Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2.13.19Minturn Planning Commission February 13, 2019 Page 1 of 8 OFFICIAL MINUTES MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645 Wednesday, February 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 L Call to Order Lynn T. called the meeting to order at 6:30pm. • Roll Call Those present at roll call: Greg S., Jeff A., Lynn T., Burke H., Greg G. Excused Absent: Lauren D. Staff Members Present: Town Planner Scot Hunn, Economic Development Coordinator Cindy Krieg. Minturn Planning Commission February 13, 2019 Page 2 of 8 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 3. Approval of Minutes • January 23, 2019 A few corrections were noted to the minutes of January 23rd • One correction to the comments from Ken Mentz re. parking • One comment missing (from Greg S.) in regard to 841 & 851 Main St • One time correction on page 5 (regarding the recess) Motion by Jeff A., second by Greg S, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion passed 5-0. 4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5min time limit per person) No Public Comment, regarding items not on the agenda. 5. Planning Commission Comments It was asked whether flashing lights were permitted on the outside of a commercial building. Code Enforcement and Planning Department to follow up. 6. Design Review &Land Use Application Public Hearings • 102 Main Street Storefront Design -Continued review of new front door and exterior materials. o Staff Recommendation. Approval Scot H. introduced the project. He summarized the progress so far, and feedback that the Planning Commission had expressed to the applicant. Minturn Planning Commission February 13, 2019 Page 3 of 8 They have submitted a new (4t1i) design, at this stage. Kit Austin with Pierce Architects was present, and addressed Lite commission. Amanda Krost representing MR Minturn, was also present. Kit A. stated that the goal was to make it look like as if the door was always part of the storefront. He feels that the newest option presented by the applicant is the best fit. Greg G. stated that this new option is a great solution, and a much better fit than the previous options presented. Burke H. also prefers this latest option. Lynn T. prefers options 2 & 3, as she feels they blend better with the building, and the surrounding buildings. Jeff A. prefers the newest option. Greg S. prefers the newest option. Greg S. asked about exterior lighting. At this time, there is no plan for additional exterior lighting as the glass option provides lots of light from inside. It was noted that any exterior lighting and / or signage would require separate review and approval. Motion by Greg S., second by Greg G., to approve the application for 102 Main St. Motion approved 4-1. • 82 Toledo -Hansen Residence -Conceptual review for new single-family home. o Staff Recommendation: Approval, with Conditions Scot H. introduced the project. The Applicants, Matt and Beth Hansen, request Conceptual Plan review of a new, three bedroom, single-family residence located at 82 Toledo Avenue, Lots 9 & 10, Block D, Bocco Subdivision. This is the second conceptual plan review request for the subject property. In October of 2018, the Applicants presented plans to the Planning Commission for a similar design that included a proposed accessory apartment and a larger building footprint and square footage. Those plans were predicated, in part, on the purchase of additional acreage located directly adjacent to the subject property to the west. At their regularly scheduled hearing of October 24, 2018, the Planning Commission acting as the Design Review Board, recommended conceptual approval of the previous conceptual plans with conditions. Subsequent to that review, due to issues related to a proposed amended final plat to allow for the sale of the additional acreage, the Applicants were unable to close on the purchase of property and were forced to redesign their proj ect. The current plans show a two-story, contemporary structure with roof and building forms, Minturn Planning Commission February 13, 2019 Page 4 of 8 materials, fenestration, scale and massing that appear to be contextually appropriate and compatible with neighboring properties and improvements. Much of the style, forms and proposed exterior materials are the same as those proposed in October, 2018. Yet, staff views the current plans as a positive refinement over the previous design, with some noticeable changes to roof design and forms and a reduction in building height. With this iteration of plans, the Applicant has addressed, resolved or eliminated the following issues identified with the review of the previous conceptual plans: Building Height ❑ Maximum Impervious Coverage According to staff s analysis of development standards and dimensional limitations in Section III below, the current plans appear to comply with or exceed setback standards as well as maximum building coverage, snow storage area, and parking requirements. However, staff has identified the following details or issues needing to be discussed by the Planning Commission ❑ Roof Pitch Previous plans showed roof elements with 2:12 pitch; the Minturn Municipal Code requires a minimum 4:12 pitch. The current plans still show one small roof section at 2:12, while the remainder of the roof structure is either flat (rooftop terrace) or 5:12. ❑ Final Plan -level of Detail The following are needed for any final plan review: o Landscaping Plan o Exterior Lighting Details o Roof & Site Drainage Details ❑ Protection of Town Right -of -Way (Toledo Street) Planning Commission Comments: This building is in the 100 block commercial zone, which restricts the roof pitch. 4:12 minimum vs proposed 2:12 It was questioned whether a variance would be needed to approve the proposed roof pitch. A Conditional Use Permit would be required. (Single family use within commercial zone district) Matt Hansen — 82 Toledo Addressed the roof pitch concern. This is primarily due to ceiling height. He did say they could modify to increase if needed. Some portions are currently 5:12 and some is flat roof. Mr. Hansen also addressed drainage. Was discussed amongst the Planning Commission that the pitch requirement should be addressed in the code re -write. Minhun Planning Commission February 13, 2019 Page 5 of 8 It was also discussed that if using residential standards, a variance may not be required and the commission could approve the application with the proposed roof pitch. Burke H. made some suggestions regarding utilities / placement for gas and electrical. Greg S. suggested cutting back on the overall number of materials on the bung. Applicant noted that the wood would be the same color / stain (even though some is horizontal and some is vertical). Greg S. recommended that the applicant ensure that the building's exterior materials on the west elevation do not encroach beyond the setback line. The application proposes tandem parking — 2 spaces tandem vs. side by side. Greg S. questioned if this (tandem) was permitted by the code for residential use. Scot H. to research the code. The Planning Commission also reminded the applicant that parking spaces in front of the garage must be a minimum of 18' long to ensure that parked cars to encroach on Town right of way. Greg S. asked about building height, it shows as 28' 6". The applicant agreed to review the building height calculations and, if necessary, revise the plans to drop the height. Applicant explained that the flat roof is 24' 6" (parapet is another 4'). Parapet could be dropped by 6" to get to 28' even if necessary. They used this height for privacy. Scot H. will research the code as it pertains to tandem parking, as well as parapet. Public Comment: Brian Sipes, 102 Nelson Ave Mr. Sipes commented in regard to the roof, he finds it ironic that the code allows flat roofs, but it requires 4:12 pitch. He also noted that a Grading Plan should be included in the final application. Mr. Sipes also cautioned the applicant and Planning Commission to ensure grading for the project can be accomplished on site. Closed public comment. It was discussed amongst the Planning Commission that if using residential standards, a variance would not be required. Motion by Greg G., second by Greg S., to approve the Conceptual Design for 82 Toledo, under Residential Standards, with stipulation that grading plan be resolved by final application, and a CUP would be required, and below items fully address with final application: Mintum Planning Commission February 13, 2019 Page 6 of 8 • 2:12 pitch endorsed through residential standards • CUP provided with final application • Staff and applicant to verify parking code requirements and ensure they are being met • Resolve any building height issues (and ensure building height measured to most restrictive grade) • Cross Creek Duplex -Minor modifications to approved exterior design and materials. o Staff Recommendation: Approval Scot H. introduced the project. This project has been ongoing for some time. Some minor changes have been made during construction that were not previously approved. Those Changes are noted below, with the reasoning provided by the applicant. Christopher Fett, Business Manager for Cross Creek Properties, was present, and went through each of the following items. Building Wainscoat- The DRB Submittal Plan set (attached) specified "Rustic Metal Siding Panels with Iron Rivets" in the notes and the elevation drawing shown what appears to be a flat metal panel. During construction, based on material availability and long term weather/icing resistance the decision was made to utilize corrugated rustic metal siding panels instead of flat with rusted steel rivets and screws. There was also concern about the flat panel seams weather, water and ice resistance as opposed to the more robust material selected. Vertical Siding Panel on Second Story of 1015 instead of Horizontal- The original plan set showed a small section of the second story north elevation of unit 1015 to have horizontally placed wood siding instead of the vertical siding placement utilized in the rest of the building. During construction we started to side this area horizontal but after getting several courses installed it became apparent that the horizontal panels did not go well with the rest of the building, it was an odd contrast that broke up the smooth vertical lines of the building. The horizontal panels just didn't look great. We removed the few courses that had been installed and replaced with vertical paneling instead. Corrugated Steel Rear Balcony Siding on 1014 and 1015- The original DRB Plan Set showed the south elevation balconies as sided in horizontal wood, Rustic Corrugated Metal Siding Panels were substituted during construction based again on a design aesthetic. It was similar to the horizontal panels on the front of 1015- the originally proposed horizontal wood siding did not blend well with all of the vertical siding and appeared to have a sort of 1970's architectural design feeling. This conflicted with the mountain modern design goals. In addition Cross Creek Mintum Planning Commission February 13, 2019 Page 7 of 8 felt that breaking up the large expanses of wood siding with a different, richer texture greatly added to the overall appeal and look of the design, giving the homes more depth and character and tying the balconies into the ground level rustic metal wainscoat. I would also like to note that the Rustic Metal Siding is considerably more labor intensive and overall a more expensive option. Siding Color- There seems to be some confusion here, as I believe there may have been a set of renderings shared with the Town during the Design Review Process that showed a light pastel colored, I think either red or green shaded, wood siding. I cannot locate these renderings and believe they may have been provided by Genaro Magana. The renderings I have show the color as a grey/brown natural rustic finish (shown below) very similar to what we in fact did use. There was a significant gap in time between DRB approval and the time in which we were siding the homes — (approx. 18 months). We referred back to the DRB Submittal Plan Set while working on siding options and the plans in fact note "Rustic Wood Siding With Transparent Stain" on all elevations for both 1014 and 1015 Two Ells Lane. The cedar siding underwent a multi -step labor intensive process to obtain a beautiful antique 100 year old rustic appearance and was finished with a transparent stain. Chimney Shrouds- no change requested here, these were completed as designed. Greg G. noted that doors and garage doors also changed from original submission. (Original was wood with windows). Garage doors are now metal. Entry doors are now actually walnut (vs. glass?) After some discussion the Planning Commission was in agreement that the modifications are all improvements, and are changes that would have likely been approved. Motion by Greg S., second by Jeff A., to approve the design modifications to 1014 & 1015 Two Elk Lane. Motion Approved 5-0. • Ordinance No. Ol-Series 2019 —Discontinuance of Land Use Reviews Where Legal Disputes Exist Motion by Jeff A., second by Greg G., That the Planning Commission recommend the enactment of Ordinance No. O1 —Series 2019. Mintum Planning Commission February 13, 2019 Page 8 of 8 PROJECTS AND UPDATES 7. Projects Planning Department 2019 Work Plan/Priorities: • Dowd Junction Conceptual Development Plan • RFP for planning & architectural consulting (to develop a conceptual PUD guide) • Chapter 16 Amendments / Design Standards Update • Chapter 17 Amendments • 2009 Comprehensive Plan Update • Housing Plan (ongoing) • Capital Improvements Plan • Town of Minturn Lands Plan 8. Planning Director Report General updates on upcoming/ongoing projects: • Bolts Lake Preliminary Plan —Status of Review • Housing Plan - Workshop No. 2 Meeting Date and Format ■ Possibly on March 6th — TBD • 100 Block Design Standards • Planning Commissioner Terms and Reappointment 9. Future Meetings • February 27, 2019 -CANCELLED • March 6, 2019 —Housing Work Shop No. 2 Tentative Date • March 13, 2019 10. Adjournment Motion by Greg G., second by Greg S., to adjourn at 8:23pm. Motion passed 5-0. n m-rr, o rr. scot Hunn, Ylamm�g 1Jlrector