Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Technical Review Committee 2012-12-06 PavilionRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion December 6, 2012 – 6:00 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 6:08 and introduced the committee. There were 26 people in attendance. Chair Lancaster stated an Architectural Review Committee and a Technical Review Committee (TRC) was required in the Development Agreement for the Stanley Historic District to review proposed projects within the District. The Architectural Review Committee has reviewed the plans and submitted comments to the TRC. The agreement calls for the TRC to consist of three town staff appointed by the Town Administrator and two others that are either practicing architects, engineers, or landscape architects. Chair Lancaster reviewed the format of the meeting. He stated today’s meeting was to review the preliminary package, and additional meetings would take place prior to any decisions being made. Al Aspinall/Special Projects Coordinator for Stanley Hotel owner John Cullen stated his position was to coordinate planning, development, and building projects within the Stanley Hotel complex. He briefly reviewed the ownership history of the Stanley Hotel. He stated Mr. Cullen would like to add a pavilion for weddings, corporate conferences, etc. for up to 200 people. He explained the need for a private facility that is scenic, exclusive, and away from the regular hotel traffic. Location options are limited due to the conservation easement on the property. The proposed facility would serve primarily guests that are staying at the hotel. It would not be a public facility. Parking spaces at the proposed pavilion have been reduced in number because most of the guests would either walk or ride in transportation provided by the hotel. Mr. Aspinall stated the proposed location is at the existing but currently unused pond on the southwest corner of the property. Roger Thorp/Thorp Associates (applicant), stated Mr. Cullen has very strong feelings about the proposed project at this site. There is a natural bowl that is protected from the wind by rock outcroppings on two sides. The pond would be improved and sealed, and a proposed man-made recirculating waterfall would fall from the rocks to the north. He explained there was a natural ridge that separated the area from the south side, which would make it private and exclusive. Mr. Thorp stated additional landscaping and a parking area are proposed for the existing swale to add a buffer between the pavilion and the neighboring condominiums. He acknowledged the concerns from the Mountain Creek Townhome Condominium owners about increased traffic, noise, etc. He stated the event center would be serviced from the hotel, and very few people would be coming to the site from the main street. The hotel would improve signage in the immediate area to avoid conflict with neighbors. The proposal includes two structures to the southeast of the pond; a reception area and a small amphitheatre. The service area would be located close to the main access road and would contain a caterer’s kitchen. The existing pet cemetery would remain untouched. Mr. Thorp stated while responding to neighbor concerns, several parking spaces on far southwest corner of the proposed parking area have been removed. A wall would be placed at the same level as the parking lot so headlights would not disturb neighbors below. This wall would also block sound from those neighbors. The main amphitheatre is meant to be a roofed outdoor space. Concern for sound levels led to enclosing the back (south) of the amphitheatre. Mr. Thorp stated the hotel may host string ensembles or other high-quality events that would be in line with the amenities of four-star facility. He stated 125 feet separated the nearest condominium from the southern edge of the amphitheatre. The buildings would blend architecturally with the rest of the complex. Mr. Thorp stated his firm RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion 2 December 6, 2012 has worked hard to take the elegant architectural character of the Stanley Hotel complex and set it softly and quietly within this existing site, doing as little damage to the site as possible. Mr. Thorp stated there were some drainage concerns, and he was prepared to respond to those. Concern: The drainage report was suspect in many respects. Response: The drainage analysis was completed by a qualified engineer using standard engineering practices. His firm and the engineering firm responsible for the analysis would have no objections to having the report reviewed by an independent third-party. Concern: Size of detention basin appears too small to handle the runoff. Response: The basin was sized according to standards specified in the Denver Urban Drainage Manual, which is the standard accepted for use in stormwater design in Larimer County. The detention basin is not intended as retention for volumes of water, but rather for water quality purposes. Concern: Detention basin’s top edge would be about four feet above the level of the Mountain Creek Condominiums and specifies a stone wall on its back edge to prevent the eastern slope from encroaching onto the Mountain Creek Condominiums, and it appears inadequate. Response: Rock walls much higher than four feet are commonplace and adequate in this region. The design specifications would include a 20 mil PVC curtain to prevent stormwater from seeping through the rock wall. Concern: The water flowing into Black Canyon from the site would be polluted. Response: According to Section 5.3.3 of the Denver Urban Drainage Manual, the amount of pollutant removal by this best method practice is sufficient and should be equal or exceed the removal rates provided by sand filters, extended detention basins, or wetland basins. In addition to settling, porous landscape detention provides for filtering, absorption, and biological uptake to constituents in the stormwater. Because it provides for some infiltration and evaporation, the volume of runoff is also reduced, which translates into a