Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Technical Review Committee 2012-12-12 PavilionRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion December 12, 2012 – 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Committee: Chair Frank Lancaster, Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Public Works Director Scott Zurn, Practicing Engineer Don Taranto, Practicing Architect Ginny McFarland Also Attending: Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Town Attorney Greg White, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Chair Lancaster opened the meeting at 1:40 p.m. and introduced the committee. There were 7 people in attendance. Chair Lancaster explained the committee and review processes. The initial meeting of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) was held December 6, 2012 and was continued to give the committee additional time to review the proposed project. He gave the people in attendance the opportunity to comment, if they had not previously commented. There was no additional public comment. The TRC reviewed the minutes from the previous TRC meeting, and they were approved by acclamation. Staff Report Planner Shirk stated the focus of the committee meeting was analysis of the project, based on the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, Part III, Planning Guidelines and Development Standards (pages 12-32). The major issues addressed at the previous TRC meeting included the proposed parking lot, potential for noise, hours of operations, lighting, traffic, fencing, and landscape buffer. He stated the TRC should include the impact on the surrounding neighborhood in their evaluation. For example, by removing the parking lot, some of the issues regarding traffic, noise, lighting, could be mitigated. Staff recommended removing the parking lot, although the Master Plan does not guarantee that area is to remain open space. The Master Plan is a guideline. Staff recommended taking the Master Planning Guidelines and Development Standards one by one to provide for a thorough review, with the option to further discuss some of the issues at a later time in the meeting. 1. Is the proposed development located in a manner that ensures the Stanley Hotel remains the central focus for the project, and maintains its dominance as the largest, most prominent structure on the site? Director Chilcott stated this required reviewing the historic design principals. The proposed project should be subordinate from the Stanley Hotel complex, meaning it is out of view of the main complex. She stated this project complies with being subordinate. Town Attorney White explained the Stanley Hotel complex consists of the Hotel, the Manor House, and the Theatre. There is nothing quantitative involved. The location and whether or not it detracts from the overall Stanley Hotel complex should be considered. It was determined the proposed project would comply with being subordinate to the Stanley Hotel complex. 2. Are buildings sited in a manner that preserves existing land forms? Director Chilcott stated the overall proposed project was designed to fit within the landscape. There could be some minor modifications to minimize impact on the existing rock outcroppings. Chair Lancaster, Member McFarland, and Director Zurn agreed the parking lot would have a major impact on landforms, drainage, elevation, etc. It was determined the site would comply with preserving existing land forms, with the exception of the parking lot, which would have a major impact. 3. Is new construction compatible with existing adjacent residential buildings and uses? Director Chilcott stated some of the underlying tension that comes from different zone districts being next to each other (Accommodations and Residential) could be alleviated by the removal of the proposed parking area. Other comments included, but were not limited to: from an architectural standpoint, the project was nicely designed; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion December 12, 2012 the intention and use of the project would not be negatively impacted if the project were scaled back a bit; suggestions made by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) regarding the amount of replication and mimicry of the historic style should be taken into consideration due to the proximity of the project to the adjacent residential neighborhood; additional artist renderings would be helpful to show how it fits in among the landscaping. Compatibility of the proposed use to the adjacent properties was also discussed, e.g. noise and lighting. Comments included, but were not limited to: concerns about events going late into the evening (midnight); noise from receptions, especially during the warm summer months; if noise was restricted, how it would be enforced; where on the property would the noise level be measured; noise does not include just guests and music, but also frequency, timing, bass levels, car doors, etc. It was determined this area would need further review. There was general consensus to request additional drawings that include photo simulations, and a noise study, and to establish hours of operation. 4. Does grading comply with guidelines? Director Chilcott stated the grading for the parking area almost abuts the property line, and includes approximately ten feet of fill and a retaining wall. The sharp transition in that area does not maintain a natural grade with the property line, and she would consider it noncompliant. She would not support a modification to the guidelines to allow the proposed grading. All members agreed. Member McFarland stated the buildings fit nicely within the proposed location and are compliant with the grading guidelines. It was determined the grading of the proposed parking area did not comply with the guidelines. 5. Does the drainage comply with the guidelines? Director Chilcott stated the drainage plan calls for rip rap, which the guidelines prohibit. Redesign or removal of the parking area would allow for a change in how the drainage would be handled. There was discussion about the location of the detention pond. Director Zurn would prefer the proposed detention pond be located further west at a lower elevation to avoid potential drainage issues with the adjacent properties. He was concerned about the location and maintenance of the pond if the parking area was allowed. He stated if the parking area was not allowed, this would not be an issue. Chair Frank stated if rip rap was required, he would prefer a natural stone or other aesthetically pleasing material be used rather than concrete. It was determine the drainage would need some redesigning to have less impact on the adjacent properties. Note: Member Taranto joined the meeting. Chair Lancaster gave him a brief overview of what had taken place thus far, noting he would be allowed to comment on previously discussed content. 6. Are the buildings sited in a manner that preserves significant vegetation? Director Chilcott stated the building site complied with the guidelines for preserving significant vegetation. A few trees would be removed, but that was to be expected with new construction. Chair Lancaster stated retaining all of the vegetation could present defensible space issues. It was determined the proposed project complied with the guidelines concerning preserving significant vegetation. 7. Are the buildings sited in a manner that preserves significant views? Director Chilcott stated her interpretation of this guideline pertained to the view into and from the main hotel complex, and she believed the proposed project complied with this guideline. All members agreed. Attorney White stated the Master Plan does not mention specifics like rock outcroppings, only about the view shed to the Stanley Hotel complex. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion December 12, 2012 It was determined the proposed project complied with the guidelines concerning preserving significant views. 8. Does site design ensure that natural drainage patterns are not changed? This question was addressed in Question 5. See determination in Question 5. 9. Are the buildings and parking clustered? Director Chilcott stated the proposed building was very close to other buildings, and she would considered it clustered. Member Taranto and Chair Lancaster agreed. Director Chilcott would not consider the proposed parking area as clustered. Other parking on the property is to the north and west of the complex. Member Taranto suggested looking at other options for parking that would be in closer proximity to the existing parking areas. Member McFarland agreed. Director Chilcott stated a pedestrian circulation plan should be evaluated because of the close tie-in with guest parking. It was determined the buildings were compliant with the guidelines, and the parking needed to be clustered closer to existing parking areas on the property. 10. Does the proposed project respect existing landforms? Director Chilcott stated some fine-tuning could be done, particularly in the area of the restrooms behind the amphitheatre. Other comments included, but are not limited to: good fit into the area, and the winter ice rink would have historical value; the building is attractive; mention of neighbor concern about the wildlife corridor; concern about acoustics with surrounding rocks acting as a sounding board. There was discussion about requesting a noise study and mitigation plan, if necessary. Member Taranto stated a study could give guidance, predict noise levels, and provide information as to what types of events would be acceptable for that location. Chair Lancaster was concerned that a noise study for this project could be very difficult to model and possibly very expensive. He supported it, but not strongly. It was determined to request a noise study and mitigation plan, if necessary. 11. Does the alignment of roads and driveways follow the contours of the site? There are no new roads or driveways proposed. Not applicable to this project. 12. Does the site design consider solar access? Director Chilcott stated she did not consider this as high criteria for approval of this specific project. The committee concurred. It was determined this section complied with the Master Plan. 13. Does site design consider the placement and screening of service areas and auxiliary structures? Director Chilcott stated the auxiliary areas are well-sited. The committee concurred. It was determined this section complied with the Master Plan. 14. Does the site design around intersections provide a clear view of intersecting streets? No new streets are proposed. Not applicable to this project. 15. Does the site design facilitate pedestrian circulation? Director Chilcott stated there is more work to be completed on this section. There are some existing pedestrian crossing signs, but a pedestrian path from the main hotel to this area would be recommended. It was determined to request a pedestrian circulation plan from the main hotel to the proposed pavilion be included on the final plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion December 12, 2012 16. Does the plan comply with building setbacks? Director Chilcott stated the plan complies with the building setbacks (25 feet from the property line) It was determined this section complied with the Master Plan. 17. Director Zurn expressed concern about the south entrance and turn-around in the neighborhood. He stated the applicant should propose some level of security, or provide a turnaround on the Stanley property instead of allowing vehicles to turn around in the Mountain Creek Townhome driveway. Director Chilcott stated this is an issue with those property owners, and the addition of this facility would increase traffic to this area. It was determined the applicant should provide a plan to allow either a secure area for the Mountain Creek Townhome property owners, or to provide a physical improvement to allow vehicles to turn around on Stanley Hotel property. 18. Is the new building designed to imitate historic styles of the Stanley Hotel? Does the building design minimize the apparent scale of the building? Are the rooflines of the buildings designed to be compatible with surrounding building forms? Are roof surface materials selected to help with their surroundings? Are skylights and solar panels designed in an unobtrusive manner? Does the building comply with maximum building height? Are façade lengths varied? Is the building constructed on natural wall materials? Do exterior wall colors harmonize with the site and surrounding buildings? Is exterior lighting chosen with care so that glare is not created and light is not cast on neighboring properties? Director Chilcott stated the last question/guideline concerning exterior lighting could be answered with a photometric plan, submitted with the final plan. It was suggested a color rendering be submitted. Skylights and solar panels are not a big issue. Roof tiles would be red, and compatible with the main hotel. Member McFarland recommended discussing the comments from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). She encouraged the designer to read the comments from the ARC, do additional research, and follow the advice and insights of the ARC. She stated a preference to see some of the historic style, as outlined in the guidelines, brought into the design to respect the historic character. She stated the intent is clear, and she is confident the designer could elevate the project to the proper historic design. Member McFarland would like to know some background for the ARC decisions. Any conversations with the ARC would be valuable not only to the Stanley Hotel, but to the entire community, and help with understanding the value of the Stanley Hotel to Estes Park. Chair Lancaster stated his interpretation of the intent was so surrounding properties in Estes Park would not have buildings that mimicked the Stanley Hotel complex. He thinks structures on the Stanley property should have the same architectural characteristics. Director Chilcott stated the Master Plan design guidelines were specific to Lot 1. Member McFarland stated it was important to keep authenticity and integrity of the Stanley, and the aspects of the project as they relate to the Master Plan are very subjective. She did not think it appropriate for the TRC to decide on the architectural features of the project. Chair Lancaster stated the proposed design would fit with the character of the campus, and was not totally out of line. It was determined to encourage the designer review the ARC comments, study preservation architecture, and see what they can creatively incorporate into the project. Director Chilcott stated the building height was over 30 feet by the Master Plan guidelines, but not by the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The EVDC measures height by natural grade, while the Master Plan’s formula is measured from the finished floor and does not take grade into consideration. She would be interested in the height of the cupola and flag pole, and the possible impact it would have on views from the hotel. Attorney White stated height measurements have always been an evolving issue, and height from natural grade was not part of the EVDC at the time the Master Plan was adopted. The Master Plan height guidelines will prevail in this case. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion December 12, 2012 It was determined to request additional information regarding the views of the proposed pavilion from the hotel, Wonderview Avenue, and MacGregor Avenue. This should include a rendering from all angles of how the project will look within the site, including a night view to show lighting. It was determine the committee would make the decision about this project being subordinate to the Stanley Hotel complex after these drawings are reviewed. 19. Does the Landscape Plan comply with the guidelines? Does the plan provide for a proper landscaping transition to adjacent properties and natural areas provided without strong demarcation? Director Chilcott stated the landscape does not comply with the Master Plan, and she was not comfortable allowing modification or waivers to the Plan. Comments included, but are not limited to: without the proposed parking area, the buildings have a natural buffer on the south side; the hardscape did not fit the Master Plan; a very attractive building placed behind a security wall would take away from the beauty of the site; the fence is out of line for the site. There was discussion about the proposed parking area, with Mr. Taranto stating the issue with the landscaping was a domino effect from the parking area. If the parking area does not dominate the site, the landscaping would naturally fall into place. It was determined the landscape plan, as proposed, did not comply with the landscape guidelines. 20. Does the design of fences and walls harmonize with the site and the buildings? Director Chilcott clarified the guideline, which stated that walls and fencing can only be used to provide privacy or service area screening, and fencing may be allowed around private areas provided it is attached to the building. There was discussion concerning the proposed fencing of the site perimeter, with Director Chilcott stating the fence could also affect the wildlife. If the proposed parking area remained a natural area, it would continue to attract wildlife and create a buffer for neighbors. Additional comments included: good landscaping can mitigate a lot of sound; there would be a significant difference if the proposed parking area was removed; the parking area was a major reason for the fence; recommendation to leave the parking area as a natural buffer, enhanced by natural, dense vegetation. It was determined the fence did not comply with the Master Plan, and should be removed, except for the portion attached to the building by the service area. 21. Are retaining walls compatible in form, scale, and materials with the architectural details and materials of nearby buildings? Are site furnishings and paving materials selected to complement the architectural style of the building and the paving and site furnishings of surrounding properties? Does the plan consider site conditions, drought tolerance, and hardiness when selecting plant species? Is native vegetation used? Is the vegetation protected and retained? There was discussion about the proposed landscaping. Most comments were related to the proposed parking area, and the concerns that would be relieved if the parking area were removed, e.g. retaining wall, paving materials, fence, etc. It was determined a more specific landscape plan should be submitted with the final package. Director Chilcott stated when reviewing any development on Parcel 