HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 1998-06-23BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
June 23,1998
Commission:
Attending:
Absent:
Chair A1 Sager, Commissioners Wendell Amos, William Baird, Joyce Kitchen,
Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl and Dominick Taddonio
All
None
TAC Members: Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorp and Bill Van Horn
Attending: Gamble, Hondius and Van Horn
Absent:
Also Attending
Town:
Member Thorp
Trustee Liaison Baudek Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Recording
Secretary Botic
County: County Commissioner Liaison Disney and Chief Planner Russ Legg
Consultants: Tina Axelrad, Clarion Associates
Leshe Bethel, Pat Dawe, RNL
The Meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by Chair Sager.
1. MINUTES
The Minutes of June 16,1998 were approved as submitted. The Minutes of June 17,1998 were
approved with the following correction. Page 2, under Ron Robinson’s comments to read: “‘use’ is
different than structure.”
2. INTRODUCTION - DESIGN STANDARDS (DS) - DIRECTOR STAMEY
For members of the audience. Director Stamey reviewed his recommendation found in a Memo dated
June 18, 1998 and the conunents from the EVPC Study Session held June 22, 1998. (Memo
recommendations and Commissioner/TAC members’ specific comments are found in the June 22,
1998 Minutes). Mr. Stamey explained this is an ongoing pubhc process.
3. RNL/COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Leslie Bethel introduced Pat Dawe, Director of Urban Design for RNL and Tina Axelrad, Clarion
Consultants. Ms. Bethel expressed appreciation for the study session comments which will add
perspective to the Design Standards. She went on to note that she and Mr. Dawe have written
approximately 30 design standards and guidelines ranging from 1 -10 in terms of detail, regulation, etc.
The document prepared for the Estes Valley is in the 5-6 range (details, regulation). Ms. Bethel noted
the illustrations tell a story of the community’s character. Highway corridors are the ‘first images’ of
our town. RNL tned to describe with text and utilize pictures. She then asked the Commissioners
for general comments on the document.
Taddomo;sees this as a first draft, as an example, he questioned how to define and provide
palatability with regulations a 120' facade.
Kitchen: there are places she would like to delete, nothing needs added, didn’t understand the
meanings and accomplishment of some items
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Conunission - June 23,1998 Page 2
Amos: doesn’t want to be over-regulated, has questions
Pettyjohn: doesn’t want to be over-regulated, requested definition of “variety and visual interest’'
Pohl: wants to see one standard for all highways to cover valley corridors to eliminate too much
repetition, questioned how ‘flowery’ descriptions fall into guidelines.
Baird: more unity will be achieved with corridor consolidation, more comfortable with 6Vi vs. AVi,
doesn’t feel over-regulated, build more specificity into architectural standards.
Sager: no reason to have design standards on a scale of 10, then opportunity for innovative and
creative ideas would be lost.
Commissioners continued with the following comments:
Sager: pictures/sketches are valuable.
Taddonio: unsure if there is a consensus on 30' limitations and other items on the Memo from Director
Stamey
Amos: does not have problems with the introductions, concerned with English and syntax,
requested reviewing page by page
Kitchen: Page 15, G3.11 - doesn’t understand, page 31, why or why not stone cladding is
acceptable
Pettyjohn: rather than go through suggestions/concems, allow Director Stamey to review revisions
with RNL, then have new document to review.
MOTION
It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) to return the document to the consultant, requesting
the document be revised to reflect comments of Memo dated 6/18/98, and solicit further
information, and it passed unanimously.
5. REVIEW OF “GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Page 1: Area of application questioned by Taddonio. Director Stamey noted that as earher
discussed in this meeting, the proposal is to now include Highway 7. This prompted a
discussion regarding scope of original services, additional direction, how to accomplish,
analyzing area, possibly extending same requirements into residential areas off the corridor,
inclusion of only colors and materials vs. hill spectrum including shape and design. Mr. Legg
requested criteria be developed to provide compatibility without over-regulating. County
Commissioner Disney expressed concern with affordability and exceptions/variances.
At this time Director Stamey suggested the Chair/Commission consider taking individual
Commissioners’ concerns, compiling them and meeting with the Consultants. Then the Consultants
would return a second draft to the Commission. Commissioner Amos requested the former discussion
continue so as not to repeat areas of misunderstanding.
Page 3: Map will be revised once depth is established.
Page 4/5: If full comphance ... ‘The EVPC shall determine if the explanation is acceptable’’
(Amos). Commissioner Pohl expressed concern with possibility of variances.
Qualified Designers - necessary (Kitchen). Brief discussion - a consensus to delete this
section.
Change “Discuss the project with Town of Estes Park staff to “Discuss the projeet with
staff.’’
Change Develop the site plan and building in conjunction... to “Develop the site plan and
building in compliance with the Development Code and these Design Standards.”
Page 6: Define “mountain resort architecture” (paragraph 2). (Amos)
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 23,1998 Page 3
Page 7: 2. Building Materials and Colors - stucco not included, later on stucco is acceptable,
consistency? compliance? Need for diversity, low maintenance materials (Kitchen)
Plastic types are acceptable (Amos).
Use of brick??? (Pohl), good example of brick - Catholic Church (Sager). Ms. Bethel
noted brick and stucco will be added to the list.
Page 7: 4. Rooflines - concerns with flat roofs (Kitchen), Ms. Bethel noted one community dealt
with this by determining size of a building.
Page 8: Good Design Examples: Ust of buildings not acceptable (Sager), Director Stamey suggested
using “good design element” examples, indicate list is not all inclusive (Taddonio), what if
design is changed and building is currently listed (Pohl), appendix, focus on Elements
(Stamey). Use of sketches, pictures, photographs will be useful tools.
Page 10: PedestrianAccess-S1.7:concemwithlandscapingandlineofsight(Disney). Ms. Axelrad
noted this will be addressed in the Development Code. Suggestion to add here as well.
Page 10,11: Building Orientation and Entrances - S1.4: A main entrance... conflicts/inconsistent
with Parking found on page 11. Mr. Dawe suggested a sketch would clarify.
Page 11, 2.0 Site Design, Landscape - Place Town’s compiled list in the Appendix (Amos)
Organicmaterialsincompatiblewithwinds,allowuseofrockandgravelmulches. (Baird)
Suggest 20' minimum and 30' maximum for shade trees (Baird). Cautioned spruce trees
may be too close (Amos).
Page 13, Service S2.5 - Line 1 and 3, change should to shall (Sager/Taddonio). Emphasized:
Guidelines = should, standards = shall.
Ms. Bethel questioned requirements for residential corridors vs. commercial buildings.
Town Trustee B audek expressed concern with the apparent leap from adding residential to
highway corridors with consideration for color, to other items being discussed. Director
Stamey responded.
Page 14: Materials and Colors, S3.2 - appropriateness of listed materials (Kitchen/Baird). Director
Stamey noted the intention to have a finished appearance. Consultants will clarify.
S3.3 Heavy shakes - Definition?? (Pohl). Concern for wildfire. Ms. Axelrad suggested
confining this document to design issues as hazards will be addressed in the Code.
Section 17.44.060 (d)(9)... - questioned why this is here (Kitchen). This comes
from the Stanley Historic District. Do not prohibit pre-cast stone (Kitchen)
Page 15: exclude metal siding
SC.6 - clarify
G3.11 - many questions. Consultant will rewrite.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Eh Meyer - concerned with registered architect (Mr. Stamey noted it had been previously decided
to delete this section), and with adding residential to highway corridor standards.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Conunission - June 23,1998 Page 4
EdMcKinney-pages 11-13,nospecifictypeoffencementioned. Per Rick Spowart, DOW, ‘the
best fence is no fence’ with regards to wildlife. Mr. McKinney opposes chain link, barbed wire is
unsafe, concerns for parking lot plantings (utilize Parks Department expertise), what is a ridgeline,
define ‘what is not in character’, by adding Highway 7 the Scope of service has changed.
Rowland Retnim - commented on the Design Standards and questioned, variety, interest, traditional
downtown, preservation of views from where, lodge character. He emphasized low density, avoiding
high density/multi-family.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Commissioner Pohl clarified the intent of his earlier motion noting the design standards to date are
remarkable. Commissioner Amos thanked the Commissioners for going page by page. Town Trustee
Baudek questioned the time frame for revisions; Director Stamey noted he has a work session planned
with the Consultants later this week to discuss work product and future scheduling.
7. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary