HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 6-26-2019Minturn Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 1 of 16
OFFICIAL MINUTES
MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION
Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Work Session —CANCELLED
Regular Session — 6:30pm
CxAIR —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 —CANCELLED
Regular Session — 6:30pm
1. Call to Order
Lynn T. called the meeting to order at 6:33pm.
• Roll Call
Those present at roll call: Lynn T., Greg S., Jeff A. Lauren D. and Burke H.
Greg G. excused absent.
Staff Members Present: Town Planner Scot Hunn, Economic Development Coordinator
Cindy Krieg, and Town Manager Michelle Metteer.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Mintum Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 2 of 16
2. Approval of Agenda
• Items to be Pulled or Added
Motion by Lauren D., second by Greg S., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion
passed 54
3. Approval of Minutes
• June 12, 2019
One correction was made by Greg S.
Motion by Lauren D., second by Jeff A., to approve the minutes of May 22, 2019 as
amended. Motion passed 54
4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (Smin time limit per
person)
5. Planning Commission Comments
Jeff A. commented that the flaggers with the construction project have been doing a great
j ob.
Also wanted to thank Arnold Martinez (Public Works) for his help this week during the
construction.
6. Design Review &Land Use Application Public Hearings
• 1201 & 1207 U.S. Hwy. 24 —Christiansan Single Family Residence & ADU -
Final Plan Review
o Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Staff Report Notes:
The Applicant, Miners Basecamp, requests Final Plan review of a new, four -bedroom,
single-family residence with an attached, two -bedroom Accessory Apartment located at
1201/1207 U.S. Hwy. 24.
This is the site of an existing home historically occupied by the Christiansan family. The
property recently sold and the Christiansan's existing structures (a single-family structure,
Minturn Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 3 of 16
a manufactured home, and multiple accessory structures) will be removed and replaced
with the new proposed residence. While the Christansans will no longer own Lot 29, they
and their family members will have the right to reside in the new single-family residence
and associated accessory dwelling unit planned above a new two -car garage. In the future,
a portion of Lot 29 may be sold back to the Christiansans or a long term lease agreement
will be put in place to allow the Christiansans to remain on the property.
The plans show a one- to two-story, four bedroom single-family residence with an
accessory apartment located over a two -car garage. Lot 29 is accessed via the "Vista
Barranco Lane" right-of-way, as well as a private "Reciprocal Access and Utility Easement
and Emergency and Municipal Service Vehicle Access Easement" recorded September 28,
2011.
The plans call for two garage areas — one associated with the primary residence and another
provided for the accessory apartment - providing a total of four (4) enclosed parking spaces
along with a "gravel parking area" (sized to accommodate two vehicles) located on the
south side of the residence. All improvements are located within the boundaries of Lot 29
and no variances are necessary or requested at this time. Two existing, mature trees are
slated for removal to accommodate the new structure, and the Applicant has provided a
landscape plan demonstrating re -vegetation plans, planting and other landscape
improvements in accordance with the requirements of Section 1 &17-140 — Landscape
Standards, of the Minturn Municipal Code.
The design is fairly contemporary, with simple, traditional gable and shed roof elements
and multiple building forms that appear to be contextually appropriate and compatible with
the site, as well as neighboring properties and improvements.
According to staff s analysis of development standards and dimensional limitations in
Section III below, proposed improvements generally meet or exceed the Town's
requirements for setback standards, landscaping (re -vegetation details, erosion control
details, planting numbers, sizes and locations, and clear vision areas), lot and impervious
coverage, as well as maximum building height and parking requirements.
However, staff has identified the following minor issues or outstanding review items
(discussed in greater detail in Section V below) needing to be addressed prior to or
concurrent with building permit application or during the construction process:
❑ Overhead Utility Line
❑ Civil Plan Review by Town Engineer
❑ Roof Eave Encroachments
❑ Snow Storage Area
Staff believes that the Applicant has provided a complete, detailed set of plans necessary
to complete a thorough final plan review.
As a reminder, the Planning Commission has the option to review the proposal as a
"conceptual" plan review if the Commission feels that the plans are not sufficient or are in
need of revisions and additional review prior to final plan review; or, to recommend Final Plan
approval to the Town Council with specific conditions and giving the Applicant and
staff clear direction on any recommended revisions to the plans that must be addressed
Staff is recommending approval, with conditions.
Minnim Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 4 of 16
Issues and Areas of Refinement:
Issues or Required Plan Revisions
The following issues or areas of refinement have been identified by staff that must be
addressed prior to any building permit submittal:
❑ Overhead Utility Line
❑ Civil Plan Review by Town Engineer
❑ Roof Eave Encroachments
❑ Snow Storage Area
Overhead Utility Line
The survey submitted shows an overhead utility line traversing the eastern portion
of the property, from northeast to south west, in the general location of proposed
improvements. It appears that this existing line will be buried but the Applicant
should clarify the utility plan during the Planning Commission's review. Plans
should be revised/clarified, if necessary, with any building permit set of drawings
to clearly label how the overhead utility line will be treated.
Civil Plan Review
Based on the date of submittal of these final plans, staff was not able to coordinate
review by the Town's engineering consultant, Intermountain Engineering, prior to
drafting this report. Staff suggests that grading, drainage and other engineering
related plans appear to meet the requirements of the Town, but that the Town
Engineer should review the plans prior to the Applicant creating building permit
set of plan documents and, specifically, prior to proceeding to building permit
application.
Roof Eave Encroachment
The plans show a minor encroachment of a roof eave along the western (side yard)
setback area. The roof element is associated with a covered patio and the eave does
not encroach more than eighteen (18") inches into the side yard setback as permitted
Snow Storage Area
The site and landscape plans appear to allow for adequate snow storage for the two
formal driveway areas. However, the plans should be revised to clearly label all
TOWN OF MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
now storage areas and to provide calculations demonstrating that an area equal to
a minimum of 5% of driveway areas devoted to off-street parking is reserved for
now
storage.
Staff Recommendation and Suggested Conditions:
Staff suggests that the Final Plans for 1201 & 1207 U.S. Hwy. 24 generally comply with
or exceed the applicable provisions and/or minimum standards 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 Town of Minturn Design Review
Minturn Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 5 of 16
Board, recommends approval of the Final Plans, staff respectfully suggests the following
conditions of approval.
1. The Applicant shall revise the plans, if necessary, prior to or concurrent with
building permit application, to clearly label and describe how the overhead utility
line traversing the building site from northeast to southwest will be treated, and
demonstrating that existing utility lines will not be impacted by, or adversely
impact, proposed improvements on Lot 29,
Z. The Applicant shall work with the Town Planner and Town Engineer to facilitate
the review of all civil engineering plans prior to the Applicant creating building
permit set of plan documents and, specifically, prior to proceeding to building
permit application.
3. The Applicant shall provide an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) or other
survey document as part of the framing inspection process to ensure that the
maximum encroachment of roof eaves into required setback areas remains at 18
inches.
4. The Applicant shall revise the site and landscape plans to clearly label all snow
storage areas and to provide calculations demonstrating that an area equal to a
minimum of 5% of driveway areas devoted to off-street parking is reserved for
now
storage.
Bill Reslock (Representative, Reslock &Sullivan LLC) addressed the group, and presented
the drawings.
Jena Skinner, Applicant Representative, also addressed the group.
Questions from Planning Commission:
Jeff A. asked for clarification regarding recycled products.
Bill R. confirmed that siding would be recycled material that is made up of multiple materials.
(Wood -like, but more durable). Does not have a sample of it at this time.
Public Comment:
Thomas Eubanks .(Gypsum, CO)
Present on behalf of Diana Duran
Mr. Eubanks inquired as to how wide the lot is, and asked whether utilities would go in on their
side (or on the Christiansan side).
Ms. Skinner noted that they hope to utilize existing utilities and should not be digging up a lot of
area.
Mr. Mooney, 1181 Main St.
Asked for clarification on the diagram of where the existing trailer is.
Minturn Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 6 of 16
Also Asked about the side setback (5 ft). Lynn T. confirmed that it meets current code.
Also asked about encroachment.
18" overhang confirmed by Bill R. and Jena S.
Long and narrow profile —Asked about future development.
It was noted that is not pertinent to the current application.
Thomas Eubanks spoke again. He asked about the frill width of the building.
40' confirmed by Bill Reslock.
Total lot size was also discussed.
They are not touching the easements
Scot H. addressed the easements.
24' wide — emergency access and utility easement.
Original Duran sub -division had the same easement
In 2011, that easement was relocated due to the existing gravel driveway.
This new easement agreement attempts to follow that.
With the proposed improvements, the easement is to remain clear and free of obstruction (so full
use for emergency and utility).
Scot H. noted that he has met with Ms. Duran and her attorney (Ruth Borne). And also met with
Bill R. and Jena S.
Jena Skinner addressed the group. She expressed that it would be relatively easy to move the
garage further away from easement boundary line to alleviate any concerns regarding potential
encroachment of vehicles parked in driveway.
Scot H. addressed the driveways, garage and parking, as it relates to the easement.
Scot H. also read Ms. Borne's letter into the record.
Scot H. suggested that based on these concerns, that the Planning Commission treat this as a
conceptual discussion and request necessary revisions before ruling on a final plan review.
Lauren D. inquired about snow storage and overhead power line.
Jena S. confirmed that there will be less overhead power line as the obsolete power pole will be
removed.
Also confirmed will move the garage back, and will ensure that landscaping complies.
They are not actually impeding any access to the easement.
Mintnrn Planning Commission
one 26, 2019
Page 7 of 16
Greg S. noted that he likes that they are providing this ADU, and thanked the applicant for the
detailed plans.
Stated that he feels the home meets code requirements, and that the private easement agreement
is not a matter for Planning Commission.
Parking pad next to the house.
Greg S. noted that they meet (exceed) parking requirements without this.
Jeff A. asked Scot H. to confirm no setback requirement for easements, which was confirmed.
Jeff A. also noted that regarding the meters on the back — Xcel won't accept this placement due
to snow and ice — will need to be moved.
Noted that 2 items from the letter were civil in nature and not for planning commission to decide
on (items 2 & 3).
Jeff A. noted that he would prefer to take more time to review and see what happens between the
two parties.
Noted that he'd been approached by some people in town that expressed some concern,
Jena confirmed that they will be addressing the concerns brought up, and re -submitting with
minor variations.
1978 easements actually overlap (TOM utility easement, plus a few others).
Bev Christiansan
Currently residing at The Reserve, G103
Have been in Minturn since 1965. Have always used the driveway, the Durans' bought land
across from them and made it into Bianca Lane.
Live in the double wide trailer, and want to live their lives out in Minturn. Couldn't stay in the
trailer, and need an ADA compliant home.
They did the 2011 easement because Diana asked them to so she could build a garage.
Agreed in order to be good neighbors.
Have some old buildings there, and they know that those need to go.
Never thought this would be a problem for anybody.
She does not feel the easement should keep them from being good neighbors.
Ms. Duran does not want anyone on the easement, she treats it as if it's her property.
Lyn Kinakis, 248 Main St.
When he was on P&Z and Council, it had been stated that if you use an easement, it's
grandfathered in. Should be an easement for everyone. At least was that way years ago.
Jeff A. asked Diana Duran to speak.
Diana Duran, 1211 Main St.
The Christiansans' have had several different people living in the red house.
Minturn Planning Commission
June X 2019
Page 8 of 16
She is not clear• on the exact details of the easement. Would like more time to review.
Elmer Christiansen
Mentioned that Mr. Mooney has an easement in the back to his property, he was unaware.
Had no idea this existed.
Closed Public Comment
Burke H.
Likes the house, hopes they can get it done once the easement concerns are figured out.
Likes the driveway the way it is. It's a plus for anyone living along the highway (it
services everyone on those lots and is safer than having to back out onto the highway).
Meter locations will need to be moved (Xcel). Cannot be under a drip line, even with a
box.
ADU is a good thing.
Siding — Would be careful with regard to the types of recyclable materials and ensure that
it's something that will last (starting to see wear with certain recycled products).
Jeff A.
If you extend the roof on that side to cover the meters, then they could stay.
Planning Commission asked Scot H. for direction re. how to address the easement issues.
No issue from the applicant's /builders regarding use of the easement.
Greg S. reiterated that the issues brought up are between the two parties and not for DRB.
However Jena S. did agree that it would be prudent to go back and address the concerns
and make minor adjustments to the plans.
Scot H. felt that there was mutual agreement that there was some room for• improvement.
Landscaping did encroach (foundation did not).
Jeff A. asked about whether the easement could be re -drawn. Jena noted that they would
be open to that, and would be willing to meet with all parties.
Jeff A. also stated that he would like to read and review the easement to better
understand.
Scot H. noted that he could get a copy to the planning commission.
Minhttn Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 9 of 16
Jena S. stated that they will do a color site plan, with minor adjustments to re -present.
Lynn T. suggested tabling to the next meeting.
Motion by Jeff A., second by Lauren D., to table to the next meeting (July).
Motion passed 5A
5 Minute recess taken at 7:40.
Reconvened at 7:45.
• 161 Main Street —New Mixed Use Building -Continued Conceptual Plan
Review
Scot H. noted that the applicant has spent significant time revising these plans based on
feedback at the last meeting. So he felt it important to get it on the agenda.
However, due to time constraints he did not have time to submit an updated staff report.
Issues last time with:
Lot size /mass /scale
Snow storage
Have added some green space, have also addressed several other items that were brought
up in the last meeting
Bill Pierce (Pierce Architects), addressed the group and discussed updates /changes
made to the plans.
Building coverage is 65%
Addressed the passageway —moved it somewhat to make it feel more open.
2400 sf of commercial space, with 8 parking spaces on Main and Nelson
Rear setback is 10' Williams is 15'
Resident parking is all onsite
Softened the corner /angled — to make better use of it
Pulled the facade back on the 3rd floor
Moved the stairs.
Minturn Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 10 of 16
Regarding the old Mountain Pedaler building — discussed that they could do some sort of
representation of that building
Different materials and colors so it appears as separate buildings vs. one large bung.
Public Comment:
Jena Skinner:
Great to see the window boxes and other changes that were made to the original plans.
Tom Sullivan
116 Nelson Ave
Concerns —how to exit Nelson (will there be a turnaround)?
To get out now, people turn around on the existing property.
How can they do parallel parking on the south side of Nelson?
The Right of Way is already spoken for.
Asked about handicapped bathroom on the first level (no space?) Where will it go?
Handicapped parking?
Bill Pierce pointed out the handicapped parking.
Tom asked about now to access, and when it was answered by Bill Pierce — Tom noted
that this explanation is not an answer as it's illegal to do what's being proposed.
Economic concerns — is concerned that this could become a project that doesn't work,
after lots of money is spent.
Concerned that the retail plan in not viable and expectations are not reasonable for
Minturn. Feels it is a lose -lose.
Also concerned about snow storage. This property is currently used for significant snow
storage.
Suggested they scale back the building to provide more parking (and snow storage).
Closed Public Comment.
Mintum Planning Commission
one 26, 2019
Page 11 of 16
Planning Commission Comments:
Noted the importance of the economics —getting into awin-win for both the owners and
the town.
Batlnooms —specific bathroom locations for commercial space has not been finalized
yet.
Parking —Nelson St is a unique situation. It is tough, very difficult to turn around /
access that area. More thought should be put into that. Access and traffic flow need to
be evaluated. This could be further examined in relation to the scale of the building.
Jeff A —Doesn't feel he needs to comment on the design.
Looks like some awnings were added to help with snow shed.
More of that may need to happen.
Is there a slide that shows the property line of the Mollie G. Building /Nelson Ave?
Thinks this might be helpful.
Also asked about commercial parking — is all allowed to be off site?
Asked Scot H. about the code — Scot responded that the code specifically only refers to
limitations of offsite parking on Main St. Scot would like to consult the Town Attorney
regarding the interpretation.
Also asked if we can approve a plan that the parking is in the CDOT Right of Way at
Highway 24.
Scot H. answered that yes, property owners can park on Main St.
Bill Pierce further explained that they did allow for adequate width to allow for
maneuvering a car.
Scot H. asked for a visual / demonstration of turning radius, etc.
Greg S -
Noted that some of the public comments from the last meeting included inquiries about a
possible master plan.
Greg asked if that was addressed at all.
He feels it's important that all comments are addressed, regardless of the answer,
No right or wrong answer, just wanted to ask about the process for the applicant).
Tom Warren — Do not have a Master Plan.
Looking at this organically. This is the only current plan on the table. Currently just
doing maintenance and cosmetic work (painting, etc) on other properties. If they were to
try to do a master plan, it would kill this project as it stands currently.
Minturn Planning Commission
June 265 2019
Page 12 of 16
Regarding Parking, Greg S. noted that by his interpretation of offsite parking maximum —
this does not comply.
Code requires 2 loading bays — plan shows 1.
Bill —Only over 10,000 sf.
With both commercial and residential, they are over 10,000 sf
Tandem parking allowed for non-residential and single family, but not multi family?
Scot H. questioned the reasoning behind the code requirement and stated that this should
be addressed during the code re -write.
Overall scale —Greg S. feels that the building is too big.
Hoped to see 2 buildings. He is not sure how variances will get done (not sure how a
hardship will be proven).
Understands the intent of having the building look like 4 different buildings. However,
Greg feels that this still looks like 1 huge building.
But worried that with scaling back, and with parking challenges, that applicant may scale
back the commercial.
This building is in the commercial core, so commercial is very integral.
Feels there is less cohesiveness with this go -round.
Suggests stepping back, building two buildings that meet the code. Feels that would be
more appropriate to downtown.
Building coverage — 65% (Clarified building coverage vs. lot coverage). Building
coverage includes covered parking.
Bill Pierce —
Regarding parking an tandem park in residential.
Greg S. and Lynn T. brought up the winter parking restrictions on Main St. (due to
plowing).
Greg S. talked further about the intent of the code with regard to maximum lot size and
building coverage. He does not feel this current design meets the intent.
He agrees that we need both residential and commercial space, but he doesn't want the
priority to be on residential. He feels the priority is being placed on residential.
Lauren D. —
Size —Agrees with Greg S. that it would be hard to find a hardship to get variances
approved.
Would like to see a plan that does not require a variance.
Mintum Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 13 of 16
She appreciates the updates to the plans based on feedback from the planning
commission and the public.
Also noted that some of the design elements seem forced, to try to accommodate public
input.
Lynn T —
Also agreed that it would be hard to grant a variance based on code (doesn't see where a
hardship would come in).
Sorry to see that we lost some of the setback.
Thinks parking is still an issue.
Asked about the Main St. parking (is there a specific # allotted to specific businesses, ie
Holy Toledo).
Nelson St. —cannot back up onto Williams (it's a one way street).
A lot of people who aren't familiar with Town turn onto Nelson and then realize they
can't go up the private road or go the wrong way on Williams — so they turn around in the
current parking behind Mountain Pedaler.
Delivery trucks also need access to the restaurants.
Also brought up snow storage.
Likes the added landscape.
Brought up Tom Wai7en's comments last week re. Buena Vista and their flexibility with
parking. She mentioned the size difference in the downtowns.
She also commented that when she was recently in BV, she drove around for over 10
minutes to find parking and almost gave up. Tom Warren commented that's a good
problem to have in a commercial district. Lynn felt that would be concerning as that
would just cause people to leave and not want to come to Minturn.
Bill Pierce brought in the Market and commented that we somehow make parking work
on Saturdays for the Market (with a few hundred to up to 2000 people coming to the
market). He feels that parking is a Town issue, and needs to be looked at.
