HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-12-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent
Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Russ
Schneider, Michael Moon, and Sharry White
Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Murphree, Moon, Schneider, and White
Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Audem Gonzales,
Planner Phil Kleisler, Planner Mallory Baker, Planner Carrie McCool, Town Board
Liaison John Phipps, Town Attorney Greg White, and Recording Secretary Karen
Thompson
Commissioners Hills
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in
attendance. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today's meeting. Each
Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. Chair Hull explained the process for
accepting public comment at today's meeting.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Moon) to approve the minutes of the November 17,
2015 meeting as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
2. RIVERVIEW PINES PRELIMINARY TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PLAT; 1150 W. Elkhorn Avenue
Frederick Kropp/Appllcant '
Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The subject property is located approximately one mile
west of the downtown area, and currently contains an office with an attached dwelling unit, a
garage/shop, a six-plex, and a 12-plex motel. The property is surrounded on all sides by A-
Accommodations zoning except for a section of the east property line, which is zoned RM-Multi-
Family Residential.
Planner Kleisler stated the proposal is to demolish the existing structures except for the
garage/shop, and build three single-family dwellings and two duplexes, for a total of seven units.
The site would be accessed from an internal private driveway. The duplexes will connect to the
mam office via sidewalks, and there are currenity no planned sidewalks from the single-family
we inp. Planner Kleisler stated staff would recommend a condition of approval to include a
sidewalk connection for the single-family dwellings. He stated the existing bridge would be
widened to contain a pedestrian trail, and an emergency access road connecting Streamside
somfnTirr L Ugh thl^ PrOPerty W0Uld be created- The site desien include the rotation of
some of the buildings in order to minimize the limits of disturbance
anner Kle|s|erstated townhome subdivisions are unique as they relate to traditional
subdivisions. There is one parent parcel mainainted by the homeowner's association, which
mcludes commonly used items such as parking lots, utilities, etc. Individual lots within the parent
lot are individually owned. Planner Kleisler stated the Preliminary Townhome Subdivision Plat
submitted complies with the Estes Valley Develoment Code. A legal notice was published, and
notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. The application was routed to affected
agencies, and many have provided comments listed in the staff report. The Planning Commission
IS the recommending body to the Estes Park Town Board, who will hear this item in January, 2016.
Planner Kleisler stated the adverse impacts to wildfife would be minimal. However, there were
some Items to consider: construction timing, limiting fencing on site, limiting landscaping, and
installing bear-proof containers. Staff recommends limiting additional landscaping, as the existing
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
trees and shrubs provide adequate screening from adjacent properties and the public right-of-
way.
Planner Kleisler stated today's review is only for the preliminary townhome subdivision plat.
There is aiso a development plan being reviewed at staff level, and an active code compliance
case. One of the conditions of approval is to resolve the code compliance issue (unpermitted work
in the floodplain and river setback) prior to final approval. The applicant is aware of these issues
and is working with an engineer to resolve them.
Staff Findings
1. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the staff
report.
2. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
3. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will
comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the
Review Discussion in the staff report.
4. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Preliminary Plat application.
The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Preliminary Plat.
5. In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to
placing the application on the Board agenda. Placement on the January 26, 2016 Town
Board agenda requires a January 15, 2016 submittal of a revised Preliminary Plat
application that fully satisfies all conditions of approval.
Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval, with conditions listed below.
Public Comment
Fred Kropp, applicant, was available to answer questions.
Chris Levering/Town resident and owner of adjacent property (4 Seasons Inn), stated he was not
against the development but had concerns with other issues on the property. He stated he has
had ongoing post-flood runoff onto his property from the applicant's property, and thinks this is
related to the post-flood work that was done without proper floodplain permits. He has also had
issues with floodplain permits on his own property, and is working to get them resolved. Mr.
Levering stated the proposed development will block the river view of five of his accommodations
units, which is of significant financial impact. He showed photos of his and the neighbor's
property during the height of the flood. He believes spring runoff has the potential to create a
substantial problem for him, as well as during future flood events. He would recommend
requesting the applicant move the riverfront buildings back from the river so he can maintain the
views on his property and the buildings will be further out of the floodplain.
Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has received two notices of violation on the property. One
was for construction of a fence in the river setback, and the other was for work done in the river
without a floodplain permit. The applicant has been working with an engineer to resolve the
issue. Floodplain permits must show no impact to neighboring properties, both upstream and
downstream. The Community Development Director has the authority to deny issuance of any
permit if there is a violation on a property. One of the conditions of approval is to have the matter
fully resolved prior to staff signing off on the development plan.
Chair Hull recommended both parties meet together with staff to help resolve the issues.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Schneider had concerns about the drainage. Planner Kleisler stated the
development meets the drainage requirements, and any floodplain issues pertaining to drainage
will be addressed at the floodplain permit level.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
3.
Conditions of Approvai
1. Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated June 9, 2015;
Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated October 13, 2015;
Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated October 21, 2015;
Town of Estes Park Community Development memo dated October 23, 2015;
Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated October 22, 2015;
CDOT email dated September 30, 2015
2. Additional Conditions requested by Commissioner White, regarding Wildlife Habitat:
a. Timing restrictions on certain development activities to further reduce potential
impacts on elk and/or deer calving/fawning;
Removing or modifying the design of existing or future fencing to facilitate wildlife
movement;
Avoid planting any new trees; and
Installing bear-proof enclosures and/or dumpsters.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
b.
c.
d.
Planner Kleisler stated his notes reflect a recommendation of approval conditional to the
resolution of the code compliance cases as referenced in the presentation, as well as compliance
with the submitted wildlife report.
It was moved and seconded (Schneider/Murphree) to recommend approval of the preliminary
townhome subdivision plat to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended
by staff, with the additional condition regarding wildlife habitat, and the motion passed
unanimously with two absent.
MOUNTAIN MEADOW PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, 1570 Fish Hatchery Road; The
Sanctuary, LLC/Appllcant
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the property is comprised of two
individual parcels totaling 6.17 acres. The application is a request to create 15 single
family residential lots zoned At—Accommodations. The current water system is a well,
and the proposal includes connecting to the Town water system. Annexation into the
Town limits would be required, and would occur during the Final Plat review process.
Planner Gonzales stated the maximum allowed density could be 24 units, so with the
proposed 15 units, density is not maximized. Access will be from a new proposed road
(Barking Dog Lane) off of Fish Hatchery Road.
Planner Gonzales stated the preliminary plat is reviewed by the Planning Commission, with
approval or denial recommended to the County Commissioners. Staff reviewed the
application based on the regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC), and included: Lots, Grading and Site Disturbance, Tree and Vegetation Protection,
Public Trials/Private Open Space, Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas, Wildlife, Water, Fire
Protection, Electric, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Drainage, Access, Public Right-of-Way,
and Annexation. He stated a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the
southern edge of Barking Dog Lane. Subdivisions in residential zone districts require open
space dedication. However, this subdivision is located within the A-1—Accommodations
zone district and is not required to dedicate open space. The Colorado Geological Survey
(CGS) reviewed the geologic information of the site, which is within a mapped "alluvial
debris fan" and wildfire hazard areas. CGS suggested (a) a qualified geotechnical
professional should determine maximum allowable, un-retained temporary and
permanent cut slope heights and angles; and (b) retaining walls, building foundations, and
upslope walls that will function as retaining walls must be designed by a qualified
geotechnical or civil engineer, and must include adequate behind-wall drainage. Larimer
County Emergency Services reviewed the proposed subdivision and Wildfire Mitigation
Plan, and suggested the homes be required to create a defensible space (specifically the
homes proposed on Lots 3-8), to reduce the wildfire danger throughout the property. The
Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife suggested (a) fencing used to protect trees and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail
vegetation should be at least six feet from the tree/plant to ensure an animal will not try
to reach for it; (b) fencing material should be wire or woven wire for durability; and (c)
fencing should have "T" posts or wooden posts for durability. The Water Department will
require the existing well be abandoned. The Fire Protection District is requiring two
additional fire hydrants be installed. The Utilities Department stated existing overhead
power lines will continue to be used and/or removed. The Sanitation District will require
a sewer main extension and a new easement, as well as new sewer mains in the lower
half of Barking Dog Lane. Regarding stormwater drainage, the flow from Barking Dog Lane
will collect along the north boundary and discharge into a detention pond prior to being
discharged downstream via an existing culvert under Fish Hatchery Road. Planner
Gonzales stated 14 lots will access the subdivision via Barking Dog Lane, and one lot will
have access from Fish Hatchery Road. The deeded boundary is currently the centerline of
Fish Hatchery Road, with 30 feet of public right-of-way to the north. The proposed
preliminary plat would dedicate an additional 30 feet of right-of-way, which allows room
for Fish Hatchery Road and a trail.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was noticed in the local newspaper and notices
were mailed to adjacent property owners. One public comment was received. The
concern was about wildlife corridors, mainly on proposed lots 10 and 11; drainage
through a culvert that is consistently blocked by dirt and debris; and street lighting.
Staff Findings
1. With the conditions of approval listed, this proposal will comply with all applicable
sections of the EVDC.
2. Adequate public facilities can be made available to serve the proposed subdivision.
3. The proposed lot configuration will reduce the maximum allowed density from 24
units to 15.
4. A development agreement will need to be reviewed and approved by Public Works
prior to Final Plat approval by the Town Board. This agreement will need to
include the cost for utilities.
5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff
relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
This subdivision is subject to compliance with applicable sections of the EVDC.
These include, but are not limited to: Chapter 3 "Review Procedures and
Standards", Chapter 7 "General Development Standards", Appendix D "Road
Design and Construction Standards".
This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of Countv
Commissioners. v-w-uiny
6.
Staff recommend approval with conditions listed below. Staff added four additional conditions
of approval following the distribution of the staff report.
Four additional conditions
11. Annexation shall occur prior to or concurrently with the Final Plat
12. Draft HOA declarations shall be submitted to staff during the Final Plat review
process
13. Compliance with the Colorado Geologic Survey recommendations
14. Compliance with the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife recommendations.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Schneider asked for clarification regarding drainage from behind the
retaining walls. Planner Gonzales stated the CGS wanted to make sure the retaining walls
were engineered correctly due to unstable slopes. The CGS has requested a copy of the
final geological report being prepared by Van Horn Engineering prior to the Final Plat.
Commissioner White asked about the clogged culvert. Planner Gonzales stated once
annexed into the Town limits, the maintenance of the culvert will be the Town's
responsibility.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Public Comment
David Bangs/applicant representative stated the retention pond will collect sediment
and runoff. It will be a privately-owned pond and maintenance will fall on the HOA.
Mr. Bangs stated the applicant would like to request the condition regarding the ten-
foot trail be amended to allow further discussion with Town staff regarding the trail
design. Planner Gonzales agreed to the amended condition, stating it would be an
amendment to Condition #3 from the Public Works Department.
Planner Gonzales stated the Commissioners could also explore limiting fencing on the
property to allow for the migration of bighorn sheep, especially on Lots 10 and 11, to
address neighbor concerns. Mark Theiss/property owner stated this condition was
mentioned for the first time today, and he would prefer this condition be waived to
protect the future owner. Planner Gonzales stated the HOA could place a condition;
however. Town staff does not enforce HOA regulations. The code already has fencing
requirements, which allows for wildlife breaks within fencing in wildlife corridors. The
proposed conditions to limit fencing was requested by a neighbor, and would be stricter
than the current regulations.
Terry Rizzuti/town resident stated a culvert dumps into the river on the upstream side
of their property. This culvert is frequently filled to maximum capacity with water in
the spring. He is pleased that the property is being improved. The bighorn sheep are now
migrating across proposed Lot 11, which they have not done for years. The Division of Wildlife
says the bighorn sheep have reclaimed their historical migration area. Mr. Rizzuti does not
want anything to hinder that migration. His main concern was about the drainage; during
the flood the entire retention pond area was filled with water and he thinks it may be
undersized. He wants to make sure that the report has been reviewed by someone other
than the developer and his engineers to make sure that permeable ground will be
suitable for a six acre area that is mostly impervious. The water will run off faster and
will be channeled to one location, which is already maxed out. Mr. Rizzuti wants
assurance that it is indeed oversized; he would like to see it doubled in size. Planner
Gonzales stated the proposed size of the retention pond is 3000 cubic feet.
