Loading...
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