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