Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2010-06-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission June 15, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Ron Norris, Vice-Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners John Tucker; Alan Fraundorf, Doug Klink, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Chair Norris, Vice-Chair Hull; Commissioners Tucker; Fraundorf, Lane, and Poggenpohl Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Commissioner Klink The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. The meeting of the Planning Commission on June 15, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. was continued to 6:00 p.m. on the same date. Chair Norris reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. There were 16 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT a. Fred Mares/Town Resident read a statement from the Association for ResponsilDle Development (ARD) about the need for a land use plan. He thanked the Commission for taking a leadership role in reviewing the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and offered ARD’s assistance if requested. Mr. Mares also expressed appreciation for the amount of discussion that occurs at study sessions and meetings. b. Johanna Darden/Town Resident shared a concern about the speed of traffic on MacGregor Avenue north of Highway 34. Director Joseph directed her to the Public Safety Committee and/or the Town Board to express her concerns. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes from May 18, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. REPORTS a. Staff-Level Reviews 1. None b. Pre-application Meetings 1. Director Joseph reported that Eagle’s Crest Resort on Highway 66 is still progressing. 2. Director Joseph reported the Building Division received a permit application from Safeway for their fueling facility. c. Town Board and County Commission decisions on applications reviewed by Planning Commission 1. Hall Condominiums Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps were approved by Town Board. d. Other Reports 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Director Joseph reported that PUDs bring flexibility, detail, and creativity where existing regulations may be a barrier to new development. After several discussions on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 June 15, 2010 PUDs during study sessions, Director Joseph thought the Commission was at a point to begin focusing on items that would provide some definition of the physical result that a PUD process could yield. He stated any PUD code amendments should be tailored to address local needs. One of those needs is in the Commercial Downtown (CD) and Commercial Outlying (CO) zoning districts. The CD district currently has a 200% floor area ratio and no parking requirements, while the CO district has a 25% floor area ratio and a parking requirement intended to serve customers that are completely detached from any pedestrian circulation. Currently, on the fringes of the CD zoning district, there are some areas that are prime redevelopment areas, and also various types of commercial parcels that have the potential to feed off the downtown area. The current zoning code does not recognize that potential. The PUD process could be a way to address properties on those zone-district borders that could eventually plug into the pedestrian traffic and parking opportunities. The central notion in the Comprehensive Plan is that high density and highly active commercial activity areas should be located in the core of the valley. Director Joseph stated the Town is on the verge of seeing new and substantial infrastructure geared toward public transit, along with extensive improvement in pedestrian connections along the rivers. These changes in the physical environment present opportunities for redevelopment. Commissioners Poggenpohl and Tucker agreed with Director Joseph on the potential for PUDs. Commissioner Tucker cautioned the Town against asking for components that may be too expensive for the developer to proceed with the project. Commissioner Lane stated in some cases, what the Town government wants and what the community wants are in opposition to each other. It would be important to Commissioner Lane for any project to be supported by the Town government and the community. Commissioner Tucker stated his desire to explore the possibilities of what could be done with Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. Chair Norris stated code language from several other communities is available for public review in the Community Development Department. He asked the Planning Commission to contemplate what positive results they would like to achieve through a PUD code amendment as well as items they would like to avoid. Chair Norris requested comments from the Commission and the public be heard at the next meeting. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 00-07D - Marys Lake Lodge Amended Development Plan, Lot 3, Marys Lake Replat Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a proposed amendment to an approved development plan. The proposed project is located in the Marys Lake Lodge area. The existing plan calls for a three-unit structure to be built north of the lodge. The proposed plan would allow a twelve-unit accommodations structure, with a parking garage and banquet hall in this same location. The applicant desires to amend the existing plan from three accommodation units to a “Reunion Hall” with twelve accommodation units and a meeting facility. The specific changes include a different footprint and parking layout. There are currently 12 approved parking spaces in this area. Changes include a larger footprint and reducing the 12 parking spaces to eight, but augmenting parking by adding 17 spaces in a proposed lower-level parking garage. The finished floor elevation for the proposed plan would be higher than the current approved plan. The property is zoned A-Accommodations, and the proposed use is allowed in this district. This being the last segment of this development, staff has reviewed the entire site for compliance. One of the issues discovered during this review was the location of the loading and service docks. The revised plan shows the loading dock being moved to the other side of the building from its current location; however, a variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment would be necessary to construct the loading dock so close to the property line. A portion of the unused public utility easement would also need to be vacated. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 June 15, 2010 Planner Shirk stated the EVDC requires sidewalks to be at least five-feet wide along the full length of a building fagade that features a customer entrance. The proposed parking spaces do not allow for the required sidewalk. The applicant proposed to change the surface of the parking area to differentiate from vehicle areas. It would be visually separated, and act as a shared parking/sidewalk space as an attempt to have pedestrian access. Director Joseph believed this was a valid concept. Staff suggested the building either be redesigned to meet this code requirement, or the drive aisle along the western fagade be designed to be visually attractive and distinguishable from other driving surfaces. Planner Shirk stated the density calculations provided by the engineer were accurate and indicated enough land area was available for this amended development plan to be in compliance with the EVDC. Planner Shirk stated zone district “A” has allows maximum lot coverage of 50%. The applicant requested to discount the “green roof area from the lot coverage calculations. Based on the definition of lot coverage in the EVDC, Town Attorney White commented this waiver would not be allowed. Therefore, the site would need to be redesigned to reduce the amount of lot coverage. Permeable pavers would be allowed under the code, and staff suggested the site be redesigned to use this type of lot coverage. Director Joseph stated previous projects have been approved as green space using this type of permeable paver. Community Development staff would review the entire Marys Lake Lodge landscaping plan. Planner Shirk stated a letter of credit would be required to ensure completion of all landscaping, and reviewed what a letter of credit entails. The letter of credit must be in place prior to the issuance of any building permits. The proposed landscaping plan would need to be revised to accurately depict the parking layout, remove landscaping from in front of the compact parking spaces, account for access to the laundry room, and provide for site-triangle issues with the parking garage. Staff recommended the existing willow grove be augmented with additional plantings. Planner Shirk stated a cost estimate review for the entire Marys Lake Lodge development and the proposed landscaping would be required by staff prior to approval of the development agreement. Planner Shirk stated the approved Development Plan for Marys Lake Lodge requires a total of 218 parking spaces distributed throughout the site. The applicant indicated there would be 191 spaces on the site. The EVDC allows for intermingling with parking spaces for accessory uses. To account for the shortage of spaces, the applicant submitted two off-site parking agreements covering a ten-year period. Because the off-site locations are more than 300 feet from the site, a shuttle service would be required. The EVDC does not account for parking spaces for compact vehicles, and the applicant has requested a minor modification to allow these spaces. Planner Shirk stated the initial development plan had an approved stormwater plan for the entire subdivision, with the entire site draining into the existing detention ponds. Planner Shirk stated the applicant had submitted an addendum to the original stormwater plan, which indicated the additional stormwater flow from the increase in impervious coverage would be negligible: thus, the existing stormwater detention facility would suffice. The addendum did not specify how the stormwater would reach the detention ponds. An existing sewer line would need to be re-routed and tied into a proposed eight-inch main. The new building would require a new eight-inch main to connect to the existing main in the Promontory Drive right-of-way. Planner Shirk stated an existing water service line and four-inch main would need to be re-routed to the laundry room. Staff suggested the applicant include stormwater and underground utility details on the construction plans prior to submitting the application for building permits. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 June 15, 2010 The submitted ISO calculations indicated adequate fire flow was available. No additional fire hydrants would be required, and there would be adequate access for the fire department apparatus on the east and west sides of the building. Planner Shirk stated that due to the height of the structure, the applicant would be required to sprinkle the building. Planner Shirk stated the original Marys Lake Lodge development plan included a comprehensive traffic impact analysis. The most recent traffic analysis was completed in 2009. The proposed application would add 325 vehicle trips to the 2009 analysis, and staff determined the existing traffic improvements would suffice for this amendment to the plan. Planner Shirk stated the applicant currently has several building permits in various stages of completion. Staff recommended no new building permits be issued until all issues with the outstanding permits have been resolved. Planning Commission could determine whether or not these unresolved permits should be (A) finalized; (B) addressed through an action plan; or (C) addressed by voting for a continuance of the current proposal. Scott Zurn, Director of Public Works stated he would like to receive additional information from the applicant concerning the drainage plan for the area. He stated there appeared to be a fair amount of water coming into this site, both from surface drainage and possibly some ground water. Planner Shirk explained that the Planning Commission was the decision-making body for this development plan amendment. Public Comment: 1. Frank Theis, owner of CMS Planning and Development, spoke as the representative for the applicant. He stated drainage plans were created for the original development plan that included the entire mountainside and were updated at every step of development. The proposed amendment is the final segment of the development. He assured the Planning Commission that all loose ends would be resolved. Mr. Theis explained there are several different types of issues to address in resolving the outstanding building permits, but none are structural or life-safety issues. Many have to do with completing the landscaping. An entire inventory of the site will be taken and completed. Mr. Theis stated he would address all drainage issues with the building plans. Concerning off-site parking, he stated Marys Lake Lodge has acquired an extended and covered six-person golf cart to shuttle guests. The off-site parking would be primarily for employees and special events, and guests would be directed to park in that area. He stated there was more than adequate parking available for smaller events, with 50 spaces available for accessory uses. Buses bringing in large groups would be directed to the off-site parking locations. Mr. Theis stated the parking garage would function properly. He asked Chair Norris for the right to address any public concerns from the opponents at the end of the public comment session. 2. Don Debey/Applicant stated the approximate occupancy of the ballroom was 200-225 people, but he does not expect more than about 125 people per event. His priority in parking is providing space for the rental units and condominium owners. The employees would use approximately half of the off-site parking spaces. He stressed the importance of having guests for the events park in designated areas so as not to create problems for renters and owners. He explained that the road below the Peaks building becomes a one-way access behind the building to help with fire access, and he was considering making it a formal fire lane with no stopping or standing allowed. He suggested installing signage during the high season to designate the road beginning at Unit 19 A-B be reserved for Peaks, North Wing, and hotel room guests only, as well as deliveries and passenger drop-off and pick-up. He stated the wedding coordinator would instruct guests where they would be allowed to park. Any shuttle buses would be directed to unload at the garage level and guests would be asked to use the elevator to the ballroom. What appears to be the main entrance is really a small lobby for the guest suites. Ideally, the people using the ballroom would also be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 June 15, 2010 staying in the rental units. Mr. Debey stated destination wedding locations tend to bring in fewer vehicles than the typical wedding, and did not consider parking a big issue. 3. Lauren Scott/Marys Lake Lodge condominium owner was not opposed to the proposal as long as it was properly managed. She stated the current parking situation in the upper area is intolerable, especially during busy weekends. She was concerned that guests would use the lobby area intended for the guest suites as the main entrance, rather than entering through the garage. She was concerned about the size of the building in the proposed location and incomplete or damaged landscaping. Ms. Scott expressed concern about repair requests not being addressed and other unfinished construction on the property. 4. Johanna Darden/Town Resident raised concerns about the required variance and the easement vacation. Planner Shirk explained the reasoning behind those requirements that were previously discussed. She thought this area was being overdeveloped and that parking would be a continual problem. 5. Janet Lineger/Lodgehouse owner was opposed to the front entrance to the ballroom, stating the roadway in front of the entrance was very narrow and inadequate. She added there was a problem with the current parking situation. 6. Frank Theis/CMS Planning and Development stated the elevation of the west side of the building is higher than the currently approved building height. The proposed ridgeline of the new building is less than a full floor above the existing garage. Public comment closed. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Fraundorf was concerned about the potential for congestion and the practicality of the issue of the entrance adjacent to the narrow roadway. Commissioner Lane agreed with Commissioner Fraundorf. He thought the traffic issue could improve if the building design was reworked. Frank Theis clarified that the Lodgehouse was required to have two spaces, the Peaks 11 spaces, and the rear parking of the north wing units seven spaces, for a total of 20 parking spaces. There are currently 30 spaces provided. Don Debey stated the reason for the entrance on the west side was to accommodate those guests using the outdoor wedding site to the south of the building. The area between the outdoor wedding site and the building needs to be pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Lane expressed frustration with the incomplete review materials and last-minute revisions that hindered his review. Commissioner Hull did not support this amendment to the development plan. Although the parking situation was code compliant, she thought the parking situation would continue to be an issue. Commissioner Tucker stated people bought units in that development with the original plan in mind, not the proposed development with a larger footprint and a different use. In the past, the Planning Commission has been very protective of property owner’s rights, and he was concerned that the amendment was changing the property from the original plan in regards to density. Commissioner Poggenpohl was frustrated about the incomplete packet. He suggested continuing the proposal to allow the applicant time to submit a complete and accurate plan. Chair Norris stated this amendment was a permitted use on the site. He expressed concerned about the old permits that have not been finalized. He would like clarification on how the shuttle plan would work, and also accurate drainage and stormwater plans. He supported a continuance of the project RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 15, 2010 It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Tucker) to continue Development Plan 00- 07D, Marys Lake Lodge Amended Development Plan, to the August 17, 2010 meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - A-1 DENSITY CLARIFICATION Director Joseph stated this proposed amendment is to remove an unnecessary reference to Section 5.1.P of the Estes Valley Development Code for low-intensity resort lodges/cabins in the “A-1” zone district, and to provide clarification to the density calculation in the “A-1” zone district. Specifically, it addressed the difference between a bed and breakfast and a cabin-style operation or a small hotel. In an effort to simplify the language, the proposed amendment states “Bed and Breakfast Inns shall be calculated as one residential dwelling unit for density purposes provided the lot does not contain detached units. In all other cases, each individual guest room in a B&B shall be calculated as one guest room.” Director Joseph stated the Commission agreed on the intent of the amendment at the previous Planning Commission meeting, only continuing the item so this new definition could be written. It was moved and seconded (Lane/Hull) to recommend to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners approval of the proposed amendment to Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts of the Estes Valley Development Code, as delineated in Exhibit “A”, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. There being no further business. Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair ^ren tRora^spri, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 15, 2010 Regular Meeting of the Estes Valiey Pianning Commission June 15, 2010,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Ron Norris, Vice-Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners John Tucker, Alan Fraundorf, Doug Klink, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Chair Norris Director Joseph and Recording Secretary Thompson Vice-Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners John Tucker, Alan Fraundorf, Doug Klink, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Being no quorum, the meeting was continued to 6:00 p.m. on June 15, 2010. Ron Norris, Chair aren Thomp^^, Recording Secretary