HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2-26-2020Minturn Planning Commission
February 26, 2020
Page I of 9
OFFICIAL MINUTES
MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION
Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645
Wednesday, February 269 2020
Work Session — 5:30 PM
Regular Session — 6:30 PM
CIIAIR —Lynn Teach
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Jeff Armistead
Lauren Dickie
Burke Harrington
Christopher Manning
Jena Skinner
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 fln•ough 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 — 5:30pm
1. 100-Block Existing Conditions and Transportation Study Presentation and
Alternatives Discussion
Regular Session — 6:30pm
1. Call to Order
Lynn T. called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
• Roll Call
Those present at roll call: Lynn T., Burke H., Chris M., Jeff A., And Jena S.
Lauren D. excused absent.
Staff Members Present: Town Planner Scot Hunn and Economic Development
Coordinator Cindy Kt•ieg.
Mintum Planning Commission
Febmary 26, 2020
Page 2 of 9
• Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approval of Agenda
• Items to be Pulled or Added
Motion by Jeff A., second by Chris M., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion
passed 5-0.
3. Approval of Minutes
• February 12, 2020
Motion by Jeff A., second by
Je
4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (Smin time limit per
person)
Public Comment Oper. and Closed. No Public Comment.
5. Planning Commission Comments
Jena S. now an APA (American Planning Association) Ambassador.
Cindy K. —Reminder that Barstool Racing is March 7tb
We are still in need of judges if anyone is interested, or know someone who might be.
Please contact Cindy if you'd like to be a judge.
DESIGN REVIEW AND LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. 542 Main Street — Keogh Residence Exterior Modifications
Review of new exterior siding, new front door and new window placement.
Recommendation: Approval.
Scot H. introduced the project.
This is a fairly straight -forward renovation, consisting of re -siding (re -skin),
To replace water -damaged siding and broken windows.
New / updated, insulated front door and side light.
New Andersen energy -efficient windows.
Mmtum Planning Commission
February 26, 2020
Page 3 of 9
Lisa Keogh, applicant
542 Main St.
The siding will be reclaimed wood (natural /sustainable materials).
She shared example photos of similar projects.
The house is from 1935.
Timeline (depending on availability of materials) is March 2020.
Motion by Jena S., second by Jeff A. to approve the application for 542 Main St.
Motion Approved 5-0.
PROJECTS AND UPDATES
7. Project Updates
• Chanter 16 —Zoning Update Project (continued discussion regarding Old Town
residential and commercial development standards and dimensional limitations).
Scot H. stated that the commission has covered every section. One primary outstanding
issue is regarding interpretation of building height. Sec. 16-2-65 (subparagraph a and b).
The language had previously been interpreted to allow up to 35' step-ups on the back
side (not fronting Main St — ie, Williams and Eagle St). Do we want to leave the
language as is, or revise it`?
Sec.16-2-65. -100 Block Commercial Zone building height limitations.
(a) In the 100 Block Commercial Zone, commercial buildings not fronting or adjacent to
Highway 24 can have a maximum building height of thirty-five (35) feet with a
maximum angle offorty-five (45) degree bulkplane from the street front setback or a
maximum of twenty-eight (28) feet for a flat roof.
(b) All buildings in the 100 Block Commercial Zone fronting or adjacent to Highway 24
located benveen Eagle Street and Williams Street can have a maximum building
height of twenty-eight (28) feet with a maximum angle offorty-five (45) degree bulk
plane from the street front setback or a maximum of twenty-eight (28) feet for a flat
roof.
Was discussed that buildings fronting on Main Street
should remain at 28', but also discussed flexible space options such as rooftop
patios, etc, to be more beneficial for businesses (especially with limited ground
space for patios, parking, etc).
Minturn Planning Commission
February 26, 2020
Page 4 of 9
Flexible second floor space was also discussed - could build to commercial standard
so it can always be commercial but allows flexibility for mixed use.
Scot H. also referenced Appendix B of the Design Standard and Guidelines which
seems inconsistent with the building height regulations for the I W lock
Commercial Zone District:
Old Town Commercial Zone
The intent of this area is to create a pedestrian friendly area inhere residents and visitors
are invited to walk and window shop. Traditional commercial strip centers are
discouraged in Old Town due to their automobile orientation; however, modified
commercial centers with multiple uses are encouraged. The following elements shall be
considered in the design and planning of new or renovated commercial storefront
structures:
Provision of large display lvindo�vs that are complementary and consistent tivitlz adjacent
structures.
New buildings shall drativ on interpretations of existing storefront sb•uctures. The scale of
+lv . . ,.;�a;ti . ..L,.n � + +..;+t a; �+ r ,.;�a;..� u,,;..I + ../ » 1%� + ..+ ,
L rLG fM VV LILSLlL4LrLSJ OflUII UV LUffs3l JIGrLL YLLLL UL.Lf UI.GLLL LIILLLUL ga, Liulg�ref JrLL.LLI UU uurlatalufLL Us
viewed f •om the street; additional height may be approved if it steps back from the
facade to reduce the percei faved scale of the new development.
It was discussed that this language provides for some flexibility, but the applicant, if
requesting additional height, would need a variance.
Jena S, suggested possibly creating established criteria to allow for some flexibility in
how building height and forms are regulated, particularly with respect to the public
realm/pedestrian level.
Scot H. summarized the current building height calculation methods and some of the
issues that have been discussed with regard to building height calculations for recent
proposals on Main Street, and suggested that new building height calculation methods
might be crafted to encourage stepping of roof forms as well as adherence to the bulk
plane standards.
Scot H. also suggested that as a response to the inconsistencies between the 100-Block
Building Height restriction language and the language in Appendix B, the Town will be
well served to work with an architectural consultant to model different scenarios in Old
Town and to better understand the relationship of buildings and roof forms to existing
structure and character.
Scot H. reminded the Planning Commission of the suggestion by Jena S. for aform-based
code approach to the 100-Block.
Mintum Planning Commission
February 26, 2020
Page 5 of 9
Lynn T. — Agreed with Scot H. that modeling would be helpful for further discussions
about the 100-Block.
Jeff A. —The code currently works in our favor — more restrictive than where we might
end up after modeling.
Public Comment:
Ken Mintz
167 Williams St.
Has had conversations with other property owners, business owners, and renters in the
area. He feels that the majority of those in the area want to keep with the 28 restriction,
and maintaining the scale of what we have.
The consultant (Andrew Amend, Stolfus &Associates) discussed the narrowness of
Williams St. Ken noted that if you have tall buildings on that street, it will become very
dark and tunnel -like.
Does not feel it's the Town's responsibility to bail out a developer who made a bad
investment.
Ken felt that the initial submittals for 161/171 Main St. by the developer, were
inappropriate for our Town. He does not feel that they (MR Minturn) want to help the
vitality of the town.
Public Comment Closed.
Additional Planning Commission Comments:
Jeff A. —Feels that even at 28 ft., that Williams would have a very different feel if
everything was built to 28 ft. Currently, many buildings are much lower than that.
(Mostly parking there right now on east side of Williams) — Country Club, Milhoan
Studios, etc). Would have a very different feel.
Additional Public Comments:
Ken Mintz — In the transportation study group, there was some discussion about front
setbacks along Hwy 24 /Main St (that perhaps buildings could be pushed up and would
aRow for more space along Williams).
Mintum Planning Commission
February 26, 2020
Page 6 of 9
Lisa Keogh
542 Main St.
Has seen a lot of change in small towns, and it can change the whole feel of the town.
Recommends looking at the long-term vision of what the Town wants to see happen, to
keep from losing its character.
Suggested also looking at the commercial tax rates, (commercial real estate), is this
deterring commercial businesses from coming here?
Scot H.
This is a long-term plan.
If the town wants to maintain its character, it needs to allow for some development,
repurposing of buildings, rehabilitation of buildings and empty space. But, understand the
importance of maintaining 28' building height overall. Suggested the Town may need to
provide flexibility (or delve deeper into subject using modeling).
Jena S.
Suggested possibly even (over the long term) zoning by block / view corridors, etc.
You could do this in a way so that you have appropriate heights in different areas.
Jena also offered to help with definitions and zoning maps.
It was decided that for now, the language would remain as is, but that we will work on
modeling / maps to help with clarity.
8. Planning Director Report &Minor DRB Approvals by Director
• Status Update: Ordinance No. 2 —Series 2020 —Chapter 16 Amendments, Town
Council 1st Reading
The primary comment was Appendix C (engineering standards). Council expressed
concern for provision that gives Planning Director and/or Town Engineer discretion to
waive engineering requirements.
The proposed amendment to Appendix C is intended to allow the Planning Director and/or Town
Engineer to waive or require certain submittal requirements —based on project scope and scale -
to ensure that engineering details are right sized, rather than `one -size -fits -all. '
Council voted to keep the language as is (to allow for Planning Director discretion) but
did ask for more clarification on requirements within the engineering standards and to
come forward with another amendment to clarify what is required for smaller projects vs.
larger projects.
Scot H. reported that the ordinance was approved on first reading by the Council.
Mintum Planning Commission
February 26, 2020
Page 7 of 9
• Status Update: Affordable Housing Guidelines and Draft Ordinance
Will be presented in the coming weeks and will include details as to how the Town will
require and incentivize housing in order to achieve the 10-year goals of the Minturn
Housing Action Plan.
Scot H. stated that the Town can rely on the goals of the 2019 Housing Action Plan in the
interim, but working to get an ordinance in place to codify the requirements is a priority.
Jeff A. — is there any consideration in the guidelines as to whether or not the Town is
interested in waiving or reducing tap fees to encourage affordable housing development?
Scot H. stated that waiver of fees is an ongoing discussion and that it (waiver) should be
considered as an important tool.
The Planning Commission also discussed base water rates for commercial vs. residential.
• Status Update: Three Mile Plan
Had a work session with town council last week.
Scot H. and the Planning Commission had recommended to strike the Two Elk Area (as it
is Forest Service land). Scot H. stated that the Council reviewed the Three Mile Plan and
suggested that the Plan keep references to the Two Elk Area,
Scot H. stated that, at the Council meeting to review the Plan, the Town attorney stated
that we can still show the Two Elk Area as a potential area for annexation, but ultimately
it (the Two Elk Area) may not legally be annexable; or that the USFS may not recognize
any future annexation of that area.
Lynn T. —asked if there was an update regarding the Railroad PUD.
Scot H. stated that the Applicant is working on the Preliminary Plan for PUD application
and is actively working with the Town and neighboring property owners on several issues
identified during the Conceptual Plan review.
The developer has milestones within their contract with the Union Pacific Railroad, but
Scot H. understands from the Applicant and Gregg Larson, UPRR, that the railroad is
working with the Developer to extend deadlines when and where needed to keep the
project moving forward.
Mintum Planning Commission
February 26, 2020
Page 8 of 9
Still discussing,
• Need clarity on water rights
• How roads would be maintained
• Snow storage
Have also discovered other site challenges, such as ahigh-pressure gas line.
Some modifications will need to be made to the plans before proceeding.
General Planning Commission Comments:
Lynn T. —Brought up the Market Survey that was done awhile back. She commented
that many respondents noted their reason for corning was because of the food. She asked
if attempts were being made to get more food vendors.
Cindy K. —Yes, food vendors have become more of a challenge due to staffing /labor for
vendors (restaurants and caterers), and caterers typically are busiest on Saturdays so often
can't do Saturday markets. But we have been actively recruiting food vendors (and
offering incentives) since the end of last year's market. Efforts continue, and this is a big
focus.
Lynn T. —what about food trucks?
Cindy K. — We allow food trucks at the market and have encouraged them. The same
challenges apply however — have already had 2 food truck vendors say that they can't do
it because of staffing / coverage. But will continue efforts.
Scot H. —This also relates to food trucks in general. We have had some inquiries at the
Town regarding food truck regulations in general, for Minturn. We will be discussing
some guidelines soon for mobile vendors (food trucks) and working to incorporate that
into the code.
General updates:
Scot H. provided a quick update regarding the Avon to Gilman Holy Cross Transmission
Line project and the U.S. Forest Service's NEPA scoping process that is commencing.
This is the early stages of the USFS's public outreach as part of the review of the project.
Scot H. provided the dates involved:
Official public scoping of the project will begin March 2nd, and last until April lst, 2020
(a 30-day scoping period).
The USFS will also be hosting a public meeting at the Ranger Station in Dowd Junction:
• Meeting on March 12tb — 4:3 Opm — 7pm, Ranger Station
• March 2nd —April lst —public comment period
Minturn Planning Commission
February 26, 2020
Page 9 of 9
9. Future Meetings
• March 11, 2020
• March 253 2020
• Was also noted that the April 22" d meeting will need to be rescheduled (Scot H., Jeff
A., and Burke H. will be unavailable). Since there are 5 Wednesdays in April, this
meeting is tentatively being moved to April 29t".
10. Adjournment
Motion by Jeff A., second by Burke H., to adjourn the meeting of February 22, 2020 at
8:32pm. Motion passed 5-0.
Commission Chair
Scot Hunn, Planning Director