If we have to solve the parking problem at a private level, it will probably never get
resolved.
Lynn expressed how parking not only affects the commercial businesses, but it affects
residents as well.
Greg S. reiterated that if the project were submitted according to code (maybe scale back
some of the residential) then parking would likely not be an issue.
Minhum Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 14 of 16
Greg suggested a parking study first, then do one building based on the results of that —
before adding a second building.
This could be the driver for the future developments of the 100 block.
Tom War1•en —
Other creative solutions in other municipalities:
Could buy parking passes from the Town, etc
Brought up that the younger generation isn't driving as much.
Scot H. read the section of code refer7ing to parking study requirements.
(Get specific info from Scot). This is for "Uses not listed"
Probably another provision that would allow the Town /Planning Commission to require
a study.
Suggested that it may fall on the Town to absorb the cost to conduct a parking study
(possibly incorporating snow storage), on a global level.
Tom W. asked if the Planning Commission feels that there is a parking problem in
downtown. He noted that he's never had an issue parking downtown.
Lauren D. agrees in general. Thinks it's more of an enforcement issue (people not
adhering to the 2 hr parking or the parking restrictions during snow plowing, etc).
Greg S. is open to talking about parking alternatives.
He also agrees that there is not a parking problem in town persay.
However, we also have some businesses currently closed and not using parking
(Mountain Pedalar closed, CO Mattress only open by appt so not really using parking).
Tom W. asked for clarification —should they remove 2 residential units and add more
commercial parking?
Expressed that the residential is important, but he wants to have viable commercial
downstairs that is sought after (to attract residents and also enhance the downtown).
Bill Pierce brought up a parking structure /garage again. He recommends that the Town
look strongly at this for the future, as this will continue to come up as more development
is proposed.
Michelle Metteer, Town Manager -
Has run the market in the past. We do have parking that spills over into residential and
commercial parking somewhat.
The 13 days of the summer market are the only days she has seen a parking problem.
Minturn Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 15 of 16
She noted that the 2 hr parking requirement was done to help push behavioral changes
that we couldn't get business owners and employees to follow on their own. Feels that if
we don't change the lead measures (vs. changing the parking itself), then this will
continue to be a challenge. Changing the behavior is key.
Businesses are cur7ently meeting the code only because of offsite /street parking.
The winter parking restrictions were not taken into account when the offsite parking
allowances were written into the code.
Concerned about going down a path to change logistics, without changing behavior.
Tom referenced a recent tourism study (Coloradans will walk several blocks to a
destination. The average tourist / visitor will only walk a block and half.
Tom also noted that they could start adding parking guidelines into their leases (regarding
employee parking).
Michelle M. noted that one minute 21 seconds is the average walk time from the
Municipal lot to Magustos.
Jeff A. —
Responding to the question re. whether we have a parking problem.
Also does not feel we currently have a parking problem. Not an issue finding parking.
His concern is just about the functionality of the building.
Scot noted that the Town is working on getting a proposal from Andrew Knudsen with
EPS, regarding creating a Downtown Development Authority.
This could open up funding opportunities for downtown development.
Could also help examine how to be more efficient with our existing infrastructure as it
relates to parking and other challenges.
7. Projects
• RAT Committee Updates —Will have an update at next meeting
� Chapter 16 Revisions
Greg S. suggested a joint meeting with town council in the near future to discuss
parking.
Mintum Planning Commission
June 26, 2019
Page 16 of 16
8. Planning Director Report
General updates on upcoming/ongoing projects:
• Bolts Lake Preliminary Plan — No updates at this time
• Housing Plan Updates:
■ Draft housing plan loaded on website, at www.minturn.org
■ Working on a press release to get more public engagement
9. Future Meetings
• July 10, 2019 — Will be rescheduled due to expected absences. Proposed date of
July 161n
• July 24, 2019 (Note: Planning Director absence —recommend cancellation).
10. Adjournment
Motion by Greg S., second by Jeff A., to adjourn at 9:45pm. Motion passed 5-0.
Ly1�n�'each, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Scot Hunn, Planning Director