Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 3-13-2019Minturn Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 1 of 12 OFFICIAL MINUTES MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645 Wednesday, March 13, 2019 Work Session —CANCELLED Regular Session — 6:30pm CHAIR —Lynn Teach COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jeff Armistead Lauren Dickie Burke Harrington Greg Gastineau Greg Sparhawk When addressing the Commission, please state your name and your address for the record prior to providing your comments. Please address the Commission as a whole through the Chair. All supporting documents are available for public review in the Town Offices — located at 302 Pine Street, Minturn CO 81645 — during regular business hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Work Session — 6:00 pm —CANCELLED Regular Session — 6:30pm 1. Call to Order Lynn T. called the meeting to order at 6:32pm. • Roll Call Those present at roll call: Greg S., Jeff A., Lynn T. Excused Absent: Greg G. and Lauren D. Burke H. arrived just after Approval of agenda (6:34pm). Staff Members Present: Town Planner Scot Hunn, Economic Development Coordinator Cindy Krieg. Minturn Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 2 of 12 Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approval of Agenda • Items to be Pulled or Added Motion by Greg S., second by Jeff A., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed 34 (Burke H. arrived just after approval of agenda). 3. Approval of Minutes • February 13, 2019 Lynn T. noted a few corrections to the minutes • She had preferred options 2 & 3 regarding 102 Main St. storefront, and also had noted that she felt those blend better with the surrounding buildings Motion by Jeff A., second by Greg S., to approve the minutes of February 13th as amended. Motion passed 44 4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5min time limit per person) No Public Comment 5. Planning Commission Comments No Planning Commission Comments 6. Design Review &Land Use Application Public Hearings • 122 Main Street —Sign Permit Application for Anahata Yoga Studio o Applicant: Chelsea Winters o Staff Recommendation: Approval Scot H. introduced the application. According to the application by Sign Designs of Vail, the store front measures approximately 25 feet; therefore, the allowable square footage for all signage associated with this individual business is 25 square feet. The Applicant is proposing one hanging ("blade") sign to be mounted perpendicularly above the main entrance, along with window signage at the pedestrian level (main floor) Minturn Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 3 of 12 on either side of the front door. The total amount of signage is 19 square feet. The height of the sign (measured from the sidewalk to the top of the sign) appears to be proposed at the same height as the neighboring sign for Sunrise Cafe. However, the maximum height of any sign is twenty feet; the Applicant should confirm the height of the sign. No lighting is proposed at this time. Staff recommends approval of the sign application because it meets all applicable standards as long as the height of the blade sign remains at or below twenty (20) feet above the sidewalk elevation. Chelsea Winters, applicant for 122 Main St, was present and responded to questions. One question that was brought up by the Planning Commission was the height of the hanging sign (is it in compliance?). Scot H. confirmed that it is the same height as the Sunrise sign. Greg S. asked for clarification regarding the light gray and dark gray noted in application. The applicant responded that The Gray is transparent (frosted look), The lighter gray depicted is just window. Lynn T. suggested considering a larger size for the lettering on the sign (given how high s hanging, it might be hard to see). Motion by Jeff A., second by Greg S., to approve the sign permit application for 122 Main St (Anahata Yoga Studio). Motion passed 4-0. • 82 Toledo -Hansen Residence —Final Plan review for new single-family home. o Applicants: Matt and Beth Hansen o Staff Recommendation: Approval, with Conditions The Applicants, Matt and Beth Hansen, request Final Plan review of a new, threebedroom, single-family residence located at 82 Toledo Avenue, Lots 9 & 10, Block D, Bocco Subdivision. At their regularly scheduled hearing of February 13, 2019, the Planning Commission, acting as the Design Review Board, approved the Conceptual Plans with the following recommended changes or conditions: 1. The Applicants shall provide a final site plan with the Final Plan application to show final grading, drainage and limits of disturbance, along with final details for driveway, walkway and patio materials. The site plan shall demonstrate how proposed drainage will not negatively impact neighboring properties. 2. The Applicants shall provide a detailed landscape plan with the Final Plan Mintum Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 4 of 12 application showing all existing and proposed grades, areas or limits of disturbance, areas of handscape and planting, proposed areas and methods of revegetation, rates of (seed) application, temporary or permanent irrigation, plant or seed mix details and locations and methods of erosion control. 3. The Applicants shall apply for a Cononal Use Permit for the single-family use within a commercial zone district concurrent with or prior to the Final Plan application. In response to the above conditions, the Applicant has provided: • A final site plan showing grading, drainage and limits of disturbance which essentially encompass the entirety of the property (property line to property line). Details for driveway area and materials have been provided along with drainage details showing how drainage will be handled on -site. • A landscape plan showing existing and proposed grade lines, limits of disturbance, areas of planting and/or revegetation, as well as trees to be preserved on the property. General information regarding seed mix has been provided. Additionally, the Applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit concurrent with this application for Final Plan review, and the following issues (discussed at the February 13th meeting) and have now largely been resolved (discussed in more detail in Section V below). ❑ Roof Pitch ❑ Final Plan -level of Detail ❑ Protection of Town Right -of --Way (Toledo Street) Lastly, the Planning Commission asked staff and the Applicant to verify building height calculations and to confirm that tandem parking within the garage is permitted for residential development. Staff confirms that the building height calculations are accurate and that the building is at or below 28 feet, and that tandem parking is permitted for residential uses. Issues or Required Plan Revisions Although staff has not identified any areas ofnon-conformance with Town requirements, the following issues have been identified by staff that have been resolved or that must be addressed prior to any building permit application: ❑ Roof Pitch (Resolved) ❑ Final Plan -level Details (Resolved) ❑ Protection of Town Right -of --Way (Resolved) Mintnm Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 5 of 12 Roof Pitch - Resolved The plans (sheet A102 — Roof Plan) show a 2:12 roof pitch. The minimum pitch required for roofs for all buildings within the I WBlock Commercial Zone is 4:12. However, the Planning Commission confirmed at their regular meeting of February 13ththat because this is a residential structure proposed within a commercial zone district, the residential standards of that zone district (i.e., no specific roof pitch limitation) must apply. Final Plan -Level Details -Resolved The Applicant has provided a complete and detailed set of Final Plans for review. Protection of Town Right -of --Way -Resolved During Conceptual Plan review, it was noted by staff that the driveway apron in front of the proposed garage does not appear to be sized to allow perpendicular parking in front of the garage door. This issue was also discussed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of February 13th. The Applicant has revised the plans to provide for additional space within the tandem garage bays while maintaining the driveway space in front of the garage doors to allow for limited parking and unloading of vehicles. Parking requirements are met within the garage and the driveway is sized to allow for one vehicle to (parallel) park in front of the garage doors if necessary Landscape Screening As noted above under Landscape Standards, the Landscape Plan shows the minimum number of tree plantings required. The remainder of the property will be revegetated with native seed mix. However, staff is of the understanding that the Applicants have discussed potential landscape treatment and/or plantings between their property and their neighbor's property located at 93 Nelson to the north. The purpose of any cooperative landscape improvements in the area between their two residences would be to provide additional screening between the two residential structures, and to ensure that proper grading and drainage is created. Staff applauds any efforts between the Hansen's and their neighbor to bolster landscape treatment and/or plantings in this area. The Landscape Plan should be revised to clarify the method of temporary irrigation (hand watering or any temporary or permanent irrigation system), and erosion control methods and location details should be added to the plan Recommendation: According to staff s analysis of development standards and dimensional limitations in Section III below, the Final Plans appear to comply with or exceed applicable development standards, dimensional limitations and design guideline recommendations. Staff is recommending approval of Final Plans with the following suggested conditions of approval: Minton Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 6 of 12 1. The Applicants are encouraged to work with the adjoining property owner on Lot # 2, Nelson Minor Subdivision (93 Nelson Ave) prior to final inspections and/or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to address opportunities to bolster landscape plantings between the contiguous properties (Lot 2 and Lots 9 & 10) for the purpose of screening, ensuring proper grading and drainage is accomplished. 2. The Applicant shall revise the Landscape Plan to specify methods and locations for temporary or permanent irrigation, as well as all erosion control measures prior to or concurrent with building permit application submittal. 3. In the event that both existing mature conifer trees identified on the site and landscape plans cannot be preserved; or that additional landscape plantings are not completed a the rear of the subject property in coordination with the adjacent property owner at 93 Nelson Avenue, the Applicant will be required to submit plans for replacement of at least one (1) of the mature conifer trees to bring the total number of plantings on the subject property to four (4) in accordance with the requirements of the Minturn Municipal Code, Scot H. noted that since the application requires a Conditional Use Permit, that 2 separate motions should be made. It was also noted that the parking requirements will be covered by the garage. Matt Hansen, 82 Toledo, addressed the commission. Mr. Hansen discussed changes to the fagade. They removed all of the stucco to reduce materiality (will have wood, metal and stone), based on previous recommendations from the planning commission. They also put a railing (vs. parapet) on the west side. (Parapet will remain on the north and east sides). The garage door color was updated to match the color of the siding. Discussed drainage /scuppers. Mr. Hansen noted they were considering a gutter at the west elevation. Mr. Hansen also discussed grade as it relates to drainage (See A002). Public Comment: Katie Warbel, 93 Nelson Ms. Warbel is just to the North of the property —her home faces the back side of the property) Ms. Warbel noted that she is in discussion with Mr. Hansen regarding a temporary construction easement (currently using that space for snow storage). She expressed some concern about drainage (East side could be an issue). Once a solution is established, she would like to get something in writing with Mr. Hansen and the Town. Minturn Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 7 of 12 Mr. Hansen addressed the commission again. He noted that they are also doing solar panels on the roof (west facing). Mr. Hansen also noted that the solar panels will match the same pitch as existing roof (in the same plane). Greg S. asked if a solar study was conducted. Mr. Hansen responded that it was not. Lynn T. and Jeff A. also expressed concern over drainage. Burke H. also asked about drainage. Mr. Hansen noted that they would know more once they start digging in the spring. Burke H. noted that they may need to add a condition. Burke H. also inquired about the pitch of the solar panels, and whether that was the most efficient. Jeff. A inquired if there was anything in our building code regarding solar (the only thing in the code is regarding height). Staff is not aware of any requirements or standards specific to solar installation on homes but that state statutes generally limit design control or restrictions on solar to protect homeowners' rights to access solar power. Motion by Jeff A., second by Greg S, to approve the CUP for 82 Toledo, on the basis that it meets the findings. Motion passed 4-0. Motion by Greg S., second by Jeff A., to approve the final plans for 82 Toledo, with staff conditions as noted. Motion passed 4-0. • Eagle River Enclave Condominiums —Buildings A, B, C, D and F Exterior modifications. o Applicant: Eagle River Enclave HOA 1 Victor Mark Donaldson Architects o Staff Recommendation: Approval Chris Jergens, Principal with Mark Donaldson Architects, addressed the Planning Commission. Buildings G & E have already been approved. Applicant is now seeking approval for the remaining 5 buildings. Minturn Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 8 of 12 Mr. Jergens showed the existing photos and renderings for all buildings — using same color schemes. No public comment / questions Greg S. asked about Building A detang of dormer elements. Scot H. asked the Applicant to clarify if details for cold roof insulation and drainage for each of the new roofs was to be similar to Buildings E and G. Mr. Jergens confirmed that the detailing and design will be the same or similar.. Scot H. also reminded the commission that part of application is regarding drainage on - site. Jeff A. asked Scot H. to clarify the process going forward. This is the last step. If approved by Planning Commission, then goes to Council. Town Staff is already reviewing the Building Permit applications for the remaining buildings. Motion by Jeff A., second by Greg S., to approve the proposed design modifications, drainage, colors, etc, with conditions noted by staff (pages 2 & 3), Motion passed 44 • 100 Block —Discussion of Future Re -development Goals and Process o Representative: Tom Warren, M.R. Minturn / 13i11 Pierce, Pierce Architects o No Action/Recommendation Required Bill Pierce addressed the Planning Commission, he expressed that they would like to hear from the commission and the public regarding what they'd like to see developed. Mr. Pierce noted that there is no particular timeline yet. They want to start with one lot. 161 / 171 lot. Greg S. Noted that he doesn't want to see a lot of character change, or increased density. However, he noted that the downtown area does need a facelift. Recommend that any proposals pay close attention to the scale, and is inviting to people walking by. Also guidelines require pedestrian access and 2 story limit (3 stories on the back). Would like to see diversity of design. Would not like to see a building with a longer frontage than the existing Country Club. Minturn Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 9 of 12 He likes the frontages as they are, due to having a small downtown. Recommend galleries, small boutique stores, small shops. Small storefronts. Tom Warren and Bill Pierce noted that they plan to incorporate the Market into their future plans, as they understand the importance of the Market to the Town. They would like to work with the Town to not only maintain the Market, but possibly even grow / enhance it. Greg S. did note that he understands not wanting to fully master plan right away, but he feels there could be some benefit to considering the full / long term design plan. Mr. Piece brought up parking on site, and asked for suggestions on how to resolve the onsite parking challenge. Mr. Warren gave examples of restaurants that currently would not be allowed with current code (le, The Stache, Country Club, Thai Kitchen, etc). It was asked whether there been any discussion with the Railroad regarding leasing property for parking lot / garage. The applicant noted that there has been some discussion, but nothing is solidified yet. Greg S. suggested Shared Parking Agreements. Parking requirements for commercial property building code. Burke H. brought up ADA guidelines. Asked about commercial requirements for ADA, were discussed. Scot H. consulted the Greg S. also asked about zip cars, and,inquired — if the property is on a bus stop, can you reduce the parking requirements . Greg S. also asked the applicant to come forward with similar examples that were successful elsewhere. Encouraged the applicant to research similar towns and solutions / ideas. Some larger towns / cities with downtowns are reducing / eliminating parking requirements for downtown properties, if they have access to public transit and walking / biking. Lynn T. reiterated Greg S.'s comments. She mentioned that many visitors love Minturn because it's different (authentic, unique). She mentioned the guest book that she keeps in her store and some of the comments in the book from visitors. She also asked about historical registration Mr. Warren mentioned that this has been discussed, and may be a potential for some buildings. However, some of the buildings are in very poor shape and cannot be maintained for safety reasons. Minhun Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 10 of 12 Holy Toledo was brought up as an example of a restored / repurposed building (used to be a church). The contemporary addition worked well to highlight the original building. Also, The Scarab at one time was a movie theater. Lynn T. noted that she likes the use of having a business in the fiont and one behind such as Thai Kitchen / Randy Milhoan's studio behind). She would like to see the same "feeling" with any new or modified buildings. Guests come here for a laid back experience. Lynn also suggested that they talk with Larry Stone re. the work they did on the house across from her. Lynn also noted the "entrance to Town" improvements and relating to the Railroad. Scot H. suggested awalk-around. Mr. Pierce and Mr. Warren agreed. Mr. Warren noted that he's had conversations with Town staff in the past (prior to Scot H. being on board), and felt that everyone they had spoken with in the past may have had slightly different visions for how the area should be designed and redeveloped. Mr. Warren also asked about sales tax goals for the Town. Jeff A. Discussed the "dollhouse" architecture concept. He also mentioned French Quarter as an example of a community with 2 stories, with a 3rd story behind. Some parts of that area are still small scale. Burke H. Stated that we need to figure out who the end user is going to be. The businesses / uses need to be economically viable for both the owners and the Town. Mr. Warner inquired about a Needs Assessment -what types of services are currently missing /needed in Minturn? Mixed use was discussed, if the parking challenges can be worked out. Jeff A. asked about Zeppelin Station in Denver, as an example business model. Mr. Warren replied that he thinks it works well there, but not sure we have the space or the infrastructure to make it work in this space. Zeppelin Station is very industrial. Minhun Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 11 of 12 Public Comment, Ken Mentz 167 Williams St. Mr. Mentz said he feels that it's difficult to look at just one piece without looking at the full picture and how the requirements could be met He noted commercial loading zone requirements, parking, etc. He noted that Breckenridge downtown development still includes several one story buildings. He would like to see large trees downtown maintained. He mentioned that diagonal parking spots continue to a problem (specifically in front of the gray building behind the Country Club). He likes the idea of shops facing Williams (pedestrian village) and is encouraged by the opportunity to work with the Town and developer to improve current situation and plan for the future. Also noted issues with current snow plowing contractor for the 100 block. Snow storage needs are larger than what code requires (due to snow from roofs). Randy Milhoan Mentioned that the ideas for long term included: used to be Visioning Committee in Minturn. They met to form growth and improvements. Some of the ideas that were discussed Bicycle park ideas Bellm Bridge -modified /refinished old flag poles Minturn Market was formed New Town Hall building Discussed housing Mr. Milhoan mentioned that there may still be records /minutes available from those meetings. Mr. Milhoan also noted that he feels our downtown is too small for the potential growth, and to attract visitors. He feels that we need to extend over Bellm Bridge, to the north, to grow our downtown. He brought up La Veta and Buena Vista as examples of growing more creatively and extending the downtown. Scot H. suggested a design charrette /visioning meeting with the public. Mintrun Planning Commission March 13, 2019 Page 12 of 12 Mr. Warren and Mr. Pierce would like to have 2 — 3 more discussions with the Planning Commission to discuss ideas. Lynn T. mentioned Buena Vista (South Main). Greg S. stated that all buildings should relate to one another, but still be unique. Have similar character, but not the same design. 7. Projects • No update or changes in status for Planning Department Projects 8. Planning Director Report General updates on upcoming/ongoing projects: • Bolts Lake Preliminary Plan —Status of Review • Housing Plan - Workshop No. 2 Meeting Date (March 201h) • 100 Block Design Standards • Planning Commissioner Terms and Reappointment 9. Future Meetings • March 20, 2019 — Housing Work Shop No. 2 Tentative Date • March 27, 2019 10. Adjournment Motion by Greg S., second by Burke H., to adjourn at 9:09pm. Motion passed 4-0. Lvri`xi'lCeach. Commission Chair Scot Hunn,1$Ianning Director