Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 3-27-2019Minhirn Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 1 of 12 �Utinturm OFFICIAL MINUTES MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645 Wednesday, March 27, 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., Greg G., Lauren D., Lynn T. Excused Absent: Jeff A. and Burke H. Staff Members Present: Town Planner Scot Hunn, Economic Development Coordinator Cindy Krieg. Pledge of Allegiance Minturn Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 2 of 12 2. Approval of Agenda • Items to be Pulled or Added Motion by Greg S., second by Greg G., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4-0. 3. Approval of Minutes • March 13, 2019 Corrections to Minutes of March 13x1': Regarding discussion of 100 Block: Greg S. noted that there are no initial sketches of a proposed garage Greg S. noted that he encouraged the applicant to come forward with examples from similar towns that have been successful elsewhere. Greg S. noted that the contemporary addition to the Holy Toledo building worked well to highlight the original building. Lynn T. noted that / asked — regarding Ken Mentz's comments during the last meeting, in regard to problems with diagonal parking — she asked Mr. Mentz to clarify which area he was referring to. Mr. Mentz responded that he was referring to the diagonal parking in front of the gray building. Motion by Lauren D., second by Greg S., to approve the minutes of March 13th as amended. Motion passed 4-0. 4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5min time limit per person) Ken Mentz —167 Williams St Mr. Mentz noted that during the March 13 meeting, there was a comment from a Planning Commission member that did not make it into the minutes. He noted that during the discussion regarding potential 100 block development, and parking, a parking garage was suggested across the river. Mr. Mentz noted that one of the planning commission members stated that they did not think this was a good idea, as it would be very visible as you enter town. Michelle Metteer — 302 Pine St, Minturn. Minturn Town Manager Ms. Metteer thanked the Planning Commission for their service, and noted regarding re- appointments — as all of the planning commission seats are renewals, interviews will not be required. The re -appointments will be on the Consent Agenda for the next Council meeting on April 3rd Minhim Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 3 of 12 5. Planning Commission Comments No planning commission comments. 6. Design Review & Land Use Application Public Hearings 841 Main Street Duplex — Final Plan Review o Applicant: Fortius Construction o Staff Recommendation: Approval Scot H. introduced the project. The Applicant, Fotius Construction, requests conceptual review of a new four -unit duplex project located at 841 and 851 Main Street. The project includes two (2) duplex structures on two existing lots, Lot 3A and Lot 3B, both of which have frontage on Hwy. 24. The proposal includes a total of four (4) units to be accessed via a common driveway access easement. Following and in response to three separate conceptual plan reviews completed for the subject property over the past five months, the Applicant significantly redesigned the project to better comply with building height restrictions, setbacks, and other aspects of the Town's standards and design guidelines. To date, the Applicant has worked proactively with staff and the Planning Commission to address and resolve the following issues: Building Height • Setbacks on Lot 3A (front, side and rear) • Adequacy of parking space dimensions and maneuverability on Lots 3A and 313 • Building massing, materials and wall fagade break-up Specifically, the proposed structure height was significantly reduced — from three to two stories — while the propose structure on Lot 3A was pulled back from the Hwy. 24 frontage as well as the side and rear property boundaries to maintain minimum setbacks. Additionally, previous site plans were constrained and impacted by the shape of the existing lots and the configuration of the existing common property line between Lots 3A and 3B. In response, the Applicant has applied for review of an Administrative Re -Plat of the South Minturn Addition Lot 3 Subdivision Final Plat to slightly adjust the common lot line between Lots 3A and 3B to allow for better layout of the duplex structures on the lot and to ensure proper setbacks along the front, side and rear property boundaries. The plat is currently being reviewed administratively by Town staff (Town Planner, Engineer and Minturn Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 4 of 12 Attorney). Once determined to comply with Town subdivision standards, the plat will be administratively approved by the Planning Director and signed by the Town Council (Mayor). Plan highlights include the following: Three-bedroom, two-story structures, each with an oversized one car garage. The site plan shows at least one (1) parking space in front of each garage, for a total of two (2) spaces per unit. Proposed building height just under 25 feet above existing grade, measured at the front fagade (in front of the garage) to the top of the flat roof/parapet wall above. Maximum building height allowed in the South Town Character Area Residential Zone is 28 feet. Grading plans and elevations have been fully developed based on previous review and recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Applicant has responded to previous conceptual plan reviews by the Planning Commission by providing a detailed set of civil engineering, site and building plans that address previously identified concerns or areas of non-conformance with Town standards. However, staff suggests that the landscape plan provided is still conceptual in nature and should be further developed to include final details for revegetation and plantings, erosion control, snow storage calculations, temporary and permanent irrigation. The final landscape plan should also show proposed grading and retainage, drainage and any Accordingly, Staff's analysis of development standards and dimensional limitations in Section III outlines how the proposed improvements meet or exceed requirements of the Town of Minturn Municipal Code, Chapter 16, with the exception of proposed landscaping improvements. Staff is recommending approval, with conditions of the Final Plans for 841 and 851 Main Street, Lots 3A and 3B South Minturn Addition. Staff suggests that the Final Plans for 841 and 851 Main Street comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 16 and the Town of Minturn Design Standards (Appendix `B') of the Minturn Town Code. In the event the Planning Commission, acting as the Design Review Board, is included to approve the Final Plans, staff respectfully suggests the following recommended conditions: 1. All material representations made by the Applicant in writing and as a matter of public testimony during the course of the application and review processes shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. The "Stormwater Management Notes" provided on Sheet C5, "Stormwater Management Notes" by Yarnell Consulting & Civil Design, LLC. dated 3/11/2019 shall be made part of the conditions of approval and shall be adhered to during the development process. Minhim Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 5 of 12 3. The "Grading Notes" provided on Sheet C6 "Overall Grading Plan" by Yarnell Consulting & Civil Design, LLC. dated 3/11/2019 shall be made part of the conditions of approval and shall be adhered to during the development process. 4. Details call for on Sheets C10.1 -C11.1 by Yarnell Consulting & Civil Design, LLC. dated 3/11/19 shall be completed and provided to the Town of Mintum staff prior to or concurrent with building permit application. 5. The Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for review and approval prior to or concurrent with building permit application. The landscape plan shall include, at a minimum, calculations demonstrating that snow storage areas meet the minimum 5% of impervious/parking surfaces, along with proposed grading, drainage and revegetation details (seed mixes and rates of application). Additionally, the landscape plan must show any proposed hardscapes (patios or walkways), planting areas, planting species and size, as well as any proposed temporary or permanent irrigation. Rob Wilberger, representing Fortius Construction, addressed the Commission. Greg S. asked for more clarification regarding the Bridgersteel Panel, which was provided by Mr. Wilberger. Greg G. asked whether there was any other site lighting planned (ie, pole lighting at the drive, etc). Mr. Wilberger noted that there is not. They are relying on the wall mounted sconces - one at entry, one at garages. Their intention is to not over -light the site. Motion by Greg G., second by Lauren D., to approve the application for 841 Main St Duplex, with noted conditions 1 -5. Motion Passed 4-0. • 100 Block— Discussion of Future Re -development Goals and Process o Representative: Tom Warren, M.R. Minturn / Bill Pierce, Pierce Architects o No Action/Recommendation Required Scot H. introduced the potential applicants, and noted that they were present at the last meeting to begin the discussion with the Planning Commission and the Community regarding the process and general ideas regarding development of the 100 block. The intention of tonight's discussion is to continue open dialogue and start coming up with ideas for next steps. Minturn Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 6 of 12 Bill Pierce and Kit Williams, with Pierce Architects, were present, representing the owners, MR Minturn. Mr. Pierce reiterated (as was stated at the last meeting), that their intention is to start with just one lot - 161 / 171 Main. Mr. Pierce gave a presentation including several examples of buildings from other Towns with similar sized space building to building (street and setback). Minturn would be approximately 80' building to building (with new development setbacks). Examples shown were from the following Towns: Frisco (85'): Greg G. commented on a particular image of Frisco that was shown. The image showed an office building with retail below. Greg G. noted that the example was not well received by the Town of Frisco. Greg noted that he likes variety in architecture, building materials, building heights, etc. The Frisco example (of this particular building) did not offer that. The architecture was very static. Mr. Pierce asked about "tombstone" visuals with regard to architecture. Scot H. noted that the variations with the storefronts are what completes the look — not just the tombstones, it's the materials, windows, etc. Greg G. also suggested being true to the time period. Telluride (80'): Mr. Pierce noted that the center aisle of Colorado Ave is a loading area. One particular Telluride building example was shown (3 story corner building). Lynn T. noted that she didn't like the appearance. She didn't care for this brick, it seems cold. (like a warehouse). Feels this is too much brick and doesn't care for the color. Greg G. noted the third story setback — he said it seems that sometimes with these higher story setbacks, they seem like an afterthought. Not opposed to brick, but also doesn't like the white color in this example. Both buildings look like they were something else, and then someone just built on top of them. Would like to see a much more thoughtful solution. Minturn Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 7 of 12 Brian Sipes, Sipes Architects 102 Nelson Noted that while these examples are great, they are very different in size and scope, as far as the size of the Town / downtown. We are a very different size and not laid out the same way as these other Towns. We have just the Main St really (which is Hwy 24 and regulated by CDOT). Mr. Sipes also noted that the length of the block has an impact on the context. Telluride — additional example Ken Mentz noted that most of the examples that Mr. Pierce was showing appear to be taller than 28 feet (which is the max height for Main St). Mr. Pierce noted that with any buildings on Main St, even if built together, they want to make them look like individual buildings. Greg G. noted that the varying roof heights in this example look nice. One example (Telluride) had a rooftop deck shown. Greg G. noted that he likes the idea of a rooftop deck, that could be something well received. Lauren D. also noted that she has had many residents comment to her that it would be nice to have more outside spaces available in Minturn, which potentially could include a rooftop deck (as there is limited space for decks and patios with the current layout). Another Telluride example shown seemed too ornate Greg S. — steer away fiom anything too refined Greg G. — agrees. We are a simple town, so simple design is a better fit Lauren D — simple, but interesting (not boring) Lynn T — lower ceilings, likes the feeling of cozy / comfort Greg S. noted that if using brick or stone, heavy material fagade, be sure it shows accurately. If proposing a traditional design, the details need to represent traditional design (proportions and details). Greg G. — Guests like Minturn because it's authentic (it's not Vail or BC). We want to keep that authentic feel. Greg S. referred back to another Frisco example. He noted that some of the Frisco buildings have no depth to the fagade. Needs to be a higher level of detail (which you see at South Main, but not throughout Town). Minturn Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 8 of 12 Mr. Pierce noted that the buildings on either side of the street are different heights in Telluride (one side is all higher, one side lower) to offer views, as well as allow sun to penetrate the street. Our street runs north / south, so maybe not an exact comparison. But a lesson to be learned? River Club — Greg S. feels this design is over -complicated. (This also is not a Main St setting). Greg G. — The materials (steel, stone, lap siding, corten) are appropriate materials but need to be used contextually. He just doesn't like the overall design of the building. Lauren D — it's not Minturn Aspen examples: Mr. Pierce noted they have several varieties of building heights —1, 2 and 3 stories. Noted that 2 -story buildings can still allow for variation (without introducing full 3 - story). Greg G. — noted that all of these Towns are much larger and have a much larger downtown. Brian Sipes -Frisco is another bedroom community, so somewhat more applicable. But Telluride and Aspen are of course ski resort communities. Boulder: Mr. Pierce — authenticity to the buildings (brick) Asked opinion about brick. Greg G — not against brick (Saloon is brick, and it works), just wouldn't want to see every building as brick. Think about buildings that will look just as good in 100 years as they do now. Goal should be timeless design. Buena Vista: Brian Sipes noted that BV is probably the best example (most comparable to Minturn). They have done a great job with their revitalization. Greg G. noted that South Main (in size) is an appropriate comparison. Scot H. noted that South Main has a very generous setback from the street. Minturn Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Pierce noted that a trend in retail is higher ceilings. Lynn T. noted that she does not feel that we need a trend, that people like Minturn for what it is. Greg G. noted that high ceilings make sense for some retail businesses, however one of the draws of Minturn is the coziness. Ken Mentz — noted that at the last meeting, we spoke about the need for smaller spaces (small storefronts). Tom Ricci, Minturn Country Club — discussing with MR Minturn about getting a new space. He is concerned about the comments regarding wanting smaller spaces. He wants to ensure that their size is still viable with re -design. (Similar footprint, maybe two story)? The planning commission assured Mr. Ricci that there is no intention to restrict any existing businesses or the developer. Minturn Mercantile Brian Sipes — mix of design — Mercantiles, Lynn's store, etc. Ken Mentz — Asked Mr. Ricci how he would feel about his customers having to park at a garage down the road. Examples also shown of Salida. Noted variations in building heights. Carbondale: Brian Sipes: First example - Too much variety for the sake of variety, but you can tell it's all one building. Also showed where some residential mixes with commercial. Overall, Planning Commission felt the Carbondale examples were not great examples as far as relating to Minturn. Larimer Square, Denver (85') South side is wider than the north side (wider sidewalk) so you can experience the outside. Great example of successful street frontages. (Mostly individual lots, vs. same buildings made to look like different buildings). Brian Sipes — Street frontages — how to make it look like individual buildings successfully Greg G. — Austria Haus example (did a good job, at least as far as the facade). Mintum Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 10 of 12 Leadville: Leadville is much wider than we are, but their Main St really is not. Brian Sipes — noted that when many of those buildings were built, Leadville was as rich as Denver. Greg G — noted that the Timberline Building there is very nice and did a great job. Rooftop deck is a nice feature. Struggles with huge variety of different setbacks, but likes the courtyard as it provides a use. Cripple Creek / Victor examples were also given. And Canon City Cripple Creek examples — Greg G. noted that they reflect a wealth (ornate look) that isn't reflective of Minturn's history (or present). Silverton — another wealthy mining town. It was noted that the planning commission doesn't want to see Minturn reflect an image that is isn't / wasn't. (Don't want to see Minturn become a playground for millionaires) The architecture should represent the Town. Brian Sipes — Suggested that we look at other Towns that more closely resemble us. • Buena Vista remains top choice for towns similar to Minturn and ones that have really remained true to their unique roots. Highway doesn't run directly through town, but is close by. • Alamosa — Much bigger town, but scale is nice and it was originally a big railroad town like Minturn and Salida. • Gunnison is good, but larger in scale. Originally a railroad town like Minturn, but also big agriculture town and much larger plus a county seat. Highway goes through town. • Crested Butte also has a good sense of scale. Although it is near a ski area it isn't at the base and was a coal mining town so more working class like Minturn. They have also purposely kept it small using strong open space rules. At the end of the highway so not the same. • Steamboat (town not the ski town) has a really great sense of scale and a highway. Much wider street and bigger town like Gunnison, but offers a good comparison. • Paonia — farm town, but nice downtown. Highway doesn't run through town. • Westcliffe/Silvercliffe — haven't been there in years and very remote from anything else, but similar size and nice scale • Pagosa Springs — Similar size, has a highway through town like we do, good scale. But main street is one sided with the river and hot springs on the other side so does feel a little different. Minhurn Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page I 1 of 12 Some suggestions made by attendees included Idaho Springs, Eagle, and others. Greg S. — noted that most of these towns have fully built out blocks (continuous building fronts), whereas we don't have that here. It was noted by some members of the PC that they like space between the buildings, but it doesn't have to be between every building. Tom Ricci — noted that the lack of space (short blocks) limit the total number of retailers. May need to move North into UPRR lands to expand retail. Greg G. noted that unique businesses are a draw (Holy Toledo, Minturn County Club, Gemini Gardens examples), we need to maintain those opportunities for unique spaces / offerings. 2. Projects • No update or changes in status for Planning Department Projects 3. Planning Director Report General updates on upcoming/ongoing projects: • Bolts Lake Preliminary Plan — Status of Review • Planning Commissioner Terms and Reappointment ■ Reappointments will be on the Consent Agenda for the April 3rd Council Meeting. 4. Future Meetings a. April 10, 2019 b. April 24, 2019 5. Adjournment Minhirn Planning Commission March 27, 2019 Page 12 of 12 Motion by Greg G., second by Greg S., to adjourn at 8:33pm. Motion passed 4-0. G Ly ach, Commission Chair ATTEST: Scot Hunn, Planning Director