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