Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Planning Commission 1999-08-17BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission August 17,1999 Commission: Attending: Absent: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Margaret Clark, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Clark, Pohl and Thomas Commissioner A. Hix Town Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley None Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES of the July 20,1999 were approved as presented. 2. SPECIAL REVIEW Special Review 99-01, Development Plan, Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center, International Concept Management (ICM)/Applicant. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present representing the applicant. He advised that the complete set of drawings for the Wildlife Center is now available. He reviewed some of the drawings which included the cross sections demonstrating that headlight glare would not affect the properties to the east. Applicant has no problem with the proposed conditions of the staff. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is the Development Plan proposal for a commercial indoor wildlife exhibit and interpretive center. The proposed use would be fully enclosed in a 35,000 square foot building including a restaurant and gift shop. (The size of the building has not changed, 30,000 s.f. footprint - the additional 5,000 is in a second floor.) The applicants have indicated that the restaurant will probably only serve those people that have purchased admission to the wildlife center. A total of 252 parking spaces are proposed including space for bus parking. The site is located on the south side of Highway 36 and it has approximately 800 linear feet of Big Thompson River frontage along its south line. This use is classified as commercial amusement, and a^such^is^only allowed by special review. Also, the size of the proposed^ allowed only by special review (greater than 16,000 s.f.). The Town Board has approved this use and building size at this location through approval of the Concept Plan; therefore, the scope of the Development Review is restricted to technical compliance with the applicable site design standards in the Municipal Code. The site plan that was originally submitted to Planning Commission for Concept Plan review has been revised. The highway access has been moved to the west, and the parking layout has been adjusted. The site plan that was submitted and routed for this Development Plan review has also been revised in response to preliminary staff review and comments. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - August 17, 1999 Page 2 Additional information concerning grading and drainage details has been provided this week. Ahe o.fplieao't's Requirements of handicapped parking were reviewed Mr. Kochevar advised that the number of spaces complies withjIiTeTown requirement which is more than that required by ADA. It is 4hetf intention that the trash enclosure area will be secure against all animals. The applicant would like to propose not using a full-time lighting system. Certain lights will be shut off in the evening. The service area drive which currently has a gate across could also be used for fire department access to rear of building. Public Comments: Blair Trautwein, attorney for the Ingersolls and Pinnacle Homes, stated that some comments made beforehand have been taken into account in the revised plan. There is a section of the employee area which indicates the asphalt surface is higher than the berm that is supposed to protect the adjacent property from headlight glare. Suggests either extending the berm, or using the opaque fencing as proposed by Mr. Kochevar. Second concern is that animals should not be stored outside causing odor in the area. Third concern is regarding the lighting. Perhaps lighting in the service area could be lowered. The fact that a riverwalk was not addressed was their fourth concern. They would like to see that easement granted by the applicant. Fifth comment was their desire to restrict truck traffic at night and early in the morning. They noted that the Town code requires mitigation with adjacent use, not zoning. Mr. Kochevar responded that headlight glare could be handled by making the fence opaque. The developers could also increase berm height and add plant material. The southeast area is the only location where animals will be delivered to the building, but not stored outside. He felt it was a good idea to lower the lights in the employee area as long as there is the security of the fence. They could reduce delivery times to daylight hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Security to the backside of the property is of concern with the riverwalk. They have no other intention of use in that area, but would prefer the walk be along the river and not close to the building. They would prefer not to disturb the willows in the southwest corner of the property. Michelle Rokke, Rocky Mountain Animal Defense, was concerned about delivery times limited to daylight hours. USDA has requirements regarding animals in transit. They want to make sure that they are not housed in trucks outside of town waiting for opening hours. Marie Cenac, DVM, advised at her prior work location, 90% of the animal deliveries were between 8 and 6. Commissioner Pohl asked for clarification whether the delivery times of the animals could be included in the review process. This issue is dealing with offsite disturbance rather than operational activities. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - August 17,1999 Page 3 It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) the Special Review 99-01, Development Plan, Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center, be approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. 2. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The CDOT access permit and highway right of way dedication shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. The note concerning future development shall be revised to read “reserved for future development subject to Special Review approval by the Town of Estes Park.” All wetlands are to remain undisturbed. Complete water main construction plans approved and accepted by the Town Public Works Director shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. Any future expansion of buildings or use on the site shall only be approved by the Town Board through special review, and a traffic study shall be updated and the CDOT access permit shall be reviewed prior to approval of any future expansion, regardless of the projected percentage increase in traffic volume. CDOT review of the access permit could result in a need for future access improvements. These shall be required if needed, regardless of the percentage increase in projected traffic volume. All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be fulfilled as outlined in the Public Works Director’s memo dated Aug. 11th. An extension of electrical service shall be underground and placed within a recorded easement if crossing private property. Applicant shall set aside a pedestrian access easement along the river for a footpath connecting to adjacent properties. Opaque fencing shall be used along the front of the employee parking stalls to block headlight glare. Level of outdoor lighting will be reduced at night (after-hours) in the visitor parking lot. All deliveries will be between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. unless the welfare of animals in transit requires after-hours delivery. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Amended Development Plan, Lot 1, Block B, Arapaho Meadows Phase I, Herbert & Diane Hawkins/Applicants. Senior Planner JoicfaK presented the request. When Arapaho Meadows Subdivision was ^ approved, the PUD Development Plan delineated a fifty-foot building setback along the meadow on Lots 1 through 5, in Block B. The purpose was to provide a setback from adjacent meadow and wetlands and create a greater expanse of open space. The site plan that was submitted for construction of the now existing residence on Lot 1 neglected to show the required fifty-foot setback and a building permit was issued in error that resulted in an encroachment. The purpose of this Development Plan BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - August 17,1999 Page 4 amendment is to revise the setback around the existing residence on Lot 1 to eliminate the encroachment so that the property title is cleared. This action does not alter the setback requirement on any other lot within the subdivision. The Homeowners’ Association Board of Directors supports this amendment. Staff recommends approval of this Development Plan Amendment. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Amended Development Plan, Lot 1, Block B, Arapaho Meadows Phase I be approved, and it passed unanimously. REPORTS Mrs. Walsh’s Xeriscape Garden, 400 Block, West Elkhorn Judy Lamy presented the plan for a Xeriscape Garden. Mrs. Walsh’s Garden (her grandparents’ “garden” was next door) will be a memorial garden to beautify Estes Park, and to educate tourists, new residents, and permanent, as well as summer, residents to native plant life viable at this altitude. The landscape plan has been developed by a graduate student from CSU. This property will be deeded to the Estes Valley Land Trust in 1999. There is a Community Foundation recently organized that will help fund and maintain the garden. Donations to this project will be tax deductible. Senior Planner Joseph commended the project planners on the high quality of the design. Public comments: venture. Gerald Mayo, adjoining neighbor, approves this Formal action is not required, but Commissioners expressed their support and appreciation. George Hix is a Community Foundation Board Member, and advised that this is one of the first visible projects for the foundation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m. . Uy-Aj?a't Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary