaints with the no left hand turn onto Elkhorn no longer being possible. Requesting the previous comments and suggestions be recognized it was moved and seconded (Brown/Burgess) that Development Plan #96-11 be approved with the following condition and it passed unanimously. • Bicycle racks be installed in accordance with Municipal Code. 5. REPORTS There were no reports at this time. There being no further business. Chairman Sager adjourned the meeting at 12:58 p.m. Roxanne S.Botic.Recoi 1 Roxanne S. Botic, RecordingSecretary