1, there needs to be recognition to the fact that economic vitality of the hotel complex is a core issue in the preservation of the historical structures, and that the historic district has been designed to protect that. It is her understanding that the proposed project is part of the economic vitality of the Stanley Hotel. Weddings have become a large economic engine for the Estes Park area, and the Stanley Hotel would like to improve their ability to host more private ceremonies and receptions. The area proposed for the pavilion is not designated open space on the Master Plan, and there needs to be a balance between what is allowed by the property owner and the concerns and property rights of the adjacent property owners. Attorney White clarified the Master Plan designated specific areas as open space, which will not be developed. There are areas around the hotel and on the hotel property that are not required to remain as open RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion December 12, 2012 space. If the master planners desired the area at issue to remain as open space, it would be designated as open space in the Master Plan. He briefly reviewed how and why the three (former) property owners created the Master Plan, and what their intentions were. It was his opinion the Master Plan should be looked at as a whole and question where or not any of the proposed development area is a violation of the overall effect of the Master Plan. His answer would be “no”. He stated the area in question was not discussed during the creation of the Master Plan. The Master Plan restricted uses and development on portions of the property so the hotel complex would remain the focal point of the historic district. Attorney White quoted from the Master Plan; “The Technical Review Committee has the right, by majority vote, to grant variance or modify the guidelines based on the applicant’s ability to demonstrate innovative approaches, design solutions, or future market conditions, which the committee feels is advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan and the guidelines.” There was brief discussion concerning updating the Master Plan. Attorney White stated that could be done, and has been discussed by the Town Board. Only Lot 1 and Lot 4 have the potential for development, as all others are already developed. 22. Is the historic façade view shed protected? Staff reviewed the View Corridor Maps, and found the corridors would not be impacted. 23. Is the proposed development in keeping with the desire to create a Stanley Hotel Campus, land uses, pedestrian circulation and outdoor space that contributes to a well-integrated built environment setting that encourages activity throughout Parcel 1? Director Chilcott stated more could be done with the pedestrian circulation, and recommended the parking area be removed. Generally, she found the proposed buildings did contribute to a well-integrated built environment. The Committee concurred. 24. In the interest of invoking new activity within Parcel 1, are impacts to adjacent developments ignored? Director Chilcott stated the TRC has addressed some of the impacts (parking, lighting, noise, hours of operation, change in grade, etc.) Director Chilcott stated the proposed land use is allowed, the project does not exceed maximum allowable development or floorplate (aka floor area ratio). Chair Lancaster called a 30 minute recess at 3:20 p.m. to allow staff to organize the findings. The meeting reconvened at 3:55 p.m. Planner Shirk read the following findings, which were agreed to by the TRC: 1. Parking Lot A. Provide parking analysis and operations plan. B. Substantially remove the parking lot from the front of the building to remove guest spaces. Porte-cochere, drop-off aisle, ADA spaces excepted. C. Provide necessary parking for use of the building on existing lots on Lot 1 and/or propose additional parking in a different location, including on-street parking on private access road. 2. Drainage A. Design alternate detention facilities that minimize impact to adjacent properties. Consider alternative drainage solutions, as necessary. 3. Noise A. Establish hours of operation and submit noise study; and, if necessary, a mitigation plan. 4. Lighting A. Submit photometric plan. Describe night-time lighting of the building in context of Lot 1 and describe impact on adjoining properties. 5. Pedestrian Circulation A. Submit a pedestrian circulation plan from hotel to the proposed building. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion December 12, 2012 6. Traffic Flow A. Provide signage and physical improvements (e.g. turnarounds) to mitigate traffic turning around in Mountain Creek Townhome Condominiums. 7. Building Design/Architecture A. Review Architectural Review Committee comments, and redesign as appropriate. 8. Site Context A. Submit photo simulation to address scale of building as sited on the property, including off-street views. 9. Landscaping/Fencing A. Provide revised landscaping plan demonstrating additional neighborhood buffering. Remove fence from east and south of the building. Planner Shirk reviewed the requirements of the Technical Review Committee. Attorney White stated approval of the preliminary package could be by consensus. Following approval of the preliminary plan, a final plan would be submitted for final approval to the Technical Review Committee. There was consensus among the committee to agree with the findings as written. Chair Lancaster allowed additional public comment concerning the findings. Al Aspinall/Project Director stated it was premature for the applicant to comment. Chris Christian, resident of Mountain Creek Townhomes, appreciated the opportunity to provide input. He believed the findings may bring a viable solution. Roger Thorp/Designer stated he would like to have the opportunity to meet with Community Development staff and/or members of the TRC as questions arise in order to proceed as quickly as possible. It was welcomed by the TRC to be in contact with Mr. Thorp and Mr. Aspinall during the final revision process. The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. ____________________________________ Frank Lancaster, Chair ____________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary