HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2014-02-18lllllIL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers,
Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes
Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Dickey, Bowers, Hills and Murphree
Director Chilcott, Senior Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Elrod, Larimer
County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Commissioner Sykes
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 75 people in
attendance. Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated
public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process
for accepting public comment at today's meeting.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, January 21, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Amended Plat & Minor Modification of Lot 6, Prospect Mountain Subdivision, 570 Devon
Drive; Franz & Carol Peterson, Owners/Applicants
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Dickey) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the
motion passed unanimously.
3. EPMC/ANSCHUTZ WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District; TBD Steamer
Parkway
NOTE: Due to the length of the staff report for this project, and the need to transcribe the
minutes as soon as possible, the staff report has been included as an official part of the
minutes. The Town Board is scheduled to make final decisions on this project next Tuesday,
February 25,2014.
Planner Shirk stated the proposal was the development of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, to
include accommodations units, and a proposed wellness center/treatment facility. The
applicant is Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC, owner of the Stanley Hotel. The applicant
proposes to construct a structure containing fifty (50) accommodations units, reception area,
lecture hall, and the treatment/nutrition center. A second building would house the wellness
center. Phase II of the project would include an additional thirty-two (32) accommodations
units. The site will include 30% open space, with lot coverage being 37%, both complying with
the proposed underlying zone district standards. The property is zoned CO-Commercial
Outlying, with the Stanley Hotel property zoned A-Accommodations. Stanley Village Shopping
Center, directly east of Lot 4, is zoned CO—Commercial Outlying. The applicant proposes to
amend the zoning map so Lot 4 will be zoned A—Accommodations aligning with the Stanley
Hotel complex. The surrounding areas contain single-family residential areas to the north and
east, multi-family residential areas to the south and west, and the Knoll-Willows open space
across Wonderview Avenue to the south. Planner Shirk stated there is an approximate 60-foot
elevation drop from the main hotel to the southwest corner of the lot. Lot 5, adjacent to Lot 4
on the southwest side, is owned by the Town of Estes Park and has been placed in a
conservation easement. Planner Shirk stated the design includes an emergency access lane
on Steamer Drive, which would be closed to traffic except in an emergency. All traffic would
be routed via Steamer Parkway. The proposed parking areas would lie behind the structures,
complying with guidelines of the Stanley Historic District. Proposed loading docks would be
somewhat screened by the structures, complying with the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC). Several bicycle racks would be installed on the property. There have been some minor
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission *
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
design changes to the structures, which will be included in the revised plans to be submitted
prior to the Town Board meeting. These include changes to the semi-conical roof, variations
to the exterior walls to create offsets, etc.
Planner Shirk stated the project was reviewed to determine how it interacts with the, Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to page six (6) of the staff report for detailed
information. He stated accommodations use is a sub-category of commercial development.
!
Planner Shirk reviewed the code amendments that would be applicable to this project. Please
refer to page eight (8) of the staff report for detailed information. This section also includes
information pertaining to the proposed uses as they relate to the use classifications in the
EVDC. I
!/
Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed amended plat, which would remove a platted "non
development area" located on the western portion of the lot. Please refer to page 11 (3f the
staff report for additional information, including some history behind the Stanley Historic
District Master Plan. The applicant proposes to use the platted non-development area for the
hotel/lecture hall/treatment facility, and has designated the eastern triangular area (near True
Value and Dad's Laundry in Upper Stanley Village) as open space. Planner Shirk stated the
proposed project complies with the view corridors as required in Section 17.44.060(a) of the
Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC). The applicant and staff conducted separate analyses
surrounding the view corridors; both came to the same conclusion that the proposed view
corridors comply with the code.
Planner Shirk explained the Special Review process, stating special reviews are development
plans that include uses that, by their nature, have potential impact on surrounding properties.
Because of this potential, these uses require Town Board approval. Special Review] uses
require "the application for the proposed special review use mitiptes, to the maximum
extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services,
and the environment." Additional information concerning the special review process can e
found on page 16 of the staff report.
Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property
owners. Notices to adjacent property owners extended far beyond the 500-foot requiremen ,
to include those property owners with a view of the Stanley Hotel. Details concerning
affected agency comments are on page 17 of the staff report. Significant comments included
(1) Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requested and received a revised traffic
study to examine traffic volume, and determined no off-site improvennents would
necessary for this proposed development; (2) Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) expressed
concern regarding the fragmentation of habitat, human/bear conflicts, and possible increase
in accidents between wildlife and vehicles. Vehicle conflicts could be addressed with signage
near the existing open space areas (Lot 5 and Knoll-Willows) that will likely receive add' 'on"
grazing; and (3) The State Historic Preservation Officer provided several comments (page 18 of
the staff report) and stated "the variation of construction techniques and detailing meets the
Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new work in historic contexts.
Planner Shirk reviewed the application for compliance with other areas of the EVDC, including
but not limited to building height, pedestrian amenities and linkage requirements Bradmg
site disturbance, landscaping, stormwater drainage, exterior lighting outdoor storage areas,
etc. He stated staff recommended all parking areas be completed with Phase I.
inThfapplication is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives <>''he“mP;;enl’eiU^
Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application
advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the staff report.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2.
3.
4.
5.
The application for the proposed Special Review use mitigates, to the maximum extent
feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and
the environment.
The amended plat complies with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10
"Subdivision Standards."
The amended plat and associated development satisfy the purpose and intent of the open
space and view protection guidelines described in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan.
The proposed code amendments are necessary to address changes in areas affected.
There are significant changes in the area since the adoption of the land use plan and
development code.
The proposed code amendments are compatible and consistent with the policies and
intent of the comprehensive plan.
Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development.
The application complies with the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley
Historic District Standards for Development regarding; view corridors; open space; site
design; pedestrian circulation; and signs.
The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building height of
thirty (30) feet is allowed through special review approval, and complies with Section
1.9.E.2 Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes.
10. The application does not comply with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley
Historic District Standards for Development regarding building design: red roof, white
walls, building facades, and conical roof. The proposed code amendments would provide
compliance to these standards. NOTE: After the completion of the staff report, the
applicant revised the plans of the conical roof to be compliant with the EPMC.
11 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.
12. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees of the
Town of Estes Park.
13 In accordance with Section 3.2.D, a revised application shall be a condition precedent to
placing the application on the Town Board agenda. Placement on the February 25, 2014
Town Board agenda requires a February 19, 2014 submittal of a revised application that
fully satisfies all conditions of approval.
7.
8.
9.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None
Applicant PresentationJohn Cullen/applicant congratulated Senior Planner Shirk and Town staff for the extraordinary
effort put forth by Town staff and others involved in the review. If the sale of Lot 4 is
approved by voters on April 1st, he anticipates construction of the first building to commence
in early September, 2014. Estes Park Medical Center will have a two-year window DeBin
construction on the wellness center. He assured the Commission that if the hospital did not
construct the wellness center, he would. He made a promise to the community that this
project would be completed. The wellness center would be a benefit to the economic viability
of the medical center, and he was honored to be working with them and the Anschutz
organization on this project.
Brian Herwig/Estes Park Medical Center CEO applauded staff, the engineers, and architects on
the project. He stated it was very important to the hospital to stabilize their ['nances at a tirne
when reimbursements are declining. He was committed to provide great healthcare to the
community, which would be difficult without a new stream of revenue. Mr. Her^'S.ment,°n®^
a recent study completed by the Economic Development Committee, and stated this would
a great boost for the hospital and the community. He appreciated the cooperation and
collaboration with the Stanley Hotel.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Lucia Liley/applicant representative was pleased to present the project to the Commission.
She acknowledged the hard work of Town staff, attorney, and referral agencies. The process
has been successful due to in-depth discussion and dialogue that ultimately improved the
project. She stated the goal of their proposal was to meet all the Town's applicable
requirements, and was obligated to be very clear about what the project is and is not. She
stated the rezoning request would make the proposed development a continuation of the
Stanley Hotel use. She stated the project fit in very well with the Comprehensive Plan
guidelines, particularly the economic vision statements. Concerning the amended plat to
remove the no-build line, she stated three main reasons; 1) Lot 4 is very irregularly shaped,
creating a challenge for building construction; 2) It is important to have a large buffer
between the proposed buildings and nearest residential neighborhoods; and 3) The highest
concentration of existing trees and shrubs are on the northeastern portion of the lot;
removing the no-build line would allow those to remain. Additionally, the historic Odie's Tra\\
would be dedicated on the plat as a permanent public trail. She clarified the Pr0P0S®°
buildings would not impact the view corridors, the development would comply with the 30/o
open space requirement, which could not include parking lots, sidewalks, emergency access
lanes, etc. The proposed open space will be compact and contiguous. stated there wou
be another 10% qualified open space on the western portion of the lot {adjacent to Lot 5). M .
Liley stated the applicant wanted to ensure the buildings would comple,|"ent a"d ®
compatible with the Stanley Hotel. This was the reason for the amendment to the EPMC. The
project would be functionally and visually integrated into the Stanley Hotel complex. S
sSed there were some technical portions of the development pi^
but would be addressed with staff and agencies as soon as possible. She stated the applicant
was willing to comply with the conditions of approval.
David Bangs/project engineer stated there were multiple meetings with Pub'ic
Department regarding the stormwater drainage plan. p mto the existing
conceotual design standards to detain the stormwater on site and release it into the existing
dlnage systems located at the downstream end of Stanley Village Shopping Center.
IculationI are being finalized and a full report will be submitted on Wednesday, F®b™arV
19 2014 He provided an additional document (posted on the website as Additional Op
sle ExhiblA) outlining the additional open space adiacent to Lot 5 previously mentioned
by Ms. Liley. Any technical questions should be directed to Mr. Bangs.
Barry Smith/corporate architect for applicant stated the proposed developmentJ^aS
oDDortunity for Lot 4 to be part of the downtown area. Ideally, dense projec s are p
re:eir r:iu.rn:
:rrirn:Sd^ii:tr;y
conducted on wildlife habitat and migration to ensure the open areas are »' d f j 'end
Cmlfh stated the architectural design of the new buildings would be compatible without be g
iCosinTon olinlltoric development, and the development would be a year-round
facility.
fragmented.
Johanna Darden/Town resident stated the Town Board did have
development applications on property not owned by the applicant. She stated the g
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
request should not be allowed if the applicant does not own the land in question, and
discouraged the Planning Commission from recommending approval to the Town Board. Her
written comments were placed on the Town web site.
Phil Moenning/County resident supported the staff report, findings, recommendations, and
conditions of approval.
Chris Reveley/Town resident acknowledged Mr. Cullen for making the Stanley Hotel
economically successful. However, he was opposed to the development of Lot 4.
Ed Hayek/Town resident encouraged the Planning Commission to not require the entire
parking area be completed with Phase I, stating the parking areas could be built as needed
with future development of the property. He recommended having an access agreement to
allow public use of the social trail on the property, stating this existing trail is heavily used by
residents of the nearby neighborhood. He encouraged the Commissioners to pay close
attention to the building heights to limit view corridor impacts, and was opposed to any
height in excess of thirty feet.
Sherry Ruth/Town resident stated the Estes Valley is surrounded by open space and wildlife.
The loss of the no-build area would not have a negative impact, and she supported the
project.
Steve Thorn/County resident supported the rezoning from CO to A, stating the approval of the
rezoning would allow the development to align more with the Stanley Hotel than the Stan ey
Village Shopping Center.
Bill Ruth/Town resident was supportive of the amended plat, stating open space would still be
maintained on the lot, just in a different location. View corridors would be preserved.
Susan Wolf/County resident encouraged the Commissioners to consider the view impacts
from Lake Estes.
Greg Millikarr/Town resident supported the development and looked forward
than the back of Safeway, He stated the view shed is 360 degrees, not just uphill towards the
hotel He was concerned as to whether the allowance of white exterior walls and red roofs
would extend to other areas of the Stanley Historic District.
Anne Morris/County supported the proiect. She appreciated thefd“is"
to the historic architecture of the hotel, and thought the v.ew frorn the Stanley Hotel
southeast would be greatly improved with the approval of this developmen .
Public comment closed.
To^naAtton^y1 White*^stated<the applications presented today are all contingent on the
dorng of the saje of Lot 4. The decisions made by Planning Commission and Town Board
woulcfnot go in?o effect until the transaction closes. He strf ed the importance of voting on
April 1st to determine whether or not Lot 4 is sold to the applicant.
Planner Shirk stated staff recommended all parking areas be completed at the same time^
^hey could be phased in, but staff would need to be ensured that -u d av
adequate parking. Mr. Cullen added he would prefer to begin construction of Phase
immediate!^ following Phase I, and was not concerned about phasing the parking ar .
Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of all aspects of the proposed
EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center, including.
1. The rezoning of Lot 4 from CO-Commercial Outlying to /K-Accommodations
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission C
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
2. The amended plat of Lot 4
3. Special Review of the Development Plan (SR 2014-01)
4. Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to provide a three-year approval
period
5. Amendment to the Estes Park Municipal Code to permit the buildings to be compatible
with the colors and architecture of the Stanley Hotel; and, subject to the following:
Conditions of Approval
6.
8.
9.
lUlib ui Mfjpiuvai
April 1, 2014 voter approval to allow sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District
All parking shall be constructed with Phase I
Architecture
a. Buildings shall be stepped, as demonstrated on Sheet A5.0
b. Sign: The stone base shall match the stone used in other structures on the property
and other free-standing monument signs
4. The plan must demonstrate compliance with Section 5.1J Hotels regarding amount of
gross floor area for non-living quarters.
5. The emergency access lane shall be reduced to 20-feet in width, include a roll-over
curb and a concrete sidewalk.
The traffic circle shall be widened to the maximum extent feasible. NOTE. After
completion of the staff report, the traffic circle was widened approximately five feet
and will now accommodate a large van or small bus. , ,
Traffic study shall be revised to comply with CDOT requests. NOTE: After completion o
the staff report, the applicant made the necessary revisions and the study now
complies with the CDOT standards.
Manual of Uniform Traffic Controi Devices (MUTCD) wiidiife Sl8^ "''f
on Wonderview Avenue, near the crossing between Lot 5 and the Knoll-W.ilows open
space Design and iocation shaii be determined by staff during Construct,on Pian
approval process.
a3n Land^s'ca^ping11 plan shall accommodate elk migration, with trees focused close to
buildings and parking areas, with outlying areas kept natural grasslands (wit
b. Larfdscaping of mechanical areas, trash enclosures, loading areas, and parking lot
perimeter shall be installed with construction of the initial hotel.
r rnmolv with Section 7.78.G.l.bWon-/Vot/VeVegetot/on applies.
XO. BuiidinTplans sbeal, be revised to compiy with EPMC 17.44.060(d)(8) 'Facades.
Compliance shall be demonstrated prior to March 18, 2014.
11 Compliance with the following affected agency comments:
a. Community Development dated February 4, 2014.
b. Public Works dated January 31,2014.
c Lisht and Power dated January 29,2014. .u 2 oniA
d. Water Department (Jeff Boies, Ciiff Tedder, Steve Rusch) dated February 3, 2014.
e. Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated January 31,201^-
f. Estes Park Sanitation District (James Duell) dated January 30, 2014.
g. CDOT (Timothy Bilobran) dated January 28, 2014.
h. CPW dated January 29, 2014.
,t was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recornmend approval of rejning LoMJ^^^^^ CO-
,t was moved and seconded ,Bowers/Murphree) to Jj;, f,8,
c“r:se:rrnd^^^^^^^^^ P-d unanimous,y with
one absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 7
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
It was moved and seconded (Hills/Bowers) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of
Lot 4, removing the no-build line and dedicating easements, to the Town Board with the
findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with
one absent.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommended approval of Special Review 2014-
01, EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center, to the Town Board with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
Chair Hull called a five minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 3:35.
4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - Sections 3.3E, 3.5C, & 3.6D
Commissioner Klink recused himself from this item and left the dais.
Town Attorney White stated the proposed amendment to the development code was not
being proposed specifically because of EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center. However, if
approved, it may be applicable to that project. He explained the EVDC currently provides that
approved development and variance applications must start construction within one year o
approval, or the approval will be null and void. The proposed amendment would change the
one year timeframe to three years. He supported the code amendment, stating it is often
difficult for everything to come into place within one year after approval, especially on
complex projects. Prior to the expiration, the applicant may request a tw°-Vea; exte"^
which would require approval by the Town Board or County Com"lss'one;nSn|^^f t'0on*;
there is a three year vesting period in the Colorado state statutes. The development code is
notTn ahgnment with the ^ate statutes, and the Town would have problems ,f ,t needed to
enforce the one-year approval timeframe.
In regards to the Board of Adjustment, the approval period will remain at one year un'«s the
valance approval is associated with a special review or development
case the approval would have three-year timeframe. The variance would rl
pr^;ct, so I? the development plan approval would lapse, the variance approval would also
lapse.
in summary. Attorney White stated larger projects need more time, and the proposed
amendment would provide for the needed time extension.
Staff and Commission Discussion
None
not voting.
Commissioner Klink returned to the dais.
5- rPSemor Planner Shirk reported the Planning Commission will be reviewing the Estes Park
C Medical Center requested their proposal to
expand the north parking lot be tabled until further notice.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
February 18, 2014
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
8
D.
E.
Director Chilcott reported six proposals were received for the Fall River Master Plan. A
team reviewed the proposals and interviewed three finalists. Walsh Environmental
Scientists & Engineers, LLC was chosen to implement their Fall River Master Plan. She also
reported on a grant received by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for
approximately $80,000 to apply towards a Fish Creek Master Plan. Staff will be working on
obtaining matching funds before sending out a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Commissioner Hills commented for the record how much she appreciated staff's
preparation for today's meeting. Attorney White also acknowledge staff's and the
applicant's good working relationship which eased a very complex application.
There being no further business, Chair Huil adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.
Karen ThompsOnr'Recording Secretary