Nancy Voiland/town resident representing her property and the property owned by
Frank and Ann Stewart. She was excited about the new development, as it will be an
improvement to the area. She submitted public comment regarding a 20-foot right-of-
way that runs from the current proposed property through the Stewart's and her
property. She was concerned about construction traffic using the road, especially since
the new subd.v.sion will have its own access. She did not see a need for Mountain
Meadow Subdtvision to have access to the road. She was also concerned about the
rainage, stating it has been a problem for years. She stated the applicant has been
open to neighbor comments, and she would like to have additional discussion with the
applicant regarding the trail extension and would like to have input on the design of
Tu6 ?■ ' a,S 11 Wl11 be adjacent t0 her property. Her last concern was about lighting
The dark sky ordmance is important to the neighbors, and minimal lighting would be
greatly apprecated. The neighbors consider their neighborhood a wilderness area and
would like to keep it that way as much as possible.
Steve Randall/town resident stated he will be working for the developer, and hopes to
ive there someday. Wants to keep the historic look of the area, limit the number of
vehicles on the properties, etc. He stated they want to create an intentional
community, but cannot force it on the residents. He requested the Town be responsible
tor snow removal on Barking Dog Lane.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Gonzales stated once the property is annexed into the town limits, the street
will be maintained by the Town. He stated the 20-foot access easement is for the lots to
the south. Public works listed in their memo that the 20-foot easement along the south
side of proposed Lot 11 is not intended for use by Lot ll's property owner, and should
be addressed on the plat.
Commissioner Moon was concerned about a 24" storm sewer pipe coming in and an 18"
pipe exiting the property. Planner Gonzales stated the 24" pipe will discharge water into
a grass-lined pond that will contain and filter the water before leaving the pond through
the 18" culvert. Public Works found the drainage plan to be adequate. The Town will be
maintaining the culvert.
Commissioner White was concerned about fencing on proposed Lot 11, as expressed during the
public comment session. Planner Gonzales stated dog runs are exempt from fencing
regulations.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with memo from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated October 27
2015
2. Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated November 2
2015
3. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Public Works Department dated
November 11, 2015
4. Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Utilities Department and Light and
Power Division dated November 19, 2015
5. The Geologic Hazard Analysis Report shall be submitted to staff before Final Plat
approval
6. Labels shall be included on the preliminary plat for trail along Fish Hatchery Road
7. Lots 10 and 11 shall provide easements for the proposed trail that crosses onto the lots
8. Lots area square footage shall be adjusted for Lots 10 and 11 for trail easement
9. Copy of application to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District shall be
submitted with the Final Plat
10. Dedicated right-of-way for Fish Hatchery Road shall be in place prior to the recording
of the Final Plat
11. Annexation^shall occur prior to or concurrently with the Final Plat
12. Draft HOA declarations shall be submitted to staff during the Final Plat process
13. Compliance with the Colorado Geological Survey recommended conditions
14. Compliance with the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife recommended conditions
15. No perimeter fencing shall be allowed on Lot 11.
It was moved and seconded (Moon/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Mountain
ri:r.oh:;::'::nz subTJs'on p|a, ,o the urimer coum»BMrd cou"tv" 'h.l*h' ” d' g .and condlt,ons recommended by staff, with the amendment of Condition #3
to aliow further drscussion on the trail design, and the addition of Condition #15 regarding
penmeter fencing on proposed Lot 11, and the motion passed unanimousiy with two absent.
Chair Huil cailed for a 10 minute recess at 2:45 p.m. Meeting was reconvened at 2:55.
4' «JLUNT»'N PERF0RMING ARTS CENTER SOCIAL REViEW 2015-01, AND AMENDED PLAT,
116 E. Elkhorn Avenue
wnneHpfp|etrtreVieWed th! Staff rePOrt- She Stated the aPP|ication was a Special Review and
3rrprdh|d ° a^co^mo^ata a 760-seat performing arts center, 20-unit hotel and spa, publicly
at i i fi Pep^h er ? en' bar/restaurant' and related accessory uses on a 0.68 acre site located
at 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue. Total square footage would be in excess of 44,000 square feet. The
project would also include a basement parking garage with sixteen spaces intended for hotel
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
guest use. There are unique characteristics to the site including a riverwalk, with a portion of Fall
River running through the building.
Planner Baker stated the Special Review review criteria ensures compliance with the applicable
standards set forth in the EVDC and mitigates, to the maximum amount feasible, potential
adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. The
review criteria for the Amended Plat includes compliance with the EVDC review standards, and
the Planning Commission shall also find for this minor subdivision that approval will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or
in conflict with the purposes or objectives of the EVDC.
Planner Baker reviewed the specifics of the proposed development, stating this is a mixed-use
structure, which contains both use-by-right and special review features. The performing arts
theater, considered an "Entertainment Event, Major Indoor Uses," is the portion of the
application requiring special review. The site fronts two streets, Elkhorn Avenue and Rockwell
Street which will affect access and site visibility. The applicant has set forth a number of strategies
to address potential traffic congestion and parking issues in the downtown core. The site is also in
very close proximity to Fall River, with the design having the river running through the Winter
Garden area. The dedication of an easement for a riverwalk trail is also proposed, which Will
provide essential pedestrian connectivity through the downtown corridor. This proximity to Fall
River, along with a proposed height over the 30-foot limit and exterior lighting exceeding the
limits imposed in the EVDC, necessitates a variance application, which will be heard by the Estes
Valley Board of Adjustment.
Planner Baker stated the river acts as a natural separation between the restaurant/hotel/spa and
the performing arts theatre on the south side of the river. The river is integrated into the building
design. The propQsed riverwalk easement is an important element. The previous easement was
included in the option to purchase real estate agreement. The applicant would like to expand this
easement dedication to address Planning and Public Works issues, including but not limited to
ADA accessibility. Planner Baker stated construction of Phase IB is scheduled to be completed in
anuary, 2018. The area to be dedicated and the timeline for construction will be spelled out in
is thpenot0Ptmrt A.greement' Wh,ch is a recommended condition of approval. Another key issue
IS the potential parking congestion that could result from the completed development. While no
P\/nrreet Parkm8 IS l^equired ,n the CD-Commerc/o/ Downtown zone district. Section 7.11 of the
DC requires a parking study to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts. The original
par'LPrafeela Parkinf8 demand 0f 243 Vehid“- The aPP"“"' propLd a nLZT^I
sharia s,rPte8ies; use of existmg parking lots In the area, including the visitor center- potential
shared parking agreements ivlth banks and/or the school district; a formal lease of a number o
own-ovmed parking spaces dedicated for this use; financial contribution for a Nearby parking
Structure in exchange for a certain number of spaced dedicated for use by this development8
Planner Baker stated these issues and any others should be further analyzed and executed in the
Development Agreement between the Town and the applicant.
Planner Baker stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent orooertv
10f001fee*| of the was twice the radius distance of 500 feet ie u^S byT
webL 1 8a n0tlCeS 6 been PUb"Shed in the local and on the Town
Staff Findings
1' clmnt wifi0, TPw with, reco'Pme"ded conditions of approval, the application will
staTrepTri PP C 6 SeCt'°nS °f the Estes ''p116'' Do^lopment Code, as described in the
2. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
8
3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development, if revised to
comply with recommended conditions of approval.
4, The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body, and the Town Board of Trustees is
the Decision-making Body for both the Special Review and the Amended Plat applications.
Planner Baker reviewed the Conditions of Approval, listed below. More specifically, she stated the
proposed plans show 39 trees would be removed in or near the Riverside Parking Lot. Typically,
these trees would need to be replaced; however, there is some flexibility in the EVDC to have
another mechanism for replacing trees. The applicant proposed replacing 11 trees, and placing
additional trees in the winter garden area, which can be evaluated by staff to ensure the trees
planted there are of equal or greater value than the trees removed. Planner Baker stated
Condition #6 was added due to a sewer line shown on the original plans as being removed. This
condition ensures that sewer line will be properly replaced, as it serves several locations in the
immediate area. Finally, she stated development agreements will need to be written, requiring a
significant amount of coordination between the applicant, the Town, and referral agencies.
Planner Baker stated the Planning Commission has the authority to add other conditions of
approval as they see fit based on any testimony and evidence provided by the applicant and/or
the public at this hearing.
Applicant Presentation
Stan Black/applicant stated he would be presenting information directly pertinent to the Special
Review. He stated this project is about creating a vibrant society, inspiring creativity, building
community pride, bridging diverse cultures, and entertaining us. He showed a video about the
potential entertainers at the Performing Arts Center, and added this project is about a lot more
than providing a home for local performers. Mr. Black stated is the Board Chair, and other team
members include Tom Dority, Roger Thorp, and David Bangs. For decades the local community
has sought a performing arts theater, and opportunity arose when the Park Theatre Mall burned
to the ground. The property is unique with a highly commercial front end to generate money to
support the theater. The theater will have its frontage on Rockwell. Mr. Black stated this project
complements the Comprehensive Plan, the Town's strategic plan, and the Economic Development
Corporation's strategic plan. This project will bring people to town for longer periods of time, to
the heart of downtown, and to do something they haven't done before. He stated the impact of
the tall building would be somewhat mitigated because the building would be at or below river
level, located where the previous building was over forty feet tall. Also, it would be located
adjacent to the tallest building in the Estes Valley. Mr. Black stated the driving factor for the
building height is the fly space, which allows the crew to set up for more than one show at a time,
and "fly" into the area above the stage the set pieces, lighting, sound, etc. This feature allows
heavy back-to-back bookings. The team considered putting the building below grade, but hit
bedrock and ground water at eight feet. Regarding flood mitigation, the base floor must be above
the curb. Mr. Black stated effort has been put into the architecture to mitigate a boxy
appearance. The design includes 16 spaces reserved for hotel guests in an underground parking
area, weekend summer days have parking spaces that open up in the early evenings, and there
are enough spaces within a 1/4 mile radius around town to accommodate guests at the theater.
The anticipation is that guests would be in town before and after the show. The Visitor Center is
an eight-minute walk and considered overflow parking. He stated the team may negotiate
arrangements with private lots, shuttles to remote lots, and they are offering to participate in a
nearby parking structure if construction coincides with this project. He stated they would prefer
to participate in a public parking lot rather than have parking in the basement area.
Mr. Black stated there were four neighborhood meetings that were well attended and
constructive, for the most part. These meetings led them to work harder to find parking solutions.
Also from the meetings came a dramatically changed exterior appearance. Changes were made to
build a hotel in order to control the style and usage of the whole complex and mitigate negative
imparts on neighbors. A land survey found neighbors encroached on their property. A "Do No
Harm agreement was drafted to address this. The next door neighbors have an exhaust fan that
will need to be moved, and the applicant has offered to pay for a new fan to be relocated to their
roof.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Tom Dority/EPIC Board member stated the underlying reason for the project is the intrinsic value
of the arts and culture to Estes Park. The effort to improve the cultural aspect of the community is
very important. Also important is the economic impact on the community. They are hoping to
have this be a venue for a wide variety of professional performance groups as well as the home of
the various local performing groups. A very conservative estimate would have 36% of the
potential seats filled for the first few years. It is possible the proposed project could
conservatively result in $1.9 million to the town. Other audience spending could result in an
additional $6.8 million. Sales tax received is projected to be about $400,000 annually. Total
economic impact could be as much as $9 million annually. Other economic factors include value
of construction materials, approximately 150 workers on site for the 18-month construction
period, a large vacant lot that is currently a liability to the community will be redeveloped with a
new building that will attract the public year round. Mr. Dority explained his sources came from
various studies.
Roger Thorp/project architect stated he has been working on this project for several years.
Adjustments have been made to better blend in with the community, as the previous design was
too urban" for this mountain community. The second level will be set back so it is in character
with the other two-story buildings. The mountain rustic architecture uses rock and timbers. They
maintained the character in the winter garden and the auditorium by utilizing brick work more on
the theater portion of the building. A shorter exterior wall will be along the perimeter, with the fly
area being in the middle of the theater, so as to not be as intrusive to people walking beside the
building. Mr. Thorp stated a lot of work has gone into engineering the river going through the
building. The proposed design allows for approximately 2.5 times the water flow prior to the 2013
flood. Having the river going through the building was the original impetus behind the design of
the auditorium. The winter garden would be accessible year-round, and would allow connectivity
of the riverwalk to the Weist parking lot. A public easement would be dedicated through the
building. The winter garden area has been designed for pedestrian use and includes public
restrooms. The number of restrooms in the building exceeds the code requirements. Mr. Thorp
stated the building entrance on Rockwell is set back enough to allow a drop off zone, and the
performer s vehicles will have off-street parking to unload/load. A traffic engineer assisted with
location of signs. The proposed plan includes four major pedestrian access/exit points
Additionally, sixteen valet parking spaces, storage, mechanical rooms and green rooms would be
located on the lower level. He reiterated the applicant would be willing to negotiate an
agreement with the Town regarding a parking structure before phase two is built. He stated the
basement would require waterproofing. Mr. Thorp shows photo simulations, and stated the
proposed height is approximately 55 feet high, which is not in the purview of the Planning
Commission A variance request concerning height will be heard by the Board of Adjustment The
elabl8,ra^ ea,C: iS a'T0St 14 feet higher than thiS pro'Josed buiWi''8- The reason foahe
elaborate stage is to make sure they can take care of local performers and out-of-town
performers and stiH be able to change out the backdrops quickly for multiple performances in a
timejy menner. They have worked hard to make this an exciting experience that will attract
Staff, Applicant, and Commission Discussion
Mr. Thorp stated the Special Review and Amended Plat will be heard by the Town Board orior to
changes BOar:' °f Adiuament for variance requests. They don't IntenTto ™kePrjor
anges. As construction is detailed, some adjustments may be necessary. He stated actual
in3the^ river" hateStr11 depend|°n hoW funding comes along; however, construction would begin
bu IdfnJ W ir^en. Waier iS 'r (fal,/winter)- ,n to a question, Mr. Thorp stated the
p • e U a designed t0 the new water flows and reviewed by the US Army Corps of
ngineers. He did not see any effect on this project from the proposed "Loop" project but is
ho^ng a parking structure at the existing Post Office parking lot will come to fruition
ommissioner Schneider wondered about parking on the lower level on the north side of the
river, with access on Elkhorn Avenue, and Mr. Thorp stated there is a hotelier that desires to put a
spa on the lower level, so they did not design parking. Mr. Thorp stated the parking study takes
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
10
into account all the uses in the building. They hope to be a part of the parking solution in the
downtown area. Commissioners Schneider and Murphree were pleased with the new design.
Public Comment
Paui Fishman/town resident and former business owner at the proposed location was supportive
of the downtown location. He hopes it will change the character of downtown for the better, and
thinks the project will bring an enhanced nighttime atmosphere. He stated the positive aspects
outweigh the negative. He suggested the Planning Commissioners recommend to Town Board to
seek funding for a downtown parking structure at the current Post Office lot.
Marc Richards/county resident stated several local performing arts groups need an adequate
venue and performance space. The current venues are greatly appreciated, though inadequate.
The Estes Valley has an unusually large number of highly educated performers. Estes Park could
compete for entertainment if they had a venue like this proposed project. Any town has to move
forward to improve itself, or it will become stagnant.
Ron Willcox/county resident and downtown business owner stated he was very supportive of this
project, and it is very important for this project to move forward. The issues of parking, traffic,
etc. have been mitigated and have plans for further mitigation. The project is consistent with
town goais and the downtown strategic plan. It will provide Jobs, lodging downtown, will connect
the riverwalk.
Craig Soderberg/town resident was supportive of the project. His children are performers and
would love the opportunity this theater would offer. He frequently goes to Grand Lake to their
theater, and wants the same for Estes Park. He was representing Estes Performs, and this group
is very excited about having this type of venue in Estes Park. As a board member of the Estes Arts
District, he shared this group also supports this project. The Governor of Colorado supports
creative arts districts, and Mr. Soderberg encouraged the Commissioners to approve this project.
Diane Muno/town resident and downtown business owner was highly supportive of this project
She stated it will bring a new type of visitor to the community and will give visitors and locals
something to do in the evenings.
Damien Boynton/town resident and a member of the EPIC board has been an award-winning
hotelier for 20 years. He stated the need for hotels in Estes Park has increased in the last several
years. This project will enhance the availability of accommodations in the area. He is supportive of
the project.
Adam Shake/town resident and Visit Estes Park board representative stated the VEP board
supports this project, and it will provide new product development for the Estes Valley This
project wili add a year-round product to market. Personally, he loves the Estes Park community
an appreciates the opportunity to be involved in this important project. He was supportive from
an economic development and arts district standpoint.
Jim Pickering/chair of the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) stated if Estes Park is going
to succeed long-term as a community, we must invest in projects that provide year-round
empioyment. The EDC is supportive of this project.
Kathy Bowers/town resident representing several performing arts groups stated this project
would be a big economic boost to Estes Park. The town has many performing groups that deserve
a better place to perform. They would like to see professional staff that could move equipment.
A stage that could support both a stage and orchestra area would be beneficial. She stated people
that say Estes Park cannot solve the parking project are very short-sighted. She fully supports the
project. There are definite positive economic impacts that performing art centers can have on
communities.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
11
Public comment closed.
2.
3.
4.
Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends approval of the Special Review and Amended Plat applications subject to the
following conditions:
1. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated November 19, 2015.
Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated November 18, 2015.
Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated November 9, 2015.
The applicant shall submit a planting schedule of a similar or identical value to the 28
replacement trees required by Section 7.3 of the EVDC, to be evaluated by Staff in
accordance with the Valuation of Trees, Shrubs and Other Plants prepared by the
International Society of Arboriculture. This document shall be submitted with construction
drawings.
All exterior lighting installed by the applicant shall comply with Section 7.9(D)(1) of the
EVDC.
The applicant shall submit an amended Utility Site Plan pursuant to the Estes Park
Sanitation District Rules and Regulations within 30 days of Town Board approval.
The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement with the Town of Estes Park
following Town Board approval, which shall address the following:
a. Development phasing
Site improvements
Hours and manner of project construction
Riverwalk easement dedication
Riverwalk connection; including timing and manner of construction and public
accessibility
Parking
Any additional items or conditions as determined by the Planning Commission and/or
the Town Board.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
!t was moved and seconded (Murphree/Moon) to recommend approval to the Town Board with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with
two absent.
REPORTS
1. p,3nner Kleisler reported the Board of Adjustment approved a variance request at 3850 Star
Way in Little Valley. It was a setback variance for a small outbuilding.
2 PIaunn.!r Kleis,ler r®J,orted the vacation home ordinance has temporarily stalled. Following
e November 9 joint meeting, the County Commissioners requested additional public
orums, one of which took place last Saturday, attended by roughly 100 people. There was
P!'°ductive discussi°n. Facilitators are currently drafting the after action summaries
that will be posted online after receipt. There will be a County Commissioner listening
session on January 25* at 4 p.m. in the Town Board Room. Following that meeting, one
last joint meeting with the Town Board, County Commission, and Planning Commission
would take place. Following that joint meeting. Planning Commissioners will review a draft
amendment. On January 12, 2016, the Town Board Study Session will include discussion
regarding code compliance activities related to vacation rentals, and how building code
issues come into play with vacation rentals.
3. Planner Kleisler reported a delay in an option for a new fee schedule adoption for vacation
ome licenses. This could also be used for code compliance enforcement.
4. Alison Chilcott reported the Request for Proposal regarding a hydrology study has been
released. We expect to receive seven or eight proposals, and will be selecting a consultant
in January.
There being no other business before the Commission, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at
4:s3p.m.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 15, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali
12
Betty Hiftt Chair
Karen Thompson, Reco«itng Secretary