reduced pollutant load leaving the site. Concern: The detention basin is likely to provide a breeding area for mosquitoes. Response: Mosquito breeding problems arise from days of standing water. This basin is designed to drain within 12 hours. It is not designed to permanently retain water, but to provide water quality prior to release into Black Canyon Creek. COMMITTEE AND APPLICANT DISCUSSION The following statements are in reply to questions asked by the committee: Mr. Thorp stated no alternative locations were considered for the parking area. The small parking lot would be provided as a convenience to those guests that may not be staying at the hotel. The pond would be used as an ice-skating rink during the winter months. His firm did not conduct a parking study, stating 90% of the attendees at the site would be guests at the hotel. Mr. Aspinall explained the traffic patterns for the street adjacent to the site. Although signage indicates the street is for service delivery, many local residents try to use it as access to the hotel. The hotel added a keypad gate to limit access, which inadvertently caused many vehicles to turn around at the entrance to Mountain Creek Townhome Condominiums. He stated he would not be opposed to adding a security gate farther down the street, and was open to other suggestions. Limiting the number of vehicles with access to that portion of the hotel is still a work in progress. Mr. Thorp stated the restrooms proposed at the back of the amphitheatre are meant to be temporary, as part of Phase I. He is hopeful Phase I would be completed and ready for use in May, 2013. After Phase II was completed, the restrooms in question would eventually become a garden shed to assist in maintaining the grounds at the site. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion 3 December 6, 2012 Mr. Aspinall stated the event tentatively scheduled for May 2-5 is a film festival, and every venue at the Stanley would need to be considered for this event. Most of the events would be weddings, corporate meetings or functions, and possibly small musical ensembles. Mr. Aspinall stated the hours of operation could possibly run until midnight, if the event was an evening wedding with a meal and reception afterwards. He would be willing to consider a reasonable hour. Mr. Aspinall stated the proposed security wall would begin at the top right corner and include rolling gates at the driveway and parking lot, then following the perimeter around the parking area until it meets the rock outcropping. Construction would be similar to what is at the top of the parking lot adjacent to the outdoor patio at the back of the hotel. Mr. Thorp stated the elevation of the caterer’s kitchen has not been determined. It is intended for this building to have similar architecture as the hotel. It was his opinion that the architecture of the entire proposal be consistent with the existing structures. It has been designed to look like it has been there for many years. Mr. Thorp explained tests would be done to determine the bedrock level. Any requested changes to the proposed security wall would be a question for Mr. Cullen. The committee took a five-minute recess and reconvened at 7:15 p.m. Planner Shirk reviewed the history of the Stanley Historic District, and pointed out the specific lots that have either been developed or remain as open space. In 1991, the Stanley Historic District (SHD) was created to: 1) Administer the historic resources of the SHD in a manner that will preserve the integrity of its location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and visual character; 2) Ensure that development in the foreground of the Stanley Hotel Complex does not destroy its essential historic character, or lessen its ability to conduct an economically viable operation; and 3) Establish certain requirements that must be met before development within the SHD is to be permitted. Planner Shirk stated at the time the SHD was created, many of the lots were undeveloped and much has changed in 20 years. He explained the review process, as outlined in the SHD Master Plan, Section I.C, and reviewed the timeline of the submitted application. Planner Shirk stated the outcome of this meeting could be approval, denial, or continuance. Upon approval of the preliminary package, the applicant would submit a final revised package for review and decision by the TRC. Planner Shirk stated the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Park III states “…The specific guidelines and standards which are incorporated into Part III of this document shall be used in the review process to direct the character of design for all development within the Stanley Historic District.” He explained the TRC has the right, by majority vote, to grant variances 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. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies. Also, notification was mailed to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the property lines of Lot 1. Neighbor notification was not a requirement of the regulations, but a goodwill effort to inform the neighbors of the application. All documentation, plans, and public comment received by the Community Development Department are available to the public through the Town website at www.estes.org/currentapplications. Planner Shirk stated comments were received from the Colorado Department of Transportation, the State Historic Preservation Office of the Historical Society of the State of Colorado (an indirect email sent to Mr. Aspinall), and the US Army Corps of Engineers. All documents can be viewed on the Town website. Staff has received numerous written public comments from adjacent property owners, most of whom expressed concern about the impacts of the development on their property. Planner Shirk briefly explained the Staff Analysis, stating that staff reviewed the Master Planning Guidelines and Development Standards. More specifically, staff considered the following: Overall Site Organization Guidelines; Overall Architectural Character; Site Planning, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion 4 December 6, 2012 Building Placement, Building Design, Site Development Considerations, Special Conditions, and Development Standards (consisting of land use, maximum allowable development and building floorplate, building height, off-street parking, and minimum setbacks). All can be viewed in more detail in the Staff Report on the Town website. PUBLIC COMMENT Shana Foster/Town resident recognized the importance of the Stanley Hotel to the economy of Estes Park. While wanting to be good neighbors, the HOA for Mountain Creek Townhome Condominiums thinks the location of the proposed pavilion is not in their best interest. There are several condominiums that are in very close proximity to the proposed development. She summarized the memo dated December 3, 2012 from the Board of Directors, Mountain Creek Townhome Condominiums by Gary Eberhardt that outlined concerns about the proposed Stanley Pavilion Project. The entire document is included in the public comments which can be viewed on the Town website at www.estes.org/currentapplications. The major points of the memo are: 1) The apparent project approval process of the TRC and an Architectural Review Committee is no longer lawfully authorized; 2) There are many serious potential problems which this project will cause for the owners of the Mountain Creek Townhomes; 3) The Site Planning Guidelines from the SHD Master Plan provide numerous requirements and/or recommendations which have not been followed per their project’s plans; 4) The extremely fast track for project approval under the apparently intended review process and the November-December timing chosen by the Developer when many effected parties are unavailable is of serious concern to those who would very much like to be present to review and if appropriate object to the offensive elements of this project. Greg VanSkiver/Town resident appreciated the committee taking public comment. He stated he reviewed the master plan prior to purchasing his property, which showed the area as open space. Since that plan had been followed for 18 years, he was reassured that the proposed location would remain as open space. He mentioned several concerns about grading, drainage, parking, lighting, and close proximity to the adjacent properties. These concerns can be viewed in detail in his letter dated December 1, 2012 to the members of the Architectural Review Committee located in the public comment on the Town website. Mr. VanSkiver expressed concerns about the future of the facility under different ownership, and how it would affect the adjacent properties. Judy Fontius/Town resident submitted written comment dated December 2, 2012. She expressed concern about the potential for noise from events at the proposed location, in addition to lighting, traffic, and signage concerns. After reviewing the proposal, she was not confident that adjustments would be made to appease the neighbors. She expressed concern about the rock outcroppings not being acoustically-friendly, and requested a noise or sound study be conducted. Although the parking lot lighting would be required to be downcast, she believes the lighting would remain an issue because the Mountain Creek Townhomes are several feet below the proposed parking area. Blake Robertson/Town resident was concerned about the noise. His property is on the west side of MacGregor Avenue, yet the noise from the Stanley Hotel carries to his property during the summer. He welcomed the use of his property for any sound/noise studies of the proposed pavilion. Darren Foster/Town resident was concerned about the fast-tracked approval process. He also expressed concerns about the environmental impact of construction to the Mountain Creek Townhomes, specifically blasting, wildlife habitat, the removal of natural vegetation and trees. He stated the proposed project would devalue properties in the area. Harry Hutcherson/Town resident supported the project, as long as the project met the town requirements and building codes. He stated it was unfortunate that the Mountain Creek Townhomes were so close to the proposed site. He stated noise from events was relative, to some extent. Public comment closed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Technical Review Committee, Stanley Hotel Pavilion 5 December 6, 2012 Mr. Aspinall, an independent employee of owner Mr. Cullen, commented Mr. Cullen had chosen the timing of the project with the objective to complete it during the off-season. He stated the Stanley Hotel employees were unaware of the proposal until mid-October. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Town Attorney White stated the volume of material is substantial. The letter from Mr. Eberhardt dated December 3, 2012 is lengthy and the committee needs to look deeper at the concerns and what has been brought forth in today’s meeting. It was his opinion to continue the meeting to allow the committee to further review the materials presented. Director Chilcott agreed with Mr. White. Member Taranto stated there were a number of technical issues that would require a more in-depth study. Chair Lancaster stated there was general consensus to reconvene the group next week for more discussion. He appreciated the public comment received. He stated written public comment would be accepted prior to the next meeting. The next meeting will be open to the public, but public comment would not be taken. The next meeting will allow the applicant to review the concerns and make revisions to the proposal. Mr. White commended the Mountain Creek Townhome HOA for their public comments. He emphasized the Technical Review Committee process was agreed to when the Development Agreement was adopted in 1994. The developer gave up significant development rights in order to enter into this agreement with the Town. In return, they were allowed other processes in order to be allowed some development of the property. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. ____________________________________ Frank Lancaster, Chair ____________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary