Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Technical Review Committee 2020-08-24 ck Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 24, 2020 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Technical Review Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 24 day of August 2020. Committee: Chair Town Administrator Travis Machalek, Public Works Director Greg Muhonen, Fairgrounds and Events Director Rob Hinkle, Member Mike Wisneski, Member John Gagnon Attending: Chair Machalek, Director Muhonen, Director Hinkle, Member Wisneski, Member Gagnon, Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Engineer Jennifer Waters, Engineer David Hook, Parking and Transit Manager Vanessa Solesbee, Utilities Coordinator Steve Rusch, Fire Marshal Kevin Sullivan, Chief Building Official Gary Rusu Absent: Architectural Review Committee Members Jack Cook, Curtis Martin Chair Machalek called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Wisneski/Muhonen) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 5-0. Director Hunt instructed viewers to call the Recording Secretary to be added to the attendee list for public comment. AGENDA ITEM BEING DISCUSSED Director Hunt presented the Carriage House project within the context of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. He mentioned that the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process generally parallels the general development review process. At this time, the Carriage House project has been separated from the rest of Stanley Lot 1, namely the proposed Film Center. Director Hunt then reviewed the staff report and provided staff recommendations for the Carriage House project. Director Hunt clarified that this meeting is to determine a preliminary package and that the TRC will convene to review the final package, as per the Master Plan. Director Hunt described the two project elements being reviewed by the TRC at this meeting: the proposed restaurant use (and facilities support use) of the Carriage House and the project team's architectural elevations and renderings. Director Hunt confirmed for the TRC that the proposed restaurant use conforms to the Master Plan. Staff recommended approval of the project, with conditions to be determined by the TRC. Director Hunt introduced several recommendations from Public Works related to parking, traffic circulation and pedestrian connectivity. Finally, he concluded his presentation by discussing impacts on surrounding residential areas. Attorney Kramer asked David Hook, Engineering Manager, to provide more information on public improvements for the record. He answered that sidewalk connectivity is the primary issue that Public Works is concerned with at this point. Director Muhonen asked the TRC to consider with specificity which public improvements shall be tied to the project for approval conditions. Utilities Coordinator Steve Rusch noted that, at the July 2019 pre-application meeting, the Utilities Department requested official verification that all buildings on Lot 1 comply with backflow prevention and water metering. Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 2 2 Applicant Presentation: Jack Mousseau, MOA Architecture, walked through a description of the project, the current status and project timeline, the architectural renderings, and landscape modifications that have been made to help mitigate viewshed concerns. In addition to landscaping, berms, approximately six feet in height, are strategically placed at the parking lot boundary to provide a buffer element for neighbors to the east. The project team has placed emphasis on preserving the historical character of the building and specifically asked the TRC for input on the inclusion of dentils on the exterior molding. Mr. Mousseau presented an aerial view of the Stanley complex, highlighting the pedestrian connectivity and the Steamer Drive sidewalk requested by Public Works, suggesting that these public improvements should not be tied to the Carriage House development agreement as they are 420 feet away from the project. Discussion: Concerning the inclusion of dentils in the Carriage House design, TRC Members Gagnon and Wisneski suggested keeping the building's original character and simplicity. The pedestrian connectivity issue raised interest and discussion between Mr. Mousseau, Manager Hook, Mr. Wisneski, Mr. Cullen, and Mr. Olive, the attorney for the Stanley Hotel. Mr. Wisneski expressed concern about the sidewalk connecting to the private lots of Stanley Village. Public Works made the case that the Stanley should continue to enhance campus connectivity to other existing access points as part of this development project. The applicants stated that the sidewalk requested by Public Works is encumbered by a separate development agreement (Stanley Lot 4), and further that these off-premises public improvements are not reasonably related to the project. Mr. Olive cited Supreme Court case law backing their position. Mr. Olive also stated that it would be likewise unconstitutional for the Town to include conditions related to bringing backflow prevention and water metering into full compliance campus-wide within the Carriage House project's scope. Mr. Cullen stated that 16 out of the 19 permitted backflow preventers have been located. Director Muhonen asked Director Hunt for clarification of whether the TRC is reviewing a development plan for Lot 1 of the Stanley Historic District. Are not all the buildings in the discussion part of Lot 1? Director Hunt specified that Lot 1 is the Carriage House context, and the TRC is evaluating a development area within Lot 1. Director Muhonen asked if it is common practice in land development that an entire lot be required to be upgraded to comply with current standards? Director Hunt mentioned that it is good industry practice, though some ambiguity in the Master Plan makes it challenging to use as the guiding document. Mr. Cullen responded that there is case law that proves that not all buildings should be required to be brought up to code, based on a one-building permit. Mr. Olive provided some context of the 1994 proceedings that created the Stanley Historic Overlay District and emphasized that the Master Plan guidelines were meant to prevail over other local codes. He specified that the Master Plan was a negotiated agreement and that this is a vested property right. Director Muhonen complimented the applicants, stating that he is impressed with the vision of the project, the high-quality design, and the actions taken to address the issues raised by the neighbors. He asked for and received additional clarification about pedestrian connectivity (which was a key goal of the Master Plan). He noted that ADA connectivity is still an issue for Public Works. Public Comment: Ed Hayek/Town Citizen expressed concerns with the project's traffic impact, stating that without further mitigation, the parking lot design is devastating to specific residential properties on Findley Court. He stated that headlights from approaching traffic will shine Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 3 3 directly into his living room and that the berms and landscaping, as designed, would not completely mitigate the impacts. He requested that the parking lot access be limited to patrons of the restaurant and future Film Center (instead of diverting traffic to the perimeter in the future) and that additional berms, landscaping, and hardscaping be installed where necessary. Jim and Ruth Kelley/Town Citizens, echoed Mr. Hayek's concerns about screening and the impact on their quality of life and privacy. They made reference to the photos and materials that they submitted as public comment. Mr. Kelley asked for the project team to address parking lot lighting, rooftop seating, and maximum occupancy for the restaurant. Cherie Schuch/Town Citizen, noted that John Cullen has worked with them and allowed them to provide input about the landscaping. She opposes a fence based on personal preference and wildlife concerns. Marlene Hayek/Town Citizen, made a further appeal that her property is highly affected by the project and that a fence should be provided to adjacent property owners if they desire it. Ruth Kelley/Town Citizen, commented that if some neighboring residents do not want a fence, it could taper down before their property. She stated that someone needs to reach out to her neighbor whose primary residence is in New York. The goal should be to try to make everyone happy. Applicant Response: Mr. Mousseau clarified that there would be no rooftop occupancy on the Carriage House. Ms. Kasia Bukowski explained that the maximum interior occupancy is 139, which will be reviewed by the Fire Department at the building permit stage. Mr. Mousseau and Ms. Kasia Bukowski addressed Mr. Kelley's question related to lighting, describing the low bollards that will be installed in the parking lot and on the Carriage House exterior to reduce glare to adjacent properties. Ms. Bukowski provided additional information about the photometric study that has been conducted and the lighting requirements in the building code (e.g., points of egress needing overhead lighting) and development code (Dark sky compliance). Ms. Bukowski also explained that the building is a Type 5 B building, which reflects the original construction of the roof minus a section required to be constructed out of metal studs. Mr. Mousseau reiterated ongoing work being done to screen the project from adjacent properties. A dense landscape buffer will be installed on the east side of the parking lot, which is well beyond what is required. The project team will continue to consider fencing where appropriate. Mr. Mousseau mentioned that the Colorado Historical Foundation is adamantly against a fence and suggests that the project team would like to accomplish as much as possible by installing trees to help sightlines. Mr. Cullen is opposed to a fence at the property boundary. TRC Discussion Director Muhonen asked for clarification of the traffic circulating pattern, citing concerns from residents on Overlook Lane about excessive through traffic. Mr. Mousseau described predominating traffic flow from south to north, with patrons exiting the parking lot on the north side. Director Muhonen and Mr. Mousseau agreed that the design does not incentivize cut thru traffic. Director Hunt mentioned that the pre-application materials were routed to CDOT, but there was no response. Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 4 4 Director Muhonen asked for clarification on the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), namely whether the traffic impacts satisfy the Town's operational criteria as published in the Development Code and the Larimer County Urban Streets Standards. He called out Table 1 and asked for clarification from the TIS analyst, Cassie Slade, of whether the project conforms to operational standards for delay. Ms. Slade stated that the project does conform to standards for level of service and delay because queues are relatively low and based on the assumptions for signal timing. Subsequent discussion related to optimization of signal timing was held, resulting in Director Muhonen's conclusion that the project is not currently compliant with the level of service requirements, but that adjustments can be discussed and implemented with Ms. Slade Mr. Fred Lantz. Further discussion is necessary. Mr. Gagnon asked what the materials are for the cladding on the air intake units. Mr. Mousseau replied that the cladding is finished concrete with a pre-cast cap. Ms. Bukowski specified that they are primarily underground, so only the seat ledge for waiting restaurant patrons will be visible. Mr. Gagnon asked whether there are other exposed concrete areas like that around the Stanley campus. Mr. Mousseau replied that there are similar areas with concrete elsewhere. Mr. Gagnon asked the project team to confirm that future signage will go through appropriate review from the Town and TRC, based on the Municipal Code and the Master Plan. Mr. Gagnon asked whether the screening for the grease hood on the renderings is illustrative or final. Mr. Mousseau responded that this design is in the permit package and is slated for approval. Mr. Gagnon asked whether the sidewalk connectivity to the rest of the campus will be completed with the Film Center's development. Mr. Mousseau said that this was the original intent but that he will work with Mr. Cullen to resolve an interim solution. Chair Machalek and Director Hunt asked Kevin Sullivan, Fire Marshal, to discuss this application's review status, to which he responded that the review was most likely done by the previous Fire Marshal. Director Hinkle asked for clarification about the doors on the south side. Mr. Mousseau stated that these are not overhead garage doors but swing doors. Chair Machalek asked Attorney Kramer to provide input about the appropriateness of adding conditions based on pedestrian and traffic circulation. Attorney Kramer specified that any conditions must be reasonably related to the Carriage House itself. However, if any off-site issues in the Stanley Historic District directly impact the Carriage House, the TRC may raise these concerns, potentially through conditions. Chair Machalek asked Attorney Kramer for his position on placing conditions based on the verification of backflow and metering requirements. Attorney Kramer stated that the Municipal Code requires that when there is development on a lot, the lot should undergo that kind of review or verification. In his view, it does not constitute a Taking. Attorney Kramer stated that the TRC might add requirements if there are water issues rationally related to the Carriage House or substantially unresolved on Lot 1. Fire Marshal Sullivan asked about the status of the review of fire protection water supply and fire hydrants by the fire department, as he had not gotten the opportunity to review the design. Mr. Cullen and Mr. Mousseau stated that extensive review has been done as part of the East Parking Lot building permit. Manager Hook clarified that there is an option for egress through existing parking lots in the middle of the campus from the north side of the Carriage House parking lot. Manager Hook also commented that the landscaping plan was approved in 2019 as part of the East Parking Lot review. Still, as the project team began construction, there have been significant changes to the grading, especially on the lot's east side. He mentioned that Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 5 5 Public Works recently received a revised a grading plan, but it does not seem to match as-built grading and berming. Manager Hook wants to ensure that landscaping does not go in before Public Works has approved the grading. Chair Machalek brought up noise concerns and asked the applicant to speak to hours of operation or any noise associated with the patio use. Mr. Cullen mentioned that they intentionally placed the patio on the south side, away from residents and nothing on the roof. Hours of operation will comply with Town code and breakfast will be available only on weekends, mostly indoors. Chair Machalek asked Utilities Coordinator Rusch to address backflow and metering compliance. Mr. Rusch stated that the Town departments agreed that this is the appropriate time to verify compliance across all of Lot 1 since it is the last significant development on the campus. He specified that this information was given to the applicant 13 months ago, and the applicant has done some work concerning backflow devices. Attorney Kramer noted that this review of the preliminary package is the first of a two- stage TRC process. The Master Plan calls for a final package that could involve more detail. Adding details to the final package would give staff more time to work on the conditions instead of on the fly. Attorney Kramer did not advise waiting until the building permit stage but to include this as part of the public process with the TRC. Attorney Kramer brought up that a similar approach could work for the outstanding pedestrian connectivity issues. Director Hunt displayed an email communication related to the status of backflow and water metering compliance (Page 201 on the packet). Mr. Cullen argued that the TRC should not be the arbiter of water safety issues on buildings that are unrelated to the application today. He stated that if the hotel is out of compliance, he will work with the Water Division to rectify the situation, with Attorney Kramer's involvement if required. Attorney Kramer clarified that his role is to advise the TRC and mentioned that the water compliance need not be settled today, as such conditions do not seem fully fleshed out. Chair Machalek asked for clarification that these water, traffic, and pedestrian connectivity issues can be revisited in the final package process or wherever appropriate. Attorney Kramer said that the TRC could include a condition asking for more detail on the plans that have already been submitted and their expectations for final package approval. Mr. Cullen requested that he make the building watertight before winter, stating that this process should not hold up an enclosure permit to ensure the structural integrity of his property. After some discussion, Director Hunt clarified that under review today is the building's use as a restaurant and the architectural finalization of the building and that an enclosure permit can be separated from the TRC process and added to the core and shell building permit. Director Hunt stressed that approval of an enclosure permit does not grant permission for the use of the building or for the final exterior finishes, which are reviewed by the TRC. Chief Building Official Rusu affirmed that work could proceed on the core and shell permit and enclosure permit, notwithstanding the exterior finishes' final approval. Director Muhonen commented that the applicant and the TRC seem to be in general conceptual agreement about traffic, parking, pedestrian circulation, and water compliance, but that, crucially, the span and scope needs to be nailed down now so that there is not ambiguity at any stage of the process. Director Muhonen suggested a potential third condition: that the staff and applicant agree that they will submit project documents that show the completed pedestrian routing plan, edits to the Traffic Impact Study to demonstrate compliance with the Town's level of service operational requirements and clarification of the specific public improvements required of the applicant. Attorney Kramer responded that the TRC should not offload Technical Review Committee – August 24, 2020 – Page 6 6 responsibilities on staff. Attorney Kramer stated that the specific requirement of final plans and compliance for the final TRC package goes too far. Instead, the conditions should outline what elements the TRC expects to see integrated and included within the final package. Chair Machalek was concerned that the TRC would need something specific on these elements to react to in the final package. There were no further questions or comments. Chair Machalek invited a motion including conditions. Attorney Kramer interjected to react to Community Development staff recommendations for the conditions, which included a provision for minor modifications, stating that it should be clarified to state "as determined by the Community Development Director." Director Hunt accepted this change. Attorney Kramer noted that any conditions on a TRC approval must be provided in writing as per the Master Plan. The TRC committee requested that Attorney Kramer put the conditions into writing at this meeting for a vote. CBO Rusu determined that the enclosure permit could be added to the existing core and shell permit on different points. This would be done administratively between the applicant and the Community Development Department, as soon as possible. Additionally, the East Parking Lot's work may continue provided that the applicant coordinates with Manager Hook on the grading permit. A 10-minute recess was taken to allow Attorney Kramer to compose a motion in the form of a resolution. The meeting resumed at 6:45 p.m. It was moved and seconded (Gagnon/Muhonen) to approve the resolution presented on screen by Attorney Kramer (attached). The motion passed 4-0, with Member Wisneski unavailable. There being no further business, Chair Machalek adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Travis Machalek, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary