Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-08-18RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 Augu st 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Hills, Murphree, Schneider, White and Moon Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioner Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 15 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. 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. PUBLIC COMMENT Candace Kane/ County resident spoke about the desire to rebuild a deck that was destroyed in the 2013 floods. She explained in detail what the flood waters did to their property. Repairs to the home were completed the end of 2013. Permanent sewer lines were installed in April, 2015. She requested the Planning Commission to consider a three-year window for rebuilding. The current time limit is one year. Glenn Malpiede/Town resident is a member of a vacation home owner group. He is working with two attorneys to provide a position statement and a white paper. After listening to the discussion concerning vacation home rentals at the study session, he requested the Planning Commission wait to make recommendations to the Town Board concerning vacation home regulations. His group supports revised regulations and wants to work with the Planning Commission on them. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, July 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2015-04, ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY & PARKING STRUCTURE, 500 Big Thompson Avenue Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The applicant, the Town of Estes Park, requests to build a four story, 414 space parking structure on government land just south of the Estes Park Visitor Center along Highway 36. In March, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a plan to construct a parking structure along Highway 34 to the east of the Visitor Center. Since that time, it has been determined the new proposed location would be a better fit for the structure by achieving better access and fewer visual impacts. The applicant is requesting a Location and Extent Review to move the structure across the river to the other side of the property. Planner Kleisler stated the project would be built in two phases. Phase I would be the ground, or surface, level and a second level. The site is bordered by the Big Thompson River and the Estes Park Visitor Center to the north, the 9-hole golf course to the east (Federal land managed by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District), Highway 36 and single-family residential homes to the down, and the downtown area to the west. The residential area is separated from the highway by a steep slope. The building site is 2.6 acres. The existing parking lot has 94 parking spaces, and is connected to the Visitor Center by two pedestrian bridges crossing the river. Those spaces would remain. Traffic entering the proposed structure would travel in a counter-clockwise direction. Planner Kleisler stated the application was reviewed for compliance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The Location and Extent review is intended to provide an opportunity for review of the location and extent of specified public facilities and uses sought to be construction or authorized within the Estes Valley. As with RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 Augu st 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall all government agencies in the Estes Valley, the applicant may exempt itself from local zoning regulations by a majority vote of the entire Town Board. The Planning Commission is the decision- making body for this development plan. The applicant has also applied for several variances, which will be heard by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on September 1, 2015 (pending the outcome of this meeting). Setback and height variances will be reviewed. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant is in negotiation with the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) to use a portion of their property to the east. Because federally owned land is technically not zoned, the review process has been somewhat complicated. This project was reviewed using the standards for the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district. He stated the applicant and the BoR are close to making final decisions on the locations of the trail and golf cart path. If there are any minor changes to the plans following the negotiations, reviews and approvals would be made at staff level. Major changes would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Planner Kleisler stated the proposed is as a Park and Ride Facility is a use by right in the CD zone district. The plan attempts to limit grading disturbance by following the natural grade of the land as much as possible. The plan proposes extensive landscaping (flower beds, shrubs and trees) at the entryway to the structure. There is limited space available for screening along the spaces on the west side. Roadside light poles and planters will meet the intent of the EVDC for street frontage landscaping. The Town Parks Department will maintain the landscaping. All exterior lighting will comply with the standards in the EVDC. Light poles on the top level will be approximately 19 feet high (maximum height allowed is 25 feet). The applicant has requested three minor modifications to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, as follows: 1. Location of Parking. Section 4.4.D.3, table 4-7 requires that off-street parking not be located between the building line and the lot line in the CD zone district. In this case, a small handful of surface parking spaces to the west and east of the building will be slightly in front of the building line. The intent of the requirement is to maintain a “street wall” in the downtown area. 2. One-way Drive Aisle Width. Section 7.11.K.2 requires a minimum driveway width of 15 feet for large, non-residential uses. The ground level plan proposes a 14-fot one-way drive aisle entering from the existing surface spaces on the west. 3. Stall Dimensions. As with the original submittal, the applicant proposes slightly shorter stall lengths, which are generally consistent with industry best practices for parking structures. The intent of the request is to help minimize the structure footprint, while still allowing for comfortable movement within the structure. The applicant proposed the following alterations: Stall Depth 17’9” (19’6” standard requirement), Stall Width 8’6” (9’0” standard requirement, and Drive aisle 26’0” (24’0” standard requirement). Additionally, the smaller stall depth will encourage drivers to drive further into the stall, thus keeping a wider drive aisle for vehicles passing through. While the stall will be slightly shorter than the 19’6” requirement, the total length will be more than the minimum required. Planner Kleisler stated concern has been expressed by Commissioner Moon concerning the ability of large vehicles (pickups and SUVs) to maneuver through the structure and fit into the spaces. Planner Kleisler added some vehicles with rear bicycle racks or trailer hitches would possibly extend into the drive aisle. The Commissioners would need to consider those issues when making their decision. Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners for review and comment. The typical distance for neighbor notification is 500 feet; however, notices for this project were sent to all property owners within 1500 feet of the site. Additionally, a press release was published on July 31, 2015. As of August 6, no formal written comments were received. One public comment was received late last week and was included in the meeting material packets. Staff Findings RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 Augu st 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1. 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 staff report. 2. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 4. The requested Minor Modification concerning the location of parking relieves practical difficulties in developing the site. 5. The requested Minor Modification concerning the parking stall and driveway dimensions results in more effective open space preservation. 6. The Planning Commission is the Decision-making Body. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the development plan, with conditions of approval listed below. Public Comment Greg Muhonen/Public Works Director and applicant, thanked Planner Kleisler for his cooperation with the project, saying the process has been a positive experience. Mr. Muhonen stated the original project was put out to bid in November, 2014 and came back over budget. The previous site proposal on the north side of the river (off of highway 34) required the ingress and egress points for the shuttle services to be at a different location than private vehicles. There were studies completed that indicated wait times for vehicles to turn left out of the parking structure onto Highway 34 could be as long as 10 minutes. The original structure was designed to add 190 new parking spaces at final build out. The bid for the original project in November 2015 and came in over budget. Today’s proposed structure moves to the other side of the river. The team looked at many issues and alternatives to find an affordable alternative that met the grant funding requirements. If located on the south side, it was determined 109 spaces could be provided in a two level structure. If the structure is expanded to four levels, the structure could yield 311 new parking spaces at a cost of $31K per stall, much less than the proposed cost across the river. The current lot has 102 existing spaces (main lot and on the side). Phase I would add a second level and 109 spaces. Additional phases would bring the total to 413 spaces. There has been coordination with the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District to improve the separation between the structure and the golf course. A fence would be installed between the structure and the golf course, and berms would hide a cart path. A new service access road is proposed on the north and west side of the structure to serve the existing landscaped island on the open west end would be removed and improved for the Bureau of Reclamation’s needs for river maintenance as well as access for emergency vehicles. An extension of the water main is planned to provide required fire hydrants to the structure. Director Muhonen stated the proposed landscaping would create an attractive entrance to the Estes village. Landscaping will be completed and maintained by Town staff. He showed photo simulations of the phased structure, stating the stair tower would be built with Phase II. The Shuttle routes would not be changed; they would still enter and exit from the north lot. The view of the Stanley Hotel would not be hindered, except for the 4.6 seconds it takes to drive by the structure on Highway 36. He anticipates concern over the time it will take to turn left out of the new lot. Several options are being researched, with a signal light being the last alternative due to the cost. If traffic continues to increase as projected, a signal would be needed. Director Muhonen described the need for the parking stall size modification request, which was designed in an effort to find a compromise with the Recreation and Parks District to create a definite separation between the structure and the trail/golf course. 24% of the proposed spaces with Phase I are the same size as they are today (compliant with the Town standards). Spaces in the parking structure itself will accommodate standard vehicles, but not extended cabs or oversized vehicles. There are various alternative parking spaces in town that could accommodate oversized vehicles. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 Augu st 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Ginny McFarland/Town project manager reviewed the minor modification requests (1) the proposed structure would encroach slightly into one setback owned by the Town, and another owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. The goal is to create a compliant piece of land in the CD– Commercial Downtown zone district. The structure will be right next to the street, as intended in the EVDC. (2) One-Way Drive Width modification from 14 to 15. This would not change the level of service of driveability as one enters the structure; (3) parking stall length and width modification request is to reduce the overall stall length by 1.5 feet. The basis behind this minor modification is to create a smaller building footprint, recognizing the sensitivity to the golf course. Chair Hull commented on the tightness of the proposed stalls and was concerned about having enough room to get in and out of the vehicles. Anirudh Chopde/consultant with Walker Parking stated the stall size is based on parking standards that have been established through over 50 years of research. The proposed stall size would comply with national standards. It has been determined that the current proposal would not allow enough room for large vehicles. If the spaces are made larger, we would lose 24 spaces. Comments from discussion included, but were not limited to: eight surface spaces would remain the same size as they are today; the Planning Commissioners would need to decide whether or not the proposed number of spaces is a reasonable amount; Estes Park may have a larger number of oversized vehicles that pull RVs; has there been discussion about a mix of different sized parking spaces to accommodate large and compact sized spaces; signage could direct larger vehicles to certain areas within the structure; the Town has applied for a grant to purchase electronic signs that would be used to guide visitors to available parking spaces; the lighting plan is compliant with the EVDC. Public Comment Paul Fishman/Town resident addressed concerns about left hand turns when the previous plan was being considered. He was supportive of having left turns out of the proposed structure. Concerning the stall size, he stated drivers of large vehicles have an expectation that they will need to find alternative parking instead of using the structure. He suggested having westbound shuttles leave from the proposed south lot. He would not agree that this parking structure would be considered “downtown.” Glenn Malpiede/Town resident supported the idea for directional signage to spaces that could accommodate large vehicles and compact vehicles. Public comment closed. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hills) to approve the Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure Development Plan with findings and conditions recommended by staff, with the addition of allowing for further study for mixed vehicle use (pertaining to size) and additional signage and the motion passed with one absent. Director Muhonen stated the Town will be applying for a grant to allow the construction of all four levels as one phase. 4. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Wilson Residence variance, Hummingbird Drive, was approved at a special Board meeting on July 28, 2015. The lot was such that the size of the lot and the size of the setbacks made the entire lot in setback. B. Downtown Plan. Planner Kleisler reported the deadline for proposal submittals was Wednesday. Eight proposals were received. A selection committee consisting of community members, staff, reviewed each proposal in detail. Commissioner White was a member of this selection committee. The consultants of the top two proposals would be interviewed, with a formal recommendation tentatively schedule to go before the Town Board at the first meeting in September. Following acceptance, staff would enter into a contract with the consultants to begin the process. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 Augu st 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall C. Vacation Home Update Process. Planner Kleisler reported information can be viewed at www.estes.org/vacationrentals. A public meeting was held earlier this summer, and another is scheduled for September 11th. The second meeting will include discussion of recommendations that were refined following the first meeting. The Town Trustees will hear recommendations on August 25th at the study session. Recommendations may include, but are not limited to: occupancy limits, different fee structure, adding a county fee, how to maintain residential character, contact with neighbors. The goal is to present the ordinance in November and December, to be effective January, 2016. D. Planner Kleisler reported the County Commissioners approved the cell tower on Prospect mountain, and the applicant has applied for the building permit E. Director Chilcott reported she presented “Zoning 101” to the Town Trustees at their last study session. Zoning 101 is a brief overview of zoning basics, including the history of zoning, an overview of our zoning code, and how it applies to our community. This was provided to the Town Trustees to aid in their decision-making. She would be willing to provide the same presentation at a future Planning Commission study session if the Commission so desired. There was general consensus among the Commission to hear the presentation. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:57 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary