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