Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2020-02-25RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 25,2020 Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Commission:Chair Bob Leavitt,Vice-Chair Sharry White,Commissioners Steve Murphree,Frank Theis,Nick Smith,Dave Converse,Matt Comstock Attending:Chair Leavitt,Commissioners Murphree,Theis,Smith,Converse, Comstock Also Attending:Director Randy Hunt,Senior Planner Jeff Woeber,Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund,Town Attorney Dan Kramer Absent:White OPEN MEETING Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.There were approximately 35 people in attendance.This matter was initially scheduled for hearing and vote at the February 18,2020 Planning Commission meeting.However,delays in finalizing the complex plans and reviews for this project meant that a decision on that date had to be delayed.The special meeting was scheduled at the request of the developer and staff, so that the project could go on schedule before the Town Board of Trustees on March 24,2020. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Smith/Murphree)to approve the agenda and the motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT None ACTION ITEMS 1.ELKHORN LODGE PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (Continued by the Planning Commission from their February 18,2020 meeting.) Planner Woeber thoroughly reviewed the staff report for the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Subdivision Plat in connection with the redevelopment of the Elkhorn Lodge property.Thirteen (13)mixed-use lots are proposed.The Applicant’s submiffal provides an in-depth description of the project and the proposed uses on each lot. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat with the added condition that approval of the PUD Rezoning shall also constitute an approval of the Preliminary PUD Development Plan,as attached to the staff report. Commissioners asked for a written copy of the added condition and a copy of the written comments from public works. David Hook,Town Engineer,explained Public Works’role in the review process and explained that not all approvals have been received from FEMA and other agencies and how this would affect the project.There are pre and post- construction conditions from FEMA.Design in accordance with FEMA regulations is needed to proceed with this project.Without it,a new plan would have to be submitted. Applicant Presentation: Justin Mabey,future owner of the property,introduced himself and his company, East Avenue Development.He presented examples of some of the work the company does,mostly around national park areas.He explained the desire for building up the west end of Elkhorn Avenue and the goals for redevelopment, which includes preserving tour of the historic buildings.The Site Plan was presented and explained.It was stated that they hope to keep the look and feel of the current Lodge,which minimizes the impact on the environment as the 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 25,2020 Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall 2018 Downtown Plan recommends.The plan calls for 36%lot coverage instead of the allowed 65%. Public Comment:(Comments summarized) Bill Keefer,550W Elkhorn,asked four questions:what building was 38 feet tall, would they be upgrading the electrical service to the privately-owned condos, would it be a high end Hilton or Marriott hotel chain,what is the status on the lot to the south not owned by Elkhorn Lodge. Dave Shirk,301 Far View Drive,likes the proposal and requests for the Planning Commission to consider:be compatible with existing uses.,perimeter landscaping in parking lots,lighting issues,horses only (no donkeys),have a manure mitigation plan,and a sidewalk for pedestrian safety on the access road. Dan Hurlihey,321 Big Horn Drive:landscaping is important due to the large amount of parking,lighting mitigation,and he is happy the horse rides are continuing. Laura Drotar,550 W Elkhorn:keep history alive,concerns with a possible economy hotel chain rather than a high-end one,restaurant will block her western view of the mountains and river and add unwanted noise and garbage smell. Public questions were answered as follows: •The 38 foot building is the main Lodge •The electric would be upgraded for the entire project,including the privately owned condominiums •Justin is in agreement with the high-end hotel market,perhaps something similar to Residence Inn. •The property to the south has new owners. •Minimum required lighting is planned. •There will be improved pedestrian access due to sidewalk requirements which will extend to Mrs.Walsh’s garden. •Parking lot landscaping is not possible due to the flood plain and would require a higher wall. •There can be flexibility on the shape and the placing of the restaurant, however the condo owner preferred the original plan after discussing options. •Willing to have discussions and work with any neighbors having positive or negative concerns. Commissioner questions answered by the Owner and Engineers (summarized and not in chronological order) •Desired 12-24 month build-out of the entire project •A staff of 20-25 in the central hotel,half of that in the smaller Lodge. •There are 30 extra parking spaces,which should easily cover employees. •Cabins on the south hill of the property could be employee housing,also working with other developers in town to lease rooms. o The housing need will be filled but not necessarily on-site. •There will likely be an on-site manager. o Proposed guest beds would double the current capacity. •Firetrucks can fit and turn around in the paved area of the south cabins. •Any changes to this submittal would have to be reheard through the same process. •Moving barn farther out had a significant positive impact on the floodway. •Not opposed to a public park in the open space by the river •If the Lodge can’t be saved,they do reserve the right to tear it down •There are no current plans for the “triangle”area at the east end of the lot •Roof colors were discussed at the neighborhoord meeting:Green or Tan •The traffic report did not expose any problems. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 25,2020 Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall •The Lodge and Stables are not changing elevation. •The no-rise requirements will stay in place post-construction. •Noise standards will be met. •Third story façade requirement have been met. •Catch basins in the parking lot will redirect water drainage to the river. •Access easements to Elm Road are in place for the back 40 acres. •Frank Roberts,Van Horn engineering,explained the floodplain engineering review. •Lonnie Sheldon,Van Horn engineering,noted that open space requirement in A-Accommodations zone district is zero.Impervious coverage has different requirements. •Joe Coop,Van Horn Engineering discussed the drainage,bridges,and alternate emergency exits on the property. Commission Discussion/Comments:. Theis:should be aware of noise that the Lodge amplifies,restrictions on operating hours for restaurants,and problems with maintenance on the south properties during the winter months.This submittal is an appropriate historic use plan and does not abuse what is allowed in a PUD. Converse:does not like being in a position of approving the PUD prior to flood control work being final,concerns with meeting open space criteria related to a PUD,would prefer the Public Works comments be conditions of approval. David Hook stated that Public Works is comfortable with where the development stands. Considerable discussion was had by all on conditions of approval relating to certificate of occupancy,floodwater exit,employee housing,additional units, landscaping,lighting and noise plans. Per Director Hunt,many of these details could be present on the Final PUD plan. It was moved and seconded (LeavittfMurphree)to forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Town Board for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary PUD according to the findings of fact recommended by staff with the following conditions: 1)Approval of the PUD Rezoning shall also constitute an approval of the Preliminary PUD and Development Plan,as attached to the staff report, with no increase in the number of accommodations and resident units •without a PUD review. 2)The developer will bear the risk of constructing improvements in the floodplain prior to obtaining the post-construction LOMR.Should FEMA not approve the LOMR application as submitted,the developer will be responsible for any redesign and reconstruction to achieve the no-rise condition No certificate of occupancy for the Event Center Barn or the Elkhorn Lodge addition will be issued until the developer obtains LOMR approval from FEMA. 3)The developer will add additional parking lot perimeter landscaping. 4)An employee housing plan for permanent and seasonal employees shall be submitted,per Chapter 9.1,items A and B,and the housing needs assessment of 2016. The motion passed 6-0. 2.ELKHORN LODGE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT (Continued by the Planning Commission from their February 18,2020 meeting.) It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Smith)to forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Town Board for the Elkhorn Lodge Preliminary Subdivision Plat according to the findings of fact recommended by staff. The motion passed 6-0. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 25,2020 Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall ADJOURN There bel o r-Iusiness Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 1:26 p.m. Matt dpjjstock,(Adting Chair Karin Swanlund,Recording sdcretary 4